Center For Biological Diversity v. NOAA Fisheries

Background

The Center for Biological Diversity and Friends of the Earth sued NOAA Fisheries, Chris Oliver, Karl L. Schultz, and the U.S. Coast Guard. The lawsuit challenges a 2017 biological opinion issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service concerning the Coast Guard’s designation of Traffic Separation Schemes, or shipping lanes, near several California ports and channels.

The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, including a ruling that the 2017 biological opinion is unlawful, an order requiring the agencies to complete renewed consultation within six months, and interim measures such as mandatory speed reductions to reduce ship strikes. The plaintiffs contend that the 2017 opinion improperly found that the shipping lanes would result in no incidental “take”—harm to protected species—and therefore did not include an incidental take statement.

The Coast Guard requested renewed consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service in April 2020 based on new scientific literature and two newly listed species. The renewed consultation is expected to result in a new biological opinion. The defendants moved to stay, or pause, the lawsuit for 17 months while that process occurred.

Legal Standard

The court explained that district courts have discretion to stay proceedings to manage their dockets. In deciding whether to grant a stay, the court weighs the possible harm to the party opposing the stay, the hardship to the party requesting it, and whether a stay would promote the orderly and efficient resolution of the case. The party requesting the stay bears the burden of showing that it is appropriate.

Court’s Analysis

The defendants argued that a stay would not harm the plaintiffs because the agencies were already conducting the required analysis and because a stay would help complete the renewed consultation. They also argued that agency staff would face hardship if they had to defend the lawsuit while working on the consultation, and that a new biological opinion might resolve most of the plaintiffs’ claims.

The court disagreed. It found that the plaintiffs faced potential harm during a 17-month delay because ship strikes would continue to affect protected species and no interim measures had been implemented to reduce that harm. The court was not persuaded that the plaintiffs had waited too long to sue, noting their earlier notices and explanation that they had sought information about the renewed consultation and possible interim measures.

The court also found that the defendants had not shown clear hardship. It noted that the agencies had made little tangible progress during the 16 months since the Coast Guard requested renewed consultation, including that the required package had not been completed and that certain data had not been reviewed. The court further found that the defendants had not adequately explained why defending the lawsuit would divert substantial resources from the consultation.

Finally, although a new biological opinion might simplify or resolve some issues, the court declined to stay the case for such a long period because of the risk to protected species. The court also noted that the defendants continued to maintain that the 2017 biological opinion was not flawed, which reduced the court’s confidence that the renewed consultation would produce a different result.

Disposition

The court DENIED the defendants’ motion to stay. This ruling concerned only the request to pause the proceedings; the opinion did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ Endangered Species Act claims.