South Yuba River Citizens League v. National Marine Fisheries Service
804 F. Supp. 2d 1045
E.D. Cal.2011Background
- Court previously held NMFS BiOp arbitrary and capricious for concluding no jeopardy to Chinook, steelhead, and green sturgeon.
- Remanded to NMFS to prepare a new BiOp consistent with July 2010 Order, with a December 12, 2011 deadline.
- Project currently operates under the 2007 BiOp and ITS pending remand resolution.
- Plaintiffs sought nine interim measures to prevent jeopardy during remand; defendants urged remand relief only.
- Court granted some interim measures and denied others, evaluating irreparable harm, remedies at law, and public interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for ESA injunctive relief | Plaintiffs argue irreparable harm not required if ESA violated. | Defendants contend irreparable harm required under ESA injunctions. | Traditional four-factor test applies; irreparable harm considerations govern remedy. |
| Balance of hardships and public interest | Protection of endangered species outweighs hardship to defendants. | Hardships to dam operators and costs should be weighed; status quo acceptable. | Balance and public interest favor injunctive relief to protect species. |
| Irreparable injury under ESA vs. procedural violation | Procedural ESA violation supports injunctive relief without irreparable harm proof. | Injunctions require showing irreparable harm even with procedural violations. | Irreparable harm evidence required to tailor interim measures preventing jeopardy. |
| Tailoring interim relief to ESA deficiencies | Interim measures must address BiOp deficiencies identified by court. | Interim relief should be limited and aligned with remand process. | Court adopts measures linked to BiOp deficiencies, with some modifications for feasibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (U.S. 1978) (ESA priority favors species protection in balance of hardships)
- Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 130 S. Ct. 2743 (U.S. 2010) (four-factor injunction test applies; irreparable harm required when appropriate)
- Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (preliminary injunction standard: likelihood of irreparable harm and likelihood of success)
- National Wildlife Federation v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 422 F.3d 782 (9th Cir. 2005) (irreparable harm considerations in ESA injunctive relief)
- National Wildlife Federation v. Burlington Northern Railway, 23 F.3d 1508 (9th Cir. 1994) (need to assess likelihood of future harm in injunctions under ESA)
- Thomas v. Peterson, 753 F.2d 754 (9th Cir. 1985) (substantial procedural ESA violation can warrant injunction)