723 F.3d 1043
9th Cir.2013Background
- This case concerns NMFS’s 2010 BiOp limiting commercial fishing in two wDPS sub-regions.
- ESA, MSA, and NEPA govern NMFS’s actions; plaintiffs challenge the BiOp, EA, and interim rule.
- NMFS found sub-regional declines imperil the wDPS and adversely modify habitat, threatening whole-population recovery.
- Recovery Plan requires sub-regional viability to meet delisting criteria; declines in sub-regions inform overall recovery.
- District court held ESA standards met but NEPA required an EIS; injunction ordered limited relief pending EIS.
- Appellate panel affirms district court’s ESA ruling and NEPA injunction denial of broader ROD relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sub-regional declines justify jeopardy analysis under the ESA | Alaska argues sub-regions unsuitable for whole-population view | NMFS may assess sub-regional trends that affect overall recovery | Yes; sub-regional declines can support jeopardy analysis when they affect overall recovery. |
| Whether the agency used the correct standard for adverse habitat modification | Regulatory standard should apply; reliance on statute flawed | Statutory standard governs; regulatory standard partially invalid | Agency properly relied on the statutory ESA standard. |
| Whether NMFS properly considered recovery prospects in jeopardy analysis | Recovery prospects are irrelevant to current jeopardy | Recovery is integral to jeopardy and habitat analyses | Recovery considerations properly informed jeopardy and habitat determinations. |
| Whether NEPA required an EIS and broader ROD remedy beyond district court injunction | Need a full EIS and ROD; broader injunction warranted | EIS may be sufficient; ROD premature absent agency action | District court proper to require an EIS; ROD injunction premature. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wild Fish Conservancy v. Salazar, 628 F.3d 513 (9th Cir. 2010) (sub-population declines can affect the whole species in ESA analyses)
- Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) (regulatory definition of adverse modification partially invalid; rely on statutory language)
- National Wildlife Federation v. National Marine Fisheries Serv., 524 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2008) (recovery factors integrated into jeopardy/adverse-modification analyses)