This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Environmental Law
Endangered Species Act
National Environmental Policy Act; Conservation

Sea Turtle Conservancy, Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Gulf Restoration Network, Turtle Island Restoration Network v. Gary Locke, James W. Balsiger, National Marine Fisheries Service

Published: Sep. 24, 2011 | Result Date: Jul. 5, 2011 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 1:2009-cv-00259 Bench Decision –  ESA/NEPA Violation

Facts

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), an agency of the U.S. Dept. of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, was responsible for protecting sea turtles under federal law. In 2009, the agency determined that the bottom longline fishery in the Gulf of Mexico was capturing and killing more sea turtles than allowable under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). After NMFS was sued by a coalition of national conservation groups ("groups"), it temporarily closed the fishery, reopening it the same year after instituting new measures, including limitations on the area for bottom longline fishing. In 2010, the NMFS issued new regulations weakening such sea turtle protections after the Deepwater Horizon oil spills.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The groups filed suit against NMFS, alleging it failed to consider a reasonable range of fishery management alternatives and consider the impact on sea turtles following the oil spill. The groups contended that NMFS failed to perform essential scientific consultation after the spill.

Result

The court found that NMFS's failure to reinitiate consultation after the oil spill violated the ESA. The court also determined that NMFS had failed to analyze the proper no-action alternative under NEPA.


#118030

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390