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
Environmental Impact Report
Administrative Procedure Act

Natural Resources Defense Council Inc., The Humane Society of the United States, Cetacean Society International, League For Coastal Protection, Ocean Futures Society, Jean-Michel Cousteau, Michael Stocker v. Rebecca Blank, National Marine Fisheries Service, Sam Rauch, Jane Lubchenco, Department of the Navy, Ray Mabus, Admiral Jonathan Greenert

Published: Jun. 14, 2014 | Result Date: May 22, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 3:12-cv-05380-EDL Settlement –  Remedy Order

Facts

Natural Resources Defense Council Inc., The Humane Society of the United States, Cetacean Society International, League For Coastal Protection, Ocean Futures Society, Jean-Michel Cousteau, and Michael Stocker filed a complaint against Rebecca Blank, National Marine Fisheries Service, Sam Rauch, Jane Lubchenco, Dept. of the Navy, Ray Mabus, and Admiral Jonathan Greenert, challenging the National Marine Fisheries Service's decision to authorize the Navy to deploy Surveillance Towed Array Sensory System Low Frequency Active Sonar.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs claimed that the Surveillance Towed Array Sensory System Low Frequency Active Sonar was a powerful and highly controversial sonar system that would broadcast extraordinarily intense sound waves through as much as 75 percent of the world's ocean. Plaintiffs claimed that doing so would have adverse impacts on marine mammals, including significant numbers of endangered species. Plaintiffs contended that defendants' analysis of the environmental effects were inadequate. Plaintiffs asserted violations of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Administrative Procedures Act, failure to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, and failure to comply with the Endangered Species Act. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for summary judgment.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' claims because there are no genuine issues of material fact. As such, defendants argued that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Result

The parties agreed to a joint motion for entry of remedy and judgment. Consequently, the court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. Likewise, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion for summary judgment. Additionally, the court ordered defendants to, among others, issue a narrowly tailored supplemental environmental impact statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act to address certain deficiencies identified in the summary judgment order.


#123207

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

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