Greenpeace v. National Marine Fisheries Service

The North Pacific ecosystem, which included the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska, was governed by two fishery management plans (FMPs) implemented by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (defendant). The North Pacific fishery was also home to the western Steller sea lion, a protected species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Steller sea lion was listed under the ESA as a threatened species in 1990. In 1996, the NMFS’s Office of Protected Resources (NMFS expert office) issued a biological opinion that the North Pacific FMPs implemented by the NMFS’s Office of Sustainable Fisheries (NMFS action office) were unlikely to harm either the Steller sea lions or their critical habitat. In 1997, Steller sea lions were reclassified as endangered. In 1998, in a limited-scope biological opinion, the NMFS expert office reconfirmed its 1996 biological opinion; however, it also stated that recent increases in the fishery’s total-allowable-catch limits might reduce the number of fish available for the Steller sea lion. Greenpeace (plaintiff), an international environmental campaign network, sued NMFS, arguing that the 1996 and 1998 biological opinions failed to meet ESA requirements. In response, NMFS submitted an updated biological opinion (BiOp2); however, BiOp2 did not cover the entire scope of the North Pacific FMPs, failed to provide detailed analysis regarding the FMPs’ impact on the Steller sea lion, and failed to analyze available information regarding adverse impacts on the Steller sea lion’s critical habitat. Greenpeace revised its complaint and moved for summary judgment, arguing that BiOp2 failed to meet ESA requirements for a comprehensive, coextensive analysis of the impact of the North Pacific FMPs on Steller sea lions.