National Wildlife Federation v. National Marine Fisheries Service

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an injunction requiring federal defendants to take certain actions to address Endangered Species Act (ESA) violations identified in a May 2016 Oregon federal court order in connection with operations of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS). The district court found that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) failed to adequately consider climate change when it issued a biological opinion in 2014 concluding that the FCRPS management would not jeopardize endangered and threatened steelhead and salmon. In April 2017, the district court granted certain injunctive relief—including “increased spill” at dams to promote salmonid survival—to address the ESA violations. The Ninth Circuit noted that the ESA foreclosed consideration of all but the irreparable harm factor in the four-factor injunctive relief test and found that the district court had not erred in finding irreparable harm sufficient to support injunctive relief. The Ninth Circuit said that the district court was not required to find an “extinction-level threat” in the short term, but noted that the district court had found that continued low abundance of listed species made them vulnerable to extinction and that one of the shortcomings identified in the NMFS’s analysis was failure to analyze how climate change increased chances of “shock events” that would be catastrophic for listed species’ survival. The Ninth Circuit also dismissed an appeal of the district court’s order requiring disclosure of planned capital expenditures at FRCPS dams to allow plaintiffs the opportunity to file motions to enjoin projects that could bias the National Environmental Policy Action (NEPA) review on remand. (The district court had also found that the NEPA review did not give adequate attention to climate change). The Ninth Circuit said the district court’s disclosure order was not appealable.

The federal district court for the District of Oregon granted motions for preliminary injunction filed by National Wildlife Federation and other organizations (NWF) and by the State of Oregon seeking to require the Bureau of Reclamation and other federal defendants to increase spill levels and implement other measures in the operation and maintenance of the Columbia River System’s dams and reservoirs to protect salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act. NWF and Oregon filed their motions after the Trump administration withdrew from a 2023 memorandum of understanding that specified interim parameters for the system’s operation. In its decision on the motion, the court rejected the federal defendants’ arguments that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case and lacked authority to enter an injunction. In considering the factors for a preliminary injunction, the court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their arguments that the 2020 biological opinion (BiOp) for the operations of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) under the Endangered Species Act and the related record of decision under the National Environmental Policy Act failed for at least four reasons, including because the BiOp did not properly account for climate change in its analysis of whether FCRPS operation would jeopardize continued existence of salmonids. The court found that the federal defendants’ contention that the BiOp only needed to consider harms caused by the proposed action was “missing the crux” of the plaintiffs’ argument, which was that harm caused by the proposed action “is significantly greater when climate change is considered.” The court wrote that if FRCPS operation “kills more salmonids because they are weakened by the effects of climate change, or if the amount of salmonids killed by FCRPS operations is more of a threat to the sustainability of the species because they are dying in greater numbers due to climate change, that is the reality in which [the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)] must assess the effects of the Proposed Action.” The court found the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in arguing that NMFS did not properly assess the proposed action’s effects with climate change. The court also found that the plaintiffs were likely to suffer irreparable harm without preliminary relief due to the vulnerability of salmon and steelhead populations in the Columbia and Snake Rivers. The court further found that the balance of the equities and the public interest weighed heavily in favor of preliminary relief, citing the threats to the species and harms to the tribes of the Columbia River Basin. The court noted that it was not granting certain components of the plaintiff’s requested injunction, which would ameliorate countervailing harms identified by the defendants. The court denied the government’s request for a stay pending appeal.

National Wildlife Federation and other organizations (NWF) and the State of Oregon filed motions for preliminary injunctions seeking to require the Bureau of Reclamation and other federal defendants to implement measures in the operation and maintenance of the Columbia River System’s dams and reservoirs to protect salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act. They filed their motions after the Trump administration withdrew from a memorandum of understanding that specified interim parameters for the system’s operation. Oregon’s motion asserted that climate change increased the risk of irreparable harm to listed species. Oregon argued that the measures sought in the preliminary injunction motion would reduce irreparable harm and “stave off near-term extinction for many listed populations” until a more comprehensive solution was reached.

National Wildlife Federation and other organizations (NWF) and the State of Oregon filed motions for preliminary injunctions seeking to require the Bureau of Reclamation and other federal defendants to implement measures in the operation and maintenance of the Columbia River System’s dams and reservoirs to protect salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act. They filed their motions after the Trump administration withdrew from a memorandum of understanding that specified interim parameters for the system’s operation. In support of its motion, NWF argued that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims that the defendants violated the ESA, including by failing to analyze whether the management of the Columbia River System would avoid jeopardy to the listed species in a future that includes climate change. NWF contended that the 2020 biological opinion prepared for the proposed action engaged “willful blindness to the real-world effects” and was arbitrary and capricious.

The National Wildlife Federation plaintiffs, the States of Oregon and Washington, the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, the Nez Perce Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation asked the court to lift the stay of the litigation. They contended that a June 12, 2025 Presidential Memorandum and the federal defendants' subsequent withdrawal from a 2023 Memorandum of Understanding was a "significant change in circumstances" that warranted lifting the stay. The court granted the motion to lift the stay on the same day.