Opinion ID: 199678
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Potential for Irreparable Harm

Text: 35 To be entitled to preliminary injunctive relief, appellants must demonstrate that they will otherwise suffer irreparable harm. The district court found that Water Keeper's showing of irreparable harm was insufficient. We agree. 36 Water Keeper first contends that a procedural violation of the ESA itself constitutes irreparable injury. It is true that the ESA restricts the equity power of the court as to findings of irreparable injury. See Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978). But Water Keeper's argument is misplaced and ignores context. On the facts of this case, Water Keeper has not shown that the statute entitles it to insist on the procedure of no action taking place until a biological assessment has been filed with the Service. Here, there is a serious question as to whether the Navy was required to prepare a new biological assessment and whether what the Navy submitted was not the functional equivalent of a biological assessment. This context places the case outside of Hill and outside of the reach of Massachusetts v. Watt, 716 F.2d 946 (1st Cir. 1983). 37 As a result, the district court correctly required that Water Keeper show potential for irreparable harm apart from the harm that they argue is inherent in a procedural violation of the ESA's consultation requirements . . . . Water Keeper I at 161. Furthermore, the court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that Water Keeper's assertions concerning irreparable harm stemming from the death of even a single member of an endangered species were insufficient to justify granting injunctive relief. Id. at 12. In support of its position of irreparable harm, Water Keeper can only point to vague concerns as to long-term damage to the endangered species expressed by FWS and NMFS. 9 In the absence of a more concrete showing of probable deaths during the interim period and of how these deaths may impact the species, the district court's conclusion that Water Keeper has failed to show potential for irreparable harm was not an abuse of discretion. 38