OPINION AND ORDER

JAMES REDDEN, Senior District Judge

The matter before the court is the motion for stay of proceedings (doc. 57) filed by defendants NOAA Fisheries (NOAA Fisheries) and the United States Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). For the reasons that follow, the court denies the motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs challenge a biological opinion issued by NOAA Fisheries in 2001 and supplemented in 2002 (2001UpperSnakeBiOp) relating to the impact of BOR's operation of water projects in the Snake River Basin above Hells Canyon and Brownlee Dam and Reservoir on at least four salmon evolutionary significant units (ESUs).

Plaintiffs' challenge to the 2001UpperSnakeBiOp in this action is related to a challenge to a biological opinion issued by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in December 2000 (2000BiOp) following consultation on the impact of Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) operations on 12 salmon ESUs. In the 2000BiOp, NMFS concluded that the implementation of certain federal and non-federal reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA) mitigation actions would avoid jeopardy to the affected salmon ESUs. In an action now pending in this court, National Wildlife Federation v. National Marine Fisheries Service, CV 01-640-RE (NWF v. NMFS), this court concluded NOAA's no-jeopardy opinion violated Section 7 of the ESA, 15 U.S.C. § 1536:

[NOAA Fisheries'] reliance on federal range-wide, off-site mitigation actions that have not undergone section 7 consultation and non-federal range-wide, off-site mitigation actions which are not reasonably certain to occur was improper and, as to eight of the salmon ESUs, the no-jeopardy opinion in the RPA is arbitrary and capricious.

Opinion and Order, May 7, 2003, p. 26. The court remanded the 2000BiOp to NOAA Fisheries:

to give [NOAA Fisheries] the opportunity to consult with interested parties to insure that only those range-wide off-site federal mitigation actions which have undergone section 7 consultation, and range-wide off-site non-federal mitigation actions that are reasonably certain to occur are considered in the determination whether any of the 12 salmon ESUs will be jeopardized by continued FCRPS operations.

In this action, plaintiffs allege the 2001UpperSnakeBiOp is also arbitrary and capricious. Plaintiffs assert BOR operates ten projects and at least 22 major storage facilities (collectively "BOR Operations") for water diversion and storage on the Upper Snake River in Oregon and Idaho. The projects provide flood control, power generation, and irrigation. The storage facilities hold water contracted to water users for irrigation purposes (including the Irrigation Districts joined as defendant-intervenors in this action), and for purposes of flood control, power generation, sediment control, and flow augmentation.

BOR's Operations adversely affect salmon and steelhead ESUs that must pass through BOR's Operations, including four ESUs that are listed as either endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.: Snake River sockeye (endangered); Snake River spring/summer chinook (threatened); Snake River fall chinook (threatened); and Snake River steelhead (threatened).

In May 2001, NOAA Fisheries issued the 2001UpperSnakeBiOp, which concluded that BOR's Operations were not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed salmon ESUs and were not likely to destroy or adversely modify their designated critical habitats. In January 2002, in a Supplemental Biological Opinion, NOAA Fisheries extended the 2001UpperSnakeBiOp, which was originally to be in effect for one year only, until 2005.

Plaintiffs allege NOAA Fisheries' no jeopardy conclusion in the 2001UpperSnakeBiOp is arbitrary and capricious and thereby violates Section 7 of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1536, because NOAA Fisheries, inter alia: (1) failed to analyze the effects of the entire FCRPS in a single consultation and biological opinion, i.e., the 2000BiOp; (2) relied on the same future mitigation actions improperly included in the 2000BiOp; (3) relied on future mitigation actions beyond BOR's control; (4) failed to follow its own prescribed methods of analysis in the 2000BiOp; (5) failed to use the best scientific information available regarding flow augmentation water; (6) failed to assess the effects of long-term, multi-year BOR Operations; (7) relied on an assumed favorable outcome of SBRA settlement negotiations; and (8) extended the 2001UpperSnakeBiOp to 2005 without articulating a rational basis for concluding that BOR Operations would not jeopardize impacted salmon ESUs through 2005. Plaintiffs also allege BOR violated Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA by failing to complete an "adequate consultation" regarding BOR's Operations relative to items (1), (5), (6), and (7) above.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for partial summary judgment (doc. 51) requesting the court to set aside the 2001UpperSnakeBiOp and, inter alia, to order NOAA Fisheries to incorporate the BOR Operations that are the subject of the 2001UpperSnakeBiOp into the remand proceedings now pending before this court in NWF v. NMFS. Defendants NOAA Fisheries and BOR, supported by defendant-intervenors, now move to stay all further proceedings in this action, including resolution of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.

DISCUSSION

Defendants urge this court to stay further proceedings to determine the validity of the 2001UpperSnakeBiOp for the following reasons: (1) BOR has reinitiated Section 7 consultation with NOAA Fisheries and a new biological opinion will be issued in March, 2005; (2) the continued prosecution of plaintiffs' action against defendants and the 2001UpperSnakeBiOp will directly interfere with ongoing regional efforts to resolve water rights disputes between BOR, the State of Idaho, and the Nez Perce Tribe (SBRA); and (3) ongoing litigation will interfere with the timely completion of proceedings on remand in NWF v. NMFS.

Defendants assert the doctrine of prudential mootness and the broad discretion of federal courts to manage their dockets in the interests of economy justify this court granting a stay under the circumstances listed above. A. Prudential Mootness.

The doctrine of prudential mootness is closely linked to the doctrine of mootness under the United States Constitution whereby a court may in its discretion dismiss or, as here, stay a case when

a controversy, though not moot in the strict Article III sense, is so "attenuated that considerations of prudence and comity for coordinate branches of government counsel the court to stay its hand, and to withhold relief it has the power to grant". . . . Under both Article III and prudential mootness doctrines, the central inquiry is essentially the same: have circumstances changed since the beginning of litigation that forestall any occasion for meaningful relief.

Defendants cite a number of circumstances in which courts have exercised their discretion to dismiss or otherwise refrain from deciding cases on grounds of prudential mootness. See Reeve Aleutian Airways, Inc. v. United States, 889 F.2d 1139, 1144 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (the government's "challenged practice . . . [is] undergoing substantial revision, so that the reviewing court [can] not be certain of the [final action's] ultimate form");Building and Constr. Dep't v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 7 F.3d 1487, 1491-92 (10^th Cir. 1993) ("a court may decline to grant declaratory or injunctive relief where [the government] has already changed or is in the process of changing its policies or where it appears that any repeat of the actions in question is otherwise highly unlikely") (emphasis in original); Cascadia Wildlands Project v. United States Fish Wildlife Serv., No. CV 02-747-RE, Opinion and Order at 10-11 (D. Or. May 28, 2003) (the court stayed claims against a biological opinion that had been withdrawn and was to be replaced by a revised opinion).

The court finds the prudential mootness cases relied on by defendants are not on point. The pendency of a new biological opinion in March, 2005 does not indicate the practices of NOAA Fisheries and BOR relative to the survival of salmon in the Snake River are undergoing "substantial revision" so that this court cannot be certain of the "final action's ultimate form." The 2001UpperSnakeBiOp is a final action that has legal effect now. Moreover, unlike the Fish Wildlife Service in Cascadia, NOAA Fisheries has not withdrawn the biological opinion challenged in this action. In addition, NOAA Fisheries has not indicated it intends to change its opinion, and BOR has not indicated it intends to change its operations significantly to the extent that a repeat of the challenged actions is highly unlikely.

Accordingly, the court declines to stay this action on the ground of prudential mootness.

B. The Court's Management of its Docket.

Federal courts possess the inherent broad, although not unlimited, discretion to manage their dockets and stay proceedings in the interests of economy and fairness. Yong v. INS, 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9^th Cir. 2000).

Defendants assert it "would be an unproductive use of this Court's and the Parties' time to litigate the issues Plaintiffs raise, while Defendants have already reinitiated consultation that will result in a revised biological opinion in March, 2005." Defendants also assert the continued prosecution of this action now would interfere with and fundamentally alter the scope of the remand proceedings now underway in NWF v. NMFS. Finally, defendants assert plaintiffs' claims "indirectly implicate, and possibly would interfere with, a significant effort to resolve water-rights claims of the Nez Perce Tribe in the SBRA litigation." The potential settlement of the SBRA litigation apparently requires the preparation of a new biological opinion by NOAA Fisheries that will address BOR's Upper Snake operations.

Defendant-intervenors assert a stay will hinder efforts to conclude the reinitiated consultation process and issuance of a new biological opinion, hinder progress relating to the remand of the 2000BiOp, hinder SBRA settlement efforts, and result in unwarranted prejudice to water users who are subject "to a threat to water deliveries to Idaho's farms, industries, cities, and homes" in addition to the cost of further litigation to protect those interests.

Plaintiffs assert "the core of [their] legal claims in this case will persist even if [NOAA Fisheries and BOR] produce a new biological opinion."

The court is not persuaded that time spent addressing plaintiffs' claims in this action will be unproductive solely because of the pendency of a new Upper Snake River biological opinion in March, 2005. Defendants have offered the court no guidance to suggest the new biological opinion will substantially alter the approach NOAA Fisheries has taken in the current or previous biological opinions or fundamentally change the scope of BOR's Operations.

Defendants have not shown they will be unduly distracted or prejudiced in fulfilling and concluding their obligations during the remand period ordered in NWF v. NMFS. Indeed, NOAA Fisheries' Draft Biological Opinion arising from the remand was issued on September 9, 2004. Accordingly, there is little likelihood the prosecution of this action will fundamentally alter the scope of the remand proceedings.

Finally, the court has no basis to conclude the continued prosecution of this action will deter the parties to the SBRA adjudication from consummating a settlement. The State of Idaho asserts that a condition of the settlement agreement between BOR, the Nez Perce Tribe and the State of Idaho is that any biological opinion addressing BOR operations in the Upper Snake River must be separate from any FCRPS biological opinion. The prosecution of this action should not deter the parties from consummating a settlement they believe to be lawful. Idaho does not explain on what authority this court should deprive plaintiffs, who are not parties to the SBRA adjudication, from pursuing their claim that the law requires BOR Operations to be included within a single FCRPS biological opinion, contrary to the provisions of the settlement agreement. The only prejudice to the effectiveness of any SBRA settlement identified in Idaho's argument is the possibility that plaintiffs may be right.

Accordingly, the court declines to exercise its discretion to stay this action on grounds of economy and fairness.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court DENIED the motion for stay of proceedings (doc. 57) filed by defendants NOAA Fisheries and BOR.

IT IS SO ORDERED.