Coast Guard skirts environmental review claims over California shipping routes

(CN) — A federal judge in San Francisco narrowed a lawsuit claiming U.S. Coast Guard disregarded certain environmental considerations in its shipping route plans in California ports, but key claims can still proceed.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler ruled mostly in favor of the Department of Justice, partially dismissing the lawsuit filed by environmental organizations the Center for Biological Diversity and the Friends of the Earth.

The environmental groups claim that the Coast Guard did not complete the consultation required by the Endangered Species Act about routing measures in its 2023 Pacific Coast Port Access Route Study, known as PAC PARS, which is aimed at improving maritime safety and preventing collisions with marine life, particularly whales, on the West Coast.

They also claim the Coast Guard violated federal law after it failed to prepare an environmental assessment. Additionally, they say that the Coast Guard withheld or unreasonably delayed a post-study rulemaking notice after completing the PAC PARS.

The DOJ argued that the port access route studies were non-binding recommendations.

Beeler mostly agreed in a ruling on Monday, dismissing most of the first two claims against the Coast Guard.

Beeler wrote that the PAC PARS is not an agency action because it does not authorize or carry out anything, such as the operation and construction of a dam.

“The PAC PARS, by contrast, is a study that recommends six fairways to Coast Guard headquarters,” she wrote. “The recommendations bind no one and govern nothing: they take effect only if headquarters validates them and the Coast Guard codifies them through notice-and-comment rulemaking, which may never happen and which, if it does happen, may depart from the recommendations. The recommended fairways are not charted, will not be submitted to the [International Maritime Organization], and prohibit nothing today.”

The claim that the Coast Guard violated federal law by failing to create an environmental impact assessment was also premature because it had not made a decision to adopt the PAC PARS study, Beeler wrote.

“The study’s recommendations must be validated by Coast Guard headquarters, may never be proposed in a rule, and (if proposed) may change through notice and comment and the ongoing environmental analysis,” the judge wrote. “The completed study marks the end of the study, not the end of the decision.”

However, Beeler declined to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim that the Coast Guard unlawfully delayed rulemaking for the PAC PARS. This claim was based on the Coast Guard’s withdrawal of its consultation request related to codifying the PAC PARS in January of this year, she found.

The judge also allowed the plaintiffs’ claims that the Coast Guard failed to complete required Endangered Species Act consultations for its Los Angeles/Long Beach and San Francisco shipping corridors in 2011 to continue.

“I’m disappointed the judge dismissed our claims to require environmental review of the Coast Guard’s 2023 recommendations for West Coast vessel routes,” Center for Biological Diversity attorney Catherine Kilduff said in a written statement to Courthouse News on Tuesday.

“Analysis is key to making informed decisions and waiting doesn’t help anyone, including whales and sea turtles. I’m confident that our remaining claims are strong and will hold the Coast Guard accountable for the harms of sending ships through whale and sea turtle habitat without measures like speed limits, which we know reduce deaths," she added.

The plaintiffs maintain that the shipping routes move through hot spots where whales migrate and feed, including the Santa Barbara Channel and the northern approach to the San Francisco Bay. They filed the lawsuit against the Coast Guard and National Marine Fisheries Service in October 2025.

The Coast Guard launched PAC PARS study in 2021 to evaluate the safety of commercial shipping lanes in California, Oregon and Washington. It released its final study in 2023.

The Department of Justice did not respond to requests for comment on Tuesday.