|
June 8, 2009
JUDGE REQUIRES INCREASED
PROTECTION FOR ENDANGERED WILDLIFE ON LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST
Lawsuit Filed by Coalition of Conservation
Organizations, Including ForestWatch
In a landmark decision, a
federal judge today ruled that two federal wildlife agencies and
the U.S. Forest Service violated the Endangered Species Act by
approving plans for four national forests without adequately
addressing impacts to endangered plants and animals. The
judge’s order
affects the Los Padres National Forest and three other forests
in southern California that together comprise more than 3.5
million acres of wildlife habitat.
The U.S. Forest Service revised its management plans for these
forests in 2005, laying out certain areas where development and
other activities could occur and providing guidelines for the
management of these lands over the next decade. Also in 2005,
the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the National Marine
Fisheries Service reviewed the plans and issued Biological
Opinions on how the plans would impact forty endangered plants
and animals that call these forests home.
However, the Biological Opinions failed to include protective
measures to minimize harm to endangered wildlife. The agencies
also failed to include any mechanism to track the level of harm
to wildlife or establish limits on the amount of harm for each
species. Because of these deficiencies, four conservation
organizations – including Center for Biological Diversity, Los
Padres ForestWatch, Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, and
California Native Plant Society – filed suit in federal court in
2007, alleging violations of the Endangered Species Act.
In today’s ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Marilyn Patel
agreed with the conservation organizations, holding that the
Biological Opinions omitted crucial details on how the forest
plans would harm endangered wildlife. The order requires
specific estimates of how forest projects may harm endangered or
threatened plants and animals.
The agencies argued that they intended to provide this
information when specific projects were undertaken, and didn’t
need to provide it at the forest plan level because the plans
themselves do not directly harm species. But the judge
disagreed, ruling that the agencies must provide this detailed
information at the planning stage in order to adequately
evaluate the impacts to species forest-wide over the long term.
“The court holds that a programmatic forest plan does have an
effect upon subsequent land use decisions and therefore upon the
land itself,” the judge ruled.
The ruling is particularly important for the Los Padres National
Forest, which provides habitat for more than half of the
endangered wildlife species affected by the ruling. The
judge’s order will require increased protections for the
California condor, steelhead, the San Joaquin kit fox, and
dozens of other plants and animals on the verge of extinction.
What’s Next
The judge gave the parties 21 days to provide the court with
various protective measures that can be put into place while the
federal agencies revise the Biological Opinions. At this time,
it’s unclear what impact the ruling will have on specific
projects proposed for endangered species habitat.
It’s also unclear how this ruling will affect a similar lawsuit
pending in federal court challenging the forest plans
themselves. That lawsuit was filed last year by the State of
California (see
previous story) and a coalition of conservation
organizations, including ForestWatch. The suit alleges that the
Forest Service violated several environmental laws, including
the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest
Management Act, in approving forest plans that allow development
in pristine roadless areas of the forest at the expense of
wildlife habitat and recreation. A decision on that case is
expected later this year from the same judge.
ForestWatch would like to thank the attorneys at the Center for
Biological Diversity and Defenders of Wildlife for successfully
representing us on this issue. Stay tuned for updates!
|
