Recent Wins

Saving 1000 Acres

July 2007 -- five years and two appeals after the conflagration of 12,000 acres of the Elk Creek watershed in the Klamath-Siskiyou ecoregion of southwestern Oregon and northwestern California, PEAC halted the stripping of snags from 961 acres of federally-protected land. In the process, PEAC set a first-of-its-kind national standard for what kind of logging is allowed after fires in late-successional reserves. This is a major step in the protection of endangered species such as the northern spotted owl and other cavity-nesting species, as well as for the survival of delicate old-growth ecosystems. Susan Jane Brown and Stephanie Parent led PEAC in the win.

Read ONRC v. Brong (pdf).

Save for Steelhead, Finding Bull

Apr. 2007 -- PEAC won over the Oregon district court, convincing it to hold the federal government responsible for considering the degredation of steelhead habitats by poor grazing practice in managing the mid-Columbia River. The court found the federal biological opinions on steelhead and bull trout unlawful, improper and vague under the Endangered Species Act, forcing the government to re-examine species impact before continuing its activities. PEAC co-counseled with alum Kristin Ruether, staff attorney at Oregon Natural Desert Association.

Read the winning opinion at ONDA v. Lohn (pdf).

Smack-Down for Salmon

Apr. 2007 -- PEAC and Earthjustice won a precedent-setting Ninth Circuit appeal rejecting the federal government's plan for operating federal dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers. Two years after the district court issued a "complete legal smack-down" of the plan, so reported by the Oregonian, the Ninth Circuit found the government's justification in harming salmon and steelhead "little more than analytical slight of hand...." In significant forward-looking language, the opinion establishes that under the Endangered Species Act, federal agencies must consider the impact of dams on imperilled species' chances for recovery.

Read the winning opinion NWF v. NWFS Appeal (pdf).

Read the Oregonian's Smack-Down Article.

PEAC Halts Owl Rampage

Feb. 2007 - PEAC and Earthjustice won a major court victory halting the unhindered, unjustified killing and injuring of northern spotted owls during logging activities by federal forest managers. Henceforth, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must quantify, rationalize, and develop clear thresholds of allowable harm to owls and, by analogy, all threatened species protected by the Endangered Species Act. This Ninth Circuit victory was led by Stephanie Parent with Kristen Boyles at Earthjustice.

Read the precedent-setting opinion ONRC v. Allen (PDF).

Victory for Fish and Science

On January 23, 2007, the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of fish, science and sound administration of government. The court held that BPA's "slavish" reliance on committee report language as binding legislation is unlawful, and that its decision was arbitrary and capricious because there was no rational basis for it. The court ordered BPA to continue to fund the Center "unless and until it has established a proper basis for displacing the FPC." PEAC filed a petition for review of BPA's decision to defund and transfer the work of the Fish Passage Center to other entities on behalf of Northwest Environmental Defense Center, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, and Northwest Sportfishers' Industry Association. The Center's experts provide analysis of fish runs and river operations to protect and enhance salmon, steelhead, bull trout and other fish moving through the Columbia and lower Snake rivers. The Fish Passage Center plays a critical role in monitoring whether native fish stocks are able to traverse a series of dams to reach their spawning grounds.

Read the court's opinion (PDF).

Voles Protected, Once Again

Oregon red tree voles, an arboreal species that lives in old growth and late successional forest, were protected by the Survey and Manage provisions of the Northwest Forest Plan. The protections include a requirement to survey for the species prior to logging, and, when nest sites are found, to create a ten-acre "no cut" buffer around each site. In 2001, the federal agencies amended the Survey and Manage mitigation protections, but continued to protect the vole throughout its range. In 2002 and 2003, through internal memos not subject to any public disclosure or comment, the federal agencies eliminated protections for the vole in its core habitat. The Ninth Circuit agreed that these decision violate the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Under FLPMA and its regulations, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is required to conduct a formal public amendment process when it amends a land management plan. The BLM did not do so here. Likewise, under NEPA, the "substantial change" in the policy triggered additional NEPA analysis. None was undertaken here. The court set aside the unlawful decisions, reinstated the protections for red tree voles and enjoined the two specific timber sales at issue.

Read the court's decision (PDF).

Victory in the Multi-Species Conservation Plan Case!

Since 1998, PEAC has represented a large group of national and local conservation organizations in their efforts to protect some of southern California's most imperiled species. Vernal pools are ephemoral wetlands that fill only during the region's infrequent rains. A handful of species have adapted their lifecycles to this challenging environment, including two species of fairy shrimp and a handful of plants. Unfortunately, rampant development in and around San Diego has destroyed more than 97% of vernal pools, leaving the Endangered Species Act as the last hope for these species against extinction.

In 1997, then Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt hailed the Multi-Species Conservation Plan (MSCP) as a model of cooperative species protection. The plan is a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), essentially the way that non-federal landowners and regulators can seek permission to incidentally kill or injure threatened and endangered species in the course of otherwise lawful activities. In addition to a permit to "take" listed species, landowners and regulators can receive assurances that for the life of their permit -- which can run as long as a century -- they will not have to take steps to protect covered species beyond those outlined in an HCP. This incentive, which provides certainty for landowners but leaves species exposed to the risk that new information may reveal that more protections are actually necessary for species -- has resulted in a huge increase in HCPs approved by the federal government.

Environmentalists, however, were concerned that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) had approved the MSCP without fully complying with the ESA's mandates. Specifically, the groups charged that FWS did not adequately analyze the consequences of allowing further development of vernal pool habitat, and did not consider how vernal pool-dependent species would ever be able to achieve recovery if the MSCP did not itself outline a recovery strategy. Moreover, despite clear language in the ESA requiring that applicants assure that they have a mechanism to fully fund an HCP's connservation measures, the City of San Diego's funding strategy for the MSCP was essentially to hope for the best.

After several years of delays, a federal judge in the Southern District of California agreed with the conservation groups, issuing an opinion that not only strongly sided with plaintiffs, but enjoined all development that can impact vernal pools. The ruling protects vernal pools and their associated listed species: Riverside fairy shrimp, San Diego fairy shrimp, California Orcutt grass, Otay Mesa mint, San Diego button celery, San Diego mesa mint, and spreading navarretia.

In addition to its importance for protecting endemic species in southern California and setting important precedent for judging the adequacy of HCPs, Judge Brewster's opinion discussed the importance of protecting even seemingly obscure species. One might ask, the judge mused, “who cares about the fairy shrimp and the other vernal pool species? Fairy shrimp, when they manage to survive to adulthood, are one-quarter inch fully grown. For the most part, they are hard to see by the naked eye. There are not many left, and if gone, who would miss them? Surely, the casual observer passing through the Southern California landscape would not notice one way or the other. The biologists tell us that every species has an essential and unique roll to play in the food chain that supports us all. If the fairy shrimp ultimately become extinct in the San Diego region, they will cease to be a devourer of lower forms of life in the food chain, such as bacteria and micro algae on clay particles, which could impact control on the species below. Similarly, the fairy shrimp would not be available food for creatures above in the chain, such as waterfowl and toads, who look to them for their diet.

"In the microscopic view, the fairy shrimp may make little identifiable difference. But if this type of destruction is treated on a case-by-case basis as an unimportant loss, it does not take long before life on this planet is in jeopardy. Congress saw that threat when it enacted the ESA. Congress demonstrated foresight by realizing that the country's present understanding of the value of a myriad of life forms was not yet known, and that extinction should be prevented by protecting both the individual species and the ecosystems upon which those species depended for survival."

This victory is an important win for some of the less charismatic listed species in the West, and an important win for all species affected by non-federal development actions.

Read the court's decision (PDF).

Federal Court orders EPA to Regulate Ships' Ballast Water Discharges

On September 18, 2006, a United States district court ordered the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop new regulations in two years to address ballast water discharges from vessels into United States waters. The order follows the court’s holding from March 2005 that EPA had illegally exempted ships’ ballast water discharges from Clean Water Act permit requirements. This most recent ruling directs EPA to take specific action by September 30, 2008 to ensure that shipping companies comply with the Clean Water Act and restrict the discharge of invasive species in ballast water.

Ballast water discharges present significant threats to the environment and the economy. Ballast water discharges typically contain heavy metals, oil and grease, and other toxic pollutants. In addition, ballast water discharges are the main source of invasive species introductions into United States waters. Live species from other countries are carried to U.S. waters in ballast water which ships use for stabilization. The ballast water is discharged into bays, estuaries, and the Great Lakes as ships approach port and when cargo for export is loaded. Over 21 billion gallons of ballast water from international ports is discharged into U.S. waters each year. The cost of invasive species to the U.S. economy is estimated in the billions of dollars annually. The court's decision could finally spur meaningful EPA action to control these harmful discharges.

Read the court's decision (PDF).

Mining Victory!

On August 7th, The U.S. Forest Service was required by federal Magistrate Judge Paul Papak to enjoin gold mining activity in the North Fork Burnt River watershed in eastern Oregon. The Forest Service had unlawfully approved the mining in 2004 in violation of the Clean Water Act.

The court held that the Forest Service may not ignore or defer its responsibility to remedy existing water pollution "based on a misguided notion that the right to mine trumps federal and state law."

Read a copy of the decision (PDF).

PEAC Prevails in Effort to Protect Salmon River Forests!

Over the past eighteen months, PEAC staff attorney Susan Jane Brown has been litigating the Meteor Timber Sale in the Salmon River Watershed on the Klamath National Forest in northern California. After a rocky start, briefing progressed relatively swiftly over this past winter and spring. At issue in this case was whether the Forest Service adequately disclosed and discussed the environmental impacts in the Salmon River Watershed, an area of profound diversity.

The Salmon River Watershed ranges in elevation from 1,200 feet to more than 9,000 feet, and most of the watershed exhibits extremely steep slopes. Most of the trees are Douglas-fir, but there is a significant component of other species of fir, pine, and hardwoods. Fire has frequently visited the watershed, followed quickly by post-fire logging and replanting with monoculture species. Mining has played a role here as long as European settlement has existed, which subsequently facilitated an extremely aggressive logging industry, and grazing takes place in some areas of the Salmon River Watershed. To facilitate logging, mining, and grazing, the majority of the watershed is roaded. As a result, the Forest Service designated most of the watershed as “Areas With Watershed Concerns” due to very high cumulative effects from logging and roading, which have gravely impacted streams and fish stocks.

Despite its heavily managed nature, several stretches of the Salmon River are either designated as Wild and Scenic, or have been recommended for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River System. Four stocks of anadromous fish – spring and fall chinook salmon, coho salmon, and pacific lamprey – exist in this watershed, which provides one of the last refugia for wild-run spring chinook in the Klamath Basin. Steelhead and the northern spotted owl also reside here, as do the pacific fisher, marten, and bald eagles.

Within this context, the Forest Service planned the Meteor timber sale, which proposes to log approximately six million board feet on 744 acres in 39 units of forest within a Key Watershed for salmon recovery, Hydrological and Geological Riparian Reserves, Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat, and Wild and Scenic River (WSR) corridors. Our clients (Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, Environmental Protection Information Center, and Klamath Forest Alliance) have been working for years on this project, first dialoging with the Forest Service to improve the project, and when that was not fruitful, moving on to public education and litigation support.

Oral argument on this case was held in Sacramento, California in June 2006, and PEAC is pleased to report that on July 13th, Judge England ruled in our favor on the majority of our claims! In a very well-reasoned and written opinion, the court held that “the Forest Service offers no substantive rationale” for its position, and failed to disclose five key pieces of information to the public. As a result, the Meteor project is on hold until the Forest Service corrects its analysis. We are currently exploring settlement options with the agency, which would allow some benign aspects of the project to go forward, but would also protect the sensitive areas of the Salmon River Watershed.

Visit the Meteor Timber Sale page for more information!

Court Rules Against Owens Corning Corporation

On June 8, federal Judge John Jelderks issued an Opinion and Order on Owens Corning’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit against it, ruling in Plaintiffs’ favor on every issue. On behalf of three environmental groups, PEAC filed a lawsuit in November 2004 against Owens Corning for violations of the Clean Air Act related to the company’s illegal construction of an insulation manufacturing facility in Gresham, Oregon. Owens Corning moved to dismiss the case, arguing among other things that the Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring suit based on injuries that could result from the facility’s emission of HCFC 142b, a potent greenhouse gas and ozone-depleting substance. In the court’s June 8th ruling, the court rejected Owens Corning’s arguments and ruled that the Plaintiffs had standing to sue for these global problems. The court’s ruling is both a victory against Owens Corning as well as an important legal precedent for citizen groups bringing litigation related to climate change and ozone-depletion.

Read the court’s ruling:

Opinion and Order (PDF)

Also on June 8, the parties reached an agreement to settle Plaintiffs' federal lawsuit. Pursuant to the agreement, Owens Corning will be prohibited from manufacturing in Oregon using HCFC-142b or any other ozone-depleting substance. In lieu of the civil penalties Owens Corning could face if the litigation continued, Owens Corning will contribute $300,000 to local environmental projects related to energy efficiency and alternative energy options.

Read the Stipulated Order of Dismissal (PDF).

Owens Corning Withdraws Permit Application

On May 8, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) announced that Owens Corning has officially withdrawn its application to build and operate a foam insulation plant in Gresham, Oregon. In addition to the federal lawsuit against Owens Corning, PEAC also submitted extensive comments to DEQ on behalf of the groups urging DEQ to reject the permit application and fix what had been a flawed public process.

Owens Corning's decision to withdraw its permit application and abandon its plans is a significant victory for the environment. Owens Corning had proposed to emit more than 250 tons per year of HCFC-142b. The Gresham facility's emissions would have been the global warming equivalent of adding 100,000 new cars per year to Oregon's roads, and the foam product Owens Corning was going to produce would have continued to "off-gas" more HCFC-142b throughout the product's lifetime.

PEAC's federal lawsuit against Owens Corning regarding the company's Clean Air Act violations is still pending. Under the Clean Air Act, Owens Corning must pay penalties for its past violations.

Read the press:

The Oregonian: Owens Corning Backs Out of Gresham Plant

Fish Passage Center to Continue Good Science

On March 17, 2006, the Ninth Circuit ordered Bonneville Power Administration to continue to fund the Fish Passage Center until a petition for review can be heard.

On January 23, 2006, PEAC filed a petition for review of BPA's decision to defund and transfer the work of the Fish Passage Center to another entity on behalf of Northwest Environmental Defense Center, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, and Northwest Sportfishers' Industry Association. The Center’s experts provide analysis of fish runs and river operations to protect and enhance salmon, steelhead, bull trout and other fish moving through the Columbia and lower Snake rivers. The Fish Passage Center plays a critical role in monitoring whether native fish stocks are able to traverse a series of dams to reach their spawning grounds.

On December 8, 2005, the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) issued a solicitation for another entity to perform “Key Functions previously performed by the Fish Passage Center.” BPA relies upon language in a November, 2005 Congressional Committee report that the Fish Passage Center should no longer receive funding and the functions should be transferred to a private entity; however the language appears nowhere in the law. BPA's decision violates the Northwest Power Act. The Act requires that BPA fund consistent with the Fish and Wildlife Program adopted by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. The Program expressly provides for continued funding of the Fish Passage Center. BPA's decision is beyond its legal authority, absent an amendment of the Program, which would require input and recommendations from stakeholders and the public.

Read court documents related to the Northwest Environmental Defense Center et al. v. BPA case:

Petition for Review (PDF)

NEDC Stay Motion (PDF)

BPA Stay Response (PDF)

NEDC Stay Reply (PDF)

Ninth Circuit's Order (PDF)

Petitioners' Opening Brief (PDF)

Read the press:

OPB: Federal Court Keeps Fish Passage Center Open, For Now

The Seattle Times: Federal Appeals Court Keeps Fish Center Alive

The Columbia Basin Bulletin: Parties Petition Appeals Court On Fish Passage Center

OPB: Fish Passage Center Fighting for Its Life

The Oregonian: Groups Seek Aid for Fish Center

Court Rules Survey and Manage Decision Unlawful

On January 9, 2006, U.S. District Court Judge Marsha Pechman issued a final decision on relief after declaring illegal the Bush administration’s decision to eliminate safeguards that protected old-growth forests and associated plants and wildlife in August, 2005. Under the principle of “look before you log,” the “Survey and Manage” standards of the Northwest Forest Plan required federal agencies to survey an area for rare plants and wildlife before allowing logging or other destructive activities and, if found, modify their plans. The survey requirement only applies on federal lands. Judge Pechman’s ruling on relief vacates the Administration’s March, 2004 decision to eliminate the survey and manage standard, reinstates the standard, and requires that all timber sales on federal forests in western Washington, western Oregon, and northwestern California comply with the standard. Of the 144 timber sales planned by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) implicated in the ruling, one-half would have logged old growth forests. Rare species that are essential to clean air, clean water, and the health of old-growth forests now have an improved chance of survival. This is a huge victory for people who value wildlife and the old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest.

PEAC Managing Attorney, Stephanie Parent, co-counseled with Pete Frost of the Western Environmental Law Center representing a number of environmental organizations.

Read the courts' opinions regarding the Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Mark E. Ray case:

Judge Pechman's relief order (PDF)

Judge Pechman's merits opinion (PDF)

Judge Again Orders Spill to Improve Salmon Survival

On December 29, 2005, a federal judge once again issued an order requiring that federal agencies that operate the mainstem hydroelectric dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers to improve survival of migrating juvenile salmon during the spring and summer of 2006. Oregon district court judge James Redden mandated that federal dam managers release additional water through the dams' spillways, the safest passage route for young salmon to bypass the dams on their journey downstream to the ocean. The judge turned away the agencies operations proposal, finding that "each of the dams has severely impacted the ability of the species to survive."

Redden's spill ruling is another in a series of legal victories on behalf of Columbia Basin salmon and steelhead protected under the Endangered Species Act. In May, 2005, Redden found unlawful the National Marine Fisheries Service's "biological opinion," in essence a plan for operation of the federal dams. The judge held that the plan fell short of the agency's responsibilities under the ESA in several respects, including failing to protect critical habitat and failing to promote recovery of the listed salmon and steelhead. Redden also ordered increased spill at the dams last summer, which research showed improved salmon survival. Under another recent order by the court, NMFS has one year to develop a plan that complies with its legal duties

While the agency is currently working with the states and tribes on a new plan, NMFS' actions still raise questions about its commitment to salmon recovery. In late December, the agency appealed Redden's initial legal ruling, and asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for expedited consideration of its appeal.

The plaintiffs in the case, led by the National Wildlife Federation, are represented in case by Todd True and Steve Mashuda of Earthjustice, and PEAC Director Dan Rohlf.

Read the courts' opinions regarding the National Wildlife Federation et al. v. NMFS et al. case:

Judge Redden's opinion (PDF)

Judge Redden's remedy order (PDF)

9th U.S. Circuit Court's spill opinion (PDF)

Judge Redden's remand order (PDF)

Judge Redden's 2006 injunction opinion (PDF)

Victory in Ballast Water Discharges Case

On March 30, 2005, a federal court ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to repeal its exemption under the Clean Water Act. The decision comes in response to a suit brought by environmental groups concerned about the extraordinary economic and ecological consequences of invasive species arriving in U.S. waters through the unregulated ballast water. The groups asked EPA to withdraw a regulation that illegally exempts such ballast water discharges from Clean Water Act permits. The Court’s ruling means that ships arriving in all United States ports will need to obtain discharge permits before dumping their ballast water or be in violation of the law.

Environmental groups first petitioned EPA to regulate ships’ ballast water discharges more than six years ago because ballast water is the nation’s largest source of aquatic invasive species. The groups asked EPA to withdraw a regulation that illegally exempts such ballast water discharges from Clean Water Act permits. In this long-running saga, the groups most recently asked the federal district court to find that EPA’s 1973 regulation was inconsistent with the Clean Water Act and to order its immediate repeal. Without the regulation, shippers would be required to comply with the Clean Water Act’s permitting program or be in violation of the law.

Live species from other countries are carried to U.S. waters in ballast water which ships use for stabilization. The ballast water can be discharged into bays, estuaries, and the Great Lakes as ships approach port and when cargo for export is loaded. Over 21 billion gallons of ballast water from international ports is discharged into U.S. waters each year. Estimates of the cost of invasive species to the U.S. economy are in the billions of dollars annually.

Melissa Powers at PEAC and Deborah Sivas at the Earthjustice Legal Clinic co-counseled the case on behalf of Northwest Environmental Advocates, the Ocean Conservancy, and Baykeeper.

Read the court's order:

Northwest Environmental Advocates et al. v. EPA (PDF)

Wolf Retains ESA Protections

Judge Robert E. Jones ruled in favor of the wolf and environmental plaintiffs when he held that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA defines "endangered species" as any species in danger of extinction throuout all or a significant portion of its range. Previously, FWS listed the wolf as endangered throughout the lower 48 states, except Minnesota, where it is threatened. In an effort to "grease the skids" to take the wolf off the ESA list, FWS issued a rule dividing the wolf into three "distinct population segments" (DPS). These DPSs were the Western, Eastern, and Southwestern. The agency then downlisted the wolf from endangered to threatened in the Westernand Eastern DPSs, based on healthy core populations in the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes, respectively. Judge Jones held that ignoring the fact that wolves are not thriving in other states included within the DPS and part of the wolf's historical range, such as Oregon, violated the ESA provision to list a species where it is endangered throughout a significant portion of its range. "The desire to delist 'the rest of the West' is not an appropriate consideration." The court also held that FWS acted inconsistent with its DPS Policy, which is designed as a "proactive measure to prevent the need for listing a species over a larger range - not a tactic for subdividing a larger population the FWS has already determined...warrants listing thoughout a larger range."

Stephanie Parent, Managing Attorney with PEAC, worked with lead counsel at Faegre & Benson on the litigation.

Read the court's opinion:

Defenders of Wildlife et al. v. Secretary , United States Department of the Interior (PDF)

PEAC Victorious in Two Timber Salvage Cases

Federal judges recently halted two environmentally harmful timber salvage sales in Oregon based on arguments by PEAC staff attorney Susan Jane Brown. On November 8, 2004, District Court Judge Ann Aiken granted plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion in Oregon Natural Resources Fund et al. v. Brong, entering a permanent injunction in their favor. The case challenged the Timbered Rock Fire Recovery Project on the Medford District of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in southern Oregon, alleging that the salvage sale violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Federal Land Policy and Management Act (NFMA), and the Northwest Forest Plan. Judge Aiken held that the BLM acted arbitrarily and capriciously in authorizing large snag removal from, and research logging in, the Elk Creek Late-Successional Reserve; illegally authorized salvage logging in nonsuitable woodlands and in deferred watersheds and riparian reserves; and failed to adequately analyze cumulative impacts of the project in its NEPA documents. This decision is likely to set an environmentally favorable precedent in determining the permissible parameters of salvage logging in Late-Successional Reserves, Riparian Reserves, and other ecologically sensitive areas.

Less than two weeks later, Oregon Federal District Court Judge Ancer Haggerty granted in part Plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion in Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project et al. v. Forest Service. In this case, PEAC represented plaintiffs raising NEPA and NFMA claims against the Forest Service’s decision to approve the Flagtail Fire Recovery Project on the Malheur National Forest in eastern Oregon. In his ruling, Judge Haggerty held that the Forest Service a) acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it conducted its cumulative impacts analysis; b) improperly relied on the DecAID habitat model to determine snag retention numbers for primary cavity excavator management indicator species (namely woodpeckers); and c) failed to disclose and discuss the scientific controversy surrounding salvage logging as a legitimate method of hazardous fuels reduction. This case also sets important favorable precedent for the Pacific Northwest because it touches on several issues likely to recur in many other post-fire projects in the region.

Ralph Bloemers and Chris Winter of the Cascade Resources Advocacy Group served as co-counsel with Susan Jane, and PEAC managing attorney Stephanie Parent also worked with Susan Jane on the Flagtail case.

Read the courts’ opinions:

Oregon Natural Resources Fund et al. v. Brong (Timbered Rock, PDF)

Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project et al. v. Forest Service (Flagtail, PDF)

Victory for Species Recovery!

In a ruling with broad implications for improving habitat conservation of endangered and threatened species throughout the West, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today overturned U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s longstanding narrow interpretation of the Endangered Species Act’s protections for critical habitat.

The case, Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, raised questions about whether FWS was adequately protecting the designated “critical habitat” of northern spotted owls. Appellants challenged FWS’ finding that timber harvest in thousands of acres of the owls’ critical habitat in Oregon and Washington did not constitute “destruction or adverse modification” of that habitat. The court threw out this conclusion, ruling that the agency had ignored the importance of critical habitat for recovery of the owls.

“[T]he ESA was written not merely to forestall the extinction of species..., but to allow a species to recover to the point where it may be delisted,” Judge Gould wrote in the unanimous opinion for the three judge panel. “If FWS follows its own regulation, then it is obligated to be indifferent to, if not to ignore, the recovery goal of critical habitat,” the court’s opinion continued. “This cannot be right,” it concluded.

Read the court's opinion:

Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Spotted Owl/Timber Harvest, PDF)

PEAC Win for Water Quality Standards

On March 31, 2003, Judge Ancer L. Haggerty ruled that the Oregon water quality standards issued by the DEQ and approved by EPA violate the Clean Water Act and were otherwise arbitrary and capricious. The Court also ruled that the National Marine Fisheries Service's biological opinion finding no jeopardy on the adoption of the water quality standards is arbitrary and capricious and does not comply with the Endangered Species Act requirements for Section 7 consultation. PEAC represented the Northwest Environmental Advocates in this challenge.

Read the court's opinion:

Northwest Environmental Advocates v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Marine Fisheries Service (Oregon Water Quality Standards, PDF)