Apr 282015
 

A coalition of "timber, ranching, and forest recreation industries" lack standing to challenge the Forest Service's 2012 planning rule, a federal judge has ruled (Federal Forest Resource Coalition v. Vilsack, 12-1333 KBJ, D.D.C.).

"Plaintiffs have failed to show that the 2012 Planning Rule threatens an injury-in-fact that is imminent, or particularized. Moreover, because the injuries that plaintiffs allege cannot be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the 2012 Planning Rule will cause them harm," U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson said in her opinion, issued today.

She previously issued an order in the case; the opinion elucidates the reasons behind that order.

"The gravamen of plaintiffs’ complaint . . . is the contention that the 2012 Planning Rule exceeds the Forest Service’s statutory authority by requiring land management plans to privilege environmental goals, such as maintaining 'ecological sustainability' and 'ecosystem services,' over other competing uses of national forests, such as logging, grazing, and recreation," the judge summarized.

The plaintiffs are:

Federal Forest Resource Coalition, American Forest Resource Council, Blueribbon Coalition, California Association of 4 Wheel Drive Clubs, Public Lands Council, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, American Sheep Industry Association, Alaska Forestry Association, Resource Development Council For Alaska, Minnesota Forest Industries Inc., Minnesota Timber Producers Association, California Forestry Association, and Montana Wood Products Association.

Four environmental groups intervened on the side of the government: Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, Oregon Wild, The Wilderness Society and Defenders of Wildlife.

Mar 102015
 

The Wildlife Services division of USDA shot and killed 19 wolves in northern Idaho's "to improve poor elk survival in the area," the state's Game and Fish department announced yesterday.

"In February, Idaho Fish and Game requested USDA Wildlife Services conduct a control action consistent with Idaho's predation management plan for the Lolo elk zone, where predation by several species is the major reason elk population numbers are considerably below management objectives. Ongoing wolf and elk research has shown that wolves have become the primary predator impacting calf and cow elk survival in the Lolo, contributing to a continual decline in total elk population."

"The Lolo elk population has declined from 16,000 elk in 1989 to roughly 2,100 elk in 2010, and possibly fewer than 1,000 this year, with predation and habitat changes among the chief causes of the decline. Fish and Game is focusing on habitat improvement operations, regulations on elk hunting, liberal seasons and bag limits on black bears, mountain lions, and wolves, and wolf control actions to improve elk populations."

The action was promptly criticized by Defenders of Wildlife.

"The federal government spent millions of dollars helping to restore and recover wolves in the Northern Rockies, [but] it is now helping Idaho slaughter wolves to boost elk populations, causing the situation for wolves to grow more dire," said Defenders President Jamie Rappaport Clark.

The Game and Fish department said it did not yet have a cost estimate "for last month's wolf control action in the Lolo elk zone. The entire cost will be paid using Wolf Depredation Control Board money funded by sportsmen and women through purchase of hunting licenses."

Clark said that "the number of breeding pairs of wolves surviving in the Idaho wild has been plummeting ever since the state was given back control over wolves.  In 2011, there were 40 breeding pairs in the state, but by the end of 2014, estimates projected that number as having declined by 45 percent to 62 percent. Based on these plummeting numbers of breeding pairs, the future of Idaho’s wolves is increasingly grim."

In two separate lawsuits, environmental groups have taken Wildlife Services to court over wolf killings. The Western Environmental Law Center just last week filed a lawsuit in Washington state on behalf of five groups (press release). That action came about a month after a separate lawsuit was filed in Idaho against WS (see release on that lawsuit from Western Watersheds Project).

WWP was joined in the suit by WildEarth GuardiansCenter for Biological DiversityFriends of the Clearwater, and Project Coyote.

In the case in Washington, WELC is representing Cascadia Wildlands, WildEarth Guardians, Kettle Range Conservation Group, Predator Defense, and The Lands Council.

 

Feb 022015
 

Defenders of Wildlife and Natural Resources Defense Council have sued three federal agencies "demanding that [they] fix their dam operations that threaten the existence of wild pallid sturgeon." (press release) (complaint)

That's one big fish

"Although the impacts of these dams have been well documented for more than 20 years, the agencies have avoided their obligations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to change their operations. Instead of complying with their ESA obligations, the Corps and Reclamation are now proposing to increase the size of the Intake Diversion Dam [on the Yellowstone River] and add an artificial side channel for fish passage that scientists say has no reasonable expectation of success, creating an even bigger and more permanent barrier to pallid sturgeon passage," DoW and NRDC said in their news release, issued today (Feb. 2).

Background, from the press release:

Background: The Intake Diversion Dam on the Yellowstone River – a major tributary of the upper Missouri River – blocks pallid sturgeon from reaching critical spawning grounds, while issues with the timing and temperature of water releases from the Fort Peck Dam, destroy the pallid’s spawning and rearing habitat in the mainstem Missouri. Any eggs that hatch are sent downstream to suffocate, starve, or become food for larger fish in Lake Sakakawea in North Dakota. Together, these dams prevent the pallid sturgeon from successfully reproducing in the upper Missouri River basin. As a result, the wild population in the basin – the most important population of pallid sturgeon remaining for recovery – is dying out. Approximately 125 wild fish remain, all nearing the end of their lives.

NRDC Switchboard (Marcus Griswold)

Jan 302015
 

Blackside dace

Opinion

A federal judge in Tennessee ruled Jan. 28 that the Zeb Mountain mining lawsuit against the Fish and Wildlife Service and Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement can move forward, even though mining at the site has ceased and the permit has expired (Defenders of Wildlife v. Jewell, 13-698-PLR-CCS, E.D. Tenn.).

U.S. District Judge Pamela Reeves dismissed four claims (see below) alleging broad violations of the ESA related to the effects of SMCRA implementation in Tennessee. But she allowed four claims related to the effects of the mining on the blackside dace and Cumberland darter to proceed.

The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act does not pre-empt the Endangered Species Act, Reeves said.

"[T]he plaintiffs have not asserted a claim under any provision of SMCRA. The plaintiffs brought this lawsuit under the Endangered Species Act’s citizen-suit provision and the Administrative Procedure Act. The defendants have presented no controlling authority to support their assertion that SMCRA’s judicial review provisions are exclusive and preempt or implicitly repeal the Endangered Species Act and Administrative Procedure Act’s judicial review provisions."

The first two counts of the complaint "challenge the mining permit issued for Zeb Mountain and further seek to compel consultation on that permit," Reeves noted. "According to the defendants, these claims are moot. National Coal, LLC, the permittee at Zeb Mountain, ceased mining under the permit in October 2012. The permit has since expired, and a consent decree has been entered in a separate case requiring the mine operator at Zeb Mountain to cease mining and thereafter refrain from surface mining in Tennessee altogether. Sierra Club v. National Coal, LLC, Case Nos.: 3:11-CV-515, 3:11-CV-516, and 3:11-CV-527. Accordingly, no permittee has a right to extract coal at Zeb Mountain. Finally, the defendants note, 'the mine has been mostly reclaimed and water quality is expected to improve going forward.' (R. 82, Page ID 592)."

But the plaintiff enviromental groups argued (see brief below), "OSM retains discretionary authority over this mine until reclamation is complete and the final bond has been released, neither of which has yet occurred. Moreover, there is ample evidence that streams receiving mining wastewater from Zeb Mountain continue to be adversely affected by high conductivity levels. This condition is likely to continue even though strip mining at Zeb Mountain has ended for now17 and reclamation is purportedly underway."

After a brief analysis in the opinion's penultimate paragraph, Reeves said the first four claims could move ahead.

"The defendants contend that a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, vacating the Zeb Mountain permit and ordering the OSM to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service would serve little purpose given that the mining at issue has permanently ceased. Naturally, the plaintiffs disagree. They note that the OSM retains jurisdiction over the Zeb Mountain mine until reclamation is complete, revegetation has been established for five years, and the final bond has been released. 30 U.S.C. §§ 1258, 1259(b) & 1265(b)(20)(A); 53 Fed Reg. 44,356 (Nov. 2, 1988). Until the final bond release, the OSM retains the duty and power to inspect operations at Zeb Mountain, and the OSM may require reasonable revisions to the permit, including the reclamation plan, or issue an enforcement order at any time. 30 C.F.R. §§ 842.11(b)(1) & (c)(2), 774.10(b), 774.11(b), and 774.13. Accordingly, upon consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service, the OSM could impose measures revising the reclamation plan to reduce post-mining, high-conductivity wastewater discharges. The relief sought could, therefore, make a difference in the legal interests of the parties. Counts I and II are not moot."

More from the opinion:

In dismissing Counts V through VIII:

"Counts V through VIII do not assert actual, site-specific activities that are diminishing or threatening to diminish the plaintiffs’ members’ enjoyment of a particular area. Instead, they are broad, facial, policy-based challenges to the defendants’ general reliance on the 1996 Biological Opinion and ITS, the Dace Guidelines, and the absence of Cumberland darter Guidelines throughout the state of Tennessee."

On the legal authorities of SMCRA and the ESA:

"[W]hile SMCRA may channel and control the OSM’s authority to grant a mining license and provide an avenue for administrative review of such a decision, the Endangered Species Act independently obligates agencies to complete site-specific and species-specific consultations with the Fish and Wildlife Service before issuing mining permits."

From the amended complaint, filed July 31, 2013:

"Defendants have unlawfully ignored mounting evidence that high conductivity wastewater from surface coal mines harms two rare ESA-protected fish species, the threatened blackside dace and the endangered Cumberland darter. Two Tennessee coal mines permitted by Defendant U.S. Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement discharge or will discharge wastewater to creeks occupied by one or both of these species. Defendants have failed to fulfill their obligations under Section 7 of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2), and its implementing regulations, 50 C.F.R. §§ 402.12 –.16, to consult on the effects of issuing permits for surface coal mines to ensure that the discharge of wastewater pursuant to these permits neither jeopardizes the continued existence of these listed species nor destroys or adversely modifies critical habitat."

Claims (from amended complaint)

Count 1

OSM has failed to initiate and complete consultation with the Service regarding the effects of its permitting the Zeb Mountain mine on blackside dace, Cumberland darter, and the Cumberland darter’s designated critical habitat. See 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2); 50 C.F.R. § 402.14.

OSM’s continued reliance on the 1996 Biological Opinion and ITS, which contains no site-specific analysis of the Zeb Mountain mine, no species-specific analysis of the impacts of surface coal mining on blackside dace or Cumberland darter and its designated critical habitat, and no incidental take statement specific to the Zeb Mountain mine’s impacts on the blackside dace or Cumberland darter, is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law.

OSM has failed to insure that the SMCRA permit for the Zeb Mountain mine is not likely to jeopardize blackside dace and Cumberland darter or result in destruction or adverse modification of the Cumberland darter’s critical habitat. See 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2).

Therefore, Defendants Jewell, Pizarchik, and OSM are in violation of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2), its implementing regulations, 50 C.F.R. Part 402, and the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706, in connection with SMCRA 3154 permit for the Zeb Mountain surface coal mine. This Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate these claims and grant Plaintiffs’ requested relief to remedy the harms Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer from Defendants’ legal violations.

Count 2

OSM has unlawfully failed to reinitiate and complete consultation under the 1996 Biological Opinion and/or under any alleged informal consultation with respect to the SMCRA permit for the Zeb Mountain mine to address population declines and extirpations exceeding the “amount or extent” of the authorized take for blackside dace and Cumberland darter; new information indicating adverse effects for these species caused by conductivity above 240 μS/cm; the listing of the Cumberland darter in 2011; and designation of critical habitat for the Cumberland darter in 2012, in violation of 50 C.F.R. § 402.16.

FWS has unlawfully failed to request that OSM reinitiate and complete consultation under the 1996 Biological Opinion and/or under any alleged informal consultation for the SMCRA permit for the Zeb Mountain mine to address population declines and extirpations exceeding the “amount or extent” of the authorized take for blackside dace and Cumberland darter; new information indicating adverse effects for these species caused by conductivity above 240 μS/cm; the listing of the Cumberland darter in 2011; and designation of critical habitat for the Cumberland darter in 2012, in violation of 50 C.F.R. § 402.16.

Therefore, Defendants are in violation of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2), its implementing regulations, 50 C.F.R. § 402.16, and the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706, in connection with the SMCRA permit for the Zeb Mountain surface coal mine. This Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate these claims and grant Plaintiffs’ requested relief to remedy the harms Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer from Defendants’ legal violations.

Count 3

OSM’s continued reliance on the 1996 Biological Opinion and ITS, which contains no site-specific analysis of the Davis Creek mine, no species-specific analysis of the impacts of surface coal mining on blackside dace, and no incidental take statement specific to the Davis Creek’s mine’s impacts on the blackside dace, is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law.

OSM has failed to insure that the SMCRA permit for Davis Creek Mine Area 5 is not likely to jeopardize blackside dace. See 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2).

Count 4

OSM has unlawfully failed to reinitiate and complete consultation under the 1996 Biological Opinion and/or under any alleged informal consultation with respect to the SMCRA permit for the Davis Creek Mine Area 5 to address blackside dace population declines and extirpations exceeding the “amount or extent” of the authorized take and/or new information indicating adverse effects on blackside dace caused by conductivity above 240 μS/cm, in violation of 50 C.F.R. § 402.16.

FWS has unlawfully failed to request that OSM reinitiate and complete consultation under the 1996 Biological Opinion and/or under any alleged informal consultation with respect to the SMCRA permit for the Davis Creek Mine Area 5 to address blackside dace population declines and extirpations exceeding the “amount or extent” of the authorized take and/or new information indicating adverse effects on blackside dace caused by conductivity above 240 μS/cm, in violation of 50 C.F.R. § 402.16.

Therefore, Defendants are in violation of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2), its implementing regulations, 50 C.F.R. § 402.16, and the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706, in connection with the SMCRA permit for the Davis Creek Mine Area 5.

Opinion | Complaint (amended 7/31/2013) | Federal defendants' brief in support of motion to dismiss | Plaintiffs' brief opposing MTD

Sep 102012
 

The same day the final rule delisting wolves in Wyoming appeared in the Federal Register, four environmental groups said they will sue the Fish and Wildlife Service over the decision, annonced last week.

Earthjustice, representing Defenders of Wildlife, Center for Biological Diversity, Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club, sent a 60-day Notice of Intent to Sue to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and FWS Director Dan Ashe.

"Wyoming’s wolf management policies open the door to unlimited wolf killing throughout most of the state and provide inadequate protection for wolves even where killing is regulated," a news release issued today says.

Links

NOITS posted on ESWR's page

Delisting rule in FR

Earthjustice page with wolf links

Aug 312012
 

"Wyoming’s gray wolf population is stable, threats are sufficiently minimized, and a post-delisting monitoring and management framework has been developed," the Fish and Wildlife Service said in a final rule to be published in the Federal Register that will remove ESA protection for gray wolves in Wyoming.

The decision means that the Northern Rocky Mountains Distinct Population Segment of the wolf will no longer be listed in Montana, Idaho or Wyoming. The first two states have already allowed hunting of the animals. The latest decision, feared and fought by environmental groups, paves the way for hunting in Wyoming.

 

  • Credit: Tracy Brooks/Mission Wolf / USFWS