WSP03664 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

002H8 commands into effective barriers against de. structive land uses. Had implementation and enforcement of the Act been left to the federal agencies, without judicial oversight, their ex- pediency in pursuit of human economic ends would have gUlled the leller and spirit of the congressional commands. Various coalitions of conservation iS1S long have stridently opposed the massive dearcut. ting of old forests in the Pacific Northwest be- cause of the losl aesthetic, wildlife, wilderness, and ecological values. A variety of legal tools for obstructing timber harvests were available, and the environmentalislS used them. In its haste to sell timber, the Forest Service tended to cut procedural corners. Consequently, the ] 980s saw a steady stream of injunctions premised on violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (e.g., National Wildlife Fed'n v. United States Forest Serv., 592 F. Supp. 93] (D. Ore. 1984), appeal dismissed, 80] F.2d 360 (9th Cir. ]986)); the Clean Water Act (e.g., North. west Indian Cemetery Protective Ass 'n v. Pe- terson, 764 F.2d 581 (9th Cir. 1985), rev'd on other gronnds, 485 U.S. 439 (]988)); the National Forest Management Act of ] 976, ] 6 U.S.c. S;S; ]600-14 (e.g., Citize>lS for bll'lI. Qnality v. United States, 731 F. Supp. 970 (D. Colo. ] 989), appeal dismissed, (10th Cir. ]99])), and similar legislation. But the north. ern spotted owl was the hook that brought the Forest Service and the Bureau of LlOd Manage- men! (BLM) to their collective knees. The geographic and biologic situation of the owl differs drastically from that of Ihe snail dance. The habitat requirements of each species differ in innumerable ways. All parties in 1978 assumed (erroneously) that completion of the dam would cause the extinction of the darter by direct elimination of the species' only known (at the time) habitat; the owl's decline, by con. trast, is caused primarily by cumulative loss of habitat. In the snail darter context, several fed- eral agencies were pitted against each other, but federal agencies in the Pacific Northwest wanted nothing to do with owl protection in the face of timber industry opposilion. FWS and the Forest Service were well aware ofthe owl's precarious population situation, bm fWS (or its politically appointed overlords) de. nied a petitiOn 10 list the owl. Plaintiffs then sued in the name of the owl 10 force fWS aClion. The ESA requires the fWS 10 premise the lisling decision only on biological factors, 16 U.S.c. S; ] 533(a)(]) (1988); Ihe owl apparently met those crileria, and fWS ded ined 10 list becallse of impermissible political and economic fac- IOrs. The court remanded the matter 10 FWS with instructions (0 "rethink it." Northern :'potted Owl {I} v. Hodel. 7]6 F. Supp. 479 (W.D. Wash. 1988). After this rebuff, fWS caved in and listed the owl as "threatened." The fWS did not, however, designate "crit- ical habitat" when listing the owl, citing inad- equate information. The court in Northern Spoiled Owl {II} v. Lujau again remanded, Ihis time with instructions to designate such habitat. 758 F. Supp. 62] (W.D. Wash. ]991). Earlier, the "Jack Ward Thomas Report" had identified millions of acres necessary for the owl '5 survival and provided preservation criteria. The agen- cies capitulated ill ] 992, designating as critical nearly seven million acres in 190 areas. In the meantime, pending and new lawsuits sought injunctions against timber cuning where the owl would be affected. After nearly a decade of inconclusive skir. mishes, marked by stopgap provisions in appro- priations legislation, the environmental coalitions won overwhelming victories against both the Forest Service and BLM. The courts determined that the timber harvests would bOlh violate the section 7 jeopardy command and would constitute takings under section 9. Lane Connty Audubml Sac) v. Jamison, 958 F.2d 290 (9th Cir. 1991); SeallleAudnbon Sac) v. Evans, 952 F.2d 297 (9th Cir. ] 99]); Por"a"d Audubon SoC:v v. Lnjan, 784 F. Supp. 786 (D. Or. ]992). As authorized under ESA S; 7, ]6 U.S.c. ~ 1536 (1988), the Departmem of the Interior .convened the Endangered Species Committee (the "God Squad") in 1991 to obtain an ex- emption for timber harvesting on lands classi- fied as Oregon and California lands. See 43 U.S.c. S;S; 118Ia-] 18]j (1988). In May 1992, on a divided vote the committee granted an ex- emption for approximately one.quarter of ,he lands at issue (its only prodevelopment opin. ion) and denied the rest. That decision is being challenged in court. Because one of the exemp- tion criteria is that the project be one of national or regional significance, and a few more timber contracts hardly seem to fit that description, the challenge is not frivolous. This persistent and successful litigation strategy, forcing the agencies to implement the Act at every important stage, likely is but a pre. lude to a political compromise. With logging in the region coming to a relative standstill. Congress and the administration now will feel even more pressure to confront the basic di- lemma. Any resolution likely will be tilted in favor of the owl because the Clinton adminis. tration apparently intends to pursue a more con- servationist line than its predecessors. President Clinton probably noticed that he swept Wash- Confi,med on page 57 NR&E/SUMMER 199J Conservationists have opposed the massive clearcu /ling of old forests becanse of the lost aesthetic, wildlife, wilderness, and ecological valu.es. 5