Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Flunks on Fish

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Flunks on Fish

Federal Court Finds Forest Service Failed to Evaluate Impacts on Fish

Chris Frissell, Conservation and Science Director: 406-471-3167

John Kober, Executive Director: 503-915-6677

February 3, 2012.  

PORTLAND, OREGON.   A ruling released today by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit finds that approval of a 2004 regional forest plan covering 11.5 million acres and eleven national forests failed to adequately account for the adverse impacts of increased logging, roadbuilding and livestock grazing on a host of fish populations, many of which are in serious decline.

“This is a victory for California’s native fish communities as well as the majority of Californians that rely on water originating from streams on national forests in the Sierra Nevada,” said Dr. Chris Frissell, Director of Science and Conservation for Pacific Rivers Council.  “The fate of native fishes depends heavily on how national forests are managed, and if we do right by them, we’ll also be taking care of our water supplies”.

Legally, the agency is required to analyze its plan’s effects on fish species to the extent “reasonably possible.”   The Forest Service contended that it adequately analyzed the regional forest plan’s impacts on fish, including the nine that are protected under the Endangered Species Act.  The court was unconvinced, largely on the basis that more rigorous analysis was performed of prior such plans and because more thorough analysis was done on other species. 

“The agreed with us that the Forest Service shirked its duty to tell the public up front specifically how its large-scale plans will affect sensitive aquatic species,” said PRC’s attorney, Brian Gaffney, “This is one case where law, public policy and common sense are in agreement.” 

 “The timing of this decision couldn’t be better,” observed Mary Scurlock, a policy consultant for PRC, “The agency is just getting started forest plan revisions, and the court’s ruling means fish won’t get short shrift on the next go-round.” 

“PRC’s goal has always been to raise the bar for protection of fish and water, “ said Frissell, “Not to simply to stop projects.   We think those fuels management projects that don’t harm fish and water by building or reopening unnecessary or ill-designed roads, and that employ low-impact,  ‘light touch’ treatments and prescribed fire in near-stream areas, should generally move forward.”  

Note:  This ruling is also legally significant because it rejected the government’s claim that Pacific Rivers Council does not have the legal right to sue the Forest Service over approval of its regional management plan because no actual harm is caused until specific projects are implemented under the plan.  

The opinion can be accessed at: Opinion in Pacific Rivers Council v. USFS  (9th Circuit, February 3, 2012)