Contact: Robert Johns, 202-234-7181 ext.210,

California Gnatcatcher by Glen Tepke

(July 5, 2011) The California Condor and California Gnatcatcher are two birds that will benefit from a decision by a U.S. District Court judge ordering three federal agencies to provide better protections for 40 endangered species in four southern California national forests.

Judge Marilyn Hall Patel's decision was targeted at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the U.S.D.A. Forest Service (USFS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).  The forests subject to the decision are the Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres, and San Bernardino.

The judge’s order, responds to a lawsuit by five conservation groups — the Center for Biological Diversity, Los Padres ForestWatch, Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife and California Native Plant Society. It follows the court’s 2009 decision that found the agencies were in violation of the Endangered Species Act and ordered additional briefing on the appropriate remedy. The judge’s decision orders new protective measures to be developed and put in place for these four national forests within six months, including “incidental take (killings)” thresholds, mitigation measures, and monitoring and reporting requirements.

According to the judge, the USFS revised forest-management plans for these four national forests in 2005. FWS and NMFS provided reviews, called “biological opinions,” of the revised plans that failed to include required protective measures to minimize harm to already-imperiled plants and animals. The agencies also failed to include any mechanism to track the level of harm to endangered species, and did not establish limits on the amount of harm each species could withstand before wildlife agencies would be required to reinitiate their consultation on the forest-management plans.

The court asked for answers to 11 specific questions related to management of the forests, covering such topics as: planned actions or projects for the forests, land use data, harm to endangered species, and environmental analyses.

The judge also ordered FWS and NMFS to prepare incidental take statements that address 11 specific issues raised by the court, including: actions for which incidental take is permitted or exempted; the effect of ongoing activities on the forests that may result in loss or degradation of forests; and an estimate of the number of individual species likely to be taken.

While awaiting responses to those questions, the judge ordered the agencies to “…take all necessary measures to limit habitat degradation and minimize incidental take by reason of road, trail, waterway, recreational usage, including use of recreational vehicles, maintenance, construction work including work by contractors, and others with respect to the forest land.”