Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Forest Service, 820 F. Supp. 2d 1029

Background

ESA requires action agencies to ensure actions do not jeopardize listed species or destroy critical habitat and to consult when necessary.
2005 BiOp for MSO and RNR on SW forests imposed RPMs and an ITS, but FS admitted monitoring deficiencies and sought reinitiation in 2009; FWS began reinitiation in 2010.
CBD filed suit July 20, 2010 alleging FS monitoring failures, failure to reinitiate, and ESA violations; FWS later clarified reinitiation for all species in the 2005 BiOp.
FS reported monitoring only 20-25% of owl habitat during 2005-2007; CBD contends take limits may have been exceeded and decisions proceeded without adequate monitoring.
CBD seeks declaratory relief and preliminary injunctions: (a) halt Upper Beaver logging near MSO centers; (b) limit winter grazing for RNR take risk; (c) enjoin UBLP during reinitiated consultation.
Court grants relief, finding ongoing monitoring failures and potential violations justify interim measures pending completion of reinitiation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did FS's monitoring failures violate ESA §7(a)(1)/(a)(2)?	CBD contends monitoring is essential to conserve species and ensure no jeopardy or adverse modification.	FD argues monitoring shortfall due to resource limits and that sufficient action is ongoing under monitoring and site-specific reviews.	Yes, in part; monitoring deficiencies support ongoing ESA violations and need for interim relief.
Is declaratory relief appropriate despite reinitiation of consultation?	CBD seeks a declaratory judgment to govern FS actions until reinitiation completes and to prevent further violations.	FD argues mootness since consultation has begun; declaratory relief unnecessary.	Not moot; declaratory relief available to govern ongoing ESA compliance and ensure timely reinitiation.
Do grazing and logging projects violate §7(a)(2) and §7(d) requiring injunction?	Projects may cause take or irreversible commitments prior to full RPM implementation; injunction warranted.	No proven take beyond limits; projects have site-specific BiOps and reinitiation renders injunction unnecessary.	Yes for certain grazing during rattlesnake presence and for UBLP during reinitiation; injunction appropriate under 7(d)/institutionalized caution.
Is the relief sought by CBD appropriate and effective given ongoing consultation?	Interim relief curtails harmful activities and ensures RPMs can be implemented; not merely advisory.	Drastic measures are unnecessary and unavailable relief is insufficiently tailored to harms.	Yes; targeted preliminary injunctions are warranted to protect MSO and RNR during reinitiation.

Key Cases Cited

TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (U.S. 1978) (ESA balance in favor of endangered species; strict approach to §7 violations)
National Wildlife Federation v. NMFS, 422 F.3d 782 (9th Cir. 2005) (ESA injunction standards; high priority to endangered species)
Washington Toxics Coalition v. EPA, 413 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2005) (procedural/cease-use in environmental injunctions under ESA)
Forest Guardians v. Johanns, 450 F.3d 455 (9th Cir. 2006) (declaratory relief viable where ongoing ESA violations exist post-reinitiation)
Pacific Rivers Council v. Thomas, 30 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 1994) (injunctive relief appropriate to protect endangered species during ESA processes)
Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Forest Serv., 82 F. Supp. 2d 1070 (D. Ariz. 2000) (mootness and reinitiation limits on declaratory relief considerations)
Silver v. Babbitt, 924 F. Supp. 976 (D. Ariz. 1995) (per se irreversible commitment under 7(d) during consultation)
Forest Guardians v. Johanns, 450 F.3d 455 (9th Cir. 2006) (reiterated authority to grant declaratory relief to enforce ESA compliance)
Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Forest Serv. (reinitiation discussion), 82 F. Supp. 2d 1070 (D. Ariz. 2000) (reinitiation considerations and meaningful relief)