The following information is provided by NAFA from redistribution permission granted to this Club via the NAFA President, Brian Millsap ... Goshawk Endangered Species Listing Petition Denied The Center for Biological Diversity and 18 other environmental organizations had sued the Department of the Interior and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to force the listing of the northern goshawk in the US west of the 100th meridian as an endangered or threatened species. In a 36 page opinion, United States District Judge Helen J. Frye, US District Court for the District of Oregon, denied the petition on June 28, 2001, finding that "listing the northern goshawk in the contiguous United States ...is not warranted because available information does not indicate that this population is in danger of extinction or is likely to become so in the foreseeable future." The same attorney who sought to stop the peregrine harvest was the lead attorney for the plaintiffs in this case. The FWS legal team was lead by the same Department of Justice attorneys as well. This was the third case brought by the plaintiffs to attempt to list the goshawk. The previous two resulted in the FWS forming a status review team to determine on the basis of the "best scientific and commercial data available" whether the goshawk deserved to be listed. The FWS went though a second 90-day finding that the listing may be warranted. The FWS review team then completed a massive study of the available scientific data. This process resulted in an FWS finding that the listing was not warranted. The plaintiffs sued FWS on the basis that their conclusion was erroneous, arbitrary and capricious. Judge Frye's opinion gives a very complete summary picture of the present biological status of the goshawk. The plaintiffs alleged: 1. FWS reversed itself on a previous decision that the goshawk requires large areas of old-growth forest habitat; 2. That the administrative record did not support FWS's conclusion that it did not find evidence of a declining population for goshawks; 3. FWS's conclusion ignores that goshawk habitat and population has declined from historic levels; 4. FWS applied an improper legal standard to its listing decision; 5. FWS relied improperly on uncertain, future protections for the goshawk; 6. The listing process contained significant procedural flaws which render FWS's decision as arbitrary; 7. FWS violated its own policy by permitting non agency personnel to participate on the status review team; 8. FWS made the listing decision prior to completing its own scientific analysis; 9. FWS failed to decide on a biological standard; and, 10. FWS's peer review was largely useless. FWS refuted each of the plaintiffs' claims relying on the record of the review team's work. Judge Frye did an analysis of applicable law. She found the goshawk to be a "forest generalist," as opposed to a specialist, in its need for unbroken old-growth forest for its habitat. She analyzed each of the plaintiffs' contention with facts from the administrative record to find for FWS on each point. The analysis is very complete, and it is clear that she understood the issues and applicable law to come to her conclusions. There is abundant reference to scientific information, data, and even review of scientific literature throughout the opinion. Brian Walton and his work with others is quoted directly; studies by many other researchers are relied upon heavily. For the complete opinion, see: http://pacific.fws.gov/news/pdf/Frye_SJ_opinion.pdf For the goshawk status review report, see: http://pacific.fws.gov/news/pdf/gh_sr.pdf For FWS's "not warranted" finding, see: http://pacific.fws.gov/news/pdf/gh_find.pdfEddie B. Horvath, Falconer
Copyright 1996 Eddie B. Horvath, Director, CCWC/CCH
Last Update: 28 July 2001
