The district court judge sided with the environmental groups, finding that the Fish and Wildlife Service did not use the best available science for grizzly population size estimates in its biological opinion and that the Forest Service acted arbitrarily in relying on the analysis.
“Fish and Wildlife relied on a comprehensive study of grizzly population size and a well-accepted statistical method for projecting that population size forward. It also explained why the data plaintiffs and the district court relied on was ‘an over-simplification of population biology,'” the federal government said in its opening brief.
The Center for Biological Diversity and other green groups also won on their claims in district court that the road density in the project area violated the National Forest Management Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, but the government argued that the judge got those issues wrong, too.
“The Forest Service complied with NFMA’s requirement that the project be consistent with its Forest Plan,” the March 22 brief said. “The Forest Service explained at length how the project met, or improved upon, existing metrics relating to road density designed to ensure sufficient core habitat for grizzly bears.”
