The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires a comprehensive river management plan for eight rivers and creeks in southern California that Congress designated under the Act in 2009. The law requires completion of river plans within three years of designation. The rivers flow through national forest and BLM lands. A complaint was filed March 27.
The North Fork of the San Jacinto River, for example, runs through lands managed by the San Bernardino National Forest and provides habitat for the critically endangered mountain yellow-legged frog, as well as other animals including California spotted owls and rubber boas.
Animals that live along Palm Canyon Creek include the southwestern willow flycatcher and Peninsular bighorn sheep. “We’re concerned that by not having a comprehensive management plan for this wild creek that the resources could degrade over time,” she said.
The complaint asks for “a permanent injunction, to prepare a Management Plan … by a date certain.” Seems like a good candidate for a settlement, no?
Funny, I’ve never found a problem or issue with either North Fork of the San Jacinto River (which is mainly uninhabited area) or Palm Canyon Creek area (which is mostly owned by the Indian Reservation). But as to your -> “Seems like a good candidate for a settlement, no?”
I’d say the Center for Biological Diversity has a few $200,000+ a year annual salaries to maintain.
Will the injunction stop firefighting activities? Road maintenance? Special Use Permits? Prescribed fires?
Yep, go right ahead and ban all USFS activities. Let whatever happens, happen.
My point was actually that they don’t seem to be enjoining any projects (none were even mentioned in the complaint). The exact request for relief in the complaint was: “Order the Forest Service, through a permanent injunction, to prepare a Management Plan…” (That’s not the way we are used to seeing the term “injunction” used, but it can mean “compel” action.)