June 7, 2004

P R E S S   R E L E A S E

For more information -
Andy Stahl, FSEEE (541) 484-2692

On Friday, June 4, federal district court judge Dale S. Fischer ruled in favor of Angeles National Forest whistleblower Bob Libershal in his and FSEEE’s lawsuit against the Forest Service challenging the legality of permitting OHV use.

Libershal, a 25–year Forest Service employee, blew the whistle in 2001 regarding Forest Service signs that opened a 17–mile stretch of the Santa Clara Divide Road to off–highway vehicle (OHV) use. Libershal removed the signs because the Angeles Forest Plan did not designate the road for OHV use, and when ordered to replace them, refused to do so. The Forest Service suspended Libershal for three days without pay for “insubordination.” Libershall and FSEEE brought suit claiming that the signs violated the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

In her opinion, Judge Fischer agreed with Libershal and FSEEE on all counts. Judge Fischer found that the Forest Service had “no ’explanation’ for the decision” to open the road to OHV use. She also found that opening the road to OHV use could threaten the rare Castilleja gleasonii, a sensitive paintbrush species found no where else in the world.

“Judge Fischer's decision vindicates Libershal completely,” said FSEEE Executive Director Andy Stahl. “Angeles National Forest leadership should be ashamed of itself for its illegal actions and retaliation against Libershal when he followed the law.”

In concluding her 40–page decision, Judge Fischer wrote:

In spite of its own regulations, USFS failed to make any determination of the environmental effects of opening the Disputed Road to OHV use before it did so. In fact, no record whatsoever exists of how the USFS opened the Disputed Road to OHV use — the OHV Signs simply appear. That fact alone entitled Plaintiffs to summary judgment.

Considering that a significant number of the world’s known populations of paintbrush live in close proximity to the Disputed Road and that USFS studies confirmed that OHV use is a potential threat to this sensitive plant’s continued survival, the USFS should have prepared at least an EA, if not a complete EIS, before opening the Disputed Road to OHV use.

Click here for the Court's full decision (1.5 Mb PDF file).