Environmental groups sue California State Parks over plan they say endangers protected wildlife

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — An environmental group and Native American tribe have challenged California’s approval of the Oceano Dunes habitat conservation plan, saying it will allow for the killing of federally protected wildlife.

The Center for Biological Diversity and the Northern Chumash Tribal Council argue that a habitat conservation plan and a final environmental impact report certified in May underpin State Parks’ application for an Endangered Species Act incidental take permit. Such permits authorize the harming, pursuit or killing of protected species within a project area.

Such take can stem from motor vehicle use.

In their lawsuit, filed Thursday, they ask a Sacramento County Superior Court judge to vacate the environmental report’s certification and block further project approvals until the state complies with the California Environmental Quality Act.

“This plan conserves off-roading, not habitat. It would be a complete disaster for California’s dune-dwelling wildlife and I’m astonished that the state rubber stamped it in the first place,” said Jeff Miller, a senior conservation advocate at the center, in a statement. “Oceano Dunes is a place for all Californians and a refuge for some of our most imperiled birds. Letting hobbyists degrade it for another 25 years based on a flawed environmental study is unthinkable.”

The California Department of State Parks and Recreation declined comment.

The project is in Pismo State Beach and Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area in San Luis Obispo County.

According to the groups, the project centers on the conservation and incidental take of species such as the California red-legged frog and least tern. The environmental report aims to minimize impacts on those species while preserving public access and motorized vehicle use within the park.

The groups contend the report failed to analyze how expanded vehicle access in certain areas would affect existing nonmotorized recreation.

The report considered alternatives, including a no-project option and reduced vehicle access, but rejected them. According to the lawsuit, each was dismissed because the project’s goals include preserving and expanding recreational opportunities while maximizing access to coastal camping and recreation.

“Several of the rejected alternatives are feasible and would fulfill a large number of the project objectives,” the groups say.

The plan runs afoul of other protections as well, they add.

According to the groups, the project centers on the conservation and incidental take of species such as the California red-legged frog and least tern. The environmental report aims to minimize impacts on those species while preserving public access and motorized vehicle use within the park.

The groups contend the report failed to analyze how expanded vehicle access in certain areas would affect existing nonmotorized recreation.

The groups further contend that State Parks failed to establish a proper baseline for the habitat conservation plan, as required by CEQA, and relied on an inaccurate “no project alternative” in its environmental report.

State Parks claimed having no project would fail to meet basic ESA compliance objectives. But the groups argue recent court decisions changed the calculus.

They pointed to a federal judge’s November decision about the western snowy plover. The court held that State Parks’ authorization of motorized vehicles at Oceano Dunes resulted in an unauthorized take. A judge in April ruled that off-road motor use in Oceano Dunes was forbidden without an incidental take permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

“Because respondents/defendants failed to revise and recirculate the EIR in light of this significant new information and changed circumstances, the FEIR does not contain a valid no project alternative,” the groups say.