Palila v. Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources (IV)
631 F. Supp. 787 (D. Haw. 1985)
Plaintiffs: Plaintiffs' Attorneys:
  1. Palila (Psittirostra bailleui), an endangered species
  2. Sierra Club
  3. National Audubon Society
  4. Hawai‘i Audubon Society
  5. Alan C. Ziegler, Division of Vertebrate Zoology, Bishop Museum, Honolulu, HI
  1. Michael R. Sherwood for Sierra Club
  2. Bill Hunt, Paul, Johnson & Alston, Honolulu, HI for Plaintiff
Defendants: Defendants Attorneys:
  1. Hawai‘i Dept. of Land and Natural Resources
  2. Susumu Ono, Chairman, Hawai‘i Board of Land and Natural Resources
  3. Sportsmen of Hawai‘i, Inc., Defendant-Intervenor (D-I)
  4. Hawai‘i Island Archery Club, D-I
  5. Hawai‘i Rifle Association, D-I
  6. Gerald Kang, D-I
  7. Kenneth Funai, D-I
  8. John Wong, D-I
  9. Irwin Kawano, D-I
  1. Corinne Watanabe, Atty. Gen.
  2. Edwin P. Watson, Deputy Atty. Gen.
  3. Katsuya Yamada, for Defendant-Intervenors
Court: United States District Court, District of Hawai‘i
Opinion by: Samuel King, District Judge
Other Jurists: Court Below:
  • N/A
 U.S. District Court, D. Hawai‘i
Key laws involved:
  • The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), 16 U.S.C. § 1531, et. seq.
Summary:
  1. In the court below (Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, 512 F. Supp. 1006 (D. Haw. 1981)), Plaintiffs were granted summary judgment requiring the Defendants to begin complete removal of feral sheep and goats from the endangered Palila’s critical habitat on Mauna Kea on the Island of Hawai‘i. Several hunters and hunting associations joined this action, and new evidence was presented. The evidence included 1) Department of Land and Natural Resource’s (DLNR) “Final Report” Ecology of Mouflon Sheep on Mauna Kea; 2) “Annual Variation in the Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat Response of the Palila,” a study published in The Auk, a Quarterly Journal of Ornithology; 3) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s “Draft Revised Palila Recovery Plan”; and 4) deposition testimony from the authors of these studies. This Court determined that genuine issues of material fact existed in light of the new studies and therefore denied Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.
  2. Defendants first argued that their actions did not constitute harm because the definition of “harm” under the ESA has narrowed to outlaw an act, which “actually kills or injures wildlife.” The Court, though, concluded that its finding in Palila I that “harm” includes “significant environmental modification or degradation which actually injures or kills wildlife” remained consistent with the current law.
  3. Defendant also argued changed conditions as to 1) the Palila population, 2) the mouflon sheep population within the habitat, 3) the extent of destruction of the habitat caused by the sheep, 4) the extent of the regeneration of the mamane-naio forest since the Palila I decision, and 5) whether complete removal of sheep is required or whether there can be some coexistence of sheep and Palila within the habitat.
  4. Evidence was presented indicating an increase in the Palila population to 1,876 individuals. Also, deposition testimony indicated that forest degradation depended on the density of sheep in the area, raising a dispute as to whether complete eradication was necessary. Based on this evidence and argument, the Court found that genuine issues of material fact existed as to the present definition of the critical habitat of the Palila and as to whether complete eradication of sheep was necessary.
  5. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was DENIED.