ASHEVILLE, N.C.— In a major victory for communities and wildlife in North Carolina, a court has ruled that federal agencies violated the Endangered Species Act by relying on a faulty analysis when they created the controversial Nantahala-Pisgah Forest Plan. The court’s Tuesday decision prohibits the U.S. Forest Service from relying on the plan, which would have quintupled logging in the forests.

“This is a massive win for wildlife and for the millions of people who visit these cherished forests,” said Will Harlan, Southeast Director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The Forest Service’s aggressive and illegal logging plans completely ignored science and the public, who overwhelmingly support protecting these forests. This ruling is a dagger to the destructive forest plan and a lifeline for wildlife and communities. The Pisgah and Nantahala are two of the most popular and biologically diverse forests in the country, and they are worth far more standing than cut down.”

In 2024 conservation groups sued the Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over the revised forest plan, which proposed to dramatically increase logging, including in habitat for endangered forest bats. In Tuesday’s ruling the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina found that the agencies relied on incomplete and inaccurate information to downplay the plan’s harm to endangered species.

The court ruled that the agencies’ biological opinion was clearly flawed, writing in its decision that the agencies’ conclusions were “unexplained,” “unsupported,” “deficient,” and “of almost no value.” The court also found that since the biological opinion is unlawful, the forest plan is void until the agencies redo their analysis.

“The court’s decision confirms that the Forest Service unlawfully cut corners in its planning process, resulting in a Nantahala-Pisgah Forest Plan that pushed rare and engendered wildlife even closer to the brink of extinction. With the agencies’ reckless analysis thrown out, we can look toward creating a better, more protective Forest Plan that prioritizes the health of the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests and all the animals and communities that rely on them,” said Spencer Scheidt, staff attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center. “This ruling is a major victory for these incredible forests and sends a clear message that federal agencies are required to follow the law.”

The Southern Environmental Law Center filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, MountainTrue and Sierra Club.

"This ruling sends a clear message: The Endangered Species Act means what it says,” said Ben Prater, southeast program director for Defenders of Wildlife. “You cannot manage over a million acres of vitally important wildlife habitat and then wave away your obligation to recover imperiled species. The Nantahala and Pisgah deserve better. Today, the court agreed,”

The Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests span 1.1 million acres and attract more than 5 million annual visitors. They are also home to more than 350 species of conservation concern, including Eastern hellbenders, Carolina northern flying squirrels, Appalachian elktoe mussels, and four species of endangered bats.

“This ruling reveals what we knew when the faulty plan was released; that increased logging targets and other assumptions were unjustified by any reasonable planning process that actually followed the law,” said David Reid, national forests issue chair with the North Carolina Sierra Club. “It’s a win for all who cherish these threatened bats, and hope that our grandchildren will continue to marvel at them.”

The Nantahala-Pisgah Forest Plan faced overwhelming public opposition and a record-setting number of comments and objections. More than 37,000 people spoke out against the plan’s lack of protections for wildlife and water and its massive increases in logging, which would have hurt local economies that depend on recreation and tourism.

"A federal judge has now made it clear: the Forest Service violated the law and failed to protect endangered wildlife with its forest plan,” said Josh Kelly, resilient forests program director at MountainTrue. “This ruling is an important step toward a new plan that better stewards the land, relies on factual information, and has broad support.”