Attorney at Law
PO Box 4944
Berkeley, CA 94704
November 15, 1998
Bruce Halstead
USFWS
1125 16th Street, Room 209
Arcata, CA 95521-5582
John Munn
California Department of Forestry
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Pacific Lumber's Criminal Conduct as Grounds for Denial of Permits PRT-828950 and 1157 and SYP 96-002
Dear Mr. Halstead and Mr. Munn:
I am writing on behalf of the Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC) and the Sierra Club requesting that you deny the Pacific Lumber Company's (PL's) application for an Incidental Take Permit (PRT-828950 and 1157) on the grounds that PL does not meet the issuance criteria of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service as codified at 50 C.F.R. §§ 13.21 and 220.21 and 15 C.F.R. § 904.301.
All permits issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service must be consistent with the issuance criteria as laid out in 50 C.F.R. Part 13. 50 C.F.R. § 13.21 reads as follows:
(b) Upon receipt of a properly executed application for a permit, the Director shall issue the appropriate permit unless:
(1) The applicant has been assessed a civil penalty or convicted of any criminal provision of any statute or regulation relating to the activity for which the application is filed, if such assessment or conviction evidences a lack of responsibility.
As explained in detail below, PL has sustained criminal convictions relating to its forest practices that demonstrate a "lack of responsibility" and thereby render it ineligible to receive a permit under § 13.21.
PL's criminal logging also necessarily preclude it from receiving a permit from NMFS. NOAA's regulations regarding permit issuance (NMFS is an agency within NOAA) at 15 C.F.R. § 904.301(a) include the following provision:
The bases for an action to sanction or deny a permit are as follows:
(1) The commission of any offense prohibited by any statute administered by NOAA, including violation of any regulation promulgated...
NMFS regulations include additional criteria upon which denial of PL's permit is warranted at 50 C.F.R. § 220.21:
(b) The Director shall issue the appropriate permit unless-- ...(3) The applicant has failed to demonstrate a valid justification for the permit or a showing of responsibility... ...(5) The Director finds through further inquiry or investigation, or otherwise, that the applicant is not qualified.
As explained below, PL has committed offenses prohibited by statutes administered by NOAA (e.g. the Endangered Species Act) and through its criminal convictions and countless other violations of statutes and regulations has shown that it is "not qualified" and that it has failed to demonstrate "a showing of responsibility"necessary to receive a permit from NMFS.
PL's Criminal Logging
PL has been found violating the Forest Practice Rules (FPRs) well over 300 times since 1995. This includes almost 50 violations so far this year and more than 100 during 1997. In addition to these violations from the California Department of Forestry (CDF), PL has received 10 citations for criminal misdemeanors since 1996. Any claims by PL that such violations are a thing of the past is negated by PL's 5 criminal citations issued in 1998. The CDF issued a conditional operating license to the company for 1998 due to the volume and severity of these violations, and this license was recently suspended due to the continuance of illegal logging operations. PL has also been issued clean up and abatement orders from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, has trespassed and logged on State Park property, has destroyed protected osprey nests, and has been found civilly liable for violating the Endangered Species Act. Individually, any one of these violations could be grounds for permit denial; taken together, these violations mandate that FWS and NMFS deny PL's incidental take permit application. In light of PL's proven inability to lawfully carry out timber harvest operations, granting an incidental take permit to PL would be arbitrary and capricious, in violation of 50 C.F.R. §§ 13.21 and 220.21 and 15 C.F.R. § 904.301.
PL's Criminal Convictions
In July of 1997 PL was found guilty of 5 counts of FPR violations as a result of unlawful operations of THP 1-96-086. As a consequence, PL was placed on probation . On October 14, 1997, while on probation, PL was cited again when they overlogged on THP 1-93-068, but charges were dismissed at CDF's request with no effect on their probation. They were cited again on November 5, 1997 for 3 violations (THP 97-263), and then again on December 8, 1997 for 4 uncorrectable FPR violations (THP 1-95-185). On May 22, 1998, the Court found PL guilty on five of these counts (the other 2 were dismissed because they were carried out by PL's contractors rather than PL itself), and the company's probation was revoked. Judge Miles sentenced PL to 3 years probation in which they would be required to follow the provisions of their Stipulated Agreement for conditional license. PL refused the conditions of probation and paid a $13,000 fine instead. Related court documents for each of these convictions are attached as Exhibit A.
In July of 1998 PL was charged with 5 misdemeanor violations of the FPRs (THP 96-126). Then in October of 1998 the were cited three times for numerous uncorrectable violations which occurred on three logging plans. Charges on all four of these cases are currently pending.
In each of the criminal convictions cited above PL was found to have failed to carry out its legal responsibilities as a timber operator in California. Each conviction "evidences a lack of responsibility" under § 13.21 and is sufficient to preclude FWS from issuing an incidental take permit to PL.
PL's FPR Violations
In addition to its criminal convictions and citations, PL has been issued over 300 violations since 1995. PL's violations 1995, 1996, and 1997 are attached as Exhibit B. PL's violations from 1998 are attached as Exhibit C.
Water Quality and Sedimentation
Most of PL's violations were issued because the company failed to take erosion control measures or because operations were conducted in a manner that caused or increased the risk of landslides and mass wasting. Nearly ½ of the violations issued since 1995 have been under § 923 of the FPRs which governs road and landing construction use. These violations were issued due to improper construction or maintenance of roads and landings which threatened to harm or did actually cause harm to water quality.
Here is the approximate break down of violations of section 923 since 1995: 19 issued under § 923.2; 4 under § 923.3; 86 under § 923.4; and 19 under § 923.5. There were 7 issued under § 923.4(k), which requires that "action shall be taken to prevent failures of cut, fill, or sidecast slopes from discharging materials into watercourses or lakes in quantities deleterious to the quality or beneficial uses of water."
In at least 3 instances involving violations of § 923.4(k), CDF noticed problems at the particular area prior to failures occurring and specifically directed PL to take measures to prevent them. In each case PL ignored CDF's requests. One example among many is illustrative: On Dec. 9, 1997, CDF discovered a landslide was causing a fill failure to begin. CDF directed them to hire a geologist and to take action to prevent additional failure. On March 25, 1998, CDF reinspected the area only to find "no action had been taken to prevent the additional failure of this fill. The failure has progressed to the point where the road is no longer passable by vehicles and had been blocked off. A bypass road has been in use, which passes above the failed road. This road is also at risk for failure." (THP 1-96-406) See Exhibit C.
In each of the violations mentioned above, PL's actions or inactions resulted in actual or potential impacts on water quality. Such increased sedimentation as a result of PL's violations is detrimental to the survival and recovery of anadromous fish inhabiting the streams in or downstream from PL's land. Sometimes PL's violations have had impact far more reaching than just on water quality.
On January 1, 1997, a landslide originating on PL land tore through the town of Stafford, destroying 7 homes. The landslide originated in the area of THP 1-91-036. Prior to plan approval, CDF inspector Ernie Rohl expressed major concerns with the proposal to construct layout in the extremely steep, greater than 65% slope areas. Following major contention, PL relented and agreed not to construct the layouts. CDF then approved the plan. PL constructed layouts in the area anyway and a massive slide resulted. CDF issued PL multiple other violations on that plan:
§ 923.2(p) LTO failed to install waterbreaks on non-permanent road that did not have adequate drainage
§ 923.5(a) LTO "deposited an excessive amount of waste fill on slopes greater than 65%"
§ 923.5(f)(4) Excessive waste fill "extends more than 20 feet downslope & has not been treated to aid soil stability"
§ 1035.3(d) Constructed layout in an excluded area. Failure to comply with THP
§ 914.2(f)(3) Tractor operated on areas shown as a high erosion hazard area
§ 923.4 Corrective work for cleaning ditches on appurtenant road not completed
§ 4585 Failure to submit work completion/stocking report. Debris slide also found
§ 1090.12 Drainage pipe wiped out by debris slide still not replaced after being noted 2 ½ months before
§ 914.6 Waterbreaks not in compliance with contraction standards and spacing
§ 923.4(d) A 12 inch culvert crushed and plugged
The violations issued for THP 1-91-036 are attached as Exhibit D.
PL's violations have also resulted in negative impacts to water quality in the North Fork Elk River. On September 23, 1997, the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board issued Cleanup and Abatement Order No. 97-115, "requiring the cleanup and abatement of soil and organic debris which discharged and threatens to discharge to the N. Fk Elk River and its tributaries from timber harvest activities under plan 1-94-360 HUM."... "The degradation was due to the discharge of earthen material and organic debris from multiple landslides observed from aerial and on-the-ground inspections. The Regional Water Board staff observed approximately 1000 feet of Class II stream...which was filled with soil and organic debris. The soil and organic debris extended from the Class II watercourse to the N. Fk Elk River. The landslide debris originated from a midslope truck road used for harvesting timber. Another Class II watercourse tributary to the N. Fk Elk River...was filled with soil and organic debris originating from a failed landing used during timber harvesting." The Abatement Order is attached as Exhibit E.
CDF issued multiple violations on this same THP (1-94-360):
§ 923.5(f) Unstable soil sidecast along landing face on slope >65%.
§ 916.3 Several hundred cubic yards slide into N Fk Elk.
§ 916.4(c) Crossing not pulled, failed.
§ 916.3 Material then allowed to pass into river in amounts damaging to water quality.
§ 923.4(k) 1000 ft long mudflow into N Fk Elk from landing failure at site PL was told to fix.
§ 923.4(k) Slide into a tributary of N Fk Elk along a temporary road.
§ 923.4(k) Another slide into a tributary of N Fk Elk along a temporary road.
§ 916.4(c) Did not remove a temporary culvert per the THP before winter period.
§ 1035.3(d) Inadequate drainage & maintenance caused fill failure. All other work finished 1 year before except road work.
§ 1035.3(d) Killed osprey nest tree; inadequate waterbreaks; notes slide & other places where mitigation did not stop failure.
These violations are attached as Exhibit F.
PL appealed this Abatement Order, and Water Quality subsequently issued Cleanup and Abatement Order No. 98-100 for the N. Fk Elk River (on September 22, 1998), "requiring (PL) to abate the effects of their increased sediment discharges to the N. Fk Elk River on downstream water users." The order stems from the damage that was addressed in Order 97-115, and also, "the discharge of earthen materials and organic debris to the N. Fk Elk River and its tributaries" from 4 other THPs in the N. Fk Elk where 2 slides and 2 road failures were found.
The Abatement Order continues, "Many of the residents indicated significant changes in water quality since 1993...Residents have also reported significant changes in stream morphology including the filling of pools in the stream channel with sediment resulting in increased flood frequency and duration. Long time residents of the N. Fk. Elk River reported that the only historic periods of major flooding over the county bridge occurred during the winters of 1955, 1964, 1974 and 1986. More recently, however, they reported that major floods have been observed during the winters of 1995, 1996 and 1997;"
Water Quality specifically referred to PL's violations as a cause of the excessive sediment discharge.
"From Jan 1995 through August, 1998, the CDF issued 51 violations of the Forest Practice Rules Sections 914.2, 914,6, 916.3, 916.4, 916.7, 917.3, 923.1, 923.4, 923.5, 923.6, 923.8, 1035(d) to the dischargers for timber harvest operations within the N. Fk Elk River. These violations of the CA Forest Practice Rules resulted in the discharge and/or threatened discharge of soil to the N. Fk Elk River and its tributaries and are violations and/or threatened violations of the waste discharge prohibitions contained in the Water Quality Control Plan for the N. Coast Region." ..."The discharges described above have caused and permitted excess sediment to enter the N. Fk. Elk River and its tributaries. Excess fine sediment has been shown to detrimentally affect spawning gravel fro fish and reducing survival from egg to emergence..."
This Abatement order is attached as Exhibit G. 14 THPs in the N. Fork were found to have violations since 1995.
PL's problems with Water Quality have not been limited to the North Fork Elk River. A Water Quality request for work plan for sediment problems in Freshwater is attached as Exhibit H.
PL's Freshwater Rock Quarry has also been subject to attention from Water Quality. On September 23, 1997 the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, pursuant to section 13267(b) of the CA Water Code, instructed PL to prepare a slope stabilization workplan for the quarry site in Freshwater to comply with the NPDES water pollution control and prevention plan. This resulted from an inspection of the quarry by staff, who found the quarry "is located at the head of a large slide feature" that is "approximately 3,000 feet long and extends from the quarry site down to the South Fork Freshwater Creek." They found that "Large stockpiles of spoils from the quarry have been placed at the head of the slide, loading the slide mass with additional weight which may have helped trigger recent movement." ... "The sidecast spoils have failed in close proximity to a Class II watercourse. Stockpiling spoils at this location has resulted in the discharge or threatened discharge of sediment to S. Fk Freshwater Ck." Poor drainage at the quarry site and along the access road has concentrated storm water runoff and resulted in rill and gully erosion that extend downslope from the Camp 12 road where it discharges sediment to the headwater of S. Fk. Freshwater Ck."
This order from Water Quality is attached as Exhibit I.
Winter Operations
PL has been caught violating the FPRs habitually with regard to their winter operations. These violations are so commonplace that CDF has twice changed the regulatory language governing winter operations in an attempt to prevent further violations by PL. A quote from a CDF inspector highlights this: "After a series of high level meetings, open forums, discussions, etc, we still are having problems with compliance with winter rules on this ownership as they relate to winter hauling and sediment transport into watercourses. New language has been developed, which is supposed to be used in all new plans (for) ScoPac/PL. This language appears adequate on the face, but it is common to find that violations occur and the cessation of trucking only occurs when CDF arrives on site and points out sedimentation of Class III and Class II watercourses. The LTO's are quick to terminate operations when notified of the violations, but it is my growing experience that the cessation of hauling depends on CDF's presence on site, not through monitoring by LTO's...Using my personal experience as my guide, I would resist all proposed winter operations on this ownership due to the high incidence of road related violations noted on active inspections." 1-96-574, PHI Report, E. Rohl, CDF Forester. See Exhibit J.
PL has repeatedly been found hauling when conditions are adverse for water quality, and one time agency officials even observed them towing loaded log trucks up hills with other log trucks because it was too wet for them to get traction. Elmir Dudik, Water Quality, stated, "On two occasions at this point (WQ-1), a steep pitch of the appurtenant haul road, loaded logging trucks were witnessed having to be towed up by an unloaded logging truck and a log/front end loader." Jim Falls, DMG, wrote on the same incident "Migration of fines into watercourses appears to be a problem in this drainage. At location G4, the Class II watercourse was observed flowing moderately turbid at the time of the site visit. . .The watercourse was flowing clear above the roadway." See Exhibit K.
Overlogging
Many of PL's violations stem from their seeming inability to stay within THP boundaries. PL clearcut 500 feet of a stream buffer on a Class II tributary to Freshwater and overlogged 800 feet of the stream buffer to Freshwater Creek itself, a coho spawning stream, during operations of THP 1-97-004. The CDF inspector warned them in October, 1997 that the markings were confusing in that area and issued a report which instructed them to take efforts to make it clear to the faller. Predictably, this was not done and "this resulted in approximately 500 feet of Class II WLPZ with all but a few trees removed" (CDF Inspection Report, October 5, 1998). This removed all of the shadecanopy for this stretch of the Class II, and for a portion of a Class I at their confluence." The company deliberately concealed this violation from the CDF until the trees were bucked, yarded and hauled to the mill. See Exhibit L.
There have been countless other areas where PL has overlogged or logged outside THP boundaries. These include, but are not limited to, THPs 1-96-222, 1-93-068 and 1-94-376. (See Exhibit M) During operations of THP 1-96-035, PL logged outside the THP boundary which "effectively extend(ed) the clearcut to the watercourse" (CDF Inspection Report, 11/7/96). During salvage logging operations under 94EX-254, the company logged over half of the standing volume of trees, which is more than 5 times more than allowed under the law. See Exhibit B.
This year PL has been caught overlogging in watercourse areas on two other THPs. On 1-98-075, they cut "trees that were not designated for harvest in the plan. One of the...fallers felled a number of trees within an approximate 300 foot section of Class II WLPZ in Unit #3, of the plan, that were not marked for cutting with blue paint as specified." See Exhibit C.
On 1-97-212, the THP prescribed retaining 100 square feet basal area per acre in the WLPZ. Upon inspecting the area, CDF found the area was overlogged by these standards, and that only about 75 square feet basal area remained in the stream buffer. See Exhibit C.
In October, 1994, PL logged an old growth redwood tree that was located on Redwood State Park land. The tree was identified by State Park personnel during the inspection of a THP in the area, and he stressed that this tree was on State Park property and should not be logged. PL and State Parks settled for $180,000. See Exhibit N.
Wildlife
PL seeks permits from FWS and NMFS relating to protected wildlife. PL's violations of those parts of the FPRs dealing with wildlife demonstrate PL's "lack of responsibility" in this area.
PL burned and destroyed an osprey nest tree during site preparation work under THP 1-94-360. CDF issued a §1035.3(d) violation on August 18, 1996. In 1998, for a logging plan in the same area, PL misleadingly reported that there were active osprey trees in the watershed without revealing the violations. In the Preharvest Inspection report, the CDF Forester stated, "The RPF has provided incorrect information regarding osprey in this plan. Under Item #32, osprey discussion states 'a known Osprey nest site and perch trees were located, documented, and given protection.' The RPF should check the inspection record for 94-360, where he would find that four identified osprey trees were burned by the landowner during site preparation.. Two of those trees, one actively used by a nesting pair that season, were completely destroyed. The landowner was cited and was required to construct four replacement nest platforms. The status of these trees is unknown. Unless the RPF believes this treatment constitutes 'protection', he should revise his discussion of and maps for osprey." (March 23, 1998, THP 98-001, p. 8). See Exhibits F (THP 1-94-360), and O (THP 1-98-001).
During the marbled murrelet consultation for THP 1-97-112, the Department of Fish and Game requested survey data from two stations located near the plan area. PL submitted survey forms, which included no murrelet detections. There were two other surveys conducted, however, for which the company neglected to submit forms. These two surveys happened to have 25 detections, including some with occupied behavior. When this was discovered PL was forced to withdraw the plan. See Exhibit P.
During operations on THP 1-97-172, which is next to Grizzly Creek State Park, PL was found to have operated heavy equipment inside a protective buffer area that was being surveyed for the endangered seabird. CDF issued 2 violations of the FPRs on this THP. See Exhibit Q.
The Spotted Owl figures prominently on the list of protected species harmed by PL's unlawful acts, and DFG recently determined that illegal operations on two logging plans caused a "take" of Spotted Owls. These Spotted Owls lived at this site for the past several years and they have consistently reproduced every year at these locations. The DFG stated, "These two THPs did incorporate the NSORP (Northern Spotted Owl Resource Plan) as enforceable under the THP. However, the THPs were not appropriately implemented. Therefore, it is likely "take", as defined by Section 919.10 (a) and (b), Title 14 CCR, has occurred." See Exhibit R.
On one of these logging plans, 1-97-004, PL harmed and harassed a spotted owl pair when they clearcut a large area that extends up to 185 feet of their nest site in the Freshwater Ck watershed. DFG stated "We witnessed clear-cut harvesting within the 1,000 foot zone of both the 1998 activity center (X) and the 1998 nest site (Y) where roosting habitat should have been maintained. During our October 13, 1998 review, we measured the distance from the 1998 activity center (X) to the edge of the clear-cut and found the distance to be 185 feet. Consequently, this confirmed (1) operations had occurred within 500 feet of an activity center (X), (2) unauthorized operations had occurred within 1,000 feet of an activity center during the breeding season (X and Y) based on the work schedule ScoPac gave to CDF and (3) roosting structure was not maintained within 1,000 feet of an activity center (X and Y). The criteria for functional roosting habitat is to maintain both an average 60% canopy in the 1,000-foot zone and to maintain a stand of trees averaging 11-inch diameter base height (dbh) to provide protection from predators and storms." Operations on 1-98-259, which is located in the vicinity and also includes areas that are within 500 feet of one of these nest sites, also encroached into the 1,000 foot protective buffer, when the company overlogged inside this buffer and brought heavy equipment into close vicinity of the nest tree. See Exhibit R.
In another recent incident PL used heavy equipment on a road immediately adjacent to a 1998 spotted owl nest tree, and "reconditioned" about 1000 feet of a road within 500' of the nest on THP 1-95-225. The FWS stated "These actions may have resulted in damage to the structural integrity of spotted owl habitat within 500' of the nest." See Exhibit R.
In addition to the violations related to water quality discussed above, PL has committed many other illegal acts which directly harmed Coho salmon. The company violated Section 1603 of the Fish and Game Code and the Water Quality Basin Plan during operations on THPs 1-97-401 and 1-97-428 when they did not install culverts at five locations that cross fish bearing streams and instead drove logging equipment, including fully loaded dump trucks, directly through the streams many times at each of these locations. The CDF Biologist reported that "the multiple crossings by pickups and other equipment at the identified crossings has resulted in a significant adverse effect to salmonid habitat and other aquatic life in Harmonica Creek, Pullen Creek and Bear River, and a significant adverse cumulative effect to Bear River." The CDF Biologist further stated that "The measures employed by the project proponent at the crossings consisted of wet fords and are well below any standard that would have been permitted by this reviewer. Had such a proposal been submitted to this reviewer a finding of significant adverse effect would have been made. This determination is based on several factors, including: (1) the wet fords may have resulted in the direct mortality of a listed species, coho salmon, and therefore triggered a "may effect" determination by the Department; (2) the wet fords would have (and did) resulted in significant adverse effects to salmonid habitat and other aquatic life; and (3) this increased sediment loading would have also resulted in significant adverse cumulative effects to Bear River, a system which has been acknowledged to have an existing significant adverse cumulative effects due to excessive sedimentation and lethal water temperatures." See Exhibit S.
The company has also presented incorrect and misleading statements that resulted in severe damage to coho habitat. When the company submitted THP 1-96-507 to the CDF, PL's forester submitted and certified as fact that the stream flowing through the area did not contain fish or fish habitat. It was only after the company logged a great deal of canopy over the stream that agencies discovered that this was an inaccurate and materially misleading statement, and that the stream actually supports coho salmon and other fish. See Exhibit T.
Violations of the Endangered Species Act
In November of 1992, PL cut occupied marbled murrelet habitat in Owl Creek. EPIC brought a citizen suit under the Endangered Species Act. After an 8-day trial the District Court found that Pacific Lumber's continued logging would cause take in violation of the ESA and enjoined further logging on the THP. The Owl Creek case provides ample evidence that PL suffers from a "lack of responsibility" in carrying out its operations in endangered species habitat. Most telling is the Judge's findings of the unreliability of PL's survey efforts:
Additionally, there is sufficient evidence in the record for the court to find that Pacific Lumber administered its marbled murrelet surveys at THP-237 with the intent to either avoid detecting marbled murrelets or, to the extent that making detections could not be helped, to grossly understate the marbled murrelets' presence in THP-237.
The District Court's findings were upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The District Court and 9th Circuit opinions are attached as Exhibit U.
Suspension of Timber Operating License
In December of 1997, CDF announced they would not renew Pacific Lumber's license to log due to the number and severity of the violations they had incurred. CDF required the company sign a Stipulated Agreement, and a conditional license was issued to the company for the year. See Exhibit V. This license was contingent upon the company following the law, yet PL continued to conduct criminal logging operations. On November 9, 1998, after PL was found violating the FPRs almost 50 times and received four citations, CDF suspended the company's license for the remainder of the year. In so doing CDF stated: "This Memorandum documents violations demonstrating the basis for at least two more complaints, as well as, violations involving gross negligence and willful disregard for the Forest Practices Act and the Forest Practice Rules." (Emphasis added) See Exhibit W. If willful disregard for the Forest Practices Act and Forest Practice Rules does not rise to the level of showing "lack of responsibility" it is hard to imagine what could.
Conclusion
Pacific Lumber's criminal logging operations detailed above are but a small sampling of the innumerable violations of State and Federal laws and regulations which the company routinely flaunts. PL now seeks a 50-year permit to kill endangered species. To be granted this privilege, PL must comply with all applicable laws. The terms of the proposed permit require monitoring and mitigation by PL. Yet PL's 300 plus FPR violations show it is incapable of carrying out its legally required mitigation on individual THPs, much less the entirety of its ownership. The permit sought also requires that PL conduct accurate surveys for protected species. The Owl Creek case shows that PL cannot be trusted to perform such surveys honestly or accurately. The recent spotted owl incidents show that even when species locations are well established, PL cannot be trusted to protect the necessary buffers. PL's HCP purports to improve stream conditions on its landholdings. At the same time, half of PL's violations resulted or potentially resulted in impairment of stream conditions.
PL's history of illegal logging clearly show that PL does not meet the issuance criteria of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service as codified at 50 C.F.R. §§ 13.21 and 220.21 and 15 C.F.R. § 904.301. As such, PL's application for an incidental take permit must be denied.
Sincerely,
Brendan R. Cummings
Attorney for EPIC and Sierra Club
