Coho Dealt Setback
EPIC vows to continue battle against extinction

March 1, 2001


Without reaching the merits of the case, Judge Samuel Conti recently dismissed EPIC's federal lawsuit that was brought on behalf of the Coho Salmon. Our case alleged that logging operations authorized under the Forest Practice Rules cause harm to Coho Salmon and violate the Endangered Species Act (ESA). EPIC has amassed an enormous amount of evidence to support this claim, and vows to bring this information to light and continue our efforts to seek adequate protection for the Coho.

Judge Conti's January 22 ruling followed recently released reports that show Coho Salmon numbers declined even more severely this last season than in previous years-and those were years when only 5 to 10 percent of historical populations were estimated to return to their native streams. Leading a coalition of nineteen organizations and individuals, EPIC is supported in this lawsuit by the federal agency charged with protecting the Coho, the National Marine Fisheries Service, as well as a team of renowned scientists, biologists, foresters, attorneys, and other experts.

Relying on a recent controversial Supreme Court decision, Judge Conti ruled that EPIC's lawsuit is not “ripe” for review. The court's opinion concluded that “the [Forest Practice Rules] themselves do not create adverse effects that would traditionally qualify as harm,” and “do not command anyone to do anything or refrain from anything…they do not subject anyone to any civil or criminal liability; they create no legal rights or obligations.” The court went on to say that rather than challenging the Forest Practice Rules as a whole, “there is no reason why Plaintiffs' concerns cannot be presented in a site-specific challenge...”

The court's decision has a wide silver lining. The Department of Forestry has often posited that only logging companies themselves, not state regulators that approve logging operations, can be held to a violation of the ESA if fish and their habitat suffer. The court clearly thought otherwise, saying that it “fully agrees with” our view that agencies are legally liable for the impacts that are caused to species by the activities they authorize.

EPIC strongly believes harm to Coho Salmon from logging operations under the Forest Practice Rules is occurring at an extremely widespread scale, and that this, among other problems, makes it impossible for citizens to bring a federal lawsuit on every logging plan that causes such harm. EPIC further believes that these pervasive violations of the ESA can only be corrected if inherent deficiencies in the Forest Practice Rules are reversed.

EPIC and the other plaintiffs are currently reviewing our options to determine our next course of action. We remain determined to put an end to the massive water quality problems resulting from the Board of Forestry's inadequate Forest Practice Rules, and will maintain our constant vigilance and efforts to protect the wild Coho Salmon.


This article can be found online at www.wildcalifornia.org/publications/article-41