 |
| A View of Gilham Butte |
EPIC has been at the forefront of forestry reform in California for over a decade, working to ensure that state and federal agencies follow their mandate to uphold environmental laws and protect endangered species. EPIC has filed 42 lawsuits since 1983, challenging corporate timber practices and negligent governmental oversight, leading to temporary protection of the ancient forest, stronger implementation of environmental regulations, and reform of forestry policy. We often work in coalition with other organizations and local watershed groups to increase our voice and lessen financial costs. The following is a listing of the highlights of EPIC's litigation in 1998.
Coho
Salmon "Take" Litigation (Coho Salmon et al v. Pacific Lumber Company et al)
Under the Endangered Species Act, "take" (killing, harming, harassing or destroying habitat) of endangered or threatened species is generally prohibited. Although the coho (or silver) salmon was listed as threatened in our region on May 7, 1997, the National Marine Fisheries Service and California Department of Forestry have done almost nothing to implement the ESA's prohibition against habitat destruction. As a result, PL and other timber corporations have continued to degrade and destroy the last remaining streams where wild coho spawn and grow to maturity. Many of the creeks and rivers of Headwaters Forest still support a few wild coho, creating an even greater sense of urgency concerning this litigation. EPIC, along with Sierra Club and the Northcoast Environmental Center, filed a suit against Pacific Lumber alleging unlawful "take" of coho on January 23, 1998.
District Court Judge Patel issued a strong ruling, affirming our standing as conservation associations to bring an ESA challenge on behalf of our members and the coho salmon. This ruling adds to a body of case law protecting the tremendously important right of citizens and conservation organizations to seek enforcement of the ESA through the courts. However, with the recently approved HCP, PL was granted a permit to take coho and the future of the case is unknown.
The
"7(d)" Lawsuit (EPIC and Sierra Club v. Pacific Lumber Company et al)
During preparation of a Habitat Conservation Plan, a landowner engages in "consultation" with federal agencies over provisions of the plan. The agencies' consultation responsibilities are enumerated in Section 7 of the ESA ). Section 7(d) precludes agencies and parties with whom they consult from making "irretrievable commitments of resources" that preclude reasonable alternatives to projects that are subject to consultation. This provision of the ESA is intended to prevent federally permitted or funded activities from going forward during negotiations and prior to analysis of alternatives as required by law. Because an HCP is the central feature of an application for a federal permit to harm listed species, we argued that this provision should prevent permit applicants from liquidating important habitat during HCP preparation. Employing this legal argument, EPIC temporarily halted three logging plans on steep slopes in the Mattole and Bear Creek. This case has the potential to set a national precedent for strengthening the ESA.
Gilham Butte Lawsuit (EPIC and Friends of
Gilham Butte v CDF)
The highest point of the ridge line which divides the two largest watersheds
in Southern Humboldt, the Mattole and the South Fork of the Eel, is known
as Gilham Butte. This area is adjacent
to Humboldt Redwood State Park and an established "Old Growth Reserve" area
on the Bureau of Land Management holdings, but Eel River Sawmills currently
owns land that connects the two areas. The California Department of Forestry
approved three logging plans for the ancient douglas fir forests in the area
in 1997, and EPIC joined together with Friends of Gilham Butte to challenge
their faulty environmental analyses.
The
Simpson HCP Lawsuit (EPIC v Simpson Timber Company)
Simpson Timber Company was one of the first logging companies to receive
a Habitat Conservation Plan, and in 1992 was granted an "Incidental Take Permit"
to kill or otherwise "take" 100 northern spotted owls on their 383,100 acres
of land over the first 10 years of the 30 year HCP, with additional take to
be authorized in 2002. In issuing the permit, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
required that the logging practices allowed under the HCP be revisited if
any new species are listed as endangered or threatened and might be affected
by these prescriptions. Although both the marbled murrelet and coho salmon
have been listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, however,
the Fish and Wildlife Service has failed to take the appropriate action which
they themselves determined is necessary. EPIC filed suit in September, 1998
to compel the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Simpson Timber Company take
action to prevent further damage to coho salmon and marbled murrelet habitat.
