Judge grants order barring logging in 'Hole in the Headwaters'

  • Discuss Comment, Blog about
  • Print Friendly and PDF

SAN FRANCISCO - A judge on Monday barred the Pacific Lumber Co. from using huge helicopters to pluck trees from private land surrounded by the Headwaters Forest Reserve.

The Sierra Club and another group sued to block the logging plan for ''the hole in the Headwaters,'' a 705-acre parcel that Pacific Lumber got last year as part of the $480 million deal to create the new preserve.

Judge Quentin Kopp, who heard one day of arguments in Eureka earlier this month, issued a temporary restraining order pending a full trial later this summer. He said ''irreparable injury will occur to the public interest'' if the area is logged without first exploring the environmentalists' complaints.

Kopp also ordered the Sierra Club and the Garberville-based Environmental Protection Information Center to post a $250,000 bond against losses Pacific Lumber says it will suffer if logging is delayed.

''It would appear that we have to pay it, but our lawyers are looking into it,'' said EPIC Executive Director Paul Mason. ''It's really shocking because the rest of the ruling is very much in our favor.''

''If the public had to post bond every time they wanted to stop someone from logging or polluting, that would have a chilling effect on the public's ability to enforce the law.''

Pacific Lumber had asked for a bond of $1 million or more. In a statement, the company said it was ''obviously disappointed with the ruling.''

''However, we are confident that we will prevail on the merits of the case during the upcoming trial,'' Pacific Lumber Chief Executive John Campbell said. ''Our inability to operate on this plan will result in hardship for the company and our employees, as the judge recognized in the his requirement that a bond be posted.''

Pacific Lumber had argued that it would lose about $8 million and have to lay off workers if it is not allowed to log the property.

Kopp acknowledged in his 19-page ruling that EPIC might not have the resources to pay the bond, but said the Sierra Club, with its ''vast financial resources,'' certainly does.

The ''Sierra Club must bear the burden as well as the benefit of its successful motion,'' Kopp wrote.

The contested area is about 250 miles north of San Francisco, near the northern edge of the lightly traveled 7,000-acre preserve created last year at a cost that added up to nearly six times the purchase of Alaska, in dollars adjusted for inflation.

Pacific Lumber's purchase of the 705 acres was little-noticed at the time. Its subsequent request to use helicopters, and thus avoid driving trucks across protected areas, was quickly approved on Feb. 11 by the California Department of Forestry.

Kopp said this change appeared to be ''substantial,'' not ''minor'' according to the law, and he strongly criticized the CDF for approving the helicopters without public review.

He also wrote that he was initially mystified by the fact that Pacific Lumber's documents about the environmental impact of the logging plan were submitted more than a month after the CDF had already approved it.

''The Court is no longer mystified,'' wrote Kopp, a maverick former state legislator known for his outspoken oratory in Sacramento.

''Apparently, CDF believes an administrative record is what it contrives it to be,'' he wrote.

In Pacific Lumber's statement, the company said it had ''made improvements to the harvest plan to increase protection for fish, wildlife and water quality.''

''We believe the changes that have been made provide the proper balance between sustainable timber harvesting, job preservation, and environmental protection,'' Campbell said.

The ruling sets the stage for a full, public trial over the approval of Pacific Lumber's logging plan, which EPIC lawyers argued was orchestrated by Gov. Gray Davis, a charge his office denied.

''A believer in orchestration might reasonably conclude CDF's actions were intentionally executed to prevent public exposure or comment,'' Kopp wrote. ''Although the Court makes no such findings now, pre-trial depositions could well be productive in that respect and in the public interest.''

Comments

Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.

Sign in to comment