Green Fork THP Comments
Aerial image of the harvest area
To Whom It May Concern:
Green Fork THP consists of a 276-acre timber harvest which includes 238 acres of clearcuts. The post- harvest stocking for clearcut lands consist of and even-aged management with a 125-point count within 5-year post-harvest. The harvest area is located approximately two miles north of the community of White Pines and two miles northwest of Calaveras Big Trees State Park.
Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch (EPFW), a community-based organization headquartered in Calaveras County, has been monitoring and commenting on THPS in its region since 2000. Upon review of the Green Fork THP (4-23-00172-CAL), EPFW requests that CAL FIRE deny approval of this plan based upon the following deficiencies:
1. Failure to use appropriate scientific research to evaluate impacts, specifically water effects.
Water is arguably the most important resource of California's forested lands. Two thirds of the state's water is produced in the Sierra Nevada. The Mokelumne River, within whose large watershed the Green Fork THP is located, serves as the drinking water for many people, including the 1.2 million users in the East Bay MUD system. Therefore, what happens to the water in the Mokelumne is of crucial interest to both natural resources and humans. In order to determine if there is likely to be significant impact to this important resource, legitimate and appropriate research must be consulted or conducted if necessary for a meaningful harvest impact analysis. Unfortunately, it does not appear that this was done in the impacts analysis submitted with the Green Fork THP. Many legitimate studies might have been referenced, including "A Scientific Basis for the Prediction of Cumulative Watershed Effects by The University of California Committee on Cumulative Watershed Effects. Also, there is, among the literature, a detailed and scholarly study on the Middle Fork of the Mokelumne River, which addresses the subject extensively. Frederick Euphrat's PhD dissertation on "Cumulative Impact Assessment and Mitigation for the Middle Fork of the Mokelumne River, Calaveras County, California" studied the very watershed impacted in the Green Fork THP. The following is some of Euphrat's discussion of just one element --increased peak flows and decreased low flows -- on the Middle Fork of the Mokelumne River:
For the Middle Fork of the Mokelumne, "Blanchard has already suggested that, for the period 1930 to 1960, total water yield increased. He attributed this to the removal of vegetation by timber harvesting and anticipated an increased water yield of 4 to 6 inches, or 20%." (Euphrat, 45)
Euphrat found that "the 20% increased yield that had occurred, ... according to Blanchard, continues still. What is notable, however, is the increased spread (heteroscedasticity) of the data; lows are lower and highs are higher...The increase in variation over time appears to be most marked beginning at water year 1971...[current Forest Practice Rules began in 1972] [O]ver this period of time, the streams are producing both more water in wet years, and less water in dry years. Interestingly, this effect of timber harvesting was a principal argument for conservation at the turn of the century, and a reason for which the reservation of forest area was justified by the fledgling Forest Service." (Euphrat, 46-47) Annual water balances [in the Middle Fork of the Mokelumne] show increasing heteroscedasticity over time, significant at the >95% level for all streams, and >99.5% level for the South and Middle Forks, based on a longer record. The increased absolute value of residuals suggests that, over this period of time, the streams are producing both more water in the wet years, and less water in the dry years.
Large Storms: Total quick runoff from storms has gotten larger over the period 1941-1990 (the period of record for this study), with significance at the 99% level or greater. Storm temperature and rainfall intensity are not correlated with this time period, although road mileage and harvested area are. Increased peak flows may decrease streambank stability, and are a serious geomorphic concern in linear, unstable alluvial basins such as Forest Creek.
Low Flows: Lowest daily and weekly flows are decreasing with time, significant on Forest Creek at the 95% level and on the South Fork at the 99.99% level. This impact was attributed to increased storm runoff and aggradation effects in small streams, the latter both lowering net output and increasing evapotranspiration loss. Small streams appear to be most affected by and the least able to recover from this phenomenon. Lowered flows are important to riparian and aquatic habitats available in the streams of the lower Mokelumne watersheds.
Channel conditions: Small streams that were evaluated were moderately to severely aggraded. (Euphrat, 101)
Euphrat's "data show that runoff from large storms in the Mokelumne watershed has significantly increased over the period 1930-1980, the period in which these basins experienced timber harvesting and roadbuilding activities. Because the effect does not appear to be flattening over time, the change in runoff characteristics may well be tied to timber harvesting as well as road densities. Timber harvesting affects runoff by its reduction of vegetation cover and subsequent impacts on the snowpack. It may be fair to say that more recent timber harvesting, affecting annually and cumulatively greater and greater areas, combined with roads, skid trails, and tree removal, is creating progressively greater runoffs from large storms, with the largest storms displaying the greatest increase of runoff." (Euphrat, 56)
The increased runoff and high significance in the extreme portions of this storm population show that peak flow changes in the mid-elevation Mokelumne are greatest during extreme events. This could be due to sediment additions from roads, from the change in runoff createdby forest openings, or from the road surfaces themselves. The warm rain-on-snow storms, the topography, and the dense road network all make the Sierra different from other regions. Clearly, more research is needed in this region, on both control and treated watersheds, to determine the relative contribution of each of these variables to peak runoff events and sediment transport. (Euphrat, 57)
The weekly low-flow data from Forest Creek and the South Fork Mokelumne showed decreases over time significant at the 95% level." (Euphrat, 60)
The lowering of the lowest weekly flows, significant on Forest Creek at the 95% level, and on the South Fork at the 99.99% level, is important in terms of the riparian and aquatic habitats available in the streams of the lower Mokelumne watersheds. For fish and other aquatic species, decreased low flows reduce available living area and increase temperatures through lack of dilution. For riparian species, low flows change habitat close to stream channels and allow more species that cannot tolerate perennial flooding to live adjacent to the stream. For people and animals, it restricts the amount of water available for consumption and lowers its quality, through heat and associated eutrophication. (Euphrat, 60)
Observation of stream channels, as was conducted in the watershed survey, suggested that low summer flows in smaller channels are more discontinuous now than under original conditions...It appeared that a small stream, unprotected, would rapidly move from perennial to ephemeral, or from Class I to Class III under California Department of Forestry definitions. (Euphrat, 60-61)
Long-term fishery effects: Low flows are becoming lower, leading to elevated water temperatures...Compound effects on Forest Creek and parts of the Middle Fork are also significantly changing the shape of the stream channel and its banks.
Significant effect: Elimination of anadromous fishery; severe reduction of local cold- water fishery. (Euphrat, 95)
The issue of peak flow volumes is put forth as a single example of the incomplete disclosure of facts in the Green Fork THP. More information could be presented by EPFW around this subject, but it is not really the duty of the commenter to discover the science and evidence that is readily available to experts in the field. Rather, it should be the commenter's duty to respond to a full disclosure of such evidence in the public record. EPFW is concerned that the information presented in the THPs too often serves simply as an argument to further the ends of the timber operator by putting forth only that information which may further their intentions. That is understandable given their vested interest, but then it falls to CAL FIRE to present a more fully balanced set of substantial evidence from which a fair decision can be drawn. As put forth in the State CEQA Guidelines,
CEQA does not require technical perfection in an EIR, but rather adequacy, completeness, and a good-faith effort at full disclosure. A court does not pass upon the correctness of an EIR's environmental conclusions, but only determines if the EIR is sufficient as an informational document. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692)
As the Green Fork THP is not a document with full disclosure, CAL FIRE must reject the plan until such full disclosure has been made for all sections and the public has had a chance to make substantive comment based on true "substantial evidence in the record." Without this, the THP process subverts another basic principle of the CEQA process, which is "to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action. (People ex rel. Department of Public Works v. Bosio, 47 Cal. App. 3d 495.)”
2. Failure to meet legal standards of review and analysis.
EPFW has been active in monitoring and commenting on THPS in the Mokelumne River watershed and Sierra Nevada for more than twenty years. During that time, the Director of CAL FIRE has consistently approved THPs submitted by SPI without requiring significant alterations based on the extensive, substantiated comments filed. During this time, the number of even-aged management acres harvested and filed to be harvested has continued to grow without adequate analysis by CAL FIRE as to the potential or current significant impacts from such approval.
CAL FIRE has been given a serious role to serve as lead agency on THPs, documents that have been granted functional equivalency status for the CEQA process. CAL FIRE has been given clear direction on their mandate in that regard through the Z'Berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973 (FPA).
(c) The Legislature thus declares that it is the policy of this state to encourage prudent and responsible forest resource management calculated to serve the public's need for timber and other forest products, while giving consideration to the public's need for watershed protection, fisheries and wildlife, and recreational opportunities alike in this and future generations....
4513. Intent of Legislature. It is the intent of the Legislature to create and maintain an effective and comprehensive system of regulation and use of all timberlands so as to assure that: (a) Where feasible, the productivity of timberlands is restored, enhanced, and maintained. (b) The goal of maximum sustained production of high-quality timber products is achieved while giving consideration to values relating to recreation, watershed, wildlife, range and forage, fisheries, regional economic vitality, employment, and aesthetic enjoyment.
This direction is clarified in the Forest Practice Rules (FPR) promulgated for the FPA's implementation:
897b) In determining whether a THP conforms to the intent of the Act, the Director shall be guided by the following principles:
(1) The goal of forest management on a specific ownership shall be the production or maintenance of forests which are healthy and naturally diverse, with a mixture of trees and under-story plants, in which trees are grown primarily for the production of high-quality timber products and which meet the following objectives:
A. Achieve a balance between growth and harvest over time consistent with
the harvesting methods within the rules of the Board.
B. Maintain functional wildlife habitat in sufficient condition for continued
use by the existing wildlife community within the planning watershed.
C. Retain or recruit late and diverse seral stage habitat components for wildlife concentrated in the watercourse and lake zones and as appropriate to provide for functional connectivity between habitats.
D. Maintain growing stock, genetic diversity, and soil productivity.
(2) Individual THPS shall be considered in the context of the larger forest and planning watershed in which they are located, so that biological diversity and watershed integrity are maintained within large planning units and adverse cumulative impacts, including impacts on the quality and beneficial uses of water are reduced.
EPFW believes that the Green Fork THP, like all the others upon which EPFW has commented, fails to meet the clear legal standards of review and analysis required in a CEQA-equivalent document and by the FPA, the enabling legislation for private lands timber harvest. This is a fundamental reason for which this plan must be denied.
CAL FIRE and the Board of Forestry are tasked along with analyzing and approving or rejecting THPS. Much of the FPA discusses timberlands and their productivity. However, while timber harvesting is clearly an important focus of the FPA, it is not the exclusive focus: the FPA also directly addresses the entire forest system, including forest resources. The January 5, 2006, Advice Regarding Board of Forestry's Regulatory Authority to Provide for the Restoration of Resources from the State Attorney General's Office delves into this issue in great depth and should be considered in its entirety when reviewing every THP. (This Board Advice document is appended to this comment letter)
Accordingly, it is the dual nature of the FPA, to protect the environment and to secure maximum sustained production of high-quality wood products, which permits the regulatory program under the FPA to function as functionally equivalent program under CEQA. CEQA requires a regulatory program to meet specific requirements in order to be certified as the functional equivalent of CEQA's EIR process. First, the enabling legislation for the program (in this case, the FPA) must include the "protection of the environment among its principal purposes," and contain "authority for the administering agency [in this case, the Board] to adopt rules and regulations for the protection of the environment." (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080.5, subd. (d)(1).) These rules and regulations must provide, among other things, that an activity cannot be approved if feasible alternatives or mitigation measures exist that would substantially lessen any adverse impacts of the activity on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080.5, subd. (d)(2)(A).) (p.6)
As stated above, the explicit language of the FPA requires that the Board balance timber production and protection and restoration of forest resources. However, the FPA does not require that this balance be affirmatively struck in favor of timber production or otherwise constrain the weight the Board may give to protection and restoration of other natural resource values provided by timberlands in the rules and regulations promulgated by the Board. Nor do CEQA, CESA or any other statute otherwise constrain the Board's discretion in this regard. Indeed, if anything, both CEQA and CESA assure that forest resources, including imperiled species and their habitat, be protected during timber operations and thus balance the Board's authority to weigh too heavily in favor of timber production. (Board Advice document, p. 8)
As clearly stated in the Board Advice document, CAL FIRE must require that an approved THP meet the standards of CEQA. EPFW feels that many of those standards are absent or inadequately fulfilled in Green Fork, as in other THPs EPFW has examined. It would take volumes to detail all the specific places in the THP where these standards are ignored or inadequately addressed (and previous hard work taken to point them out to CAL FIRE has been ignored). However, some will be evident in later comments within this letter. EPFW would be willing to document more of these failures in detail if CAL FIRE shows sincerity in addressing this glaring deficiency in its review and approval process.
These standards to which EPFW refers include ones such as these:
a. Each public agency is encouraged to develop and publish thresholds of significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects. A threshold of significance is an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect, non-compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant.
b. Thresholds of significance to be adopted for general use as part of the lead agency's environmental review process must be adopted by ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulation, and developed through a public review process and be supported by substantial evidence.
Note: Authority: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21082 and 21083, Public Resources Code.
3. Continuing need for clarity and understanding of CAL FIRE's THP review and approval process.
In light of the principles and requirements set forth in the FPA, EPFW submits the following questions for response:
How does CAL FIRE define and assess whether plans meet the goal of "production or maintenance of forests which are healthy and naturally diverse, with a mixture of trees and under-story plants?"
How does CAL FIRE define "naturally diverse?"
What kind of follow-up is undertaken to check on the mixture and existence of "trees and under-story plants?"
What are the standards used by CAL FIRE for assessing the "balance between growth and harvest over time?"
What are the criteria and means of testing whether plans and their aftermath "[m]aintain functional wildlife habitat in sufficient condition for continued use by the existing wildlife community within the planning watershed?"
How does CAL FIRE judge what retention or recruitment of "late and diverse seral stage habitat components for wildlife" is "appropriate" for "functional connectivity between habitats?"
How does CAL FIRE define and enforce inclusion of "genetic diversity" in THPs? What specific means, measures, criteria, and frameworks are used by CAL FIRE to evaluate THPs in the context "of the larger forest and planning watershed in which they are located, so that biological diversity and watershed integrity are maintained within large planning units and adverse cumulative impacts, including impacts on the quality and beneficial uses of water are reduced?"
Are there differing measures and determinations for adherence to these principles between districts or are they the same statewide?
These answers are crucial to both an understanding of the review process used by CAL FIRE and for commenters such as EPFW to make meaningful comments.
Conclusion
EPFW expects CAL FIRE to deny this plan unless significant changes based on the issues and deficiencies we have raised are made and this plan is brought into compliance with the Forest Practice Act and Rules and CEQA.
Respectfully submitted,
Perry Metzger, President 3001 Tanya Court
Sacramento, California 95826
Addie Jacobson
Addie Jacobson, Board member
Copies furnished:
Central Sierra Ecology Center, Executive Director, John Buckley
Secretary Wade Crowfoot, California Natural Resources Agency
Senator Henry I. Stern, Chair, California Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee
