Gale THP Comments
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
Sierra South Region
1234 E. Shaw Avenue
Fresno, CA 93710-7899
Attn: Jim Laughlin
December 13, 2002
Re: Public comment for THP No. 4-02-79/Cal-18
THP Name: Gale
To Whom It May Concern:
These comments are being submitted on behalf of Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch (EPFW). The comments cover several areas of concern within Timber Harvest Plan (THP) No. 4-02-79/Cal-18, hereafter referred to as Gale. Until these areas of concern are redressed, Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch objects to the approval of the plan.
EPFW has been active in monitoring and commenting on THPs in the Sierra Nevada for the past two years. During that time, the Director of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) has consistently approved THPs submitted by SPI without requiring substantive alterations based on comments filed. During the course of that time period, the number of evenaged management acres harvested and filed to be harvested has continued to grow, while CDF persists in reviewing each one in isolation as if it were not part of a larger system, whether planning watershed, watershed, or region. This flies in the face of the basic direction given by the California Forest Practice Rules (the Rules):
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.
In light of these principles, EPFW submits the following questions for response:
How does CDF 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 CDF 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 CDF 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 CDF judge what retention or recruitment of “late and diverse seral stage habitat components for wildlife” is “appropriate” for “functional connectivity between habitats?”
How does CDF define and enforce inclusion of “genetic diversity” in THPs?
What specific means, measures, criteria, and frameworks are used by CDF 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 questions are asked seriously for response because the answers are crucial to both an understanding of the review process used by CDF and for commenters such as EPFW to make meaningful comments.
Since “[t]he THP process substitutes for the EIR process under CEQA because the timber harvesting regulatory program has been certified pursuant to PRC Section 21080.5,” the requirements and guidelines for CEQA must be adhered to in the THP process. In relation to that, EPFW has some serious concerns.
First of all, EPFW asks CDF to clarify the thresholds of significance that are used in determining potential environmental or cumulative impacts of various aspects of the THP. As mandated by the State CEQA Guidelines,
(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.
Reading submitted plans, EPFW is struck by the amount of undocumented and contradictory assertions that are made, opinions put forth as fact, as well as the prejudicial and incomplete literature review that is presented as conclusive and thorough. Nowhere has EPFW found the objective, quantifiable standards by which impacts are judged. The CEQA guidelines, however, are clear in their insistence that “[t]he decision as to whether a project may have one or more significant effects shall be based on substantial evidence in the record of the lead agency. “Substantial evidence” is defined in the State CEQA Guidelines in the following way:
Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, or evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence that is not credible, shall not constitute substantial evidence. Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion support by facts.
Without that “substantial evidence in the record,” EPFW and others are precluded from meaningful public participation.
An example of this in the Gale THP is the discussion of peak flow effects on pp. 105-107. A lengthy excerpt from a study by Sarah Marvin is included and used to assert that timber harvesting and road building was shown to not significantly affect peak flow volumes in the South Fork of the Tule River. However, it appears upon close reading of this excerpt that perhaps this was not the main conclusion of the study. As stated by the author,
The slope of the post-conversion period peaks was double the slope of the pre-conversion period. Thus, the increase in peak flows tracked with time and cumulative logging and road construction. The analysis did not determine the size of the increase. Two hypothetical rain-on-snow storms with varying amounts of snow pack indicated that the decrease in canopy cover resulting in increased snowpack subject to latent and sensible heat flux may be responsible for at least part of the increased peak flows…
This same Marvin study is summed up in the Foster-Wheeler Report, an environmental analysis of the Mokelumne River watershed prepared for SPI. It appears that they, too, did not read the Marvin study as exonerating timber harvesting from contributing to increased peak flow volumes.
One factor influencing the extent of the snowmelt during a rain-on-snow event is timber stand composition; large open areas of snow allow warm, turbulent air to flow across the snow surface transferring latent heat directly from the warm air and latent heat from condensation of moisture into the snowpack (Berris and Harr 1987). A study that compared the effects of timber harvest practices on peak flows in two Sierra Nevada watersheds, showed an increase in peak flows following a forest canopy reduction of 58 percent. The amount of peak flow increase was not quantified due to limited data. The author also concluded that an increase in exposed snowpack allowed for greater heat transfer into the snowpack contributing to increased peak flows (Marvin 1996).
The Gale THP goes on to describe a hydrologic model that was created to predict peak flow changes from a 964-acre clearcut on a watershed. This “recent study” was conducted on SPI’s Upper San Antonio Creek THP in Calaveras County. It is hard to understand the details of the study from the THP, but it appears the clearcut area was evaluated in a “worst case scenario” with “all other known projects on non-SPI lands.” The conclusion of the study was that, at worst, the increase in peak flows would be 2.6% and “potentially” less than 1.3%. This was an increase SPI states in the THP as “relatively negligible.” What is CDF’s threshold of significance for peak flows? SPI’s asserted conclusion that even 1.3% or 2.6% increases in peak flows would be “relatively negligible” is difficult for EPFW to judge without definitive guidelines and thresholds of significance. Certainly, one or two parts out of a hundred sounds like a small amount and seems as if it might be negligible. However, at times an amount as small as five parts per million of certain substances in water is harmful to living creatures. So the appearance of being large or small is insufficient for EPFW to be able to draw a meaningful conclusion. Unfortunately, nothing in the Gale THP helps in this regard.
The Gale THP discussion of peak flow effects states that a “search of literature with regards to possible changes in peak flows in response to forest management has yielded a 1996 research paper prepared by Sarah Marvin…” as if the Marvin study is the only literature available on this subject. However, this is far from the fact and, among the literature, there is 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 adjoining watershed to that addressed in the Gale THP. The following is some of Euphrat’s discussion of 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 snow pack. 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 created by 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 has been put forth as a single example of the one-sided and incomplete disclosure of facts in the Gale 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 CDF 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 Gale THP is not a document with full disclosure, CDF 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.)”
There are many other aspects of the Gale THP which suffer from the same deficiencies of disclosure as the discussion of peak flow volumes. One of these is the discussion of herbicide use. EPFW is aware that CDF has received substantive comment with credible evidence on this subject from several sources within the past two years. However, none of this evidence is presented in the current plan. EPFW notes for the record that they are aware that comment has been filed in this regard by Michael Laing of the Granite Bay Flycasters, Andrew Hatch of the Central Sierra Environmental Research Center, and Michael Graf from the Law Offices of Thomas N. Lippe. SPI and CDF have both been made aware of this information that should formulate part of the “substantial evidence” and yet it has been omitted from this THP so commenters do not have adequate information from which to comment.
Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch reiterates that cumulative impacts analysis is complex but necessary. A major concern here relates to the amount of harvest conducted in the Swamp Creek Planning Watershed in the past ten years as well as anticipated future harvest. In Section IV-Cumulative Impacts Assessment- of the Gale THP (beginning on p. 92), SPI discusses and delineates past THPs within the Gale THP CIAA. In a watershed with a total acreage of 12,429 acres, 8,602 acres or 69.2% were included in harvest plans from 1991 through 1998. The recently approved Summit THP adds 588 acres, bringing the total to 9,190 acres or 73.94%. The Gale THP with its 660 acres brings the total to 9,850 acres or 79.25% of the watershed. Currently, the North Menzies (582 acres) and the Mokey (332 acres) THPs have also been submitted for approval. With these the total is 10,764 acres or 86.6% of the watershed. With the final proposed project totalling 1,544 additional acres, the total number of acres between 1991 and 2005 subjected to harvest is 12,308 or 99% of the total acreage of the planning watershed. SPI has included a bold-faced note in this section, which states that the 8,602 acres of harvests in the time period between 1991 and 1998 “in several cases reflects more than one harvesting entry on a given area. Therefore, the actual acreage of the Swamp Creek Planning watershed that has been subject to harvesting since 1991 is substantially less than the given total of 8,602 acres.” This note in conjunction with the figures put forth give rise to, questions needing answers in order for meaningful comment to be made.
How many is “several cases?” Which are they?
How many acres do they represent? How has that been determined to be “substantially less” than 8,602 acres?
What is the length of rotation being used in this watershed?
What is the threshold of significance used by CDF to determine cumulative effects from harvest?
What percentage of a watershed can be harvested in 15 years through past, present, and future projects before the impacts becomes “cumulatively considerable?”
"Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. "Probable future projects" are defined in Section 15130.
Subsection (i) promotes the use of standards and thresholds that have been adopted to protect the environment as the means for determining the significance of project impacts.
How do these THPs in the Swamp Creek Planning Watershed impact the larger watershed of the South Fork of the Mokelumne River with its past, current, and proposed future projects? The entire Mokelumne River watershed?
What standards does CDF use in assessing activities and effects in Planning Watersheds such as Swamp Creek that have been identified as “more susceptible” to “impacts from forestry operations” because they “tend to be dominated by more erosive soils, have more moderate to steep slopes, have extensive lengths of Mehrten Formation contact, and have higher road densities and greater numbers of road-stream crossings?
What are the recommendations or standards of Mines and Geology for such susceptible watersheds?
What adaptive management plans are in place or required from LTOs to mitigate damages from their operations? Has CDF urged or required LTOs operating in the Mokelumne River watershed to follow Foster Wheeler’s advice to ““[o]ver time, develop a monitoring plan that integrates implementation monitoring, effectiveness monitoring, and adaptive management. This plan should consider: existing information from previous field surveys, this and relevant future watershed assessments, and issues raised by comments on THPs,”
Protection of the Rail Road Flat Deer Herd is a Calaveras County priority, as set forth in the County General Plan.
Generally, there are two categories of deer that inhabit Calaveras County: those that are year-round residents and those that are part of the migratory group known as the Rail Road Flat deer herd. The resident deer have wide-spread habitats and are fairly adaptable to human uses of the land. The deer herd is more sensitive to human encroachment, and is especially vulnerable to loss of habitat and disruption of migration routes through building and development efforts
The herd can adapt to most habitat types, but optimum habitat has food and cover types arranged in close proximity. The winter range is considered to be a key factor in the health and size of the migrating deer herd.
A detailed study by Department of Fish and Game in 1973, estimated the size of the herd at that time as being between 6,000 and 9,000, with the population trend in decline (as has been the case since at least the 1960s). The study found both the condition of the herd and of their range to be poor. Reasons given for the poor condition and downward population trends were: poor quality of summer range, overuse of available forage, plant succession and fire suppression, habitat deterioration, human encroachment, and drought. These issues continue to be of concern today.
Current Department of Fish and Game policy regarding deer herds is to restore and maintain critical habitats. Because of the population decline in the Rail Road Flat deer herd, only grazing and timber harvesting are considered compatible land uses. In certain cases, these uses can actually increase the quality of the habitats if overgrazing or removal of large stands of forest are minimized.
The Gale THP is one of several recent THPs to cut across all aspects of the Rail Road Flat Deer Herd’s territory.
What cumulative effect will the various plans have on the herd?
Will the amount of forestland being removed be a significant threat to the deer herd?
What follow-up is planned to assure that retained oaks in evenage units are not killed by subsequent herbicide applications?
What guidelines or thresholds of significance are used to determine the effect on the deer herd?
What is Fish and Game’s opinion of the THP in relationship to this deer herd?
The Draft Hardwood Recommendations of the Board of Forestry state that:
Preference Oaks should shall be given to retention of deciduous oaks retained on in areas designated by the Department of Fish and Game as deer migration corridors, holding areas, or key winter and summer ranges or other habitat areas where deciduous oaks are critical to wildlife when consistent with good forestry practices. The retention and regeneration mixture shall be designed to create over time the full range of deciduous oak size and age classes across the biological assessment area.
Is CDF requiring or urging adherence to these Hardwood Recommendations in currently submitted THPs?
In these difficult budgetary times, EPFW is aware that meeting its legal CEQA obligation may be costly to CDF. In that regard, EPFW would like to remind CDF that
For a project to be carried out by any person or entity other than the lead agency, the lead agency may charge and collect a reasonable fee from the person or entity proposing the project in order to recover the estimated costs incurred in preparing environmental documents and for procedures necessary to comply with CEQA on the project.
However, if CDF does not fully meet its CEQA requirements and is brought into legal action because of this,
Litigation expenses, costs and fees incurred in actions alleging noncompliance with CEQA are not recoverable under this section.
Finally, EPFW requests to be informed of the time and place of the Review Team meeting for this THP so that representatives of the group may attend.
On behalf of Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch, I thank you for your serious consideration of these comments and reiterate that, due to the concerns we have raised, we urge you to reject this plan.
Respectfully submitted,
Addie Jacobson
