Introduction
Definitions and Guide to Acronyms
Sustained Yield Plan
Habitat Conservation Plan
Some Relevant Statistics
Suggestions for Public Comment
Public Hearing Dates and Locations
Introduction
The Headwaters Forest agreement, first signed on September 28, 1996, provides for public acquisition of 7,470 acres of the 60,000 Headwaters Forest. Before the purchase can take place, however, state and federal agencies must review and approve two long-term management plans submitted by Pacific Lumber Company, the forest's current owner.
While the public acquisition of part of Headwaters is significant, this combined plan will determine how the balance of Pacific Lumber's 210,000 acres-including thousands of acres of ancient forest and numerous critical salmon spawning streams-will be managed for the next several decades. Implementation of the plan will therefore have a major biological impact on water quality, wildlife habitat andov forest productivity on the North Coast.
This document is intended to serve as a summary and guide to Pacific Lumber's Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and Sustained Yield Plan (SYP). The combined plan is currently available for public review in numerous libraries and on the internet; CD-ROM versions of the plan can be obtained from the US Fish & Wildlife Service. There is no substitute for actual review of the plan, but we hope that this guide will provide concerned citizens with an understanding of what the plan is and how it utterly sacrifices sound biology and the law for the short-term economic gain of the Pacific Lumber Company.
Public comment on the plans is encouraged, and will be accepted until November 16, 1998. Public hearings throughout the state of California will be held in late October and early November; these hearings will address the environmental impacts of the entire Headwaters Forest agreement, including the Habitat Conservation Plan/Sustained Yield Plan. Please see the end of this document for contacts where you can obtain more information about participating in these hearings and/or submitting comments.
Processes such as this one are often conceived and completed in back-room negotiations. Only tremendous public scrutiny can prevent government agencies from yielding to the political momentum behind the Headwaters deal and approving this disastrous plan. Only citizen pressure can create the political will to reform logging practices and begin the long process of recovering California's vanishing fish and wildlife.
Overview of Plans
Although Pacific Lumber Company chose the novel approach of combining their Habitat Conservation Plan and Sustained Yield Plan into a single document, these plans serve quite different purposes (see "Definitions" section). Nonetheless, the plans inform and depend upon each other, for one basic reason: in order to carry out their desired logging plans, as described in the SYP, Pacific Lumber must get permission to kill endangered species and destroy habitat through preparation of the HCP.
Prior to a 1986 takeover by Maxxam Corporation of Houston, Pacific Lumber managed its forest lands far more conservatively than other major timber corporations. As a result, there remain on Pacific Lumber land areas of old-growth and mature second-growth forest that have become extremely rare in Northern California. Maxxam began targeting these areas immediately following the takeover as part of a shift toward the aggressive type of industrial forestry practiced by timber giants like Louisiana-Pacific and Georgia-Pacific, both of which have almost completely depleted their forest lands of high-quality timber.
The basic conflict for Maxxam is between economic assumptions and biology. Their remaining mature forest stands are not only some of the last refugia for endangered and rare wildlife, but also the areas where the highest volume of saw timber can be extracted. Maxxam's obvious purpose in preparing this HCP/SYP is to immediately liquidate its most valuable forest lands, then implement a plan to convert almost the entire landscape to an intensively farmed tree plantation. In terms of biological diversity, watershed integrity, water quality and long-term economic stability, Maxxam's plan is a disaster in the making.
A Word About Science
Company officials and politicians involved in crafting these plans often claim that they are "based on" the best available science. A close reading of the plan shows this claim to be like saying that the movie Titanic is "based on" a true story. Readily available scientific information is often only selectively referenced in the HCP/SYP, and where it is used, its conclusions are often misrepresented or completely ignored. The result is a plan that often pays only nominal lip service to good science in seeking regulatory clearance for the short-term economic goals of Maxxam and Pacific Lumber.
California Legislative Improvements
When the California Legislature voted on the last day of the 1998 session to approve funding for the Headwaters agreement, certain improvements to the draft Habitat Conservation Plan were required before the state's money can be spent. In our view, the legislative changes were insufficient to address the many problems inherent in the HCP/SYP, and will not result in a biologically credible plan.
These improvements are to be reflected in the "final" plan, and thus are not readily available for public review and comment as part of the existing draft plan. Because these changes have not yet been translated into specific plan language, and the draft available for public review and comment remains unchanged, this summary deals with the existing draft. Specific legislative changes will be mentioned where possible, but public comments at this point should address the existing draft, because the final HCP language as modified by the Legislature remains a matter of speculation.
An Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report on the entire Headwaters deal was released on October 2, 1998. This document discusses the California Legislature's changes as an "alternative," and provides an opportunity for public comment, although final HCP/SYP language will not be available for many weeks. Regardless of these changes, the HCP/SYP must still be analyzed, and approved or denied, on the basis of existing law and science.
return to the table of cotents
Definitions and Guide to Acronyms
Sustained Yield Plan (SYP)
- A master long-term logging plan written to fulfill the requirements of the California Forest Practices Act, which governs most private-land logging activities in the state. SYPs must provide information about current forest and watershed conditions, describe proposed logging operations in ten-year intervals, ensure that logging will not exceed forest growth over at least a 100-year period, and address water quality and wildlife concerns in light of the cumulative impacts of logging operations.
Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)
- A long-term management plan developed under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Landowners must prepare such plans in order to receive incidental take permits (see below). HCPs describe measures taken to "mitigate and minimize, to the maximum extent practicable," impacts to endangered species and their habitats associated with activities such as logging. According to the ESA, federal agencies may not approve HCPs that are likely to jeopardize the survival and recovery of endangered species.
"Take"
- Killing, harassing or harming endangered species; "take" of protected species is specifically prohibited by the state and federal Endangered Species Acts. "Take" has been defined to include destruction and modification of habitat essential to the breeding, feeding and sheltering of endangered species, whether or not protected species are directly killed.
Incidental Take Permit (ITP)
- A permit granted upon completion and approval of a Habitat Conservation Plan. ITPs allow landowners to legally "take" endangered species and destroy habitat that should otherwise be protected under the federal Endangered Species Act. These permits come with a "no surprises" guarantee shielding landowners from having to take additional conservation measures over the life of the permit, even if the associated HCP proves disastrous or new scientific information shows that additional measures are necessary.
"No Surprises"
- A policy conceived by the Clinton administration that provides "assurances" to landowners who prepare HCPs. Simply put, this policy guarantees that landowners will not have to provide any additional conservation measures for endangered species over the life of the HCP, even if new scientific information becomes available. In effect, this means that HCP measures are essentially "locked in" for the life of the incidental take permit, no matter how inadequate they turn out to be. Several conservation groups led by the Spirit of the Sage Council are currently suing the Clinton administration over this ill-conceived, scientifically bankrupt and destructive policy.
Timber Harvest Plan (THP)
- A specific logging plan submitted under the California Forest Practices Act. THPs are supposed to describe specific logging operations, including location, type of forest and the kind of logging (or "silviculture") proposed. The THP must also address potential direct and cumulative impacts to water quality, wildlife, fisheries, geological stability and so forth. THPs are approved by the California Department of Forestry (CDF) in consultation with other state agencies. Under their HCP/SYP, Pacific Lumber will still be required to prepare individual THPs for final approval.
return to the table of cotents
The Sustained Yield Plan
The Maxxam/Pacific Lumber SYP is divided into two main sections: a watershed assessment describing current landscape conditions, and a 120-year plan (divided into decades) for logging the 210,000-acre ownership. Both sections are incomplete, lacking in basic scientific analysis, and in some cases materially misleading. It is clear from the plan, however, that Maxxam plans an incredibly intensive short-term logging blitz across their timber holdings, to be offset by reduced levels of logging in later decades. Significantly, the first "decade" of the SYP is only four years long, and contains the most intensive logging of any decade under the plan.
The vast majority of Maxxam's remaining mature forest, save that set aside under the HCP (see below), will be logged within the first two "decades," i.e. the next 14 years. The forest that once existed in these areas will not be replaced; instead, a single-species tree plantation will be cultivated and clearcut again on 40 to 60-year rotations. This landscape will provide little in the way of the complex forest habitat required to preserve wildlife health, and the intensity of logging operations will contribute to watershed instability, erosion and landslides, all of which are destroying the coastal salmon fishery and threatening the property and lives of small private landowners downstream.
Inadequacies in the Watershed Assessment (HCP/SYP Volume II)
The plan's watershed assessment includes surveys of stream conditions throughout the property, describing key habitat components relevant to the spawning, rearing and survival of aquatic species like salmon and steelhead trout. These components include average water temperatures, percentage of stream reaches where pools occur, the relative composition of streambed gravel, shade cover and so on. These components are crucial in providing fish with the clear, cold water, sheltering pools and clean, loose gravel necessary for their survival and spawning success.
This stream survey data, however, is incomplete and outdated to the point where it provides an extremely misleading picture of actual habitat conditions. The Bear Creek watershed, where Pacific Lumber has logged extensively in the past few years, provides an excellent example. During heavy rains in the first hours of 1997, a massive landslide and debris torrent originating on a recent logging plan roared down the creek, burying nearly four miles of recovering salmon habitat. Of 84 habitat restoration structures placed in the creek during previous years (most at taxpayer expense), all but one were buried or swept away. Shade cover within the streamside (or "riparian") zone was also completely stripped. When the storm cleared, Bear Creek had been changed into a concrete-like gravel flat where a shallow stream meandered back and forth in full sunlight: lethal conditions for salmon.
Pacific Lumber's SYP, however, acts like this event never happened. The stream survey data for Bear Creek in the plan is several years old, and shows a high percentage of pools and shade cover, neither of which exist. Temperature and sediment data for 1997 is curiously missing. Most troubling of all is the fact that most of the instream restoration structures in Bear Creek are described as "functioning" in a survey dated April 25, 1997-nearly five months after the debris torrent that destroyed all but one of these structures. The Bear Creek example shows that the data on which the SYP is based is incomplete, inaccurate and even intentionally misleading.
This sloppiness extends to the SYP's discussion of the impacts of logging operations on watershed and hillslope stability. Different soil types and geologic features are assigned numerical "sensitivity" values, but without any explanation of how these figures were derived or any citations of relevant scientific literature.
Similarly, a numerical "Disturbance Index" is discussed as a tool for predicting the watershed-wide effects of numerous logging operations. This index, however, is predicated upon arbitrary and unsubstantiated assumptions, any of which are erroneous. The index assumes that the effects of logging diminish entirely over a ten-year period in a linear fashion. This assumption contradicts a huge body of scientific evidence showing that erosion and geologic failures associated with logging may in fact increase for many years after the trees are cut. The index also ignores the effects of road-building, which persist for as long as the roads remain; even the U.S. Forest Service analyzes erosion from logging-related roads over a 30-year period. Furthermore, when logging alters the way water flows down a hillside, gullies are created which transport large volumes of sediment into stream and river systems. These gullies tend to get deeper, not shallower, as successive winters dump torrents of rain on the hillsides.
The disturbance index, watershed assessments and sensitivity methodology completely fail to provide a scientifically credible baseline for evaluating the environmental and geological impacts of proposed logging operations. On the contrary, they seem arbitrarily designed to obscure and dismiss the actual, predictable adverse effects of those operations.
Forest Conversion and Long-Term Sustained Yield
Using a computer model and proprietary information concerning existing timber volume and growth rates on their lands, Pacific Lumber's SYP calculates a Long-Term Sustained Yield threshold. This threshold represents the maximum allowable "harvest" under an SYP, averaged over the entire plan period; simply put, the company is not supposed to cut more forest than can be expected to grow back.
Because the SYP is a 10-year document based on a 120-year planning horizon, theoretical reduced harvests in the distant future can be used to justify incredibly intense short-term logging plans. Pacific Lumber's SYP pushes this abuse of the law to its limits, logging at a rate 32% higher than growth over the first four-year "decade," and at a rate 5% over growth during the second decade.
This rate of logging will create profound changes in the landscape. In the first four years of the plan, the SYP calls for logging of more than 54,000 acres (over 25% of the entire property). Of these lands, more than 35,000 acres are to be clearcut. According to the SYP, 2,580 acres of old-growth forest will be logged during this time, 2,236 acres of which will be clearcut. This logging will be facilitated through construction of 150 additional miles of roads.
The SYP also contemplates a major conversion of Pacific Lumber's forestlands from redwood predominance to primarily Douglas-fir. Redwood accounts for 65% of the first decade harvest, but only 26% of the last decade. Conversely, Douglas-fir harvest rates jump from 25% to 72% over the life of the plan. Accomplishing this change on the ground would seem incredibly difficult, given the natural resiliency of redwood forests; intensive herbicide treatments and redwood suppression would seem necessary. This also seems an odd strategy economically, considering that redwood garners a higher price than fir.
An alternate explanation, however, lies in the fact that Douglas-fir grows more quickly than redwood. A shift in species composition-and therefore in the computer model's predicted growth rates- over the life of the plan may have been necessary to create a long-term growth average that balances the company's proposed short-term logging blitz. Again, Pacific Lumber may in fact be simply fabricating numbers in order to gain permission to quickly liquidate its remaining older forests.
Environmental and Social Impacts
The watersheds of the North Coast are falling apart. Years of logging and road-building have aggravated geologic instability, ruined salmon spawning streams and driven many forest creatures to the brink of extinction. If approved, Pacific Lumber's SYP will only make matters worse, as thousands of acres of new clearcuts and many miles of dirt roads spread across the landscape. Furthermore, as ancient and mature forests are converted into even-aged, single-species plantations, the diverse habitat on which most forest wildlife depends will become even more rare. The minimal wildlife protection measures proposed under the Habitat Conservation Plan (see below) are in no way sufficient to remedy these effects.
This SYP may produce economic dislocation over the long term as well. Following an increase in logging and milling over the first two decades of the plan, it seems that extensive layoffs may be necessary. Given that younger forests can be cut and milled in a highly automated fashion, the skilled woods jobs on which many families rely are likely to disappear forever. The value of the timber taken from these forests will also diminish, as these younger, faster-growing plantations tend to produce knot-filled, low-quality saw timber, or worse, only wood chips and pulp.
Pacific Lumber, in other words, contemplates a shift to logging practices similar to those employed by another North Coast timber giant, Louisiana-Pacific. The comparison is highly instructive: after decades of abusing its Mendocino County forest lands, liquidating mature forests and cutting younger forests on shorter and shorter rotations, L-P had created an environmental and economic disaster (ironically enough, when L-P proposed an SYP remarkably similar to the one drafted by Pacific Lumber, it was rejected by state agencies). When they eventually found themselves in a position where they could no longer profitably log the land they had ravaged, they laid off most of their local workers, sold their holdings and left. All promises to the contrary aside, if this SYP is implemented, Pacific Lumber may be taking similar actions in the not-too-distant future.
return to the table of cotents
Habitat Conservation Plan
Because Pacific Lumber's SYP is based on the short-term liquidation of mature forests and the long-term conversion of most of the property to a single-species tree farm, substantial impacts to forest wildlife are to be expected. Because some of these species are protected under the state and federal Endangered Species Acts, Pacific Lumber cannot implement its logging plans without special permission. Indeed, if the ESA were enforced as written, major changes in the company's intensive forestry practices would probably be required to bring the company into compliance with the law. With a Habitat Conservation Plan, however, Pacific Lumber can obtain an incidental take permit allowing them to destroy habitat and even directly harm otherwise protected fish and wildlife.
The draft HCP would grant the company incidental take permits for 36 fish and wildlife species that depend on habitat found on company lands. Only a few of these species are currently listed as "threatened" or "endangered" under the law, but most of them are fairly rare, and all are affected by logging operations in one way or another. As part of the "no surprises" policy, the HCP is written so that the company will automatically receive take permits should some of these unprotected species be listed in the future.
Specific measures in the HCP, however, focus mostly on three species currently protected under state and/or federal law: the marbled murrelet, coho salmon, and Northern spotted owl. The 33 other species listed in the plan, despite their incredibly diverse habitat needs, will have to subsist almost exclusively on the scant forest areas reserved for these three creatures. The result will probably leave a few islands of forest standing for the next few decades, along with some narrow strips along larger streams, in a veritable sea of clearcuts and collapsing hillsides. Few forest creatures can be expected to survive, let alone recover and thrive, in such a landscape.
return to the table of cotents
Marbled Murrelet
Marbled murrelets are perhaps the creatures most dependent on intact, old-growth coastal forests. These elusive birds spend a great deal of time at sea, but fly inland during the summer months to nest in the branches of giant old trees. The birds do not build a nest, but rather lay their eggs in the moss that grows atop wide branches in the old-growth canopy. Murrelets range all along the Pacific coast from Alaska to central California, varying in numbers with the availability of intact forest habitat.
Murrelet nests are vulnerable to common predators such as ravens and jays, and the species is most successful in relatively undisturbed areas where the thick forest canopy provides protection. As most of these areas have fallen to the chainsaws, murrelets have attempted to nest in large "residual" ancient trees left standing in selectively logged areas, despite the fact that their nests are often exposed. There is no evidence, however, that murrelets can survive in second-growth forests.
Old-growth and residual forests on Pacific Lumber lands, including the six ancient groves of Headwaters Forest, are critical nesting areas for the California murrelet population. These forests form a crucial biological link between murrelet habitat areas in Redwood National Park to the north and Humboldt Redwoods State Park to the south. This link is so crucial, and the species as a whole so endangered, that some murrelet experts believe loss of the Pacific Lumber groves could trigger a collapse of the population throughout California and beyond.
Because the United States Fish & Wildlife Service by law cannot approve an HCP that would result in this kind of jeopardy to a threatened species, Pacific Lumber has "set aside" certain areas of old-growth and residual forest for the next fifty years. These set-asides do not amount to permanent protection. They remain in the company's hands, and a special amendment process in the draft HCP Implementing Agreement could allow logging in these areas in as few as 10 years. The California Legislature, as part of the Headwaters funding package, required assurances in the final HCP that these set-asides will remain intact for the full 50-year life of the incidental take permit.
Within these so-called "Marbled Murrelet Conservation Areas," or MMCAs, commercial timber operations detrimental to marbled murrelet habitat, including salvage logging, are prohibited. Existing roads and rock quarries, however, may still be used, and trees may be removed to keep these roads open. "Fuel removal" from second-growth and residual areas is allowed with the written concurrence of wildlife agencies, as are fire suppression activities. All other timber removal from MMCAs "shall be allowed only on a case by case basis and only if the Wildlife Agencies determine that the specific activity will be beneficial to the marbled murrelet and its habitat."
The draft HCP establishes 10 such areas, then gives the company the option of logging either one or the other of two remaining areas containing vital murrelet habitat: the Owl Creek Grove, at the southeast corner of Headwaters Forest, or an area near Grizzly Creek State Park. Because of the outcry raised by members of the public at this arbitrary "option," the California Legislature chose to appropriate an additional $100 million so that both of these groves might be purchased.
Acreage figures given for these set-asides vary considerably depending upon which document one reads. MMCA acreages are different in the draft HCP than in the list appearing in the California Legislature's funding bill. The bill did allow for some adjustment in the final acreage of the MMCAs, but only when such adjustments "are made to more accurately describe Marbled Murrelet habitat." Because final HCP language establishing these areas remains to be written, this analysis refers to the MMCAs as described by the draft HCP.
According to the draft, either 7,586 acres (if Owl Creek is logged) or 7,454 acres (if Grizzly Creek is logged) will be set aside in MMCAs. Of this acreage, between 1,204 and 1,404 acres are intact old-growth, between 2,927 and 2,636 acres are classified as residual, and over 3,000 acres are composed of younger forests or non-forest lands. Buffer zones adjacent to public lands (state parks) are also established totaling 2,258 acres, 295 of which are low-density residual redwood, with the balance being younger forest or non-forest lands. The densest residual stands in these parkside buffers, however, are open to limited logging.
If the California Legislature's plans to acquire both Grizzly Creek and Owl Creek are realized, 2,000 additional acres of redwood forest will be protected, containing 434 acres of uncut old-growth redwood, 769 acres of residual redwood, and 19 acres of old-growth Douglas-fir.
| Marbled Murrelet Conservation Areas | Acres Uncut OG Redwood | Acres Residual OG Redwood | Acres OG Douglas-fir | Total Acres (including 2nd Growth) |
| Allen Creek | 393 | 595 | - | 1,729 |
| Between Road 7 & 9 | 21 | 239 | - | 492 |
| Bell-Lawrence (All Species Grove) | 339 | 107 | - | 634 |
| Booths Run | - | 216 | 166 | 784 |
| Cooper Mill | - | 397 | - | 704 |
| Elkhead Residual | - | 65 | - | 351 |
| Lower North Fork Elk River | - | 237 | - | 451 |
| Road 3 | - | 374 | - | 564 |
| Right Road 9 | 77 | 112 | - | 318 |
| Shaw-Gift (Shaw Creek Grove) | 255 | 54 | 31 | 503 |
| Potential Acquisition Areas | ||||
| Headwaters Preserve | 3,117 | 665 | - | 7,470 |
| Crizzly Creek MMCA | 117 | 530 | - | 1,057 |
| Owl Creek MMCA | 317 | 239 | 19 | 925 |
| Areas Purchased or Set Aside | 4,638 | 3,831 | 219 | 15,989 |
| Areas "Available for Harvest" | 501 | 8,616 | 8,304 | 203,310 |
In return for these set-asides, Pacific Lumber will receive a permit to log 9,117 acres of ancient and residual redwood forest, including 501 acres of uncut old-growth. Almost all of this land qualifies as the kind of habitat in which marbled murrelets might nest, and the birds are in fact known to occupy several of the areas slated for the chopping block. If the Grizzly Creek/Owl Creek option were executed as per the draft HCP, additional ancient forest would be lost: 117 acres of old-growth and 530 acres of residual at Grizzly Creek, or 317 acres of old-growth and 239 acres of residual at Owl Creek. Furthermore, a whopping 8,304 acres of old-growth Douglas-fir will be sacrificed.
Pacific Lumber has surveyed for murrelets every summer since 1992. The HCP admits, however, that surveys were "conducted primarily for the purpose of determining whether a specific stand of old growth could be cleared for harvest... not conducted uniformly of with a design intended to determine the distribution or density of murrelet on the entire property." As a result, much of the potential murrelet habitat on the property has never been adequately surveyed.
Based on a completely unproven and rather arbitrary assumption that murrelets occupy unsurveyed residual old-growth redwood at a rate much lower than that documented in old-growth stands, the HCP estimates a "take" of between 251 and 340 of the slightly less than 1500 birds assumed to nest on Pacific Lumber lands. However, the HCP clearly proposes to harvest more than 53% of available habitat, most of it unsurveyed residual old growth redwood. If occupancy rates are in fact higher than those estimated by Pacific Lumber, the rate of "take" could be much higher, and as many as 700 murrelets--half the local population--could die.
Incredibly, Pacific Lumber proposes to sacrifice this habitat without doing a single additional survey to determine whether murrelets nest in these areas, or how many birds actually will be killed or displaced by their destruction. The company also plans to log areas occupied or potentially occupied by murrelets throughout the species' summer breeding season, thereby increasing the chances that murrelets will be directly killed by timber operations. There is absolutely no legal or biological justification for logging areas known to be occupied by a critically threatened species when that species is present. In fact, in order to meet minimum legal standards under the ESA, and HCP must "minimize and mitigate...to the maximum extent practicable" any damage to endangered species and their habitat. The only justification provided in the HCP for directly killing nesting murrelets is that Pacific Lumber might not make as much money by waiting until winter to log the occupied areas.
Negotiations over murrelet set-asides were extremely intense, and many seemingly arbitrary biological sacrifices were made in order to accommodate Pacific Lumber's economic goals. Under this HCP, virtually every acre of ancient and residual forest not known to shelter murrelets, and many areas where murrelet occupancy is either known or probable, will be logged within a very short time frame. Such an approach may well constitute "jeopardy" to the currently plummeting California murrelet population. Although from a biological point of view "incidental take" of a vanishing species is never appropriate, this type of wholesale destruction of the extremely rare habitat of a critically endangered species seems especially egregious. No ancient or residual forest habitat, occupied or potentially occupied by marbled murrelets, should be authorized for logging under this HCP.
return to the table of cotents
Coho Salmon
Coho salmon, and their close cousins chinook salmon and steelhead trout, are "anadromous"-that is, these species are born and spend the first several months of their lives in coastal streams and rivers before migrating out to sea. When their life cycles are complete, adult salmon and steelhead return to the very streams of their birth, where they spawn and die.
Salmon and steelhead thus depend on freshwater habitat for extremely crucial phases of their life cycles. The fish require clean gravel beds where they dig their "redds," depressions in the streambed where eggs are laid and spawning takes place. Recently hatched young, known as "alevins," remain in the gravel until they are sufficiently developed to swim on their own. "Fingerling" and juvenile salmon and steelhead then spend many months (or in the case of coho, sometimes more than a year) growing to maturity in coastal streams.
These species are incredibly sensitive to high water temperatures and high concentrations of sediment. Sustained temperatures much over 70 degrees Fahrenheit can kill young coho salmon. During the rainless summer months in Northern California, when air temperatures routinely top 100 degrees, dense, shady forests along stream banks and deep, sheltering pools are absolutely essential for salmonid survival.
Industrial forestry operations have done tremendous damage to salmon spawning habitat all along the West Coast. Logging along creeks and rivers removes shade canopy and reduces the availability of "large woody debris"-trees that naturally fall across and into streams-that helps form deep plunge pools and provides important nutrients at the foundation of the aquatic food chain.
The North Coast also boasts some of the most geologically active and unstable soils and bedrock on Earth. Logging and road building on these steep, erodible hillsides flush hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of fine sediment into streams and rivers each winter. This sediment works its way into gravel beds, forming a concrete-like layer that poses a major challenge for spawning salmon and can suffocate their newly-laid eggs.
Industrial forestry also radically alters the hydrology of coastal watersheds, affecting the way that each winter's tremendous volume of rainfall moves through the soil and into local streams. This area's steep slopes are characterized by numerous slow-moving landslides, which creep inexorably downward over hundreds and thousands of years in a process known as "mass wasting." Because local soils are relatively shallow, most trees' root systems spread out laterally and intertwine, forming a stabilizing subterranean "basket" that holds the soil in place.
The timber industry's common practice of building roads and landings across these areas, and removing virtually every tree from the hillsides, can result in a tremendous increase in the amount of water present in the highly erodible upper layer of soil. During heavy rains, logged-over areas have a tendency to liquefy, sending a "debris torrent" composed of rock and mud coursing down hillsides and into stream channels. Such a debris torrent, originating on a Pacific Lumber clearcut, destroyed several homes in the town of Stafford, California during a single storm on January 1, 1998. Another torrent, also originating from a Pacific Lumber clearcut, devastated most of the salmon habitat in the Bear Creek watershed during the same storm (see the SYP section).
Salmon and steelhead have suffered immensely from these practices over the last several decades. Estimates of historic coho populations in Northern California and Southern Oregon range from 125,000 to 400,000. Today, only about 10,000 wild, naturally spawning coho remain in this region. Between 35,000 and 40,000 commercial fishing jobs have vanished along with the salmon. The National Marine Fisheries Service finally listed Northern California coho as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act in May of 1997, after delaying the decision for many months in clear violation of a federal court order.
If coho are ever to recover, major changes will be necessary in the way logging, ranching and gravel mining operations are conducted in local watersheds. Sadly, Pacific Lumber's draft HCP, in accordance with the forest liquidation and conversion goals outlined in the SYP, seems written specifically in order to facilitate the same type of intensive forestry that brought about this disaster in the first place. Although a few improvements have been made over current regulations, the measures in the HCP will not mitigate or reverse the damage to salmon habitat caused by this type of industrial forestry. Even more frightening, because this HCP is one of the first prepared since coho were listed as "threatened," it has the potential to set an important precedent for other large timber corporations in California.
There are three "tiers" to the HCP's "Aquatics Strategy": a set of "one size fits all" interim measures that will remain in place for up to three years, a "watershed analysis" process that will determine how logging operations will be conducted for the balance of the 50-year plan, and a set of "default" measures to be used in specific cases. The California Legislature attempted to modify all of these components somewhat; the existing draft HCP, and these legislative modifications, are both discussed below.
Interim Measures
Road Construction and Maintenance
Dirt roads associated with logging contribute major amounts of sediment to salmon spawning streams. Inadequate road drainage structures, such as ditches and culverts, can fail in heavy rains causing huge washouts. Also, roads that are cut into a steep bank and built on unstabilized "fill" have a tendency to collapse when saturated. Finally, roads change the surface hydrology of entire watersheds, redirecting the flow of water in ways that can increase the chances of massive landslides and debris torrents.
The Pacific Lumber HCP/SYP proposes to "storm-proof" the existing 1,500 miles of road on company lands at a rate of 500 miles/decade. This process involves a "trained observer" walking each road segment and noting actual or potential sites of erosion, slippage, mass wasting, failed culverts and other sediment sources. Then the observer evaluates the likelihood that each of these sites will produce sediment, estimates the amount of sediment that could be prevented from reaching watercourses if corrective action were taken, and assigns a high, medium or low priority to each site. Then all high and medium priority sites are scheduled for corrective action.
The HCP/SYP also proposes 400 miles of new road construction over the next five decades. The HCP promises that new roads will be built to "storm-proof" specifications. Construction of roads during the winter period, however, is allowed. During each winter period (November 1 to April 1), Pacific Lumber would be allowed to construct 2.5 miles and reconstruct or stormproof 5 miles of road, unless additional work is approved by the wildlife agencies. During the first three years of the plan, Pacific Lumber and the wildlife agencies will "reevaluate" these limitations, and "meet and agree on any necessary changes." This implies that more protective restrictions could not be obtained without Pacific Lumber's agreement.
Roads cannot be constructed or reconstructed "during periods of measurable precipitation" or where activities "will result in the loss of soil materials in amounts that will cause a visible increase in the turbidity" (cloudiness) of watercourses. The problems with monitoring and enforcing such restrictions seem fairly obvious.
The storm-proofing and reconstruction measures in the HCP will not even begin to address the ongoing destabilization of watersheds and sedimentation of streams. Expansion of Pacific Lumber's road network, including winter road construction, can only be expected to make matters worse. Pacific Lumber's extensive road network needs to be reduced and continuing problems remedied.
Buffer Zones
One of the most-dicussed components of the HCP is the creation of "buffers" along streams and rivers. This approach was codified several years ago in the Northwest Forest Plan, where a group of scientists called the Federal Ecosystem Management Team (FEMAT) developed prescriptions for leaving intact ribbons of mature forest next to watercourses. The work of the FEMAT team is widely regarded as the "best available science" on salmon protection.
These buffer zones were designed to provide shade, preserve the moist forest microclimate that keeps streams cool, and allow large trees to naturally fall into and across streams. According to FEMAT, the width of buffer zones is based upon the potential height of the trees that grow at a specific site; these "site-potential" widths thus vary with tree species, rainfall and soil productivity.
Under the FEMAT approach, year-round, fish-bearing streams (Class 1 streams) are provided buffers at least as wide as the potential height of the trees on the stream banks. In the redwood region, this width would be roughly 300 feet, although redwoods can grow taller. Year-round streams that do not support fish (Class 2 streams) and the steep, seasonal streams in the upper portions of coastal watersheds (Class 3 streams) also are protected by buffers based on site potential tree height, although they are narrower than those on Class 1 streams. Under FEMAT, commercial logging operations are prohibited within these areas.
The goal of the FEMAT strategy is to create viable, well-distributed populations of salmon throughout the landscape. Pacific Lumber's HCP, on the other hand, sets a target of achieving "properly functioning habitat conditions" on the property over the term of the plan. These "properly functioning" conditions are very poorly defined, and the HCP does not substantiate how the measures it describes will achieve these conditions. Salmon habitat on Pacific Lumber land is in terrible shape at present, and the salmon can ill afford 50 more years of incremental building toward properly functioning habitat. Immediate, comprehensive restoration efforts, combined with curtailment of the practices that damage habitat, are essential to salmon recovery.
Pacific Lumber's HCP establishes interim buffer zones for Class 1 and Class 2 streams, and limits equipment operation near Class 3 streams, for three years pending completion of a "watershed analysis" process designed to create more site-specific prescriptions (see below). These buffer zones are far narrower than those recommended by sound science. Furthermore, logging is allowed in most of these so-called "buffers."
Class 1 streams are afforded a 170-foot interim buffer, called a Riparian Management Zone, broken into three "bands": a Restricted Harvest Band (0-30 feet from the streambank), a Limited Entry Band (30-100 feet), and an Outer Band (100-170 feet). Class 2 streams also receive a 100-foot Riparian Management Zone, divided into a 10-foot Restricted Harvest Band and a 90-foot Outer Band.
Throughout the Riparian Management Zones, the use of herbicides or pesticides is prohibited. "Emergency exemption" and salvage operations are allowed only with the permission of wildlife agencies. Trees felled during logging operations are to be removed using "full suspension," which prevents trees from scarring the ground and increasing erosion; however, this guideline must only be implemented "where feasible."
The HCP states that roads will not be constructed in Riparian Management Zones, but provides exceptions for watercourse crossings and areas where "feasible alternatives that would have less environmental impact are clearly not available."
Finally, in the Class 1 Riparian Management Zones, the ten largest trees per acre must be retained so that they may one day naturally fall into the stream channel. There is no provision, however, for permanently marking or retaining these trees; in fact it is highly likely that the largest trees will be periodically removed under this plan, and never reach the stream channel at all.
Logging is allowed within the Restricted Harvest Bands only where it will "enhance and facilitate riparian functions based upon a completed Watershed Analysis, and Riparian Management Plan as agreed upon by the permitting agencies." Although this Restricted Harvest Band has been popularly called a "no-cut" zone, it is, in fact, open to this limited type of logging.
The Class 1 Limited Entry Band allows logging operations once every 20 years. A "Late Seral Selection" prescription is proposed according to the "basal area" (the area occupied by cross-sections of standing trees at breast height) of the forest. For example, a young tree 24 inches in diameter at breast height contributes just over 3 square feet of basal area, whereas a huge ancient tree 10 feet across contributes over 78 square feet to the total. Under this prescription, logging is only allowed in areas where basal area of at least 345 square feet per acre already exists within the Limited Entry Band, a minimum of 300 square feet per acre must remain after logging, and no more than 40% of the conifer basal area may be removed in any one logging operation.
The Class 1 and 2 Outer Bands can be logged in a similar fashion, once every 20 years. In the outer bands, however, logging is allowed in areas where basal area of 276 square feet per acre already exists within the Outer Band. After logging, only 240 square feet per acre need remain; no more than 40% of conifer basal area can be removed in any one logging operation.
Across much of Pacific Lumber's land, riparian areas have already been so heavily logged that the basal area necessary to trigger logging will not exist for some time. Still, for several reasons, it is unclear that the Riparian Management Zones will actually contribute to the creation of "properly functioning" stream habitat.
First and foremost, there are no logging restrictions at all along the steep, seasonal Class III streams that contribute huge amounts of sediment to larger streams regardless of streamside buffers. Instead, a process very similar to the one provided by California's Forest Practice Rules restricts heavy equipment use near these streams, but allows significant loopholes for specific logging plans. This failed approach completely contradicts good science, which has shown that retention of mature forest on these steep, erodible watercourses is essential to ensure water quality and prevent sediment from reaching fish-bearing stream reaches lower down.
Each of the logging prescriptions for the riparian zones features a table showing how many trees per acre will be retained in various size classes, giving the impression that logging in these zones will produce a well-distributed, uneven-aged forest. However, a disclaimer benenath the tables clarifies that this distribution is "provided for information purposes only," and that basal area requirements are the guiding factor in implementing the prescriptions.
Although ten trees greater that 40 inches in diameter, or the ten largest trees available per acre of riparian zone are supposedly to be retained, nowhere is it clear that this retention is permanent; these trees apparently can be cut and "replaced" with smaller trees. Furthermore, neither riparian logging prescription allows for retention of any trees larger than 48" in diameter in the Limited Entry Band and 40" in diameter in the Outer Bands. This seems to indicate that larger trees will rather automatically be logged before they can grow old enough to fall into the streams on their own. Such a practice seems to contradict one of the key reasons for retaining mature forest along streams: recruitment of the "large woody debris" so essential to salmon habitat.
Finally, even these incomplete and inadequate measures are only interim approaches, in place for the next three years, and subject to revision by the watershed analysis process described below.
Hillslope Management
Although most public discussion of the aquatic component of the HCP has revolved around the width and restrictiveness of buffer zones, logging activities located well away from streams still have the potential to greatly impact fisheries and water quality. The incredibly steep hillsides of the North Coast are among the most geologically active and unstable in the world, and local soils are both shallow and highly erodible. Logging and road-building on these areas can dramatically increase the chances of "mass wasting" events like landslides and debris torrents during heavy rain. These deadly flows of mud and sediment can readily plow through just about any buffer zone and proceed down watercourses, burying and removing salmon habitat for miles.
The Bear Creek watershed, where a 1997 debris torrent eradicated nearly four miles of recovering salmon habitat, is a good example (see the discussion of Bear Creek under SYP, above). The Bear Creek debris torrent originated on a failed landing and on a steep clearcut block high upstream, in an area that would not be protected under any measure proposed by the current HCP. A study of the Bear Creek watershed commissioned by Pacific Lumber and carried out by Pacific Watershed Associates revealed that 85% of the sediment in the watercourse after the torrent came from the 37% of the watershed that was logged in the previous five years. These dramatic statistics clearly show the necessity for protective measures that extend well beyond stream zones.
The HCP recognizes this fact to a point, but in place of real protection offers a process designed to allow business as usual to continue on steep slopes and unstable areas. First, Pacific Lumber must determine the erosion hazard that exists in an area where logging is proposed. In sites of "extreme" mass wasting potential, the company will not log or build new roads without a report from a "professional registered PL geologist" (i.e. a company employee) specifying "alternative" types of logging. Such "alternatives" can, and often do, include clearcutting atop active landslides. The geologist's report must accompany the Timber Harvest Plan when it is sent to the California Department of Forestry for approval. In areas where mass wasting potential is rated "high" or "very high," the company will not operate heavy equipment off of existing roads or construct new roads-that is, without a geologist's report recommending "alternatives" approved by CDF.
When such logging is proposed, other agencies-the National Marine Fisheries Service, California Department of Fish & Game, Environmental Protection Agency and Regional Water Quality Control Board-will be notified, and given until the close of the public comment period (at least 30 days from submittal of the logging plan) to express any concerns they may have. The HCP states that "CDF, as lead agency for THP review, will consider all input and determine whether the mass wasting mitigation measures contained in the THP will avoid significant impacts." The other agencies, in effect, are treated as members of the public by CDF; their comments will be collected, and in all likelihood, completely dismissed.
This is almost identical to the completely inadequate process that exists under current state law, with the main exception being the nominal participation of federal agencies like EPA and NMFS. This new process was first tested in the spring of 1998 on two Pacific Lumber logging plans in Sulphur Creek, a tributary to the Mattole River. Pacific Lumber's hired geologist prepared a report claiming that clearcutting in areas of "extreme" mass wasting potential was just fine. When attentive members of the public alerted NMFS officials to this fact, the agency sent letters of concern to CDF. CDF never responded, except to forward a letter from the company's Registered Professional Forester dismissing NMFS' concerns. CDF, in its role "as lead agency for THP review," then approved the plans.
Public pressure on NMFS grew, and in May 1998, NMFS sent a strongly-worded letter to CDF saying that the plans were approved in violation of the process provided under the HCP. CDF disagreed, insisting on its right to approve the plans regardless of NMFS' objections. After a tense summer of agency disagreements, site inspections, litigation, and demonstrations-where many long-time Mattole Valley residents were arrested-the logging was finally halted temporarily by a federal judge.
Sulphur Creek serves as a dramatic warning regarding the complete inadequacy of the Hillslope Management strategy under the HCP. CDF is notorious for approving logging plans on unstable slopes and ignoring the cumulative impacts of previous logging projects, even in places like Bear Creek where the impacts are painfully obvious. The Hillslope Management measures under the HCP, if implemented as they were in Sulphur Creek, will do absolutely nothing to address some of the greatest threats to water quality and the survival of salmon on the North Coast. Logging is simply inappropriate in many areas of these unstable coastal watersheds, and should be prohibited.
Watershed Analysis
The real heart of the aquatics strategy is a "watershed analysis" process that will determine how logging operations are conducted in every watershed on the property. Incredibly, discussion of this process occupies less than ten pages of the HCP, and very few indications are given as to what the final results of the process might be.
Pacific Lumber's process is based on watershed analysis modules developed by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. These modules are designed to assess the impacts of logging and road-building on watershed processes and aquatic habitat, synthesize this analysis into key cause-effect "linkages," and then "break the linkages" between causes and adverse effects through development of site-specific management prescriptions.
At first blush such a process sounds eminently reasonable. Pacific Lumber's process, however, is very tightly constrained in numerous ways, and it is doubtful that either a credible analysis of watershed conditions or a regime of truly protective prescriptions will emerge from its implementation.
First of all, "maximum sideboards" are placed on prescription development from the outset, drastically limiting the protective measures that might emerge from the watershed analysis process. Buffer zones along Class 1 streams may not be widened beyond the 170 feet already provided under the interim measures, although logging restrictions in this buffer may be increased. Class 2 buffers may not exceed 130 feet, with similar logging restrictions possible. Provisions for steep, seasonal Class 3 watercourses are not mentioned. Finally, the strategy for mass wasting avoidance differs from the interim strategy primarily in that a geologist from the California Division of Mines and Geology may make the final determination regarding logging and road-building on sites of extreme, very high or high mass wasting potential if other agencies and Pacific Lumber disagree. Any prescriptions stronger than these "maximum sideboards" would have to be voluntarily developed and agreed to by Pacific Lumber, which is not likely.
The watershed analysis process also contains "minimum sideboards," but these are largely based on California's Forest Practice Rules, which have utterly failed to slow the decline of salmon and steelhead populations on timberlands all along the California coast. The Forest Practice Rules allow extensive logging within so-called "Watercourse and Lake Protection Zones," and do very little to address problems associated with mass wasting. The only key difference between the HCP's minimum sideboards and the Forest Practice Rules is that a "no-cut" buffer of 30 feet on Class 1 streams and 10 feet on Class 2 streams will still be required.
According to the HCP, the watershed analysis, synthesis, and development of prescriptions will be carried out by an "interdisciplinary scientific team" composed of "qualified individuals" hired by Pacific Lumber. The company is required to consult with agency personnel regarding the composition or this team and its responsibilities. In addition, representatives from the National Marine Fisheries Service, California Department of Fish & Game, US Fish & Wildlife Service and Environmental Protection Agency will participate in the development of management prescriptions. Any disagreement among these team members concerning final prescriptions, however, triggers the "default" prescriptions described below; these defaults are less protective than the "maximum sideboards" described above, and very similar in most respects to the interim prescriptions. In other words, Pacific Lumber will have almost no incentive to agree to final prescriptions stronger than these defaults. Many critics of the plan regard this provision as giving Pacific Lumber a virtual "veto" over more protective measures developed in consultation with wildlife and water quality agencies.
So, despite the lofty rhetoric about "breaking the linkages" between logging-related causes and adverse watershed effects, the options for developing prescriptions from the watershed analysis process are extremely narrow. These prescriptions are unlikely to result in the changes in Pacific Lumber's logging practices necessary to bring about recovery of the fish, reptiles and amphibians that depend on the integrity of watercourses and watersheds on Pacific Lumber land.
A credible, alternative watershed analysis would seek to identify and repair damage caused by past land-use activities, and restore functioning habitat conditions in damaged watersheds before allowing any additional projects. Furthermore, activities posing a high risk to aquatic life-like logging on steep, unstable slopes or near any class of stream-would be completely avoided. Arbitrary limitations on watershed analysis like those imposed by Pacific Lumber do not allow the flexibility or the sound scientific analysis necessary to develop a credible, effective recovery strategy for aquatic fish and wildlife.
"Defaults"
According to the draft HCP, Pacific Lumber intends to complete watershed analysis for all of its land within the next three years. Should the company fail to complete this process, or in the event of a disagreement among the team developing prescriptions out of the process, a set of "default" prescriptions will apply. These prescriptions are similar in most respects to the "interim" prescriptions described above, but in some ways are more restrictive. This set of "defaults" is known in the HCP as the "January 7" document, after the date on which the strategy was proposed by federal agency negotiators.
Under these defaults, the Riparian Management Zone width for Class 1 streams remains 170 feet, and the Restricted Harvest (no-cut) band remains a mere 30 feet. However, within the Limited Entry Band (30-100 feet) there is a specific requirement to permanently mark and retain seven trees between 36 and 42 inches in diameter, and five trees between 42 and 48 inches in diameter, per acre. There is another requirement to permanently mark and retain 10 trees greater than 40 inches in diameter per acre throughout the Riparian Management Zone, but it is unclear whether this is in addition to or inclusive of the twelve trees retained in the Limited Entry Band. It is also unclear how this "permanent" retention will be applied as a "default" strategy in areas where Pacific Lumber simply has not completed watershed analysis within the three-year time frame.
Significantly, many streamside areas on Pacific Lumber land have been heavily logged, as permitted under the state's current Forest Practice Rules, and no trees this large exist anywhere near the streams. In such cases, the ten largest trees per acre must be retained.
Along Class 2 streams, a Riparian Management Zone of either 100 feet or 130 feet will be established depending on the watercourse's location in the property; the Humboldt Bay Watershed Assessment Area, which includes Freshwater Creek and the Elk River, receives a 100-foot buffer, whereas all other Class 2 watercourses receive a 130-foot buffer. The Restricted Harvest (no-cut) band in all cases is 30 feet wide. In addition, the Riparian Management Zone for both Class 1 and 2 streams can be extended on steep slopes (>50%) to either the break in slope or a point agreed upon by Pacific Lumber and the agencies.
The default prescriptions also prohibit new road construction during the winter period as well as during all periods of measurable precipitation, and require that the company allow 48 hours without precipitation to elapse before resuming construction.
The mass wasting avoidance strategy is also slightly different from that applied during the interim, and forms the strongest possible approach (the so-called "maximum sideboard") permitted following completion of watershed analysis. For areas of extreme, very high and high landslide hazard, no logging or road-building is allowed unless a team composed of a forester, a geologist, and at least one agency representative determine alternative prescriptions. If there is a disagreement among the team, a representative of the California Division of Mines and Geology makes the final call.
California Legislative Changes
Democrats in the California Legislature, alerted by concerned citizens to the deficiencies in the HCP and their potential detrimental impacts on salmon, attempted to force Pacific Lumber to make certain improvements as a condition for receiving money for the areas to be purchased under the Headwaters deal. These changes, if successfully written into the final HCP, will impact the interim standards and the watershed analysis process. While these changes may ultimately represent improvements, they are nonetheless additional political compromises that do not bring the HCP to the point where it is likely to allow salmon and other aquatic species to recover.
The width of "no-cut" buffer zones received the most attention from legislators, who ultimately required 100-foot buffers along Class 1 streams and 30-foot buffers along Class 2 streams where logging would be prohibited. This change, however, only applies to the interim period prior to completion of watershed analysis, and can be weakened even to the low point of the "minimum sideboards" discussed above. Except as modified by these wider no-cut buffers, interim prescriptions for all Class 1, 2 and 3 streams will follow the more protective January 7 strategy described above. Again, the watershed analysis process can weaken this strategy.
The watershed analysis process itself could be changed somewhat by the legislation. Officials of the National Marine Fisheries Service or Fish & Wildlife Service would review the watershed analysis performed by Pacific Lumber, and would be responsible for developing and implementing prescriptions. Such prescriptions, however, would still be constrained by the "maximum sideboards" established under the draft HCP.
The final language implementing these changes remains to be negotiated and written, so it is difficult to speculate on the degree of improvement these changes are likely to achieve. However, none of these changes require Pacific Lumber to bring their HCP up to the standards set by the best available science, and all may fall far short of measures ultimately necessary to protect and recover salmon, steelhead and other aquatic species.
return to the table of cotents
Northern Spotted Owl
The Northern spotted owl is perhaps the most well-known of controversial forest species in California and the Pacific Northwest. This secretive bird, like the marbled murrelet, does not seem to build a nest, but rather nests and breeds in open cavities, broken tops or on needle-covered branches of large coastal trees. Spotted owls require a relatively dense forest dominated by large trees for nesting and breeding, but tend to forage for prey in more open stands where the small mammals they prefer are present in greater numbers. Thus this species actually requires a more diverse range of habitats than does the murrelet, but nonetheless is highly dependent on extensive areas of mature forest for reproductive and rearing success.
Pacific Lumber's HCP takes this requirement for diverse habitats to somewhat ridiculous lengths. A rather arbitrary "crosswalk" classification between forest types and owl habitat quality is used to make the assertion that a total of 189,990 acres (90%) of Pacific Lumber land qualifies as either nesting, roosting, or foraging habitat for the spotted owl. No justification or rationale is given for why certain forest types were classified as specific kinds of owl habitat. This type of habitat-based classification obscures the reality that Pacific Lumber has insufficient data on its owl populations, obtained not through a systematic property-wide survey but rather through scattered surveys associated with specific Timber Harvest Plans, and has not integrated the data that is available.
Pacific Lumber's surveys as of 1997 have produced information on 303 spotted owls, including 116 pairs. During the first five years of the plan, Pacific Lumber proposes to log 16 of 20 so-called "inactive" owl sites while conducting further surveys in order to establish a "baseline" population. "Inactive" sites are defined as nest sites left unoccupied for one year; if a pair nested at a site in 1996, for example, but the site was vacant in 1997, it would be considered inactive and could be eliminated. Owls, however, have a tendency to vary their nesting sites across their large home ranges, and may return to previous sites (especially semi-permanent sites like cavities or broken tops) several years after first nesting there. Pacific Lumber's definition of "inactive" is thus likely to result in the destruction of many suitable nest sites.
Once the "baseline" population is established, owl populations can be expected to drop as most of the high-quality nesting habitat (old-growth and late seral forest) is quickly liquidated over the next decade as outlined in the Sustained Yield Plan. The HCP, however, relies on other habitat (currently early or mid-successional forest) maturing into higher-quality habitat during that time, and expects the owls to simply migrate to new homes as their nest sites in existing mature forests are destroyed. No scientific justification for this assumption, however, is provided; Pacific Lumber simply relies upon the computer model used to predict forest growth for the Sustained Yield Plan in order to arbitrarily assign dates and acreages for newly developing future habitat.
Continuous surveys will be carried out to determine how the owl population is reacting to such treatment. If the owl population falls below 67% of the baseline for three consecutive years, the company and agencies will meet to discuss implementation of a "no take" strategy (a regime that supposedly will protect owls from harm) until populations once again rise above the 67% mark for three consecutive years.
Pacific Lumber proposes to retain at least 10% of the plan area as suitable spotted owl nesting habitat at all times throughout the plan period. However, given that 77% of the plan area is currently classified as nesting habitat of varying quality, this could allow removal of 142,000 acres of the existing forested landscape. Such an approach seems inconsistent with the requirement that "take" of listed species be "mitigated and minimized" by an HCP; indeed, this approach seems designed to maximize the short-term liquidation of older forests without sufficient scientific justification.
In short, the Northern spotted owl HCP, like the rest of the document, seems primarily designed to accommodate Pacific Lumber's desire to rapidly liquidate their most mature and most valuable forests. Spotted owls will be left to survive in a dramatically altered landscape, subject to frequent logging and inadequate monitoring. This regime will only change when Pacific Lumber manages to kill off over a third of the owls on its property-already a staggering blow for a threatened species.
A credible Northern spotted owl plan would protect older, interior forests for nesting, and ensure proximity of those forests to more open areas where prey is abundant. Long-term nest sites, such as cavities or broken tops in old trees, should be retained. Surveying and monitoring of the owls should be done in a scientifically credible fashion, with the collection of information pertinent to the owl's recovery as a primary goal.
return to the table of cotents
Unlisted Species
Pacific Lumber is seeking permits to kill and destroy the habitats of an "A List" of 36 birds, mammals, fish, amphibians and reptiles under their HCP. Six of these species (murrelets, spotted owls, coho salmon, chinook salmon, steelhead trout and coastal cutthroat trout) are considered "focus species for purposes of developing the HCP. Obviously, the four fish species share aquatic habitat and are affected by similar impacts, although their tolerances to these impacts vary. Murrelets and spotted owls have different but nonetheless well-known terrestrial habitat requirements. The other 30 rare birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles on the list obviously have incredibly diverse habitat needs that are not necessarily contiguous with those of the focus species, which receive most of the attention under the HCP. Although a few species-specific measures are proposed, Pacific Lumber expects most of these creatures to survive largely on the measures provided for the marbled murrelet, coho salmon and spotted owl.
Most of these species are not currently listed under either the state or federal Endangered Species Acts. However, under the "No Surprises" policy contained in this HCP, issuance of permits to take these species would be automatic should they be listed in the future, and no further study or conservation would be required of Pacific Lumber. According to the Fish & Wildlife Service's HCP Manual, such species are supposed to be treated as if they are already listed under the ESA. While hundreds of pages of analysis and description are devoted to the focus species, most of the "conservation plans" for these species in the Pacific Lumber HCP are only a page or two long. Obviously, very little data gathering, analysis, synthesis or credible mitigation development was done for these species.
The species that didn't make the "focus" list, and their status with respect to state and federal wildlife protection laws, are as follows:
Codes:
BEPA Bald Eagle (and Golden Eagle) Protection Act
BOF Board of Forestry Sensitive Species
CCT California candidate for listing as threatened
CE California endangered species
CFP California fully protected
CT California threatened species
FE Federal endangered species
FPT Proposed for federal listing as threatened
FS Federal Sensitive Species
FSR Federal Status Review
FSSE Federal Species of Special Emphasis
FT Federal threatened species
Fish:
Pacific lamprey, Lampetra tridentata
Amphibians:
Southern torrent salamander, Rhyacotriton variegatus CSSC
Tailed frog, Ascaphus truei CSSC
Red-legged frog, Rana aurora CSSC
Foothill yellow-legged frog, Rana boylei CSSC
Reptiles:
Northwestern pond turtle, Clemmys marmorata marmorata CSSC
Birds:
Double-crested cormorant, Phalacrocorax auritus CSSC
Great blue heron, Ardea herodias CSA, BOF
Great egret, Casmerodius albus CSA, CFP, BOF
Snowy egret, Egretta thula CSA, CFP
Black-crowned night heron, Nycticorax nycticorax CSA
Osprey, Pandion haliaetus FSSE CSSC, BOF, CFP
Bald eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus FT, BEPA CE, BOF, CFP
Sharp-shinned hawk, Accipiter striatus CSSC
Cooper's hawk, Accipiter cooperi CSSC
Northern goshawk, Accipiter gentilis FS CSSC, BOF
Ferruginous hawk, Buteo regalis CSSC
Golden eagle, Aquila chrysaetos BEPA CSSC, BOF, CFP
American peregrine falcon, Falco peregrinus anatum FE CE, BOF, CFP
Western snowy plover, Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus FT CSSC
Burrowing owl, Speotyto cunicularia CSSC
Vaux's swift, Chaetura vauxi CSSC
Pileated woodpecker, Dryocopus pileatus
Purple martin, Progne subis CSSC
Bank swallow, Riparia riparia CT
Yellow warbler, Dendroica petechia CSSC
Yellow-breasted chat, Icteria virens CSSC
Mammals:
California red tree vole, Arborimus pomo CSSC
Humboldt marten, Martes americana humboldtensis CSSC
Pacific fisher, Martes pennanti pacifica CSSC
According to the HCP, the Riparian Management Zones will provide all or part of the "mitigation" for 17 of these species. Ten species are expected to subsist largely on habitat in the Headwaters Preserve, the Marbled Murrelet Conservation Areas, and whatever mature forest habitat grows back following Pacific Lumber's initial logging blitz. The HCP also uses a misleading euphemism-"habitat diversity over time"-to indicate the various cycles of clearcutting, replanting, thinning and clearcutting that will occur on most of the landscape. Most of the birds and mammals on the "A List," like the Northern spotted owl, will have to find homes where they can in this treacherous landscape. Among other species, the extremely rare Humboldt marten and Pacific fisher, where they might still exist on Pacific Lumber land, will rapidly lose a huge portion of the ancient and mature forest on which their survival depends.
The HCP does provide specific mitigation measures for some species, but none of these measures actually ensures permanent protection habitat sufficient for survival and recovery. Active osprey nests, for example, that occur in or near logging operations can be given "up to" an 18-acre buffer during the summer nesting season (no minimum buffer is specified); the entire nest zone can be liquidated once the nesting season ends. Similar measures leave a 300-foot breeding season buffer around heron and egret nest trees, which can be logged (except the nest tree and screening trees) once the season ends. Bald and golden eagle nests, if discovered within .25 miles of a logging site, will be "observed" for three days to determine whether or not the operations are "disturbing" the eagles. Logging of nest sites outside the breeding season is allowed.
The HCP proposes to retain standing dead trees, or "snags," for wildlife habitat throughout the property. Many of the birds on the "A List" nest in the cavities found in such trees. The goal of the snag retention strategy is to recruit or retain roughly five trees per acre in three different size classes, and to retain all snags that do not pose a threat to workers during timber operations. It is easy to imagine clearcut hillsides where the only standing trees are dead, and the varied forest that provided habitat beyond nest trees is gone.
It is completely inappropriate to extend assurances to Pacific Lumber that these "afterthought" conservation plans are adequate to avoid jeopardizing the survival and recovery of these species. One of the greatest failures of the "No Surprises" policy is in guaranteeing such assurances to companies like Pacific Lumber despite the obvious inadequacy of their data, analysis and conservation planning measures for these species.
return to the table of cotents
Statistics:
"Headwaters Index,"
with apologies to Harper's Monthly
as of Oct 8, 1998
Acres of old-growth and residual redwood "available for harvest": 9,117-9,765
Acres of old-growth Douglas-fir "available for harvest": 8,304
Percentage of old-growth Douglas-fir "available for harvest": 97.5%
Percentage of uncut and residual redwood "available for harvest": 52%-56%
Percentage of total forest area "available for harvest": 93%
(Source: Tom Reid Associates, Appendix N Part 2, Draft EIS/EIR)
Acres of "Old Growth" to be removed during first decade (1998-2003): 2,580
(Source: HCP Vol. 3 Part C, Unnumbered table)
Percentage of available marbled murrelet habitat to be logged: 53.4%
(Source: HCP Vol. 4 Part B, Section 1, Table 4)
Number of murrelets expected to be "taken" (killed or harmed): 251-340
Percentage of local murrelets to be "taken" (killed or harmed): 17%-23%
(Source: HCP Vol. 4 Part B, Section 14, Table 5.H)
Number of murrelets that could be killed if Pacific Lumber's assumptions
about residual old-growth occupancy are wrong: more than 750
Amount by which total harvest exceeds total growth, first decade: 32%
Amount by which total harvest exceeds total growth, second decade: 5%
"Intensively Managed Clearcuts" in first decade (1998-2003): 34,270 acres.
"Brush Control" (primarily herbicides) applied to 80%: 27,776 acres.
Total "Acres Managed" in 1st Decade (1998-2003): 54,382 acres.
Percentage of plan area clearcut during first decade (1998-2003): 16.2%
Percentage of plan area "managed" during first decade (1998-2003): 25.7%
(source: HCP/SYP Vol 3 Part C, pages unnumbered)
Harvested Volume, Redwood Old Growth, First Decade: 410,780 MMBF
Harvested Volume, Redwood Old Growth, Second Decade: 121,625 MMBF
Harvested Volume, Douglas-fir Old Growth, First Decade: 299,716 MMBF
Harvested Volume, Douglas-fir Old Growth, Second Decade: 9,274 MMBF
(source: HCP/SYP Vol 3 Part C, pages unnumbered)
Acres in Class 1 and Class 2 Riparian Management Zones: 27,951
Acres in Class 1 Restricted Harvest (no-cut) Bands: 1,956
Acres in Class 2 Restricted Harvest (no-cut) Bands: 1,687
Acres in Class 3 Restricted Harvest (no-cut) Bands: 0
Percentage of Riparian Management Zones (Class 1 & 2) open to logging: 87%
Percentage of areas along Class 3 streams open to logging: 100%
(source: HCP/SYP Vol 3 Part C, pages unnumbered)
Approximate existing road miles on Pacific Lumber land: 1,533
Approximate miles of road per square mile of land: 4.6
Miles of road proposed for storm-proofing, each decade: 500
Miles of additional road construction proposed for next five decades: 400
Acres in proposed Headwaters Preserve: 7,470
Acres of old-growth and residual redwood in Headwaters Preserve: 3,782
Percentage of uncut old-growth redwood in Headwaters Preserve: 42%
Price per acre for Headwaters Preserve: $50,870
Acres in California's proposed Owl Creek acquisition: 904
Percentage of uncut old-growth redwood in Owl Creek: 35%
Percentage of young forest and non-forest in Owl Creek: 39%
Potential cost of Owl Creek acquisition: $80,000,000
Maximum price per acre for Owl Creek: $88,496
Acres in California's proposed Grizzly Creek acquisition: 1,057
Percentage of uncut old-growth redwood in Grizzly Creek: 9%
Percentage of young forest and non-forest in Grizzly Creek: 39%
return to the table of cotents
Suggestions for Public Comment
Overview:
Under their agreement to sell a portion of Headwaters Forest to the public, Pacific Lumber Company has submitted a Sustained Yield Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan to state and federal agencies for approval. The Sustained Yield Plan (SYP) details how the company plans to log its land for the next 120 years. Approval of the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) will give the company an "incidental take permit" allowing them to kill endangered species and destroy their habitat for the next 50 years in exchange for a few "mitigation" measures.
The groves of Headwaters Forest not acquired under the company's deal, along with numerous streams essential to the survival of California's coastal salmon, are literally at the mercy of these plans! Extensive citizen involvement at this point may be the only way to make a difference...
Written comments must be received by November 16, and can be sent to: Bruce Halstead, US Fish & Wildlife Service
1125 16th Street, Room 209
Arcata, CA 95521
fax (707) 822-8411
Please reference Permit numbers PRT-828950 and 1157.
John Munn, California Department of Forestry
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
fax (916) 653-8957
Please reference SYP 96-002
Public hearings are also scheduled for the following dates and locations:
Tuesday October 27, 1998.
Radisson Hotel, Los Angeles West, Pacifica Pallroom, 6161 West
Centinela City, California. From 1-4 and 6-9 p.m.
Thursday October 29, 1998.
Sacramento Convention Center, 1030 15th Street, Rooms 307-308,
Sacramento, California. From 1-4 and 6-9 p.m.
Thursday November 5, 1998.
Oakland Marriott Convention Center, West Hall, 550 Tenth Street,
Oakland, California. From 1-4 and 6-9 p.m.
Tuesday November 10, 1998.
Redwood Acres Fairgrounds, Franceshi Hall, 3750 Harris Street,
Eureka, California. From 9-11 and from 1-4 and from 6-9 p.m.
For a copy of the plan on CD-ROM, or to find the location of a public copy near you, contact the Fish & Wildlife Service office in Arcata: (707) 822-7201.
Following are a few important points to make in comment letters or at hearings:
The draft plans are scientifically, legally and biologically deficient, and should not be approved as written.
Pacific Lumber Company has been convicted numerous times of criminal violations of California forestry laws, and has evidenced a callous lack of responsibility. Therefore their request for a permit to "take" endangered species should be denied per 50 CFR 13.21(b)(1).
The Watershed Assessment data for the Sustained Yield Plan is incomplete, outdated, and in some cases materially misleading. The SYP should not be approved in the absence of current and accurate data describing the condition of watersheds on Pacific Lumber land.
The Sustained Yield Plan proposes to harvest 32% more forest than will grow back over the first decade. This "decade," as defined by the plan, is oddly only four years long. During this four-year period, over 25% of the company's land will be logged (54,382 acres). Over 35,000 of these acres will be clearcut, and over 2,500 of these acres are uncut old-growth forests. This is not a plan that will facilitate "sustained production of high-quality timber products...while giving consideration to environmental and economic values" as required under 14 CCR 1091.1(b), but a plan for the short-term liquidation of forest resources at a tremendous long-term environmental and economic cost.
There is no scientifically valid way to "mitigate" the permanent destruction of ancient and residual forest habitat, on which the marbled murrelet relies for its survival and recovery. This plan would allow Pacific Lumber to liquidate over 17,000 acres of ancient and residual forest habitat, killing between 251 and 340 marbled murrelets in the process (17% of the local population). Logging in known occupied stands will even take place during the murrelet breeding season, increasing the chances that murrelets will be directly killed by operations. This neither "mitigates" nor "minimizes" the impacts of logging on murrelets, and could well "appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery" of this species in violation of the federal Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1539 (a)(2)(B)(iv)). According to the final Recovery Plan for the marbled murrelet, HCPs are supposed to contribute to-not undermine-recovery of the species. No ancient or residual forest should be sacrificed under this HCP.
The measures regarding Northern spotted owls are also completely inadequate. Scientific information on existing owl populations is either missing or not analyzed. What data the company does have on owls is ignored in favor of a "habitat-based" approach that basically will force owls to find homes in an increasingly hostile landscape where most of the ancient and mature forest will be quickly liquidated. At least a third of the owls on their property would be killed before the company is be required to take action to reverse the decline. Again, this neither minimizes nor mitigates the impacts of logging, and definitely is not a strategy oriented toward recovery of the spotted owl. Pacific Lumber's strategy falls far short of even other regional spotted owl HCPs.
Similarly, measures for "mitigating" the impacts of logging on aquatic habitat for coastal salmon are entirely inadequate. Interim buffer zones are far narrower than those recommended by federal scientists, and allow a substantial amount of logging to occur. The HCP process for avoiding landslides relies primarily upon the reports of a geologist hired by Pacific Lumber. Finally, even these interim measures are subject to change under an ill-defined and artificially constrained "watershed analysis" process that will develop undetermined site-specific "prescriptions" at some point in the future. A "plan to do more planning" cannot be evaluated or approved under the requirements of the federal Endangered Species Act.
Finally, a total of 36 protected and rare species are included on Pacific Lumber's application for "incidental take" permits. Under the Clinton administration's "No Surprises" policy, Pacific Lumber will not have to provide any additional protection for these species for the next 50 years. Instead, these fish, amphibians, birds and mammals, with their diverse habitat needs, largely will be forced to depend on the few sparse and fragmented areas of intact forest that will remain standing under this HCP. The species-specific conservation measures that are provided are seemingly afterthoughts, and do not provide for any long-term retention of essential habitat necessary to prevent further decline and listing of these species. This is an inappropriate and unscientific approach that should not be approved.
In order for endangered species and the North Coast community to survive and recover in the future, we must pursue an alternative based on conservation of ancient and residual forests, protection and restoration of streams, and long-term certified sustainable forestry.
