In listing the coho salmon as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act:
"Specifically, the CFPRs do not adequately address large woody debris recruitment, streamside tree retention to maintain bank stability, and canopy retention standards that assure stream temperatures are properly functioning for all life stages of coho salmon. The current process for approving Timber Harvest plans (THPs) under the CFPRs does not include monitoring of timber harvest operations to determine whether a particular operation damaged habitat and, if so, how it might be mitigated in future THPs." 62 FR 24596.
In listing the steelhead trout as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act:
"[A]lthough the FPRs mandate protection of sensitive resources such as anadromous salmonids, the FPRs and their implementation and enforcement do not accomplish this objective. Specific problems with the FPRs include: (1) protective provisions that are not supported by scientific literature; (2) provisions that are scientifically inadequate to protect salmonids including steelhead; (3) inadequate and ineffective cumulative effects analyses; (4) dependence upon registered professional foresters that may not possess the necessary level of multi-disciplinary technical expertise to develop timber harvest plans (THPs) protective of salmonids; (5) dependence by CDF on other State agencies to review and comment on THPs; (6) failure of CDF to incorporate recommendations from other agencies; and (7) inadequate enforcement due to staffing limitations. NMFS further concluded that until a comprehensive scientific peer review process was implemented and appropriate changes to the FPRs and the THP approval process were made, properly functioning habitat conditions would not be ensured on non-Federal lands in the Northern California steelhead ESU. 65 FR 6966.
From the Biological Opinion on the Pacific Lumber Company Habitat Conservation Plan/Sustained Yield Plan:
"Implementation of Timber Harvest Plans under the Forest Practice Rules has not consistently provided protection against unauthorized take in relation to Pacific salmonids listed under the Act by the NMFS, such as coho salmon. The NMFS has informed the CDF of its ongoing concern over the lack of specific provisions for Pacific salmonids in the CFPRs. In April 1997, the CDF issued the document Coho Salmon Considerations for Timber Harvests Under the California Forest Practice Rules as guidance to foresters on how to address take of coho salmon. Although this document provides guidance for protecting salmonids, it does not, in many instances, require measures that would avoid take of coho salmon from direct, indirect, and cumulative effects...Until these issues are resolved, unauthorized take from direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of coho salmon from timber harvest and its associated activities may be occurring. The extent and amount of any unauthorized take of coho salmon is unknown" (February 24, 1999).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
In regards to a petition filed by residents of the Humboldt Bay region requesting the Board of Forestry adopt emergency rules that would improve measures to protect water quality:
"On the North Coast, the majority of the streams have been listed due to impacts of sediment on the beneficial uses, most notably salmonids...The petitioners are most concerned with the cumulative impacts of sediment and state the current Forest Practice Rules and/or the implementation of these rules does not adequately address cumulative impacts from timber harvesting activities. In 1994, the Little Hoover Commission found that the Timber Harvest Plan (THP) `process looks at potential damage on a site-by-site basis rather than across entire ecosystems, making it difficult to assess cumulative impacts over time and throughout watersheds.' EPA concurs that improved methods for assessing cumulative effects on a watershed basis are necessary. In addition, EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have found that...additional management measures are necessary in order to attain and maintain water quality standards" (November 21, 1997).
In a letter to the California Board of Forestry regarding Forest Practice Rule changes proposed by Richard Gienger, the EPA stated:
"As we have said before, the current Forest Practice Rules, and/or the implementation of these rules, does not adequately address cumulative impacts from timber harvesting activities" (April 6, 1998).
The California Department of Forestry
With respect to the rate and intensity of logging:
"A dramatic reduction in the level of harvesting in degraded watersheds should be considered by the Landowner as well as reviewing agencies. A quick calculation based on the tables provided in the THP indicate that approximately 38% of the assessment area has had a regeneration harvest in the last 10 years. This rate is not sustainable under current regulations. From my observations of the Bear Creek and Jordan Creek watersheds I believe that regeneration type harvesting has contributed to the mass wasting events triggered by the storms of winter 96-97. My observations indicate the vast majority of events have occurred where regeneration harvests have taken place within the last 15 years. The fact that nearly 40% of the watershed has been regenerated within the last 10 years may have been a great factor in this perception..." (CDF, November 26, 1997, THP 97-463, Bear Creek)
"The RPF has proposed a reentry into unit 1 to clearcut a four or five year old thinning...This practice has been seen throughout this ownership. At first it was viewed as an anomaly or an occasional change of management goals based on a site specific condition. It now is occurring with such frequency that I view it as a pattern of practice. The cumulative effects of this rapid reentry scenario are a cause of concern in view of the downstream domestic and the unstable nature of much of the slope north of the Class I (Dean Creek)...The adverse effects of the thinning ("thinning stock") have certainly manifested themselves in this time frame. The effects on other resources (soil, water, aesthetics, habitat) will be compounded in an artificially short period of time" (CDF, THP 1-98-154, Dean Creek).
"The RPF provided a list of past, present and future projects within the assessment areas. Approximately eighty-one percent of the watershed assessment area has been approved for harvesting in the last ten years. Another five percent is in proposed projects. Approximately thirty-five percent of the assessment area will be in active harvesting including this project." (CDF, THP 1-97-489).
"Soil resources are adversely affected resulting in soil loss and a possible reduction in soil productivity from a recurrence in soil compaction. Fish and wildlife impacts are linked in part with water resources impacts...Given the recent listing of Elk River as a Clean Water Act 303(d) sediment impaired waterbody, rapid re-entry onto the same acres is ill-advised. Watershed impacts are likely to have had an adverse effect on coho salmon habitat. A re-entry to these harvest areas so recently following completion cannot be considered an activity which is 'protecting' the public trust resources through the application of these rules...
"The RPF discloses recent harvests in the project area by stating that 'thinnings and selection harvests were conducted during the early 1990s' (THP pages 4 and 19). This statement is somewhat misleading. This project area was the subject of recent harvests under THPs 1-94-102 HUM and 1-94-376 HUM. These areas were both operated in 1995 and 1996 with completion reports filed in 1996 and 1997, respectively. The proposed re-entry into these areas is being considered with less than two years since completion of either of the two previous projects. The appropriateness of this proposed project is seriously in question..."
The California Department of Fish and Game
Bill Condon, Biologist with DFG, in sworn testimony to the Senate Natural Resources Committee:
"The Timber Harvest Plan process does not prevent streams from being silted up, does not protect Salmon and their habitat, does not prevent pollution of water, does not protect public and private resources, and, in particular, the process does not prevent cumulative effects on the environment" (November 24, 1997).
Regarding the Bear Creek watershed after huge landslides ripped down 2.5 miles of the creek and erased coho, chinook and steelhead habitat:
The CFPRs "have been inadequate to provide protection for anadromous fish and their habitat including coho salmon." (1997).
In response to the Board of Forestry's request to DFG to complete an evaluation of the implementation and effectiveness of the watercourse and lake protection zone rules:
"The results of our evaluation showed a general staff consensus that the overall function and biological diversity and integrity of stream corridors is not always being adequately protected or allowed to recover...While there are certainly other factors contributing to declines in coastal anadromous fish populations, most fishery scientists would agree that deterioration or impeded recovery of existing fresh water habitat remains a significant issue. If California's valuable anadromous fishery resources are to recover, along with the significant economic contributions those resources provide to local communities and the State as a whole, we believe additional action must be taken now where necessary to ensure that freshwater habitats are protected from further degradation" (July 6, 1995).
Discussing the problems caused by intensive and frequent logging in the North Fork Elk River in their report on THP 1-98-038:
"The current conditions in McWhinney Creek are likely, in part, a function of the extensive harvest activity that has recently occurred in this drainage. Approximately 60 percent of the 845 acre drainage has been under the footprint of a THP since April of 1994...[McWhinney Creek] contains one of the three known remaining populations of cutthroat trout in the North Fork Elk River drainage. Given the current in-stream conditions, these populations appear at risk of extirpation from McWhinney Creek if this has not already happened...."
The California Department of Parks and Recreation
In regards to logging upstream from Grizzly Creek State Park in Humboldt County:
"Since accelerated timber harvesting started around Grizzly Creek State Park in the 1980s we have observed clear and obvious aggradation of both Grizzly Creek and the Van Duzen River. Our most popular swimming hole, just below the confluence of Grizzly Creek and the Van Duzen River, existed for decades prior to this timber harvesting. Now it is gone, filled in with sediment from logged slopes and roads, along with many other pools that used to exist in the two watercourses. As the creek and river widens we have lost trees which existed along the banks for 500 to 1000 years. Since geology, climate and other natural elements have remained roughly the same over this time period, it is obvious the cause of this aggravation leading to the killing of 800 year old trees (from river widening) and the pools filling in is a direct result of poor timber harvest practices, pre and post the Forest Practice Rules.
"One need only look at an aerial photo of Grizzly Creek State Park to see that almost the entire area, including all the watersheds, has been heavily harvested in the recent past three decades...We have had the same personnel stationed at Grizzly Creek State Park for seventeen years who will testify to the loss of big trees and the filling in of pools caused by the sediment generated from logging ops in the Camp Bemis watershed and others. Last year alone Grizzly Creek aggraded 5 to 10 feet in the final reaches before emptying into the Van Duzen River...As channels widen and banks collapse we (and therefore the public) have lost hundreds of old growth trees in the last three decades to the filling in of the South Fork Eel, main stem Eel River and tributaries such as Jordan and Bear Creek."
The Little Hoover Commission
From their review of the Timber Harvest Plan review process, 'Timber Harvest Plans: A Flawed Effort to Balance Economic and Environmental Needs':
"The Timber Harvest Plan process has not proven effective in achieving a sound balance between economic and environmental concerns....Despite timber industry complaints about the process, harvesting on private land has declined only marginally in the past five years and plans are routinely approved--both signs that economic interests are being met. But the plan process has proven less effective in protecting the environment...
"The process looks at potential damage on a site-by-site basis rather than across entire ecosystems, making it difficult to assess cumulative impacts over time and throughout watersheds...(L)ittle effort is devoted to monitoring compliance, assessing the outcome of requirements and enforcing orders. But without these activities the Timber Harvest Plan is simply part of a process rather than an effective tool to achieve desired results." (June 1994)
The Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC)
(707) 923 - 2931 * epic@wildcalifornia.org