Robert J. Hrubes, Ph.D.

Re: Permit numbers PRT-828950 and 1157.
Re: SYP 96-002

For the reasons detailed below, it is my considered judgement that the draft HCP/SYP is fundamentally flawed, both procedurally and substantively. In particular, the combined HCP/SYP document fails to incorporate data and analyses expressly required under Section 1091 of the California Forest Practice regulations. From the standpoint of the federal Endangered Species Act, the HCP component of the PL combined document utterly fails on its face "to ensure the continued health of the biological communities on PALCO's property and to minimize and mitigate impacts of PALCO activities on individual species.

(Go Back To Top)

THE AQUATIC HABITAT CONSERVATION STRATEGY IS INADEQUATELY PRESENTED TO THE PUBLIC AND OF INDETERMINATE EFFICACY

My review of the draft HCP/SYP has confirmed that little has been offered by PL in the way of quantitative, site-specific information pertaining to existing stand-level conditions within riparian management zones and in upland zones and how they are projected to change in response to planned activities such as timber harvesting, yarding, and road building. The draft plan is replete with lengthy and repetitive summary discussions of the relevant scientific literature, at least as selected by PL's consultants. The draft plan also presents summary tabular and graphical indices on ownership-wide and watershed assessment area-wide activities and future conditions. But, the draft plan is essentially lacking in stand-level data that would enable the reviewer to ascertain the nature of changes to specific locales within the ownership, such as selected watercourse zones. To the extent allowed by the information that has been presented in the draft plan, I have attempted to infer likely future conditions within the riparian management zones (RMZ).

A major hindrance to developing definitive assessments of future forest conditions is that the HCP incorporates multiple escape clauses, variances and exceptions to the proposed mitigative prescriptions. As detailed below, the HCP is essentially presenting a 3-year interim set of prescriptions that are all subject to revision upon completion of "watershed analyses." (FOOTNOTE 1) Their interim nature aside, the mitigative prescriptions also contain language that casts further doubt as to PL's ultimate actions upon the landbase; clauses such as: "where practicable" and "when feasible."

(Go Back To Top)

Planned Activities Within Watercourse Zones are Inadequately Presented in the Public Review Document

The prescriptions comprising the aquatic conservation strategy are expressly stipulated by PL as interim measures until completion of watershed analyses, to be conducted according to a modified version of the Washington State protocols. The procedural modifications are not described in the HCP. PL depicts the interim prescriptions as "one size fits all" that are, by definition, inferior to "customized" prescriptions that will come out of the watershed analyses. This depiction leaves the reader with the clear impression that PL intends to abandon the interim prescriptions at the earliest opportunity. Bounds (termed maximum and minimum sideboards) are set forth in the HCP (Volume IV, Part D, Section 4) as to the possible range of prescriptions that could result from the watershed analyses. Notably, the zone widths are not subject to possible upward revision (i.e., widening). On the positive side in terms of potential environmental protection, the HCP does allow for the current zones to be redefined as totally "no harvest", if justified by watershed analysis.

Clearly, the long term activities that will take place on the ownership are yet to be determined and presented for public review. The core of this draft HCP is a commitment to do additional planning within the framework of an ill-defined watershed analysis process. At this point in time, the public is largely left with the opportunity to comment on interim measures, themselves uncomfortably flexible, that will be put in place until the "real" planning process is initiated and completed. Does a "plan to do more planning" comply with the ESA?

Briefly, the interim strategy defines riparian management zone (RMZ) widths for Class I and II watercourses, sub-zone bands within Class I and II RMZs and activity constraints across the entirety of the RMZs as well as for the sub-zone bands. Restrictions that apply to all bands for both Class I and II zones include:

• No sanitation salvage or exemption harvest, except as agreed to by state and federal agencies
• Large woody debris (LWD) to be retained, including all presently standing trees not felled by a logger. LWD retention is partially relaxed in the outer portions of the zones, if the slope is less than 50%. (FOOTNOTE 2)
• Retention of all non-hazard snags
• No herbicides or pesticides
• Equipment exclusion except for roads and permitted crossings. The plan is ambiguous as to new road construction in RMZs; new roads are proscribed only if they are not for the purpose of stream crossings or "when feasible alternatives that would have less environmental impact are clearly not available as determined through consultation with the appropriate agencies." Similar language found throughout the state forest practice regulations provides the basis for numerous exceptions and exemptions from various environmental protection requirements.
• Full suspension cable yarding, when feasible (i.e., logs are not to be dragged along the ground when being yarded, when feasible). (FOOTENOTE 3)
• Harvest entry limited to once every 20 years (FOOTNOTE 4), with a maximum of 40% conifer basal area removal per entry. (FOOTNOTE 5)

• A restricted harvest band (RHB) from 0 to 30 feet, frequently referred to throughout the HCP as a "no harvest" band. In fact, harvesting is allowed if justified by a completed watershed analysis.
• A limited entry band (LEB) from 30 to 100 feet in which only "high residual basal area" selective harvesting is allowed that leaves at least 300 square feet of basal area per acre. Harvest entry requires at least 345 square feet of basal area prior to harvest.
• An outer band (OB) from 100 to 170 feet in which "low residual basal area" selective harvesting is allowed that leaves at least 240 square feet of basal area per acre. Harvest entry requires at least 276 square feet of basal area, pre-harvest.

However, I was informed in recent conversations with Vickie Campbell and Sharon Kramer of NMFS that PL is interpreting the language in the text in a manner that substantially reduces the habitat benefits generated on the ground. Whereas the text could reasonably be interpreted to mean that these 10 trees per acre greater than 40 inches per acre would be marked and permanently reserved for snag and LWD recruitment, PL has chosen to apply a replacement policy such that any of the subject trees could be harvested if a replacement tree is designated. The effect of this policy would be that few if any of the subject trees would ultimately become snags and LWD. The main point is that there is considerable uncertainty as to what this key clause means and how it will be implemented in the field.

Class II RMZs are defined as 100 feet on each side of the stream bank, measured as slope distance. The zone is broken into two bands:

• A restricted harvest band (RHP) for 0 to 10 feet with "no harvest" unless supported by a completed watershed analysis.
• A selective entry band (SEB) from 10 to 100 feet in which only the "low residual basal area" selective harvesting prescription is available (i.e., 240 square feet residual basal area).

The text describing this table, in both Volumes I and IV, clearly indicates that the schedule constitutes a hard target for basal area retention by tree size class rather than a general advisory. E.G.: "Tree sizes and quantity distribution will be retained as per Table 17." (Volume I, page 67). The table itself states: "Retention requirements are based on basal area not tree number. Number of trees/acre provided for information purposes only."

For present purposes, I will assume the text pertaining to Table 17 means what it says. From that premise, it is possible to infer one key implication: the total acres of land within the Class I and II RMZs that contain late seral stands will not decrease below the current total. That is, harvesting in compliance with Table 17 within RMZs will not eliminate the late seral status of stands in such condition prior to harvest. The pertinence of this inference is discussed in the next section of this document.

Class III buffer widths are a function of side slope and range from 25 to 100 feet. There are no prescribed limits on timber harvest in the zones. The buffers are categorized as equipment limitation zones (ELZ), which means little in terms of on-the-ground activities other than skid trails will be stabilized and watercourse tractor road crossings will be flagged. A major exception is inserted in the Class III buffer language: "Ground based equipment in the ELZ is acceptable if less resource damage will occur by operating in the ELZ, as per an approved THP." This clause almost certainly will lead to boilerplate/generic language justifying ground equipment in the zones, language that is regularly approved by CDF in its review/approval of THPs. Notably, the California Board of Forestry is presently considering regulations that would require much more stringent equipment exclusion zones (EEZ) in Class III watercourses. So, PL's mitigative prescriptions for Class III zones could hardly be described as cutting edge protections, in contrast to their claims to the contrary.

(Go Back To Top)

What Will Be The Effect Of These Limitations In The Field?

It is also notable that the late seral acres are projected to actually decrease in both Class I and II RMZs over the first 10 years of the HCP. This is consistent with the fact that PL's timber management program throughout the ownership will continue to deplete total standing inventory for the next 20 years, as will be discussed in more detail later in this memo. But perhaps more importantly, the projected decline in late seral RMZ acres reveals one of two possible fundamental contradictions:

1. If the projection of declining late seral acres in RMZs is correct, it directly contradicts the premise that Table 17 is being implemented as stated in the HCP; i.e., as hard targets. This is because a rigorous implementation of the entry thresholds and leave requirements in Table 17 would prevent any pre-harvest late seral acres from losing that status.
2. If, alternatively, harvesting will comply faithfully with Table 17, the implication is that the PL's harvest planned for the first decade is highly likely to be in non-compliance with the California SYP regulations. This is because the harvest projections are premised in part on a conversion of late seral stands in RMZs to faster growing younger stands; a conversion that Table 17 will not allow. Since the planned harvest level for the first decade is set as high as possible under the state regulations, any overestimation of growth (which faithful adherence to Table 17 would create) renders the harvest level invalid.

For stands that are to be harvested down to the minimum requirements of the aquatic strategy, what would stand conditions approximate? If, despite the evidence discussed above regarding internal contradictions, PL were to comply with the residual basal area requirements presented in Table 17 of Volume I, Class I LEB stands would have 108 trees per acre with 5 trees per acre larger than 42 inches DBH. My rough approximation of this situation is that it would be a 2-3 layered canopy that is close to but not full crown closure (as viewed vertically from overhead), assuming that the partial harvest entry did not result in significant damage to the residual crowns (FOOTNOTE 11). For Class I OB and Class II SEB stands, post-harvest conditions would involve 125 trees per acre with the 5 largest trees per acre being in the 36 to 40 inch size class. This total number of trees per acre and their size class distribution would not be significantly different from the LEB (300 square foot) post-harvest stands; i.e., at least 2 canopy layers and substantial crown closure.

In at least two places in the HCP, statements are made or tabular information is presented indicating that, in PL's estimation, RMZ average post-harvest crown closure will exceed 80%. PL statements pertaining to their estimates of post harvest canopy being in excess of 80% can be found on page 2 of part H of Volume III as well as in a table and supporting text found in Section 5 of Part D of Volume IV (Incremental Benefit Analysis). Of note, first, is that this estimated 80% total canopy closure (i.e., overstory plus mid and under stories) falls well short of the desired future condition for riparian zones that is presented in Table 16 of Volume I (page 61), where the target is 85% overstory tree canopy closure. Second, the HCP offers no data on either current or future stand-level conditions in the RMZ that would support the claimed 80% canopy closure.

(Go Back To Top)

PLANNED TIMBER HARVESTING UNDER THE DRAFT PACIFIC LUMBER SUSTAINED YIELD PLAN WILL EXACERBATE RATHER THAN MITIGATE IMPACTS ON LISTED SPECIES

PL's harvest plan calls for the continued liquidation of the remaining old growth stands outside of the protected areas. In the first decade alone, 2,236 acres of old growth will be clearcut. Company-wide old growth acres drop by 50% in the first 3 decades and by 66% by decade 6. Of the 2.3 billion board feet of timber to be harvested in the first decade, 711 million board feet (30%) come from the harvest of old growth timber. By decade 6, the old growth is all but gone, contributing but a mere 9 million board feet of harvested volume. Late seral acres drop by 66% in the first 3 decades (FOOTNOTE 13), while forest openings (recent clearcuts) increase by 300% in just 2 decades and the area occupied by young plantations increases by 193% by decade 3.

These company-wide trends are accomplished primarily through the implementation of 20-40 acre clearcuts with planned subsequent rotations of 50-80 years. Of the 54,382 acres scheduled for harvest in the first decade, 34,903 acres (64%) will be clearcut, with 90% of those acres being planned for 50 or 60 year subsequent rotations with intensive treatments including pre-commercial thinning, herbicide applications and fertilizer application. With the exception of snags, there will be few if any natural forest attributes associated with these intensively managed plantations, primarily comprised of Douglas fir.

In the first decade, 75% of all harvest areas will involve tractor yarding as opposed to less impactive cable yarding systems. In decade 2, that proportion increases to 84%.

(Go Back To Top)

Spatial Intensity Of Planned Timber Harvesting Is Not Revealed in the Draft HCP/SYP

In stark contrast, the PL Sustained Yield Plan is structured in a manner that largely precludes the public from meaningfully understanding the spatial (i.e., landscape level) distribution of the proposed harvesting program. Despite written requests to the contrary from the California Department of Forestry, the Department of Fish and Game, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, PL has released an HCP/SYP that is structured around five very large "watershed analysis areas" (WAA). These WAAs range in size from 55,000 acres to 426,000 acres and each WAA encompasses numerous planning watersheds. At the highly aggregated scale of a WAA, it is impossible to assess the extent to which individual planning watersheds are being cumulatively impacted by PL and other industrial timber harvesting and road building activities.

PL WATERSHED ASSESSMENT AREAS
	Size (Acres) & PALCO Acres	Number of Planning Watersheds Contained Therein	Principal Watercourses
WAA 1: Humboldt Bay	128,590 38,777	14	Elk River, Freshwater Creek, Jacoby Creek, Salmon Creek
WAA 2: Yager	84,554 34,107	13	Yager Creek, Lawrence Creek
WAA 3: Van Duzen	55,341 24,934	7	Van Duzen River
WAA 4: Eel	425,946 75,457	46	Eel River, South Fork Eel, Larabee Creek
WAA 5: Bear-Matthole	304,744 34,528	14	NF Mattole River, Bear River

In fact, the sustained yield planning regulations (Section 1091.6(c)(1)(A) of the forest practice regulations) expressly state that a SYP shall include estimates of the stand structure type acreage and percent composition for all planning watersheds, by decade. State agency personnel reviewing prior drafts of the PL SYP requested this information at the scale of planning watersheds rather than the highly aggregated "watershed assessment areas." Despite these state agency requests, PL has persisted in releasing a HCP/SYP that fails to include this information and in which planning watershed-level effects are impossible to determine. Likewise, PL has failed to comply in a reasonable manner with 1091.6(c)(2)(A) which requires a map that shows all proposed new, reconstructed, and abandoned roads. Map #8 of Volume V purportedly provides this information. But, in fact, the map is at a scale that renders it largely unintelligible. It is impossible, for instance, to distinguish proposed new roads from "other dirt existing" roads.

PL's intransigence notwithstanding, it is possible to still acquire some insight into the intensive nature of the planned timber harvesting activities. In the first decade alone, PL is planning to conduct timber harvesting on 26% of its forested property-over 54,000 acres of timber harvesting. Of this total area of timber harvest in the first decade, 70% is even-aged management (clearcutting and seed tree cuts). And of the land scheduled for clearcutting and seed tree cutting, 86% will be committed to either 50 or 60 year rotations from that point forward. These very short rotations fall far short of either biological or ecological maturity, fundamentally undermining PL's basic assurance of providing for late successional and mature forest conditions across their ownership. Additionally, the HCP/SYP fails to include a map of planned harvest areas in the first decade, even though it is expressly required by 1091.6(c)(2)(B).

At the WAA scale, PL intends to harvest over one-third of its property in WAA 1 and WAA 2, in the first decade alone. In both of those WAAs, 70% of the harvesting will be clearcutting and seed tree cutting. Though PL fails to provide the information, it is reasonable to assume that the intensity of harvesting within the planning watersheds comprising WAA 1 and WAA 2 will range above and below the 33% total harvest (as a percent of PL land area). At this intensity of harvesting, the likelihood of significant adverse cumulative impacts to water quality and beneficial uses is extremely high.

FIRST DECADE HARVESTING (ACRES)
	Even-Aged Harvests	Partial Harvests	Total	% Even-Aged
WAA 1: Humboldt Bay	8,617	4,143	12,760	68%
WAA 2: Yager	3,172	2,639	5,811	55%
WAA 3: Van Duzen	2,889	1,257	4,146	70%
WAA 4: Eel	18,274	7,663	25,937	70%
WAA 5: Bear-Matthole	4,794	745	5,539	87%
TOTAL	37,921	16,451	54,382	70%

Other data reveal the intensity and potential environmental implications of PL's planned timber harvesting activities. With respect to logging method, tractor logging is substantially more impactive with respect to soil disturbance, soil compaction, and erosion potential. This is especially so on steep areas draining into fish-bearing watercourses, a description that fits much of the PL property. Despite the fact that other industrial timberland owners on the North Coast are shifting to cable yarding systems, PL proposes to increase reliance on tractor logging. In the first decade, property-wide, PL will employ tractor logging on 74% of its harvesting operations. At the WAA-level, the reliance on tractor logging ranges as high as 91% (WAA 1 And WAA 2). In the second decade, tractor logging comprises 84% of total company-wide harvesting, with tractor reliance in WAA 1 and WAA 2 in excess of 93%.

PERCENT TRACTOR LOGGING
	1st Decade	2nd Decade
WAA 1: Humboldt Bay	91	93
WAA 2: Yager	90	93
WAA 3: Van Duzen	79	89
WAA 4: Eel	67	75
WAA 5: Bear-Mattole	43	56
TOTAL	74	84

Another indication of the intensity and environmental implications of PL's proposed timber harvesting in the first and subsequent decades is the near-term focus on converting old growth and late successional (i.e., mature) stands to young plantations. In the first decade, over 60% of the proposed timber harvesting is scheduled to take place in old growth and late successional stands. In WAA 1, fully 85% of all first decade harvesting will take place in old growth and late successional stands; the total is 70% for WAA 3.

DECADE 1 % HARVESTING, OLD GROWTH/LATE SUCCESSIONAL STANDS
WAA 1: Humboldt Bay	85
WAA 2: Yager	32
WAA 3: Van Duzen	70
WAA 4: Eel	59
WAA 5: Bear-Mattole	35
TOTAL	61

Page 65 of Section C of Volume III of the HCP/SYP presents a table (reprinted below) that is not anywhere discussed in the PL documents. Nonetheless, it is highly revelatory. In the first decade, PL intends to commit 35,000 acres to "intensively managed clearcuts" which entails of suite of activities beginning with clearing the standing trees, treating the remaining brush with herbicides and prescribed fire, planting Douglas fir seedlings (predominantly), thinning the stand at one or more intervals during the first 25 years and ultimately repeating the process every 50 years. Cumulatively, these practices are widely and aptly known as "tree farming." The forest cover that short rotation tree farming creates over the landscape possesses very little in common with natural forests and even less in common with mature natural forests.

PLANNED INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT TREATMENTS, 1st DECADE
Treatment	Acres
Intensively Managed Clearcuts	34,720
Site Preparation (60% of clearcuts)	20,832
Planting(100% of clearcuts)	34,720
Brush Control (80% of clearcuts)	27,776
Precommercial Thin (50% of clearcuts)	17,360