Executive Summary
Prepared for The Resources Agency of California and the National Marine Fisheries Service Sacramento, California
Scientific Review Panel
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Scientific Review Panel (SRP) was created under the auspices of the Watershed Protection and Restoration Council, as required by the March 1998 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and The Resources Agency of California. Under this agreement the state agreed to organize an independent panel of scientists to undertake a comprehensive review of the California Forest Practice Rules (FPRs), with regard to their adequacy for the protection of salmonid species.
NMFS and The Resources Agency jointly developed a letter that posed a series of questions regarding a review of the FPRs, the THP review and approval process, and the rule-making process. They also requested that the public be involved and provide comments and information to the SRP. Beyond this input, no state or federal agency provided any direction to, or had any control over, the SRP. The state and federal MOA specifically addressed steelhead in the Northern California and Klamath Mountains Province ESUs within California. Considerations and rec-ommendations presented in this report apply to this geographic area and are not necessarily applicable to other areas.
APPROACH
To implement the project, the SRP (first convening in November 1998) agreed to operate by con-sensus, with one member serving as coordinator. The SRP also developed a plan to involve the pub-lic, state and federal agencies, landowners, and other interested parties. A total of 29 constituency groups (comprising 128 interviewees) interested in salmonid issues was invited to meet with the SRP. Interviewees included state and federal agency representatives, environmental representatives, large and small landowners, foresters, geologists, watershed specialists, fisheries representatives, fish/habitat restorationists, South of San Francisco ("856 counties") representatives, and fish biologists. Following the interviews, the SRP visited THP sites in Humboldt and Mendocino counties.
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
The SRP concluded that the FPRs, including their implementation (the "THP process") do not ensure protection of anadromous salmonid popu-lations. The primary deficiency of the FPRs is the lack of a watershed analysis approach capable of assessing cumulative effects attributable to timber harvesting and other non-forestry activities on a watershed scale. As currently applied, Technical Rule Addendum No. 2 does not provide the necessary cumulative effects assessment at the appropriate temporal and spatial scales. Therefore, with regard to the SRP's mandate, the state will need to sponsor and conduct watershed analyses in all watersheds within both steelhead ESUs. Also, specific rules governing onsite operations and road maintenance need stronger enforcement and/or modification to further minimize sediment production, improve stream habitat, and guarantee unrestricted passage by migrating juvenile and adult salmonids. The SRP focused on the follow ing rule sections: watercourse protection mea-sures, road construction and maintenance, and winter operations limitations. Finally, the SRP reviewed Timber Harvesting Plan (THP) implementation issues, especially RPF involvement throughout the THP process as well as THP review and approval procedures, and developed recommendations for improving this process.
WATERSHED ANALYSIS
The SRP recommends watershed analysis as the best available tool to evaluate past, ongoing, and potential future cumulative watershed effects (CWEs) resulting from forest management and other watershed activities, and to identify strategies to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate adverse CWEs on salmonid populations and their habitat. All THPs within a specific watershed would rely upon the same watershed-specific analysis to identify key concerns and potential factors limiting salmonid populations. Because widespread availability of watershed analyses will be required, the state must develop and manage an interagency watershed analysis program. This should be done in consultation with NMFS, EPA, the forest industry, and academic and other non-agency scientists. All watershed analyses should be peer reviewed and then certified by a panel of scientists. The SRP has developed general guidelines for a watershed analysis that can result in specific harvest prescriptions, quantifiable performance targets, and prioritized mitigation opportunities.
Success of the watershed analysis process relies on the following two key items: (1) the credibility of the science and methodologies used, and (2) the professionalism of the scientists and specialists involved in the process. To succeed, data collected for the watershed analysis must be done in a con-sistent manner agreed to by all parties involved, with protocols established well before a watershed analysis program is implemented. Quality Assur-ance/Quality Control (QA/QC) must be an integral part of the process.
Although a watershed analysis program may require several years to develop and implement, certain actions can begin immediately. The SRP recommends the following preliminary actions until watershed analyses are completed: (1) identify legacy sediment problems that should be immediately mitigated in high priority watersheds, (2) assess anadromous fish migration corridors (both within and outside watersheds), and prioritize barriers for potential removal or replacement, and (3) modify specific forest practice rules (see below).
Pending completion of watershed analyses, the SRP recommends the Board of Forestry consider whether a harvest limitation based on percent of watershed area is warranted. This percentage would function as a red flag rather than as a moratorium. Predictably, the environmental community advocated a maximum harvest of 10% to 15% of watershed area per decade, whereas timber industry constituencies offered a maximum of 70% to 85% per decade. The SRP believes a more likely value would range from 30% to 50% per decade, but will depend on numerous factors including geology, harvest prescriptions, past disturbance, etc. The SRP recommends that a blue-ribbon science panel be commissioned in 1999 to consider the need for harvest limitations.
SPECIFIC RULE RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations by the SRP for changes to specific rule sections and issues include:
WATERCOURSE AND LAKE PROTECTION ZONES AND LWD RECRUITMENT (WLPZ):
o Increase Class I WLPZs to 150 ft and encourage thinning and selection harvesting to grow bigger trees faster; increase shade require-ments to 85% for the first 75 ft and 65% for the remainder; permanently retain the 10 largest conifers trees for every 100 meters of stream channel; restrict salvage logging of downed trees within 75 ft of the watercourse; provide special harvesting zone on steep slopes and adjacent to evenage management.
o Class IIs: increase WLPZ to 100 ft and require 85% overstory canopy within 30 ft and 65% overstory canopy for the remainder; restrict salvage logging within first 30 ft; require retention of a minimum of 25% post-harvest over-story of conifers; assign a special operating zone adjacent to evenage management units.
o Class III: 30-50 ft ELZ; limit burning within zones; minimize and pre-designate all tractor crossings.
o General recommendations; all slopes >55% within inner gorge harvested under evenage prescriptions must be reviewed by a geologist; all slopes >65% must be reviewed by a geolo-gist; combine all exemptions into one rule section.
o Develop program to introduce LWD into streams.
o Redefine the watercourse transition line to include the flood plain.
GEOLOGIC CONCERNS:
o Geologist to conduct broad review of properties to identify any potential problems; geologist to review all proposed activities on unstable features; develop more geologic training for RPFs; all evenaged harvesting on slopes >65% must be reviewed by a geologist; develop better geology maps for resource specialists.
ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE:
o Designate roads as either permanent, temporary, or abandoned; remove watercourse and cross drain culverts from abandoned roads; eliminate road construction during winter period; develop rocking standards and consider other road stabilization measures for winter hauling; require geologist review for construction on slopes >65%; no blading of roads during wet conditions; use outsloped roads with rolling dips (where appropriate); treat and stabilize fill slopes at watercourse crossings to prevent erosion; remove legacy roads within WLPZs.
WATERCOURSE CROSSINGS:
o Require 100-year flood capacity for culverts with a design standard HW/D <1; permanently maintain or remove drainage structures following road use; all Class I watercourse crossings must have a natural bottom or naturally formed bottom (culvert, pipe arch, or bridge); show all watercourse crossings on THP map; restrict ditch drainage into a water-course to no more than 100 ft; design and reconstruct crossings to avoid diversion potential and use a "fail-soft" design; minimum cross drain culvert should be 18 inches in diameter.
SITE PREPARATION:
o Limit tractor site preparation to period before soils become saturated (see Winter Operations); reduce use of broadcast burning; restrict burning of Class III watercourses to retain LWD in channels; require a "Site Preparation Completion Report" showing the area treated.
WINTER OPERATIONS:
o Use "Antecedent Prescription Index" (API) to define winter period; RPF required to oversee winter operations; allow limited use of ground-based skidding equipment under specified conditions; require a full winter operating plan that addresses sediment issues; no road or landing construction during winter period.
THP PREPARATION, REVIEW AND IMPLEMENTATION:
o THP length to be reduced following watershed assessment - THP to address concerns identified in the watershed assessment and to serve as a disclosure and operational document; RPFs should pre-consult with agencies during plan preparation.
o RPFs should consult with other resource spe-cialists during plan preparation; THP should be signed by the landowner and timber owner; require RPF involvement in THP implementation similar to the requirements of Santa Cruz County; LTO should sign the THP and major amendments, and attend the PHI (if a LTO is identified on THP); extend agency review to minimum of 10 days between PHI and second review; extend public review to a minimum of 10 days after second review; increase agency budgets to support involvement in more PHIs, operational, and post-harvest inspections, and provide pre-consultation with RPFs; reduce THP paperwork and focus emphasis on field review; post THPs and related information on the Internet; limit case level of CDF inspectors to 40-50 active plans; develop civil penalties for FPR violations; meeting with LTO and RPF to convey plan contents should be on site; increase training for RPFs and other resource specialists; RPF should maintain role as the lead coordinator and author of the THP; make the FPR more efficient and friendly; centralize all rules pertaining to a topic, even though this may cause some rules to be repeated.
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS:
o Nearly all the constituency groups interviewed supported incentives to landowners to improve and maintain salmonid habitat. This included the use of tax deductions, conservation easements, and restructuring of the federal tax codes to allow expensing rather than amortizing capital road expenditures such as culvert replacements. A program of incentives must be developed to allow the value of the permanently designated standing and downed trees to be deducted from the timber owner's yield or other state taxes. The valuation of these trees could be based on the yield tax value schedules, and would be claimed when harvesting is completed for the associated harvest unit adjacent to the WLPZ. This may also help encourage landowners to include watercourse protection zones in conservation easements. The benefit of providing landowners tax credits against the retained recruitment trees will encourage the retention of important habitat features and is likely to prevent legal proceedings for property taking. If the state and federal governments are going to pay millions for salmonid rehabilitation, then tax credits for the retention of key habitat features may be a reasonable step. Some of our recommendations can be independently evaluated, while others must be considered as complete packages that cannot be separated. For example, recommended widths for the WLPZ depend on our definition of the channel zone. If the SRP's channel zone definition is modified, then the width of the WLPZ must be re-evaluated. Winter hauling is another example. A recommendation for continued winter hauling depends on formulating and enforcing adequate rocking and road surface stabilization standards. Finally, all our recommendations depend on implementing an adequate watershed analysis program. Critical research needs were too numerous to adequately address in this report. The SRP listed a few research needs including quantification of salmonid-habitat relationships, LWD recruitment dynamics, and sediment studies on Class III watercourses.
RRRAUL Home | Search RRRAUL | News | Logging | Fishery | Watershed | Photographs | Contacts | Organization | Calendar | External Links |