Andrea Tuttle - Director
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
1416 Ninth St/ P.O. Box 944246
Sacramento, CA 94244-2460
Regional Water Quality Control
Board - North Coast Region
5550 Skylane Blvd., Suite A
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Subject: TMDLs and the Forest Practice Rules Application - Compliance with the Basin Plan & Porter-Cologne Act
Dear Director Tuttle and Regional Board Members:
I am sure you are aware of the court ruling in the case of Pronsolino vs Marcus, were industry and the Farm Bureau were challenging EPA's authority under the federal Clean Water Act to list waterbodies and promulgate TMDLs for non-point generated pollutant sources - related to silvicultural and agricultural land use. The judge, in this case, reaffirmed the authority of both the state and the EPA to pursue such pollutant reduction programs.
Currently Timber Harvest Plans are not compliant with either EPA TMDL targets and objectives or the state Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Basin or state anti-degradation policy. I am speaking for the Garcia River TMDL and related timber harvest activity. But, these statements apply to all pollutant impaired listed waterbodies subject to timber harvest activity.
There is a significant amount of evidence in the file that substantiates the fact that the Forest Practice Rules (FPRs) and their administration are not protecting the beneficial uses of water. And, that the Board of Forestry, and the California Department of Forestry have not yet taken action, either by adjustment of the Forest Practice Rules or the implementation of administrative policy, to bring the FPRs into compliance with the Basin Plan and State Water Law. The current proposed rule changes before the Board of Forestry for consideration are not likely to be adopted nor are they sufficient to make any effective change.
A Timber Harvest Plan (THP) is the Water Quality Control Plan for the area of the THP. As such, a THP/Water Quality Control Plan must comply with the above noted requirements. Compliance must be demonstrated, with reasonable assurance, indicating that such THP/Water Quality Control Plan will meet water quality objectives and limit controllable sources of pollutant. This is to include implementation assurances and monitoring for compliance and effectiveness on each and every THP on listed waters.
CDF compliance with the Garcia River TMDL
Initially, upon the inception of the Garcia TMDL for sediment, CDF did a respectable job with sediment reduction applications on THPs in the Garcia basin. Subsequently there has been some backsliding.
I would like to refer you to a letter from CDF (Richard Wilson April 27, 1998) regarding planned courses of action in regards to the Garcia River TMDL. This letter listed several possible approaches to implementing TMDL requirements including: inventory of current road, landing, and crossing problem sites - with improvements to be completed to offset potential sediment generation from harvesting, requiring plan preparer to employ mitigations, including rehabilitation of problem sites that will reduce and offset sediment input potential, and the use experts in such planning. (unsigned copy attached)
I would like to remind you that the EPA target is the reduction of sediment by a factor of 60% - not just controlling potential additional inputs from harvesting. This calls for aggressive analysis of conditions on the ground for possible controllable sites and corrective action to occur.
In the recent past CDF seems to have backed away from adjusting THPs for assurances of sediment reduction by including such reduction policy in THPs. Thus, neither EPA or state water quality control mandates are currently being met.
State Anti-degradation Policy (Basin Plan, Chapter 3, Water Quality Objectives):
"Controllable water quality factors shall conform to the water quality objectives contained herein. When other factors result in the degradation of water quality beyond the levels or limits established herein as water quality objectives, then controllable factors shall not cause further degradation of water quality. Controllable water quality factors are those actions, conditions, or circumstances resulting from man's activities that may influence the quality of waters of the State and that may reasonably be controlled."
Thus, streams listed as impaired, not meeting water quality objectives are to be protected from additional controllable pollutants. The FPRs and their administration do not demonstrate such compliance.
Porter-Cologne Act, §13242 Implementing Program. The program of implementation for achieving water quality objectives shall include, but not be limited to:
a) A description of the nature of the actions which are necessary to achieve the objectives, including recommendation for appropriate action by any entity, public or private.
b) A time schedule for actions to be taken
c) A description of surveillance to be undertaken to determine compliance with objectives.
The FPRs state that Basin Plan Guidelines will be met and that State water law will be complied with. Yet, the FPRs are not compliant with the above noted sections of the Basin Plan or Porter-Cologne.
Recommendations
Improve the administration of THPs to the point where the above stated Clean Water Act, Basin Plan and Porter-Cologne mandates are:
1) Understood to be the mission and responsibility of CDF in the administration and implementation of the EPA TMDL objectives and FPA/FPRs objectives regarding water quality. (CDF gives no indication in policy or action that they embrace this responsibility). CDF must demonstrate conclusive policy from the top down.
2) Train staff in to how to apply these standards and objectives to individual THPs.
3) Apply such standards to each and every THP so as to meet these standards and objectives,
4) Comply with the implementation monitoring mandate - which implies that appropriate inspections take place. This also means inspection of such THPs for performance/compliance and effectiveness with delivery of acceptable report to the file by CDF.
Every THP must demonstrate:
Incorporation of sediment reduction mitigations, including correction of ongoing problems, where controllable sources exist.
RPF (plan preparer) must show assessment and sediment reduction analysis. If this is not indicated initially in a THP, the THP should be returned - immediately.
All THPs must exhibit implementation of such policy and incorporate compliance monitoring.
Sincerely,
Alan Levine
Coast Action Group
P.O. Box 215
Point Arena, CA 95468
(707) 882-2484
(707) 542-4408 - Weekdays
cc: U.S. EPA
NCRWQCB
CDFG
NMFS
BOF
Joe Brecher
RRRAUL Home | Search RRRAUL | News | Logging | Fishery | Watershed | Photographs | Contacts | Organization | Calendar | External Links |