Archive for the 'Logging Impacts' Category

Carbon Reignites CA Forest Wars

Published on September 18, 2009 in Logging Impacts. 0 Comments

You can feel it in the air. High Country News recently took note of it. On 14 million acres of California private timberlands and woodlands, trouble is brewing.

Below is an August 25, 2009 press release from the Center for Biological Diversity regarding successful lawsuits filed against the California Department of Forestry for its failure to measure forest carbon emissions in timber harvest plans.

One of GRI's Clearcuts in Nothwest Sonoma County

Clearcutting in the Gualala River
watershed in northwest Sonoma County

This result demonstrates that there are no carbon exemptions, even for commercial logging, from the California Air Resources Board forest protocols. Furthermore, this Center victory supports Oak Foundation’s contention that simply planting trees doesn’t represent California Environmental Quality Act proportional mitigation for CO2 emissions due to oak woodlands conversion.

Greenhouse Gas Lawsuits Stop Sierra Logging Plans In response to recent lawsuits by the Center for Biological Diversity, plans to log more than 1,600 acres of Sierra Nevada forest have been formally withdrawn by Sierra Pacific Industries, the timber company that had proposed the logging. The Center filed three lawsuits earlier this month against the California Department of Forestry for illegally approving the plans without analyzing the carbon and climate consequences of the logging.

“Rather than attempt to defend the indefensible, Sierra Pacific Industries wisely retreated from this fight,” said Brendan Cummings, public lands director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The cancellation of these ill-conceived and illegal logging plans is an important step toward bringing the timber industry in California into the 21st century.”

Despite well-established law that state agencies must analyze and mitigate the greenhouse gas emissions from a specific project when they approve it, the Department of Forestry had failed to carry out any project-specific analysis of the emissions that would result from Sierra Pacific Industries’ clearcutting plans.

Beyond the three now-canceled plans in litigation, more than two dozen similar logging plans by Sierra Pacific Industries are awaiting approval from the Department of Forestry. Together, these plans would authorize clearcutting over 12,000 additional acres of California forests.

“The California Department of Forestry now needs to reject all pending and similarly flawed clearcutting plans,” said Jan Chatten-Brown of Chatten-Brown & Carstens, co-counsel for the Center in the recent suits. “Unless the Department starts requiring logging companies to disclose, analyze, and most importantly, mitigate the actual carbon dioxide emissions resulting from logging plans, they will likely find themselves back in court.”

The California Department of Forestry is responsible for approving all logging plans on private land in California and must ensure that each proposed plan complies with the California Environmental Quality Act. Under this law, state agencies and local governments approving projects must analyze the projects’ effects on greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, as well as the cumulative impact of related logging. However, rather than calculate the carbon emissions that would result from Sierra Pacific Industries’ actual logging plans, the Department of Forestry has asserted that over a 100-year time frame enough trees would grow back on the company’s lands to render the logging carbon neutral.

The three lawsuits, filed in superior courts in Lassen, Tuolumne and Tehama counties, asserted that the state violated the California Environmental Quality Act and the Forest Practice Act when it approved Sierra Pacific Industries’ timber-harvest plans without addressing the CO2 emissions that will result from the clearcutting.

“Clearcutting is an abysmal practice that should have been banned long ago due to its impacts on wildlife and water quality,” added Cummings. “Now, in an era where all land-management decisions need to be fully carbon-conscious, there is simply no excuse to continue to allow clearcutting in California.”

www.biologicaldiversity.org

Sonoma County Oak Woodlands

Published on September 18, 2009 in Logging Impacts. 0 Comments

Below is a recent letter sent by the Oak Foundation to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors. To date no reply has been received from the Board.

August 12, 2009

Board of Supervisors
Sonoma County Administration Building
575 Administration Drive, Room 102A
Santa Rosa, CA 95403-2887

Re: Sonoma County Oak Woodlands

Honorable Supervisors:

The California Oak Foundation (COF) writes with brief comments and questions regarding current Sonoma County oak woodland policies:

1. Why doesn’t Sonoma County have an oak woodlands conversion ordinance similar to the one it has for conifer timberland conversions, particularly in light of deforestation carbon biological emissions? Notably, the Preservation Ranch timberland conversion proposal commits this vineyard development to compliance with the California Air Resources Board forest protocols methodology, net present value carbon accounting and carbon neutrality. Why are these CO2 emission standards not being applied to the conversion of Sonoma County oak woodlands?
2. Sonoma County claims it is not exercising discretionary approval in its Vineyard Ordinance. COF contends that Sonoma County is in fact exercising discretionary judgment in the Ordinance by its conclusion that oak woodlands deforestation CO2 emissions due to vineyard development do not significantly contribute to climate change.
3. If carbon biological emissions due to vineyard development are deemed significant environmental impacts in Napa County, Santa Barbara County and other wine regions, why aren’t these adverse public health effects considered significant in Sonoma County?

Oak Foundation looks forward to a response from the Board at its earliest convenience.

Respectfully, Janet Cobb, President
California Oak Foundation

Comments on the Klamath TMDL

Published on September 7, 2009 in Agriculture Impacts, Environmental Impacts, Gravel Mining Impacts, Lakes and Resevoirs, Logging Impacts, Pesticide pollution, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands, Waste Discharge, Water Conservation and Watershed Related. 0 Comments

August 21, 2009

Matt St. John                                                                        
North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board                                  
5550 Skyline Blvd, Suite A
Santa Rosa, CA  95403
Email to: MStJohn@waterboards.ca.gov

Subject: Comments on the Klamath Mainstem TMDL Water Quality Restoration Plan

General Comments
We are  pleased with and fully supportive of Staff’s efforts in these Draft Water Quality Restoration Plan (“Implementation Plan”) provisions as well as in the supporting Technical TMDL portions of the Draft TMDL generally as set forth in the earlier chapters.  The necessary condition of success is dependent on a strong, comprehensive and fully enforceable Implementation Plan as well as progress in  pollution control on Klamath River tributaries..

The policy foundation upon which these implementation measures are constructed, as well as the Technical TMDL portions of the prior chapters, are both scientifically sound and well constructed.  We also believe the proposed zero load allocations are completely justified given the already highly degraded water quality conditions of the Klamath River today.

Pollutant Sources and Controls

Private forest lands contribute a good deal of sediment to the Klamath River, particularly from the vast network of poorly maintained and legacy logging roads on private lands.  Principle parties are the US Forest Service and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.  

The California Board of Forestry has adopted some construction standards for private lands logging roads, but these standards are frequently not enforced except on a complaint-driven basis.  Compliance with maintenance standards on private logging roads is also very lax, and largely voluntary.  The adequacy of those logging road rules to prevent inflows of sediments and increased frequency of landslides is questionable.  We are also not aware of any systematic effort to inventory private land logging roads within the Klamath basin, and it is likely that no such private logging road inventory and data base currently exists or will exist.


There are several other water quality programs, or programs with water quality implications, in the Klamath Basin already – including the Scott and Shasta river TMDLs and Implementation Plans.


The Klamath TMDL Implementation Strategy should be consistent with:

ESA Recovery Strategy for California Coho Salmon: Klamath Basin coho salmon have been State listed under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) since August 30, 2002.  On February, 2004, the Fish and Game Commission formally adopted a Recovery Strategy for California Coho Salmon which is now being implemented, and which contains hundreds of measures and goals for coho salmon recovery, many with water quality standards implications

Federal ESA Coho Recovery Plans: The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) will shortly be releasing a draft coho recovery plan for the SONCC ESU which Klamath coho salmon are a part of.  The measures that will ultimately be contained in this federal recovery plan may also have water quality standard implications, and an adopted state TMDL should be consistent with those standards as well as contribute toward coho recovery under that federal plan.

Basin Plan for the North Cost: Including Basin Plan Amendments (Scott River TMDL and Implementation Plan, Shasta River TMDL and Implementation Plan, Basin Plan Anti-degradation language, and any Basin Plan Amendments for stream, wetland, and sediment protections (with prohibitions). 

California Water Code: The Klamath TMDL and Implementation Plan (including Implementing Programs)  must conform to the mandates of California Water Code (as a Basin Plan Amendment/Water Quality Control Plan) and meet the conditions set forth in the Code (including Section 13242 of the Code). 

California Environmental Quality Act: Description of conditions of the Klamath Basin (as environment setting – including tributaries), causal relationships, problem statement, assessment, and remedy (mitigtion/implementation planning) as part of the TMDL process must conform to CEQA mandates. 

Waste Discharge Reporting – Conditional Waivers (for Timber Harvest and Agricultural Land Use)

A review of the Scott and Shasta River TMDLs and Implementation Plan indicates reliance on the use of WDRs and Conditional Waivers for pollution control planning, standards, and actions.  For Timber Harvest and Agricultural land use effects the Implementation Plans of these TMDLs (inclusive of the Klamath River, and tributaries the Scott and Shasta Rivers) is dependent on the language and controls inherent in these WDRs and related Conditional Waivers.  CEQA review and Water Code compliance was dependent on the language these WDRs and related Conditional Waivers.  With the understanding that the Scott and Shasta Rivers are tributaries of the Klamath River and conditions on these tributaries effect the function and impaired condition of the Klamath system in general, it must be assumed that changes to the Implementation Plan (by changing WDR and Conditional Waiver conditions) would have pervasive effects on the whole system. Thus, any changes to the WDRs and/or Conditional Waivers that would weaken the Implementation Planning and/or Timber Harvest and Agricultural land use standards and controls would compromise the TMDL implementation standards that had been relied up to attain Water Quality Standards over time and thus would not be in conformance with Cal Water Code and CEQA.  Such changes would require re-visitation to these respective TMDL Implementation Plans. 

Note: WDR and Conditional Waiver language as mitigation (under CEQA review and in conformance with Cal Water Code)  was a condition of adoption of the Scott and Shasta TMDLs and Implementation Plan as amended into the Basin Plan.  These conditions are considered binding and enforceable. If such WDR or Waiver conditions are ignored or violated, then such a conditions can be legally compelled to be obeyed.  To change the conditions of an approved Implementation Plan (WDR or Waiver) would necessitate that it be amended according to the same process by which it was approved. In this case such changes would require substantiation that any such changes must be equal to or better that the previously applied conditions. 

Implementation language as mitigation is compelled by substantial evidence in the record.  The only way that the State Water Board or Regional Board can legally allow the mitigation to be removed or changed is if it determines that the substantial evidence that prompted the mitigation has somehow disappeared. If a particular mitigation is necessary to control the adverse impacts of a project over a certain period of time and if it is feasible, its implementation is legally mandated.

Any diminished capability in the Regional Board administration of these WDRs and Conditional Waivers (possibly by State Wide WDRs and Waivers as proposed by the State Board) would necessarily effect the potential  effectiveness of any TMDL that relies on these WDRs and Waivers for pollutant control.  Thus the Implementation policy effectiveness of these TMDLs would, and should, be called into question.  Loss of WDR and Waiver utility should bring the approved Scott and Shasta TMDL Implementation language into question. In addition, the Scott and Shasta are Klamath problems.  

Final Report on Sediment Impairment and Effects on Beneficial Uses of The Elk River and Stitz, Bear, Jordan and Freshwater Creeks (Humboldt Watersheds Independent Scientific Review Panel); and (2) Phase II Report: Independent Scientific Review Panel on Sediment Impairment and Effects on Beneficial Uses of the Elk River and Stitz, Bear, Jordan and Freshwater Creeks (Humboldt Watersheds Independent Scientific Review Panel) – and – other studies and scientific review planels document and contain substantial evidence that CDF’s Rules and best management practices fail to protect water quality from the adverse effects of logging.  These documents should be referenced in review and discussion of Implementation Planning (Implementing Programs – inclusive of WDRs and Conditional Waivers).

Stream Flow Maintenance

The State Water Board has not included all of the north coast streams (suffering from diminished flows – from over and inappropriate use, unlicensed use, and changing weather patterns) in their policy considerations for flow maintenance (and beneficial use protection). Low flow conditions exacerbate temperature and other pollutant issues.  Documented in the Klamath River, and Scott and Shasta River TMDLs and Implementation Plan are pollutant effects related to diminished stream flows. The State Water Board should (under State Water Code and other regulatory authority ) take action to protect beneficial uses by imposing standards and regulations to limit wasteful and illegal diversion. These actions are to include minimum flow targets to protect fishery resources and other beneficial uses, stream flow gauges, Water Master, Water Budgets, and gauges on pumps so that use may be documented. All information should and policy process should be open and transparent and available for use by responsible agency and the public. (note: this issue is what is being discussed on the Russian River and other streams in northern California suffering from similar conditions ). 

This issue must be addressed (in reference to conditions in the Klamath River and tributaries) in the Klamath River TMDL and Implementation Plan. 

Suction Dredging 

Suction dredging changes channel conformity and brings up and redistributes sediment (and possibly pollution contaminates).  Such activity is subject to DFG 1600 permitting and should be subject to WDRs and NPDES permitting processes (NPDES due to the fact that this is a point source input of pollutants).   Suction dredging activity must be in conformance with the Basin Plan (including Basin Plan Anti-degradation language). 

Model Boundary

The Klamath River TMDL and Implantation plan is complicated by many factors, including inputs from tributaries and areas of the Klamath River outside the State of California. The State of California (and Region IX EPA) should insist that waters delivered to the boarder of the State of California from Oregon should meet Water Quality Standards.  This requires cooperation and actions from the State of Oregon and regional management by the EPA. 

Mile Stones

Section 13242 of California Water Code require time lines for implementation of actions as part of a Water Quality Control Plan. The Klamath River TMDL and Action plan projects actions to be accomplished at some future date. Compliance for such an implementation schedule should be tracked and mandated – with additional actions to take place if the schedule is not met.  There should be mile stones (or targets) for measurement of trends and efficacy of Implementing Programs – with additional described actions if such miles stones (or targets) are not attained.  Performance and movement towards attainment standards are mandated under this section of the Cal Water Code and by CEQA.  The document should clearly demonstrate how all of this is to be accomplished – with described alternative actions if mile stones or targets are not attained. 


 Sincerely, 

 Alan Levine for Coast Action Group 



Alan Levine
Coast Action Group
P.O. Box 215 
Point Arena, CA 95468

Phone: Week Days 707 542-4408
Weekends  707 882-2484

Comment Letter to CDF on Fairfax Conversion

Published on August 17, 2009 in Climate Change, Environmental Impacts, Logging Impacts, Streams and Wetlands and Watershed Related. 0 Comments

Allen Robertson, Deputy Chief

Environmental Protection

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

P.O. Box 944246

Sacramento, CA 944244-2460

Dear Allen Robertson,

Community Clean Water Institute requests that the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection consider these comments upon review of the draft Environmental Impact Report for the Fairfax Conversion Project.

We urge CDF to regard the cumulative water quality and quantity impacts the Fairfax Conversion Project will have on the Gualala River watershed. The DEIR cannot be assessed from a piecemeal approach and impacts must be expected to accumulate and be considered in a regional context where many forest-to-vineyard conversions are occurring. Approval of the proposed Fairfax Conversion Project will cause further depredation of the already drought impacted and federally listed Gualala River watershed, which contains federally listed salmonid species.

The Gualala River is currently on the federal Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list due to impairment and/or threat of impairment to water quality by sediment. This proposed conversion will increase sediment runoff, as well as other pollutant runoff and raise surface water temperatures, and is therefore in direct conflict with the protections enforced by the Clean Water Act.

How can we allow for more forested land to be converted to agriculture, especially vineyards? Especially when the proposed conversion is within the watershed of a federally listed river! Do we need to be reminded of how much damage a clearcut causes? Trees and other vegetation help receive, absorb, and store rain water as it percolates through the soil. Severe erosion can occur on steep forested land and soil compaction on any land during the conversion process. The soil begins to lose its absorption and filtration abilities and any sediment and herbicides, and eventually fertilizers or pesticides used to establish and maintain aquiculture, runs off directly into the stream.

Perennial streams can be completely dependent on groundwater for baseflow during dry years making the act of clearcutting especially harmful. As vegetative cover is removed, the soil loses it absorption capabilities and results in a lowered ground water table. The lack of ground and surface water is obviously extremely deleterious for aquatic life but is also a stressor for trees and vegetation outside the clear cut zone.

We question the level of significance given to Project Impacts 3.4 (12-14) of the draft EIR and strongly feel that these are prime examples of this DEIR’s tendency toward short term piecemeal analysis and solutions. Impacts 3.4-12 & 14 cannot be viewed as separate impacts for minimum instream flows must be maintained to prevent further increases in surface water temperatures, and the level of significance of these impacts on the Gualala River Watershed will only heighten with time.

Project Impact 3.4-13 states that Impacts to special-status salmonids from project-related increases in peak flows will be less than significant and therefore mitigation measures are not required. This conclusion is hard to agree with as compacted soil that is less pervious will cause extreme peak flows during winter storms.

Community Clean Water Institute asks that you take these observations into account and deny the Fairfax Conversion Project DEIR as it is written.

Sincerely,

Terrance Fleming

Community Clean Water Institute

Proposal to Centralize WB’s Oversight on Forestry Issues

Published on August 3, 2009 in Environmental Impacts, Logging Impacts, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts and Streams and Wetlands. 0 Comments

FYI (thanks to Coast Action Group for the expertise on these comments),

August 3, 2009
State Water Resources Control Board
1001 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: Consideration of a proposed resolution directing staff to develop a statewide approach addressing forest activities on national forest system lands, including timer harvesting, grazing, off-road vehicle recreation, and fire suppression

Dear Board:

We are very concerned about the proposed “centralizing” of the Regional Board’s oversight of water impacts regarding forestry activities.

The primary authority in California to implement the management measures for forestry in conformance with the 6217 (g) guidance comes from the Z’berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act (FPA) (Cal. Pub. Res. Code 4511 et seq.). Regulations (14 Cal. Code Reg. 895 et seq.) adopted pursuant to this law include practices in conformity with the management measures. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) also have oversight over nonpoint discharges associated with forestry operations through the Porter-Cologne Act. The Porter-Cologne Act provides back-up authority for implementing the management measures, including waste discharge requirements, cease and desist orders, cleanup and abatement orders, civil monetary liability for specified violations, and criminal prosecutions for specified violations.

Although California does have the basic legal and programmatic tools to implement a forestry program in conformity with Section 6217, these tools have not been fully effective in ensuring water quality standards are attained and maintained and beneficial uses are protected. California waters currently experience significant impacts from forestry. For example, silviculture is the leading source of impairment to water quality in the North Coast of California. Related to these water quality problems, California has a number of species, in particular salmon, that are endangered, threatened or otherwise seriously at risk, due in very significant part to forestry activities that impair their spawning, breeding and rearing habitat.

The Proposed Action is not consistent with Certification of the Timber Harvest Review Process as a Certified Regulatory Program: The Timber Harvest Review Process was approved as a Certified Regulatory Program (as an abbreviated CEQA process) on the basis that the program would be multi-disciplinary  (inclusive of Regional Board and Department of Fish and Game recommendations on projects). In actual practice, CDF, as lead agency, has been less than open to accepting recommendations as part of the Timber Harvest Plan Review process.  This is one major reason for the failure of this process to protect water quality values in timber harvest activity.  The proposed action by the State Water Board would diminish the status of the multidisciplinary approach.

The proposed action is not consistent with Z’berg-Nejedly Act: Z’berg-Nejedly, the authorizing legislation for the Forest Practice Act, assumed the context of the multidisciplinary review team as an abbreviated CEQA environmental review process.  Allowing one agency to dominate the whole process is inappropriate and leads to problematic results.  The Forest Practice Act and Rules state that all Timber Harvest Plans must be consistent with the Applicable Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). Who better to interpret the Basin Plan For The North Coast, as applied to a project (Timber Harvest Plan) than the Regional Board?  The Department of Forestry, nor the State Water Board, do have the knowledge or expertise to determine Basin Plan conformance.

The proposed action is not consistent with the Coastal Zone Management Act (Re-authorization /CZARA):  The State has contractual responsibility with EPA and NOAA to address control of non-point pollutant source responsibility, including pollutant input from timber harvest activity, under State regulatory authority.  (See CZARA analysis below).  Altering and reducing Regional Board authority to deal with timber harvest activity, as proposed by this State Board action, works against the State’s ability to perform and control pollutant impacts from timber harvest activity.

Proposed Action is not consistent with Certification of the Timber Harvest Review Process as a Certified Regulatory Program: The Timber Harvest Review Process was approved as a Certified Regulatory Program (as an abbreviated CEQA process) on the basis that the program would be multi-disciplinary  (inclusive of Regional Board and Department of Fish and Game recommendations on projects). In actual practice, CDF, as lead agency, has been less than open to accepting recommendations as part of the Timber Harvest Plan Review process.  This is one major reason for the failure of this process to protect water quality values in timber harvest activity.  The proposed action by the State Water Board would diminish the status of the multi-disciplinary approach.

Proposed Action is not consistent with Z’berg-Nejedly Act: Z’berg – Nejedly, the authorizing legislation for the Forest Practice Act, assumed the context of the multidisciplinary review team as an abbreviated CEQA environmental review process.  Allowing one agency to dominate the whole process is inappropriate and leads to bad results.  The Forest Practice Act and Rules state that all Timber Harvest Plans must be consistent with the Applicable Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan).  Who better to interpret the Basin Plan For The North Coast, as applied to a project (Timber Harvest Plan) than the Regional Board?  The Department of Forestry, nor the State Water Board, do have the knowledge or expertise to determine Basin Plan conformance.

Proposed Action is not consistent with the Coastal Zone Management Act (Re-authorization /CZARA):  The State has contractual responsibility with EPA and NOAA to address control of non-point pollutant source responsibility, including pollutant input from timber harvest activity, under State regulatory authority.  (See CZARA analysis below). Altering and reducing Regional Board authority to deal with timber harvest activity, as proposed by this State Board action, works against the State’s ability to perform and control pollutant impacts from timber harvest activity.

Proposed Action does not consider Regional Variability: Forests and rivers function differently in different areas of the State.  Sierra forests, rivers, and soils respond to management very differently than coastal temperate rain forests and soil types. These differences point out the necessity to manage forest practices and related effects regionally, not from Sacramento, and not under one Waste Discharge Permit or Conditional Waiver. The North Coast Regional Board has been working on timber harvest issues in the region for the last 20 years.  In the last 7, or so years, the issue has become more paramount.  Regional Board staff is educated in the regional land conditions, stream conditions, regional timber industry conditions, and other variable s (including interpretation of the Basin Plan) relevant to the north coast and only the north coast.   The North Coast Regional Board (with oversight by the State Board) is in the best position to assess, promulgate, and implement actions necessary to protect water quality values in areas of timber harvest in the region.  Management scenario from outside the region would necessarily by less effective and more costly in the long run.  The proposed action from the State Board is inconsistent with all of the above as it cannot effectively take into account regional variability.
Proposed Action is not consistent with the current MAA (SWRCB/CDF): Several years ago, due to forest management inconsistencies between CDF and the SWRCB, and the apparent lack of ability by CDF to address water quality conditions on Timber Harvest Plans, the MAA was adjusted to address issue.  The proposed change in Waiver and Waste Discharge Reporting for Timber Operations would have to be rewritten to accommodate proposed changes.

Proposed Action cannot be consistent with CEQA mandates: The proposed action is a project under CEQA.  Given the above discussion, it should be apparent that the proposed action by the State Board cannot meet CEQA mandates of mitigation. It is not possible to mitigate by making things worse through streamlining and centralized control.  It is not possible to mitigate issues discussed above.

This proposal to centralize the State Water Board’s mandate to protect California waters, if enacted, will diminish and threaten California waters with increased pollution and more adverse impacts to its fisheries . It is our comment and recommendation to not enact and implement this proposal.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Larry Hanson
Northern California River Watch

Bush Era Plan to Clearcut Oregon Forests Cancelled!

Published on July 29, 2009 in Environmental Impacts, Logging Impacts, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts and Streams and Wetlands. 0 Comments

WOPR Canceled – Obama Administration Cancels Bush Era Plan to Clearcut Oregon Forests Salmon, clean water, and old-growth forests big winners

Portland, OR  — People throughout the west celebrated an Obama administration decision to cancel a Bush era plan that would have nearly quadrupled current logging on public lands in western Oregon.  The Bush plan, called the Western Oregon Plan Revision, or WOPR, rezoned 2.6 million acres of federal public forests in Oregon managed by the Bureau of Land Management.  The announcement came in response to a lawsuit filed by thirteen conservation and fisheries protection organizations challenging the Bush logging plan.  Obama administration officials said the Bush plan illegally ignored requirements to protect endangered species living in the forests and could not be defended in court.

The decision to cancel the massive timber giveaway conforms with numerous scientific studies concluding that dramatic increases in logging would have harmed clean water and healthy streams, pushed wildlife toward extinction, and contributed to global warming.  The plan to clearcut 500 million board feet of timber per year would also have destroyed much of Oregon’s remaining old-growth forests.

“It’s a good day for the wildlife and wild places that make Oregon so special,” said Doug Heiken of Oregon Wild.  “It’s also a good day for all the businesses up and down the Oregon coast that depend on visitors from all over the world who come here to catch a salmon or see what a real Northwest forest is supposed to look like.”

“The Obama administration finally listened to what our best scientists have been desperately trying to say about the need to protect our irreplaceable natural resources,” said Joseph Vaile of the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center based in southwest Oregon.

Today’s announcement aligns the Obama administration squarely with the wishes of the public which opposed the Bush clearcutting plan by over 90 percent.

“Southwest Oregon has much of the lands that were to be clearcut under the WOPR.  We are pleased that level heads have prevailed, and our old growth will be protected,” said Shane Jimerfield, Siskiyou Project.

“Instead of a sea of stumps, we will now have healthy forests, healthy streams and salmon, and a rebounding economy,” said Kristen Boyles, an attorney with Earthjustice.  “We’re grateful that our citizens’ legal challenge could stop this plan until the Obama administration was in place to listen to the people and follow America’s environmental laws.”

“Today’s announcement means many important salmon protections will be preserved in what are the last, best spawning and rearing areas for salmon on public lands,” commented Glen Spain, for the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations (PCFFA), one of the co-plaintiffs and a major commercial fishing organization.  “This announcement is good news for hard working commercial fishing families struggling to survive on salmon runs nearly ruined by decades of excessive logging.”

“The forests and species of northwestern California are connected to the rest of our regional old-growth forests through BLM land in southern Oregon,” said Scott Greacen of EPIC.  “Today’s announcement basically restores the southern half of the Northwest Forest Plan.”

“Intact old growth forests with clean healthy streams are an economic engine that really drives Oregon’s prosperity, and it is encouraging to see that the Obama Administration recognizes the amazing values our ancient forests provide other than timber extraction,” stated Bob Freimark of The Wilderness Society.

Chuck Willer, Executive Director of the Coast Range Association, said, “The Obama administration has just saved the best remaining native forest in the northern third of Oregon’s Coast Range region.  This is a gift to tomorrow’s children for a region in short supply of old growth forest and quality salmon habitat.”

“The highest and best use of these forests is for carbon storage, water quality, salmon and wildlife habitat,” said Randi Spivak, National Center for Conservation Science and Policy.

“The Obama administration’s move today signals a return to scientific management of our public forests and marks an important step towards protecting Oregon’s remaining mature and old growth forests from unsustainable logging and roadbuilding,” said Ivan Maluski, Conservation Coordinator for the Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club. “These last wild forests protect the climate, produce clean water, and sustain world class salmon runs and recreational opportunities that contribute to Oregon’s diverse economy.”

The announcement comes in response to a lawsuit filed by Earthjustice challenging the now discredited Bush logging plan. Earthjustice represents Oregon Wild, Siskiyou Project, Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, The Wilderness Society, Cascadia Wildlands Project, Center for Biological Diversity, EPIC, Umpqua Watersheds, American Lands Alliance, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Institute for Fisheries Resources, Greenpeace, Coast Range Association, and Sierra Club.

To learn more about the Siskiyou Wild Rivers area and the campaign to protect it visitwww.Siskiyou.org/swrc

Thank you,

Shane Jimerfield

The Water Protection and Reinvestment Act of 2009

Published on July 24, 2009 in Agriculture Impacts, Environmental Impacts, Gravel Mining Impacts, Logging Impacts, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands, Waste Discharge and Watershed Related. 0 Comments

FYI,

The Water Protection and Reinvestment Act of 2009

Yesterday Congressman Earl Blumenaeur (OR)  introduced, The Water Protection and Reinvestment Act of 2009, in Congress. The bill would establish a water protection and reinvestment fund to support investment in clean water and drinking water infrastructure. Today at 2 pm, the U.S. House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee will hold a hearing to discuss the merits of the legislation. CWN Board Treasurer Dereth Glance, representing Citizens Campaign for the Environment (NY & CT), will testify on the bill.

To obtain a copy of Dereth’s testimony and Clean Water Network’s official Board position on establishing a national clean water trust fund click HERE.

–Larry

New Threat To North Coast Forest And Rivers

Published on July 23, 2009 in Coastal Impacts, Logging Impacts and Streams and Wetlands. 0 Comments

State Water Board Chair proposes to take traditional timber harvest management tools (Waste Discharge Reporting and Conditional Waivers for same) away from Regional Board

Problem – Current Status of North Coast Rivers

California North Coast Hydrologic Region Map

Almost all north coast rivers are listed as impaired – that is they do not meet Water Quality Standards. These impairments are the basic reason for the collapse of the salmon fishery on the north coast. The fundamental reason for impairment by the pollutants sediment, temperature, low dissolved oxygen, and nutrients, is in appropriate land use practices – mostly from timber harvest operations (see background – CZMA) and poor agricultural practices. On most of the listed impaired north coast rivers timber harvest is by far the most dominant land use and is the primary cause of impairment.

The North Coast Regional Board has taken action to control pollutants and address timber harvest issue via use of a Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge and/or Waste Discharge Reporting. This Conditional Waiver sets minimum stream protection standards and, when complied with, negates the need for Waste Discharge Reporting.

Adding to the Problem: The State Water Board seeks to take responsibility away from the North Coast Regional Board and write State Wide Conditional Waivers and WDRs – to be administered by the State Water Board and/or the Department of Forestry (under State Water Board Authority).

Scientific Record

State Agency (CDF, State Water Resources Control Board, North Coast Regional Board, and Department of Fish and Game) and Federal Agency (NOAA and EPA) have all commissioned several extensive studies (some with timber industry participation) on the effectiveness of the Forest Practice Rules as administered by the California Department of Forestry. The overwhelming evidence (without dispute) shows that the FPRs, as administered by CDF, do not protect the beneficial uses of water.

State Responsibility

Under State Water Code and federal statute (Clean Water Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, ESA) the State is obligated to use its regulatory authority to take actions necessary to protect and recover Water Quality Standards on these impaired north coast rivers. These authorities and actions include: Amendments to the Basin Plan (Water Quality Control Plan/Implementing Programs) Total Maximum Daily Loads, Waste Discharge Reporting (and related Conditional Waivers for same – that include operational standards to protect the resource), Citation, Clean-up and Abatement Orders, Cease and Desist Orders, and Administrative Civil Liabilities. Historically and reasonably all of these authorities have been administered by the Regional Board(s).

Actions Taken by the North Coast Regional Board

The North Coast Regional Board has approved one TMDL, the Garica River- 2002, that has shown to be enforceable and effective. This TMDL has shown to be a great success. More current TMDLs that were written to lesser enforceable standards on the Scott and Shasta Rivers are more problematic.

The North Coast Regional Board has been in process for several years in the Development of Basin Plan Amendments (with prohibitions) for the control of sediment and stream and wetland protection (as part of the Non-point Source Control Program). As yet no action has been taken.

To address pollutant threat from timber operations the North Coast Regional Board has developed a Conditional Waiver for Waste Discharge Reporting (both, on federal and non-federal lands). The Conditional Waiver sets minimum standards for stream protection (beneficial use protection) related to timber operations. Timber operations not meeting the Conditional Waiver Standards must be subject to Waste Discharge Reporting.

State Water Board to Change Process.

Due to complaints from the Forest Service, the timber industry, and the Department of Forestry (CDF claims usurpation of their rightful authority to administer Timber Harvest Plans – where CDF would subordinate all participation by the Regional Board and the Department of Fish and Game), the current State Board Chair has indicated that Timber Harvest Waste Discharge Reporting and Waiver Conditions, and management of same, should be reorganized and administered (more centrally on a state wide basis) by the State Water Board. This change of course appears politically based rather than resource protective. The State Board might try to justify such changes as cost saving, providing statewide uniform regulation, elimination of duplication of work, and permit streamlining. There are arguments that can be presented to refute any and all justification made by the Board.

Arguments Against State Water Board Proposed Action

Proposed Action is not consistent with Certification of the Timber Harvest Review Process as a Certified Regulatory Program: The Timber Harvest Review Process was approved as a Certified Regulatory Program (as an abbreviated CEQA process) on the basis that the program would be multi- deciplinary (inclusive of Regional Board and Department of Fish and Game recommendations on projects). In actual practice. CDF as lead agency, has been less than open to accepting recommendations as part of the Timber Harvest Plan Review process. This is one reason major for the failure of this process to protect water quality values in timber harvest activity. The proposed action by the State Water Board would diminish the status of the multi-disciplinary approach.

Proposed Action is not consistent with Z’berg-Nejedly Act: Z’berg-Nejedly, the authorizing legislation for the Forest Practice Act, assumed the context of the multi-disciplinary review team – as an abbreviated CEQA environmental review process. Allowing one agency to dominate the whole process in inappropriate and leads to bad results. The Forest Practice Act, and Rules, state that all Timber Harvest Plans must be consistent with the Applicable Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). Who better to interpret the Basin Plan For The North Coast, as applied to a project (Timber Harvest Plan) than the Regional Board.? The Department of Forestry, nor the State Water Board, have the knowledge or expertise to determine Basin Plan conformance.

Proposed Action is not consistent with the Coastal Zone Management Act (Re- authorization /CZARA): The State has contractual responsibility with EPA and NOAA to address control of non-point pollutant source responsibility, including pollutant input from timber harvest activity, under State regulatory authority. (See CZARA analysis below). Altering and reducing Regional Board authority to deal with timber harvest activity, as proposed by this State Board action, works against the State’s ability to perform and control pollutant impacts from timber harvest activity.

Argument for Considering Regional Variability: Forests and rivers function differently in different areas of the State. Sierra forests, rivers, and soils respond to management very differently than coastal temperate rain forests and soil types. These differences point out the necessity to manage forest practices and related effects regionally – not from Sacramento – and nut under one Waste Discharge Permit or Conditional Waiver.

The North Coast Regional Board has been working on timber harvest issues in the region for the last 20 years. In the last 7, or so, years the issue have become more paramount. Regional Board staff is educated in the regional land conditions, stream conditions, regional timber industry conditions, and other variable (including interpretation of the Basin Plan) relevant to the north coast and only the north coast. The North Coast Regional Board (with oversight by the State Board) is in the best position to assess, promulgate, and implement actions necessary to protect water quality values in areas of timber harvest in the region. Management scenario from outside the region would necessarily by less effective and more costly in the long run. The proposed action from the State Board is inconsistent with all of the above as it can not effectively take into account regional variability.

Proposed Action is not consistent with the current MAA (SWRCB/CDF): Several years ago, due to forest management inconstancies between CDF and the SWRCB, and the apparent lack of ability by CDF to address water quality conditions on Timber Harvest Plans, the MAA was adjusted to address issue. The proposed change in Waiver and Waste Discharge Reporting for Timber Operations would have to be rewritten to accommodate proposed changes.

Proposed Action cannot be consistent with CEQA mandates: The proposed action is a project – under CEQA. Given the above discussion, it should be apparent that the proposed action by the State Board cannot meet CEQA mandates of mitigation. It is not possible to mitigate by making things worse – through streamlining and centralized control. It is not possible to mitigate issues discussed above.

This proposal is a step backward threatening the integrity of the State Board and resources it is responsible for.

Coastal Zone Management Act Reauthorization Findings

Published on July 23, 2009 in Coastal Impacts and Logging Impacts. 0 Comments

EPA /NOAA

FORESTRY

FINDING: California’s program includes management measures in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance and includes enforceable policies and mechanisms for implementation. However, additional management measures are necessary in order to attain and maintain water quality standards (see Section XII, page 15).

RATIONALE: The primary authority in California to implement the management measures for forestry in conformance with the 6217 (g) guidance comes from the Z’berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act (FPA) (Cal. Pub. Res. Code 4511 et seq.). Regulations (14 Cal. Code Reg. 895 et seq.) adopted pursuant to this law include practices in conformity with the management measures. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) also have oversight over nonpoint discharges associated with forestry operations through the Porter-Cologne Act. The Porter-Cologne Act provides back-up authority for implementing the management measures, including waste discharge requirements, cease and desist orders, cleanup and abatement orders, civil monetary liability for specified violations, and criminal prosecutions for specified violations.

Prior to any timber harvest on non-federal lands, a Timber Harvest Plan (THP) must be prepared by a Registered Professional Forester. A multidisciplinary and interagency review is intended to be conducted for all THPs to meet the functional equivalency requirements of environmental documentation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). These activities are carried out primarily by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and the Board of Forestry(CDF/BOF), as well as the RWQCBs, in accordance with the Water Quality Management Plan for Timber Operations on NonFederal Lands, and the Management Agency Agreement (MAA), as overseen by the SWRCB.

Although California does have the basic legal and programmatic tools to implement a forestry program in conformity with Section 6217, these tools have not been fully effective in ensuring water quality standards are attained and maintained and beneficial uses are protected. California waters currently experience significant impacts from forestry. For example, silviculture is the leading source of impairment to water quality in the North Coast of California. Related to these water quality problems, California has a number of species, in particular salmon, that are endangered, threatened or otherwise seriously at risk, due in very significant part to forestry activities that impair their spawning, breeding and rearing habitat.

Section 6217 recognizes that implementation of the (g) management measures alone may not always be adequate to protect coastal waters from nonpoint sources of pollution. In these cases, Section 6217 requires the identification and implementation of additional management measures. Thus, California will need to adopt additional management measures for forestry to address coastal waters that are not attaining or maintaining applicable water quality standards or protecting beneficial uses, or that are threatened by reasonably foreseeable increases in pollutant loadings from new or expanding forestry operations. (See Section XII, page 15)

Forest Practice issues are to be addressed, under Section 6216, under agreed upon “Action Plan (action and implementation strategies)” submitted by the State to EPA and NOAA.

Action to Support Clean Water!

Published on July 21, 2009 in Agriculture Impacts, Environmental Impacts, Gravel Mining Impacts, Groundwater, Lakes and Resevoirs, Logging Impacts, Pesticide pollution, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands, Waste Discharge and Watershed Related. 0 Comments

Contact Your Local County Commissioner and Tell Him or Her to Support Clean Water!

The National Association of Counties (NACo) represents county governments all throughout the U.S.  Each year, NACo meets to consider resolutions on federal issues that affect their local governments.  Because this organization is made up of local officials, NACo is very influential with Congress.

In years past, NACo has passed resolutions opposing the Clean Water Restoration Act based on misleading information provided by industry and property rights groups.  Members of Congress have cited NACo’s objections as an excuse not to move this critical legislation forward.  However, that is all about to change.

This year NACo will consider a “Clean Water for All” resolution that supports the compromise bill passed in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on June 18th.  If NACo adopts this resolution, then the organization can no longer lobby against the Clean Water Restoration Act.  This would significantly improve our chance of passing the bill in Congress.

We need you to make phone calls before Thursday, July 23rd!

County commissioners who serve on NACo’s Environment Committee and its Board of Directors have a chance to vote on this important resolution at their annual conference in Nashville, TN, July 24-27th. We need supporters of clean water to call and email their commissioners and urge them to vote YES on the “Clean Water for All” resolution.   Click here for talking points, a sample letter, and to access a spreadsheet that lists the county commissioners who will vote on this resolution.