Washington Forest & Fish Report DEIS PCFFA/IFR Comments 4/21/00

Comments of Institute for Fisheries Resources (IFR) and Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA) on the Washington Board of Forest Practices' Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Alternatives For Forest Practices Rules for Aquatic and Riparian Resources

April 21, 2000

Charlene Rodgers, EIS Project Manager
DNR-Forest Practices Division
PO Box 47012
Olympia, WA 98504-7012

RE: IFR/PCFFA Comments on DEIS for Forest Practices Rules Alternatives

To the Examiner:

These are the formal comments on the DEIS from Institute for Fisheries Resources (IFR) and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations (PCFFA). PCFFA particularly has a vital economic interest in this issue, and is the west coast’s largest organization of commercial fishing families, representing the interests of approximately 3,000 commercial fishing vessel owners with a combined vessel investment of approximately $1 billion. IFR is a nonprofit marine resource protection organization that is independent of but closely affiliated with PCFFA, and which manages PCFFA’s many conservation and salmon restoration programs.

Of the three proposals analyzed, we strongly support Alternative 3. Alternative 3, while not perfect, is by far the lowest risk alternative, and will provide the greatest benefit to the salmon resource in terms of recovery and, ultimately, a harvestable surplus. The Board has an obligation, as its highest priority, to protect public resources -- a duty that as a trustee agency by law takes precedence over all other duties, including that of maintaining any particular level of profitability to the timber industry. Salmon and clean water are public resources that support thousands of coastal and inland fishing jobs, even today (after a decade of serious and habitat- related declines) a major Washington industry. As recently at 1998, commercial and recreational salmon fishing brought in $415.5 million to the State of Washington, and supported 21,050 family wage jobs.(1) Habitat destruction, caused in large part by environmentally destructive forest practices has, however, now put those jobs at serious risk, just as it has put various salmonid species at risk of extinction.

1. The Only Independent Science Review to Date Has Been Strongly Critical of the Forests and Fish Report (Alternative 2): About a month before the DEIS was finalized, a strongly critical scientific review of the Forests and Fish Report (which is essentially the same as Alternative 2 in the DEIS) was released. The Northwest Chapter of the Society for Ecological Restoration and the Western Division of the American Fisheries Society administered the independent scientific review, which is available on the web at:

http://www.halcyon.com/sernw/default.htm

The DEIS does not in fact refer to nor address that review, and indeed the drafting Consultant chose to ignore it (it came in at the final part of the drafting process) merely in the interests of time, considering it likely to be presented as part of the public comment period. It has now been so presented, and we formally incorporate that report in full as part of these comments by reference. In accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), you have an affirmative obligation to consider this independent scientific review and respond to it in the EIS process.

When the underlying bill (ESHB 2091) was adopted which incorporated the Forests and Fish Report (version dated 29April 29 1999) the negotiations around that deal were primarily political, not biological. While agency scientists were consulted during the Forests and Fish Report negotiations, the Forests and Fish Report contains no scientific documentation for its conclusions. The only scientific review to date, and then much after the fact, was that recently done by the The Northwest Chapter of the Society for Ecological Restoration and the Western Division of the American Fisheries Society. So far as the Forests and Fish Report (and Alternative 2) are concerned, the conclusions of that analysis are devastating. Among the many criticisms of the Forest and Fish Report (and therefore by implication of Alternative 2 in the DEIS) are the following quotes:

“While some provisions of the Forests and Fish Report represent improvements over existing regulations, most provisions decrease the maximum levels of environmental protection possible relative to previous forest practice rules in Washington. The minimum levels of protection afforded by the Report, although higher than those of the previous standard forest practice rules, do not approach the levels of protection considered necessary by science-based guidelines already prepared for use on private forest lands in the Pacific Northwest. Attainment of the Report’s performance targets will not assure attainment of the overall goals described by the Report: levels of turbidity will be permitted to be maintained at values considerably higher than those allowed by state water quality standards, and the cumulative effect of the adverse habitat changes allowed by the Report will be a decreased likelihood of survival for threatened salmonid species.” (Executive Summary: Scientific Review of the Washington State Forest and Fish Plan, pg. 1)

“The Report contains insufficient restrictions on riparian logging in non-fish-bearing reaches to ensure water temperatures flowing into fish-bearing reaches are low enough to support species at risk or to assure compliance with Washington State water quality standards for stream temperature.” (Ibid., pg. 1)

“The Report’s performance targets allow peak-flow increases large enough to reduce egg-to-fry survival of salmon by about 10%.” (Ibid., pg. 2)

“The Report provides for no woody debris recruitment in seasonal channels and limited recruitment in perennial non-fish-bearing channels. Fish-bearing streams could be deprived of as much as half the natural woody debris input. This level of input is considerably lower than that generally considered necessary for sustaining viable populations of salmonids.” (Ibid., pg. 2)

“The Report’s recommended prescriptions will allow more sediment input to streams than is allowed by state water quality standards.” (Ibid., pg. 2)

“The Report allows direct application of toxic chemicals to non-fish-bearing channels if no water is present at the time of application. Because toxic residues can remain for months, downstream salmonids will be exposed to some level of these toxic chemicals when flow resumes.” (Ibid, pg. 2)

“Because the Report’s provisions are not contingent on assessment of the current level of impact in watershed - and, in fact, remove the ability to modify prescriptions for riparian buffers and slope stability on the basis of watershed-specific information – the Report’s prescriptions will contribute to cumulative impacts to water quality and critical habitat. Unless the level of care in already-impacted watersheds is higher than that in unimpaired watersheds, habitat conditions will continue to deteriorate in many of those watersheds, thus increasing the level of harm to already threatened species.” (Ibid, pg. 2)

There are but selected examples of the many problems raised for the Forests and Fish Report (and therefore of Alternative 2) by this independent scientific review.

The DEIS generally underestimates the risks to public resources. For example, the DEIS claims the Forests and Fish Report is low-risk with regard to providing large wood to fish streams. It assigns the "low" rating because the buffer provides more than half of the wood that a 100-year old stand of trees would provide. However, a true low-risk proposal would mimic natural conditions (providing closer to 100% of the natural woody debris recruitment). Also, the DEIS underestimates the risk by ignoring the fact that real forests grow bigger trees than those found in 100-year old stands, and ignoring the significant contribution of wood to fish streams from smaller streams higher up in the watershed. The large woody debris recruitment model used to develop the Forsts and Fish Report standards is itself seriously flawed. The analysis assumes that 100% of large woody debris recruitment for larger streams is from the banks in that location, when in fact a very large part of that recruitment comes from upriver smaller streams (often non-fish-bearing and frequently intermittent streams) which, under the Forests and Fish Report standards, would no longer have any requirement of conifer or other vegetation retention. This lack of protection for small non-fish-bearing and intermittent “feeder streams” will tend to further impoverish lower river stretches of their woody debris recruitment.

The Forests and Fish Report is a high-risk approach. Even the DEIS itself (which generally underestimates risks), states that the Forests and Fish Report represents a moderate risk to perennial streams and a high risk to seasonal streams for large wood recruitment, shade, needle and litter, and a high to very high risk for microclimate. (DEIS Table 2-14, pgs. 2-36 to 2-43)

Inadequate Alternative 2 Buffer Zones: The buffers called for in Alternative 2 are considerably smaller than those recommended by a wide variety of other plans and studies, including Washington's 1997 Wild Salmonid Policy, the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife's 1997 riparian habitat management recommendations, and the National Marine Fisheries Service's 1998 draft proposal for upgrading Oregon's forest practices rules to protect endangered salmonids. They are also discontinuous, which means that whatever riparian improvements might be obtained by wide buffers at one point in a stream system will be offset by commensurate riparian function deterioration at other points.

Many current buffers are also "phantom buffers." After a long history of “high-grading” and removal of large conifers from riparian areas by industial logging practices of the past, the majority of the riparian buffers that would be established are simply not full of tall trees, ready to provide shade and wood to streams. The DEIS itself states "within the lands subject to forest practices rules, approximately 78 percent of the westside stream miles and 61 percent of eastside stream miles flow through early seral stage riparian areas" (i.e., young forests) that "cannot provide a properly functioning riparian system." (DEIS Table 3.4-1, p. 3-35, 3-36). Only 1% of these westside riparian areas are currently in late seral stage forests, according to the DEIS figures. In other words, it will take at least another 50 years before natural large woody debris recruitment from most stream sides makes a significant different to overall natural woody debris inputs. The DEIS fails to deal with this fact in assessing the risk of a riparian protection strategy based solely on discontinuous protection of already compromised buffers.

The Forests and Fish Report also fails to protect the entire interconnected stream network. Independent calculations and the DEIS itself confirm that at any given time riparian buffers will be present on only about a quarter of all streams in forested watersheds of western Washington if the recommendations of the Forests and Fish Report are implemented (DEIS, Appendix C, page 6). In other words, under Alternative 2, along a full three quarters of the stream length there would be no requirements to leave trees standing. This will not provide adequate protection from high water temperatures, erosion and “edge effects” which will exacerbate riparian habitat deterioration.

Inadequate Alternative 2 Protection of High Risk Slopes: The Forests and Fish Report also allows logging to continue on most high hazard slopes. Logging on steep slopes can lead to landslides that harm fish, damage neighbors' property, and pose a danger to public safety. The timber industry is allowed to design mitigation measures for logging on high hazard slopes but the best available science shows (and several agencies have recommended) that there should be no logging on high hazard slopes.

Overly Slow Alternative 2 Road Upgrade Schedule: The Forests and Fish Report gives landowners 15 years to complete roads upgrades, and does not require repair of orphan roads. Landowners should be required to upgrade roads on a more reasonable 10 year schedule, starting with those roads at the greatest risk for erosion which would impact threatened and endangered species, and orphan roads should be required to be identified and dealt with. Furthermore, unnecessary roads should be required to be decommissioned and replanted whenever possible.

Difficulty of Alternative 2 Implementation: Experienced foresters say the Report is too complicated to implement and enforce. John Edwards, who headed DNR's Forest Practices Division for many years, said, "It's going to be almost impossible to explain and very difficult to implement on the ground. I don't think anyone was thinking about implementation. It just isn't going to work. You could take three people out there three days in a row and not come up with the same line." (Quote from "New Timber Law Hits Some Bumps on the Road to Reality," by Lynda V. Mapes, Seattle Times, August 18, 1999). Any standards used must be implementable and capable of being consistently applied.

Adaptive Management System is Inflexible, Pre-biased and Exclusive: Not only does the Forests and Fish Report start with measures that are far too weak, but the "adaptive management" system proposed is fundamentally flawed and unlikely to bring about needed changes in logging practices over time. The timber industry has excessive control over all the key monitoring tasks; they are required to be part of the consensus group that determines research program priorities, projects and funding; they will define the research questions; and they must approve final research reports and recommendations to the Forest Practices Board. They also must approve the use of "external science." In addition, the adaptive management process is structured so as to muzzle all dissenting voices -- the Forests and Fish Report requires all participants to "support and implement the recommendation contained in this Report."

The Board should take action to bolster a true adaptive management process by establishing its own independent scientific advisory committee and/or scientific peer review process internal to the Board or (ideally) as an independent body similar to the Independent Multi-disciplinary Science Team (IMST) established in Oregon by statute to oversee the implementation of the Oregon Salmon Plan. Every effort should be made through the rule-making process to make the adaptive management process more workable and more legitimate, including the process of examining the underlying assumptions upon which the Forests and Fish Report was built.

Conclusion on Alternative 2 Inadequacies: In short, the Forest and Fish Report's measures are not protective enough to not meet at least three of the Forest Practices Board's own goals for the rule-making: to provide compliance with the ESA for aquatic and riparian-dependent species on nonfederal forest lands; to restore and maintain riparian habitat on nonfederal forest lands to support a harvestable supply of fish; and to meet the requirements of the federal Clean Water Act and state water quality standards on nonfederal forest lands. Clearly Alternative 2 must be rejected.

2. Overall Problems with the DEIS Analysis:

The DEIS admittedly fails to consider a full range of alternatives. There were four other proposals submitted to the Board which are mentioned in the DEIS but specifically eliminated and rejected for further analysis for unstated reasons. All of these are lower risk strategies than Alternative 2. The WEC/Audubon proposal is much lower risk than the lowest risk Alternative 3 analyzed in the DEIS, and the separate plans submitted by the Puyallup Tribe, the Muckleshoot Tribe and the Yakama Nation are lower risk than Alternative 2 as well. None were analyzed.

Given the need for analysis of a wide range of alternatives under SEPA, and given the long- term implications of these critical decisions for the next 50 years or so, these other options should have also been fully analyzed., particularly as to their risks and potential benefits, so that all options could be compared.

Risk Analysis Does Not Take Into Account the Backlog of Already Approved Operations Under the Old Rules. There is at least a three-year backlog of already approved timber operations which are subject to the old (admittedly inadequate) rules. These grandfathered in operations will seriously jeopardize public resources, including listed salmonids and other species, decrease the ability to restore these resources through any future forest practices improvements, and should be factored into any risk assessments done. However, this problem is not even mentioned in the DEIS.

All DEIS Risk Analyses Are Based on Presumption that the Water Typing System in the Emergency Rules Would Become Permanent. The Emergency Rules will soon expire, which means that the water typing system in those rules will also expire, as they are not yet adopted as permanent rules. Without that water typing system, the DEIS risk analysis process becomes moot. We suggest that the water typing system go forward immediately as a separate rule package so that later measures (and risk analyses) have some basis by which they can proceed.

No Salmon Refugia. There is a large and growing scientific consensus that, in addition to baseline riparian protections, salmonids also need specific or special protections for refugia that contain their best spawning and rearing habitat. None of the Alternatives use a refugia strategy for the protection of these critical areas. The result could be a serious degradation down to a very low baseline of protection for all these areas. There should be site-specific additional protection measures for biologically important salmon spawning and rearing areas, including additional protections of upstream and upland areas hydrologically connected to these areas to prevent erosion, sediment in-fall and elevated water temperatures.

No Specific Measures are Triggered for 303(d) Water Quality Limited Streams. Finally, there are no specific measures triggered in the event of an existing or future 303(d) listing of a stream segment under the Clean Water Act, nor any additional management measures triggered to provide for site-specific mitigation and remediation for these ?hot spot’ areas. At a minimum, special measures need to be implemented in these areas and in upstream watersheds hydrologically connected to any stream that does not meet water quality standards.

****************

This completes our comments. Additional comments were presented orally at the hearing on the DEIS held 19 April 2000, and we hereby incorporate our comments at that time by reference. On behalf of the commercial fishing families and coastal salmon-dependent businesses we represent, we thank you for the opportunity to present our views.

Sincerely,

Glen H. Spain
Northwest Regional Director
For IFR and PCFFA

Footnotes:
(1) The Economic Imperative of Protecting Riverine Habitat in the Pacific Northwest, Pacific Rivers Council Research Report No. 5 (January, 1992).

A copy of the DEIS itself (published March 2000) is available on the Washington Forest Practices Board website: http://www.wa.gov/dnr and click on "regulation."