Hely Public Comment

Friends of the Van Duzen
PO Box 315, Carlotta, CA 95528
707-768-3189 stein@humboldt1.com

11-22-04

California Dept. of Forestry
Coast Cascade Region Office
At: Forest Practice
135 Ridgeway Ave.
Santa Rosa, Ca. 95401

Regarding Timber Harvest Plans 04-240, 04-238, 04-231, 04-230,04-229,04-169, 02-157 Amendment#12
(All in the Hely Creek Planning Watershed - Whole Document)

004-239 (Refer to page 8-12 for Cummings Around the Mountain)

Friends of the Van Duzen would like to express their concern that the cumulative impact from the accelerated rates of harvest as proposed by these THP's in the Hely Creek Planning Watershed will cause negative impact to biological life, increase sedimentation, will be detrimental to the beneficial uses of water, and will cause significant adverse effects in the Hely Creek Planning Watershed.

In this public comment, Friends of the Van Duzen seeks to:

1) Point out the discrepancies within the cumulative logging report
2) Show the impact of sedimentation and turbidity on salmonids
3) Provide pertinent data analysis by Friends of the Van Duzen and by Water Quality
4) Reiterate the illegality and negative impact of MiniOption A

CUMULATIVE IMPACT

In the Head of Hely THP 04-238 page 136 Section 2 of the Cumulative Impacts Assessment Checklist, the forester responds Yes to the question, Are there any continuing, significant adverse impacts from past land use activities that may add to the impact of the proposed project?

Cumulative impacts are two or more effects which, when considered together, are considerable (significant) or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. The cumulative impact of a project is the change in the environment that may result from incremental projects impacts when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable, probable future projects. The significant adverse cumulative impact issue is not whether a past cumulative impact may have occurred, but whether the incremental effects of a proposed project, in combination with others, will result in significant adverse cumulative effect.

STATISTICAL DISCREPANCIES

In the Head of Hely Timber Harvest plan 04-238, page 197 of the Cumulative Logging Reports, many discrepancies can be found including the following:

1) 01-217 states that only 1 acres was used for Right of Way
Correction for VDR-16 would be 42cc, 37 shelterwood removal, 4 row, 9 no harvest, 1hcp

2) 03-140 states that only 1.4 acres was cut using select silvaculture
Correction for Rhizom,3.3 acres clearcut, 185.7 section/group, 27.6 hcp(limited harvest) 51.2 no harvest

3) 04-104 states Row 0.1, Select 9.6, No Cut 0.8
Correction for 149 Selection, 6.1 CT, .3 row,31.6 No Harvest 83.6 HCP 270.6 total
It is unclear how much of this plan is in the Hely Planning area, and how much is in
the Cummings Planning area. Larger area south of Corbett Ranch seems to be in the Hely Planning Area.

4) 04-128 No Data / Correction 53.9 Select, 35.5 VR, 37.9 no cut, 51.2 HCP Total 178.5

5) 04-169 No Cut 8.6/ Correction 69.9VR

Hely Creek Planning Watershed

The Hely Creek Planning Watershed contains 6612 acres. Pacific Lumber Company owns 90.5% of the watershed or 5985 acres.

The Hely Creek Watershed area surrounds the residential Carlotta communities at Corbett Ranch, along Highway 36, Riverside Park, Marie Lane, and Johnson Lanes.

In the reanalysis of the Cumulative Logging Reports by Friends of the Van Duzen, Attachment #1,
we can see the following :

o 1994-2004 3780.1 acres harvested or proposed for harvest
60% over the entire 6612 acres
63% over Palco's holdings in the Hely Creek Panning Watershed

o 1999-2004 3461.4 acres harvested or proposed for harvest
. 52% over the entire 6612 acres
58% over Palco's holdings in the Hely Creek PlanningWatershed

o 2004 1,257 acres approved or proposed
19% over the entire 6612 acres
21% over Palco's holdings in the Hely Creek PlanningWatershed

(1) Data presented are based on information submitted by PALCO from the Cumulative Logging
reports in the Head of Hely 04-238 THP, and may include minor errors.

(2)Accounting for Amendments may have to be reanalyzed to account for resubmittals under new names
and subsequent timber harvest acres.

(3) Confidence in the accuracy of the data is moderate to high.

(4) Some THP's may have been withdrawn.

Cumulative Impact of Plans Adjacent or in the Same Range/Township

There is a serious concern that many of these plans rest in the same range/township area within T2N, R2E.

There is a serious concern that four of these plans of these plans (Small Tree Cable 04-103, Head of Hely 04-238, Redwood House 04-231, Achilles Hely Amendment 02-157) are adjacent to each other in the Hely Planning Shed, and that the California Dept of Forestry is approving plans on an individual basis, and not taking into account the negative cumulative impact of these plans.

Individual timber harvest plans are misleading. Where are the maps in the PALCO foresters report showing the past 10 years of harvest surrounding the harvest area? Is Palco misleading the California Dept of Forestry by not inserting these maps, or is CDF failing to take into account cumulative impact of adjacent plans. What is the cumulative impact of harvesting all these plans simultaneously? Note that Achilles Hely Amendment enters previously protected areas prior to the Watershed Analysis. How does additional harvesting in surrounding areas impact this critical headwaters of Hely Creek?

Many of the parcels proposed for harvest are adjacent to each other. Approval of all these plans will have significant adverse affect and represent a substantial deviation as defined in FPR 895.1 (14 CCR 15355) because combined they potentially have a significant adverse effect on timber productivity, or values related to soil, water quality, watershed, wildlife, fisheries, range and forage, recreational and aesthetic enjoyment of the Van Duzen River Basin.

The four plans in this compact section of T2NR2E

Head of Hely 04-238 Total Acres - 191.7 No Cut - 37.7
Redwood House 04-231 Total Acres - 453.9 No Cut - 146.8
Achilles Hely Amendment 02-157 Total Acres - 80.6 No Cut - 0
Small Tree Cable 04-103 Total Acres - 255.7 No Cut - 53.1
_______________________________

Total Acres - 981.9 No Cut - 237.6
Harvest Acres - 744.3

Present plans 2004 sections 27,28, 33, 34 of T2NR2E represents 14.8% of the total land area of the Hely Creek Watershed, 16.4% of Palco's holdings in the Hely Creek Watershed. (Total Acres)

Present plans 2004 sections 27,28, 33, 34 of T2NR2E represent 12.4% timber harvest acres of Palco's holdings in the Hely Creek Planning Shed. (Harvest Acres)

So, for cumulative impact, these plans will have an adverse effect on downstream salmon, sedimentation, and increased turbidity throughout the system.

Combining these 4 new plans with the original Achilles Hely approved in 2002 gives us past and present statistics of section 27,28 33,34 of the T2NR2E area. (Note that for statistical analysis Achilles Hely Amendment will now be included in the original Achilles Hely)

Total Acres - 1247.9 No Cut - 252.3 Harvest Area 995.6

Present and past plans in Sections 27,28 33,34 of Township 2TNR2E now represents 18.8% over the total land area of the Hely Creek Watershed and 20.8% of Palco's holdings in the Hely Creek Watershed. (Total acres)

Present and past plans in Sections 27,28 33,34 of Township 2TN R2E now represents 16.6% of Palco's holdings in Hely Creek Planning Shed. (Harvest Acres)

In subsequent maps enclosed, the original Achilles Hely 02-157 fills in the purple fingers
In Section 27.
o Actions taken in the upper reaches of Hely Creek have a direct effect to the lower salmon bearing reaches of Hely Creek. Sediment run off from harvesting over 60% of the Timber Area have caused increased turbidity in the system negatively affecting the biological life.

o Turbidity readings from the 1st flush on October taken by Sal Steinberg 10/19/04 under the
bridge by Redwood House Road in Hely Creek, was tested by Clark Fenton at Salmon Forever,
and revealed a very high 435 NTU's.

o From 2001-2003, Friends of the Van Duzen's monitoring station two and a half feet of sediment
was deposited at our water quality monitoring station in the County Park near the mouth of Hely Creek. By Nov.2003, our 3-foot staff plate was almost completely buried by sediment deposited in Hely Creek.

o Monitoring station was then moved to under the bridge at Highway 36 and Redwood House Rd.

Friends of the Van Duzen Monitoring Station on Hely Creek Nov. 2004.

Hely Creek is the one of the few tributaries of the Van Duzen that runs all year round. For a long time Hely Creek was a prime Chinook spawning grounds but their numbers have seriously diminished in the last 15 years, and without serious intervention and restoration, we may be moving toward the extinction of salmon in this creek.

Friends of the Van Duzen Water Quality Monitoring Project

Results of the first three years of our 50 year study show high turbidity readings, which have a negative impact on salmonids.

Attachment#2. Turbidity readings in Hely over a 4 Year Period 2000-2003. (Graphs)

Attachment #3 Summary of 1st Three Years of a 50 Year Van Duzen Water Quality Monitoring Project

On page 10 of the report, Mr.Josh Harkins, compiled by a local scientist born and raised in the Hely Creek Watershed writes:

Conclusions:

As shown in the flow and turbidity summary graphs, change in turbidity level shows a general influence from fluctuations in flow volume. This indicates that turbidity data is consistent with precipitation effects. Turbidity values remain at very dangerous levels, even when flow is lower. Turbidity sample values in the area of the lower Van Duzen watershed consistently show exceedence of levels shown to impair the lifecycle and survival of the coho and Chinook salmon species. Many of these values are 6 to 10 times above the highest exceedence threshold. Negative impacts of potential beneficial uses of waters including the impact on threatened species and impact on spawning and early development are occurring due to this high sediment load. Much of this sediment load could be controlled by decreasing the impact from management related input, which has been shown in the previous Pacific Watershed and Tetra-Tech reports to account from 36% to 29% respectively. This leads to the conclusion that waste discharges are significantly causing and or contributing to the impairment of water quality and beneficial use. Streamside landslides accounted for 20% of the management related input. Since this is the highest portion of the 29% controllable input, it is most important to focus on reducing. This would include but not be limited too increasing size and density of riparian buffer zones until this input is reduced. To monitor the effect of needed improvement and reduced impact of management practices, the data collection effort must continue to be expanded with the end result of restoring water quality and beneficial uses of the Van Duzen Watershed.

On page 12, Mr.Harkins recommends," Establishment of a data collection and exchange relationship between the various land owners and community members in the Van Duzen Watershed is vital to provide the best possible conclusions. Future monitoring and analysis efforts should be coordinated through the Regional Water board and a network between monitoring by Friends of the Van Duzen, Simpson, and PALCO created. This will allow a balance of beneficial use, water quality, and responsible business practice."

Friends of the Van Duzen Monitoring recommendation:

If, CDF and Palco find it necessary to harvest this sensitive area of Hely Creek, its headwaters and surroundings, and since Palco no longer has a waste discharge waiver, the magnitude of this new harvesting would necessitate a monitoring station to be established by Water Quality to record sediment discharge into Hely Creek. Palco already has a monitoring station midway on Hely Creek, Friends of the Van Duzen already has a monitoring station at the mouth of Hely Creek, and in order to monitor sediment discharge, an additional monitoring station should be set up within the T2NR2E township and range.

Enclosed is a picture from December 2001 during the year that the Chinook came up to Hely to spawn.

Note the original Staff Plate.

Note the murkiness of the water. High turbidity has a negative impact on salmonid survival. Will these
salmon return? This was the last year that anyone reported salmon coming up Hely Creek.

Cumulative Impacts of Plans in the Same Township T2NR2E

There is a serious concern that many of these new plans for 2004 are situated in the same township representing the Hely and Cummings Creek Headwaters.

Approval of all these plans will have significant adverse affect and represent a substantial deviation as defined in FPR 895.1 (14 CCR 15355) because combined they potentially have a significant adverse effect on timber productivity, or values related to soil, water quality, watershed, wildlife, fisheries, range and forage, recreational and aesthetic enjoyment of the Van Duzen River Basin.

Note that the Hely Creek Area represents THP's Small Tree Cable 04-103, Head of Hely 04-238, Redwood House 04-231, Achilles Hely Amendment 02-157#12 as before but with different coloration. The original Achilles Hely is now filled in.(2002) All other plans are for 2004.

The Fox Creek area represents Foxy Flanders THP 04-240(purple), Cummings Round the Mountain 04-239 (Dark Blue), Brie 04-130 (Turquoise) ACCC 04-098(Dark Brown), Stilton 04-189 (light blue),

Van Duzen Watershed Analysis Unit

The public review draft of the VDR watershed analysis defines the Van Duzen Watershed Analysis Unit (WAU) as an area comprised of all or a portion of 7 contiguous CALWATER Planning Watersheds. According to the Watershed Analysis document:
* The WAU encompasses 71.3 square miles (45,632 acres).
* Palco's ownership is 53% of this area (24,185 acres).

The entire Van Duzen Watershed has seen an extraordinary rate of harvest since the Headwaters Agreement.

Are these statistics indicative of a 100 year plan, a 50 year plan, or a 20-25 year plan?
(Answer by CDF requested)

The Head of Hely THP Page 126 shows the 1st decade Sustained Yield Estimates Balance Sheet

WAA CC CT STR-SHR STSS SEL

3 Van Duzen 1638 802 224 12 1761

Plans Harvested 2778 2818 170 0 3077
Proposed Under
SYP
Pages 126-128

BALANCE -1,140 -2,016 54 12 -1316

According to the Forester's Calculations 8843 acres have been harvested or proposed since 1998.

There are inaccuracies in this document.

04-113 No Harvest Acres Listed
Correction 61 acres VR, 40 acres Selection
04-130 Inaccurate
Correction Clearcut 122 Selection 30
04-169 No Harvest Acres Listed
Correction 41 Variable Retention Selection 29
04-189 No Harvest Acres Listed
Correction Clearcut 65 Select 32

This accounting is low compared to statistics gathered from Water Quality Control Board, and Friends of
the Van Duzen statistics.

Please note that these discrepancies appear over all the recent Timber Harvest Plans filed by Pacific Lumber Company and are in no way a reflection on any one forester. Friends of the Van Duzen chose the Head of Hely plan for a place to give public comment and to emphasize the tremendous impact to the Hely Creek Watershed and its effect on biological life.

Water Quality Board Region 1

In a letter to Pacific Lumber Company dated September 9th denying waste discharge waivers in the Van Duzen, Mrs. Catherine Kuhlman, Director of Water Quality Control Board expressed these concerns, "We have ongoing and unresolved concerns regarding cumulative impacts to the beneficial uses of water in the sediment-impaired Van Duzen River watershed. These concerns date back to October 2001. They are based on a variety of factors, including, but not limited to: the rate and scale of land-disturbing activities and high-impact silvicultural practices proposed in PALCO's Van Duzen THPs, field observations made by our staff as well as the staff of at least one other State agency, and complaints received by our office from Van Duzen residents.

Attached Document#5 Notification of Waiver Ineligibility for Timber Harvesting Plans in the Van Duzen
River Watershed

Since 2001, Water Quality Control Board Region 1 has filed 14 Non-Concurrences in the Van Duzen.

Attached Document#6 Water Quality Non-Concurrences in the Van Duzen (CD)

Water Quality Control Board has been keeping track of timber harvest areas in the Van Duzen Basin.

Attached Document #7 Van Duzen WAA Balance Sheet with two graphs.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OVER the Entire Van Duzen Watershed

In 2004, Pacific Lumber Company proposed timber harvesting over 4200 acres in the Van Duzen Watershed. Most of these plans have been approved by the California Dept. of Forestry over this period of time without regard for the cumulative effects to the watershed.

"An agency must examine impacts against the backdrop of cumulative conditions… in considering whether a project's impacts are cumulatively considered, an agency must not ignore the impacts of past, present, or future projects." (CEQA guidelines 15064, subd. (b) Kings County Farm Bureau vs City of Hanford, 5th district 1990.
This map represents the plans proposed and approved in the Hely and Cummings Creek Planning Sheds. Also some plans are in the Steven Creek Planning Shed (top right), and some in the Root Creek Planning Shed(bottom right)

Note that the majority of plans proposed and approved are in a narrow corridor representing the Hely and Cummings Planning Sheds. (Previously show also including plans on lower section of page.

Looking at the Cumulative Impacts from a one colored map with Planning Sheds delineated in yellow gives a good representation of the level of timber harvest proposed or approved in 2004.

Yellow lines delineate Planning Watersheds. From left to right Cummings Planning Watershed, Hely Planning Watershed, and the Stevens Creek Planning Watershed on the far right.

MINI OPTION A: Impact on Hely Creek

On September 3, 2004, four of these new plans: Helyum 04-229, Head of Hely 04-238, Foxy Flanders 04-240, 04-169 Ricotta were placed on a list of 15 plans designated as MiniOption A.

This list was approved by the California Dept. of Forestry. Mini Option A is neither valid nor legal for a range of reasons including but not limited to:

(1) Pacific Lumber Company is not eligible for an "Option A" plans under $913.11(a.)
(2) A mini Option A such as this was never contemplated by the Board of Forestry and does not comply with the Forest Practice Rules or Forest Practice Act.
(3) The mini OptionA violates CEQA

At the 2nd review meeting for Hely 01-113 which I attended, Mr. John Sneed, Pacific Lumber Company, explained that MiniOption A was over their entire holdings. Since I had never had any opportunity to review MiniOption A prior to this meeting, I assumed plans were over PALCO's diverse 211,000 acre holdings. Upon further review, I determined that 12 of the 15 were in the Van Duzen watershed.

MiniOption A plans account for an additional partial cut of 604 timber harvest acres and an additional 1139 acres of variable retention for a combined total of 1743 acres in the Van Duzen River Basin. Almost all of these plans are in the already impacted Cummings Creek and Hely Creek subbasins with many plans adjacent to each other.

The impact of further cutting in the Van Duzen using the silvacultural method of variable retention in young stands 35-50 years old does not establish maximum sustainable production over time. Mini Option A adds an additional

Mini Option A attempts to create a mechanism to illegally circumvent Maximum Sustainable Production in the Van Duzen. Given the state of the forests subjected to PL's logging in the Van Duzen, there is no way the
company can genuinely demonstrate that the proposed THP's would achieve MSP. The mini
Option A is an obvious "shell game" designed to submerge these and related environmental,
economic, and socioeconomic issues, and an attempt to circumvent the spirit and intent of the
FPRs, FPA, and CEQA.

Section 913.11 of the FPRs was enacted after it became painfully apparent that too much had
been cut much too fast throughout the North Coast region, which wreaked not only fish and
wildlife habitat, but also the economies of local communities. In adopting these rules, the Board
of Forestry intended that corporations with large holdings, such as PL, would demonstrate MSP
through a Sustained Yield Plan as described in § 913.11(b), not through an Option A or "mini
Option A" as PL is now trying to do.

Indeed, the Board of Forestry never authorized or contemplated a "mini Option A" for any
entity, and the rules for such a plan were apparently entirely constructed by (or for) PL. Here it
has arbitrarily taken a subset of THPs and fashioned a "mini-master" plan around them, with no
purpose for doing so aside from the fact that it allows PL to "fudge" the facts and feign MSP,
and also effectively shut out the public from required review under CEQA.

Final Statement

In closing, there is an ongoing disregard on the part of Pacific Lumber Company and the California Dept. of Forestry to fully evaluate the cumulative impacts of plans in our region. This can be seen from viewing the maps in the GIS sections 27, 33 and 34 ; by viewing plans proposed and accepted in the quadrant T2N, R2E; by analyzing accurate data from the Cumulative Impact Assessment in the Hely Creek Planning Watershed; and by analyzing Water Quality data and comments in the Van Duzen River Basin.

If approved, these THPs would contribute to significant adverse cumulative effects, and the information contained in the plans is insufficient to evaluate and/or mitigate these impacts. Further, the THPs are contrary to the objectives of the Forest Practice Act, with silvicultural systems that would fail to achieve maximum sustained production of high quality timber products. As such, each of these THP's must be denied
pursuant to CEQA, 14 CCR §§ 898.2(c)(g) and (h) and 913, and the Porter-Cologne Act, among other applicable laws.

All plans filed under MiniOptionA should be denied by the California Dept. of Forestry as they fail to maintain maximum sustainable production over time, and were not developed under proper CDF or CEQA guidelines.
Many of the plans in Option A were originally files under Option C. Then many of the plans were filed under Option MiniA. Now many of the plans are being refilled under Option A. Option B, or the Sustained Yield Plan, was ruled invalid by Judge Golden. How can CDF and PALCO be allowed to "monkey jump" from option to option?

As we witness the timber harvest area approaching 10,000 approved in the 303(D) sediment impaired Van Duzen River Basin; as we see rates of harvest exceeding 40% of Pacific Lumber Company's holdings in the Van Duzen Watershed; as we see rates of harvest exceeding 50% in the Hely and Cummings Creek narrow corridor, Friends of the Van Duzen is extremely concerned about the cumulative impacts affecting biological life and the negative effect on the life of residents in the community.

The accelerated timber harvesting in the Van Duzen is a violation of the Clean Water Act which requires each state to protect and enhance the quality of water within the state. The antidegradation policy distinguishes three classifications. As a Wild and Scenic River on both the State and Federal levels, the Van Duzen deserves the highest level of protection. Referred to as "Tier 3" , this section states that water quality shall be maintained and protected in these waters. 40 CFR 131.12(a)(3). The Van Duzen watershed has exceptional recreation and ecological significance, and the cumulative impact from excessive harvesting is causing irreparable harm to the watershed.

Respectfully submitted,

Sal Steinberg
Community Coordinator
Friends of the Van Duzen
Van Duzen Legal Defense

Lindsey Holm
Environmental Protection Information Center

CC: Water Quality Control Board Region 1
Senator Wes Chesbro
Assemblywoman Patty Berg
Senator Byron Sher
Western Environmental Law Center
Mrs.Jill Geist, Board of Supervisors
Mr. John Driscoll, Times Standard
Mr.Terry Tammimen, Secretary for Environmental Protection