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 Authored by the Humboldt Watersheds Independent Scientific Review Panel Convened and Facilitated by CONCUR, Inc. Under the Auspices of the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Report Prepared August 12, 2003 We, the undersigned members of the Humboldt Watersheds Independent Scientific Review Panel, authored and hereby confirm our concurrence with the full text of this report. Andrew Collison, Ph.D.
Philip Williams & Associates William Emmingham, Ph.D.
Oregon State University Fred Everest, Ph.D.
University of Alaska Southeast William Haneberg, Ph.D.
Private Consultant Richard Marston, Ph.D., P.H.
Oklahoma State University David Tarboton, Sc.D.
Utah State University Robert Twiss, Ph.D.
U.C. Berkeley TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 1 A. Overview of Independent Scientific Review Panel .......................................................... 1 B. Panel Findings ................................................................................................................... 2 1. Summary of Findings for Question A............................................................................ 3 2. Summary of Findings for Question B............................................................................ 3 3. Summary of Findings for Question C............................................................................ 3 4. Summary of Findings for Question D............................................................................ 4 C. Conclusion......................................................................................................................... 4 II. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 5 PROJECT HISTORY ................................................................................................................. 5 A. Background of the Panel ­ Phase I ................................................................................... 5 B. Background of the Panel ­ Phase II .................................................................................. 5 C. May 5th Technical Workshop ........................................................................................... 5 D. The Phase II Assignment .................................................................................................. 6 III. PANEL FINDINGS ................................................................................................................. 8 QUESTION A............................................................................................................................. 8 A. Summary Findings ............................................................................................................ 8 B. Overview of the HCP/SYP/THP Planning Process........................................................... 8 C. Logical Weaknesses of the HCP/SYP/THP Processes ..................................................... 9 1. Attainment of Water Quality Standards Incidental to HCP/SYP/THP Goals and Not Enforceable ......................................................................................................................... 9 2. HCP/SYP/THP Processes Have Goals that Cannot be Maximized Simultaneously.... 10 a. SYP: Timber Production Weighted Over Environmental Protection ...................... 10 b. THP: Environmental and Economic Objectives Conflict........................................ 11 3. Processes are Statements of Intent, Based on Untested Assumptions about Effectiveness ..................................................................................................................... 12 a. Monitoring Inadequate and Late .............................................................................. 12 b. Sediment Budget Models and Estimates Unverified ............................................... 13 4. Processes and Procedures Poorly Defined, Subjective, and Lack Impartial Review .. 14 a. Conditions Required to Refine Interim Prescriptions Vaguely Defined.................. 14 b. Geologic Assessments Subjective and Lack Impartial Review............................... 14 D. Policy Considerations ..................................................................................................... 15 QUESTION B........................................................................................................................... 16 A. Summary Findings .......................................................................................................... 16 B. Determining Rate of Recovery of Waterways in Basin Plan .......................................... 17 1. Factors Considered in Determining Rate of Recovery ................................................ 17 2. The Role of Disturbances in Determining Rate of Recovery ...................................... 17 a. Pulse vs. Press Disturbances .................................................................................... 18 3. The Effect of Disturbances on Recovery of Beneficial Uses of Water ....................... 18 a. Recovery Uncertain Under Present Disturbance Regime ........................................ 18 b. Recovery of Stream Flow Studies Not Applicable .................................................. 19 c. Assessment of Biological Recovery Unclear........................................................... 19 4. Anadromous Fish as Factor in Recovery ..................................................................... 20 a. Influence of Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)...................................................... 20
Humboldt Watersheds Independent Scientific Review Panel Phase II Report 8/12/03 i 5. Information Needed to Determine ROR ...................................................................... 21 6. Time Required to Test Plans for Recovery.................................................................. 22 7. Steps in Estimating Rate of Recovery ......................................................................... 22 C. Application of Rate Of Recovery to the TMDL Process ................................................ 23 1. Turbidity Exceedence Curves ...................................................................................... 23 2. Chronic Turbidity Thresholds...................................................................................... 25 3. Applicability to the TMDL Process............................................................................. 25 D. Policy Considerations ..................................................................................................... 26 QUESTION C........................................................................................................................... 28 PART ONE: Effectiveness of the HCP/SYP/THP Water Quality Protection Measures......... 28 A. Summary Findings .......................................................................................................... 28 1. Limitations of the HCP ................................................................................................ 28 a. Lack of Maps Showing Mass Wasting Risks........................................................... 28 b. Optimistic Assumptions of Harvestable Area.......................................................... 29 c. Increased Subjectivity in Identifying MWACs........................................................ 29 d. Conservation Measures Inappropriate to Water Quality ......................................... 29 e. Incomplete Watershed Analyses .............................................................................. 32 f. Mitigations Expected to be Relaxed......................................................................... 33 g. Lack of Independent Scientific Review................................................................... 33 h. Inadequate HCP Process Design.............................................................................. 34 2. Limitations of the THP Process ................................................................................... 34 3. Limitations of the SYP................................................................................................. 34 B. Policy Considerations...................................................................................................... 35 PART TWO: Review of Freshwater Watershed Analysis....................................................... 37 A. Summary Findings ...................................................................................................... 37 B. Context for Watershed Analysis ................................................................................. 38 C. Commentary on Watershed Analysis Findings........................................................... 38 a. Harvest Rates ........................................................................................................... 40 b. Roads........................................................................................................................ 42 c. Mass Wasting ........................................................................................................... 44 D. Final Prescriptions based on Freshwater Watershed Analysis.................................... 45 a. Riparian Management Zone (RMZ)......................................................................... 46 b. Disturbance Index .................................................................................................... 46 c. Hillslope Management ............................................................................................. 46 d. In Summary.............................................................................................................. 47 E. Policy Considerations...................................................................................................... 47 PART THREE: Applicability of Sediment Budget Models .................................................... 49 A. Description of Sediment Budget Models ........................................................................ 49 1. Empirical Sediment Budget model (Reid 1998, 2000)................................................ 49 a. Strengths of the Empirical Sediment Budget Model................................................ 49 b. Weaknesses of the Empirical Sediment Budget Model........................................... 50 2. Modeled Sediment Budget (O'Connor 2002) and WEPP ........................................... 50 a. Strengths and Weaknesses of WEPP ....................................................................... 51 b. Strengths of Modeled Sediment Budget .................................................................. 52 c. Weaknesses of Modeled Sediment Budget .............................................................. 52 B. Differences between Empirical and Modeled Sediment Budget Models ....................... 53 Humboldt Watersheds Independent Scientific Review Panel Phase II Report 8/12/03 ii C. Policy Considerations...................................................................................................... 54 QUESTION D........................................................................................................................... 55 A. Recommendations of Dunne Report ............................................................................... 55 1. Report Recommends Use of GIS-Based Spatial Analysis........................................... 55 2. Panel Conclusion: Models Need Third Party Review ................................................. 56 B. Applicability of Dunne Report Recommendations to the Five Watersheds ................... 57 C. Implementation of the Dunne Report Recommendations ............................................... 57 IV. CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................... 60 A. Panel Findings and Conclusions ..................................................................................... 60 1. Findings and Conclusions for Question A ................................................................... 60 2. Findings and Conclusions for Question B ................................................................... 60 a. Rate of Recovery...................................................................................................... 60 b. Effectiveness of HCP in Protecting Water Quality.................................................. 61 c. Application of Rate of Recovery to the TMDL Process .......................................... 61 3. Findings and Conclusions for Questions C.................................................................. 61 a. Differences between Empirical and Modeled Sediment Budget Models ................ 62 4. Findings and Conclusions for Question D ................................................................... 62 B. Final Comments .............................................................................................................. 62 V. BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................................... 63 VI. APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................... 68 APPENDIX 1 - Phase II Terms of Reference........................................................................... 68 APPENDIX 2 - Invitation from ISRP and CONCUR to Stakeholders to Participate in May 5, 2003 Technical Workshop, 4/28/03.......................................................................................... 81 APPENDIX 3 - Final Agenda, May 5, 2003 Technical Workshop .......................................... 83 APPENDIX 4 - Comparison of Conceptual Models ................................................................ 86 Humboldt Watersheds Independent Scientific Review Panel Phase II Report 8/12/03 iii LIST OF ACRONYMS ACP - Aquatic Species Conservation Plan BMP - Best Management Practice CDF - California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CDFG - California Department of Fish and Game CDMG - California Division of Mines and Geology CGS - California Geologic Survey CWE - Cumulative Watershed Effect ESU - Evolutionarily Significant Unit FPA - Forest Practice Act GIS - Geographic Information System HCP - Habitat Conservation Plan IMST - Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team MSP - Maximum Sustained Yield MWAC - Mass Wasting Area of Concern NCRWQCB - North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board NMFS - National Marine Fisheries Service NTU - Nephelometric Turbidity Unit PALCO - Pacific Lumber Company PDO - Pacific Decadal Oscillation RMZ - Riparian Management Zone ROR - Rate of Recovery RPF - Registered Professional Forester SYP - Sustained Yield Plan THP - Timber Harvest Plan TMDL - Total Maximum Daily Load TOR - Terms of Reference USFWS - United States Fish and Wildlife Service WEPP - Water Erosion Prediction Project Humboldt Watersheds Independent Scientific Review Panel Phase II Report 8/12/03 iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Annual harvest rate since 1988 and 10% turbidity exceedences for WY2002 ............ 24 Figure 2. Road densities and turbidity exceedences for WY2002............................................... 24 Figure 3. Schematic comparison of stream buffers for habitat versus water quality protection . 31 Figure 4. PALCO's HCP management system ............................................................................ 32 Figure 5. Feedback loop............................................................................................................... 37 Figure 6. Figure 18: Background and management-related sediment inputs over time .............. 39 Figure 7. Figure 20: 1988 to 1997 Total sediment inputs by source ........................................... 40 Figure 8. Figure 3-3: Acres harvested during first-cycle timber harvest, 1860-1954.................. 41 Figure 9. Figure 3-4: Acres harvested during second-cycle timber harvest, 1955-1997............. 42 Figure 10. Figure 4-1: Miles of new road construction by aerial photo period ........................... 43 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Percent of time that turbidity exceeded the chronic turbidity threshold for Freshwater Creek at the Salmon Forever/Watershed Watch site (Calwater No(s) 1100.000101 and 1100.000103) ........................................................................................................................ 25 Table 2. Excerpted from Table 7-2: Landslides per acre for the 1988-97 aerial photograph period using the landforms as recorded at the landslide initiation point from aerial photograph interpretation ......................................................................................................................... 45 Table 3. Comparison of WEPP and Reid model inputs and applicability of WEPP to forested watersheds............................................................................................................................. 51 Humboldt Watersheds Independent Scientific Review Panel Phase II Report 8/12/03 v I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Overview of Independent Scientific Review Panel
The North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) convened an Independent Scientific Review Panel (Panel) in August 2002. The objective was to strengthen the science basis for its decision-making for protecting and restoring the sediment-impaired beneficial uses of waters in the Elk River and Freshwater, Bear, Jordan, and Stitz Creek watersheds in Humboldt County, California. The Panel was convened in response to a five-part motion that the Regional Water Board approved on June 27th, 2002. In the first phase of its work, the Panel produced a report entitled, "Final Report on Sediment Impairment and Effects on Beneficial Uses of the Elk River and Stitz, Bear, Jordan and Freshwater Creeks" on December 27, 2002, and presented its findings at the January 23, 2003 Regional Water Board meeting. On January 24, 2003, the Regional Water Board passed five motions relative to the Panel's findings and directed the Panel to respond to a new set of questions as part of a Phase II. The Regional Water Board specifically requested that the Panel review and comment on the levels of protection in the HCP/SYP and the effectiveness of existing mitigation measures. The Regional Water Board anticipates that the Panel's Phase II findings will be used to inform the scientific basis for the development of TMDLs in all five watersheds. Specifically, the Panel was asked in Phase II of its work to address four issues: · Issue A: Examine the cause and effect relationship linking protective measures undertaken through the HCP/SYP/THP process and the actions needed to ensure protection of water quality, including a clear discussion of the logic of the relationship. Issue B: Evaluate whether a specific rate of recovery of the beneficial uses of water, as identified in the Basin Plan, can be determined. A determination, along with a timeframe for recovery, will be needed to allow appropriate load allocations in the TMDL development process. Issue C: Evaluate the water quality protection measures provided by the HCP/SYP (including the intended performance under full versus current level of implementation) in the context of water quality standards specified in the Basin Plan. The Panel was also asked to comment, from a science perspective, on the way in which the HCP/SYP and the corresponding watershed analysis and adaptive management process does or does not address the Basin Plan standards over different time intervals. Issue D: Evaluate the degree to which the recommendations presented in the Dunne Report No. 46 are appropriate for the five watersheds, and determine how these recommendations might be implemented over short-, intermediate- and long-term time frames. · · · Humboldt Watersheds Independent Scientific Review Panel Phase II Report 8/12/03 1 The Panel responded by soliciting and reviewing documents relevant to the questions and hearing presentations made by various stakeholders, including Pacific Lumber Company (PALCO), the HCP signatory agencies, California Geologic Survey (CGS), residents and several watershed scientists at a technical workshop held in Eureka on May 5, 2003. This report presents the Panel's findings for each of the issues posed. For each question, we first state the Panel's summary findings. Next we present more detailed analysis and findings. Finally, we present pertinent policy considerations for the Regional Water Board. B. Panel Findings
The Independent Scientific Review Panel was convened to assist the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board in making science-based decisions on issues related to impairment of water quality, and flooding, in Freshwater, Bear, Jordan, Stitz and Elk watersheds due primarily to excess sediment loads. Part of the Regional Water Board's mission is protection of water quality in these watersheds. Consequently, the Board is pursuing ways to limit sediment production from the watersheds, which are largely owned by PALCO and used for timber production. It is well documented in the scientific literature that timber harvesting generally results in increased sediment production and lower water quality. The increase in sediment production is from mass wasting triggered from harvesting unstable hillslopes, erosion of exposed surfaces and erosion of roads where sediment is mobilized due to traffic and road drainage. PALCO asserts that through a combination of Best Management Practices such as road upgrades, and the provisions of the HCP/SYP/THP process, their harvest activities will not result in detrimental water quality impacts, and instead will improve water quality over that which would be found were they to cease harvest and mitigation activities in the watersheds. In the absence of monitoring data showing these mitigation measures to be effective, this assertion should be regarded as an untested and highly controversial hypothesis at this stage. In the light of numerous existing studies showing detrimental water quality impacts from high rates of timber harvest, the burden of proof would appear to be on those arguing that timber harvest is not damaging water quality. The broad question posed to the Panel in Phase II is: will the prescriptions and protections that are part of the HCP/SYP/THP processes limit sediment production sufficiently to allow recovery of the beneficial uses of water in these watersheds? The Panel has concluded that these planning processes are unlikely, at the current rate of logging, to limit sediment production sufficient to allow timely recovery of the beneficial uses of water. For example, in Freshwater, the harvest and road construction rates over the last five years have been extremely high and have impacted a significant portion of that watershed. These activities and impacts are documented in the Freshwater Watershed Analysis, a centerpiece of the HCP/SYP planning process. The Panel concludes that the approval of plans generating this documented level of impact constitutes a strong indication that this planning process will not result in recovery of this watershed. The Panel points out that the other four watersheds have also received extensive disturbance from logging. The Panel is unaware of any studies documenting that the current intensive timber harvest in the five watersheds can be accomplished without extensive sediment inputs to streams. Next, we turn to the specific issues we were asked to address.
Humboldt Watersheds Independent Scientific Review Panel Phase II Report 8/12/03 2 1. Summary of Findings for Question A With regard to Issue A, the Panel has concluded that the HCP/SYP/THP process does not and cannot ensure attainment of water quality objectives for four principal reasons. First, water quality is incidental to the stated purposes of the plans (i.e. habitat conservation and sustained timber yield and harvest). Second, the plans have multiple objectives that are intrinsically contradictory and cannot be maximized simultaneously. Third, although the plans, and in particular the HCP, incorporate measures that may help to improve water quality over time, they are statements of intent and not guarantees of attainment. The plans are based on a large set of assumptions about the effectiveness of planned actions. These assumptions have not yet been tested or adjusted on the basis of effectiveness monitoring. Critical features such as phasing, tracking, triggering mechanisms, and adjustments based upon measured success all are lacking. Finally, the processes and procedures are poorly defined, and lack specific and enforceable water quality standards as well as impartial scientific review. 2. Summary of Findings for Question B With regard to Issue B, the Panel has concluded that currently available information is insufficient to determine rates of recovery in the five watersheds. The two main reasons why it is currently difficult to determine a rate of recovery are (1) disturbances in the watersheds are continuing at a high rate even when proposed (and in some cases partially implemented) protective measures are being considered, and (2) the necessary effectiveness and trend monitoring data required to make an informed estimate of recovery rate in these watersheds does not yet exist. Therefore, it is impossible to determine at this point in time whether protective measures described in the HCP and other plans will work as intended. More problematic is the fact that, even though PALCO is beginning to collect some effectiveness monitoring data, a rigorous monitoring program capable of providing the necessary information will take years or decades to fully implement. A complicating factor is that neither "recovery" nor "background" is adequately defined. Although scientific information can be used to help define recovery and background, the adoption of the specific measures that will be used to gauge recovery and definition of background rates is ultimately a policy decision. Recognizing the current limitations, the Panel notes that it is nonetheless feasible to develop a strategy to (1) determine a realistic rate of recovery and (2) stabilize watershed conditions. 3. Summary of Findings for Question C With regard to Issue C, it is the Panel's conclusion that the HCP/SYP/THP structure and the corresponding Watershed Analysis process cannot be relied upon to meet water quality objectives. Some of the reasons for this conclusion are discussed in the Panel's assessment of Issue A. In particular, the most critical shortcoming is the practice of continuing approval of timber harvest plans without watershed analyses being adopted and implemented. The Panel has concluded, however, that the HCP process might have been relied upon to ensure water quality had it not fallen short in eight areas as elaborated upon in the main body of this report. Similarly, the Panel concludes that, although there is not a clear linkage between SYP provisions and water quality, Regional Board staff might consider several different strategies to make the plan workable, including the preparation of interim cumulative effects assessments.
Humboldt Watersheds Independent Scientific Review Panel Phase II Report 8/12/03 3 The Panel also evaluated the applicability of the two sediment budget models discussed in its Phase I report. Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. The primary limiting factor is a lack of field-based factual information. This limitation particularly constrains more complicated models (for example, the WEPP erosion and sedimentation model). The Panel therefore reiterates its earlier conclusion that an empirical sediment budget model of the type originally described by Dr. Reid, with calibrations and adjustments to account for geologic and geomorphic differences among watersheds, is most consistent with the quality and quantity of data that are currently available or likely to become available in the short term. 4. Summary of Findings for Question D With regard to Issue D, the Panel concludes that recommendations made in the Dunne report would increase the probability of attaining water quality goals in the long term. These include the long-term development of stochastic process-based models to supercede empirical models (which are now more appropriate given our current state of knowledge) and the necessity of independent third party review of model assumptions and results. The Panel concurs with the Dunne Committee that there is no science-based justification for assuming that sedimentation and water quality impacts can be mitigated to zero levels or even produce positive benefits. C. Conclusion
In sum, the Panel concludes that the HCP/THP/SYP processes have significant limitations in terms of their architecture, execution, standards and feedback mechanisms, which prevent them from ensuring attainment of water quality standards. While minor improvements could be made (that are explained within the report), the Panel finds no science basis to expect that implementing minor improvements within the existing system will ultimately lead to significant improvements in water quality. Humboldt Watersheds Independent Scientific Review Panel Phase II Report 8/12/03 4 II. INTRODUCTION
______________________________________________________________________________ PROJECT HISTORY
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ A. Background of the Panel ­ Phase I
The North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) convened an Independent Scientific Review Panel (Panel) in August 2002. The objective was to strengthen the science basis for its decision-making for protecting and restoring the sediment-impaired beneficial uses of waters in the Elk River and Freshwater, Bear, Jordan, and Stitz Creek watersheds in Humboldt County, California. The Panel was convened in response to a five-part motion that the Regional Water Board approved on June 27th, 2002. In Phase I, the Panel was asked to identify and evaluate a set of actions that could be initiated in the short term to protect beneficial uses and reduce flooding in all five watersheds. In addition, the Panel was asked to evaluate the technical strengths and weakness of several approaches to calculating rates of timber harvest that would not impede recovery from excess sediment loads and would not cause or contribute to exceedence of water quality objectives. In response to these directives, the Panel produced a report entitled, "Final Report on Sediment Impairment and Effects on Beneficial Uses of the Elk River and Stitz, Bear, Jordan and Freshwater Creeks" on December 27, 2002, and presented its findings at the January 23, 2003 Regional Water Board meeting. B. Background of the Panel ­ Phase II
On January 24, 2003, the Regional Water Board passed five motions relative to the Panel's findings and directed the Panel to respond to a new set of questions as part of a Phase II. In response to feedback from various stakeholders and resource agencies, the Board emphasized that a review of the HCP/SYP/THP processes and appropriate existing documents should be included as part of Phase II. The Regional Water Board specifically requested that the Panel review and comment on the levels of protection in the HCP/SYP/THP processes and the effectiveness of existing mitigation measures, especially the extent to which the existing HCP/SYP/THP processes address rate of recovery of beneficial uses in the sediment impaired watersheds. The Regional Water Board anticipates that the Panel's Phase II findings will be used to inform the scientific basis for the development of TMDLs in all five watersheds. C. May 5th Technical Workshop
There was also a strong recommendation from both the Panel members and various stakeholders to conduct a technical workshop with HCP/SYP/THP signatory agency staff, PALCO staff, Regional Water Board staff, as well as individual watershed scientists at the Panel's request. The Panel did conduct such a technical workshop in Eureka, CA on May 5th, 2003. The purpose of the meeting was to establish a productive forum for exchange of information focused on: Humboldt Watersheds Independent Scientific Review Panel Phase II Report 8/12/03 5 (1) the work underway in the five watersheds (2) the scientific basis for how the processes have evolved (e.g. watershed analysis, management prescriptions, THPs, and adaptive management changes) (3) the extent to which they have worked together to protect, ameliorate, or restore the beneficial uses of the watershed In preparation for the meeting, all participants were asked to provide a list of documents for the Panel to review, which specifically address the three objectives of the meeting. The Panel requested that, to the extent possible, the documents be submitted in advance. The documents submitted contained information about recent revisions to the prescriptions, the efficacy of the prescriptions implemented to date, monitoring results, plans to further develop this information, and descriptions of how monitoring results and/or other analyses are incorporated into decisionmaking processes. The documents were all submitted to both CONCUR and Regional Water Board staff. The Panel requested a few clarifications from various stakeholders following the meeting. Each of these was relayed via the CONCUR team. In carrying out this review, the Panel also referred to documents provided in the Phase I Terms of Reference, as well as other relevant scientific articles and publications. D. The Phase II Assignment
As per the Phase II Terms of Reference, the Panel was charged with: (1) reviewing the specifics of the HCP1/SYP/THP management measures and their scientific basis for achieving water quality standards contained in the Basin Plan, including timeframe for achievement; and (2) assessing how the Dunne Report No. 46 can be implemented in the five watersheds. Specifically, the Regional Water Board asked the Panel to: · Examine the cause and effect relationship linking protective measures undertaken through the HCP/SYP/THP process and the actions needed to ensure protection of water quality, including a clear discussion of the logic of the relationship. Evaluate whether a specific rate of recovery of the beneficial uses of water, as identified in the Basin Plan, can be determined, as this determination will be needed along with the timeframe for recovery, to allow appropriate load allocations through the TMDL process. Evaluate the water quality protection measures provided by the HCP/SYP/THP (including the intended performance under full versus the current level of implementation) in the context of the water quality standards specified in the Basin Plan. Comment, from a scientific perspective, on the way in which the HCP/SYP/THP and the corresponding watershed analysis/adaptive management process does or does not address the Basin Plan standards over selected periods of time. · · 1 HCP review should include related documents, including the streamlined watershed analysis methods, the post watershed analysis and any prescriptions that may have changed as a result of decisions arising from the adaptive management process. Humboldt Watersheds Independent Scientific Review Panel Phase II Report 8/12/03 6 · Evaluate the degree to which the recommendations presented in the Dunne Report No. 46 are appropriate for the five watersheds, and determine how these recommendations might be implemented over short-, intermediate- and long-term time frames. The report that follows is organized around the four specific questions listed above. Humboldt Watersheds Independent Scientific Review Panel Phase II Report 8/12/03 7 III. PANEL FINDINGS
______________________________________________________________________________ QUESTION A
Examine the cause and effect relationship linking protective measures undertaken through the HCP/SYP/THP processes and the actions needed to ensure protection of water quality, including a clear discussion of the logic of the relationship.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ A. Summary Findings
Water quality protection is mentioned in the three plans (HCP, SYP and THP) under which PALCO is currently operating. The implication of these plans is that water quality will be maintained if these plans are properly implemented. The major water quality and related aquatic concerns in the five subject watersheds include excessive sedimentation and increased flooding of the lower stream reaches, burial of spawning gravels in fine sediment, and high turbidity levels that impair survival, growth, and development of juvenile salmonids. In addition to these flooding and wildlife concerns, Regional Water Board staff must consider other beneficial uses, such as the quality of drinking water and recreational opportunities, which are currently excluded from consideration in the three plans. With regard to the Water Board's responsibilities to ensure the attainment of water quality standards and the recovery of impaired watersheds, the logic of the existing HCP/SYP/THP processes appear to be based on two working assumptions. The first is a general assumption that good wildlife habitat implies acceptable water quality. The second is a pervasive assumption that implementation of the three plans will lead to desired water quality results even though none of them directly address water quality and the effectiveness of mitigation measures is at this point largely untested. The Panel has found that despite the intentions of the HCP/SYP/THP processes to maintain water quality, they cannot guarantee protection of water quality for four compelling reasons: · · · · Water quality is incidental to the stated purpose of the plans (habitat conservation and sustained timber yield) and is not enforceable. The plans have multiple goals and stipulations, which are intrinsically contradictory and cannot be maximized simultaneously. The plans are based upon untested assumptions about the effectiveness of planned actions. The processes and procedures are poorly defined, subjective and lack impartial review. These issues are further elaborated on below. B. Overview of the HCP/SYP/THP Planning Process
As summarized in the Panel's Terms of Reference, the HCP, signed March of 1999 is neither a stand-alone nor a static management document. The HCP Aquatic Species Conservation Plan
Humboldt Watersheds Independent Scientific Review Panel Phase II Report 8/12/03 8 (Section 6.3) includes interim measures that are to be revised through the Watershed Analysis and Adaptive Management processes specified in the HCP. The Watershed Analysis process (Section 6.3.1) is to be conducted in each of the watershed assessment areas within the first five years of HCP implementation. Following each watershed analysis, watershed-specific prescriptions (Section 6.3.2.2) are to be developed to replace the interim prescriptions of the original HCP. Additionally, prescriptions are subject to revision through the Adaptive Management process (Section 6.3.6) after which the adapted prescriptions become part of the HCP. This process is currently underway and some of the prescriptions have already been revised. The HCP specifies that effectiveness monitoring (Section 6.3.5.2) of specific prescriptions be measured through both instream and hillslope monitoring. Effectiveness monitoring would be conducted to determine if the specific prescriptions, as applied to the hillslopes, result in the intended and necessary protection of aquatic values. The effectiveness monitoring can lead to modification in prescriptions through adaptive management. Trend monitoring (Section 6.3.5.3) is intended to determine if the watersheds are achieving the target instream conditions. All THPs developed for lands covered by the HCP/SYP must follow the applicable HCP/SYP prescriptions. As currently implemented, monitoring is the responsibility of the regulated party (PALCO) rather than the regulators. Monitoring results can therefore be withheld, delayed, or otherwise made unavailable to interested parties. While there is a legitimate need to take time for verification and quality assurance, there is an equally compelling need for the results to be made public in a timely manner. The Panel also finds that the guiding strategy is to monitor the effectiveness of mitigation measures after they are implemented on a broad scale rather than to institute and carefully monitor pilot projects on a small scale before they are adopted for regular use. C. Logical Weaknesses of the HCP/SYP/THP Processes
1. Attainment of Water Quality Standards Incidental to HCP/SYP/THP Goals and Not Enforceable The first logical weakness regarding cause and effect relationships between measures described in the HCP/SYP/THP and the protection of water quality is that the plans have goals that are only incidentally related to the attainment of water quality standards. The objective of the HCP is, as its name implies, the conservation of habitat:2 "The goal of the Aquatic Species Conservation Plan is to maintain or achieve, over time, a properly functioning aquatic habitat condition." The final HCP lists water temperature, canopy cover, sediment, instream large wood, large wood recruitment, pool frequency, and pool quality as key variables in the Aquatic Species Conservation Plan (ACP).3 The draft HCP, to which readers are referred by the final HCP, further describes the use of bulk sediment samples and pebble counts to characterize the aquatic 2 3 HCP, p.P-36 HCP, p. P-36 9 Humboldt Watersheds Independent Scientific Review Panel Phase II Report 8/12/03 habitat condition as part of the trend monitoring program.4 Monitoring of sediment production from slopes and roads is included as part of the effectiveness monitoring program described in the draft HCP, but no specifics are given. Turbidity monitoring, as described in the draft HCP, will be limited to one or two pilot turbidity monitoring stations as part of the trend monitoring program. The draft HCP further states "Results from this pilot program will be used to determine whether to continue or expand this program."5 The draft HCP does not state what criteria will be used to evaluate the success of the pilot turbidity monitoring program or who will decide whether to continue the program. Although the existence of properly functioning aquatic habitat in general implies good water quality, the Panel notes that the HCP does not list the attainment of specific water quality standards among its requirements.6 Moreover, the HCP states that "...specific habitat standards are not enforceable under the Plan."7 If the HCP contributes to the attainment of water quality standards acceptable to the Regional Board, the attainment will be incidental to its primary purpose, as it is in no way required or guaranteed by the HCP. The same holds true for the SYP and THP processes. Indeed, the ACP section of the HCP explicitly acknowledges this lack of enforceability (italics added): "Not all variables will be attainable over the life of the Plan, regardless of PALCO's effort. Specifically, this includes the recruitment of large wood onto the forest floor and into the watercourses. For this reason, and because habitat conditions are not static, the specific habitat variables are not enforceable standards under the Plan."8 This statement acknowledges the likelihood that some goals will not be met due to natural variability and uncertainty and may thus be challenging to enforce fairly. The partially unattainable and wholly unenforceable goal of properly functioning aquatic habitat (as characterized by variables listed in the HCP) without reference to other enforceable water quality standards of concern to the Regional Board (most notably turbidity) cannot guarantee the attainment of the Regional Board's water quality standards. The policy choice thus presented to the Regional Board is whether to rely on the possibility that the combined HCP/SYP/THP processes can incidentally lead to the attainment of water quality standards or to take more proactive steps to ensure compliance. 2. HCP/SYP/THP Processes Have Goals that Cannot be Maximized Simultaneously a. SYP: Timber Production Weighted Over Environmental Protection In addressing the concept of SYPs, the California Forest Practice Rules state (italics added): "This Article carries out the Legislature's direction that the Board adopt regulations to assure the continuous growing and harvesting of commercial forest
4 5 Draft HCP, Volume 4, Part D, Section 1, p. 103-104 Draft HCP, Volume 4, Part D, Section 1, p. 104 6 HCP, p. P-36 7 HCP, p.P-36 8 HCP, p.P-36 Humboldt Watersheds Independent Scientific Review Panel Phase II Report 8/12/03 10 tree species and to protect the soil, air, fish and wildlife, and water resources in accordance with the policies of the Forest Practice Act (FPA). Those policies include creating and maintaining a system of timberland regulations and use which ensures that timberland productivity is maintained, enhanced and restored where feasible and the goal of maximum sustained production (MSP) of highquality timber products is achieved while giving consideration to environmental and economic values."9 Whereas environmental and economic issues are given consideration under the SYP concept, primacy is accorded to the maximization of timber production. Timber production is to be ensured whereas environmental and economic values are to be considered (and, by the definition of consideration, may be set aside or de-emphasized). Environmental protection is therefore a secondary consideration of the SYP process. This is not to say that the SYP process does not address environmental concerns such as water quality, but rather that environmental concerns are secondary to the maximization of timber production. Given this balancing of values, the Panel would expect that factual information on such environmental values as water quality would be infused at each key step in the decision process. For this reason, in reviewing the documents, the Panel paid particular attention to the extent and nature of water-quality related information present at such key points in the process. The Panel found that the complex linear programming model through which the SYP is derived, while designed to optimize the tradeoffs between environmental protections and timber yield, is based on several untested assumptions about how different silvicultural approaches affect harvest rate, wildlife and watershed values. Furthermore, these processes are based on numerous models, which rely on calibrations and assumptions that must be changed, refined or confirmed by a series of watershed analyses. Many of these calibrations and assumptions have important implications for water quality and yet there is no mention in the SYP process of any specific feedback loop between water quality and the impacts of timber harvest activities. In addition, only one watershed analysis has been approved, and it has not yet been fully implemented, which means the feedback loop to validate the assumptions for these models remains unclosed, as described later in this report. b. THP: Environmental and Economic Objectives Conflict The THP process also appears to contain conflicting objectives and subjectivity as outlined below. The Forest Practice Rules10 state (italics added): "The goal of forest management on a specific ownership shall be the production or maintenance of forests which are healthy and naturally diverse, with a mixture of trees and under-story plants, in which trees are grown primarily for the production of high-quality timber products and which meet the following objectives: 9 10 CDF, 2003, p.175 CDF, 2003, p.21 11 Humboldt Watersheds Independent Scientific Review Panel Phase II Report 8/12/03 (A) Achieve a balance between growth and harvest over time consistent with the harvesting methods within the rules of the Board. (B) Maintain functional wildlife habitat in sufficient condition for continued use by the existing wildlife community within the planning watershed. (C) Retain or recruit late and diverse seral state habitat components for wildlife conc