Sierra Club
Redwood Chapter Newsletter
|
July 9, 2002 Redwood Chapter of the Sierra Club John Hunter Comments on Project; The joint HCP/NCCP will address forest management and timber operations on MRC lands in Mendocino and Sonoma Counties, Cal The proposed 80 year HCP/NCCP will encompass 220,000 to 240,000 acres of lands owned by MRC on and after the granting date of incidental 'take' permits and cover up to 19 fish and wildlife species and up to 59 plant species. Dear Mr. Hunter: Process Lack of Information Provided for Scoping Comments With the only guide to our scoping comments being the Federal Register Notice (Volume 67, No. 109, 38932-38934, Thursday, June 6, 2002) the public is unable to adequately comment at this point. Because we are unable to focus our comments, our time and energy are usurped needlessly. We request that scoping be extended until documents, including the Habitat Conservation Plan and the Natural Communities Conservation Plan, are available for public review. We request that the extension of scoping be officially noticed in the Federal Register. The species proposed for 'incidental take' by Mendocino Redwood Company (MRC) were identified only in part in the Federal Register. Just seventeen (17) species were listed by name; an additional sixty (60) unlisted species for which MRC "may also seek coverage in the incidental take permits" were described only as "including 51 species of plants, four species of amphibians, three species of birds and two species of mammals." The public can only speculate as to which species these are, how they relate to the named species, what their biological needs are, and how they might be impacted by the activities proposed by MRC for incidental take permit coverage. Obviously, since pertinent comment cannot be reasonably expected for this unnamed 60 species, scoping is being sought for an inadequately described project and is therefore incomplete. The scoping meetings were noticed both in the Federal Register and in a mailing sent out by California Department of Fish and Game (DFG). The Federal Register described the purpose and agenda of these meetings as being,
The DFG notice contained similar language for the proposed agenda. Neither the range of activities proposed nor the status and threats to species were on the agenda. At all meetings, the consultant hired by MRC set and controlled the agenda; MRC's Geographic Information Specialist showed us a power-point presentation of a 50-year landscape-level modeling program for timber extraction on one portion of their property. The relevance of this presentation to the habitat requirements of the species proposed for the 80-year, "no surprises" ITP was not discussed, nor was it made clear if this presentation would be part of the administrative record so that the public could carefully review and critique it. Scoping comments made by the public were condensed and recorded on a newsprint tablet by MRC's consultant. There was no stenographer present; there were no audio or video records made of these sessions. Much time was wasted trying to explain to the facilitator the meaning of the comments so they could be summarized and written down. Comments were summarized and meaning was lost. Many questions regarding the HCP/NCCP process were not answered. Many of these questions could have easily been anticipated by the agencies and written materials made available. Where and how, at this point, will the public get answers so that they can continue to participate in a meaningful way in the process? Some of the process questions that remained unclear- and could be multiplied- were: -Agency staff told attendees that scoping would continue throughout the HCP process. That has not been officially noticed. The public can't rely on personal assurances. -The Jones and Stokes facilitator said that they would be issuing a scoping report. What the relationship of the agencies is to the development of the scoping report remains unknown. While the agencies legally noticed the scoping meetings, they then seemed to disclaim responsibility for public comments received there. -The facilitator said that a scoping report, prepared by Jones and Stokes, would categorize scoping comments by 'issue,' and workshops would be held to discuss these issues. The questions of who would be planning and conducting these workshops, what the relationship of the agencies to them would be, and how the content of these would be developed and information controlled, remains unknown. The public is understandably leery of processes shaped by the applicant, particularly when these have not been made clear in advance. -The relationship between the HCP- and its set of federal laws, regulations and policy- and the NCCP- with its own set of state mandated mechanisms- was not made clear. For example, scoping comments were given different deadlines for each plan. Is there a lead agency? Do Fish and Wildlife, National Marine Fisheries Service, and DFG share equally in the responsibility for development of the plan? Will the two, HCP and NCCP, remain on separate tracks through most of the process? -How, and when, will the Fish and Game Code requirements for "independent scientific analysis" (Fish and Game Code Section 2811 (a)(2)) and "a process for public participation throughout plan development and review" (Fish and Game Code Section 2815 (a)) be established? In summary, the scoping has been inadequate to date. The public's attendance time was not well used and the public agencies, by abdicating their responsibility for the planning and facilitation of these meetings, have lost an opportunity to inform and educate the public. General Issues Protection of all 232,000-240,000 acres of the project area is essential to maintain and restore the redwood ecosystem. The health of the forests in the project area provides the basis and the critical foundation for assurance that the take of species proposed pursuant to the incidental take permit will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild. The current conditions of the forest and watersheds must be compared to original conditions. We now have younger, smaller-sized trees, a change in species composition from conifer dominated to heavy hardwood occupancy, a fragmentation of forest, reduced diversity of plant and animal species, increased levels of pathogens affecting numerous tree species, a loss of snags and large woody debris (across the landscape and in streams), a changed hydrology resulting from miles of roads and skid trails and from culverts placed in streams, and increased stream temperatures and sedimentation. Many species dependent on old growth or late seral forests and on fully functioning streams and riparian zones are in serious decline. For some of these species such as salmonids logging and associated activities are the single biggest cause of their decline on the north coast. Furthermore, global warming effects may have devastating effects on the forests with increased risks of disease, fire and loss of biodiversity. Given the degraded conditions of the applicant's lands and the similar conditions of much of the forested landscape surrounding the project area in Mendocino County and in the redwood region, it may be impossible to meet the goals and standards required by the Endangered Species Act of a Habitat Conservation Plan to avoid significant impacts to species' chances of survival and recovery. Furthermore, since HCPs should be used only in limited circumstances, and since there already exists extensive habitat degradation and elimination across much of these species' ranges in northern California, the issue of whether further habitat loss can be allowed under this Incidental Take Permit needs to be seriously considered. Specific Issues Each specific item below should be addressed using the original conditions of the forests and rivers, as well as current conditions, as a baseline. These items should be addressed as to their cumulative impacts, both temporally and spatially, including a discussion of the conditions on other forestlands surrounding this property. These specific issues should be also be evaluated in relation to other forestland Habitat Conservation Plans in the redwood region of California. The area of impacts resulting from the HCP should be addressed at scales ranging from watershed level to the redwood-region level. Air Quality Address applicable air quality standards, the air quality attainment status of affected areas, and impacts of the proposed alternatives on air quality in the affected areas as associated with logging activities, including slash burning (broadcast or pile burning), transportation of cut timbers, vehicle and road dust emissions, and road construction activities. Please address how air quality might be affected by the burning- by wild fires or heating homes- of trees that have been treated by pesticides (herbicides, fungicides or insecticides.) Please focus your remarks particularly on effects on children, the elderly, and individuals with chemical sensitivities, many of whom have moved to this area to escape the concentrations of toxics found in urban and suburban settings. Address how this HCP might interact with other forest activities to exacerbate or accelerate climate change on the north coast. Soils Discuss the soil types in the project area. How are soil types determined? Please be specific. Are soil samples done throughout the project area? What is the soil loss per acre per year when timber is harvested? How much is delivered to receiving waters? Is this permissible under TMDLs? Discuss the effects the HCP will have on short-term and long-term soil productivity as a result of erosion, evaluate the role of trees as soil anchors. Evaluate the role of trees (both living and dead) by species and their influence on soil amendment and consequent forest health. Discuss the effect of hardwood reduction on soil erosion and on soil amendment. Address soil compaction through the use of heavy mechanized equipment.
Assess cumulative impacts to soils from all of the above (loss of soil anchors, loss of amendments, compaction, short-cycle harvesting, exposure to ultra-violet light, drying, pesticides and fertilizers.)
Landslides; Slope Instability
Describe the landscape, geomorphology, and soils of the area, including their distribution, hazard or erodible soils, debris-flow and landslide potential, sediment delivery and special soils or geologic conditions.
Evaluate the role of timber harvesting (including use of heavy equipment on skid trails, clearcutting and other even-aged silvicultural methods, and road and landing construction) in triggering landslides.
Evaluate the effects of removing hardwoods to slope stability.
Traffic
A map should be provided showing all roads for each watershed on the project area, including appurtenant roads.
Water Quality
All of the items below need to be addressed cumulatively at watershed levels and regional levels. Cumulative impacts from past intensive management practices must be discussed. The question of whether incidental take can be authorized for a species such as coho salmon- already on the brink of extinction- must be considered. The basic mandate of the Endangered Species Act to conserve wildlife must have priority.
Have stream alteration permits been applied for, for stream crossings and water drafting? Are valid permits obtained before activities begin?
Address water quality and quantity in streams in the area. Identify streams and rivers where limiting factors for fisheries are water diversions. Discuss the relationship of forests to maintenance of water quality.
Discuss riparian strategy and watershed analysis; discuss effects of the HCP on water temperature, dissolved oxygen, sediment, potential contaminants (e.g., nutrients and herbicides, machine fluids, sawdust and logging slash), and turbidity, in forested, deforested and grassland areas.
Address fisheries and stream protections including stream quality, erosion control, drinking water quality and the effects of pesticides and fertilizers on stream health, drinking water quality, and on the wildlife in streams (direct contact, inhalation, absorption.)
Discuss effects of roads, existing and proposed, and failure to maintain them, and effects of any proposed road maintenance plans, on increased erosion and impacts to water quality. Include a breakdown of road types (permanent, seasonal, surfaced), miles of roads, numbers of existing crossings and crossing locations by stream classification, culverts and culvert locations by stream type, road survey data on culverts that are shot-gunned, failing, not placed to grade, don't have energy dissipaters, etc.
Are roads monitored and maintained during winter months? Are hand crews dispatched to do winter repairs in case of erosion control device failures?
Discuss the importance of road abandonment near streams and other sensitive or critical habitat areas.
Discuss impacts to water quality from use of dust abatement products (other than water) on roads.
Evaluate the importance of no-cut zones in riparian areas. Compare what is proposed by MRC to the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Option 9 standards of the Northwest Forest Plan, and to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) guidelines for timber harvest plan review, and to NMFS Short-Term Habitat Conservation Plan Guidelines.
Address watershed rehabilitation to improve habitat with respect to sediment contribution, riparian function, and temperatures.
Ensure HCP follows guidelines under the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board's Basin Management Plan, and the Clean Water Act.
Evaluate skid trails as a source of sediment discharge.
Address impacts to stream flows from removal of canopy cover. Address effects to water table levels from loss of fog drip from harvested areas.
Water Quality- Monitoring
Since all 87 watersheds are listed with the EPA under the Clean Water Act for sediment impairment the EIR must address sediment discharge into the waters of the State. Timber harvesting causes long-term sedimentation of the rivers interfering with aquatic life and threatening long-term viability of salmon. The MRC must have an 80 year monitoring plan to:
Will MCR monitor erosion control plans during storms and quickly mitigate erosion control failures? Who enforces erosion control?
Water Quality- Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
Include discussion of TMDLs, the possibility of miscalculations and the uncertainty of a timeline- for TMDLs already promulgated- for the State Water Resources Board to establish implementation plans, and for the regional board to adopt such plans into its Basin Plan.
The MRC HCP/NCCP must address the limiting factors identified by the EPA in the TMDL guidelines, executive summaries and all other final documents that pertain to impairment listings.
The HCP/NCCP cannot be an independent planning document for long term harvesting of timber since the HCP/NCCP will be finished before TMDL guidelines, monitoring and federal mandates are established. MRC cannot be doing an EIR that does not take into account TMDL and EPA recommendations for these watersheds.
MRC HCP/NCCP must allow for continued TMDL additional impairment listings that may arise throughout the term of the HCP/NCCP. Therefore, the 'no surprise' element of HCP/NCCP would appear moot and incapable of application.
Hydrology
Timber harvesting must not cause increased rate of runoff to streams and rivers. Increased rate of run off causes bank erosion and down stream flooding. Increase velocities causes increased flooding, loss of spawning habitats and destruction of salmonid redds. These are numerous and cannot be measures in an incidental 'take'.
Incidental 'takes' (if permitted) must include loss of generations of salmonid redds and must be address cumulatively before an incidental 'take' can be allowed for Salmon. When timber is harvested and tree canopy lost there is an increased rate of runoff that enters into the streams and rivers. This increased velocity causes deep scouring and tumbling of bed loads in the waters of the State killing redds.
Watershed Analysis
Describe watersheds with at-risk fish stocks and high quality water and discuss how this HCP will conserve those.
Include a discussion at different landscape levels (on site, watershed assessment area, and regional) of impacts to wildlife. This discussion should assess the habitat needs of each species and its ability to move and disperse on the landscape, e.g., fish stocks are restricted to stream of origin, lichens disperse over short distances, etc.
Address cumulative watershed and old-growth forest impacts in north coast California.
Assess some of the effects to watersheds associated with implementation of FPRs.
Forest Fragmentation
Discuss fragmentation in relation to loss of biodiversity, microclimate change, edge effect, increased wind velocity, evaporation, solar insolation, influx of invasive species, increased risk of catastrophic fire, reduction of fog drip and natural moisture retention, lack of shade and resulting effects on the role of lichens, mycorryihzal root fungi, and plant succession in the forest, reduction in genetic diversity of trees, and effects on nutrient and hydrologic cycles.
Discuss effects on all species recovery, species' reaction to crowding when habitat is reduced in size, and effects on reproductive success and dispersal, and effects of exposure to additional predation.
Identify species that are more susceptible to fragmentation.
Evaluate the effects of species distribution and populations from proposed hardwood reduction and change to conifer habitat.
Forest Health
Address the role of the scattered residual old growth to forest health and species viability.
Evaluate the HCP in light of the uncertainty concerning the spread of Sudden Oak Death and concerning the limited understanding of how effects that result from global warming and climate change intersect with the spread of the SOD fungus.
The HCP/NCCP should list all herbicides, pesticides that will be used and the times of these application and their effects on aquatic and terrestrial animals.
Habitats
Describe the role of various habitat types and forest classes in the occurrence and distribution of wildlife, and the effects of changes in the distribution and quantity of habitat types on wildlife covered by the ITP and other wildlife that these species may be dependent upon- for example, impacts on prey species/food sources such as invertebrates or rodents.
Linear riparian buffers should not be "counted toward" fully functioning late seral habitat.
Wildlife
Discuss the effects of helicopter use on the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet.
Evaluate the loss of wildlife corridors and how that might prevent gene flow between fragmented habitats. Also discuss how this loss might disrupt or prevent wildlife access to forage areas, breeding grounds, and hibernation sites.
Describe the effect of present and future distribution and quality of wildlife habitats, particularly old growth (and late seral, and second growth) forest, on wildlife and wildlife habitat, including the role of forest connectivity and the effects of forest fragmentation (including on dispersal and movement of wildlife) in and near the project region and in the general region.
Discuss the effects of fragmentation and the removal and modification of key habitats (including old growth) and the effects on successful productivity (i.e., reproductive success) of individual species.
Please map the 87 watersheds effected for the next 80 years and where all the incidental takes will be located for: spotted owl, mountain beaver, freshwater shrimp, red-legged frog, milkvetch, white sedge, bird-peak, Baker's larkspur Kellogg's buckwheat, Burke's goldfields, Showy Indian Clover, Coastal Chinook, Coho Salmon, Steelhead. Please map the current distribution and location of these plants and animals.
Please map the remaining locations of the animals and plants after the 80-year plan? Is there a net loss of habitats for these plants and animals? How does this compare to what is happening state wide to these critical habitats? Is there a net loss for critical habitats?
Will the HCP/NCCP 80 year plan take into account the possible continued decline of listed species under the ESA and public scrutiny and input for needed recovery of listed species? Will these important public concerns for natural resources be available?
Please address how changes to microclimate conditions in riparian areas might affect reptiles, amphibians, and other aquatic species.
Biodiversity
Describe the effects of changing timber harvest methods on species composition in the forest, wetlands, and rivers.
Address the loss of biodiversity.
Address the types of biodiversity that old-growth forest habitats preserve.
Identify how the loss of irreplaceable biodiversity can be analyzed.
Discuss the impacts to loss of seed generation and genetic diversity with loss of older trees.
Discuss the relationship of habitat destruction to loss of biodiversity.
Fisheries
Address the distribution of fish species in and near MRC lands. Address streamside habitat, regulations, and harvest practices that affect in-channel conditions. Evaluate a range of proposed harvest prescriptions for upland areas (road operation and maintenance) and riparian areas (harvest management and buffers). Assess cumulative impacts of the HCP for the north coast of California, i.e., discuss cumulative impacts regionally.
Assess effects of siltation on eggs and fry and other damage to fisheries as a result of logging practices that deliver sediment to streams.
Address the effects of increased stream temperatures from canopy loss on fish populations. Include impact studies of coho spawning streams on all MRC land
Significant Cumulative Impacts to Salmonids
Given that all salmonid resources in the Pacific North coast are threatened, MCR should provide a Northern California map of all THP projects for the next 80 years that will clearly demonstrates significant cumulative impacts from projects throughout the region. The concern here is that Salmon resources are in a rapid decline in the Pacific Northwest. MCR's project will be occurring in conjunction with many other timber operations that should be realized by the public and the fisheries industries. Salmonid resources are in jeopardy of extinction. The 80-year HCP/NCCP should project the Salmonid decline based on land disturbance over time to date and then project what the Salmonid decline may be in the next 80 years given projected timbering operations.
Are historic landslides mapped and THP not allowed in these sensitive locations?
Prior THP, dams and roads have cut off salmonids from reaching their spawning grounds. Is MCR practices cutting off precious few spawning habitats? If so how many and where?
Are there any mining operations occurring in the project location? Is so has MRC included these as cumulative impacts?
Are there any vineyard projects in the MRC project location that drain any of the 80 watersheds listed for this HCP/NCCP? If so are these included in the significant cumulative impact study of the EIR?
How many water diversion applications are there within the project site? If so how will deforestation effect the streams along with cumulative water diversion in terms of water quality? What will happen to the streams with both THP and diversions occurring at the same time? The concern is increased sedimentation to the stream along with diversions causing higher impacts to water quality.
Ecosystem Sustainability
Address cumulative effects on the local ecosystem over the past 150 years.
Address immigration, emigration and recruitment of young and the impact on wildlife populations as a result of this proposal.
Consider the alternative of restoration of the natural forest ecosystem and the protection of water quality, fish and wildlife habitats as the primary management goals.
Management Practices
Mendocino Redwood Company's current management practices are to manage their timberlands intensively to reduce tanoak occupancy, to 'high-grade' conifers (remove much of the larger/older trees where they exist), to minimize protections to riparian zones in many areas of their holdings and particularly with regards to Class III streams, to remove old growth as needed to build roads and use cable corridors, and to remove those trees that otherwise don't fit their definition of 'old growth', to resist botanical surveys recommended by DFG during the THP review process; and to provide the minimum amount of data possible (no more than is required by the Forest Practice Rules) to the public. Assess these practices in light of the amount of environmental protection MRC is apt to consider under the HCP and whether considerations of economy will outweigh benefits to listed species.
Economic Valuation of Natural Resource Losses
Since these 87 watershed are impaired and there are salmonid listings under the ESA what is the economic loss to the public with continued degradation of the forest in the MRC project location over the next 80 years. What is the cost to the public for fisheries losses over 80 years?
What is the cost to the public for diminished water quality? TMDL implementations?
What is the cost to the public for further impairment of our rivers when and if mitigations, erosions control plans THP fail?
Habitat Conservation Plan
How will the HCP incorporate adaptive management? How can the 'no surprises' policy allow for the adaptive management flexibility needed to conserves species?
Describe and analyze the flexibility of the HCP to adjust to unforeseen circumstance such as listing of a new species, a species becoming on the verge of extinction, a listed species is removed from the list, or there is a status change (as for example from 'threatened' to 'endangered') in a species' listing.
Identify new information or changes in the ecosystem that might warrant modifications of the HCP in the future.
Identify the effects of empowering MRC with an 80-year 'no surprises' HCP when the land may change ownership.
How will this HCP provide for species' survival and recovery?
Habitat Restoration
Address whether the HCP includes recovery objectives for listed species, old growth or late seral dependent species, restoration of watercourses, riparian zones, and other critical habitat, and habitat elements, for species. Evaluate the environmental effects of this plan on the recovery of any old-growth dependent species.
Compare the expected impacts from a restoration alternative, as well as a no-project alternative, when analyzing impacts expected from implementing the various alternatives.
If restoration projects are part of the HCP/NCCP then these restoration project must be monitored and will the data be made available to the public in a transparent manner?
Species Recovery
How will exotic species be identified and removed?
What will the expected reduction in population be for each of the species proposed under the permit? What strategies in the HCP will assure that these declines don't appreciably reduce the survival and recovery of each species?
Consider issues related to small population size or the genetic effective size of a population; will stocks of small numbers of coho likely be extirpated? What numbers of wild coho salmon spawners likely remain in streams on, and downstream of, the project area?
Link Between Ecosystems
How will HCP provide a link between ecosystems? Will wildlife corridors be considered?
Examine how the HCP addresses the potential of critical habitat for the marbled murrelet if remaining old growth continues to be cut (for roads, cable corridors, or because it doesn't fit MRC's criteria for old-growth)?
How will links be maintained in this HCP between the Santa Cruz and Humboldt populations of marbled murrelets to help increase their range and genetic diversity, to help ensure the viability of these populations, and not appreciably reduce their chance of survival?
Complete a cumulative impacts assessment of incidental take permits for the species proposed by MRC for incidental take- or species that may be important associates- for other landowners in the redwood region of northern California.
Implementation of the ESA
Include a comprehensive biological assessment and evaluate the impact of the HCP, ITP on each wildlife and plant species for which "No Surprises" regulatory assurances will be given.
Complete biological analysis for other species, that is, in addition to those covered by the "No Surprises" policy.
Protect the critical habitat for listed species; avoid "Take" of the habitat of those species unable to easily relocate to new sites.
Sustained Yield Plan/Option A (Forest Practice Rules; 14 CCR 913.11)
Evaluate the choice of MRC to operate under an Option A document rather than an SYP and its effect on alternatives proposed in the HCP.
Evaluate the HCP/NCCP compliance with the Public Trust Doctrine.
Amount of Harvest and Methods
In MRC's case how do the current, and recently past (10-year) THP history (harvest, road building, pesticide use) combine with the proposed alternatives to cause adverse cumulative impacts to the health of the ecosystem; how does this relate to the proposed HCP in terms of cumulative effects?
Harvest Schedule
What percentage of the ownership will be proposed for late-seral retention; what are the criteria for classifying late seral? What percentage of the ownership will be proposed for clearcutting (or what MRC calls 'variable retention') or other even-aged silviculture methods? How will this relate to other ownerships within watersheds and across watershed boundaries?
How will practices on adjacent ownerships and regional ownerships be evaluated?
Does MRC's current 'bank' of timber plans held for future harvest constitute an irretrievable commitment of resources?
Natural Communities Conservation Plan
Are reserves proposed? How will they be managed?
Adjacent Property Impacts
What will be impacts of the HCP on areas downstream of their property? In particular, impacts to public lands such as parks, state forests, BLM, other non-industrial landowners?
Reliability of Data/Analysis
Assess the reliability of data/analysis.
Use historic values before logging, rather than, or in addition to, current baseline values.
Framework for Gathering Data and for Analysis
Provide available information on the results of wildlife surveys, including maps of survey routes, and the known and suspected occurrence of wildlife species in the project area.
Will species be surveyed for (or have been surveyed for) using protocols approved by USFWS, NMFS, and DFG? Provide protocols used. Will surveys be (or have they been) conducted at proper times (times of year, seasons, blooming periods, etc, and times of day) and in proper habitat for the species? What habitats will be (were) surveyed and how (using standard methodologies for typing) will these be classified? Will (have) qualified personnel be(en) doing the surveys? Will agencies monitor survey efforts? Will survey data be available to the public?
Is sufficient information supplied to adequately describe baseline conditions?
Marbled murrelet surveys should be done using Pacific Seabird Group protocols.
Need for complete, unbiased, independent, total, scientific check on data.
Include surveys done on adjacent lands that might indicate presence on MRC property.
Change of Ownership or Uses of Property
It should be noted that MRC is currently negotiating with Sonoma Open Space and Agriculture District to sell 3000 acres of their property in Willow and Freezeout Creeks to be made parks property. The sale of this land at full market value should not count as mitigation toward habitat loss and 'take' that will occur elsewhere. An additional 2000 acres will be retained in private ownership with rights to subdivide this into smaller parcels for development. Please consider the alternative of putting the entire property into a preserve. This alternative should be evaluated in light of the diminished condition of most of the project area and of most of the lands adjoining MRC land and of the danger of extinction of some of the species proposed for incidental take.
Are any of these acres in the HCP/NCCP being converted to vineyards? If so where?
What measures will be provided to continue with provisions of the ITP should the property change hands? Which provisions will be mandated to 'stay with' the property?
Public Trust Issues and Compliance Monitoring
Identify the party (agency) responsible and the mechanism that will be put in place for protection of public trust on MRC lands, including issues of biodiversity, fisheries, groundwater and surface water. Which agencies, by what means, will assure that the terms of the HCP/ITP are met?
Who will be responsible for assuring that public trust values are not violated?
Description and analysis should include any past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects including timber harvesting, resource extraction, development or other activities.
Address agencies' ability, given the size and numbers of approved HCPs, to effectively and consistently evaluate, monitor, revise and enforce this plan.
Address the public's participation in the monitoring process. Include non-profit conservation organizations in monitoring, inspection and assessment programs.
Describe the conditions or activities that will cause the ITP to be revoked. Describe the charges for minor violations. Describe the procedures that will be used to investigate violations of the permit.
Adaptive Management Techniques
Analyze the impacts of the HCP on wildlife or plant species not covered by the plan.
No Surprises Clauses
Identify the biological impacts of a "No Surprises" policy.
No regulatory assurances should be given that might preclude further adjustments necessary to promote the recovery of any named or unnamed species.
If there is insufficient time and/or funds to conduct adequate field surveys, the No Surprises policy should not apply to new species found in later surveys.
Mitigation
Describe current baseline watershed conditions and develop measures to maintain and improve the condition of aquatic resources.
Quantify the level of take for each species, describe the activities that could result in take, and evaluate mitigation measures for each species that result in less than significant effects.
An HCP developed for private land should not have to rely on public lands for the continued existence of listed species. In Mendocino County, of the approximate one million acres in commercial forests, the only significant amount of redwood forestland in public ownership is Jackson State Forest at 50,000 acres. Assess the overall impacts of the HCP taking into consideration species population status and habitat conditions on all lands supporting local and regional populations.
Funding
Ensure MRC will pay for continued mitigation for the entire 80 years.
Evaluate the availability of federal and state funds to meet any future mitigation requirements for species covered under the HCP.
Public Involvement
Consider that the public cannot suggest or analyze specific alternatives or fully scope issues to be addressed because there has been a restricted information flow to the public in the form of (1) no public review of the HCP and ITP, (2) restricted public review of data, and (3) an adequate project description has not been provided.
There should be public disclosure of cost-accounting procedures associated with review and development of an HCP and issuance of an incidental take permit.
Conclusions
An incidental take permit should not be issued until adequate information, mitigation measures, and scientific and public review are in place. Credible adaptive management and explicit agreements regarding the plan's biological goals, monitoring and enforcement must all be made clear "up front."
An 80-year no surprises policy cannot reasonably be provided for this project area, given the diminished conditions of the project area's forests, streams, plant and animal species; if issued, such a permit must require that all direct and indirect habitat impacts and habitat losses are fully minimized and mitigated. No net loss of quality of quantity of habitat should be allowed during any planning period.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Chris Malan |