Keeping Northwest California Wild Since 1977 Sent via email to [email protected] on date down below September 6, 2018 Jennifer L. Norris 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521–4573 Re: Comments on Draft Forest Habitat Conservation Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement On behalf of the Environmental Protection Information Center, Northcoast Environmental Center, Klamath Forest Alliance, and Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment (collectively “EPIC”) please accept these comments on the Green Diamond Draft Forest Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and accompanying Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). EPIC is profoundly concerned that the proposed HCP will contribute to the decline of the northern spotted owl, hastening the species towards extinction. The HCP weakens existing habitat protections and allows the taking of numerous owls in an exchange for a commitment by Green Diamond to remove barred owls—a Faustian bargain that is not supported by sound science or policy. Also attached to these comments, please find comments from Dr. Dominick Dellasala of the Geos Institute submitted on behalf of EPIC and the Geos Institute. (Attachment 1). If you have any questions or comments, please contact EPIC at [email protected]. The HCP Fails to Take “Hard Look” at Other Species The HCP fails to take a “hard look” at the impact to other species. This is particularly concerning as the HCP could drastically impact rare, threatenened and endangered species, such as the marbled murrelet. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) has two objectives. “First, it places upon an agency the obligation to consider every significant aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action. Second, it ensures that the agency will inform the public that it has indeed considered environmental concerns in its decisionmaking process.” Baltimore Gas & Elec., Co. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87, 97 (1983) (internal citations omitted). “NEPA does not mandate particular results, but simply provides the necessary process to ensure that federal Environmental Protection Information Center 145 G Street, Suite A, Arcata, CA 95521 ∣ (707) 822-7711 www.wildcalifornia.org Page 1 of 17 agencies take a hard look at the environmental consequences of their actions.” Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. United States Forest Serv., 177 F.3d 800, 814 (9th Cir.1999). “[T]he comprehensive ‘hard look’ mandated by Congress and required by the statute must be timely, and it must be taken objectively and in good faith, not as an exercise in form over substance, and not as a subterfuge designed to rationalize a decision already made.” Metcalf v. Daley, 214 F. 3d 1135, 1142 (9th Cir. 2000). “[G]eneral statements about possible effects and some risk do not constitute a hard look absent a justification regarding why more definitive information could not be provided.” Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood, 161 F.3d 1208, 1213 (9th Cir.1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). The northern spotted owl functions as an “umbrella” species for other animals. That is, protection of the owl and its habitat benefits other species that share the same habitat. The HCP, compared to the no action alternative and the 1992 HCP, would allow more logging of nesting/roosting habitat. Species that are impacted by this increased logging Turning specifically to the marbled murrelet, potential increased logging of mature forests under the HCP can directly cause taking of murrelets and could inhibit murrelet recovery by foreclosing future habitat development. Marbled murrelets are curious seabird. Like northern spotted owls, murrelets are associated with late seral forests. Though they spend the majority of their lives at sea, fishing for some bait fish, murrelets nest on large branches only found only on old trees. First, logging of mature forests under the HCP could directly take murrelet habitat. Green Diamond conducted property-wide surveys for the murrelet in the early 1990s. Since, the company has committed to protect known occupied habitat. However, the company has not performed murrelet surveys to find if murrelets have since reoccupied other areas. It is possible that some areas that are currently protected under the 1992 HCP and would be protected under take avoidance standards under the no action alternative could support murrelet nesting habitat. Absent surveys performed according to accepted protocols, all potential murrelet habitat should be assumed to be occupied. Even if murrelet habitat is not directly taken, increased harvest near occupied murrlet habitat could negatively impact the species by increasing edge effects. Second, a reduction in the total amount of “reserves” could negatively impact murrelet recovery. Murrelet habitat takes over a hundred years to develop, perhaps even longer in the redwoods as heavy branching capable of supporting a murrelet nest can take longer than Douglas fir or western hemlock or other conifer species within its range. By allowing additional logging of mature forests, it will delay potential regrowth of murrelet habitat. For example, say that the HCP will result in the loss of a stand of forest that is 80 years old, as the stand no longer is protected by the reserve network of the 1992 HCP and Green Diamond is exempt from the take prohibition of the no action alternative. While it may still take a considerable amount of to become potential murrelet habitat, if it were logged that clock would restart to zero, taking an additional 80 years to achieve the same goal. The DEIS provides no meaningful look at impacts to the marbled murrelet, Humboldt marten, tailed frog, southern torrent salamander, and all of the other rare, threatened or endangered Environmental Protection Information Center 145 G Street, Suite A, Arcata, CA 95521 ∣ (707) 822-7711 www.wildcalifornia.org Page 2 of 17 species that are protected under the owl’s “umbrella.” As such, the DEIS fails to take a hard look at impacts from the proposed HCP. Please correct the HCP by including a discussion of impacts to other species. The HCP Provides Weaker Habitat Protections than No Action Alternative Even in “no-take” DCAs, the HCP relies upon weaker habitat protections than USFWS has previously found was necessary to prevent the taking of spotted owls. The DEIS fails to discuss why the Service found departure from the previously established guidance was warranted. Furthermore, the existence of alternate take avoidance guidance calls into question whether the HCP meets issuance criteria. The USFWS has issued take avoidance guidance for northern spotted owls in the redwood region. See Northern Spotted Owl Take Avoidance Analysis and Guidance for California Coast Forest District (“Attachment A”), March 15, 2011. This take avoidance guidance is based upon data made available to the Service from Green Diamond and other industrial property owners in the redwood region. Attachment A provides that to avoid take, landowners need to provide sufficient habitat: Within the 0.7 mile radius (985 acres) of each Activity Center please use the following: 1) Retain habitat to maximize attributes desirable for NSO. 2) Retain at least 500 acres of suitable (Nesting/Roosting/Foraging) NSO habitat, post-harvest, as follows: a) Retain 200 acres of Nesting/Roosting Habitat within a 0.7 mile radius of the Activity Center consisting of: i) 100 acres of the 200 acres of Nesting/Roosting habitat retained should be contiguous, or contiguous as possible with the Activity Center. ii) An additional 100 acres of Nesting/Roosting with in the 0.7 mile radius: (1) If the second 100 acres of Nesting/Roosting habitat is also contiguous with the Activity Center, or within the same drainage, operations should retain a minimum of 66% of the pre-harvest basal area per acre of trees at least 11" DBH. (2) If the remaining 100 acres of Nesting/Roosting habitat is not contiguous with the Activity Center, retain at least Nesting/Roosting habitat. b) Retain at least 300 acres of Suitable NSO habitat, post-harvest, of at least Foraging quality. 3) Remove no more than 1/3 of the remaining suitable habitat in excess of 500 acres within 0.7 mile of an Activity Center during the life of the timber operations. Attachment A at 6. Environmental Protection Information Center 145 G Street, Suite A, Arcata, CA 95521 ∣ (707) 822-7711 www.wildcalifornia.org Page 3 of 17 At no place does the HCP or DEIS address why the Service agreed to more minimal take avoidance guidance. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the HCP minimizes taking to the maximum extent practicable if, absent the HCP, Green Diamond were to be held to a stricter habitat retention standard. Location of DCAs Minimizes Conservation Benefit Protection of owl habitat from timber harvest is primarily influenced by adoption of measures included in Green Diamond’s AHCP (i.e., riparian buffers) and by the protection of 44 DCAs (i.e., nest site protections). Based on EPIC’s analysis of Figure 2-2, it appears that all DCAs sit, at least in part, in land protected by the ACHP, such as in a riparian buffer area or geologically unstable area, or in areas otherwise off limits to timber harvesting. This is problematic as Green Diamond has an obligation to minimized and mitigate the impact of take to the maximum extent practicable. If the DCAs are already largely protected, then the minimal addition protections afforded by a DCA are trivial and undercuts that take has been minimized (as under the no action alternative these nest sites would already largely be protected against taking). This is further problematic as it undercuts the assertion made by Green Diamond that DCAs were chosen solely based on their previous occupancy and distribution across the landscape. It appears that Green Diamond is attempting to game the HCP to provide minimum habitat protections for the owl. In the response to comments, please provide the following information: (1) For the 44 DCAs, please indicate how many acres overlap with riparian areas or geologically unstable areas protected by the AHCP or other “reserves” established by prior agreements, such as the Humboldt Marten Safe Harbor Agreement.