Public Comment: Plan # 2-07-092-Nev(3), Buck Timber Harvest Plan

Dear Sirs and Madams,

I – Introduction

As citizens concerned with the health and vitality of the Yuba River watershed and of the Sierra Nevada ecosystem we appreciate the opportunity to provide informed comment on this proposed logging project. We love our environment and the local environs; accordingly we heartily support ecologically sustainable resource management, including timber harvest when done appropriately. It is therefore with some dismay that we feel the need to object to provisions of this plan.

Provision of information not adequate

Unfortunately, the Buck THP as submitted and filed fails to meet applicable environmental and legal standards. Certain information presented is incomplete, inaccurate and misleading. Therefore, the THP as presented fails to accurately describe the environmental setting as is necessary for adequate public understanding, review and comment. [Legal references here include Forest Practice Rules at 898.2, Forest Practice Act at 4582.(i), and California Environmental Quality Act at Public Resources Code 21080.5(d)(3)(ii)]. It is our sincere hope that the THP review process will serve to rectify current failures of the plan as presented.

The project area is bordered by and lies generally south of Malakoff Diggins State Historical Park. It is also located just above and to the north of the South Yuba River, on the edge of and in small part entering into the river canyon. On both east and west sides the plan area is bounded by tributary creeks as they descend to the river, and also by creekside public hiking trails associated with the State Park. (These are Humbug Creek with the Humbug trail and Missouri Canyon Creek with the Missouri Bar trail). Clearcutting is proposed immediately on and near these trails and creeks, and immediately on the park boundary.

The area in question is particularly notable as a major site of historic hydraulic mining, with continuing impacts of the hydraulic diggings and mine pit surface features and also with significant continuing flows of sediments and heavy metals. This location of the proposed Timber Harvest Plan, lying as it does in a well-known and well-studied area of both hydraulic diggings and high recreational use and value, makes it a difficult area for timber planning. Special care and attention are required to conduct environmentally appropriate forestry in such a landscape.

Despite these cautions, Buck THP [ # 2-07-092-Nev(3)], completely fails to discuss or even mention that 2.2 miles of Humbug Creek below Malakoff Diggins as it flows by and through the plan area is listed pursuant to federal Clean Water Act Section 303(d) for water quality limited segments. Several tributaries to Humbug Creek flow through and off the plan boundaries adding questionable inputs to the listed creek. The environmental stressor grounds for listing of Humbug Creek are sedimentation/siltation and heavy metals (mercury, zinc, and copper), all sourced from the abandoned mine/historic resource extraction. Appropriate related information must be presented in detail and cumulative impacts analyzed thoroughly and completely in order to allow for reasonable review and response.

The location of the Timber Harvest Plan next to a State Park requires provision for a Special Treatment Area according to state law [895.1, 933.4(a) and 1034(m) in the Forest Practice Rules]. The THP fails this requirement, by not identifying presence and type of the Special Treatment Area in item 7, section II of the THP. The Buck THP does however contain some minimal mention of a Special Treatment Area bordering the park, under the heading of Recreational Resources, and some STA mapping (though it further deserves notice that the STA mapping provided on THP page 26 fails to match the textual description on THP page 125). There is no provision for nor discussion of Special Treatment Area silvicultural prescriptions as suggested by the Forest Practice law, as evidenced by lack thereof in THP section II, item 14a and elsewhere. As a result, the Notice of Intent for the THP also fails to mention the Special Treatment Area, rendering the NOI legally insufficient notice. Moreover, in no way does the silviculture or other management of the supposed Special Treatment Area differ from that elsewhere in the Timber Harvest Plan, in fact clearcuts line the boundary with the State Park.

Both the harvest planning document and NOI do mention the South Yuba River, which flows a scant 1/3 to ½ mile from the THP property line. However, nowhere does the plan acknowledge or discuss the Wild and Scenic River status of the South Yuba. While discussion as such may not specifically be required legally, it is at least highly relevant to the environmental setting.

The above examples of vital flaws and legal failures in the informational content of THP 2-07-092-Nev(3) suggest if not demand that the plan should not have been accepted for filing. It is our sincere hope that the THP review process will serve to rectify current failures of the plan as presented. We ask that the THP be withdrawn by the plan submitter or returned by CDF. Such action will allow the plan submitter to rework the document prior to resubmittal, and will afford the general public with a chance to be adequately informed. Hopefully, such action can also give cause for the involved landowners and concerned citizen neighbors to discuss their respective issues and reach some mutually agreeable positions.

The further discussion below highlights certain additional inadequacies of the plan as regards ecological standards desired by the public and required by law. Both site-specific and ecosystem-level comments are included. Informational failings and contradictions within the subject THP are pointed out in order that they may be revised or corrected.

The Notice of Intent for this plan states that 352 acres of land are to be harvested for timber, however the THP itself states that 570 acres are subject to timber operations covered by the plan. Thus, 218 acres are listed as "out" areas, without actual timber harvest. The public THP document gives little to no understanding of what this additional acreage throughout the plan area is, failing to fulfill the mandate under CEQA to describe the environmental setting fully. This needs to be corrected. The public is left to speculate whether these out areas may be either young plantations or developed timber stands which for some unknown reasons are not deemed in need of treatment, or perhaps, given the history and surroundings of the plan area, out areas may likely include hydraulic diggings which do not support vegetation and/or may include historic mines and other related features subject to historic/archeologic protections. Some combination or none of these factors may be true of the designated ‘out’ acres. In order for the public to have sufficient information to reasonably comment on relevant resource issues, some general and detail information about these areas does need to be provided in the THP.

II - Clean Water Act 303(d) listing. Mercury mobilization threat.

It is known that the surroundings of the plan area have an extensive mining history. There is some scarce indication within the THP document that the plan area itself was likely mined, for instance a statement that watercourse bank undercutting in the SW of the plan may be due to historic mining (THP at p. 117). Mercury used in mining continues to contaminate the surrounding landscape, and more than likely the THP area itself. This is completely unaddressed in the THP. Mobilizing sediments, organic materials and bacteria from soils, and changing hydrology via construction and use of roads and skid trails, and other timber operations will exacerbate an already serious problem. Any actions in the plan area and plan watersheds which do not remediate mercury exports are a big mistake.

Available science has well documented high levels of mercury in the surrounding waters. Indeed, fish consumption advisories for local waters are in effect. The 303(d) listing of Humbug Creek for mercury, other heavy metals, and sedimentation makes clear the magnitude of the problem in that watercourse. [For listing, see http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/tmdl/docs/303dlists2006/state_06_303d_combined_wcat.pdf ]. As part of ongoing abandoned mine land (AML) and mercury studies, USGS and BLM researchers are conducting a pilot test study on removal of elemental mercury at the confluence of Humbug Creek with the South Yuba River (pers. comm., J. Rainey). Missouri Canyon Creek is not currently 303(d) listed, but it also is highly contaminated. In one USGS study covering the entire Yuba and Bear River watersheds, the highest levels of mercury bioaccumulation in amphibians was in specimens sampled from Missouri Canyon. Bioaccumulation in aquatic insects found here was near the top of that respective list (Shilling, 2001).

Mercury is a potent neurotoxin known to affect immune and reproductive systems in humans and wildlife, leading to developmental and neuropsychological impairment. It was released in great quantities into the local environment during historic mining. It remains present in local mines, soils and sediments, in the water, and in the food chain. Mercury is mobilized through erosion and runoff. Bacterial action primarily after mobilization converts mercury into methylmercury, the most toxic and easily absorbed form of the metal, which then enters the food chain. As methylmercury makes its way up the food chain it is concentrated, processes known as bioaccumulation and biomagnification. [Additional mercury information sources are listed in the reference section below. In view of relevant law, legal citation here includes the Forest Practice Act and Rules at 4582.71, 898 and 936.12 as well as the applicable Basin Plan and Water Quality Control Plan of the State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards].

Timber operations in and near abandoned mine lands and affected watersheds impact the distribution of mercury, its chemical transformation, and growth of mercury-methylating bacteria. Forest practices have impacts on hydrology, nutrient cycles, and sediment contributions to streams and rivers. As land management, soils management, and timber operations influence mercury distribution and transformation, assessing their potential or actual impacts is an important part of managing and cleaning up mercury-contaminated landscapes and river systems.

Particular care in planning, execution and regulation of all land management and timber operations under THP 2-07-092-Nev(3) is of additional critical importance in view of these issues and processes. Water quality, beneficial uses of water, and cumulative watershed effects need to be protected and addressed. A precautionary principle approach would truly be well applied here. A precautionary approach would minimize if not eliminate all hydrological and ground disturbance, and any unnecessary disturbance, to try and eliminate or reduce mercury mobilization and methylation.

III - Multiple non-standard practices. Plan failure to protect ecological resource

In light of the above discussion, it seems apparent when reviewing the operational as well as silvicultural practices proposed in Buck THP # 2-07-092-Nev(3) that there is a failure to exercise suggested due caution with regard for the environment. Environmental protection law as set forth within the California Forest Practice Rules is a framework of resource conservation regulation standards which positively covers such issues as buffers to limit or exclude logging equipment from watercourse zones and wet areas in order to protect water quality, minimums on post-harvest stocking, retention of hardwoods, equipment use on steep hillsides to conserve soils and prevent sedimentation of waterways, operations in wet/winter weather conditions, felling trees across the channels of waterbodies, and more. In the Buck THP, rather than trying to respect or exceed the environmental resource conservation standards in view of supremely sensitive local ecological conditions, in each and every case listed above, and likely others, there are proposals to disregard and circumvent the legally established resource protection standards.

In fact, at seemingly every available opportunity Buck THP proposes exemptions, exceptions and alternatives, or in-lieu practices and non-standard practices so as to affect every resource type and conservation regulation. Thus the Timber Harvest Plan as proposed would have log landings where there are springs, oversize harvest units, reduced stocking, heavy equipment used on steep slopes with hazard ratings of ‘extreme’ and ‘high’ for soil erosion, use and construction of log skid trails within limitation/protection zones of water features, tractor use on steep slopes above watercourses, reduced retention, water drafting holes in stream channels, and on.

Group selection silviculture is proposed within watercourse ‘protection’ zones. This could only be seen as a mitigation in contrast to the prevalence of surrounding clearcuts. Beneficial uses of water will not be adequately protected. Other claimed justifications are similarly fraught.

The current letter will not individually analyze and respond to every situation just mentioned. Rather, we do request that Review Team regulatory agencies exercise their discretion and authority to uphold necessary natural resource conservation protections. Buck THP 2-07-092-Nev(3) as proposed will discharge sediments and mobilized heavy metals into surrounding waterways, including the South Yuba River and CWA 303(d) listed Humbug Creek.

IV – Silviculture: Multiple harvest types equivalent. Clearcutting

Out of 352 acres stated as proposed for harvest, Buck THP lists the following silvicultural prescriptions: Clearcut- 10 acres, Rehabilitation of Understocked Area- 45 acres, Visual Retention Alternative Prescription- 85 acres, Group Selection- 63 acres, and Commercial Thin- 149 acres.

10 clearcut acres out of 352 harvest acres does not sound excessive. However, it needs to be clearly understood that “visual retention” is but a thinly veiled clearcut. Prior to introduction of the “visual retention” language some years ago, company foresters for this plan submitter (SPI) commonly wrote equivalent plans to those now being submitted, which described their clearcuts as containing residuals or sometimes called habitat nooks. This was properly done under the ‘Clearcut’ silvicultural prescription. Now SPI claims to need to reanalyze their Option A long-term planning document (for demonstration of maximum sustained production) to account for possible lost production due to set-asides for ‘visual retention’. In actuality, at the time of the initial adoption and approval of the Option A, the company’s clearcuts had a minimal component of residual trees or vegetation, as the so-called ‘visual retention’ prescription does now. The VR language can most honestly be considered as a public relations ploy.

The Rehab of Understocked Area prescription also has habitat reducing and ground disturbing effects exactly equivalent to a clearcut, with the follow-up treatments (site preparation and regeneration) for this silvicultural prescription the same as that of a clearcut unit. Per the silviculture map at THP page 25, Rehab unit # 07-0601 is 41 acres in size. It is next to visual retention (clearcut) unit # 07-0201, which is 15 acres in size. Taken together, this makes one management bloc or unit of 56 acres. Unit 07-0306 also appears to consist of adjacent visual retention and rehab portions; taken together the unit size is 21 acres. The Forest Practice Rules contain limitations on even-age management systems (at FPR 933.1(a)), including unit size (even-age units to be 20 acres or less when harvested by tractor) and adjacency (even-age units to be separated by at least 300ft in all directions). Due to absolute equivalency in effect, the Rehabilitation of Understocked Area prescription should be held to the same size and adjacency limitations as even-aged management, even though it is classed as a special prescription.

In Buck THP, the application of the Rehabilitation of Understocked Areas prescription has at least two other serious problems. The silviculture discussion at THP page 49 states of this prescription that, “These areas…are overstocked to the point that growth is minimal.” How then do overstocked areas qualify for inclusion in a Rehab of Understocked prescription? Please clarify. As FPR 1034(x)(10) requires mapping of understocked areas, compliance with the rule would help to clarify this confusion. The second point here is that, from text at pp. 31 and 49, it appears that at least some of the area considered understocked is actually well stocked with Group B species. So the rehab prescription appears, at least in this case, to actually be a method for clearing of oaks and/or other hardwood/B species, which actually need to be retained as such for the habitat values they provide.

From this perspective (totaling the clearcut, visual retention, and rehab silvicultural prescriptions) 140 out of 352 harvest acres on the Buck THP are slated for clearcut management. This is still a low percentage when compared to many SPI timber harvest plans throughout the Sierra Nevada range.

The company is unapologetic about the stated goal of clearcutting upwards of 70% of their ownership, which now approaches two million acres. Satellite and photo images of forested counties and watersheds from throughout the Sierra and beyond clearly show the result of this management, as a widespread yet connected patchwork of cuts spreads across the landscape. The company appears well underway to achieve the 70% goal in less than a century, if the current rate of cut is maintained. The tragedy here is that even without this aggressive, evenaged industrial forest management style SPI could remain a highly profitable forest management company, produce large quantities of wood products and provide as many if not more jobs, all without the currently experienced habitat simplification and likely species loss. The current management regime seems certain to drive the Sierran ecosystem into rapid and revolutionary changes, if not outright ecosystem collapse.

Putting aside such dire warnings of the Sierra-wide predicament, it is easy to point to individual clearcuts that are clearly unnecessary at their small scale. One example is the six acre cable clearcut unit # 07-1-005 in the NW corner of the Buck THP harvest area, which takes out about 500 ft of the Missouri Bar hiking trail as proposed, of a reported total trail length on SPI property of approximately 2300 ft (THP at p.124). The trees here are not massively impressive, and neither the soil site class nor the canyon exposure aspect are most favorable as a tree farm, rather the opposite. The remainder of the Missouri Bar trail section on SPI property is already contained in no-harvest “out” areas. It is a sound assumption that the company would receive adequate compensation for continuing to provide the trail easement in its current unharvested state as a greater public benefit, if it so wished.

V – Application of herbicides

One of the most egregious aspects of SPI forestry from the public’s perspective is the company’s heavy reliance on chemical management of the native forest’s regrowth after clearcutting, and the resultant impacts on wildlife habitat and native plant species. These non-conifer species are essential to functional, diverse and beautiful native forests.

If herbicides are truly used once or twice as claimed by SPI, then the chemicals must be applied at very high rates--and as such they should be disallowed on SPI lands where the trust resources (water and wildlife) belong to the people. SPI’s argument is specious, because it claims that this estimation is an average, ostensibly over the literally thousands of clearcut stands across its ownership. We believe it is much more likely that SPI uses herbicides several times, perhaps as often as necessary until the native regrowth has been thoroughly eliminated. This method is indeed taught in forestry school as a method of insuring less competition in the next round of trees. While this is certainly effective from the point of view of growing tree fiber, it is a significant adverse impact for wildlife dependent upon the native trees, shrubs, and wildflowers that are killed and ultimately completely eliminated from the individual units.

An interesting though thoroughly unfortunate issue presents itself in this area for the Buck THP. This is the interaction between the known high concentrations of heavy metals in the surrounding soils and waters, as evidenced by the CWA 303(d) listing of Humbug Creek, with the additional introduction of perhaps repeated and high concentration doses of known toxic herbicides and herbicide mixtures with surfactants. The cumulative impacts and potential affects of this toxic brew require thorough study and full treatment in the Timber Harvest Plan. Significant adverse environmental effect on water quality, human health, and indeed the entire larger ecological habitat system is what needs to be considered. The California Environmental Quality Act was created with the exact intent that such intersections of complex adverse factors be addressed in environmental planning and management.

SPI provides lengthy treatment of herbicides (pp 128-142) in the Buck THP, yet many aspects are not addressed. The provided treatment is predictably dismissive of serious concerns and science.

SPI states in its analysis of herbicide use that “we have commonly used ground applications and aerial applications (depending on the district, i.e., some never, some almost always, and some in between) of imazapyr, triclopyr, hexazinone, glyphosate, and atrazine-each at varying rates of application, and in full compliance with label requirements” (Buck THP p. 133). SPI fails to provide available site-specific information regarding the chemicals, types, timing, and application rates in this particular SPI district and plan area. It is granted that individual forest managers and pesticide/herbicide advisers may have differing practices in this regard.

SPI must fully analyze the environmental impacts of the degradates and secondary metabolites of the chemicals proposed for use in the project area. Research has shown that degradates are prevalent in water and are frequently detected more often than their parent compounds. An extensive review of the literature (in Kolpin et al. 2004) found that 30% of the degradates found in groundwater were more toxic than the parent compound. Kolpin et al. state: “Simply stating that relatively few detections of herbicide parent compounds were observed in ground water provides a false impression that little chemical transport to ground water is occurring from herbicide applications at the land surface.”

For the most part, SPI did not provide any information about the possible harmful effects of herbicides, which are highly toxic chemicals. The most current information about the effects of atrazine, glyphosate products, triclopyr, hexazinone, imazapyr and 2,4-D as potential endocrine disrupting chemicals, for example, must be analyzed relative to impacts to wildlife and to human health. There is a pervasive myth in the forest products community that forestry herbicides have been widely tested and that they are “safe.” Safety is a very relative term and the products should not be used where it is absolutely not necessary. The ester form of triclopyr (Garlon 4, for example) is highly toxic to rainbow trout and salmon (U.S. EPA 1998); the principal breakdown product of triclopyr, TCP is a neurotoxin that accumulates in fetal brain tissue (Hunter et al. 1999); atrazine is a known ground water pollutant, suspected carcinogen and endocrine disruptor that causes male frogs to develop ovaries (Hayes 2000); hexazinone is similar to atrazine and may behave as an endocrine disruptor as well, but has not ever been tested; glyphosate with the surfactant POEA is highly toxic to amphibians, humans, and wildlife and has been linked to reproductive disorders and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a cancer that has increased 80% since Roundup came out in 1971 (Hardell and Eriksson 1999); and 2,4-D contains dioxin, one of the most carcinogenic compounds in the world. 2,4-D has been shown to cause birth defects, low sperm count, developmental neurotoxicity in the brains of fetuses, and is toxic to fish at minute concentrations (cited in Cox 2006).

The herbicide imazapyr can be highly toxic to animals when mixed with other chemicals, and can cause non-target impacts from drift at great distances. The molecule itself, imazapyr, is not known to be toxic to animals, but it is an extremely toxic plant poison and it is very long lived in the environment-it is a potential ground and surface water contaminant. Its long persistence in run-off and its high level of toxicity to plants suggests that it may impact fish and amphibian habitat, an impact that indicates it should also not be used in clearcut units near watercourses: “Exposure to imazapyr results in direct effects to plant species that could result in indirect effects at the higher levels of organization (i.e. population, trophic level, community, ecosystem). In terrestrial and shallow-water aquatic communities, plants are the primary producers upon which the succeeding trophic levels depend. If the available plant material is impacted due to the effects of imazapyr and the isopropylamine salt of imazapyr, this may have negative effects not only on the herbivores, but also throughout the food chain. Also, depending on the severity of impacts to the plant communities [i.e., forests, wetlands, ecotones (edge and riparian habitats)], community assemblages and ecosystem stability may be altered (i.e. reduced bird populations in edge habitats). Reduced riparian vegetation can result in increased light penetration and temperature in aquatic habitats, resulting in loss of cover and food for fish. In addition, riparian vegetation is not only a significant component of the food supply for aquatic herbivores, and detritivores but also provides habitat (i.e. leaf packs, materials for case-building) for aquatic invertebrates.” (US EPA 1995). “Field study observations are consistent with laboratory studies indicating that imazapyr will persist in soils and move via runoff to surface water and leach to groundwater. Consequently, both nonendangered and endangered aquatic vascular plants inhabiting a treated water body, or surface waters adjacent to a treated field would be at risk for adverse effects to growth and survival when exposed to imazapyr as a result of the labeled uses of the pesticide.” (Ibid).

Even herbicides that are thought to be fairly non-toxic to mammals can be horribly toxic when mixed together and combined with surfactants, which draw the chemicals into tissue whether it is human tissue or plant tissue. The EPA has defined a mixture as “any combination of two or more chemical substances regardless of source or of spatial or temporal proximity” (U.S. EPA 1986). The EPA has published guidelines for assessing the environmental impacts of mixtures: “The basic assumption in the recommended approach is that risk assessments on chemical mixtures are best conducted using toxicologic data on the mixture of concern or a reasonably similar mixture.”(Ibid).

As noted recently in Environmental Health Perspectives, published by the National Institutes for Health : “Registrants [pesticide manufacturers] are generally required to conduct acute toxicity tests on formulated products, but they traditionally conduct chronic toxicity tests on the active ingredient alone.” (Surgan 2005).

Glyphosate, the molecule, is fairly non-toxic in small amounts to humans, but when combined with the surfactant POEA as it is in the product Roundup (used in large volume by SPI) becomes lethal to humans (Sawada 1998) and to wildlife as well. The product Roundup is 30 times more toxic to fish than glyphosate by itself (Servizi et al. 1987). Impacts from the use of legal, label-approved herbicides can still cause significant adverse impacts, but these can be avoided if adequate information is provided through proper disclosure. Thus it is essential that disclosure of possible effects of the herbicides that may be used in the project be based on the types of chemicals as they will actually be applied--as mixtures of several chemicals.

The THP states that herbicide use is a reasonable probability and that eliminating its use is not feasible for SPI. A recent decision in the Fifth Appellate District Court of Appeal of the State of California has ruled last year that herbicide use is reasonably foreseeable and is thus part of the activity constituting the project covered by the THP. Therefore, “CDF has the authority to review that use, assess the potential environmental impacts of that use, and impose feasible alternatives or mitigation measures to lessen or eliminate any substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.” Ebbetts Pass et al. v. CDF 2006.

The court also ruled that “It is not accurate to say that compliance with label directions and other restrictions in applying registered herbicides are sufficient to prevent a significant adverse effect on the environment.” (Ibid). Further, the courts have found that registration of a pesticide by DPR also does not imply that the use of the pesticide will not cause a significant adverse environmental effect.

SPI must disclose and analyze the impacts of the herbicides it uses and will use on the project area, not only for toxicological impacts and impacts to water quality, but also for the ecological impacts on habitat.

VI – Amphibians and herbicides, interaction

The foothill yellow-legged frog is far from abundant --it has disappeared from 45% of its former range in Northern California. SPI has also oversimplified the causes of threat for the foothill yellow legged frog, and analysis of impacts from the THP are completely inadequate. The causes for the decline of this species are complex and intersecting, as is the case for most endangered species.

According to experts, logging and road related mass wasting events may have adverse effects on embryo development and may adversely affect the prey species of the adult frogs (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Amphibian experts are also in agreement that one of the threats facing amphibians today is the widespread use of chemical pesticides and herbicides.

Atrazine, widely used by SPI, has been demonstrated to cause male frogs to develop ovaries, and other deformations of secondary sexual characteristics, at the dilute exposures deemed likely to occur from run-off, and at extremely diluted concentrations (in the range of 0.1 ppb) (Hayes et al 2002, Storrs et al. 2004). Roundup, a particular mix of chemicals containing the molecules glyphosate and the surfactant POEA used in high quantities by SPI, has been shown to be particularly toxic to amphibians (Relyea 2005a-c). Triclopyr, another commonly used herbicide, has been demonstrated to be highly toxic to amphibians and to salmonids (Johansen 1990). Concentrations of just over 1 part per million prevented tadpoles of 3 species of frog from reacting with normal avoidance behavior, making them very susceptible to predation. Such a concentration can occur in a treated forest area (Berrill, M. et al, 1994). The product Garlon 4 is seventeen times more toxic to frog embryos than Garlon 3A, though both are made from a type of triclopyr (Perkins et al. 2000), demonstrating that the choice of chemical can make a huge difference when the environmental impacts have been properly assessed.

In forest environments, the use of atrazine, triclopyr, 2,4-D, imazapyr, hexazinone, and glyphosate-based products like Roundup, may be contributing to impacts to amphibians that are not mitigated by the THP. The placement of clearcut units in close proximity to watercourses where foothill yellow-legged frogs are found, increases the likelihood that herbicides that are used in the plantations, before and after planting, will run off into the water systems and may impact frog survival and reproduction. The THP fails to analyze the scientific literature relative to impacts to amphibians from the herbicides regularly used and anticipated for use by SPI in this region.

VII - Conclusion

It appears that the plan submitters are either ignoring and/or out of lack of due diligence have not complied with relevant environmental law for forest management planning and practice. More importantly, critical ecological realities are treated in the same way. Forest management can not be conducted on this site in the manner proposed without significant adverse effect on local and wider ecology.

We conclude this letter now out of respect for given deadlines for public comment, though important resource issues and areas have yet to be addressed in these comments. While we renew our pleading that this harvest document, THP 2-07-092-NEV(3), be pulled for lack of meeting filing and notice legal requirements, we additionally ask that the public comment period be extended until that occurrence, The THP certainly should not and may not be approved in this form and manner.

The above comments are filed on behalf of the Sierra Nevada Group of the Sierra Club, the Forest Issues Group, and on behalf of Peter Elias as an individual.

Sincerely,

Peter Elias

Mercury References:

Mason RP. Laporte J, Andres S. April 2000. Factors controlling the bioaccumulation of mercury, methylmercury,arsenic, selenium, and cadmium by freshwater invertebrates and fish. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol . 38(3):283-97

JT. May, R.L. Hothem, C.N. Alpers, and M.A. Law, 1999 Mercury Bioaccumulation in Fish in a Region Affected by Historic Gold Mining: The South Yuba River, Deer Creek, and Bear River Watersheds, California.USGS Open-File Report 00-367.

Rytuba JJ. 2000 Oct 9 Mercury mine drainage and processes that control its environmental impact. Sci Total Environ;260(1-3):57-71

Shilling, F. 2001. Mercury Contamination in the Yuba and Bear River Watersheds A Report of the South Yuba River Citizens League. Accessed 10/07 at http://www.syrcl.org/issues/Merc&Ars/merc0501.htm

Waldron, M. C., Colman, J. A., and Breault, R. F. 2000. Distribution, hydrologic transport, and cycling of total mercury and methyl mercury in a contaminated river-reservoir-wetland system (Sudbury River, eastern Massachusetts). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57(5): 1080-1091.

Wiener, J. G., and P. J. Shields. 2000. Mercury in the Sudbury River (Massachusetts, USA): pollution history and a synthesis of recent research. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57(5): 1053-1061.

Herbicide References:

Berrill, M., Bertram, S, McGillivray, L., Kolohon, M., Pauli, B. (1994). Effects of low concentrations of forest-use pesticides on frog embryos and tadpoles. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13: 657-664.

Cox, C. 2006. Herbicide Factsheet—2,4-D. J. Pest. Reform. 5:4.

Hardell, H. & Eriksson, M. 1999. A Case-Control Study of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Exposure to Pesticides, Cancer 85, 1355-1360.

Hayes, T.B., A. Collins, M. Lee, M. Mendoza, N. Noriega, A.A. Stuart, and A. Vonk. 2002. Hermaphroditic, demasculinized frogs after exposure to the herbicide atrazine at low ecologically relevant doses. Proc. National Academy of Sciences 99(8):5476-5480. [Male frogs developed ovaries and deformed vocal chords after exposure to atrazine at low concentrations, such as would be encountered in the field].

Hunter, D.L., T.L. Lassiter, and S. Padilla. 1999. Gestational exposure to chlorpyrifos: Comparative distribution of trichloropyridinol in the fetus and the dam. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 158:16-23.

Jennings, M. R. and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptiles species of special concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Final Report.

Johansen, J.A. and GH Green. 1990. Sublethal and acute toxicity of the ethylene glycol butyl ether ester formulation of triclopyr to juvenile coho salmon. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 19, pp. 610-616.

Kolpin, D.W., D.J. Schnoebelen, and E.M. Thurman. 2004. Degradates provide insight to spatial and temporal trends of herbicides in ground water. Ground Water. Jul/Aug 2004.

Kreutzweiser, D.P. et al. 1995. Field evaluation of triclopyr ester toxicity to fish. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 28:18-26.

Marc, J., O. Mulner-Lorillon, S. Boulben, D. Hureau, G. Durand, and R. Belle. 2002. Pesticide Roundup provokes cell division dysfunction at the level of CDK1/Cyclin B activation. Chem. Research Toxicol. 15, 326-331.

Marc, J., M. Le Breton, P. Cormier, J. Morales, R. Belle´, O. Mulner-Lorillon.

2005. A glyphosate-based pesticide impinges on transcription. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 203, 1–8.

Perkins, Peggy J.; Boermans, J. Herman; Stephenson, R. Gerald. 2000. Toxicity of glyphosate and triclopyr using the frog embryo teratogenesis assay-Xenopus; Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 940-945.

Relyea, R.A. 2005a. The impact of insecticides and herbicides on the biodiversity and productivity of aquatic communities. Ecol. App. 15(2):618-627.

Relyea, R.A. 2005b. The lethal impacts of Roundup and predatory stress on six species of North American tadpoles. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 48, 351–357.

Relyea, R.A. 2005c. The lethal impact of Roundup on aquatic and terrestrial amphibians. Ecol. App. 15(4):1118-1124.

Relyea, R.A., N.M. Schoeppner, and J.T. Hoverman. 2005. Pesticides and amphibians: the importance of community context. Ecol. App. 15(4):1125-1134

Richard, S., S. Moslemi, H. Sipahutar, N. Benachour, and G. Seralini. 2005. Differential effects of glyphosate and Roundup on human placental cells. Env. Health Persp. 113:716–720.

Saenz, M.E., W.D. DiMarzio, J.L. Alberdi, M. del Carmen Tortorelli. 1997. Effects of technical grade and a commercial formulation of glyphosate on algal population growth. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 59:638-644

Sawada, Y. et al. 1988. Probable toxicity of surface-active agent in commercial herbicide containing glyphosate. Lancet Feb. 6, 1988:299.

Servizi, J.A., R.W. Gordon, D.W. Martens. 1987. Acute toxicity of Garlon 4 and Roundup herbicides to Salmon, Daphnia, and Trout. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 39:15-22.

U.S. EPA. 1986. Guidelines for the Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures. Published on September 24, 1986, Federal Register 51(185):34014-34025. EPA/630/R-98/002. Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA. 1995. Ecological risk assessment for Imazapyr. Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Triclopyr. E738-R-98-011 Environmental Protection And Toxic Substances October 1998. Washington, D.C.