Opinion ID: 2585012
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Confusion of Late Succession Forests with Late Seral Habitat

Text: Section 919.16, subdivision (a) of the Forest Practice Rules states that [w]hen late succession forest stands are proposed for harvesting and such harvest will significantly reduce the amount and distribution of late succession forest stands or their functional wildlife habitat value so that it constitutes a significant adverse impact on the environment, then [t]he THP, SYP, or NTMP [17] shall include a discussion of how the proposed harvesting will affect the existing functional wildlife habitat for species primarily associated with late succession forest stands in the plan or the planning watershed, as appropriate, including impacts on vegetation structure, connectivity, and fragmentation. As the Court of Appeal opinion explained, EPIC contends that the Sustained Yield Plan here does not include such information. The Public Review Draft supplies an evaluation of `late seral forests,' a classification that includes but is not limited to late succession[] forests. The category of `late seral forests' is also used in the Habitat Conservation Plan and in the EIS/EIR. A late seral forest is defined in the public draft SYP as stands with overstory trees that on average are larger than generally 24 [inches diameter breast height] and may have developed a multi-storied structure. It occurs in stands as young as 40 years old but more typically in stands about 50 to 60 years old and older. Late succession forests, on the other hand, are dominated by large, old growth trees. So late seral forests may consist largely of trees younger than those found in late succession forests, with features less suitable to certain species than the latter forests. EPIC contends that Pacific Lumber was not authorized to unilaterally change the definition of what constituted a late succession forest, and that this altered definition amounted to noncompliance with Forest Practice Rules section 919.16. They point to a statement by CDF in response to comments on the public draft EIS/EIR: We are aware that there is a gap in [Pacific Lumber's] seral stage classification: that it does not take into account the lengthy transition from even-age stands that are relatively young and weakly stratified (including [Pacific Lumber's] late seral stage) to relatively old, complex, and highly stratified stands that would be considered old-growth. Monitoring efforts and agency considerations in the watershed analysis process will be focused on actual stand attributes. The Court of Appeal concluded that Forest Practice Rules section 919.16, subdivision (a) was not violated because the regulation called for analysis of late succession or forest impacts at either the SYP or THP stages. It further concluded: In any event, the variant classification used by [Pacific Lumber] was harmless.... [EPIC has] made no assertion that the habitats of any particular wildlife species were overlooked or omitted by the analysis of late seral forests, rather than late succession forests. We agree that deferring the analysis of late succession forests to the THP stage, although it creates an analytical gap in assessing impacts on wildlife, does not violate the Forest Practice Rules, when, as here, the relevant environmental documents contain substantial analysis of the impacts of timber operations on wildlife associated with late succession forests. On remand, the parties may address whether inclusion of any omitted information related to late succession forests in the resubmitted SYP would be appropriate.