Five Counties Salmonid Conservation Plan Advisory Committee Trinity County Planning Department P.O. Box 2819 Weaverville, CA 96093 (530) 623-1351 Ext. 4 FAX (530) 623-1353 email- mlancaster@trinitycounty.org
To: Board of Supervisors
From: Five Counties Salmon Conservation Planning Ad Hoc Committee
RE: Effects of County Land Use Regulations and Management on Anadromous Salmonids and Their Habitats: Humboldt, Del Norte, Mendocino, Siskiyou and Trinity Counties
Dear Board Members and Interested Public:
Please find enclosed copies of the University of California Cooperative Extension's (UCCE) Final "Effects of County Land Use Regulations and Management on Anadromous Salmonids and Their Habitats: Humboldt, Del Norte, Mendocino, Siskiyou and Trinity Counties." This report was prepared pursuant to Board Resolutions, the Five Counties Conservation Plan Memorandum of Understanding; and grants from the California Resources Agency and For Sake of Salmon.
Five County Salmonid Conservation Plan Representatives:
Clyde Eller, Supervisor Del Norte County Paul Kirk, Supervisor Humboldt County Stan Dixon, Supervisor Humboldt County Michael Delbar,Supervisor Mendocino County Bill Hoy, Supervisor Siskiyou County Joan Smith, Supervisor Siskiyou County Ralph Modine, Supervisor Trinity County Stan Plowman,Trinity County This assessment of current land use and management practices is the first product to be presented to the Boards by this committee. As a result of the completion of this assessment, conservation planning recommendations are being developed by the committee for future Board consideration: funding to implement any conservation strategy has been an on-going effort of the committee and the Boards.
The review process used to develop the UCCE report was based on the biological needs of salmonid species. Non-biological considerations, such as private property takings or pre-existing conditions which would influence land use decisions were recognized but not necessarily considered in assessing impacts to salmonid habitat.
Area of Assessment- The assessment effort focused on two areas potentially affecting anadromous salmonid species: county facilities management and practices; and land use regulations and environmental review. Facilities management includes county roads, levees, spoils disposal practices and similar activities while land use regulation is focused on activities such as land divisions, use permits, rezoning and CEQA review.
The five counties manage approximately 30,700 acres of land and roads within the planning area: 8,300 acres of parks, airports, landfills, wetlands, levees, facilities and other holdings and 4,566 miles of county roads (encompassing approximately 22,400 acres). Approximately 41 percent of county roads are not paved, consisting of native materials or graveled surfaces. In addition, the counties have primary responsibility for land use regulation on approximately 1.5 6 million acres of private land other than lands zone for agricultural production under the Williamson Act.
The effects of county facilities management on salmonids are complex and diverse, but the most obvious are of potential affects from the county road system. This is due to both the number of miles of roads and the number of crossings on fish bearing streams. County roads must be open in all weather conditions and at all times, including saturated soil conditions or in response to flooding or landsliding. These roads must be maintained and designed for relative safe speeds (25+ mph) in most cases. Efforts to minimize fisheries impacts from road management were varied. Control of sediment was common and in some instances extra measures were taken to provide migration upstream of the road. In a few instances jump pools at culvert outlets were installed and major reconstruction following landsliding was delayed or abandoned in order to protect fisheries.
Land Ownership and Relationship to Salmonid Habitat and Restoration- The five counties consists of 11.6 million acres encompassing seven major river systems, nine smaller rivers, numerous coastal streams and small portions of the Winchuck and Rogue River watersheds, which drain into Oregon. Approximately 52.6% of this area is managed by either the federal, state, city or tribal governments and 24.3% is specifically zoned for timber production. An additional 9.6% is zoned for agricultural production. Counties either do not have primary land use regulation authority (federal, state, tribal and city lands and private timber harvesting) or typically only regulate appurtenant activities such as agricultural or forest processing plants. The remaining 13.5% (1,558,200 acres) represents the areas applicable to county zoning and related regulatory review. This diverse ownership and regulatory pattern necessitates cooperation and diligence on the part of a wide variety of land managers and owners to achieve recovery of salmonids within the five counties.
Federal lands managed by the Forest Service, Park Service and BLM lands represent the largest ownership in the planning area. The implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan- Option 9, on these federal lands. has emphasized the maintenance and restoration of natural biological systems including anadromous salmonid habitat. Option 9 strategies include the establishment of large riparian reserves, restoration of upslope lands, preservation of late seral forests and a substantial reduction in federal timber harvest levels since 1989. We recognize that while the majority of federal lands are in the interior range of the Klamath Mountains, most coastal watersheds are held in private ownership. Notable exceptions to this general trend are the coastal watersheds within Redwood National Park, the Kings Range and the Sinkiyone State Wilderness Area. This geographic mix further assures the need for a comprehensive approach to salmonid habitat maintenance and restoration.
Within the private timberlands, there is active debate and review by public members, timber interests and the state Board of Forestry on the effectiveness of timber harvest practices. On private lands, the state has pre-empted local timber harvest and silvicultural regulation. But, counties have, and do, periodically participate in timber harvest review when they feel that existing state regulation may not be sufficient or where proposed harvesting may conflict with zoning or the General Plan. We recognize that the state continues to review timber harvesting regulations and develops modifications of state forest practice rules in response to needs to protect water quality and salmonid habitat. It is the committee's opinion that it is appropriate for this to remain a state function with the counties continuing to monitor harvest for compliance with zoning and General Plan policies.
Approximately 0.14 percent of the planning area (16,400 acres) is within incorporated cities and approximately 0.18 percent (20,900 acres) is estimated to be in unincorporated towns and villages. The majority of private development and value is within these cities, unincorporated towns and villages. Varying degrees of migration barriers and reduction in water quality and/or quantity may be attributed to these 'urbanized' lands, particularly uses located at the lower reaches of streams or adjacent to or within estuarian habitat. We have begun an inventory of urban streams and hope to submit to the counties a list of streams to target with urban stream restoration grants and educational outreach. County land use management practices are important in their potential to protect or impact water quality, riparian cover and stream flows and in creating or eliminating fish migration barriers. They are also significant contributors to the quality of in-stream habitat within these urban streams. However, county regulated activities and facilities management have only a minor impact on in-stream habitat within the overall 11.6 million acre planning area.
Thus, focusing on local land use practices or regulations that impact water quality and flows, riparian cover or that create fish migration barriers will contribute to minimizing impacts from county managed or regulated land uses. In addition, restoration efforts directed at past impacts in these areas will provide the greatest return on investment by the counties.
Takings Actions, Precedents and Federal and State Policies that Influence Local Land Use Management- While it is important to consider external factors of land use projects when understanding the developmental history of a particular site, they were not relevant to assessing in-stream affects to salmonids in the UCCE report. Decision-makers must consider myriad issues and concerns when addressing competing land uses. When regulations are ambiguous, land use managers and decision-makers must make assumptions based on relevant issues. For example, the conflict between protecting floodplains, riparian areas and sensitive habitats and the concern of lessening the value and use of private development is common in these counties.
This conflict is illustrated when considering the federal and state Endangered Species Acts requirements to protect listed species and their necessary habitat in order to prevent the taking of the species. This protection, however, is juxtaposed with state and/or federal court rulings regarding excessive land dedications to protect public resources, health and safety. The issue of taking of endangered species or private property can influence the decision process.
Efforts to protect water quality and fisheries habitat, while avoiding the issue of taking private property rights, were observed in some of the counties. Techniques such as flexible parcel size and/or reduced curb and gutter requirements were utilized in order to create and/or maintain open space and riparian setbacks. Enhanced erosion control practices, changes in road design on some county roads and the development of stormwater retention basins at new developments all point to positive examples of addressing these issues within the counties. Some of these measures may not meet all water quality or fisheries habitat objectives and do create some development constraint, but they are important steps in balancing water quality and fisheries habitat maintenance and protection, fiscal and manpower constraints of the counties and protection of private property rights.
The relationship between counties management and federal disaster management was particularly evident during the review process, as most of the counties were responding to damage from floods in 1995, 1997 and 1998. Public safety and travelable roadways remain the priority in responding to facilities modification or emergency repair and this need, on occasion, conflicts with maintaining migration routes or salmonid habitat. The need to maintain immediate access to homes and other areas was recognized by the reviewers, but in instances the necessary repairs may have temporarily or permanently affected fisheries habitat.
The counties are limited in their ability to address salmonid habitat needs during road repair because of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements to replace damaged facilities with in-kind structures. The effect of this has been to assure future migration and habitat concerns in some instances. There is a need to work with the federal government to incorporate endangered species requirements in FEMA and other federal disaster assistance programs.
The counties have a documented history of responding to habitat and water quality protection as required by regulation (e.g. 1601 permits resulting in prevention of sediment into streams during construction or the construction of fish passage structures at culvert installations) or legislative actions (e.g. riparian setbacks contained in Coastal Plans). In some cases, the counties have enhanced such activities or developed incentives to achieve protection standards beyond the minimum required by regulation.
The efforts of the counties to address water quality and fisheries habitat continue to evolve and that evolution was evident in the sites visited in the review process. Response to new regulations requires time, but some of the more recent efforts (since the coho listing) clearly indicate that the counties are moving towards balancing land use development and resource protection.
Financial and Human Resource Constraints- Limited financial resources and personnel have made it difficult to respond immediately to changing regulatory environments and will contribute to slow implementation of any conservation planning process. In addition, the counties must strive to find a level of conservation that is neither over-reaching nor ineffectual.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mark Lancaster, Lead Planner- Five Counties Salmon Conservation Planning Committee
RRRAUL Home | Search RRRAUL | News | Logging | Fishery | Watershed | Photographs | Contacts | Organization | Calendar | External Links |