The Joint Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture, Chaired by Assemblymember Virginia Strom-Martin, met in Eureka on Friday, October 22nd, for the 27th Annual Fisheries Forum. The previous day some members of the Committee and others had a field trip, led by Mitch Farro (Chair of the Salmon and Steelhead Trout Advisory Committee) and Tom Weseloh (North Coast Manager of Cal Trout), to look at a variety of stream and watershed conditions on the North Coast.
The Committee met between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. in the Humboldt County Supervisors' Chambers and mostly focused on issues relevant to the North Coast and Salmon and Steelhead. Virginia Strom-Martin and Senator Wes Chesbro (morning only) were joined on the raised podium by Strom-Martin Committee Staffer Mary Morgan, Chesbro staffer Liz Smith (afternoon), Department of Fish and Game Director Bob Hight, DF&G top staffer Diana Jacobs, and Assistant Secretary of Resources (for watersheds and fisheries) Maria Rea. Some scheduled participants were unable to make the Forum due to bad flying conditions, including Mary Nichols (Secretary of Resources) and Jim Edmundson (Cal Trout's Conservation Director).
A series of speakers, including Zeke Grader (Executive Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman's Associations -- PCFFA), Mitch Farro, Walt Duffy (Unit Leader of the California Fisheries Research Unit and Humboldt State University), Tom Weseloh, Jud Ellinwood (Coordinator of the Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Coalition -- SSRC), and Richard Gienger (for the Humboldt Watershed Council), focused on various aspects of problems and solutions regarding Salmon and Steelhead protection and recovery. Jimmy Smith (Humboldt Harbor Commissioner) focused on economic and development issues relating to Humboldt Bay. Pete Leipzig (Executive Director of the Fisherman's Marketing Association) focused on ground fish problems. Jeff Barrett (Pacific Lumber Company's Director of Fish and Wildlife) gave a presentation on the PALCO Habitat Conservation Plan.
Tom Weseloh pointed out the continuing cruel and surreal torment of fisherman in NMFS's recent response to the Board of Forestry's failure to make adequate rules changes. NMFS indicated that it would act to list Steelhead in the North Coast region rather then impose its long existent, but unreleased, "Take Avoidance Guidelines", on forestry activities. Tom pointed out the absurdity of 'punishing' the 'forestry stakeholders' by further restrictions on the 'fishery stakeholders'. Almost all of the restrictions and sacrifice resulting from listing of anadromous species have been suffered by the commercial and sports fishing industry rather than shared amongst all groups affecting the resource. Weseloh and Dave Bitts both received awards from the Committee for their work on the behalf of Salmon and Steelhead.
Recurring themes at the Forum were the plight of the salmon and steelhead fishery and fishers, the sporadic and earnest attempts at habitat restoration, and specific problems in the process of protection and recovery (ranging from lack of enforcement of applicable law and regulation, to inequities in sacrifice by resource impactors, to fragmentation of effort and no comprehensive and effective long-term action plan). Bob Hight, Diana Jacobs, Lee Michlin (Executive Officer of the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board), a representative of the Coastal Conservancy, and Maria Rea all gave their thoughts on these opportunities and problems from the perspective of their respective agencies. Hight and Jacobs of DF&G noted past problems in fragmentation of protection and recovery efforts, cited positive accomplishments (such as the DF&G habitat evaluation and restoration manual as well as the education efforts of the DF&G 'Watershed Academy'), and committed to a future (utilizing recently increased numbers of personnel) of collaboration with landowners, other agencies, and the public to accomplish watershed assessments and protection and recovery of anadromous fisheries. Lee Michlin cited four ongoing cumulative impact studies, the co-applicability of the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act TMDL processes, and Water Quality's role in the Habitat Conservation Plan process (specifically PALCO's). The Coastal Conservancy spokesperson cited their efforts in the Klamath, the Navarro, and Russian Rivers.
Maria Rea made a presentation regarding the Resources Agency's coast-wide Coastal Salmon Recovery Program, which would initially start on the North Coast. As to why it should be done, she stated that: (1) "We can recover Steelhead and Salmon.", (2) "We should do it.", and (3) "We want to do it." She cited the principles of science, watershed-by-watershed approach, inter-agency approach, balance of enforcement and incentives, and adequate reporting & accountability. She went on to summarize the eight specific program steps: (1) The State perform a better role in getting watershed assessments., (2) Assist resource users and landowners in getting information (e.g., KRIS-Coho program implementation in some Mendocino County watersheds)., (3) Expand partnerships in counties., (4) Develop fish population information., (5) Develop partnerships (referred to a Humboldt County Report)., (6) Deal with fish passage issues., (7) Fill budget and personnel gaps., and (8) Look at and support specific watershed restoration efforts.
Senator Chesbro and Assemblymember Strom-Martin commented on the topics discussed. Chesbro emphasized the need for balance between study and working projects. Strom-Martin emphasized the much larger commitment of other places to the recovery of salmonids. She and Chesbro both serve on the Pacific Fisheries Task Force which just added British Columbia to it's membership of Pacific North West States. She said that the B.C. member told her that B.C. is spending $300 million dollars in habitat recovery efforts every four years, ". . . and that's just the tip of the iceberg." Other information presented about British Columbia's program included it's 5 year projects (with living wages) and it's educational program -- training people in the arts & sciences of watershed and habitat restoration for employment opportunities throughout the province.
At the end of the Forum Chris Iscarta (Director of Americorps Watershed Stewards), Larry Hand (California Conservation Corps -- CCCs), and Kevin Bundy (Environmental Protection Information Center --EPIC) made short presentations. Iscarta stressed the role of the Watershed Stewards program in developing resource restoration professionals for the future. Hand stressed the importance of the CCCs in employing and training poorer and under-privileged California youth in the inspiring and arduous skills of habitat restoration. Bundy emphasized the failure of the State and feds to actually require and implement "no-take" standards on California's forestland watersheds.
Some of my personal context for this Forum came from a meeting called by Senator Chesbro to discuss possible aspects of potential legislation to help the small landowner deal with watershed and fisheries protection and recovery. At that meeting, held on 12 October 1999, discussion of the various issues ended with the announcement and brief summary by Mark Hite of the 'official' designation of the Watershed Working Group (WWG) of the California Biodiversity Council (CBC). Mark said that he was informed, at the end of the previous week, that Resources Secretary Mary Nichols had designated the WWG as the clearinghouse/venue for watershed assessment process and related issues, with Nina Gordon as the lead staffperson. The WWG was to meet in Davis, California, on Friday, the 29th of October. The meeting ended with the assumption that, until the actual role of the WWG was ascertained, discussions about comprehensive legislation to help the small landowner was premature. Appropriate legislative action needs to be coordinated with the complex 'big picture', to understand and respond to the various roles that government, landowner, and the public will and can take on.
So I came to the Fisheries Forum expecting to confirm that the WWG was the focus for the determination of an effective and comprehensive watershed and fisheries protection and recovery program and implementation measures -- that the administrative agencies and the legislators were finally prepared to work together, to go beyond talk, and actually determine and delegate the necessary tasks to all of those involved. The will to do this was expressed by in various ways by speakers, committee members, and administrative/agency representatives, but there wasn't a specific time, space, and process (e.g., the WWG) agreed upon for all the parties to actually achieve the necessary program and action. Without such cooperation we'll continue to flounder around on a sea of words, a few extra agency personnel, inadequate regulations (e.g., watercourse buffers), and inadequate funding of protection and recovery efforts by public and private entities.
I left the Forum confused and somewhat confounded after talking with a Resources Agency representative who said the WWG was really just dealing with "the broader issues." Uh, oh, sounded like it could be a rerun of the failed so-called Coastal Salmon Initiative (CSI) process of the Pete Wilson/Doug Wheeler administration. That was a "feel-good" do nothing process that felt-bad and did nothing. We shall see. (emphasis added)
A 21st October letter from Maria Rea to "Dear Watershed Working Group Participant" stated that, "The mission of the CBC WWG . . . is to facilitate watershed restoration and conservation through coordination of statewide projects, policies, funding and support of local efforts." She says that the expectation of Secretary Nichols, ". . . is that this group will develop and articulate an integrated, interagency, community-driven vision of watershed management in California . . . and to develop focused recommendations and tools to aid in implementing that vision." We are assured in the letter that, "The meetings will be open and other members of the watershed community are welcome to attend."
Following is a set of prioritized items that the letter indicates are to be addressed by the WWG in the following order:
"1. Provide a forum for discussing trends in watershed management, e.g. specific legislative proposals, ideas from the field, etc. and regularly provide an update on these trends to the full CBC.
2. Advise the Resources Agency and State Water Resources Control Board (and other agencies) on development of a 'Watershed Agenda' which serves to integrate current crosscutting activities on watershed[s] and provide future strategic direction."
3. Analyze and develop recommendations for coordinating watershed restoration funding in order to increase effectiveness and make the process more user-friendly (e.g. develop a joint application process for RFPs [Request For Proposals], address funding gap/cash flow issues, develop user friendly, integrated reporting requirements(s).)
4. Develop recommendation[s] for agencies that guide interaction with non-agency groups, specifically address proposal[s] to have points of contact or 'watershed teams' at the basin scale.
5. Develop recommendations for addressing barriers to permitting through coordination of agency actions.
The following is from a Resources Agency document which I got after the Fisheries Forum that states the Goal and 8-Point Program of the "California Coastal Salmon and Watersheds Program." The 8-Points are similar to those presented at the Forum by Maria Rea.
"The Goal: Recover harvestable salmon and steelhead populations, restore watersheds, and so contribute to building healthy communities"
"The 8-Point Program: 1. Conduct a wide variety of science-based watershed assessments.
2. Assist landowner, fisheries organizations and local watershed protection and restoration efforts by making information about salmon and watersheds widely available.
3. Expand our partnerships with Counties on Salmon Recovery Efforts.
4. Continue to build a scientific framework for recovery, including monitoring salmon and steelhead populations and hatchery operations.
5. Develop recommendations for improving landowner incentive programs for habitat protection.
6. Coordinate fish passage activities and investigate Washington State program model.
7. Fill gaps and ensure consistency in enforcing the rules.
8. Use demonstration watersheds as laboratories for scientific practices and local collaboration."
The above sounds admirable, but so did the goal and program of the failed California Salmon Initiative. The lists above leave out some obviously basic concerns, among them: (a) regulatory reform that will act to protect and recover watersheds and habitat {The Science Review Panel Report of June 1999 states, "The SRP concluded that the FPRs [Forest Practice Rules], including their implementation (the 'THP process') do not ensure protection of anadromous salmonid populations."}; (b) action to designate and protect refugia for listed salmonid species; and, (c) inclusion of the public and landowners in the watershed assessment process. Of the 36 invited participants in the WWG there is only one representative of fisheries/restoration groups from the North Coast. The CCCs don't seem to be represented & neither do North Coast environmental protection groups. (emphasis added)
I encourage everyone to attend WWG meetings as possible and/or express the need for real vision and implementation of fisheries and watershed recovery in California. Your letters, calls, faxes, and e-mails to your involved resource agencies, legislators, and governor are essential if the complex and cumbersome public and private 'animal' will actually change and act. Whatever you write to one should be copied and sent to the others.
Richard Gienger
Box 283, Whitethorn
California 95589
26 October 1999
RRRAUL Home | Search RRRAUL | News | Logging | Fishery | Watershed | Photographs | Contacts | Organization | Calendar | External Links |