 |
|
|
June 16, 1997
MINUTES Members Present Douglas Wheeler, Resources Agency Larry Goldzband, Department of Conservation Ed Hastey, Bureau of Land Management G. Lynne Sprague, U.S. Forest Service Bob Haussler, California Energy Commission Dale Hoffman-Floerke, Department of Water Resources Terry Jackson, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Ken Jones, Department of Parks and Recreation Mietek Kolipinski, National Park Service Bill Maze, San Joaquin Valley Regional Association of California Counties Ray Nutting, Sacramento-Mother Lode Regional Association of California Counties Dale Pierce, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Maria Rea, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Hershel Read, Natural Resources Conservation Service Mike Shulters, U.S. Geological Survey Brian Smith, CalTrans Peter Stine, Biological Resources Division, USGS Donna Thomas, California Association of Resource Conservation Districts Nita Vail, Department of Food and Agriculture Richard Wilson, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Jacqueline Schafer, Department of Fish and Game Colonel Eric Christenson, U.S. Marine Corps Nancy Huffman, Northern California Counties Association Jerry Harmon, San Diego Association of Governments Call to Order Douglas Wheeler called the meeting to order at 8:43 am. Approval of minutes for the March 20, 1997 meeting in Visalia The minutes from the Visalia meeting are not available; approval or amendment will be postponed upon completion. Council Announcements Utility Committee Status Report Bob Haussler announced that the Utility Lands Task Force, a coordinated group of State and federal agencies, are working with utility companies to identify key lands that the utilities would like to sell as a result of the deregulation of the electric industry through AB 1890, the Electric Industry Restructuring Act. Current work is with PG&E, San Diego Gas Electric, and Southern California Edison. January 1, 1998 is when the new competitive market will begin. Agency participation at this point is open and invited, but the Utility Committee would like to coordinate efforts. Marc Luesebrink of the Resources Agency is the key contact for the committee. A question was raised regarding whether PG&E was selling the water rights along with the land; the reply was that this issue has not yet been settled one way or another. Santa Ana Mountains/Chino Hills/Santa Puente Linkage Ken Jones, Department of Parks and Recreation, reported that many agencies represented on the Council are concerned with corridor connections in California. E.O. Wilson has identified 21 hot spots in the world that are critical corridor connections, one of which is in Southern California on either side of Highway 91. This highway divides two enormous properties: Cleveland National Forest (managed by U.S. Forest Service) on the southern end of the corridor, and Chino Hills (managed by State Parks) to the north of Highway 91. The linkage is significant because this area has been identified as the most biologically diverse area of comparable size within the continental United States. Key agencies are Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, CalTrans, and Department of Parks and Recreation. Mr. Jones stated that Parks may not take the ultimate lead, but they are willing to step out initially and seek the Council's support. California Watershed Projects Inventory Ed Hastey reported that work has accelerated on the inventory of watershed and resource management projects in California. To date, 350 have been inventoried, and a conservative estimate is that there are over 1,000 projects throughout the State. The Bureau of Land Management has put $50,000 into the project, and 20 members of the Biodiversity Council have provided a point of contact for the gathering of new information. U.C. Davis is putting together a training program for those points of contact, which will be held on July 17, 1997 in Davis. Jim Quinn, Mike McCoy, and Mary Madison are the key contacts at U.C. Davis. The data collected will be put into a computerized database which is part of the Watershed Information Technical System, a new component of CERES. Executive Committee Report Al Wright, Executive Committee Chair, gave the following updates: Budget Membership dues for the Biodiversity Council will remain at $3,250 per year; however, agencies that have not paid their dues for the past two years will be dropped from the Council at the end of July. In the future, agencies will need to pay their dues by the end of the fiscal year or their membership will expire. Operating funds will also cover Council Web work (http://ceres.ca.gov/biodiversity). In light of budget constraints, the Executive Committee of the Council will continue to work to find creative ways of funding new projects and initiatives. Science Coordinating Committee The Science Coordinating Committee has many new participants, and Anne Kinsinger and Susan Cochrane are providing leadership. Current work is focused on coordinating the gathering of metadata (data about data). Along with the metadata, the Science Committee is moving ahead on providing access to the following data themes: (1) land ownership, land survey, and geographic coordinated data in California (lead: BLM); (2) land use and farmland information (lead: Department of Conservation); (3) threatened, endangered, and rare species information (lead: Department of Fish and Game); (4) vegetation and habitat types (lead: Department of Fish and Game); (5) hydrologic data (lead: University of California , Davis); (6) soil and minerals information (lead: Natural Resources Conservation Service; and (7) cultural resources information (lead: Department of Parks and Recreation). Regional Leadership Team Status Last December the staff was directed to proceed working with regional managers and other leaders throughout the state, with the objective of increasing and improving communication and effectiveness at the regional scale. There has been significant progress made in the Southern Sierra and the Central Sierra regions. Ray Nutting reported on a well-attended April 11, 1997 meeting in Placerville and offered a copy of the written report to anyone interested. He reported that a series of 4 or 5 meetings were held within the local area to ask the citizens from the bottom up what their goals and desires were for watershed management, and what things they thought would enhance the landscape. Various people are presently working together, and they anticipate another meeting in September or October. Various groups and agencies are also cooperating regarding flood control on the Consumnes River. Pine Pitch Canker Disease Russ Henly, Policy Analyst, CDF/FRAP, reported that the pine pitch canker disease has been especially problematic for Monterey pine, particularly in the Central Coast area. It's an issue of concern not just for individual trees, but for Monterey pine forest ecosystems as well. There is some uncertainty regarding how much of a threat the disease poses to other conifers in the State. Douglas fir is somewhat susceptible, which concerns the commercial timber industry. There are also uncertainties and concerns about the potential for the disease to spread to the conifers in the Sierra. A web site has been established that gives basic aids to identification of the disease, information regarding issues of prevention and management, what to do if it is positively identified, how infected materials should be handled, who to contact to get more help, and announcements of upcoming meetings of the Pine Pitch Canker Task Force, various symposiums, training sessions, etc.
Follow-up Discussion from the Visalia Council Meeting in March 1997 Coordinated Fire Management Richard Wilson, reported that after the Visalia meeting, there was a follow-up meeting with the Board of Forestry, where considerable attention was given to the management and utilization of fire, and the impact of fire on the landscape. There will be a Fire Summit on June 24, 25, and 26 at the South Coast Air Quality Management District building in Diamond Bar in Southern California, sponsored by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the Society of American Foresters, and the Fire Safe Council. Twenty-five years ago the fire community organized FIRESCOPE which led to the development of the Incident Command System and a number of other very effective systems for dealing with fire suppression. The emphasis has since shifted from just suppression to pre-fire management and fire prevention. Prevention is seen as a tool, which entails thinking ahead instead of waiting and experiencing very costly fires in terms of loss of resources, assets, and lives. Consequently, over the past 2-1/2 years the federal government, the State, local people, and the private sector have been cooperating on the California Fire Plan. This plan lays out a strategy for how to work better together on a statewide basis. The Fire Summit also seeks to develop a California Fire Partnership with a specific action plan to better utilize available resources and to implement on-the-ground work.
Biodiversity Education Foundation Chris Chrystal, Resources Agency, proposed the creation of a Biodiversity Education Foundation in response to a recommendation made at the Visalia Council meeting. At this point, feedback is needed on the following: 1) whether or not to proceed to form a new foundation, work with an existing one, or not proceed with one at all, and 2) defining the purpose and structure of a foundation. The benefit of operating as a sub-part of another entity would be a savings in start-up time, paperwork, and legalities. A foundation may serve as a fundraiser that would get grants to support education and outreach activities (e.g., workshops, curricula-related information for public schools, presentations at conferences, various publications, videos, web site material, newsletter or magazine). Chris requested feedback from Council members during the upcoming month. Protecting Biodiversity on Privatelands Mike Chapel, U.S. Forest Service, reintroduced the issue of biodiversity protection as raised at the Council meeting and forum in Visalia and Tulare. At these meetings, a number of private landowners offered that they were either trying to ignore or, in some cases, willingly destroying wetland habitats or habitats if threatened or endangered species resided on their land. Further discussion revealed that the underlying issue was the lack of trust between people who own and manage private lands and the government agencies who regulate their activities. The first presentations by federal and State agencies describe what is being done now to try to address this issue, then there will be presentations by the people who raised the issue in Visalia and Tulare, and this will be followed by time for open discussion. Federal Efforts Dale Pierce, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, stated the lesson that has emerged from dealing with the private landowners, who own the vast majority of lands with fish and wildlife resources, is the great need to be sensitive to their point of view as enforcement of various federal regulations are carried out. Much work needs to be done to establish trust between the landowners and the regulators. Enforcement of the Endangered Species Act can be facilitated by the manner in which the policies are enforced. It is important that flexibility within the system be shown in order to get reciprocal cooperation from the regulated landowners. There have been recent meetings between U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Department of Fish and Game, and the Agricultural Caucus (chaired by Carolyn Richardson of the California Farm Bureau). It has been recognized that there were insufficient incentives to encourage the agricultural community to want to protect endangered species, because the fear was that if they protected habitat (e.g., kept land fallow), it was going to cause them regulatory headaches. A model case has come out of North Carolina on the red-cockaded woodpecker. If a landowner provided a net habitat benefit to an endangered species, and if an agreement was produced, the farmer could in the future go back to the intial habitat condition (identified as the baseline), without any additional regulations being imposed. A lot of progress has been made between federal bureaucrats and the agriculture community as both sides become accustomed to each other's ways and manners of speaking. The agriculture community submitted a draft framework agreement last fall, and USFWS provided detailed comments in February of this year. In May, detailed comments were received on the HELP framework, which presented an optimism that made it seem that the federal and state protection agencies could work effectively with the agriculture community to actually protect and improve wildlife habitat. The principle that must be remembered by the regulators is that the regulatory framework should not either remove economic incentives or hinder the operation of the farm. John Anderson's farm and adjacent property near UC Davis is a goodexample of a farm that protects, enhances habitat, and manages for fish and wildlife, where the Endangered Species Act is really applied without any detriment to the economic activities of the farm. A field trip was offered to this farm following the Council meeting. Another policy came out at the end of May that essentially codifies the no-surprise policy. This new policy deals with Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs). It holds that if someone prepares a plan that addresses the protection of endangered species and authorizes a take, and then circumstances change and the species needs more protection, the original plan will be sufficient. As a result, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service cannot come back and say that more has to be done. The goal is to convince the landowners that the federal government can make processes and policies that will make the regulations of the Endangered Species Act work in an effective manner. Hershel Read, Natural Resources Conservation Service, reminded the audience that California is almost half public lands and more than half private lands. His presentation today would deal with federal protection programs for private lands. The Natural Resources Conservation Service works, on a voluntary basis, with private landowners and land users. It works through the Resource Conservation Districts, over 100 of which are in California. It was noted that Donna Thomas, Council member, serves as Vice President of the California Association of Resource Districts. The Natural Resources Conservation Service deals with certain issues associated with the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). This new program is a combination of four different previous programs (including the Agriculture Conservation Program (ACP), Colorado Salinity, Water Quality Incentive Program) and makes funds available to farmers and ranchers. In the materials handed out for this presentation, it was noted that funds are available on a cost-share basis. One of the features of EQIP is that half of the funds need to go to the livestock industry. Other Programs include the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program and the Farmland Protection Program. This latter program had over $15 million available last year to set aside land, thus providing a way for a farmer or rancher to protect his land from development pressures. California received $2 million of the $15 million available last year. The Department of Conservation is one of the prime participants, along with the Coastal Commission. The California's Conservation Reserve Program administered by the Farm Service Agency was also mentioned. This program has a continuous sign-up, and 100,000 acres went into the Program during the last sign-up. The Emergency Watershed Protection Program can also be used to benefit wildlife. Primarily covering repairs to infrastructure, the new law allows for alternatives to structural activities. An example would be in the San Joaquin area where there was extensive levee failure. There is an opportunity with this program to acquire some of the lands as a non-structural type of alternative to the traditional levee repair. About $5 million may be used for this purpose this year. Nationally, $15 million is available. He noted that the current issue of Biodiversity News had a lead story about the Cosumnes River habitat where there had recently been about 43 levee breaks. He remarked that while the breaks needed to be repaired, there was also a need to look at alternatives to the traditional structural approach. State Efforts Jacqueline Schafer, Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and George Nokes, San Joaquin Valley/Southern Sierra Regional Manager for CDFG, provided information on State efforts to foster biodiversity protection. Ms. Schafer passed around copies of the booklet, "Farming for Wildlife: Voluntary Practices for Attracting Wildlife to Your Farm" by Jeanne Clark and Glenn Rollins. She noted that the publication was oriented primarily to the farmer on the ground. It is a how-to booklet that suggests what individual landowners can do to benefit wildlife on farmlands. It ranges from practical suggestions about delaying fall tillage, leaving some of the crop unharvested, or just not discing fallow areas. More long-term things that can be done include planting a cover crop, creating permanent water sources, growing native perennial plants in non-farmed areas, planting a shelter belt, or adopting an integrated pest management system. She also called the audience's attention to the current issue of Biodiversity News that summarized the Visalia Biodiversity Council forum where various landowners spoke about the regulatory barriers that have contributed to the landowners' lack of trust of the regulatory agencies about making their farms wildlife friendly. She made the point that "Farming for Wildlife" provides a way to overcome these fears because it shows farmers that it is practically possible. Not only does it provide more habitat and diversity on a farm, it also usually saves money, and in some cases, makes money for the farmer. George Nokes informed the audience that CDFG has been actively involved in the Comprehensive Wetlands Habitat Program. The funds are derived from interest from a trust fund, and also from Proposition 99. This program creates an incentive program, primarily for farmers. Essentially, farmers are paid $20 an acre annually, for a maximum of 10 years, to develop and carry out wetland management programs which are developed in conjunction with and approved by a CDFG biologist. Currently, there are 11,500 acres enrolled in the program, about half in the San Joaquin Valley. There is also a full-time CDFG biologist , headquartered in the Los Banos area, working with private landowners in the development and management of wetlands who has recently been in great demand. The Department of Fish and Game also has the Wildlife Conservation Board Easement Program, funded primarily through Proposition 117 funds. Its primary purpose is to preserve private wetlands habitat, and it has more than 4,000 acres enrolled. Just last week, CDFG came to conceptual agreement with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Grasslands District, Ducks Unlimited, and the California Waterfowl Agency in a plan to manage the grasslands as an ecosystem. One of the first steps to be taken is to create a sanctuary in the south grasslands. CDFG will lease the hunting rights on a 360-acre parcel that is a private duck hunting club. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service will open some public hunting on the Gadwall Unit of the Kesterson Refuge, and the Grasslands Water District will provide water. Another activity within the San Joaquin Valley, is the Interagency Vernal Pool Framework. A meeting is scheduled in July to delineate all the options for conservation actions and to develop funding sources. The Department of Fish and Game is also involved with 5 habitat conservation plans (HCPs) in the San Joaquin Valley. The most active is the Valley Floor HCP in Kern County surrounding the existing metropolitan Bakersfield HCP. It covers an area of slightly more than 3,100 square miles and will be protecting 14 plant species and 13 animal species. There is also work being done on the Kern Water Bank HCP. There is hope of reinstituting the HCP process with the city of Coalinga, and also working with Tulare County in their efforts to develop an HCP. Finally, there is the Habitat Enhancement Landowners' Program (HELP). Both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and CDFG have been working with the Ag Caucus. In March, the wildlife agencies commented on the Ag Caucus's draft plan, and since that time there have been exchanges of comments. Some concurrence has been reached on a number of items: recognition of the importance of protecting native habitat for long-term protection of threatened and endangered species in the Valley, the need to establish baselines for habitat conditions in the Valley floor, and the need to demonstrate and account for increases in creating habitat. The draft plan also discusses establishment of an oversight committee which is made up of both a state coordinating committee and local advisory committees. There are, however, still a number of important issues that need resolution: a definition of what native land actually is, development of best-management practices for the program, and development of a monitoring program. Fresno County is to be commended for their decision to be a pilot program, with the Fresno County Agriculture Commission taking the lead. The process is temporarily on hold until a few more issues have been worked out between the Ag Caucus, CDFG, and the Fish & Wildlife Service. Open Discussion of Issues with Council Members and Visitors Jim Sullins, UC Co-op Extension Office Manager for Tulare County, reported that Tulare County is about 50% private land and 50% public land, and the agricultural land produces about $2.85 billion worth of agricultural products. Although there are opportunities for coordination and cooperation, there are also minefields of opportunities for differences. In the past, many of the regulatory agencies assumed a cop's role, by letting people struggle and telling them when they were wrong. Recent changes have been for the better, and the regulatory agencies are now actual participants at the table, offering resolutions and possible solutions. A lot of the past mistakes were made dealing with public lands, and it is possible that the mistakes will not be repeated in dealing with private lands. On the other hand, past mistakes on public lands issues have not been forgotten by private landowners. Solutions have to be local-based and locally driven, and incentives are preferable to regulatory actions. An example is the NRCS whose successful programs are incentive-driven and not regulatory in nature. This is a ready-made model of the type of program that will be successful in dealing with private lands. Dan Macon, California Cattlemen's Association stated that he hoped he could shed some light on how agriculture, and specifically the cattle industry, views biodiversity issues both with hope and with some skepticism. He noted the agencies' shift in attitude towards making agriculture a partner in solving the issues, rather than a problem in addressing them. Trust was not destroyed overnight, and it will not get restored overnight. Rather it is a long-term process that both the agencies and the landowners must follow up on. He agreed with Jim Sullins' statement about local approaches, and added, that not only must the solutions come locally, but they must be driven from local participants. He encouraged the Biodiversity Council to continue in their efforts to resolve the disconnect within local offices of the agencies. Often heads of agencies display an attitude of cooperation with agricultural interests, but local personnel in the agencies often retain their cop mentality. He thought the Regional Leadership Forums were effective and encouraged the Council to continue them. Another difficulty in dealing with agencies is staff turnover. The agriculture interests would long-term stability within the agencies, so they can plan for the long term and can know what to expect if they meet certain criteria. The agencies need to remember that agriculture interests tend to view issues holistically, balancing the needs of the resources and their economic operations. While the agencies can focus on enforcing a narrow range of regulations, the agriculture interests have to consider a broader spectrum of issues. He stated that if the agriculture interests cooperating with the agencies could show that biodiversity and habitat preservation are an advantage for California, both economically and environmentally, this would put California agriculture in a good position relative to the rest of the U.S. or the rest of the world. He encouraged the cultivation of partnership approaches to the issues, and noted that while things were not perfect, both sides were taking positive steps in the right direction. Bill Maze, Tulare County Supervisor and landowner in Tulare County, noted that discussions and forums were beginning to develop and work, and that both sides were beginning to look outside the box of how they had been doing business in the past. The one-size-fits-all concept of past years is being replaced by local decision-making. The geographic diversity of California does not lend itself to the same regulation being effective in all instances. He noted that the problems would not be solved by short-term actions, but rather by long-term efforts on the part of both landowners and agencies. At this point, the discussion was opened for additional questions and/or comments. Mr. Wheeler reflected on a discussion he had had some years ago with Ted James, Planning Director of Kern County. Mr. James had summarized the situation when he said that one of the problems with many of the federal agencies was that they were trying to regulate plans instead of facilitate the solutions. Mr. Wheeler remarked that what he had heard so far today reaffirmed that statement, but that he thought progress was being made in the right direction. A question was raised about whether the examples provided in "Farming for Wildlife" were all small family farms, or whether some might be larger corporate operations. The response was that since the authors of the booklet were not present, a definitive answer could not be given. Ms. Shafer thought that individual family farms tended to be more interested in the diversity of wildlife and habitat on their land. She added that some of these family farms were quite large, as big as 5,000 acres. Mr. Read responded that there are many responsible corporate farmers and ranchers, and that quite a number of the examples in the booklet are in corporate ownership, and of varied sizes. He added that he had heard from a variety of farmers that the techniques proposed in the booklet have actually led to savings, not additional costs, and that the booklet should help get the word out that many techniques to preserve habitat and biodiversity are cost effective. A member of the audience commented that while there are many operations that are enhancing habitat, and that agencies and landowners are starting to take a partnership approach to issues, there is still language and a disclaimer on the Endangered Species Act which causes attorneys for larger farming operations to tend to advise their clients not to go into habitat preservation projects. Another audience member affirmed previous speakers' statements to the effect that habitat and species preservation plans needed to have incentives for landowners and also flexibility. An example of what he considered a good is the currrent Valley Floor Habitat Conservation Plan, where agricultural landowners are encouraged to look at their property as a source of revenue from fish and wildlife preservation while continuing some farming operations. He also mentioned the "Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook" that came out last November. He remarked that he thought there would be half a million dollars in fiscal year '98 scheduled to go towards the Valley Floor Habitat Conservation planning, and added that it is beneficial to have federal as well as state funding funneled in to show the positive side of protecting fish and wildlife habitats, as well as the normal economic benefits derived from other programs supporting traditional agriculture. Another audience member agreed that there has been a change of philosophy, certainly at the agency head level. But he also cautioned that often agency people come to the table without having the authority to commit their agency, or they don't understand the process of negotiation, and they struggle along anyway, with the end result being barriers that can never be resolved. Another problem is that there is a need for long-term commitments at the local level, and this is a problem within agencies with their high turnover of personnel. Another audience member remarked that she agreed with Ms. Schafer's position that many of the new ways of managing resources are economically sustainable. "Integrated pest management is a perfect example because pesticides are very, very costly." While economic sustainability and resource protection are very compatible, the small landowner does not always have the resources to be able to advance these efforts. That is why it is important to maintain trust and ethics in the agreements if conservation projects are to be successful. Mr. Wheeler asked the audience if they had any responses to the question, "Where do we go from here?" He added that it would be helpful to the users and to the agencies if they know where they were expected to go and what the expectations were. One response was that it would be helpful to give existing efforts some extra incentive. The Valley Floor HCP was cited as an example needing some extra momentum. The chair responded that this was a good point, and that major successes would show that the plans really do work. He agreed that anything that could be done to accelerate the completion of some of the big, multi-species plans would go a long way to show that they could be done. Ms. Huffman brought up a different issue, one concerning efforts to acquire land for wildlife refuges in remote areas to make up for land lost in the Valley. Many of the purchases are made by a third party, and the county does not even know the property has been sold until the deal is completed. She stated that the remote counties are concerned because the property is taken off their tax rolls before they even know that it is being sold. She stated that the problem is particularly acute now that many cattlemen are struggling to make a living, and eager to sell their land to a public agency if it is anywhere near an existing refuge. The counties are not in a position to tell a landowner that he cannot sell his land, but if they knew in advance, they might try to find a way that would make the deal more palatable for the county and for the agencies. It is a real shock for a remote county with a tight budget to suddenly find that considerable acreage has gone off the tax roll. She stated that Modoc County has a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Fish and Game, and she wanted to know if any of the other agencies that are acquiring land in remote counties would be willing to work with the counties so that they are aware of what is happening in their territory. Ms. Shafer suggested that the Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and a representative from the Ag Caucus follow-up with a progress report to the Council at the next meeting on the issue of biodiversity protection in the San Joaquin Valley. The chair said that the matter would be brought up at the next Biodiversity Council meeting as a status report with feedback from the agencies involved. A Report on the Anadromous Fishery Issues on the California North Coast: Issues and Actions by Local, State, and Federal Agencies Al Wright started the session by reminding the Council that a year ago the state of California, along with a number of federal agencies, had recognized the importance of coastal watershed issues. The Coastal Salmon Initiative, under the leadership of John Amodio of the Resources Agency, started to lay the groundwork for information about coastal issues, not only in terms of the resource data, but also in terms of identification of the key stakeholders how they might collectively move forward. Since that time, the Coho salmon has been listed, and the EPA has reached a legal settlement requiring Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) standards for 18 north coast rivers. Mr. Wright considered the anadromous fisheries issues appropriate for the Biodiversity Council to address, because it affects natural resources, as well as forest, fishery, and agriculture industries, with significant economic and social impacts. Historic Activities Affecting Anadromous Species Decline Peter Moyle, UC Davis, stated that the coho issues are just the tip of the iceberg, and virtually all of the anadromous fish on the coast are in trouble. Since it is the anadromous fish which define the aquatic ecosystems on the coast, it is very important that their populations be maintained. However, he considered the North Coast very rich in opportunities for restoration. The human populations are relatively small compared to the rest of the state (approximately 600,000 people in the Klamath ecoregion). He regarded the fact that a lot of land is private as a positive factor, because private landowners can react more swiftly to new initiatives than government can. The North Coast has been fished for a long time. Native Americans harvested anadromous fish, especially salmon, at levels that were arguably close to what the harvest levels by Euro-American fishers were in the early 1900's. Yet they managed to do it on a sustainable level. Diverse species of anadromous fish are present, and there are a diversity of reasons why they are in decline. He provided information and slides on the Green sturgeon, candlefish, cutthroat trout, steelhead trout, chinook salmon and Coho salmon. By way of example, the Coho salmon is in trouble through most of its range in this region. At least half of the California streams that used to support Coho now don't have them. The crash in the coho populations has multiple interacting causes: dams, severe alteration and destruction of habitat, interactions with hatchery fish (which have introduced diseases into wild populations), plus bad conditions in the oceans combined with poor conditions on the land (droughts and floods). Coho need cool coastal streams, preferably with big trees, and if they have the right conditions, they will come back. Bringing about the recovery of wild fish populations will be a difficult and expensive process. Natural climatic fluctuations cause fluctuations in the fish populations, and when there are poor conditions on land and in the oceans, fish populations naturally decline. But the situation is worsened when there is also watershed degradation and overfishing, and all of these factors interact with each other and the numerous species in the watershed. Another important factor is a poor understanding of the actual numbers of the different species of fish; there is a desperate need for inventories of fish presence and distribution. However, watersheds are the key component for any conservation strategy because it seems that the carrying capacity of coho and other anadromous fish is really determined by the watersheds. If the watersheds are in good condition, with big trees and fairly stable slopes, there will be a lot more fish. The solutions will be complex, slow, expensive, and will involve a lot of interactions among private and public landowners, but it is worth doing. If the anadromous fish can be restored, it means that the watersheds will have been restored, and this will make them better places for people as well. Regulatory Mandates Maria Rea, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), described the federal regulatory framework. It is a dynamic system where both the laws and their interpretations shift, where everyone does the best they can to apply them to local situations and local watersheds. At the same time, Washington D.C. is constantly providing new guidance. Various agencies have had to learn each other's laws, and the mechanics of integrating the various laws is not as simple as it should be, or could be. Many people make a black-and-white distinction between voluntary approaches (where it's all education and technical assistance and financial assistance) and regulatory approaches (where it's a permit, and if the permit is violated there is a big money fine). But there also is a sort of coerced voluntary, or voluntary with accountability approach. With this approach there is room for creativity and inventiveness, with a plan that is flexible, and where there is monitoring for the community to abide by the plan. Or there is a specific plan that a local landowner can buy into, in which case he gets some coverage. On the other hand, landowners also have the option of not buying into the plan at all and then being at the mercy of the regulatory agencies. The goal of the Clean Water Act is to restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity to the nation's waters. Contrary to what many people think, EPA is not concerned solely with chemical pollution. The Clean Water Act is concerned with the entire broad range of physical and biological types of impairment. A TMDL stands for Total Maximum Daily Load, and should be thought of as a structured watershed management plan, or a strategy to attain and maintain water quality standards, that can build on existing plans. The components are basically 6 elements: 1) problem identification, 2) setting numeric targets, 3) source analysis, 4) allocation of responsibility ("Who has to do what?"), 5) monitoring adaptive management (because of the uncertainty in the system), and 6) public participation. Because the EPA was sued in 1995 by a coalition of 14 environmental plaintiffs for failure to implement this TMDL program, a settlement was reached in March of this year. The North Coast Regional Board and the EPA will share responsibilities for developing these TMDLs through now to the end of 2007. EPA will be working in the entire North Coast over the next 10 years. EPA is also working closely with NMFS to try to find ways to link habitat conservation plans, and is committed to working with large timber companies since it would be in the best interests of the fisheries, too. Another broad job being undertaken by the EPA is working with coastal states and stakeholders to develop best-management practices for a broad range of activities: forestry, agriculture, urban, marinas, hydromodification. There have been some successes already; for example, the Rangeland Water Quality Management Plan was developed under this law with input from the Cattlemen's Association, and it is already being widely implemented. Patrick Rutten, National Marine Fisheries Service, reminded the audience that he had provided a quick synopsis in their briefing packet of the status of present coho and steelhead listings. He informed them that he was trying to simplify the paperwork involved in fish listing matters, and said that additional regulations regarding fishery management were being proposed that would entail broad research on the full life cycles of various fish species, which, in turn, would entail looking at land-based activities that affect fish habitats. Russ Henly, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection presented the overall regulatory mandate framework, a look at how some of these things lay out across the landscape, and mechanisms that are being used, or might be used, to try to tie the various components together. In many cases, the laws are overlapping, such as the federal Endangered Species Act and the state Endangered Species Act, and try to do the same sorts of things, through fairly similar processes, though with some differences between them. It is important, however, to keep in mind that there are non-regulatory pieces that affect how management ultimately plays out on the ground. For forestland managers, in a lot of cases, the Forest Practice Act ends up becoming the funnel through which various laws get poured and implemented. While the regulations are complex, and have many interactions, actual practice brings about convergence of the myriad parts. An example of how things lay out across the landscape is the various TMDL watersheds with different schedules for their implementation. Despite the fact that actual TMDL rules will not be issued until 2007, these are known to be critical watersheds with known problems and makes it advisable to start corrective action ahead of schedule. Also, lands designated on maps as timberlands and parks also have roads, and road systems are known to be major sediment generators. Likewise, urban development, agriculture, and range management all have important environmental impacts. Both the size of landholdings and whether they are public or private also has environmental impacts because their scale and category determines a lot about their capabilities for doing things on the landscape, for collecting data, assessing impacts, doing long-range planning, and other such things. There are multiple ways--both regulatory and voluntary--of bringing the various factors together. On the regulatory front, there is the Forest Practices Act with Sustained Yield Plans, and more recently, Programmatic Timber Environmental Impact Reports, and Non-industrial Timber Management Plans for smaller landowners, all pieces under the Forest Practices Act that bring together assessment and management at a landscape level. On the federal side, there are Habitat Conservation Plans which are being used now in the North Coast, and in some cases being coordinated with the development of Sustained Yield Plans. There are many regulatory and voluntary activities already in place and in the process of coming together. Success Stories and Recovery Activities: Examples from the Federal, State, and Local Level Steve Clausen, USFS, has worked on the Northwest Forest Plan ever since he came in as the Regional Forester's assistant for coordinating with the states (California and Oregon), with regional offices, and all the different parties involved in the Northwest Plan. Many activities and organizations are already in place in the region: the Inter-agency Watershed Assessment Center, the Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Program, and many fisheries task forces. He considered it more important to coordinate the existing organizational structures than to initiate new ones. He noted that the Northwest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy and Pac-Fish are basically the same thing. Two examples of existing infrastructure that can be utilized now are the Aquatic Conservation Strategy and inter-governmental partnerships. The Aquatic Conservation Strategy was developed primarily to protect and enhance anadromous fish and riparian ecosystems. According to the NMFS, it is the backbone of the recovery effort for fish in the range of the Northern Spotted Owl. There are basically 5 components to the Aquatic Strategy: 1) aquatic conservation objectives, 2) key watersheds, 3) riparian reserve system, 4) watershed analysis, and 5) the restoration component. There are 9 objectives which were developed to assure maintenance and restoration of important features, such as integrity of systems, water quality, natural sediment regimes, in-stream flows, and species composition. Key watersheds are relatively pristine lands, primarily in federal ownership, that have to be taken care of before other activities can be initiated. Before any or most land-disturbing activities can be undertaken in a key watershed, wilderness area, or riparian reserve, a watershed analysis must be done The other component, the conservation strategy, is composed of provincial advisory committees (PACs). There are three in Northern California: the Cal-Klamath Basin, the California Coast, and Northwest Sacramento. In Northwest Sacramento at the present time, the federal agencies and Sierra Pacific are doing a joint watershed analysis. The purpose is, regardless of ownership, to prioritize restoration and fuels management within the Clear Creek watershed. This model of activity is starting to happen in all the advisory committees. When the advisory committee structure started, their mission was for federal lands. However, the constituents of those committees--which include inter-governmental, state, county, agency, tribal interests--quickly grasped that they could not confine themselves only to federal lands because the issues spread beyond. So the committees have become a place of dialogue about private lands, and other lands, especially when the private landowners come to the table. The committees are careful not to talk about private lands when the private landowners are absent. There is also the California Economic Revitalization Team (CERT) which basically emphasizes the economic side of the plan, but they also get involved with prioritization. They try to assure that biological needs are met with restoration or Jobs in the Woods. They are concerned that the maximum return be obtained from the money spent. They also requested that the federal agencies coordinate their efforts so that they too could get a maximum return from their dollars spent. Mr. Clausen closed by encouraging the audience members to utilize existing organizational, administrative, and voluntary structures, instead of inventing new structures, and to focus on moving forward in a broadly coordinated way. Bill Hoy, Chairman of the Board of the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors, reported that in Siskiyou County, 20% of the residents are on welfare, 28% work for a government agency, 18% are retired, and only 34% work in the private sector. As early as 1990-91, the county supervisors saw the effects of the listing of the spotted owl on their area and went to work. Individuals, concerned citizens, and stakeholders started the Shasta Valley Coordinated Resource Management Plan (CRMP) and the Scott Valley CRMP, which led to two success stories. Shasta Valley CRMP - Every May for the past 5 years, all the major landowners and waterusers forsake the use of water in their operations for 48 hours. The reasons for this are as follows: young salmonids are trapped behind diversion dams and their progress to the Klamath River is impeded. Also, in May, June, and July, the water temperature gets too high for their survival, and the oxygen level falls. All 4 flash dams in the river are removed so the water flows naturally from Shastina Lake to the Klamath for 40 hours. After this pulse has run, the flash dams are slowly replaced. Before and after the flows, out migrating smolts are sampled to index the success of the operation. This temporary emergency response improves water quality, boosts salmon smolt survival (and therefore increases the number of adults in 2-4 years) , and also helps fisheries, as well as sports and tribal fishermen. It helps preserve salmon runs while long-term improvements are made in water quality. There are many participants in this ongoing program: 12 ranches, 5 major irrigation districts, the California Dept. of Fish & Game does the sampling on a site provided by a ranch, the California Conservation Corps monitors the river for stranded fish, and the U.S. Geological Survey provides special reporting on the flows. French Creek/Scott River CRMP - This is an innovative watershed management partnership in the 21,000-acre French Creek watershed, which is part of the Scott River Basin. They have succeeded in significantly reducing streambed sedimentation from road sources on a diversified ownership. By focusing on controlling the primary source of non-pollution, water quality and salmon habitat improvements in these areas have visually and quantitatively improved. This watershed was selected in 1990 by the State Board of Forestry as an experimental cooperative process. And in 1996, this group was the recipient of the National Watershed Award. Mr. Hoy stated that as a County Supervisor, he found himself in the middle: the federal government has listed the Coho, and the federal and state governments control the rivers, harbors, streams, and much of the land surrounding them. Yet the counties have no influence with the federal government, and little influence with the state. However, from a local resident's perspective, the county Boards of Supervisors are the most available and easiest form of government to access, and thereby the counties become the focus for and receive the greatest verbal criticism on issues largely beyond their control. The counties want to be involved in the decision-making about issues that substantially impact their economies. There have been too many times in recent years where federal and state governments have simply made decisions without an assessment of what is necessary to resolve the issue. Watershed plans should be locally developed; the state and federal agencies can best support this approach by coordinating their separate resources and authorities. He requested that they develop a coordinated mechanism, such as is now in place for the work on the Bay Delta. Dave Hope, Santa Cruz County, introduced himself as a forester and watershed manager in Santa Cruz for almost 20 years. He observed that he was in a completely different situation from the one in Siskiyou County, in that Santa Cruz is an urban environment that has been very proactive. They did their first management plan in 1979, with the State's help, and it led to a change in how Santa Cruz County did their operations. They went countywide with the recommendations, and developed ordinances and programs in order to try to bring about watershed restoration. The San Lorenzo River in Santa Cruz County was the second most fished river in the state in the 60's; within 10 years it fell to 13th place. A lot of that had to do with development resulting from a growing population. Mr. Hope observed that after 25 years of watershed management, it was floods that did all the work; they ended up with about 200 miles of stream restoration following 5 consecutive floods last year. The effects were all positive. The real difficulty was trying to manage 250,000 people in 440 square miles. The county has produced a lot of educational materials, but their biggest problem has been population turnover. Another problem was that when they finally established a refuge for coho, the fish acquired a bacterial kidney disease. With the State's help, they listed the coho, inoculated the fish against the disease, and had a good run of fish the following year. He cautioned the audience about the adverse effects of population growth, barriers (such as bridges) in streams, fish hatcheries (which replicate diseases natural in the environment to a level that kill fish), and general watershed maintenance. He informed them that Santa Cruz County is in the process of putting together a Habitat Conservation Plan that would end up being a master plan for the county on how to manage all the species that are endangered in the county, not just the fish. Moreover, the plan is moving on at very little cost to the county. Santa Cruz County has prudently managed their watershed for the past 20 years; the coho declined there not from poor forestry practices, but rather from human impact, water withdrawal, and about 100 years of abuse. New Initiatives Jim Branham, Resources Agency, informed the audience that he was there to bring them up to date about new initiatives and related efforts. In January, Governor Wilson proposed about $4 million in his budget for a state Watershed Initiative. They are working closely with Senator Thompson to move it through the legislature. It will provide funding to Resource Conservation Districts through the Department of Conservation, and it will provide funding for local government, and also to other watershed groups who will be able to compete on a competitive basis. It also provides resources for the departments of Fish and Game, Forestry and Fire Protection, Conservation, and State and Regional Water Quality Boards to provide technical assistance, and other kinds of services to those in the local communities who wish to participate. The basic purpose of the state's watershed initiative is to coordinate efforts to preserve and improve watersheds. In addition, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is being negotiated between state of California and National Marine Fisheries Service. It is aimed specifically at dealing with both the Coho and the steelhead in California. Its goal is to set a framework under which the state and federal government would proceed to protect anadromous fish, and the state program would become the basis for local watershed plans. This proposed MOU is different from the watershed initiative because it is based on a regulatory action (listing the species), but it is an attempt on the part of the state to provide guidance--particularly to landowners and the public--of what can be done in a non-regulatory way that will lead to the conservation of the species. An interagency MOU led by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) is also being negotiated between the State, NRCS, the Resource Conservation Districts, and a number of federal regulatory agencies. It is an attempt to foster and provide financial incentives for landowners. For the Sake of the Salmon is another cooperative effort between the states of Washington, Oregon and California, the federal government, plus a number of the interested parties, which is aimed at supporting watershed restoration and providing outreach that will assist in the regional conservation of salmon with federal funding. In summary, the State of California is trying to do what it can to bring together various entities who have a significant role to play in watershed restoration, and to foster a unified, collaborative, and cooperative approach to conserving the state's natural resources. Outstanding Issues, Controversies, Suggestions and Solutions, Ideas and Hope Charles Peterson, Mendocino County described the human part of the fisheries issue: the individual citizen, the property owner, the environmentalist, the fisherman, logger, businessperson, and everyone who has a direct interest in the fish or would be affected by its listing under the Endangered Species Act. Community organizations, and most importantly, watershed groups have been willing to develop a restoration plan for the fish in their watershed. The party in the middle is local government, which is led by those elected officials who are in the closest contact with involved citizens. State government includes all of its regulatory agencies. Federal government, in the case of salmon, is the regulator that has determined that something must be done to prevent further decline, and which will hopefully bring about the restoration of sustainable salmon populations. Local government must bear the brunt of all the regulations imposed from above, and all the fear and loathing coming up from its constituents. They have little or no actual decision-making authority and notoriously depleted financial and human resources to try to get anything done, but what they do have is an intense knowledge of their constituents. They know who the players are and who needs to be sitting down with whom in order to get something done. What is needed is a coherent, coordinated, comprehensive, and understandable set of criteria, established by all of the regulators at the state and federal level. They need to be able to promise local citizens that if they will sit down and work together, that resources will be made available to help them in their efforts. Counties cannot do the actual implementation of watershed restoration projects. Their role is coordinating the efforts of others, not doing the projects. Although each watershed situation is different and local governments need to be able to respond to each situation appropriately, there were four steps necessary for successful restoration: 1) thorough assessment of the watershed, 2) development of a comprehensive restoration plan, based on the assessment, 3) funding of the project in compliance with the restoration plan, and 4) ongoing monitoring to determine whether the plan is actually working. There have been many controversies over funding sources and funding recipients for various projects and new efforts should be funded with new dollars. No new efforts should be created to duplicate an existing effort which is effectively getting the job done. A wide variety of potential resources must be supported that will appeal to individual watershed groups, which are all very different from each other, so that they can accomplish the needed work without having to spend years in negotiations because of past conflicts. Mr. Peterson offered a strategy for coastal fisheries restoration. First of all, there should be some kind of governmental oversight group, preferably composed of agency directors and local elected officials. The goal of this group would be to establish the conservation guidelines, based on a set of science-based recommendations, so that everybody could have a sense of trust about them. Once the guidelines are established and confirmed by a science committee, they would need to be distributed and used at a variety of levels: land management agencies, counties, cities, regional agencies, and tribes. The first and primary goal would be to get as much voluntary cooperation and action as possible, from both individuals and corporations. The second need would be to provide training for landowners, perhaps by UC Extension and others. For example, material already put together by Fish & Game for Santa Cruz foresters could easily be adapted for training local elected officials as well as county and city employees. For those who don't choose to volunteer, regulations are needed for non-compliance, and enforcement backed up by both agencies and elected officials. There needs to be an inventory of watershed conditions and activities, and continued support for watershed groups from a large variety of sources. There needs to be multi-county coordination, because the issue is a multi-county issue. At each county level, the people have to find a way to link the communication up and down, from the oversight group at the beginning to the coordinating entities that are down below. There needs to be public education and outreach, including the county Office of Education and the Dept. of Social Services Welfare-to-Work Program. Lastly, the maps have to be obtained, the Geographic Information System, and the communications systems have to be brought together. In response to a question about who would actually do the developing, and under what direction, Mr. Peterson responded that the National Marine Fisheries Service would have to be involved from the earliest draft, but that in the end the public would also have to support it, in addition to the National Marine Fisheries Service. An audience member suggested that the California Rangeland Water Quality Plan was an appropriate model to follow in that the cattlemen and woolgrowers voluntarily and cooperatively accepted the Coastal Zone Act requirements, and put upon themselves much stricter guidelines than the EPA "would have ever dreamed of asking for," and were several years ahead of their schedule in actual implementation. Moreover, this was a project that had cost only $85,000 for a statewide plan. A forester reminded everyone that flexibility was pivotal to any successful strategy, that science is constantly changing, that practices once considered sound have sometimes been proven to be the opposite of what is actually true. For example, the past practice of removing woody debris from salmon stream courses is now known to have removed a critical element of their habitat. He also stated that plans being made now cover 80-year to 120-year cycles, and that they need to be closely monitored to confirm that the scientific principles upon which they are based remain valid. Charles Peterson agreed with him that flexibility, learning, changing, is extremely important, and urged those who were really confident with what they were doing to step back and say, "How could I be wrong?" Another audience member cautioned against counties trying to convene groups such as the Biodiversity Council or CRMP Councils because in many cases they were the entity that issued land use permits, grading permits, and gravel mining permits, and that it would be awkward for them to be at the table with the vested interest groups involved in such activities. The counties could--and in some cases, already have--become the victims of lawsuits from environmental groups or even state and federal agencies. He suggested that conveners need to be entities in a non-regulatory role. Adjournment Joanne Cemo announced that the next meeting of the Biodiversity Council would be on Thursday, September 18, 1997 in Mammoth. The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 pm
|
|
