| ||||
This summer and early fall I have been involved in three projects that needed some degree of corrective measures. One smaller site involved modification of a rock-armored pond spillway and construction of an additional downstream grade control for permanent channel stability; another site required rocking of the inlet and outlet of a natural-bottomed pipe arch stream crossing to maintain road width and prevent erosion of fill into the stream. The third site involved heavier work rocking/filling a channel created during late-winter rains that compromised a large log grade-control structure. The repairs were successfully undertaken because of private funds, Water Quality funds, and Fish and Game funds, along with donated time and equipment.
It seems obvious that all restoration projects should have a part of the budget allocated for post-project monitoring and implementation of corrective measures if necessary. If corrective measures are not necessary, the money should revert to the appropriate restoration account. Unfortunately, that makes too much sense for most current funding sources and processes.
I've heard various opinions about how water levels are holding up before the rainy season really gets going. Some say that tributaries they are familiar with are the driest they've ever seen. On the other hand, many stream reaches have retained greater surface-water connectivity than during the dry season after the very dry winter three years ago. Certain reaches in the Mattole have shown adverse impacts from water diversion. All facilities for holding water from the wet season for use in late summer and fall are crucial. Such storage tanks are becoming more common, with cost-share plans and taxation breaks available. One source of info about these tanks is Sanctuary Forest, at (707) 986-1087.
Salmonids: Government Still Slow to Act
| |||
Coho was State-listed in 2004: Endangered between San Francisco Bay and Punta Gorda (south of the mouth of the Mattole River), and Threatened from Punta Gorda to the Oregon border. This listing sprang from a July 2000 Petition for Listing by the Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Coalition (SSRC.) The Fish and Game Commission opted to do a Recovery Strategy prior to listing. (Check it out at: www.dfg.ca.gov/nafwb/CohoRecovery/RecoveryStrategy.html) Concurrent with the listing, the Commission directed DF&G to start preparing rules according Section 2112 of the DF&G Code for the protection and recovery of Coho and for the issuance of Incidental Take Permits.
DF&G hadn't made much headway by June 2005 when the California Forestry Association (CFA) and others (including the Eureka Chamber of Commerce) brought a lawsuit to overturn the listing. California Trout (CalTrout), the Northcoast Environmental Center, and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations intervened in support of the listing. A Superior Court ruled for the listing and against CFA in June 2006. The CFA et al. gave notice of appeal of that decision on October 10th. Legal documents must be completed by this January, and the hearing will be in late winter or early spring 2007. Many conjecture that this is yet another stalling tactic by the industry--stalling that's been going on for at least two decades. This means yet another unwarranted financial burden on DF&G and the Intervenors.
After the Superior Court upheld the listing, DF&G (backed by the administration and the Resources Agency) moved to try and "meld" the DF&G Section 2112 regulations with the Forest Practice Rules--most notably the Threatened or Impaired Rules which went into effect in July 2000, mainly to protect listed anadromous salmonids, and have been extended several times, currently though 2007. All this has been complicated by an industry/agency-sponsored "technical literature review"--with a definite tilt toward showing that narrower riparian buffers and lesser stream canopy leave requirements are supported by newer studies. The political and "scientific" posturing has been a torment. There are a few individuals and organizations that make some of this stuff bearable, prevent complete chaos and loss, neutralize the worst, maintain positive action, and occasionally win.
The last paragraph summarizes a novel or two and an exhaustive study. A lot of administrative, legislative, and judicial energy and paper are going to be expended in 2007.
| ||||
Some promising bills failed in 2006 in the California Legislature. Bills failed that would have continued DF&G funding for fisheries habitat restoration work; helped commercial fishermen through drastic season reductions; reformed Sustained Yield Plans; and modestly extended the base period for Timber Harvest Plans for all-aged or uneven-aged silviculture (versus even-aged clearcutting silviculture). We hope that the new year of 2007 is a much better one for the communities and watersheds of California's forestlands.
| |||
It looks like some progress is being made toward taking down some of the Klamath Dams--Iron Gate and others. Pacific Corp, which owns the dams, is fighting placement of fish ladders, while Warren Buffet (who bought Pacific Corp) says he's open to removal of the dams. The Governator and the Oregon Governor recently called for a "Klamath Summit." Support the Klamath River, the Klamath Watershed Tribes, the memory of Tim McKay, and do your part to help ensure that those dams are removed.
Promising Pilot Projects
The pilot project for a Program Timberland Environmental Impact Report for the Mattole River Watershed will start to be implemented in January 2007. This pilot project, which will include watershed cumulative impacts processes reform, is sponsored by the Mattole Restoration Council (MRC) with strong support from landowners, agency personnel, and the public. Chris Larson, Executive Director of the MRC, is providing steady leadership in the evolution of this project into reality. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) recently granted over $1 million to MRC for this pilot project. Because Chris will be attending graduate school in 2007, Seth Zuckerman has been hired to head up the pilot project. In exchange for higher standards of stewardship and overall environmental protection, landowners would be able to tier much less cumbersome and less expensive Program Timber Harvesting Plans to the Program Timberland Environmental Impact Report (PTEIR). Fire hazard reduction, watershed restoration, restored timberland productivity, and cooperation among landowners to achieve these goals are among highlights of the pilot project. It's going to be a heavy learning experience for all involved, ideally with positive lessons that can be applied on a much broader basis.
Speaking of pilot projects: The Garcia River Project of the Conservation Fund and the Nature Conservancy, with support from the Wildlife Conservation Board and the Coastal Conservancy, has been moving along with some bumps here and there--the first THP submitted, withdrawn, and then resubmitted. This is the first large-scale "working forest" project in the region meant to maintain truly sustainable forestry while having conservation easements and other measures to protect vital riparian, fishery, wildlife, and related values. Incorporation of long-term community interests is part of the mix. The Redwood Forest Foundation, Inc. (RFFI), is working in partnership with the Conservation Fund and others to achieve similar ends. A project similar to the Garcia by the Conservation Fund is in escrow for parts of Salmon Creek and Big River along the Mendocino County Coast. Other projects elsewhere, maybe even in Humboldt County, may be possible. Pacific Lumber as a Community Forest? Check out the RFFI website: www.rffi.org. Get involved.
A big issue for community or stewardship forests is how the "dominant paradigm" timberland real estate market is driving people into a mentality similar to "in order to save the village we had to destroy it"--in other words, being forced to continue industrial production for decades in order to pay the debt incurred in a conservation purchase. Enough "free or cheap" money sources need to be found to allow the land to recover before a real sustainable model is implemented. See the Institute for Sustainable Forestry (ISF) website,
www.newforestry.org, for more information.
Sinkyone Update
The Sinkyone Wilderness State Park Draft General Plan came out this past summer. Public comment to the Department officially ended in early August. Legislation from 1980 requires that Sinkyone Wilderness State Park become part of the California Wilderness System when the General Plan is approved. The Parks & Recreation Commission met for consideration and possible decision on the Interim Management Plan and Environmental Impact Report on November 3rd at Benbow. There are some problems with the Plan, like a lack of adequate planning for wildfire hazard. Also, a stakeholders advisory group for Sinkyone Wilderness State Park is essential. There is a high turnover of personnel at P&R and loss of institutional memory. An effective and representative advisory group could provide institutional memory and act in the interests of that coast. Historically the Commission supported Sinkyone Wilderness, with the Department continually undercutting efforts for protection. If not for the public and a couple of right-acting politicians, there would be no Sinkyone Wilderness or Sinkyone Wilderness State Park. More on this next time.
Get in touch with EPIC at (707) 923-2931 and Humboldt Watershed Council at (707) 822-1166 for the latest information on many of the above topics and other issues. Please get involved in ways that are effective and meaningful for you, and that contribute to real solutions.