3/8/14
Here on the North Coast of California, salmon and steelhead are an amazing renewable resource that have been integral to the social, spiritual and economic health of our region for thousands of years. Although most populations are currently listed as threatened or endangered species, there are still limited opportunities for tribal, commercial and sport fishers to enjoy the benefits of these fisheries.
Many other businesses that cater to the fishing industry also derive income and livelihoods.
After a century-plus legacy of watershed degradation and overfishing, concerted efforts by a diverse segment of our community have worked together to heal our watersheds in an attempt to restore salmon and steelhead fisheries. Restoration efforts have focused on reducing catch numbers and improving instream habitat.
These ongoing efforts require diligence and a long-term vision. If we are successful in restoring our fisheries, it is hard to exaggerate the ecological and economic benefits that future generations could enjoy.
The Humboldt County General Plan contains admirable goals which recognize the importance and economic value of healthy watersheds with abundant salmon and steelhead runs. A primary goal is to “maintain or restore biological resources for long-term public and economic benefits.” In regards to watershed protection, “riparian corridors will be protected from encroachment with development restrictions” with an “emphasis on the protection and restoration of endangered or threatened species.”
Sounds promising?
Unfortunately, in the past 45 days our Planning Commission moved to weaken the protection of fish-bearing streams in the General Plan Update. Within the plan’s conservation element, Standard BR-S5 defines a Streamside Management Area (SMA), or in lay terms a “streamside riparian buffer.” The SMA definition that the Planning Commission revised had been developed through an extensive review period and was based on current California Board of Forestry rules with the caveats that “the width of a SMA shall be expanded when supported by written evidence from the requesting referral agency” and “where Forest Practice Rules designate wider stream buffer areas, the widths of the SMA shall be expanded to be consistent with those regulations.”
Prior the Planning Commission’s revision of BR-S5, my main criticism of the SMA definition was the weaker standard placed on intermittent fish-bearing streams, a 50-foot buffer versus 150 feet. Seasonally, intermittent streams provide essential spawning and rearing habitat for coho salmon and steelhead. Given the current stressors of dry winters, a changing climate and un-permitted water extractions, many of our local streams that once flowed year-round are now intermittent. These streams need more protection, not less.
Based on the Planning Commission’s revisions to BR-S5 and a straw vote which approved these edits on Jan. 30, my additional concerns include: lack of compliance with Forest Practice Rules, a reduction of buffer widths on perennial streams, and a weakening of language regarding agency input (“shall” replaced with “may”). These changes rendered the General Plan’s SMA definition noncompliant with state and federal standards. If adopted, this definition of a SMA could jeopardize our fisheries and associated economic benefits.
I was pleasantly surprised when the Planning Commission reversed its straw vote and rejected the watered-down SMA definition at its Feb. 27 meeting. I sincerely would like to thank the three commissioners who voted to reject the revised SMA definition. At the same time, it’s discouraging to note that it took several meetings and diligent presentations by California Department of Fish and Wildlife scientist Gordon Leppig and others to convince several commissioners that reducing streamside protections would be unwise.
So what’s the next step? I suppose the SMA definition gets kicked back to the Board of Supervisors for them to decide its fate: maintain the current version or override the Planning Commission’s 3-3-1 vote and adopt the weakened, non-compliant version. This is where I would encourage you, the public, to voice your opinion. If you fish in the rivers or ocean for salmon and steelhead (as a tribal member, commercial fishermen, professional guide or sport-fisher) or run a business that derives income from the fishing industry, please let the Board of Supervisors know that you want adequate protection to streamside management areas in the General Plan. Let the supervisors know that they should take the necessary steps to foster salmon and steelhead recovery so that future generations of Humboldt County residents may also share in the benefits provided by viable fisheries.
Ross Taylor has worked locally as a fisheries biologist since 1986.
