- a weekly column published in the Pioneer Press

I attended the hearing of the Fish and Game Commission (FGC) last week. The Commission voted to have their staff proceed with a “Notice of Intent” (NOI) to list northern California coho. As I understand it, staff will now have 10 days to prepare and publish the NOI. Then the public will have 45 days to submit comments before the listing is finalized at another meeting sometime in May.

I did speak with Pam Giacomini of the California Farm Bureau at the hearing, and several boxes of new data about positive population and habitat trends for northern California coho were submitted to the Commission. This information was analyzed by Chuck Hansen, Ph.D. I was assured by a representative of the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) that the data would be considered during the 45 day period.

When the listing is complete“take,” (hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill,) of a coho of any lifestage will be prohibited. Landowners and water users will need to assess the risk of prohibited take from their activities and obtain an incidental take permit (ITP,) if necessary. The ITP will establish measures the permitee will have to take to “minimize and fully mitigate” the impacts that his/her activity has on the coho species.

At the hearing, the FGC also voted to accept the recommendation by the DFG to approve a recovery plan developed by the state recovery team and the plan worked on by the Shasta – Scott Recovery Team (SSRT.) The version of the state plan included alternative “c” for timber. In addition, several regulatory requirements were listed to be added as conditions on timber ITPs. These will be even more severe than the heavy regulations for Threatened and Impaired (T&I) watersheds already imposed under the Forest Practice Rules.

The FGC also directed staff to continue to work with the County and local RCDs on the development of a “programmatic” (master) ITP for agricultural land and water users in the Shasta and Scott Valleys.

There were many excellent speakers at the hearing, including locals Don Howell, Bill Krum and Jim Ostrowski. Bill Hoy, Chairman of the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors, spoke for the County. He thanked the Commissioners for allowing Siskiyou County to develop its own recovery plan. He talked about all the projects that had been implemented in the Scott and Shasta since the FGC decided listing was warranted.

Attorney for the County, Roger Berliner, stated that, although the County did not have a problem with the SSRT recovery plan, the regulatory piece was very important. Acceptance of the recovery plan was inextricably linked to the continuance of normal agricultural practices under an ITP and streambed alteration agreements. Berliner pointed to all the work on the ground already accomplished through voluntary efforts and asked the Commissioners to put aside consideration of the SSRT plan while directing staff to work on a master ITP. Siskiyou County;" pledged the services of its Natural Resource Specialist, Jim DePree, to help facilitate the ITP process.

The County’s requests were viewed by one Commissioner as an attempt to gain veto power over the recovery plan.

Although I sat in on many of the SSRT sessions, I was not a participant. Those who did participate gave the plan a recommendation of only a “preliminary favorable regard.” This was a method of moving past controversies so that they could be revisited in depth at a later date. It was the participants’ understanding that it would not be an official SSRT recommendation until they had finished the process, including the ITP. That understanding was, apparently, incorrect.

The SSRT plan was never presented to the Board of Supervisors and the Board never endorsed it at a Board meeting.

It seems to me that a recovery plan is supposed to be a voluntary, incentive-based plan to recover fisheries. It should not include regulatory strategies or elements. Particularly in light of the probable listing, I have some real concerns with many parts of the recovery plan which were never fully worked out, such as: studies to establish flow requirements for fish; the establishment of targets for minimum instream flows; studies to determine the relationship of groundwater to surface water; recommendations for groundwater allocation and regulation by 2006;and moving to mandatory watermastering in the Scott River Watershed.

Red flags are raised when I read that the federal Klamath basin-wide Conservation Implementation Plan is mentioned in the recovery plan as a partner. The Supervisors of Siskiyou County were elected by you to regulate land and water use on private lands. Each resource agency has been delegated specific authorities by the legislature and they are limited in their jurisdiction. It is my feeling that we need to clearly establish and maintain those lines of jurisdiction and authority that are in the County’s domain.

Yes, Virginia, when it comes to policy under the authority and jurisdiction of the Board of Supervisors of Siskiyou County, we do have a veto!