ading to other areas. Some stocks of coho salmon may be resistant, but present methods of detecting the parasite are lacking and previous data on resistance may be confounded due a detection error. No information has been found to indicate the presence of C. shasta in California. This parasite as well as any other disease should be carefully monitored for, diligence by the State of California is this arena may be the best assurance against a set back in future restorations efforts.
The State Fish and Game Commission has listed coho salmon south of San Francisco as Endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. A Draft Recovery Plan has been developed and the Department of Fish and Game has taken some immediate action to protect and recover this important stock of coho salmon. The treatment of disease and emergency propagation of the few returning adults , has proven to be a very effective in greatly increasing spawning runs and reestablishing coho in neighboring streams that had completely lost their runs of coho salmon. Populations of coho salmon in streams with similar problems, await this same quick and decisive action.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the National Environmental Protection Act require a finding of significant impact (and mitigation applied) if a project will; 1) interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish 2) Substantially degrade water quality or 3) cause substantial flooding, erosion or sedimentation. However these protections can only be triggered if the public identifies the problem and it is deemed to meet the threshold of Substantial. The most onerous part of the process is when politics and economics cause the best alternatives to be rejected, in favor of watered down mitigations or alternatives that damage coho habitat. The failure of this system of regulations is evident when the cataloging of habitat destruction and population declines has continued unabated under this system of regulations. Further, the money spent on EIR and EIS documentation clearly exceeds by more than a 1000%, any money spent to protect or recover coho salmon habitat.
Recent studies by the Scientific Review Panel (SRP), set up by the Board of Forestry, determined that the existing Forest Practice Rules were not adequate to protect salmonids. Attempts to adopt new rules have been limited to modest protections for Class I watercourses, and they will automatically expire on December 31, 2000. The majority of rules suggested by the SRP were not adopted even though they were backed by the Department of Forestry, Department of Fish and Game and considered a good first step by the National Marine Fisheries Service. The Board of Forestry is attempting to adopt new rules to address Cumulative Effects and watershed analysis, but as mentioned previously the process of politics and economics will probably cause the best alternatives to be rejected.
The lack of habitat protection, and inability of existing regulations to affect watersheds and bring about aquatic ecosystem recovery, is at the core of why the process needs to be coordinated and upgraded. Despite all of the consistent and clear evidence provided by scientist, that damage to key environments has lead to losses in all salmonid populations, state and local governments have failed improve regulation of activities that are known to destroy and cause damage to aquatic ecosystems and watershed function.
For many decades salmon declines have been hidden behind a mask of hatchery produced fish. Hatchery production of non-native coho salmon inflates both the marine and freshwater populations, allowing losses to go unnoticed by the public. The worst effect of this practice is that hatcheries are also directly responsible for declines in coho salmon (Lichatowich and Nicholas, 1991). Some extinctions have been documented by NMFS, due to extensive introgression or mixing of non-native hatchery stocks with wild stocks. The existing program of hatchery operations must be evaluated by the Fish and Game Commission to determine 