nd 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 the proper use a regulation of this management activity.
Ocean regulatory control is set for the near coastal water by the State of California, and from that zone out to 200 miles offshore by the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC). While the PFMC tries to regulate the coho fishery to provide optimum yealds on a sustainable basis, they do so by attempting to prevent overfishing. The process of regulation does not take into account the highly migratory nature of coho salmon, and in the past has tended to deal with authorizing fishing as a combined total, rather than acknowledging weak stocks. There have been attempts by the PFMC to change the practice of agglomeration, in and effort to protect endangered runs of salmon. Ocean migratory ranges have been determined by coded wire tagging, and fishing has been restricted to areas outside the range of these weak stocks. Recent protections afforded coho salmon by the PFMC has lead to fishing regulations and gear restrictions that have almost eliminated commercial and recreational catch of coho salmon in the ocean.
For recovery to succeed it is critical the protect important populations of locally adapted and geographically distinct stocks. At this time there is only one program (south of San Francisco) to manage coho salmon populations to maintain genetic diversity. More immediate actions must be taken. The loss of coho stocks that migrate over 200 miles from Eureka to Willits, (Eel River) is almost certain at this time, due to the small number of returning adults. This extinction will doom efforts to recover coho salmon in these and many other headwater streams throughout the Eel River basin. The future of coho salmon, its role as a natural resource, its ability to adapt in the future and survive by evolving are in jeopardy if we lose more of the runs that are now threatened with extinction.
The State of California has acknowledged a serious decline in fisheries since the early 1980s. The California Advisory Committee on Salmon Steelhead and Trout studied and r