Comments to NMFS by Mark Christensen Chair of the CRWC as an individual:

                                                                                                March 1, 2000

Branch Chief, Protected Resources Division

National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region

525 N.E. Oregon Street, Suite 500

Portland, OR 97232-2737

I comment on the proposed 4-D rules on behalf of the Carmel River Watershed Council.   The Council was established in November, 1999.  We are still primarily engaged in preliminary, start-up activities, so we are able to make only very preliminary, general comments in time for the March 6, deadline.

Our principal questions, or concerns, about the 4-D rules pertain to habitat conservation plans.   We want to have effective habitat conservation programs that do not place an undue economic burden on landowners and managers.

            a) A likely outcome of adding another layer of federal regulation on top of multiple, overlapping, federal, state and local regulation is to make effective local action more difficult and expensive.  A rigid, inflexible system of rules, guidelines, etc could easily be counterproductive in practice.

b) Rules must make effective provision for the needs of smaller operators who lack professional staffs.  We are concerned to shield small ranchers and riparian property owners who need to do emergency work (to a road, a culvert, etc.) from expensive bureaucratic processes that apply to large projects.  We do not mean to exempt the small stakeholder, but to make it easier for them to comply with the basic intent of the rules.  Can that be done?

            c) We are also concerned about the consequences of suspending the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.  Without the protections of that act, land managers may inadvertently be stripped of protection from inappropriate sanctions.

d) In general, whatever set of rules is adopted at the outset is likely to be defective in unintended or unanticipated ways.  An effective program will require provision for evaluation of outcomes on the ground, feedback into the rules-making system, effective learning from practice, and effective processes for amendment of plans, guidelines, and rules at local, state and federal levels.

Substantial sections of the proposed 4-D rules cite examples of plans, guidelines, and rules derived from practical experience in Oregon and Washington.  In central California both the natural environment and the socio-economic context are very different from those of the Northwest.  Most conspicuously, the climate of central California is Mediterranean, in sharp contrast to the Northwest, yielding much more variable river flows.  Further, the substrate here consists of granitic, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks, in contrast to the volcanic terranes of  the Cascades and coastal ranges in Oregon and Washington.  Different climate and substrate, taken together, yield different soils, different kinds of slope (erosional) processes, different floras and faunas—significantly different ecosystems.   The timber industry, which is so important in the Northwest, is virtually non-existent south of Monterey Bay; our patterns of land use are quite distinct.

It would be surprising, indeed, if all the rules and guidelines for habitat conservation developed to “fit” the environments of the Northwest, also “fit” as well the environments of central California.  The Carmel River Watershed Council is just beginning to address the real problems of habitat conservation, and we have much to learn.  We hope that the 4-D rules will help, rather than obstruct, our learning and effective action—but we fear they may not.  For that reason we urge that the 4-D rules explicitly provide clear opportunity for learning from experience on the ground in this very different environment – that the rules provide for amendments at local and state levels as experience is acquired.

                        Respectfully yours,

                        Mark N. Christensen      

                        Chair, Carmel River Watershed Council

P. S. The Carmel River Watershed Council is a broadly based, voluntary organization that comprises essentially all categories of stakeholders in the watershed. Following a six months effort to engage all  parties  who have substantial interests in the watershed, the Council was established in November, 1999.

 Mission Statement:  “The primary mission of the Carmel River Watershed Council (CRWC) is protection of the natural resources of the Carmel River Watershed.  The Council will balance environmental protection and the diverse needs of the community.  This will be accomplished by exemplifying integrity, inclusiveness, education and mutual respect.”

A Steering Committee is composed of representatives of 12 distinct stakeholder categories, including:

eight distinct categories of land owners/managers:; Grazers; Growers; Hospitality/Business; Natural Lands (public and private); Residential Groups; Riparian Flood Plain Residents; Cachagua (rural residential area); Water Purveyors.

and four categories of  interest groups: Environmental Groups;  Builders/Developers/Contractors; Recreationalists; Education/Cultural/Native American/Religious Resources