For the last 15 years, SPAWN has fought to adopt a science-based stream conservation area ordinance in the San Geronimo Valley that would protect some of the most vulnerable salmon habitats left in California from development.
Litigation has its time and place, but so does compromise. While this ordinance may not be perfect, it is a pragmatic solution that adequately addresses the environmental obstacles before us.
The Salmon Protection and Watershed Network is dedicated to easing the uphill battle salmon face due to the rise of dams, concrete retaining walls and anthropogenic-driven climate change.
The Convention on Biological Diversity found that nature is being destroyed at a rate up to hundreds of times higher than the average for the previous 10 million years. Marin County is on the front lines. The loss of streamside habitat has contributed to a 95% reduction of coho salmon.
Marin officials identified the Lagunitas Creek watershed as the most important coho run in California and the San Geronimo Valley is home to many coho. Marin’s scientific study identified the loss of habitat as the most likely cause limiting salmon production and the adoption of a conservation ordinance as a solution to protect the riparian habitat.
I am here to clarify that this ordinance doesn’t contain anything revolutionary. It comprises commonsense protections based on the county’s science and policy initiatives proposed in the 2007 and 1994 countywide plans.
Contrary to popular belief, adopting the ordinance was the county’s idea, not SPAWN’s. The 1994 plan identified streamside habitat as “irreplaceable and should be officially recognized and protected as essential environmental resources.”
This sentiment carried into the 2007 plan document, which called for a “no net loss of sensitive habitat acreage, value, and function.” That’s the guiding principle of the current stream conservation ordinance.
Policies to achieve that target include a 2-1 ratio for habitat replacement when development occurs within the ordinance area. This initiative was recommended in the 1994 and 2007 plans, the county’s final supplemental environmental impact report and the county’s salmon enhancement plan. The environmental report proposed a 3-1 ratio offsite habitat replacement of riparian vegetation, and the salmon plan called for a 4-1 ratio for replacement of shallower bank slopes.
An additional component of the ordinance is to have stronger limitations on development within the first 35 feet of a stream, a policy originating from the county’s salmon plan.
Expanding a 35-foot protection to ephemeral (seasonal) streams is not novel. Napa County’s version of a stream conservation area ordinance also requires a minimum setback of 35 feet for ephemeral streams. They have significant ecological importance, serving as a transfer system for required nutrients from perennial streams that support salmon.
If this policy passes, the best available science will continue to guide the ordinance. The Board of Supervisors will receive biannual reports that quantitatively measure the ordinance’s efficacy through eight performance indicators, allowing a science-driven dialogue on how to best protect the streams.
A final misconception is that the ordinance could compromise fire safety. However, it states that homeowners can trim trees and remove dead, exotic and invasive vegetation without a site review.
Homeowners can remove fire-prone trees as long as it’s consistent with existing county tree removal and fire laws. It also states any tree that places the public in immediate danger can be removed without a site plan review.
This ordinance does not conflict with, nor does it supersede, existing defensible space requirements.
In a sign of unity, the majority of local organizations support the adoption of the ordinance, including San Geronimo Valley Planning Group, Sierra Club Marin Group, the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, Marin Audobon Society, Natural Heritage Institute, the River Ecology Project, Marin chapter of the California Native Plant Society, Watershed Alliance of Marin and The Marin Conservation League.
Marin’s streams are in greater peril than when the ordinance was proposed nearly 30 years ago. As the valley goes, so do the salmon, making it paramount to protect the riparian habitat we have left while we continue to work hard to restore the habitats we’ve lost.
Let’s think globally, act locally and pass the expanded stream conservation area ordinance.
Scott Webb, of San Francisco, is advocacy and policy manager for the Salmon Protection and Watershed Network, a Marin-based nonprofit.
