<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: center"
align=center><B><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">Technical Review of
Interior Department Proposal Regarding Trinity River Record of Decision
Presented March 2, 2004 to the Hoopa Valley Tribe by <?xml:namespace prefix = o
ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
/><o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: center"
align=center><B><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">Bennett W. Raley,
Assistant Secretary Water and Science<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: center"
align=center><B><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">March 11,
2004<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: center"
align=center><B><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">Hoopa Valley Tribe
Fisheries Department<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt; TEXT-ALIGN: center"
align=center><U><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Introduction</FONT></U></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>On March 2, Bennett W. Raley, the Department of the Interior’s Assistant
Secretary for Water and Science convened a meeting in the Sacramento,
California, headquarters of the Bureau of Reclamation with California Nevada
Operations Manager Steve Thompson of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of
Reclamation Regional Director Kirk Rodgers, and Counselor to the Assistant
Secretary for Indian Affairs Michael Olsen. Department of Justice Attorney
Charles Shockey participated in a portion of the meeting by telephone.
Representatives of the Hoopa Valley Tribe attended the meeting, including Tribal
Chairman Clifford Lyle Marshall, Tribal Council members, Hoopa Fisheries
Department Staff, legal counsel and a tribal consultant.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>The meeting was convened so that Mr. Raley could present a proposal to
settle pending litigation that has blocked implementation of the Trinity River
Record of Decision (ROD) issued by the Secretary of the Interior with the
concurrence of the Hoopa Valley Tribe on December 19, 2000, pursuant to section
3406(b)(23) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Public Law
102-575.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>This is the third time since the ROD was issued that an alternative to
the ROD restoration decision has been proposed. An earlier proposal by the
Sacramento Municipal Utilities District was rejected after an independent
scientific review by the Geological Survey found it unworkable. Subsequently,
the Westlands Water District and San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority
made a proposal that also was rejected by the Tribe and the Department. Both
proposals failed because they could not accomplish the restoration objectives or
meet the scientific standards established by the Congress for the Trinity
River.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt; TEXT-ALIGN: center"
align=center><U><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">The
Proposal<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></U></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>Mr. Raley’s proposal (Proposal) would adjust the flows in the ROD in
Normal, Dry and Critically Dry years by substituting a range of flow allocations
in place of the fixed flows identified in the ROD. Flow allocations for Wet and
Extremely Wet year types would not change from those in the ROD. <U>See</U>
following Table. </FONT></P>
<DIV align=center>
<TABLE
style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"
cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=1>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD
style="BORDER-RIGHT: windowtext 0.5pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: windowtext 0.5pt solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: windowtext 0.5pt solid; WIDTH: 119.7pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent"
vAlign=top width=160>
<P class=MsoBodyText
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0in"><B><FONT
face="Times New Roman">Water Year<o:p></o:p></FONT></B></P></TD>
<TD
style="BORDER-RIGHT: windowtext 0.5pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: windowtext 0.5pt solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: #c0c0c0; WIDTH: 73.8pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt"
vAlign=top width=98>
<P class=MsoBodyText
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0in"><B><FONT
face="Times New Roman">ROD Flow (acre-feet)<o:p></o:p></FONT></B></P></TD>
<TD
style="BORDER-RIGHT: windowtext 0.5pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: windowtext 0.5pt solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: #c0c0c0; WIDTH: 96.9pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt"
vAlign=top width=129>
<P class=MsoBodyText
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0in"><B><FONT
face="Times New Roman">Proposed Flows
(acre-feet)<o:p></o:p></FONT></B></P></TD>
<TD
style="BORDER-RIGHT: windowtext 0.5pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: windowtext 0.5pt solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: #c0c0c0; WIDTH: 96.9pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt"
vAlign=top width=129>
<P class=MsoBodyText
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0in"><B><FONT
face="Times New Roman">Percent Change<o:p></o:p></FONT></B></P></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD
style="BORDER-RIGHT: windowtext 0.5pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: #c0c0c0; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: windowtext 0.5pt solid; WIDTH: 119.7pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt"
vAlign=top width=160>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0in"><FONT
face="Times New Roman">Normal</FONT></P></TD>
<TD
style="BORDER-RIGHT: windowtext 0.5pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: #c0c0c0; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: #c0c0c0; WIDTH: 73.8pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt"
vAlign=top width=98>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0in"><FONT
face="Times New Roman">649,900</FONT></P></TD>
<TD
style="BORDER-RIGHT: windowtext 0.5pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: #c0c0c0; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: #c0c0c0; WIDTH: 96.9pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt"
vAlign=top width=129>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0in"><FONT
face="Times New Roman">575,000-701,000</FONT></P></TD>
<TD
style="BORDER-RIGHT: windowtext 0.5pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: #c0c0c0; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: #c0c0c0; WIDTH: 96.9pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt"
vAlign=top width=129>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0in"><FONT
face="Times New Roman">(-12% to +8%)</FONT></P></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD
style="BORDER-RIGHT: windowtext 0.5pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: #c0c0c0; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: windowtext 0.5pt solid; WIDTH: 119.7pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt"
vAlign=top width=160>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0in"><FONT
face="Times New Roman">Dry</FONT></P></TD>
<TD
style="BORDER-RIGHT: windowtext 0.5pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: #c0c0c0; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: #c0c0c0; WIDTH: 73.8pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt"
vAlign=top width=98>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0in"><FONT
face="Times New Roman">452,600</FONT></P></TD>
<TD
style="BORDER-RIGHT: windowtext 0.5pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: #c0c0c0; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: #c0c0c0; WIDTH: 96.9pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt"
vAlign=top width=129>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0in"><FONT
face="Times New Roman">400,00-504,000</FONT></P></TD>
<TD
style="BORDER-RIGHT: windowtext 0.5pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: #c0c0c0; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: #c0c0c0; WIDTH: 96.9pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt"
vAlign=top width=129>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0in"><FONT
face="Times New Roman">(-12% to +11%)</FONT></P></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD
style="BORDER-RIGHT: windowtext 0.5pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: #c0c0c0; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: windowtext 0.5pt solid; WIDTH: 119.7pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt"
vAlign=top width=160>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0in"><FONT
face="Times New Roman">Critically Dry</FONT></P></TD>
<TD
style="BORDER-RIGHT: windowtext 0.5pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: #c0c0c0; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: #c0c0c0; WIDTH: 73.8pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt"
vAlign=top width=98>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0in"><FONT
face="Times New Roman">368,600</FONT></P></TD>
<TD
style="BORDER-RIGHT: windowtext 0.5pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: #c0c0c0; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: #c0c0c0; WIDTH: 96.9pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt"
vAlign=top width=129>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0in"><FONT
face="Times New Roman">340,000-396,000</FONT></P></TD>
<TD
style="BORDER-RIGHT: windowtext 0.5pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: #c0c0c0; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: #c0c0c0; WIDTH: 96.9pt; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt"
vAlign=top width=129>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0in"><FONT
face="Times New Roman">(-8% to +7%)</FONT></P></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>The allocation in each year would be at the low end of the range and
would be subject to adjustment within the year up to 20,000 acre-feet. The
20,000 acre-feet would be purchased from water users and banked in federal
reservoirs to be used for in-season adjustments. An additional water bank
account of 50,000 acre-feet of purchased water would be held in reserve for use
as needed to protect the fishery in the Klamath River below the Trinity
confluence. Further adjustments between years would be made as discussed in
paragraph 3 below.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt; TEXT-ALIGN: center"
align=center><U><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Analysis</FONT></U></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt; TEXT-ALIGN: left"
align=left><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>The following analysis was
prepared by the Hoopa Fisheries Department at the direction of the Hoopa Valley
Tribal Council with input from policy officials, technical staff, and legal
counsel.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>1) Although the proposal purports to present a “range”, it in fact
diminishes the ROD flows by eight to twelve percent as described in the table.
</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>2) The “range of flows” proposal is not supported by any scientific
analysis. In addition, the adoption of a range is based on a misunderstanding of
how mathematical probability analyses should be applied in determining
accurately and reliably the flow releases required for Trinity River
restoration.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1">
</SPAN>3) The managers of the restoration program could adjust the minimum flow
in one of two ways.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1">
</SPAN>a) <U>Intra-annual adjustment</U> In the event restoration managers
observe a need for more water than the base allocation in a Normal Year, there
would be authority to release an additional 20,000 acre-feet from the “Ready
Reserve Water Bank”. (The maximum reserve volume appears to be based on
political considerations, not sound science.) There is no process or standard
identified for determining the need for additional intra-annual releases. And
any administrative decision would be subject to judicial review with its
attendant costs and delays. The nature and extent of NEPA and ESA compliance
that might be required in the intra-annual adjustment are not addressed. Note
that in any event, the water bank account has only 20,000 acre-feet. Thus, in
Normal, Dry or Critically Dry Years the water bank would be insufficient to
bring flow releases up to the mid-range, that is ROD flow release, levels.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Intra-annual adjustments could only
occur pursuant to a process requiring several steps:<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>recognition of needs, assessment of
potential adjustments, and then a decision to implement a change in flows.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Consequently, flows made available
through this process could not timely address early-season fishery needs
relating to geofluvial processes or temperature conditions during smolt
outmigration, both of which are critical to restoration.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1">
</SPAN>b) <U>Inter-annual adjustment</U> At the end of each water year, an
assessment would be made as to whether the flow release for that year had been
adequate for fishery restoration and propagation. If it is proven to be
inadequate, an adjustment would be made in the next occurrence of the same water
year type, which could be several years later. But by that time the
circumstances may not be comparable and the benefit of an increased allocation
would be difficult to assess. By the same token, if an excess of water is deemed
somehow to have been allocated then there would be a debit in the future water
year that under the circumstances of that year could prove harmful to the
fishery and the harm would not be assessed until the end of the year. As with
the intra-annual adjustment, there is no provision for a process or standard by
which the inter-annual adjustment would be made, or environmental reviews would
occur.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>4) Whatever process and standard are established for adjustment of
fishery flow releases may require diversion of personnel and resources of the
adaptive management team. Instead of being able to rely on a constant volume of
water as determined in the Trinity River Flow Evaluation Study, Final Report
(June 1999) (TRFES), restoration program scientists and managers will be
required annually to work with a reduced and variable water supply for each of
three possible water year types. The Proposal’s introduction of “debits” or
“credits” in the fishery flow releases could affect the ability of restoration
scientists to test adaptive management hypotheses. This could fundamentally
alter the nature of the adaptive management program whose purpose is to conduct
“a formal, systematic, and rigorous program of learning from the outcomes of
management actions, accommodating change, and improving management,” TRFES
Appendix N, June 1999.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>5) There is a 20,000 acre-feet cap on any intra-annual increase. That cap
is further dependent on timely funding and availability of water for purchase in
the Ready Reserve Water Bank. The Proposal would make the Ready Reserve Water
Bank Account “top water”; that is, the first water spilled from CVP
reservoirs.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>6) There is a second “Emergency fall reserve” water account under the
Proposal. This account in the amount of 50,000 acre-feet would be established to
ensure the protection of the Klamath River fishery below the Trinity River
confluence. This water would be purchased by the Department and would also be
“top water.” The proposal ignores the fact that the authorizing legislation for
the Trinity River Division and the associated state permits require that the
Secretary release 50,000 acre-feet of water annually and make it available to
Humboldt County and downstream water users. The Bureau of Reclamation entered
into a contract with Humboldt County to implement that provision in 1959.
Humboldt County has informed the Secretary that it intends to use the water for
restoration and maintenance of the lower Klamath fishery. To date the Secretary
has failed to honor the contract.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>7) The Proposal estimates that there would be a recurring $5 to 7 million
cost to purchase the water to maintain the Ready Reserve Water Bank and the
Emergency Fall Reserve. However the federal reclamation law pertaining to the
construction and operation of the Trinity River Division, and the State permit
conditions to which the operation of the TRD is subject, establish a first
priority of use for Trinity River in-basin fishery needs over exports of water
to the Central Valley. In view of the reduced federal budgets for Reclamation
and the already keen competition for appropriated funds, there can be no
reasonable expectation of readily available funding for this purpose. Any
funding that is provided is almost certainly to come from other CVP operation,
maintenance or environmental restoration programs.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>8) The CVPIA expressly requires the Secretary to “operate the Central
Valley Project . . . to meet all obligations under State . . . law . . . and all
decisions of the California State Water Resources Control Board establishing
conditions on . . . permits for the [Central Valley] project” Pub. L. 102-575
§3406(b)). The Proposal effectively would abandon the priority and entitlement
to no-cost Trinity River Division water and undertake a permanent, recurring
obligation to purchase water. Such a fundamental deviation from the law
governing the Trinity River cannot be reconciled with the express federal trust
obligation established in the CVPIA to protect and restore the Trinity River
fishery for the benefit of the Hoopa Valley Tribe.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1">
</SPAN>9) The Proposal closely resembles arguments made and rejected in the
litigation brought to challenge the ROD, <U>Westlands Water District, et al. v.
United States</U>, 275 F.Supp.2d 1157 (E.D. Cal. 2002) Civ. No. F-00-7124
(Memorandum Decision and Order, December 10, 2002). Essentially, the plaintiffs
argued that there was uncertainty in the underlying science and so it would be
arbitrary and capricious for the Secretary to have “locked in permanent fixed
amounts of water that are to be released in each water year type, even though
the science that purports to measure the necessity of those amounts was not
certain." <U>Id. at </U>128. The Court went on to state that "An agency decision
is not arbitrary or capricious because the agency recognizes the limitations of
the information upon which it bases a decision. The fact that Interior has
acknowledged it will learn new facts in the future, that river flow management
is dynamic, and climatic conditions, upon which CVP water supply depend,
uncertain, are indicative<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>of a
reflective decisionmaking process, not arbitrariness." <U>Id.</U> at
129.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1">
</SPAN>The Court pointed out that best available scientific data is not exact
and concluded "To the contrary, the certainty Plaintiff's seek <U>could prevent
the mandated statutory goal of flow restoration<I> </I>from ever being
implemented</U>" (emphasis added) <U>Id.</U> at 130.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1">
</SPAN>On page 131 of the opinion, Judge Wanger squarely confronted the problem
with the approach that the Proposal takes. (The difference between the March 2
Proposal and the plaintiffs’ argument rejected by Judge Wanger is that the
former would arbitrarily limit what the adjustment could be, so in that respect
the March 2 proposal is even more restrictive than the plaintiffs’ failed
argument to Judge Wanger). Judge Wanger states:</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 1in; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>[P]laintiffs propose that the flows proceed “on a
yearly basis to posit necessary flows, test those in accordance with the
adaptive management plan and make necessary yearly adjustments.”<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>They argue that Section (b)(23) does not
require the Secretary to actually implement the permanent instream flows.
</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 1in; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><FONT
size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1">
</SPAN>Section (b)(23) has two subsections. The first mandates that the TRFES be
<U>completed</U> and that it make recommendations regarding <U>permanent</U>
instream flows [emphasis in original].<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>The second mandates that the recommendations be forwarded to Congress no
later than December 31, 1996 and that if the Secretary and the Hoopa Valley
Tribe concur, that those recommendations be implemented. The term `permanent' in
the first section combined with the mandate that the recommendations actually be
implemented upon the occurrence of finite events, forecloses plaintiffs'
interpretation. Plaintiffs proposal that the instream flows for the Trinity
River continue to be studied on a yearly basis and be changed, annually, based
upon new information in perpetuity derogates the statute's use of the term
“permanent”. “Permanent” is defined as “existing perpetually; everlasting,
especially without significant change” and “intended to exist or function for a
long, indefinite period without regard to unforeseeable
conditions.”</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 1in; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><FONT
size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>Citations omitted, <U>id.</U> at
131-132.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>Thus, Judge Wanger’s ruling made it clear that the science of the ROD is
sound and legally sufficient. Yet, it is this significant judicial victory for
the Tribe’s trust resource that the March 2 Proposal would negate.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt; TEXT-ALIGN: center"
align=center><U><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman">Conclusion<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></U></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>Because the Proposal cannot accomplish the restoration objectives or meet
the scientific standards established by the Congress for the Trinity River, the
Tribe respectfully requests that the Proposal be
withdrawn.</FONT></P></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>