<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18999">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I understand that the Trinity Management Council is
meeting this week and one of the discussion items is whether there should be
funding of projects in the South Fork Trinity River and perhaps downstream of
the North Fork Trinity River confluence.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Below is a draft issue paper that I put together back in
2003 when I worked for Trinity County. So far, the Trinity River
Restoration Program will not fund watershed restoration activities in the South
Fork Trinity River basin. The issue paper was never finalized or adopted
by anybody, so it was and is my personal and professional opinion only then
and at this time.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>If somebody has the TMC agenda, it might be a good idea to
post it on this list server.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Tom Stokely<BR>Water Policy Analyst/Media
Contact<BR>California Water Impact Network<BR>V/FAX 530-926-9727<BR>Cell
530-524-0315<BR><A href="mailto:tstokely@att.net">tstokely@att.net</A><BR><A
href="http://www.c-win.org/">http://www.c-win.org/</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>ISSUE PAPER FOR THE TRINITY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL<BR>IS THERE A CAUSAL LINK
BETWEEN RESTORATION ACTIVITIES <BR>IN THE SOUTH FORK TRINITY RIVER AND OTHER
TRIBUTARIES<BR>AND THE TRINITY RIVER DIVISION OF THE CVP<BR>DRAFT
1/9/03<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT><BR>Background </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Funding for the Trinity River Restoration Program (TRRP) between 1985 and
1998 occurred under the authorization of the Trinity River Basin Fish and
Wildlife Management Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-541, as amended). When the
funding authorities of PL 98-541 expired on October 1, 1998, there were
questions about whether or not all or a portion of the activities of the TRRP
were authorized for funding through the Bureau of Reclamation’s budget and the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA), including the CVPIA Restoration
Fund (CVPIA RF). As a result, former California First District
Representative Frank D. Riggs requested a legal opinion from the Department of
Interior on what funding authorities would exist after expiration of funding
authorities in P.L. 98-541. On May 22, 1998, the Interior Department
responded to Representative Riggs with an Interior Solicitor’s Opinion on the
subject matter (attached). </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Of particular interest and varied interpretation, is a footnote on page 5
of the Solicitor’s Opinion, which states as follows:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>“Like the mechanical restoration recommendations, sediment control
management entails activities independent of management of a flow regime or
OCAP. Nonetheless, to the extent activities are designed to address
“adverse environmental impacts of the project” they are authorized by Section
3406(b)(1).”</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>And</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>“Other activities may also fall under the authority of section 3406(b)(1),
to the extent they are directed at rectifying the impacts sustained from
operation the Project (“the Secretary shall make all reasonable efforts…to
address other identified adverse environmental impacts of the Central Valley
Project”). If no causal link be established between the harm being
rectified and the operation of the Project, section 3406(b)(1) is inapplicable.”
(emphasis added) </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>And a footnote:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>“To the extent the Flow Study identifies work on tributaries or elsewhere
in the Basin that lacks a causal link to impacts of the project, reauthorization
of the 1984 Act might prove an appropriate vehicle for seeking authorization of
such work. Such a conclusion seems premature, however, until the
recommendations of the Flow Study are finalized and until compliance with NEPA
is complete.”</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR>It is understood that the Bureau of Reclamation’s (Reclamation)
interpretation of the 1998 Solicitor’s Opinion regarding the Trinity River
Restoration Program, is that the expenditure of program funds on watershed
restoration within the South Fork Trinity River basin (and possibly other
tributaries below the North Fork confluence) has been prohibited on the grounds
that there is no “causal link” between problems in the South Fork of the Trinity
River and other tributaries and the operation of the Trinity River Division
(TRD) of the Central Valley Project (CVP). The discussion below could be used by
the Trinity Management Council or the Trinity Adaptive Management Working Group
to make a finding that there is a strong “causal link” between the South Fork
Trinity River and other tributaries, and the operation of the TRD.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The Solicitor’s Opinion recognizes the Trinity River Division as part of
the Central Valley Project, thus qualifying the Trinity River as a part of the
anadromous fish restoration program directed towards Central Valley rivers and
streams. The opinion states that Congress has directed the Secretary to
address adverse impacts of the project, including those activities directed at
rectifying the impacts sustained from operating the Project (“the Secretary
shall make all reasonable efforts . . . to address other identified adverse
environmental impacts of the Central Valley Project”) provided that a causal
link can be established between the harm being rectified and the operation of
the Project.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The causal linkage between watershed restoration, fisheries restoration and
monitoring work in the South Fork and other tributaries of the Trinity River can
be put into four categories as follows:</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>• Sediment and water quality contributions to the mainstem Trinity
River<BR>• Hatchery and fish harvest impacts to the South Fork and other
tributaries<BR>• The use of tributary fish in meeting Trinity River fishery
restoration and ESA goals<BR>• Consistency with the Trinity River Record of
Decision (Trinity ROD)<BR> <BR>Sediment and Water Quality Contributions to
the Mainstem Trinity River</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The South Fork of the Trinity River is inextricably linked to the Trinity
River system. As the Trinity River’s largest tributary encompassing
approximately one-third of the Trinity River watershed, the South Fork annually
contributes large amounts of sediment into the system which cannot be flushed
out as a result of “streamflow depletion” (see “Water Quality Control Plan for
the North Coast Region” North Coast Water Quality Control Board, pg
I-15). Sediment loading from the Trinity River’s tributaries has
contributed to poor water quality conditions in the mainstem Trinity, and has
resulted in the loss of anadromous habitat, such as juvenile salmon and
steelhead moving through the lower Trinity and Klamath Rivers which are trying
to get to the Pacific Ocean. Flows are often reduced during the spring
smolt outmigration period as a result of Reclamation’s diversions from both the
Trinity and Klamath projects. Reduced flows can result in increased adult
fish densities, increased temperatures and low dissolved oxygen and fish kills
under certain circumstances such as the historic fish kill of September
2002. </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Formerly deep pools have filled in, and in some areas, the river runs wider
and shallower, thus reducing fish habitat and pool refugia. This is easily
demonstrated in odd numbered years through Reclamation’s additional water
releases from Trinity Dam for the Hoopa Valley Tribe's Boat Dance
Ceremony. Reclamation, since 1993, has increased Lewiston Dam releases
from 450 cfs to 1250 cfs (1650 cfs in 2001) in late August or early September
for the Boat Dance on the premise that the traditional log canoes can no longer
go down the river during that time due of year due to sediment accumulation in
the Hoopa Valley (downstream of the South Fork confluence). The Hoopa Valley
Tribe contends that many of the traditional holes and runs have been filled with
sediment, thus the river runs wider and shallower. The relationship of
sediment from the South Fork and the operation of the TRD clearly establishes a
causal link between the adverse environmental impacts that have resulted since
the construction of the TRD and the Trinity River. <BR> <BR>Hatchery
and fish harvest impacts to the South Fork and other tributaries</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The effects of the dam go far beyond sediment and instream habitat issues
of the mainstem river, and have far reaching effects on the river’s tributaries
through the complex dynamics of anadromous fish populations and their
interactions with other biological elements. South Fork anadromous fish
populations have been severely impacted by the reductions of Trinity and Klamath
populations in terms of both actual numerical loss and stock diversity
loss. For instance, when the Klamath and Trinity fall chinook runs are
strong, but South Fork runs are not, fish harvest allocations are increased,
thus increasing pressure on a weak stock. Conversely, as Klamath-Trinity
stocks have declined overall, SFTR fish have, in the past, been harvested at a
higher and higher rate, and as a weak stock, their decline is precipitous and
disproportionate. The dams on both the Klamath and Trinity systems have
had a dramatic effect on the Klamath-Trinity anadromous fish runs, and have also
been instrumental in the decline of the South Fork runs. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Additionally, the introduction of hatchery stocks through straying or past
planting into the South Fork and other tributaries has had negative impacts in
terms of loss of genetic diversity, and reductions in population size caused by
competition, predation, disease, and other factors. For example, direct genetic
effects occur as hatchery fish interbreed with natives, resulting in the loss of
genetic diversity. With salmonids, the concern is that a variety of
locally adapted stocks will be replaced with a smaller number of relatively
homogeneous ones (Allendorf and Leary, 1988). This process of
consolidation tends to limit the evolutionary potential of the species as a
whole. For example, different salmonid populations utilize spawning,
rearing, migratory, and oceanic resources in a variety of ways and show a
similar diversity in response to changing environmental conditions. This
diversity helps to buffer population loss against periodic or unpredictable
changes (Riggs 1990). Without this diversity, weaker stocks are put at
higher risk. For example, as the hatcheries produces more and more fish
and the ocean harvest increases, a strain is put on weak stocks as harvest
quotas are increased for all stocks, without a corresponding increase in the run
size of weaker stocks such as those in the South Fork Trinity River. These
factors, including the South Fork Trinity River’s anadromous fish populations as
they relate to the Trinity River, demonstrate a causal link between the South
Fork Trinity River and the harm that has been imposed on the system through the
construction and operation of the TRD of the CVP. This includes the
operation of the Trinity River Hatchery at Lewiston. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The use of tributary fish to meeting Trinity River fishery restoration
goals</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>This causal linkage is further demonstrated through the South Fork’s role
in meeting restoration program goals. In helping to determine compliance with
TRRP numerical fishery restoration goals, upstream adult migrant fish traps are
set at Willow Creek where numbers of fish moving upstream to spawn are
counted. Located below the confluence of the South Fork and the mainstem
Trinity River, those fish counted at Willow Creek moving upstream to spawn in
the South Fork and other tributaries play an important role in determining
compliance with Trinity River Restoration Program fishery goals, as well as
determination of adult chinook populations for Harvest Management
purposes. The information is closely linked to the Trinity River
Restoration Program and the harm being rectified associated with the operation
of the TRD. Downstream juvenile salmonid migrant fish traps are also
placed downstream of the South Fork’s confluence with the Trinity River.
Those fish would also be counted as meeting restoration program goals for smolt
production, if the trapping program could be calibrated to actual populations of
smolts.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In addition to meeting overall TRRP fishery restoration goals, the South
Fork and other tributaries have an important role to play in restoration of the
coho salmon, which are listed as “threatened” under both the federal and State
Endangered Species Acts. The only known and consistent population of
non-hatchery coho salmon is located in Old Campbell Creek, a tributary of the
lower South Fork Trinity. Stream surveys conducted by the California
Department of Fish and Game in 2002 may have found coho juveniles in other South
Fork tributaries. Coho are known, in general, to prefer tributaries for
spawning and rearing because of suitable habitat conditions found there.
If the Trinity River Restoration Program develops or is assigned an ESA or CESA
coho recovery target, it is clear that tributaries, including the South Fork
will play a vital role in coho recovery.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Consistency with Trinity River Record of Decision (Trinity ROD)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Finally, the Watershed Restoration Component of the ROD explicitly calls
for watershed restoration throughout the Trinity River basin. The ROD
states as follows:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>“This decision recognizes that restoration and perpetual maintenance of the
Trinity River’s fishery resources require rehabilitating the river itself,
restoring the attributes that produce a healthy, functioning alluvial river
system. Therefore, the components of the selected course of action
include:”<BR>…</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>“Sediment management, including the supplementation of spawning gravels
below the TRD and reduction in fine sediments which degrade fish habitats.”
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>and</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>“The Trinity Management Council will guide an upslope watershed restoration
program to address the problems of excessive sediment input from many of the
tributaries of the Trinity River resulting from land use practices. The
watershed protection program of the Preferred Alternative includes road
maintenance, road rehabilitation and road decommissioning on private and public
lands within the Trinity River basin below Lewiston Dam, including the South
Fork Trinity River basin. Approximately 80 percent of the lands within the
Trinity basin are federally managed of which the USDA Forest Service administers
approximately 95 percent and the Bureau of Land Management administers five
percent. Of the remaining 20 percent privately owned land in the basin,
approximately half (10 percent of the total) are industrial timberlands, with
the remainder being small private holdings. Additional environmental planning
and environmental compliance steps will be performed as necessary in order to
acquire all the necessary permits and other authorizations prior to
implementation of this portion of the Preferred Alternative.”</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Furthermore, the Final EIS/EIR states (page C-17):</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>“CVPIA Restoration Fund- An Interior Solicitor’s Opinion states that these
funds, appropriated by Congress from fees charged to CVP water and power users,
could be used to implement this ROD. This could include watershed
protection and restoration activities.”</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The Trinity ROD makes no differentiation between the South Fork and the
mainstem Trinity River, nor does it contain any prohibition whatsoever on
allocation of funding to implement watershed restoration. Lack of any
funding authority by the TMC for the South Fork and other tributaries appears to
undermine the Trinity ROD’s effectiveness and the TMC’s authority.
<BR> <BR>Implementation Strategies</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The Trinity River Task Force allocated substantial funds to the South Fork
and watersheds in general after issuance of the North Coast Regional Water
Quality Control Board’s Cease and Desist Order on mainstem restoration program
in 1993. Concerns exist among some Trinity River Restoration Program
participants that the tributaries and watersheds of the Trinity River will
siphon off substantial sums of money that would otherwise be used to “restore”
the mainstem. No funds have been spent in the South Fork since about 1998
because of Reclamation’s objections, but the issue has never been resolved at
the level of the TMC. </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Since 1998, work in tributaries and watersheds (other than Grass Valley
Creek) has come primarily through the California Department of Fish and Game’s
Coastal Salmon Recovery Program (formerly known as the SB 271 program).
Over $3 million has been allocated to the Trinity River and lower Klamath River
over the past 3 years for a variety of projects including, but not limited to
education, environmental review and permitting of the Trinity River bridges
project, road and watershed inventories, fish barrier removal, and extensive
up-slope watershed restoration and road decommissioning by the Yurok Tribe, the
Trinity County Resource Conservation District and others.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Funding for projects in the South Fork and other tributaries need not be
substantial, but could still make a big difference. For instance, small
amounts of funding through the Trinity River Restoration Program could provide
strategic matching fund sources for programs such as Clean Water Act 205j and
319h, Fish and Game’s Coastal Salmon Recovery Program (CSRP), Forest Service
Resource Advisory Committee funds and other programs. Funding of
coordination for the South Fork Trinity River CRMP could be tailored to
specifically develop project proposals to submit to the CSRP. It would
indeed be unreasonable to expect that the Trinity River Restoration Program
(TRRP) should shoulder the entire burden, but occasional strategic contributions
from the TRRP could generate substantial funding from other sources to help meet
fishery restoration goals for the Trinity River.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Recommendation</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It should be the position of the Trinity Management Council that there is a
clear causal link between the South Fork Trinity River, and other tributaries
and watersheds in the Trinity River Basin and the adverse impacts that have
resulted from the construction and operation of the TRD for the reasons stated
above. The TMC should determine that it is appropriate and proper for the
Trinity River Restoration Program, through whatever funds are available, to fund
appropriate monitoring and restoration work on the South Fork Trinity River, as
well as other tributaries from Lewiston Dam to the Pacific Ocean (excluding the
Klamath River upstream of Weitchpec). The Trinity Adaptive Management
Working Group should be given an opportunity to evaluate the issue prior to
action by the TMC.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>