Friends of Trinity River Newsletter, September 2009

8/9/2019 Friends of Trinity River Newsletter, September 2009

1/16

Board of Directors

Gary Seput

Thomas Stokely

Thomas Weseloh

Byron Leydecker http://www.fotr.org

FRIENDS OF TRINITY RIVER NEWSLETTERSeptember 2009

_____________________________________________________________________________

THE TRINITY REBORN

By: Thomas J. Weseloh

CaliforniasTrinity River is our nations best opportunity to restore salmon and

steelhead populations below a federally financed dam. Decades of study, monitoring andrehabilitation planning for the Trinity River watershed, combined with social and

political support, federal legal mandates and secure federal funding, create optimism that

salmonid populations can improve dramatically.

Mandated by law, the Trinitys fisheries and wildlife have priority over diversion of

water to the Central Valley Project, and are required to be protected and restored.

Programs and mechanisms to accomplish restoration are in place and currently are being

implemented. Will they work? Will the river be restored to its former glory? Can a

river below a dam be scaled down and still meet mandated goals of historic fishery

populations? This experiment currently is being conducted on the Trinity River.

The Setting

Trinity River originates in the rugged Trinity Alps Wilderness, located in far

northwestern California. It is a nationally renowned steelhead river very conducive to

fly fishing. The Trinity is the largest tributary to the Klamath River which some

Trinity advocates facetiously refer to as the North Fork Trinity.


2/16

The Trinity River is over 130 miles in length and drains 2,853 square miles, primarily inTrinity County. Trinity County is remote, defined by the federal government as

Frontier, and is mountainous with elevations ranging from 600 to over 9,000 feet. It is3,200 square miles, greater than the combined states ofRhode Island and Delaware and

roughly the size ofVermont though if flattened, the size ofTexas. Its population is

around 13,000 (4.1 people per square mile). Nearly half its residents (46.5%) live in twotowns the county seat ofWeaverville and in Hayfork. There are no stop lights inTrinity County. Problems associated with population growth and urbanization are

unlikely to inhibit restoration of the Trinity River.

Historical impacts to the Trinity River include gold mining - dredging, hydraulic andplacer - and commercial logging and associated road building, the detriments from which

were exacerbated by the 1955 and 1964 floods. In spite of the historical atrocities, fishpopulations remained relatively abundant prior to construction ofTrinity Dam.

Construction of the Trinity River Division (TRD) of the Central Valley Project

(CVP), (including construction ofTrinity Dam) was completed in 1963. Trinity andLewiston Dam which creates an afterbay below Trinity Dam (river mile 112) block 109

miles of high quality salmonid habitat. Water is diverted from the Trinity to out of basininterests via the Sacramento River and eventually is exported through pumps, canals

and aqueducts principally to the Western San Joaquin Valley.

The history of the TRD is replete with federal promises that the Trinity Basin would notbe harmed by construction ofTrinity Dam and related facilities. Prior to enactment of

legislation authorizing the TRD, during public hearings then-Congressman ClaireEngle declared the Trinity project does not contemplate diversion of one bucketful of

water which is necessary in this watershed. A Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) officialasserted that the fisheries would be improved. Congressionallegislation (Public Law

84-386) (1955 Act) authorized construction of the Trinity Project and specificallydirected the Secretary of Interior to adopt appropriate measures to insure the

preservation and propagation of fish and wildlife

During Congressional Hearings prior to enactment of the legislation, the BORrepresented to Congress that no more than 53 percent of the rivers water would be

diverted a statement that never has been corrected. Immediately upon completion ofthe dam, 90 percent of the rivers water was diverted.

Upon completion of the TRD, flows in the Trinity River obviously decreased

dramatically. In years until 2001, an annual average of 88 percent of total watershedrunoff (1,234,000 acre-feet) was diverted to the Sacramento River. The reduced and

stabilized Trinity River flow (about 140,000 acre-feet annually) failed to allowgeomorphic and fluvial processes to maintain the quality and quantity of available fish

habitat. This resulted in river channel simplification, fine sediment accumulation, poolfilling, riparian encroachment, and increased water temperatures. These detrimental

results contributed to significant decreases in fish populations with consequent severe


3/16

reductions to commercial, recreational and tribal fisheries and devastating impacts uponlocal and regional economies.

Estimates of pre-dam fish populations are sporadic and imperfect at best. The best

available scientific information suggests post-dam declines in excess of 80 percent with

current populations dominated by hatchery produced fish intended to mitigate for habitatblocked by Trinity Dam.

Current population status

Trinity River run size estimate averages above the Willow Creek weir (approximatelyriver mile 23) for 1977-2006 with hatchery component percentages are listed below.

Progeny of hatchery fish that spawn outside the hatchery are considered naturallyproduced.

Fall run Chinook salmon: 42,000 (55 percent hatchery).

Spring run Chinook salmon: 18,000 (59 percent hatchery).Coho salmon: 18,000 (90 percent hatchery).

Fall run Steelhead: 12,000 (56 percent hatchery).

Wild spring Chinook, confined mainly to the South Fork Trinity River, which isundammed and is the largest tributary to the Trinity, are perilously low and number only

in the hundreds. Coho salmon are listed as a threatened species by both the state andfederal governments in accordance with the California and Federal Endangered

SpeciesActs. Winter run Steelhead population estimates are not generated. Wildsummer run Steelhead in Trinity River tributaries average several hundred fish annually

with an occasional hatchery fish observed.

Fishing Opportunities

Fishing seasons for Chinook vary greatly with annual adjustments of seasons and baglimits based upon pre-season population predictions by the Pacific Fisheries

ManagementCouncil. While low Chinook returns to the Klamath-Trinity Basin canimpact commercial and recreational fishing in the ocean and throughout California and

southern Oregon, the recent complete closure to ocean salmon fishing in 2008 was basedupon poor returns to the Sacramento River.

Commercial and recreational Coho salmon seasons in the ocean and in-river have been

closed since the 1990s.

Wild Steelhead may not be harvested at any time but due to large hatchery Steelheadreturns (46,000 in 2007) the bag limit on hatchery Steelhead in the Trinity was increased

from one to two per day in 2008.


4/16

Tribal fishers are entitled to half of the harvestable surplus in the Klamath-Trinity Basin

and include a commercial fishery when available harvest quotas surpass ceremonial and

subsistence needs.

Flow and Restoration Mandates

A series of four federal laws, Interior Solicitors Opinions, and four Secretarial

Decisions - the latest in 2000 - resulted in the establishment of restoration programs and

increased returns of water to the river.

In 1981, Interior Secretary Cecil Andrus directed an increase in Trinity River flows

and a twelve year flow study to assess permanent flows needed to rejuvenate the

fisheries. However, increased returns of water to the river were not implemented for

several years because of drought conditions. The resultant Trinity River Flow

EvaluationStudy (TRFES) sought to determine instream flows and other measuresnecessary to restore and maintain the Trinity Rivers fishery.

Trinity supporters also convinced Congress to enact the Trinity River Basin Fish and

Wildlife Restoration Act in 1984 authorizing programs to restore natural fish and

wildlife populations to levels approximating those which existed immediately prior to the

construction of the Trinity Division.

Then, in 1991, Interior Secretary Manuel Lujan issued an Executive Order increasing

interim flows to 340,000 acre-feet annually. This was followed by Congressional

enactment of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (Miller/Bradley Act) in

October 1992 which codified the Secretarys Order.

A 1996 amendment to the Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act

clarified that restoration is to be measured not only by returning adult anadromous fish

spawners, but by the ability of dependent tribal, commercial, and sport fisheries to

participate fullyin the benefits of restoration.

The TRFES finally was completed in June 1999 and led to the federal and state Trinity

River Mainstem Fishery Restoration Environmental Impact Statement/Report

(EIS/EIR). The EIS/EIR became the basis for a Record of Decision (ROD) signed in

December 2000 by Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt. The ROD established the

TrinityRiver Restoration Program (TRRP) including three primary restoration

components: increased flows, physical rehabilitation and tributary restoration.

Additionally, the ROD established an implementation plan including organizational

structure, program participants, and fishery goals.


5/16

The New Trinity River ROD Era

The ROD strategy is not to recreate pre-dam conditions but to create a smaller dynamicalluvial channel exhibiting all of the characteristics of the pre-dam river but on a smaller

scale....This strategy is intended to best achieve restoration goals and to maintain the

purpose and use of the TRD. It is a political compromise of a complex biologicalrequirement to meet pre-dam salmon and steelhead populations.

The ROD is designed to unshackle the now channelized section of the river as a result ofextremely low flows using mechanical means (heavy equipment) and new flow regimes

to maintain a dynamic and alluvial but smaller river.

The ROD concept is to utilize a combination of actions to restore the river: 1) flowmanagement for geomorphic and riparian processes; 2) flow management for temperature

and habitat; 3) coarse sediment management; 4) channel and watershed restoration; and5) an adaptive management and monitoring program to improve restoration actions.

Fishery Goals for the TRRP from the EIS/EIR:

Fall Chinook 71,000 (9,000 hatchery)

Spring Chinook 9,000 (3,000 hatchery)Coho 3,500 (2,100 hatchery)

Winter Steelhead 50,000 (10,000 hatchery)Summer Steelhead goals have not been established.

New Flow Regime

Flow regime prior to adoption of the ROD advocated by many Trinity River supporters

was a return of 100 percent ofTrinity watershed runoff. Suggestions included Blow upthe dam and use the rubble to fill the diversion tunnel. However there were competing

interests, since unfortunately, the water and electricity yield from the TRD is one of themost valuable in California.

The average annual water return to the river set forth in the ROD was increased from 25

percent to 47 percent of average total runoff to Trinity Reservoir. Returns of water andmaximum flows to the river vary by water type years. Flow volumes and peak flows by

water type year are: Extremely Wet: 815,000 af and 11,000 cfs, Wet: 701,000 af and8,500 cfs, Normal: 647,000 af and 6,000 cfs, Dry: 453,000 af and 4,500 cfs, and

Critically Dry: 369,000 af and 1,500 cfs

Program Structure

Below is the organization structure of the Trinity River Restoration Program as setforth in the Secretarys ROD. The intent was that Trinity Management Council (TMC)

would have a direct line to the Department of Interior in Washington, D.C., a rare, ifnot unique chain of command. This was to assure the ROD would be implemented as


6/16

intended with any disputes, conflicts or differences at the TMC level resolved quicklyand decisively in accordance with the objectives of the ROD. Subsequently, about threeyears ago the Regional Directors of the US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWWS) andthe Bureau ofReclamation (BOR)inserted themselves on a crossbar between TMC andInterior.

Funding

Federal funding for implementation is provided principally through the (BOR) ($7million annually) and the(USFWS) ($2.2 annually) with the latter recently withholdingits appropriated funds from TRRP to use in a manner it sees fit to achieve riverrestoration objectives. Additional funds have been obtained through congressionalappropriations and state and federal grants. The TrinityManagement Council (TMC)and the Trinity Adaptive Management Working Group (TAMWG) both recognize


7/16

the actual cost of fully implementing the ROD is about $16 million annually. There iscontinuing debate over possible sources of additional funds. Should the entire cost beborne by the federal government via BOR/USFWS or should TRD beneficiaries share agreater load, and are there additional entities beyond state and federal agencies thatshould be required to contribute?

Adaptive Environmental Assessment Management and Science Framework

Adaptive Environmental Assessment Management(AEAM)is an approach utilized toprovide decision-makers with the ability to refine previous decisions based on the latestscientific information gathered to improve management of the TRRP. It is acombination of assessment and management with constant feedback and change(adaptation) required. The process develops and tests hypotheses about causal factorsnecessitating possible changes in the TRRPs previously implemented actions. AnIntegrated Assessment Plan (IAP) is being developed to identify key assessments thatevaluate long-term progress toward achieving Program goals and objectives; and to

provide short-term feedback to improve Program management actions by testing keyhypotheses and reducing management uncertainties.

The TRRP includes independent scientific peer review as a check and balance forprogram management. A five member Science Advisory Board (SAB) is appointed foroverarching program science reviews and rotating Expert Review Panels for projectspecific reviews. TRRP staff scientists (engineers, hydrologists, biologists, etc.) aresupported by additional county, state, federal, tribal and consulting scientists with diversebackgrounds and experience. Coordination and cooperation is an occasional stumblingblock but competency is not.

Litigation and Clearing the Floodplain

The 2000 ROD specified new flow regimes with releases of up to 11,000 cubic feet persecond (cfs) in extremely wet years. Sadly, the ROD was litigated immediately by therecipients of the federally subsidized water and power generated by Trinity diversions,principally Westlands Water District in the Western San Joaquin Valley. Based uponan injunction by FederalJudge Oliver Wanger, flows were capped at 369,000 acre-feet(a critically dry water year type under the ROD until the case was decided. The litigationwas decided in favor of the Interior Department and others (the ROD) by the U.S.Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals with a final ruling issued in 2004.

For years Trinity County permitted construction of homes, bridges, wells, and otherstructures in the historic floodplain below the dams that would be inundated by RODprescribed flows. From 2002 to 2005 four bridges were replaced, homes, wells andstructures were removed and thus the floodplain was reclaimed. This allowed for a


8/16

10,500 cfs release in 2005, an extremely wet water-type year - the largest release of flowsfor fishery purposes since completion of the dams.

Mechanical and Other Physical RestorationActivities

Studies completed in the 1990s identified flows in excess of 24,000 cfs would berequired to remove the berms constricting the channel. Trinity Dam has a maximumcontrolled release capacity of 13,750 cfs. A one-time mechanical removal of berms inconjunction with increased flows as maintenance is designed to recreate an alluvialriver. A total 47 channel altering projects is planned in the upper 40 miles of river. Theintent of these mechanical projects is to unshackle the channelized portion of the riverallowing for natural meander sequences and to create juvenile rearing habitat. The latteris thought to be the limiting factor in restoring wild fish populations.

By the end of 2008, sixteen channel altering projects were completed. It is believed thatwith current funding, all remaining projects will be completed by 2013. There are

differences of opinion among some program participants about the size and scope ofproposed channel projects and the approaches towards monitoring these projects. This, inpart, has led the USFWS to withhold funds appropriated by Congress through it for theTRRP.

Because gravel critical to creating fish habitat is blocked by Trinity Dam from enteringthe river, thousands of cubic yards of carefully sized gravels are being introduced to theriver each year. It is anticipated that such introductions will continue essentially foreverbut vary in volume based on water year type.

Tributary and Watershed Restoration

From a fisheries restoration point of view, tributaries are the principal spawning groundsfor Coho and Steelhead, and therefore are critical to achieving the objective of a restoredTrinity River fishery. To eliminate unacceptable fine sediment loading into themainstem of the river, watershed rehabilitation is imperative. Fine sediment entering theriver destroys spawning and rearing habitat. This is a problem that currently plagues theriver.

The ROD recognized the need to restore tributary production and included it as a primarycomponent with a minimum of $2 million annually to be spent on restoration projects.To date the TRRP has failed to implement this critical component adequately for tworeasons: funding and political will. The TMC continually has shortchanged thewatershed (tributary) restoration budget. In fact, the combined budget for watershedwork since 2000 barely equals its prescribed annual budget. Additionally, some entitiesbelieve the TRRP is not responsible for watershed restoration. They claim TRD did notdisrupt tributary functions.


9/16

Without watershed restoration Steelhead and Coho will not be restored, the ROD goals

cannot be met, and greater flows would be required. Increasing watershed restoration

budgets and effort is a basic requisite for Program success.

Program Challenges and Conflicts

The TMC struggles with its central purpose policy and final decision making. It

suffers from competing visions, a lack of understanding and commitment, confusion over

roles and responsibilities, and financial conflicts of interest. Debates over budget

decisions are often driven by financial conflict of interest and not prioritized by scientific

merit and need. The Trinity River Restoration Program Situation Assessment (2008),

the TMC Subcommittee Report (2004) and numerous TAMWG letters and comments

clearly identify challenges to the TRRP together with solutions. The TMC

commissioned these reports but has been slow even to acknowledge them and slower to

act upon the recommendations. This has resulted in decision-making effectively being

transferred from the TMC to Department of Interior representatives. Without a

dedicated effort to resolve these issues the Program will fail.

The primary objective of the TRRP is to meet fishery goals with an emphasis on natural

production. Hatchery overproduction of Chinook, Steelhead and especially Coho

negatively impacts natural production. The well documented risks of hatchery

overproduction include: competition with naturally produced fish; predation upon

naturally produced fish; behavioral changes of naturally produced fish; alteration of

fishing patterns; residualization; disease transmission; reduction in fitness; genetic

inbreeding; and costs of over-production.

Over the last thirty years Coho hatchery returns have averaged eight times the stated goal

and are estimated to be more than 90% of the total population. In 2007/8 46,000 hatchery

fall run Steelhead returned swamping the 8,000 unmarked steelhead many of which likely

are hatchery offspring. The program numeric goals for hatchery and naturally produced

steelhead are exactly reversed. The TMC has been hesitant to address hatchery issues.

Some members view hatchery management as separate from the TRRP and a distraction

from restoration. Stakeholder requests to define hatchery management authority, identify

mechanisms for adjusting production goals, and processes for stakeholder inclusion have

gone just now are starting to be addressed.

Tribal, commercial and recreational fishers are heavily reliant on Chinook salmon

production. To a fault, the program has a Chinook-centric focus and often

unintentionally marginalizes Steelhead and Coho efforts when allocating resources for

restoration and monitoring. A successful Program requires habitat for all species at all

life history phases.

Additionally, a healthy Trinity River will require a healthy Klamath River. Trinity fish

migrate through the lower 40 miles of the Klamath River and estuary where they are

subjected to reduced flows, increased temperatures, poor water quality and high levels of

disease incidence. The majority of the 70,000 fish in the infamous 2002 Klamath River


10/16

fish kill were ofTrinity origin. From a management perspective, the Klamath and

Trinity restoration efforts are not coordinated and are treated as separate basins.

The largest potential challenge the program faces is retaining the ROD flows. Failure toimplement the ROD within a reasonable time frame will result in a loss of opportunity,

continued economic hardship for local communities, and likely additional Trinity water.

Conclusion

The pre-legislative history, the legislation creating the TRD, and all subsequent

legislation and court rulings mandated and confirmed that no harm be done to the

Trinity Basins fish and wildlife resources. The TRRP is well supported and designed.

It has bi-partisan support from four levels of government Federal, State, Tribal and

County. The ROD is a culmination of nearly twenty years of study that guides a new

vision and Program for the Trinity River. Funding, staffing, flows and restoration goalsare in place. Cooperation, leadership and sound policy guidance are required to test the

hypothesis of a scaled down river to meet the TMC program goal statement:

The goal of the Program is to restore and sustain natural production of anadromous

fish populations downstream of Lewiston Dam to pre-dam levels, to facilitate dependent

tribal, commercial, and sport fisheries full participation in the benefits of restoration via

enhanced harvest opportunities. The Program strategyfor accomplishing this goalrestores and perpetually maintains fish and wildlife resources (including threatened and

endangered species) by restoring the processes that produce a healthy alluvial river

ecosystem. The above restoration strategywill be achieved by implementing managementactions in a science-based adaptive management program.

Destruction of the Trinity took lees than a decade, but restoration will take much longer.

The pieces are in place and if they are implemented properly, they will achieve the

RODs, TRRPs andthe publics goals.

Tom Weseloh is a director of Friends of Trinity River and North Coast

Manager of California Trout, Inc. He is a member of the Restoration

Programs TAMWG and served on the Task Force of the previous Restoration

Program. He is widely acknowledged as an expert on fisheries issues.

TRINITY RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM NOW

Because of rampant financial conflicts among some members of the TMC and other

reasons set forth in the article above, the TMC has not been functioning as envisioned.

Policy decisions are not made, but rather lengthy discussions are pursued involving

funding allocations in some cases minor dollar amounts, lengthy discussions take place


11/16

on decisions properly made by staff, while neglecting other discussions and decisions on

TRRP policy issues and Program direction.

Additionally, differences of opinion often result in no action because of a super majority

voting requirement adopted by the TMC in its by-laws with seven out of eight total votes

required for a decision. Also, as indicated above, the Arcata Office of the USF&WS haswithheld funds appropriated by the Congress forthe TRRP to use as that office

determines.

While several efforts have been undertaken to evaluate TRRP activities and to

recommend solutions/actions (Trinity River Restoration Program Situation

Assessment (2008), TMC Subcommittee Report (2004), numerous TAMWG letters

and comments and engagement of an outside conflict resolution firm with subsequent

retreats for TMC members) nothing observable has been undertaken by TMC to

correct these fundamental, underlying problems.

For these reasons, FOTR invited and arranged for Dr. Clair Stalnaker, a United StatesGeological Survey retiree, a highly acclaimed and honored scientist and one of the

original, principal visionaries of the Restoration Program to come from his home in

Colorado to present to TAMWG members and the public the Programs original

concepts and to offer comments on current developments.

Following are some excerpts from the Minutes of that TAMWG meeting:

Stalnaker gave a Powerpoint presentation and passed out a hardcopy (Attachment 1).

He opened his presentation with an review of the original problems with the Trinity

River caused by the diversions of flow. He listed some of the early independent studies

and noted that these studies were brought together as the Trinity River Flow Evaluation

Study (TRFES). These studies identified poor rearing habitat for salmonids and the lack

of a dynamic, alluvial channel. The TRFES identified a need of increasing rearing

habitat by 3-to-4 fold in order to create a 2 fold increase in smolt production. Also, it

concluded that reshaping the channel would be required. It was thought that reshaping

the channel would lead to increased rearing habitat, and that the 3-to-4 fold increase in

habitat could be achieved in a smaller channel. Increased survival would occur with

enhanced habitat and enhanced temperature conditions.

These concepts lead to a brand new management system that embraced adaptive

management that utilized goals and indicators for assessment and design. New elements

also included a scientific basis with peer review and regular assessment of the program.

The ROD set the policy for rehabilitation, introduced volumes of release by five water

years (hydrologic types), and established the TRRP. It was intended that the TRRP be

financially independent and free of politics and have independent peer review that would

demonstrate scientific validity and the ROD.

Stalnaker reviewed the details of the TRRP and its reliance on an Adaptive

Environmental Assessment and Management (AEAM) process where hypotheses of


12/16

the ROD would be tested. He noted this was different than basic monitoring, but also,

the TRRP was not a research program. There was a desire to create a new program as

there were perceptions that the Bureau of Reclamation was mostly an engineering

program, whereas the US Fish and WildlifeService scientists were overly occupied by

endangered species efforts. The Trinity Management Council (TMC) was established

to provide oversight.

The AEAM process was set up as a Technical Management Analysis Group (TMAG)

composed mostly of specialists and a Rehabilitation Implementation Group (RIG)

composed mainly of engineers. Also established were the TAMWG to provide

stakeholder advice, an independent review process, and a Science Advisory Board

(SAB) for science guidance.

Stalnaker presented some of his thoughts after ten years into the Program. He noted

that there has been a drift towards the old Task Force way of doing business. He noted

the successful completion of the bridges and of 14 river restoration sites. He noted that

the AEAM scientists are not being utilized as scientists, by the TMC, nor is theScience Advisory Board is being utilized adequately. The program needs to respond to

SAB guidance. There has been a continued delay in completing the Integrated

Assessment Plan where it was intended that it would be completed in a year or two and

used to measure restoration progress on an annual basis.

He noted that it is not clear how much of the river is bermed and whether engineering

and re-sculpting sites are better than simply opening up the berms. This should be

tested. He lauded the report, Status Report: Vitzhum Gulch December 2008, that

asked questions about how the river could be used to accomplish objectives of opening

up the berm as opposed to using mechanized means.

This was followed by additional comments which are reflected in the Minutes of that

meeting:

Byron Leydecker next gave a presentation of his views on the TAMWG and his

evaluation of the TRRP. He noted drift in the program in several ways. One is that

the originally intended direct line from the Secretary of the Interior to the TMC was

cut by the insertion of regional bureau heads from the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)

and US Fish and Wildlife (FWS) into the organization structure. He noted a failure to

use Independent Review Panels and the Science Advisory Board. He says the original

ROD organization is a now a Breached Organization. The USFWS has changed the

structure and inserted control over the Science function (TMAG) of the TRRP.

He noted that the TMC is dysfunctional for several reasons including inadequate

knowledge of the program. This inadequate knowledge is due to membership turn over,

and the new members are not familiar with nor understand the program. He noted lack of

preparation by members for meetings. He cited members complaining they do not

have the time to prepare for meetings. He also cited resistance to a strong central


13/16

program office, e.g., the FWS and Hoopa Tribe want to go on doing what they havealways been doing.

Additionally, to make a decision, the TMC requires a supermajority (seven of its eight

members). The USFWS and Hoopa Tribe have on occasion joined to stop decisions.

He also said blatant financial conflict among the TMC members exist and membersrefuse to recuse themselves from votes. There is more discussion over spending ofmoney than policy questions and there has been a failure to communicate with Program

partners. He noted that any responses to the TAMWG by the TMC are in general, non-substantive - they agree to take up issues, but action then is lacking.

Leydecker cited a series of failures: failure to define roles and responsibilities, failure

to complete an Integrated Assessment Plan, failure to employ Independent ReviewPanels prior to initiating action, failure to implement a Request for Proposal (RFP)

process, failure to act or respond to TAMWG or the Sub-committee reportrecommendations and failure to use Independent Review Panels and the Science

Advisory Board as intended.

As far as impacts to the program, Leydecker listedjust three of a sheafof concerns:failure to address carryover storage in Trinity Reservoir as a way to manage water

temperatures in the Trinity River, failure to address rehabilitation of tributaries andwatersheds, and failure to address the conflict between hatchery and wild fish.

Leydecker asked, rhetorically, What can we do now to assure that the Trinity Riverbecomes a national model of a restored river basin ecosystem below a federal dam?

Leydecker listed things that could be done: 1) the TAMWG members all could resign,

2) they could schedule an upper level Interior Department meeting, 3) the TMC couldbe replaced or TAMWG added to it, 4) all TAMWG members could come to a TMC

meeting to demand a resolution, or 5) they could create a media event to embarrass TMCand the Department of Interior.

Several other comments were offered, including those ofBrian Person, BORNorthern

California Manager. In the end, a motion was adopted delaying until year end anyTAMWG action in order to allow time for the new TRRP Executive Director, Mike

Hamann, and the newly elected chair ofTMC, Brian Person, some time to get the

Program on track in accord with the ROD and its intent.

TAMWGMinutes are available at: http://www.fws.gov/arcata/fisheries/tamwg.html

HATCHERY OVERPRODUCTION/WILD FISH DESTRUCTION

For the past several years, FOTR has been advocating a change in Trinity River

Hatchery practices to move toward the stated objectives of the ROD to restore wild fishpopulations and diminish hatchery fish populations. TRRP objectives from the EIS/EIR

are an annual return, for example, of 40,000 wild steelhead and 10,000 hatchery


14/16

steelhead. Currently, there are about 50,000 hatchery Steelhead returning to the rivereach year and less than 10,000 wild Steelhead exactly the reverse (and worse) than

TRRP objectives.

Through efforts by FOTR before the California Department of Fish and Game

Commission, and through the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) the BOR,TAMWG, the TMC and otherwise, a process now has been established to begin to dealwith this issue. We particularly thankGary Stacey, Northern California Regional

Manager of DFG, for spearheading this process.

This is extremely important because of the destructive effects of hatchery fish upon wildfish. Without going into a lot of detail, suffice to say that a mountain of scientific

evidence has been developed that proves these adverse effects. (See detrimental effectsincluded in Weseloh article above). And, if any member would like a list of references

for the piles of scientific studies that conclude with the detrimental effects of hatcheryupon wild anadromous fish, just send an email to [email protected].

Washington States Department of Fish and Game has had a Steelhead Manager for

about 12 years. His responsibility has been to enhance production of wild fish anddiminish production of hatchery fish. He has a broad range of experience in managing

toward this objective. In one case, a hatchery was demolished and another erecteddownstream in a river so that wild, naturally spawning fish would have the greatest

access to their native spawning grounds. His experience would be valuable to efforts tocorrect this problem in the Trinity. He has offered to help.

FISH SURVIVAL - COLD WATER POOL IN TRINITY LAKE

Because the lake level is so low this year about 39 percent of capacity currently and

going down starting September 28, the BOR made all releases from Trinity Lakethrough the lower, colder water Auxiliary Outlet Works at Trinity Dam.

FOTR has been advocating strongly for some time retention of enough water behind

Trinity Dam to assure sufficient cold water to avert lethal temperatures for fish inTrinity River in the late summer. With or without another drought year, this disastercould occur potentially a re-run of the Lower Klamath River fish kill.

BOR has stated that it diverts water from Trinity Lake to maintain fish sustaining water

temperatures in the Sacramento River. This is a violation of the State WaterResources Control Boards Water Right Order 90-5 which effectively provides that

Trinity water is not to be used to reduce and to meet required water temperatures for fishin the Sacramento River.

The BOR plans its water allocations and diversions just annually, never beyond the

current year. For this reason, although the Trinity watershed may experience a normal oreven a wet water year, its water may be diverted in such volumes as to affect Trinity


15/16

River water temperatures. This also is undertaken to make water deliveries to Western

San Joaquin Valley irrigators and others. This is unacceptable. We have encouraged

TAMWG to take action to encourage corrective action by BOR, it has encouraged TMC

to do the same and it has done so, yet thus far there has been much talk and no corrective

action by BOR. We will continue to pursue this issue to a resolution favorable to Trinity

River fisheries.

RENEWAL AND NEW MEMBERS, AND SPECIAL RECOGNITION

If you have renewed your membership, or joined FOTR since our last Newsletter and if

your name(s) has been omitted below, please let us know we want to recognize your

support. Also, in a couple of cases in the past, contributions sent to us have not been

received. People notified us and we resolved the issue of stray mail.

We express our thanks and our appreciation to John Leydecker for his volunteer work

on behalf ofFOTR. We also express our appreciation again to Jeff Bright, ofJeffBright Designhttp://www.jeffbright.com for his development and maintenance of our

website.

We express our thanks and appreciation to the following persons/organizations that have

become members or renewed their memberships in FOTR since our last Newsletter:

Tom Beatty, Darrell Boyle, Patrick Bryant, Connie and Dick Burton, Everett D.

Butts, Calvin S. K. Chin, Kurt Christiansen, Curt Cooper, Earle W. Cummings,

Stuart Feldman, Suzanne and Rob Ferroggiaro, Grizzly Peak Flyfishers, Harry

Hanson, Susan and Stephen Haskell, Charlotte Hayes, Jack Hoey, D.M.D., Steve

Hopkins, Arthur Hurley, Kier Associates - Fisheries and Watershed Professionals,William Kier, Pat and Marshall Kilduff, and

Laurie and Victor Laney, Richard H. May, William Morrish, Suzan and Joe Neil,

Bob Norman, Janice Parakilas and Ron Baker, C. J. Ralph, Clive Rayne, Tim

Regan, Jr., Marybeth and Curt Ries, Riverbend Adventures Guide Service, Sheila

and Michael Rokeach, Peter Roth, Frank Short, Lucretia and John Sias, Dick

Skidmore, Criss, David, Conrad and Margaret Troast, Janis and Warren Watkins,

Pat and William Weeden, M.D., Jeanne and Bill Weseloh, Sally Williams, and

Douglas Whitmore.


16/16

Friends of Trinity RiverP. O. Box 2327Mill Valley, CA 94942-2327http://www.fotr.org

FIRST CLASS MAIL

Name(s)____________________________________________________

Address___________________________________________

City________________________________________State_________________

Phones____________________________________________________________

Email_______________________________________________________________

Please send information on ___Fishing ___Rafting___Other (Specify)_____________

I would like to help further by ___Volunteering ___Writing letters___Other (Specify)___________________________________________

My check is enclosed _______$50____ $75____ $100____ Other ____

Friends of Trinity River Newsletter, September 2009

Documents

Transcript of Friends of Trinity River Newsletter, September 2009