Fishery Restoration Trinity River Basin - Northern California -- Mike Orcutt
The Trinity River in Northern California is the largest tributary to the Klamath River. Historically the Klamath/Trinity River supported viable ocean and river sport, recreational, and tribal fisheries. However, in recent times the status of Klamath River fish populations is best exemplified by the fact that most Klamath Basin salmonid stocks are either proposed or under status review for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Klamath River coho salmon were listed as a threatened species under the ESA in May 1997. Further, Klamath River steelhead are a "candidate" species for listing under the ESA and Klamath River chinook stocks are currently under status review for potential ESA listing.

In response to the need to address factors which have caused fish populations to decline, the four Federally recognized Tribes of the Klamath River Basin (Klamath, Karuk, Hoopa Valley, and Yurok Tribes) formed the Klamath River Inter-Tribal Fish and Water Commission. Congress has recognized the importance of the fishery and authorized restoration efforts in the Klamath Basin including: the Trinity River Restoration Program (PL 104-143), the Klamath River Restoration Program (PL 99-552), and the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (PL 102-575).

While both Trinity and Klamath River Restoration Programs have sought to restore Basin fish populations, the Trinity River Provision of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA), Section 3406b(23) requires the Secretary of Interior to implement a permanent flow allocation to restore the fishery. Accordingly, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Hoopa Valley Tribe have worked cooperatively on the development of the Trinity River Flow Evaluation Report (TRFER), which is a culmination of nearly 12 years of applied field studies. Further, the TRFER provides the foundation for the preferred alternative for the CVPIA Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and flow decision scheduled for completion in 2000. The EIS recommends flows ranging from 365,000 acre feet (AF) in a "critically dry year" to over 815,000 AF in a "wet year." On average, this will mean that nearly 594,000 AF will be available for restoring fish populations which compares to the current flow allocation of 340,000 AF. Moreover, the TRFER also recommends that an Adaptive Environment Assessment and Management program be implemented in the Trinity River Basin.

In summary, some of the uncertainties related to how the Trinity River ecosystem will respond to changes in stream flows will be managed under a new paradigm. This new paradigm includes a rigorous scientific approach to designing studies to test well thought out hypotheses. Finally, based upon those study findings, changes can be made in the way that water is managed.

The other presentations by tribal representatives were similarly detailed. Written follow-up information has been requested.

One of the elements of Endangered Species Act consultations by the FWS is the development of a baseline or "snapshot" of a species population status on Federal, State, and private lands. The baseline review includes past and present on-going activities on those lands. The FWS also takes into account cumulative effects of activities that could reasonably be expected to take place in the future. Each consultation includes an adjusted baseline developed by the FWS during review of the proposed action. If the consultation indicates that the action will not jeopardize the continuing existence of the species, the FWS issues an incidental take permit for the project.

The question was asked, "What is the legal authority used by the FWS to develop the baseline for biological opinions?" This issue needs further discussion and clarification. The FWS agreed to provide additional information.

The agencies plan to release the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Survey and Manage by June 1. The DEIS retains the policy objective in the NFP of providing for the long term persistence of these species. It contains a "no action" and two "action" alternatives which include: assigning species to only one component (at present species can be in more than one component); removing several species from the Survey and Manage Standard and Guideline; eliminating survey requirements for some species; and developing a process for updating the species lists (both additions and deletions). Each component will have a timeline. The DEIS will have a 90-day comment period.

The six western Oregon BLM Resource Management Plans (RMPs) require formal evaluations on a three year cycle to review progress to date and determine if there is significant cause for an amendment or revision to any or all of the plans. The results of the evaluation may have implications for the other land and resource managing agencies.

The six western Oregon RMPs were completed in mid-1995 and fully incorporated the direction from the Northwest Forest Plan, while simultaneously addressing all other required land use allocations and resource management direction. The evaluations are intended to assure that adaptive management is practiced at all scales, for all programs, and that information is shared between field units.

Progress to date has been reported to the public through a series of RMP-specific Annual Program Summary documents, which also provide an important source of data for the evaluations. The summary documents serve as foundation documents for quantifying program and activity progress, incorporation of new data, and the results of monitoring.

The evaluation includes a cumulative analysis of monitoring records and implementation experience with the broader purpose of determining if the plans' objectives are being, or are likely to be, met. The evaluation assesses whether changed circumstances or new information so altered the levels or methods of activities or the expected impacts that the consequences may be substantially different from those anticipated in the RMP/FEIS and since the Record of Decision approval. The evaluation is not a reopening of issues previously addressed and resolved, unless warranted by new information. It is a review of new information generated, changed circumstances, or information from project and program monitoring.

A brief discussion was held on California BLM's intention to conduct land use plan evaluations. California BLM has no plans to conduct a Third Year Evaluation and their land use plans did not specify that such evaluations would be conducted. Also, most California BLM lands are in LSR allocations and only a small amount is matrix with minor timber harvest. Additionally, California BLM has made a number of land use plan revisions as new issues have come up.

• The BLM State Director is requesting that the IAC review the Districts' 1998 Annual Program Summaries as background information, and review and comment on the individual plan evaluations (estimated to 50-100 pages each) and Executive Summary of the evaluation for all six plans which will be available this summer. There will be a 45-day review and comment period.
• The IAC will be provided a follow-up status report at the August IAC meeting, and a copy of the State Directors' final findings and recommended actions will be provided in the fall.

It was noted that the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC), principally through the efforts of Bruce Davies, Policy Analyst, had devoted significant time and effort in developing the module to its current point. Current needs were considered to be refinements on a well developed product. Neither NWIFC or Bruce have the time or resources to take the module development further at this time. The REO will make sure that Bruce is provided future copies for review and comment, in order to benefit from his expertise in this matter.

• Effectiveness Monitoring Framework (Noon, et al.) does not provide an appropriate template for the development of the Tribal Monitoring Module. Only the appropriate individual steps and concepts from that framework should be incorporated into the module development.
• The Subgroup will focus most of its initial effort on the pilot program to monitor whether government-to-government consultation is occurring and whether the participants are satisfied. In the long term, it will be necessary to develop an inventory of Trust and Treaty resources, in order to satisfy the ROD at E-9. Therefore, the Subgroup will also begin working collaboratively to identify key policy questions which will provide guidance for the implementation of the other elements of the NFP relevant to American Indian issues and resources including, but not limited to: identification of American Indian Treaty and Trust Resources that would be affected by NFP activities; identification of potential conflicts between Federal actions and Treaty Rights or Tribal Trust Resources; and a process for resolving such conflicts. The Subgroup will report periodically to the IAC on its progress.
• Develop a questionnaire to look at attributes of government-to-government consultation to provide information on the current status and effectiveness. It is anticipated that a pilot effort will be developed to test the questionnaire and approach. The pilot should identify and include several case examples where government-to-government consultation occurred. In addition, the pilot design should attempt to include cases where either the tribes or agencies felt that consultation would have been advantageous, but it did not occur.
• The pilot effort will identify tribal and agency perspectives on how well government-to-government consultation is working and will identify issues of concern to the tribes and agencies. One outcome of the pilot may be an evaluation of the need for a protocol/template for government-to-government consultation and/or dispute resolution.
• It is anticipated that during government-to-government consultation tribes may identify sensitive resources or resources of concern that potentially could be addressed with monitoring information. This might take the form of sensitive or indicator habitats or species, rather than specific resources of concern. Efforts to evaluate and assess such monitoring needs for these resources will, to the extent possible, utilize other appropriate monitoring to track or assess the status and trends for these resources. If unmet monitoring needs are identified, they will be evaluated and considered for development of appropriate plans and programs.
• The Tribal monitoring module will focus on providing information on status and trends for adaptive management processes and decisions.
• The monitoring results are to be reported at the regional level. It is suggested that the Tribe is the scale appropriate for sampling. It is recognized that access for religious and cultural purposes occurs at an individual scale, but identification of the issue could be assumed to occur at the Tribal scale.
• The pilot effort should gather information on government-to-government consultation and conflict resolution as to the existence of protocols, or lack thereof, and the degree of satisfaction by the Tribes and agencies.
• The Subgroup will work to involve the Tribes in the development of the monitoring module and pilot. Continued active participation by the Tribal IAC members is a key process in that involvement and is anticipated to continue. In addition, consideration will be given to share the draft modules with the Tribes, at the earliest opportunity in their development, to increase the likelihood of a successful Tribal Monitoring Module.
• Include in the optional approaches for the conduct and reporting of a pilot and implementation of the module an alternative based on an independent group, i.e., not one of the management agencies.

* Intergovernmental Advisory Committee and Alternates *

Regional Ecosystem Office