Klamath Conservation Implementation Program

![](media/image1.wmf){width="1.9388888888888889in"
height="2.272222222222222in"}Public Meeting Summary - DRAFT

Klamath Falls, OR

October 22, 2004

Introduction

This document summarizes the public meeting for the Klamath Conservation
Implementation Program (CIP) on October 22, 2004 in Klamath Falls,
Oregon. Agenda topics included:

-   Introduction and Meeting Goals

-   Provide CIP Overview

-   Confirm Basic Purposes and Guiding Principles

-   Confirm Organizational Structure

-   Identify "Backbone" Activities

-   Wrap-Up

During the introduction, Paul Brown (meeting facilitator) identified
that the main meeting objectives are to confirm the draft CIP ("Did we
get it right?"), identify "Backbone" Activities for immediate action,
and self-select participation levels.

CIP Overview

Christine Karas (Reclamation Deputy Area Manager for the Klamath Project
Office) provided an overview of the CIP. The presentation slides are
attached. Meeting attendees raised the following issues and questions:

-   The CIP is conceptually a good idea, but still needs revision.
    Recovering fish is a good idea, and it will result in fewer
    restrictions. Klamath users represent two percent of the land in the
    basin, but bear 100 percent of the burden for recovery. Major
    concerns relate to the top-heavy governance structure (see
    Organizational Structure summary).

-   Interested parties appreciate the opportunity to comment on the
    draft CIP, and recognize that Reclamation has incorporated many of
    their changes from the first draft.

-   Approximately two dozen interested parties from areas throughout the
    basin are developing draft principles for incorporation into the
    CIP. Each party will submit separate, independent comments, but
    these comments will be consistent with the principles.

Basic Purposes and Guiding Principles

Paul Brown briefly introduced the draft CIP purposes:

1.  To largely restore the Klamath River ecosystem to achieve recovery
    of the Lost River and Shortnose suckers, and to substantially
    contribute to the recovery of the SONCC ESU (Southern Oregon
    Northern California Coastal Evolutionarily Significant Unit) of Coho
    salmon;

2.  To contribute to, but not to fully discharge, the tribal trust
    responsibilities of the federal government; and

3.  To ~~allow~~ (encourage) continued sustainable operation of existing
    water management facilities and future water resource improvements
    for human use in the Klamath Basin.

Meeting attendees had the following questions and comments about the
draft purposes:

Purpose 1 -- Ecosystem Restoration

-   How many fish are needed to determine that the fish are "recovered?"
    We need to have an end goal. Irma Lagomarsino (NOAA Fisheries)
    agreed that recovery targets are necessary, and said that the
    recovery team is working to define recovery. Coho salmon present a
    challenge because there are no good, systematic studies to determine
    trends and numbers of fish. But NOAA Fisheries is working to improve
    this information, and is expecting to define recovery goals by the
    end of 2004.

-   The CIP must include recovery goals both from the fishery agencies
    and the tribes. As part of fish recovery, we also need to know how
    many fish are in the waterways now.

-   Will the CIP recover fish, or substantially contribute to recovery?
    Christine explained that the purpose is to achieve recovery of the
    suckers because they are entirely within the basin. Coho spend time
    in the ocean, which means that they are outside of the scope of the
    program and affected by factors that the CIP cannot influence.
    Therefore, the purpose is to substantially contribute to the
    recovery of Coho.

-   What is a restored ecosystem? Does that mean that the CIP will take
    out dams and restore the basin to marsh? Christine explained that at
    this point in the CIP development, Reclamation is focusing on the
    purpose instead of the ways to get there. However, Reclamation is
    collecting plans from areas within the watershed to try to make sure
    that actions are consistent with existing plans.

-   To what date would the CIP restore the ecosystem? Pre-Columbian?
    1805? Christine said that restoration will not focus on returning
    the ecosystem to an earlier condition, but will instead focus on
    restoring self-producing, sustainable populations of fish.

-   Why does the draft CIP classify the magnitude of the restoration
    efforts as great? Christine explained that the magnitude may be a
    matter of perception, but she sees that the restoration efforts will
    cost tens of millions of dollars. An effort with this cost seems
    great.

-   If the recovery goals are set outside of the CIP process, could they
    drive the process in a direction that interested parties cannot
    support? Christine said that the recovery planning process is a
    public process, and the CIP could be a force in the development of
    the recovery goals. Ms. Lagomarsino added that the recovery plan
    includes both recovery goals and potential actions to reach
    recovery. The CIP will identify and prioritize potential actions, so
    it could influence the recovery plan.

-   The CIP needs to consider legal requirements, such as the Klamath
    River Compact. Christine said that if the funding is coming from
    Federal and State government, then the legal considerations will be
    there.

-   The CIP should not try to restore fish to places where the fish did
    not originally exist.

-   Is there a mechanism in place to prevent listing of new species
    after these fish are delisted? Christine explained that restoring
    the ecosystem as a whole will hopefully prevent additional species
    from being listed.

-   In addition to understanding the numbers of current fish, and the
    numerical recovery goals, we need to quantify the improvements from
    the restoration efforts already complete. Christine explained that
    they will establish benchmarks to ensure that the program is
    improving. This may need to include the use of surrogate habitat or
    species since endangered species are rare and it may be difficult to
    figure out numbers of fish.

-   If exact numbers of fish now and in the future are not possible,
    then ranges of fish would still help.

-   What does "to largely restore the Klamath River ecosystem" mean?

Purpose 2 -- Tribal Trust Responsibilities

-   The federal government has tribal trust responsibilities, but this
    program should not shift those responsibilities to landowners.
    Landowners are currently affected by the federal responsibilities in
    that the Klamath Project unpredictably releases water for downstream
    tribal needs.

-   Will the CIP define tribal trust responsibility? Christine said that
    the CIP includes a proposed Tribal Trust Committee that would work
    to define these responsibilities.

Purpose 3 -- Sustainable Operations and Human Use

-   "Encourage" is not strong enough. It should be changed from "allow"
    to "ensure."

-   "Sustainable" is subjective. Change to "sustained."

-   In the purposes, fish come before the farmers. Christine explained
    that the purposes are three equal sides of a triangle, and that
    future investments will put people on the same level as fish.

-   The purpose should say "to continue sustained operations." The way
    the draft CIP is currently written, it appears to favor the fish and
    the Tribes at the expense of the irrigators. Christine explained
    that is not the intent of the document, and reiterated that the
    purposes are intended to put everyone on the same level.

-   The definition for "human use" in this purpose includes recreation,
    in stream flows, and agricultural uses. The purposes seem to
    double-count wildlife needs because they are both in the first
    purpose and contained in "human use."

Organizational Structure

Christine Karas discussed the organizational structure contained within
the second draft of the CIP. The main decision-making body will be the
Coordination Council. Other committees serve the Coordination Council,
and the Council would ask these groups for information or data. The
slides (attached) contain more detailed information regarding the draft
organizational structure.

Meeting attendees had the following questions and comments on the CIP
organizational structure:

-   The organizational structure appears too top-heavy with regulatory
    agencies, and others are subordinated (including locals, RCDs,
    etc.). The CIP must work with local communities because they have
    on-the-ground knowledge of local conditions and restoration
    opportunities.

-   While a basin-wide solution is good, different areas will have
    different solutions. For example, locals from Williamson may not
    want to be involved in Arcata projects. The CIP needs to structure
    opportunities for meaningful involvement for the communities that
    will have projects.

-   The process needs to be locally-driven and have local committees.
    Recovery methods will vary radically based on local conditions. The
    existing structure benefits interests with more money that can
    afford to travel to Coordination Council meetings throughout the
    watershed and lobby for their projects. Christine explained that the
    CIP is trying to achieve a locally-driven process with local people
    on the Coordination Council. There have been suggestions at other
    public meetings to establish information centers in the small towns,
    where local people can meet, discuss, and develop ideas.

-   Does the CIP include a number of people on the Coordination Council?
    It should include irrigation interests.

-   "Water quality" seems to be vague and ambiguous. Who will define
    water quality targets and monitor waterways? Landowners are
    concerned that water quality requirements could translate into costs
    or other effects. Christine explained that currently there is a wide
    range of water quality monitoring. The water quality criteria will
    need to be based on sound science with a scientific peer review.
    Initially water quality criteria will likely focus on where there
    are Endangered Species requirements.

-   How does CIP relate to the TMDL study on the Lost River? Christine
    said that the TMDL process is separate, and it is not the
    responsibility of the CIP to meet TMDL requirements. The
    Coordination Council, however, must be careful not to recommend
    actions that would negatively affect the TMDL process.

-   The organizational structure should focus on productive efforts
    already underway at the watershed level. The Klamath watershed can
    be broken down into approximately 20 different sub-watersheds. These
    smaller areas would have control over funding and implementation.
    The basin-wide organization would have an oversight role to
    coordinate, fill data gaps, help establish milestones, provide
    technical assistance as necessary, and ensure that the CIP is
    satisfying mandates.

-   The Science Committee should not have only fish biologists, but also
    botanists, geologists, engineers, and others. Historic fish efforts
    have had adverse effects; straightening streams to reduce
    temperatures also increased speed of flow to the detriment of
    riparian areas. These types of effects could be avoided with a more
    diverse Science Committee.

-   The Department of Environmental Quality has suggested that historic
    water quality levels are never possible.

-   Planning processes in the area always seem to have the same outcome,
    and participants may have a hard time setting aside past efforts.
    Committees must have equal representation so that one side does not
    continually lose in a supermajority vote.

-   How can participants make sure that the committees are not
    overloaded by one region or sector when participation is voluntary?
    Christine said that the committee participants will have to work on
    this issue as the CIP proceeds.

-   Many stakeholders are paid to attend meetings by their group
    (agencies, non-governmental organizations, tribes, etc.). Irrigators
    are not paid, and the costs of them leaving their farms could be
    great. Helping them by making meetings more accessible and
    reimbursing for costs.

-   The CIP could not adequately reimburse farmers for leaving crops at
    critical times, but could pay for accommodations and meals.
    Irrigators or farmers that cannot attend meetings can also find
    someone to act as a representative.

-   Are all committee meetings open? If I decide later that I want to
    participate, can I still attend? Christine said that all meetings
    are open and transparent, and people can decide to participate at
    any point.

"Backbone" Activities

Paul Brown explained that Reclamation is looking for some actions to
start immediately. These activities will form the CIP backbone, and
Reclamation will implement these projects while further developing the
CIP process. These activities should focus on actions that improve
communication, start or sustain the program, increase cooperation, and
define baseline data. Paul also suggested several initial activities to
help people start to think about potential actions (see the attached
slides). Meeting attendees submitted suggestions on comment cards.

Conclusions

Christine Karas thanked everyone for attending and participating in the
meeting. Reclamation will hold one more meetings throughout the
watershed, and will use comments from all five meetings to revise the
CIP. Meeting attendees had several questions about how the CIP
development process will proceed:

-   When do you anticipate the final draft will be available? Christine
    said that she expects the next draft to be available mid-to
    late-December.

-   Will the draft be publicized, or do participants need to request a
    draft? Christine said that Reclamation will send a draft to everyone
    on the sign-in sheet, put it on the website, and email it (or mail
    if necessary) to everyone on the mailing list.

-   Will Reclamation publicize the release in the Herald and News?
    Christine said yes.