Klamath Conservation Implementation Program

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

Chiloquin, OR

October 21, 2004

Introduction

This document summarizes the public meeting for the Klamath Conservation
Implementation Program (CIP) on October 21, 2004 in Chiloquin, 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:

-   If Reclamation is not leading or owning this project, how will
    coordination proceed? Who will oversee and support the process?
    Christine explained that CIP participants will be able to determine
    the best option for process coordination or oversight. A few options
    to coordinate the process are an agency, a private organization, or
    an independent consultant.

    **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 SONC ESU (Southern Oregon Northern
    California Coast 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

-   At the Endangered Species Act hearings, people asked how many fish
    are in waterways now, and how many would need to be in waterways to
    achieve recovery. The fishery agencies have not defined these
    numbers. If we cannot define recovery, how will we know when we
    achieve it? Curt Mullis (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) said that
    knowing the number of suckers is biologically impossible, but other
    factors can be used as surrogates (such as condition of habitat,
    water quality, and sampled year classes) to understand if the
    populations are stable, declining, or increasing. Irma Lagomarsino
    (NOAA Fisheries) said that NOAA Fisheries does not yet have a
    recovery plan for the SONC ESU of Coho salmon, but the technical
    recovery team is working on it. The team will define recovery goals,
    and they think that they can identify recovery goals that will
    define numbers of fish. If it is not possible to identify numbers of
    fish, then the technical recovery team has discussed using habitat
    as a surrogate.

-   What will serve as the baseline for fish recovery? Will endangered
    species need to reach their historic numbers and locations in upper
    rivers? Ms. Lagomarsino said that NOAA Fisheries interprets the
    Endangered Species Act to mean that we need to recover Coho until it
    is sustainable for a fishery. Spring-run Chinook historically used
    the Williamson and Sprague Rivers, but the Coho did not come up that
    far. Unless fish passage is created, the Coho cannot migrate past
    several dams. But species can be delisted without reaching historic
    numbers or locations if the recovery goals are met.

-   Are salmon more important than sucker fish? Christine explained that
    no, neither fish is more important. The purpose statement is to
    "achieve recovery" of suckers, but "substantially contribute to
    recovery" of salmon. The difference is because suckers are entirely
    contained within the CIP area, but salmon spend a portion of their
    life out of the CIP area where they are influenced by many other
    factors. The CIP will work towards recovery of salmon, but cannot
    promise full recovery because of these other factors.

-   In the recent agreement between state and federal agencies, they
    agreed that endangered species are indicators of ecosystem health,
    but not the sole focus of restoration. Restoration would be much
    simpler if the only goal were to restore endangered species. The
    purpose should be rewritten to include other species as well.

Purpose 2 -- Tribal Trust Responsibilities

-   Does "not to fully discharge" tribal trust responsibilities indicate
    that the CIP does not meet the needs of the tribes? Christine
    explained that the tribal attorneys inserted this clause to indicate
    that the CIP will not fully meet all of the federal government's
    tribal trust responsibilities. The federal government will still
    have responsibilities that the CIP cannot meet.

Purpose 3 -- Sustainable Operations and Human Use

-   Why is the word "allow" crossed off? Christine said that "allow" is
    crossed off because it implied that the CIP would have some
    regulatory authority, but it will not. She encouraged people to
    suggest other words that would work better.

-   What existing water management facilities are addressed in this
    purpose? Christine said that this purpose includes existing
    facilities that contribute to long-term sustainable operations or
    new facilities that would increase the sustainability of operations.

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 Klamath basin contains many small communities linked together in
    crisis. Many landowners have ideas of projects to benefit fish, but
    they are not participating (or are not able to participate) in the
    existing federal processes. The CIP needs to reach out to landowners
    and small communities to increase participation.

-   The CIP seems to incorporate a "pay-to-play" provision, but many
    participants cannot afford to pay. Christine explained that
    participants do not need to contribute cash to participate.
    Participants only need to contribute their time, which has value or
    other in-kind contributions (such as land).

-   Would the committees operate using consensus or a vote? Christine
    said that the committee will have to determine its decision making
    process when it first comes together.

-   Will a main body of people make decisions, or will anyone that
    attends have an equal voice? Christine envisions a committee where
    only regular attendees can make decisions because otherwise the
    committee will spend too much time catching up new attendees. She
    thinks that the committee will likely decide to use a voting system
    that may require a supermajority to pass.

-   The CIP's description of the organizational structure only explains
    the broad categories, but does not include enough details to be able
    to understand the structure. To be able to comment, the description
    must include information about the selection process, categories of
    inclusion, and decision makers. The surrounding apparatus that would
    make the program work is missing. Reclamation should hire social,
    organizational, and public outreach specialists to help further
    develop this structure before convening the committees.

-   The purpose of the CIP is to draw everyone together, but the CIP has
    no definition of who will lead. The CIP will not have effective
    coordination with no leadership. Other meeting attendees agreed that
    the CIP needed a leader, and agreed that Reclamation should not be
    that leader.

-   The organizational structure would allow people in the Coordination
    Council to step forward and become leaders.

-   Can you provide us some information about the evolution of the
    Colorado River efforts, which are similar to the CIP? Christine said
    that the Upper Colorado River Implementation Plan started because of
    the presence of four endangered fish in the river and tributaries
    and the resulting regulatory restrictions. The most affected parties
    developed the program and worked together to develop ideas on how to
    address Section 7 consultation, incidental take, and other issues.
    Over time, other parties wanted to participate and joined the
    program. The program has a firm structure with a hierarchy of
    committees to keep all participants involved and productive.

-   In the Klamath Basin, many groups have people working together, but
    they are not effective. How will the CIP convince people to
    participate and prevent infighting? Christine said that the CIP will
    attempt to have productive participation by inviting everyone to
    participate at the level that interests each person. The spectrum of
    participation (in the attached slides) illustrates the concept that
    people can be as involved as they want, varying from someone who
    receives periodic newsletters to someone who participates on
    multiple committees.

-   The most productive process so far has been the Chadwick process,
    which is allowing participants to increase understanding of other
    interests in the basin. This type of process would be extremely
    helpful on a smaller scale in each of the small communities.

-   The CIP faces the challenge of the basin's geography in that
    participants are spread over a vast geographic area. A bottom-up
    approach, where participation starts in local communities, would
    help. Also, videoconferencing facilities would allow participants to
    meet without traveling several hours.

-   Reclamation should not assume leadership of the CIP because many
    people still blame them for turning off the water supply.

-   What is the connection between this effort and the recently-signed
    MOU? The Memorandum of Agreement was signed by the Department of the
    Interior, Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce,
    Environmental Protection Agency, and the states of Oregon and
    California. The agreement identifies the need for a basin-wide,
    stakeholder driven, ecosystem restoration approach. The groups
    agreed that the vehicle to achieve their goals could be the CIP, but
    they did not officially endorse the CIP because it is not yet fully
    developed.

"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).

The meeting attendees offered the following suggestions and comments:

-   Set up a videoconferencing system for committee meetings so that
    participants to not always need to travel great distances.

-   Use a website to exchange information, including water quality, fish
    presence and distribution, seasonal agricultural activity, and
    commercial fisherman activity.

-   Create a series of communication and information stations throughout
    the watershed where people could meet. These stations could have
    maps, computers, videoconferencing facilities, and meeting
    facilities.

-   Coordinate with watershed council working groups.

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:

-   The second draft of the CIP is very vague regarding funding. Where
    will funding come from? Christine said that Reclamation has several
    million dollars per year for several years to begin the program. The
    CIP participants will need to determine the best way to pursue
    funding. Local participation will be necessary to secure federal
    funding for the future. The CIP participants will develop a strategy
    for funding; strategies could include pursuing funding from multiple
    state and federal agencies or securing a larger amount from just one
    agency.

-   What is the timeline to move the CIP forward and begin the Backbone
    Activities? Comments on the CIP were originally due 30 days after
    the last public meeting, but interested parties have indicated that
    they need more time. Reclamation will accept comments whenever they
    are submitted, but the next draft will be written in December. If
    Reclamation does not receive comments before the draft is written,
    then the draft will not be able to reflect those comments. The first
    meeting of the Coordination Council will likely be in January 2005,
    and the Council can determine the priority of the Backbone
    Activities and begin implementation.