Klamath Conservation Implementation Program

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

Yreka, CA

September 16, 2004

Introduction

This document summarizes the public meeting for the Klamath Conservation
Implementation Program (CIP) on September 16, 2004 in Yreka, CA. 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:

-   How successful has the CIP concept been in other basins? Christine
    explained that a similar program has improved the Green River to the
    point where it is at carrying capacity for fish. Every main stem dam
    is now operated to provide both benefits to people and a more
    natural hydrograph for fish.

-   Why does Reclamation want to facilitate the CIP? Christine responded
    that Reclamation needs to participate in a program like the CIP to
    comply with the Klamath Project's biological opinions. More
    importantly, Reclamation cannot meet customer needs (for refuges and
    agriculture) with current Project operations, and Reclamation wants
    to help find better ways to operate. The CIP is partially mitigating
    for Project operations, but mitigation only reflects a portion of
    Reclamation's interest in the CIP.

-   Instead of the CIP, why not just work with an existing group and
    fund them? Christine explained that it is an option to work with
    existing groups, but these groups generally include only a part of
    the basin. Reclamation recognizes the need for a broader program so
    that actions in one part of the basin do not direct negative impacts
    to other areas.

-   As part of the CIP effort, Reclamation must respect land and water
    rights. Landowners are hesitant to work with Reclamation because
    they feel that Reclamation did not respect these rights during past
    problems in the Klamath Basin.

-   In the Colorado example of a program like the CIP, how many
    endangered or threatened species were delisted? Christine responded
    that two fish species have recovered to the point that the delisting
    process is ready to start, but recovery of one species has not been
    successful because of a variety of external factors.

-   People who live and work on the land need to lead the process to
    solve their problems. Many meeting attendees were concerned about
    the loss of local control and government bureaucracy.

-   In other basins, did the Federal government just facilitate similar
    programs? Christine explained that in other basins, landowners were
    not interested in participating, so they grouped together to hire a
    consultant. The Klamath basin is very different, and she understands
    now that she's met many locals that they want to participate.

-   The CIP is based on existing biological opinions, but science has
    not yet verified that these opinions are accurate. Science should
    verify that the species should be listed as threatened or endangered
    because of a lack of water before the CIP process moves forward.
    Irma Lagomarsino (from NOAA Fisheries) explained that the rule to
    list the Southern Oregon Northern California (SONC) Coho as
    endangered is out for public review, and interested parties should
    provide comments on the Science used for this decision.

-   The basin has adequate amounts of water, but additional storage is
    needed. Several meeting attendees expressed skepticism that the CIP
    would be of any value to a man-on-the-street. Christine explained
    that participation in the CIP could help prioritize issues (such as
    storage) for additional study and could help communicate efforts of
    different agencies. As an example, Reclamation has crews testing
    potential new storage sites (Long Lake, Swan Lake) to determine the
    feasibility of these sites.

-   Landowners have collected data regarding species before they were
    listed, but it was not used. Christine said that this program, if it
    is working, will have to have high quality science with substantial
    monitoring to pass the scrutiny of those approving budgets.

-   Are Coho salmon indigenous to the Klamath Basin? Irma Lagomarsino
    (from NOAA Fisheries) said that historic records indicate that Coho
    are indigenous. Tribal representatives indicated that they have been
    researching this issue, and have found information that the
    California Department of Fish and Game planted Coho historically.
    Ms. Lagomarsino agreed to send NOAA Fisheries' historic data to the
    CIP mailing list.

-   Why is the Pacific Ocean not included in the study when it is part
    of the problem for fish? Irma Lagomarsino (from NOAA Fisheries)
    explained that NOAA Fisheries is researching how ocean conditions
    affect salmon. Research shows that ocean conditions benefit fish in
    some years, but benefits go in cycles. We cannot change the ocean
    conditions (such as those from global warming), but we can research
    ways to change how ocean conditions effect fish. Christine agreed
    that the CIP could coordinate with this research program to prevent
    effects on fish from the ocean are not attributed to upstream.

-   Inland people do not have a say in harvest management, but it
    affects them.

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 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 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

-   "Klamath River" means the Tule Lake area to many residents.
    Christine said that she would change the first bullet to read
    "Klamath River watershed."

-   The CIP purposes do not explicitly include improving wildlife
    habitat; improving habitat for waterfowl and mammals should be a
    stated purpose. If the suckers and Coho were not listed species, the
    first purpose would not exist.

-   "Restoring" the ecosystem is misleading because it sounds like
    Reclamation wants to remove ditches and dams to return to a
    "natural" ecosystem. Christine explained that she had added "To
    largely restore" to the first bullet to address that issue because
    Reclamation does not want to remove facilities.

-   How does the Trinity River fit in? Christine responded that the
    Trinity River is part of the basin, and will be part of the CIP. The
    Trinity sub-basin has an existing program; the CIP will cooperate
    closely with this program but will not supercede it.

-   Much of the Trinity River is diverted, which affects management of
    the upper basin. It is important to make sure that water is not
    diverted from the Trinity to meet environmental needs elsewhere at
    the expense of the Klamath basin.

-   The second draft of the CIP includes restoration of Chinook salmon
    in the scope, but not in the purposes. The program seems to be
    focused on restoring quality and flow for fish. Including salmon
    appears to be because it has a profitable harvest. Agricultural
    users see the program as taking water from agriculture to make money
    for commercial fishermen.

-   The program should be focused on a bottoms-up approach to make the
    water users whole. Landowners want to and can solve problems, but do
    not get credit for actions as part of ESA hearings. Christine
    responded that many people do not understand the local actions that
    landowners complete. The CIP could take some of the burden off of
    private landowners and place it on the program, which has funding.

-   Agencies need to define what they are looking for in terms of fish,
    water quality, and acres of habitat. Christine agreed, and indicated
    that Reclamation wants to work with NOAA Fisheries and U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service to establish recovery goals that define success.

Purpose 2 -- Tribal Trust Responsibilities

-   Is tribal trust a purpose for the CIP? The federal government should
    be independently responsible for this. Christine explained that this
    purpose is in the document because tribal trust responsibilities
    could overlap with other areas, and keeping others informed is
    important.

-   What does "contribute to, but not to fully discharge" mean? It
    sounds like the CIP could do worse than current conditions.
    Christine clarified that tribal trust responsibilities go well
    beyond the scope of the CIP, and tribes did not want the appearance
    that tribal trust responsibilities would be complete at the end of
    the CIP.

-   Do tribal trust responsibilities extend to anyone who signs on to
    the CIP? Christine said that tribal trust is just a federal
    government responsibility; however, the federal government cannot
    meet this responsibility in a vacuum because it may have unintended
    impacts on others.

-   Tribal trust responsibilities should not be a CIP purpose because it
    is just a federal government responsibility. It will conflict with
    the other purposes, and the federal government will have to work out
    those conflicts. Obtaining stakeholder agreement that it should be a
    purpose will be difficult.

-   Could we define the tribal trust responsibilities that are relevant
    to the CIP? Christine explained that working on tribal trust
    responsibilities will be part of the committee structure; the CIP
    will have a special committee to work on and define Tribal Trust
    responsibilities.

Purpose 3 -- Sustainable Operations and Human Use

-   What gives the CIP the power to "allow?" This area has two
    adjudications, and the CIP cannot allow water use in relation to
    either adjudication. What is "sustainable?" The CIP should not be
    determining a sustainable or allowable amount of water. Christine
    agreed that sustainability needs to be defined, but she has been
    considering "sustainable" to mean that agriculture would be
    commercially viable. She also agreed that "allow" is not the best
    word, and should be replaced to indicate that the CIP does not have
    authority to make people do things differently.

General Purposes

-   In the February version of the CIP, goals are filtered throughout
    the document. Some of these goals include creating a clearinghouse
    for data, prioritizing actions with ESA first and coordinating
    recovery plan implementation. If we agree to the CIP, are we
    agreeing to all of these embedded purposes? Christine said that she
    would review the document to highlight embedded purposes, but the
    implementing group would decide on these secondary purposes early in
    the process.

Organizational Structure

Marcia Armstrong, from the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors,
suggested an alternate plan for CIP governance. Initially, she indicated
that the Board of Supervisors' official comments included three main
issues.

1.  The CIP includes a top-down decision-making structure without proper
    authority;

2.  It duplicates state and federal Coho recovery planning efforts; and

3.  It fails to adequately address complex issues of water use rights
    and existing adjudications and authorities.

Ms. Armstrong's remaining comments reflect solely her views, and should
not be attributed to the Board of Supervisors.

Ms. Armstrong suggested a change to the organizational structure of the
CIP to create a bottoms-up approach. This new structure would start with
the existing local government and tribal council process where plans,
ideas, and input would be presented to County Supervisors and to Tribal
Councils on tribal lands. These groups would discuss the whole spectrum
of issues related to suggestions, and determine suggestions that should
move forward.

On the basin-wide level, a Council would be formed of one representative
from each County Board of Supervisors and each Tribal Council. The main
functions of the Basin-wide Council under the CIP would be to share
information about plans and conservation efforts, set basin-wide
priorities on projects, eliminate duplication, identify gaps, and
encourage partnerships. Agencies would have a scientific and technical
advisory role to watershed groups and to the Basin-wide Council.

Funding would come directly to the counties and tribes for dispersal to
priority projects. If this method is not possible, funding could be
routed through the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS).

This is a bare bones conceptual model of an alternative process. It has
not been shared yet with the Board of Supervisors or reviewed by County
Counsel. We envision a collaborative effort among the counties and
tribes to work out further details.

Meeting attendees had the following questions and comments on Ms.
Armstrong's suggestion:

-   This proposal highlights missing elements from the draft CIP, which
    did not clarify how to channel funds or work with Feds and watershed
    plans. This proposal also reduces concerns about the federal
    bureaucracy.

-   Would the Basin-Wide Council have one representative from Siskiyou
    County? How would local coordination work with that process? Ms.
    Armstrong explained that Siskiyou County (along with all other
    counties in the basin) would have one representative on the
    Basin-Wide Council. When locals receive funding for a project, the
    funding would go to the county, which would take a small
    administrative fee and pass on the remaining funds to the local
    participants.

-   Where do you envision contracting and environmental compliance? Ms.
    Armstrong said that if necessary, the NRCS could fulfill these
    functions. However, only elected officials should make decisions
    about which projects are funded.

-   This proposal gives the Board of Supervisors all authority. Ms.
    Armstrong explained that the Board of Supervisors has constitutional
    authority of private lands and water and land use planning.
    Coordination is required where natural processes move beyond county
    lines.

-   Does Board of Supervisor authority extend to federally-managed land?
    Ms. Armstrong stated that the Board of Supervisors has health and
    safety jurisdiction, but not land management jurisdiction over
    federal lands.

-   The proposal sounds like the organizational structure for Imperial
    Irrigation District, and they may be able to help further define the
    details.

Christine Karas discussed the organizational structure contained within
the second draft of the CIP. The first draft reflected Christine's
original thought that interest groups would work together and send one
representative to participate in the CIP; however, many groups commented
that one person could not adequately represent them and they want to
participate independently. She also considered the RCD model (not-for
profit, federally-funded, locally-run), but meeting attendees pointed
out that most Reds do not have allocated federal funds (they operate
from grants).

Christine explained that the latest version of the organizational
structure reflects the many comments that she heard on the first
version. This structure de-emphasizes that Policy Administration Group,
which will simply verify that the Coordination Council is following the
law, that recommendations are helping to meet benchmarks, and that
recommendations reflect an equitable distribution of funds. The Policy
Administration Group could also help with problem resolution, at the
request of the Coordination Council. The Group exists because the
federal government needs accountability for federal funds.

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. For example, the Coordination
Council could ask the Science Committee for help with a research
proposal or for details on a science-related question. Water quality
could be included under the Science Committee or as a separate
committee.

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

-   The description of the Policy Administration Group sounds like it
    has approval power over the Coordination Council recommendations.
    The Coordination Council could perform many of the functions of the
    Policy Administration Group (like ensuring that actions are legal),
    and funding accountability could be directly between the
    Coordination Council and the funding agency.

-   The oversight group should not just include groups that fund
    projects, but should also include landowners. Christine explained
    that Congress needs to know what is happening with the money they
    grant to the CIP, and the Policy Administration Group would provide
    some degree of oversight.

-   The Policy Administration Group could be at the same level as the
    other committees and offer advice to the Coordination Council.

-   If non-elected officials are making decisions, they are not
    accountable to the public. Christine explained that federal funding
    requires some level of oversight and accountability.

-   This structure contains too much bureaucracy, where Ms. Armstrong's
    proposal contains less bureaucracy.

-   Water quality is very important for fish, and the committee
    structure should have a "Science and Engineering Committee."

-   Local groups have developed and prioritized projects, but they need
    funding. The CIP seems to want to re-develop and re-prioritize
    before funding projects. Attendees fear that every new requirement
    will involve more money to understand the project instead of trying
    to solve the project. Christine said that she is looking for ways to
    empower local groups to implement plans. She wants to provide
    resources, including money, engineering resources, and environmental
    compliance assistance.

-   Creating this program will take time, but projects need to be
    implemented now.

-   Projects are not funded because someone is often working against the
    project within the government. Christine said that she believes that
    if many groups come together and agree on projects, Congress will
    fund them.

-   How would the CIP fund the costs of attending meetings? Christine
    said that the Coordination Council would need to decide that issue.
    The Coordination Council could decide to fund meeting participation,
    but the tradeoff would be fewer funds available for implementation.
    Christine would support the Coordination Council's decision on this
    issue.

-   Ms. Armstrong's proposal uses the county Board of Supervisors, which
    is a tested group. The proposed CIP structure would create a new
    group that is untested, and it is unclear if that group would work.

The next version of the CIP will likely contain several organizational
structures for reviewers to consider and comment on.

"Backbone" Activities

Mike Savage (Reclamation representative) 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. Mike also suggested
several initial activities to help people start to think about potential
actions (see the attached slide show).

The meeting attendees offered the following suggestions and comments:

-   The CIP could use distance learning facilities at colleges for some
    meetings to avoid travel time and expense.

-   Reclamation should share comments from this meeting and others.

-   What is the intent of the flipcharts? Christine explained that the
    flipcharts capture what has been said, and allows participants to
    verify that we understand their points.

-   Scientists from private groups should be given equal weight as those
    from agencies. Christine explained that the Science Review Board
    would mostly include private scientists unless they request experts
    from federal agencies. All science would be subject to peer review.
    The Science Review Board will have broad representation, and local
    support would help prevent this concern.

-   Other local groups have already started some of these suggestions.
    For example, the Compact has started a website, and the Hatfield
    group has a Science group that entirely consists of stakeholders.
    Christine indicated that for initial activities, Reclamation would
    issue a Request for Proposals. Several groups, such as Humboldt and
    OIT, have expressed interest in running the website, but the Compact
    should also submit a proposal.

-   The Coho spawning run three years ago was enormous. They should be
    back this year, but the waterways may not have enough water to bring
    them back. As an immediate action, agricultural users could pump
    water into tributaries to supplement natural flows. Christine
    indicated that it might be difficult for the CIP to participate
    immediately because it would require water quality testing and more
    examination to meet federal and state requirements.

-   Local groups and individuals collect data, but it is not used to
    make decisions. Christine said that the Water Quality Committee
    would be charged to bring together all local data. She has already
    been working to coordinate monitoring in the upper basin, where she
    found three groups taking the same water quality sample at the same
    place.

-   Raw water quality data cannot be used in a way that attributes it to
    a specific landowner because that landowner could then end up as a
    target for regulatory action.

-   The U.S. Forest Service has a wilderness area with a system of lakes
    and siphons that it historically used to maintain flows on the Scott
    River. The Forest Service no longer maintains the system, but
    improving the system could provide additional flows.

Conclusions

Christine Karas thanked everyone for attending and participating in the
meeting. Reclamation will hold for more meetings throughout the
watershed, and will use comments to revise the CIP. This draft will be
circulated, and it will likely require another set of public meetings.