Klamath Conservation Implementation Program

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

Weaverville, CA

November 16, 2004

Introduction

This document summarizes the public meeting for the Klamath Conservation
Implementation Program (CIP) on November 16, 2004 in Weaverville,
California. 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, Rae Olsen (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. Christine Karas (Reclamation Deputy Area Manager for the
Klamath Project Office) provided an overview of the CIP. The
presentation slides are attached. Christine mentioned this is only the
second draft and Reclamation will continue to make revisions as
suggestions are made. She noted the public comment period has been
extended.^.^

Christine also mentioned the recent Memorandum of Agreement that was
signed by the governors of California and Oregon and four other cabinet
members. She noted the signatories did not specifically agree to support
the CIP, as it was not completed at the time, but they agreed to support
the concept. This is a tremendously powerful effort and will help with
the funding for the CIP.

Basic Purposes and Guiding Principles

Christine Karas 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 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 will hatchery Coho be delisted, as proposed? Christine replied
    that the focus is on ESA. They will start by counting the hatchery
    Coho and continue on that effort.

-   The primary purpose should state specifically: "recover and maintain
    *native* species," and a separate sub-purpose should list the
    specific species, species of concern, and natives.

-   This purpose does not relate to the Trinity River. Restoration of
    natural spawning habitat is not included anywhere. Christine replied
    that there will likely be a change in the language of this purpose
    to include restoration of natural populations. Initially the focus
    was only on ESA, but based on comments received during the public
    meetings, the purpose needs to be revised to include ecosystem-wide
    restoration.

-   Trinity River Restoration Program (TRRP) strives to restore natural
    Coho runs, and the CIP needs to reflect this objective. People would
    be concerned if Coho were delisted and the CIP addressed only
    suckers. This purpose is ESA driven, and it would not be complete or
    effective if it just says Coho.

-   Is the first phase of the CIP focused on ESA with potential
    expansion to other species during the second phase? Christine
    replied that yes, the idea behind this purpose was to initially
    start with the ESA and then expand to include other species. She
    also clarified that the CIP is intended to be ecosystem wide, but
    initially the focus will be on ESA.

-   Will this program include restoration of non-ESA species? Christine
    replied that initial efforts will focus on the weakest link; but
    that it is an ecosystem-wide restoration program and this purpose
    will include other species that need to be identified. Christine
    also explained that there are limited resources so the initial
    recommendation was to focus efforts on ESA. Part of the goal is to
    prevent listing of other species. We need a healthy ecosystem.

-   To what extent do you envision including other existing programs?
    Are the existing programs not working and that is why we need
    another? Are other programs being taken into consideration? Are the
    results going to be included in the CIP? Christine replied that the
    CIP is set up to look at all ongoing programs that can benefit from
    broader science and benefit from the CIP. The intent of the CIP is
    to help coordinate existing programs. Other programs have operating
    budgets of 10-12 million dollars a year; if we can get everyone to
    work together and coordinate we can support a larger budget. The CIP
    will not supplant or change any existing groups.

-   The CIP should eliminate some groups. Christine replied that some
    groups might end when everyone sees what other groups are doing, but
    the CIP will need the help and coordination from everybody.

-   Reclamation needs to make sure that this program does not
    consolidate existing efforts, resulting in funding reductions for
    local restoration efforts. Christine replied that Reclamation does
    not want that to happen and they will try to avoid that. Her
    experience in other groups was that the members of the groups worked
    together and found a common cause.

-   This goal is too focused on ESA and it needs to be based on larger
    watershed issues.

-   The Klamath Basin contains many smaller watersheds with no Coho
    salmon, so salmon restoration is not an issue in those areas.
    Therefore, this purpose needs to be kept holistic.

-   Reclamation needs to find a bigger goal related to ecosystem
    restoration.

-   If funding is tied to a specific species, and that specific species
    gets de-listed, will the funding be reduced? Would another species
    be listed? There is no consistent approach. Christine replied that
    the message is not clear and needs to be made clearer that this is
    an ecosystem approach.

-   This purpose should be re-worded to: "recover populations of native
    species." The body of the CIP could then list specific species to
    focus on at different times during the projects and could also
    include a sub-purpose to specifically cover the ESA.

-   The CIP scope and focus pyramid is upside down. The ecosystem should
    be at the top of the triangle with ESA under that. If we continue to
    look at ESA species, it might be at the expense of other species.
    The CIP needs to focus on the ecosystem, not just species. The word
    recovery implies too much focus on ESA.

-   This purpose is too narrow and may limit the ability to look for
    other sources of funding that others might have access too; it is a
    balancing act. We need some prioritization. Rather than focus on
    species, the focus should be on naturally functioning systems or
    restoring healthy attributes. This gets us the habitat and then gets
    us the fish.

-   The language on page 12 implies that the Federal government can
    ignore other species. A healthy ecosystem will lead to a healthy
    fish population, but the CIP cannot ignore other species.

-   Other existing programs have plans based on history, science, and
    studies. Will this process have its own road map of where the
    funding will go? Christine replied that CIP participants need to
    look at all existing programs and activities and equitably
    distribute funding among those plans. All programs could benefit
    from more funding and more participation. Reclamation wants to
    empower existing groups by providing funding to improve coordination
    and communication.

-   The existing road map should be promoted in all places, particularly
    the Lower Klamath. Existing programs are receiving less funding,
    such as the Klamath Task Force, and funding has shifted to the Upper
    Basin. How does equity get shifted across the table? A whole basin
    approach is important. Fish recovery should be the key focus that
    this purpose needs to maintain. Maybe this should say, "to restore
    the Klamath/Trinity basin ecosystem and recover native fish
    species," highlighting ESA and other species of concern.

-   The pyramid diagram looks un-balanced. A new diagram could possibly
    be a concentric circle, with ESA at the center followed by species
    of concern, fish species, ecosystem, and society in this order.

Purpose 2 -- Tribal Trust Responsibilities

-   Christine explained that the language "but not to fully discharge"
    came from Klamath Tribes attorney and the CIP will not fully
    discharge all the tribal trust responsibilities of the entire
    federal government, just the responsibilities as far as natural
    resource restoration in this basin goes. Revisions will be made to
    the language of this purpose.

-   Inclusion of this purpose has helped tribes understand that the CIP
    is not a conspiracy against the tribes.

-   Wording is confusing, what does "fully discharge" mean? Strike "to
    fully discharge" and replace with "contribute to natural resources
    tribal trust responsibilities."

Purpose 3 -- Sustainable Operations and Human Use

-   Future development of agriculture cannot happen. Some residents have
    interpreted a guarantee that agriculture development will be
    restored in the Klamath basin. Other interests may not have a
    problem with agricultural development, but new development must be
    balanced with other needs to ensure that it does not eliminate other
    operations.

-   Strike or change "continued." "Encourage" is also not appropriate
    because it does not help the current situation. Christine suggested
    using support, facilitate, or assist.

-   The CIP should include historical perspective to establish drivers
    for the CIP.

-   Resources and assistance need to be available to enable change.

-   The heart of the conflict is "continued sustainable operation"
    because ESA issues conflict with human issues. Christine replied
    that the goals are diametrically opposed and there needs to be
    something in here for everybody.

-   The CIP needs to be clear about compromise, and should include a
    statement to that regard. Interested parties have already made many
    past and current compromises that need to be recognized.

-   Remove "allow" because the CIP will not allow anything.

-   The CIP has too much emphasis on "hardware," when the focus should
    be on the limited resource of water. Suggest using, "promote
    sustainable use of water resources in basin." Water is the limiting
    factor, and the CIP should promote wise use for continued
    sustainability. Delete the word continued.

-   The CIP needs to include development of additional water supplies or
    storage facilities. Does not need to be included as part of this
    goal, but there should be a separate goal to develop more water.

-   The CIP does not make a compelling case for why parties should be
    involved or interested. The major issues and conflicts in the basin
    need to be described somewhere in the CIP to help make the case. For
    example, discuss the bucket brigade and/or juvenile mortality to
    show the urgency of the problem and the impacts that it is having.

-   The problem includes water quality as well as water quantity. The
    CIP should address quantity, quality, and timing equally.

-   Water flows in the basin need to try to mimic a natural hydrograph.
    We cannot mimic the hydrograph perfectly, but we can head in that
    direction.

-   CIP should facilitate the "coming together" of decision makers to
    allow for immediate decisions.

-   Coordination has not been identified as a purpose of this program.
    If this is one of the main purposes of the CIP, then it should be
    stated in the CIP. Christine replied that coordination is more of a
    "how" but it should be included.

-   Interested parties do not need another layer of bureaucracy.

-   Prior to the 2002 fish kill, no one had ever seen a fish kill that
    big before. How should the CIP and participants address the
    magnitude of those issues? The CIP should help establish a system to
    work this out. Christine replied that they would need to develop
    contingency funds for these issues.

-   It is difficult to try and get some of the information, because we
    do not have the ability to call up the dams and say we need more
    water. It is frustrating that the government is trying to mandate.
    People need to get past the mindset of "unreasonable giving". Need
    to build this into the CIP. Currently there is a lot of distrust,
    but the CIP provides a tremendous opportunity to collaborate.
    Christine replied that the role of the CIP is to coordinate and
    facilitate and develop the process. The people on the ground will be
    making the decisions on what steps need to be taken.

-   Interested parties do not have a clear understanding of the
    objectives and do not believe that everyone agrees on the
    objectives. The CIP needs to list specific objectives for the
    Klamath Basin for budgeting and planning purposes.

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 Tribal Trust committee is necessary to bring tribes together.
    Tribes have difficulty getting views together.

-   Can we define the Coordination Council and who it includes?
    Christine replied it will include everyone. As people start to work
    together, everyone will feel more comfortable that their views and
    issues are being represented and the group will get smaller as
    people nominate representatives from their group.

-   The organizational structure will have various amalgams of agencies.
    Is this workable? Should there also be an advisory group, similar to
    FACA? Can it function as a town hall approach? Christine replied
    that this structure is workable until someone sues. Risk management
    can bring rule and order, but it is time consuming and bureaucratic.
    Reclamation does not intend for it to be a FACA group.

-   The organizational structure should include a dispute resolution
    committee. This committee would serve as a place to list complaints
    and come up with solutions.

-   Committees will have a substantial "entourage" and significant
    "overhead" costs. Christine replied that these decisions have not
    been made. Reclamation does not want to lose the grass roots efforts
    and decision process. The group will have to determine the decision
    process and how to implement a bottoms-up approach. However, someone
    has to do the day-to-day work, which could be a federal or state
    employee or consulting firm, depending on what the Coordination
    Council decides. The Federal government role is that of facilitator.

-   If Reclamation is not overseeing the CIP, will there be budget and
    administrative problems? Christine replied that most government
    agencies have a ceiling on their budgets, so if Reclamation were put
    in the oversight role they will hit the budget ceiling. The group
    would need to analyze and figure out where we have most staying
    power.

-   Should the oversight come from agencies to get everyone to agree?

-   What about the local government? Christine replied that the Siskiyou
    is working on that and it would be tough not to have Federal
    government involved.

-   Work from local sub-basins should feed up to a larger oversight team
    in the Coordination Council. A mid-level support group is also
    needed to keep the program moving forward.

-   Considering the many existing meetings and extensive time
    commitments of interested parties, participants were concerned that
    people would not be able to commit to additional meetings and still
    function effectively. Can we precisely define the function of the
    Coordination Council? What are the issues that drive towards better
    communication and coordination?

-   The fish kill stimulated reaction and maybe local efforts are a
    victim of their own success. It seems like we have done a good job
    of returning the fish. In 2002, a lot of fish died because they were
    not reproducing. The CIP may not be looking at the right problem. Is
    one of the objectives restoring fish in the basin? Are the fish
    getting to the right places? Christine replied that the basin wide
    issues need to be identified.

-   Research and needs in the basin should be based on coordination. The
    focus should initially be on health, flows, and timing of flows.
    Based on those initial focus areas, groups can decide who would be
    the best person to attend the various meetings.

-   Need to use research that is already out there that is based on
    science.

-   The reality is that not every sub-basin is equal. For example, the
    Trinity River already has established The Trinity River Management
    Council and Trinity River Restoration. The CIP's Coordination
    Council needs to be tied into a more local level. This would assist
    with understanding of current conditions, stakeholder participation,
    funding decisions. The Coordination Council might not work, but
    local groups and the sub-basin groups could offer up people that
    would be trusted to sit on the Coordination Council. Christine
    replied that this sounds very logical. The basin could be stratified
    into multiple sub-basins and each group could have their own plans
    and then representatives from each sub-basin group could go to the
    Coordination Council.

-   The CIP should downsize the Coordination Council and focus more on
    mid-level involvement. Christine replied that the comfort level of
    all of the groups needs to be raised to keep moving forward.

-   What happens in each sub-basin is very specific and we need to focus
    on this. The different areas of the basin are very diverse and the
    Coordination Council might get bogged down with all of these issues.

-   Interested parties do not want to attend more meetings, but they are
    concerned that missing a meeting could result in missing an
    important decision that is being made at the meeting. There should
    be a review process in place so that people are not required to
    attend meetings to be a part of the decision-making process.

-   The CIP has really departed from looking at historic fish because
    the focus is on ESA. Care needs to taken when changing national
    flows and managing for specific species. Christine replied that
    hydrology of the basin needs to drive the hydrology of the river.

-   The Klamath River is not a natural system any longer. We cannot go
    back to "historic" conditions. There are natural constraints; for
    example, we cannot raise the flow along the Trinity River because it
    effects houses. Restoring natural flow cannot happen unless dams are
    removed.

-   Reclamation has made a similar process work on the Upper Colorado
    River, which helps reduce negative comments about Reclamation.

-   Local participants agreed to participate in the development stage of
    the CIP, but not at the cost of the Trinity River Restoration group.

"Backbone" Activities

Christine Karas explained that the backbone activities are projects or
activities that could be implemented now, not projects that are still
2-3 years from implementation.

Meeting attendees submitted suggestions on comment cards.

-   If the CIP is meant for coordination and every basin has their own
    groups, then the CIP people need to go to those basins and find out
    what is the priority. Asking people to attend more meetings will not
    work. The CIP participants should go and hear those different groups
    and find out their needs and priorities.

-   CIP participants should not have to contribute funding to be able to
    participate; the CIP should be federally funded. Christine replied
    that the language in the CIP is unclear. The intent is that people
    could pay with their time, and not money. This will be revised in
    the next draft.

Conclusions

Christine Karas thanked everyone for attending and participating in the
meeting.