Klamath
Water Users Association
e-mail: kwua@cvcwireless.net
website:
www.kwua.org
January 12, 2005
Christine Karas
Deputy Area Manager
Re:
Dear Ms. Karas:
On
behalf of the Klamath Water Users Association (KWUA), I would like to thank
you for you providing us with the opportunity to express our concerns
regarding the revised draft Conservation Implementation Program (CIP) document
prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). KWUA is a nonprofit
corporation that represents private rural and suburban irrigation districts
and ditch companies within the Klamath Project, along with private irrigation
interests outside the Project in both
General
Overview
We
appreciate the time and effort you and Reclamation staff have put forth to
develop the draft CIP. We hope that you will consider our comments in the
constructive manner in which they are intended.
The approach to restoration described in the CIP needs to be bolstered to better demonstrate that it is being guided by a systematic plan. Efforts to implement Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements for the benefit of fishes in the Klamath basin cannot succeed without aggressive pursuit of adaptive management principles, which in turn require continuity, master planning, flexibility, and conscientious evaluation of the outcomes of management. In addition, federal and state management efforts to restore fish species must be coordinated with actions to restore other basin resources. Restoration of “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 of Coho salmon” is too limited an objective. The objective must be balanced restoration of all basin resources to allow continued use of those resources for sustainable commercial fishing, agriculture, timber harvesting, and recreation.
To further this approach, we recommend a three-phased planning approach. The first phase would involve identifying existing conditions, potential desired conditions, and constraints that might impede accomplishing those desired conditions. The second phase would involve assessing potential restoration needs, developing restoration targets, identifying potential restoration actions, and establishing a proposed schedule for implementation. Finally, the third phase would involve those activities required to implement the restoration actions, including obtaining necessary funding, permits, and authorization to proceed. The implementation of these actions should be governed by the principles that improvement for all resource users should proceed in unison and improvement for one group of resource users should not be accomplished at the expense of another group of users.
At the outset, an entity to coordinate the activities of all federal, state, and local agencies should be created to provide accountability and transparency for restoration activities. We do not mean to suggest that any agency should abrogate or delegate its regulatory authority. Agencies must maintain their authority to carry out actions to further their statutory purpose. However, agency action should not proceed without information concerning related actions being taken by other agencies or information concerning the effect of an action on the authority or activities of other agencies. With appropriate technical support, such an entity would also provide a forum to objectively assess the relative benefit of restoration actions and provide those agencies with direct responsibility for resource management with alternative perspectives on adaptive management approaches. It is highly recommended that if such an entity is created, it include public members who will represent the interests of commercial fishing, agriculture, conservation, and recreation. It should also include tribal and local government, particularly county, representatives.
CIP
Guiding Principles
A
group of two dozen interests – including KWUA - from throughout the
The
CIP is intended to serve as a mechanism by which the participants can
implement actions necessary to achieve recovery. Klamath water users are
interested in assessing how this program could be implemented in the
The Federal and State “top down” approach to restoration described in the CIP is somewhat daunting to local interests. To succeed, the CIP effort must emanate from the local level. Where private property is involved, buy-in to the planning process must be promoted through participation at the landowner and local watershed levels. Each watershed and watershed group(s) needs to develop a strategy to accomplish recovery and economic/social goals. All stakeholders need to be at the table at that level. Federal/State projects should also have all project participants at the table in their planning process and may use outside parties to assist in developing solutions.
We
support a CIP process that fully encompasses the
1. A local level approach is mandatory in a revised CIP organizational hierarchy; the CIP Recovery Strategy (CIPRS) must recognize that locals should control the program. Landowners, local elected officials, Tribal Councils, irrigation districts, RCDs and watershed groups must have more of a say in funding and implementation of projects undertaken in their respective Federal Project, watershed and planning levels. The coordination structure for ecosystem restoration needs to involve local groups and private landowners in the design of restoration activities and investments on private land. The CIPRS should advocate and recognize cooperative agreements that promote the welfare of the listed species without threatening landowners. As the CIPRS proceeds and projects are implemented, the private property rights and privacy of individual landowners must be respected and protected.
2. Efforts to restore fish species must be coordinated with actions to restore other basin resources. As previously mentioned, “restoration and recovery of 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 of Coho salmon” is too limited an objective. It should also take into account the balanced restoration of all basin resources, including additional water storage, to allow continued use of those resources to ensure sustainable commercial fishing, agriculture, timber harvesting, mining and recreation.
3. Solutions advanced through the CIPRS will avoid redirecting impacts. Local “solutions” developed for one part of the watershed will not redirect or impose adverse impacts or costs to any other sector of the watershed.
4.
The revised CIPRS must recognize and emphasize
the value of incentives in the ESA for private landowners to participate in
ecosystem protection and recovery.
5. The CIPRS will provide that landowners who voluntarily participate in restoration or monitoring activities will not realize adverse regulatory consequences as a result of such participation. In particular, mechanisms will be established to ensure that landowners do not incur liability or exposure that would not otherwise be incurred. The implementation of restoration programs and monitoring will be most successful only through the voluntary cooperation of owners of private property. Many such persons are motivated to participate, but discouraged by the potential that an agency presence on their private property will lead to findings that translate to new regulatory burdens for that landowner under the ESA or other federal laws. So long as landowners can be penalized for cooperation, well-devised and comprehensive programs will not succeed.
6. Efforts to implement ESA requirements for the benefit of fish in the Klamath basin cannot succeed without aggressive pursuit of adaptive management principles by Federal, State and private resource managers. These principles flow from conscientious evaluation of the outcomes of specific changes in management, and the flexibility to refine, alter or adapt practices as appropriate to achieve the desired outcome.
7.
The CIPRS should contain the following elements:
·
Inventory and assessment of the voluntary restoration
and conservation actions taken to date throughout the
· Description of watershed specific restoration goals and objectives as they relate to the overall Basin-wide strategy.
· Implementation by identified action entities.
8.
Federal government agencies and representatives
shall provide assurances through an agreement in principle that they will not
attempt to extend the reach of Federal and State agencies beyond the scope of
their lawful jurisdiction and authority.
·
CIPRS proposed plans and actions will not usurp the
existing authority of Counties to regulate and manage natural resources,
implement land use planning and, in
· CIPRS proposed plans and actions will not usurp the existing authority of tribes to plan and manage natural resources decisions under Federal Public Law 280.
· CIPRS proposed plans and actions will not usurp the existing authority of Federal and State resource management agencies in the management of Federally or State-owned land or resources, nor interfere with the lawful authority of regulatory agencies.
9.
The CIPRS shall include a program that involves
periodic independent and objective scientific review to assess the efficiency
and benefits of the program’s ability to meet goals and objectives.
· The CIPRS shall, through monitoring and evaluation, improve the efficiency and avoid the waste and replication of expenditures for research, restoration and environmental review. All efforts will be undertaken to minimize overhead cost and maximize the dollars spent implementing restoration and conducting necessary research on the ground.
· The CIPRS will, through peer-reviewed scientific data and analysis, resolve the uncertainty that arises from a lack of benchmarks and a failure to monitor the biological and economic effectiveness of current efforts.
We believe that adherence to these principles as you work towards a final, revised CIP will result in a much improved document.
Specific Concerns
The following specific comments reflect the concerns of our association, and may or may not conform to the views held by the broader group of interests who support the above guiding principles.
CIP
Purposes
We generally support the two original primary purposes of the CIP:
“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 of Coho salmon; and “to allow continued sustainable operation of existing water management facilities and future water resource improvements for human use in the Klamath Basin.”
Although
we generally support the apparent goal of the first purpose, the words “to
largely restore” are ambiguous and could be read to imply major changes
in current human activities. It has not been determined what specific
combination of measures will be pursued to improve sucker populations. We
suggest that the purpose is better stated as “To achieve recovery of
suckers through ecosystem restoration and other appropriate activities...”
The
latter purpose should be revised to state: “To ensure sustained
operation of existing water management facilities and future water resource
improve projects in the
The
third CIP purpose is “To contribute to, but not to fully discharge, the
tribal trust responsibilities of the federal government”. We understand
and appreciate that the federal government has trust obligations to tribes.
As written, however, this stated purpose implies open-ended uncertainty,
particularly for water users in federal projects. An important incentive for
the irrigation community to participate in the CIP is to realize better
certainty of supply and their continued ability to conduct farming and
ranching activities. If there is some risk to these activities not being
addressed, it should be disclosed. Otherwise we request that it be
made clear that trust obligations not being pursued in this process will not
have an adverse impact on nonfederal parties.
There are additional concerns that the responsibilities associated with this purpose might be shifted to local government and private individuals. This specific concern relates to all three purposes, which the CIP must address by assuring that “solutions” developed for one part of the watershed do not redirect or impose significant impacts or costs to any other sector of the watershed.
With
that said, we recommend that the modified CIP replace this purpose with the
following: “To assist the federal government in crafting voluntary
solutions that contribute to meeting the tribal trust responsibilities of the
federal government. These solutions will not redirect or impose significant
impacts or costs to any other sector of the watershed. Trust obligations not
addressed will be exclusively the responsibility of the
Relationship
of CIP to Other Forums
The
draft plan is too vague on the relationship of the program to other existing
efforts in the watershed. A major defect in restoration and planning
activities to date has been the multiplicity of forums with overlapping
objectives. The draft CIP suggests that the status quo will continue in
all of these activities, thus perpetuating confusion on where progress might
occur and where one should focus efforts. In addition, the relationship
of efforts related to FERC relicensing and the interagency coordination
agreement should be made clear.
Relationship of CIP to Other Coho
Recovery Efforts
The description of the relationship of the CIP to coho
recovery efforts is unclear.
Water
Resources Development Concerns
The draft CIP defines a term, “future development”, which
is not itself part of the purposes of the CIP. In light of the stated
purposes, it would be more appropriate to develop a definition of “future
water resource improvements”. Further, we do not regard “demand
reduction” as being either a future water resource improvement or
development.
Thank
you for your consideration of our comments. We look forward to working with
you and other
Sincerely,
Dan
Keppen
Executive
Director