Klamath Water Users and Natures Conservancy
Tue Jan 22 20:19:34 2002
When I received the following letter that the KWUA and Natures Conservancy is proposing to send within the next day or 2, I spoke with Dan Keppen, new director. He said that the board has directed him to send this joint letter with Nature's Conservancy. I heard from a Range writer, a Paragon Foundation writer, and a writer of several books that, if this letter gets sent, we may as well pack up and leave. We WILL lose our national support, convoys, etc. Dan said to write or fax or give immediate input to him and the board on what the public perception is. Please please write or fax or call him and your KWUA board members instantly, and have your friends send their input too. They represent you and me and your grandmother, and they wantinput. I have been thanked by Dan and 2 board members for mine. The majority of the board think this is an innocent move that shows that we want to 'do the right thing'. These 3 writers have studied the Nature Conservancy for years, and said that of all the 'good neighbor' agreements that turned into hairy lawsuits in the end, NC won 99 percent of them. Please enlighten your board members with facts. They have done a great job and just need some input immediately.
January 18, 2002 On behalf of The Nature Conservancy and the Klamath Basin Water Users Association, we are writing to recommend a specific approach that we believe should be incorporated immediately into the preparation of the 2001 Biological Assessment (BA) and Biological Opinions (BOs) that are now being developed by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for Reclamation's 2001 Operating Plan.Specifically, we request that the agencies work with each other together to identify a series of actions that could be implemented by the Department of the Interior (Interior) and local stakeholder groups to enhance habitat for listed and non-listed species, with emphasis on for the explicit purpose of improving the health and overall status of the Lost River sucker, shortnose sucker and coho salmon., and mMost significantly, that these actions would then be incorporated into a 10 year Operating Plan for the Klamath Project in the forthcoming BA/BOs. The inclusion of these actions in the BA/BOs would obligate Interior complete specific actions within clearly defined time lines, and also obligate the USFWS and NMFS to consider the anticipated benefits of these actions on the listed species as part of their risk assessment in the BOs. In this approach, significant restoration actions that are undertaken to benefit the listed species are "front end loaded into the BOs" in exchange for allowing greater flexibility in Operating Plan for the BOR's Klamath Project. This pragmatic approach allows the development and implementation of reasonable and prudent alternatives for Reclamation’s operating plan while concurrently fostering the recovery of listed species and allowing a balanced reliable and acceptable allocation of water to the Klamath Project.
This approach of "front end loading" the BO with restoration actions in exchange for greater flexibility in operating plans was successfully developed and implemented in the Klamath Basin in 1996 during the Section 7 consultation between PacifiCorp & Cell Tech International and the USFWS. Specifically, as part of the BO and Incidental Take Statement (ITS) issued by the USFWS to PacifiCorp and Cell Tech, PacifiCorp and Cell Tech agreed to contribute approximately $2.5 m towards the acquisition of property at the mouth of the Williamson River Delta, with the understanding and commitment that these lands would be restored to provide habitat for the two listed species of sucker. This Section 7 consultation and the resultant BOs and ITS were prepared by the Klamath Falls Field Office of the USFWS, and at the time was has been held up as a model for addressing Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements and the best interests of both the listed species and the consulting entity.
The same principles that were used to develop and negotiate the 1996 BA/BO/ITS between PacifiCorp & Cell Tech and the USFWS should be employed in the current process. As noted above, the federal agencies should work with each other to identify specific actions that could be mutually agreed upon. For example, possible actions might include: ? Screening the A-Canal
? Developing winter water storage on the Klamath Project and adjoining private lands, constructing riparian fencing along 75 miles of the Sprague River,
? Supporting the creation of - and funding to - a locally directed land trust with the objective of acquiring riparian easements within the Klamath Basin, and
? Funds dedicated for acquisition and restoration of land around Upper Klamath Lake for storage and wetland restoration.There may be additional projects both inside and outside the Project lands that KWUA and TNC will agree or disagree upon. Within this framework, Interior would allocate funds and other stakeholders would make commitments to implement these actions. The actions would have specific objectives, clear time lines and easily measured benchmarks that would be reviewed at prescribed intervals within the multi-year Operations Plan. Failure to meeting the benchmarks and/or to implement the actions would be cause for the USFWS to re-initiate consultation.
We acknowledge that the development and implementation of a BA/BO as we have proposed will require substantial effort, planning and coordination among both the federal agencies and the various private stakeholders. Ultimately, however, implementation of such restoration actions at a landscape scale is the only means to achieve recovery of the listed species. The present BA/BO consultation, if developed within the framework as proposed above, offers the opportunity to achieve recovery of listed species while minimizing impacts to local communities within the affected Klamath Basin. These community impact issues must be addressed with the input of local government and property owners, and must include, at a minimum: ? Assurances that water use associated with proposed restoration actions would not exceed historic water use levels (i.e. these projects cannot create additional consumptive demand);
? Assurances that the federal government (and not individual water districts served by the Klamath Project) will bear the responsibility for securing take permits and funding for proposed landscape restoration actions
; ? Development of a “good neighbor” policy intended to address potential impacts to adjacent farming operations and the local economy (i.e. lost property tax revenues to local government). Both The Nature Conservancy and the Klamath Basin Water Users are committed to and available to help interested federal agencies develop the BA/BO within the context as proposed here. We are interested in constructive activities that compliment the BA and BOs and help create a community working in concert to enhance basin-wide wildlife habitat. If pursued aggressively and with commitment, we believe such an approach would lead to resolution rather than continued conflict regarding listed species, the Endangered Species Act and resource users in the Klamath Basin. The alternative is likely a repeat of April 2000.
Sincerely,
Klamath Water Users Association
The Nature Conservancy of Oregon
Dan and several board members happen to be in a BOR meeting this week, but the phone and fax and mail works.
Dan Keppen
Executive Director
Klamath Water Users Association
2455 Patterson Street, Suite #3
Klamath Falls, OR 97603
(541) 883-6100 - Fax (541) 883-8893