March 30-31, 1993, in Klamath Falls, Oregon
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
wjp United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Klamath River Fishery Resource Office P.O. Box 1006 Yreka, CA 96097-1006 (916) 842-5763 April 28, 1993 Dear Interested Party, Enclosed is a summary of the proceedings of the Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force meeting, held March 30-31, 1993, in Klamath Falls, Oregon. If you would like more information regarding this meeting, or a full copy of the notes please contact this office. Sincerely, Ronald A. Iverson Project Leader Enclosure Summary Minutes of the Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force meeting, March 30-31, 1993 Klamath Falls, Oregon Members Present: Kent Bulfinch, Mitch Farro, Leaf Hillman, Bill Shake, Nat Bingham, Rod Mclnnis, Mike Orcutt, George Thackeray, Keith Wilkinson, Barbara Holder, Forrest Reynolds, Tom Stokely, (Bob Rohde for Leaf Hillman) Absentees: Walter Lara, Jr., Don DeVol March 30, 1993 Agenda items 1. 2 and 3: Call to order and adoption of agenda, introductions, introductory comments. Bill Shake called the meeting to order at 1:00 po. Welcomed all to meeting. Gave a briefing for the purpose of the meeting, emphasizing that the upper basin plan amendment document was out for review and that the Task Force would be taking public comments later in the evening. Orcutt asked to include discussion of the salmon seasons. Motion to adopt the agenda (Attachment 1) carried. Agenda item 4: Adoption of minutes from February 3-4. 1993, meeting^ Motion to approve minutes of the February meeting carried. Agenda item 5: Report on Clinton Administration Jobs Bill. Shake reported that the House of Representatives has passed the bill and it/is now in the Senate for' consideration. He said that the' UVS. FisTTand Wildlifes'-"' Service - Region 1 submitted proposals f or =work: amounting to $26 million (including approximately $4.5 million for fisheries programs). The programs in the State of Washington would receive $1,067,000, programs in Oregon will receive $404,000, and programs in California would receive $2.7 million. He said that some of the funds will be used in the Klamath Basin. Shake indicated that he wants the Task Force involved in the project recommendation process in some practical way. Holder reported that the U.S. Forest Service - Klamath National Forest submitted proposals for $600,000 in ecosystem restoration work. She said these projects tie in well with the long range plan. She also said that, because of the short proposal development process, some projects don't have adequate NEPA documents or proper engineering. When asked how the Task Force project selection process could be integrated into the Jobs Bill project selection process, Shake said it would be difficult to do because of the short turn around time. He said that as soon as we get firm funding targets we can send out more specific project proposals for review by Task Force members. He said that a Task Force might be able to hold a conference call to review these project proposals and provide input. Bingham suggested utilizing the Fiscal Year 1993 list of ranked project proposals. Holder suggested having staff develop a list of proposals submitted by all agencies working in the basin. 1 *** Action *** KRFRO will compile a list of Jobs Bill project proposals by all agencies. This list will be sent to Task Force members prior to the June meeting. Agenda item 6: Upper Klamath Basin issues (J. Crawford). Dave Vogel briefed the Task Force on the intent of the Ecosystem Restoration Plan for the Upper Klamath Basin, developed by the Klamath Basin Hater Users Protective Association. He said that the plan focuses on problem solutions and is intended to serve as a catalyst to develop a comprehensive recovery plan. It is also meant to assist the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in development and implementation of their recovery plan. He also stated that the plan doesn't focus on single limiting factors for recovery of the ecosystem. He described some of the recommendations for recovery, such as offsite water storage development and implementation of wetlands restoration pilot projects. He said that the plan advocates improved resource management through CRMPs, riparian habitat restoration, integrated and improved water utilization, and water conservation measures. L~ John Crawford noted that the Klamath Basin Water Users Protective Association's Ecosystem Restoration Plan was developed in leu of a restoration plan to be written by the USFWS. He told the Task Force that they could also utilize this Ecosystem Restoration Plan by adopting it in leu of the long range plan amendment document. Crawford asked the Task Force if the upper basin amendment was a "done deal." To which the reply was no. He claimed that the upper basin amendment does not address water quantity solutions. He stated that the long range plan suggests taking water from the irrigation supply by dismantling the Klamath River Compact. He stated that offsite storage would solve many water supply problems. Crawford addressed the issue of under-representation of upper basin constituents on the Task Force. Consensus decision making could potentially ;be changedto .majority- vote/ or :_- - other process, thereby making the representation issue even more significant.."-;•• Shake's response to Crawford's comments included these points;: V) the upper---:;. basin amendment was not a "done..deal*-:"- 2).---the- Taskr Force -membership-is __j., determined in the authorizing legislation (including „ amendments), and 3) it is not the purpose of the Task Force to dismantle the Klamath River Compact. Shake said that the upper basin amendment is an effort to develop awareness of the entire Klamath River ecosystem. Agenda item 7: Bureau of Reclamation — Report on 1993 operating plan. Jim Bryant, speaking for the Bureau of Reclamation - Klamath Project (BOR), indicated that the 1992 precipitation and runoff were well above average for the upper basin. He said that they project inflow to Upper Klamath Lake to be 120% of normal. BOR anticipates enough water for Class A, B, and C users this year. Bryant also said that they shouldn't have any trouble meeting lake elevation levels as identified in the USFWS biological opinion for protecting the endangered suckers. Lake levels should also be met this fall and next spring as well. Bob Rohde pointed out that, now that the drought is considered to be ended, Pacific Power and Light Company would have to initiate a formal process of request/notificatiqn/review by FERC prior to reducing flows below the minimum levels again. t Agenda item 8: Upper Klamath Basin issues (Elwood Miller). Miller said that the Klamath Tribe is participating in the Task Force meeting because they, too, share the responsibility to manage the watershed. He stated that the Klamath Tribe is concerned because all of the key players are not yet willing to meet to resolve these issues. Miller said that the Klamath Compact and this Task Force have the potential to manage and restore the ecosystem. He also pointed out that the Water User's plan deserves adequate consideration and some ideas should be considered. When addressing the issue of under-representation of upper basin interests on the Task Force, he said that one representative could effectively represent a large group of people. Miller said that the Klamath Tribe supports the Task Force and the water users that are willing to work to resolve these problems. "The time is now for all of us to work together. We hope that you are serious." Agenda item 9: Public Comment, (Leigh Johnson), representing Congressman Bob Smith: He pointed out that upper basin residents are notably concerned with the Klamath River Fishery Restoration Plan. He stated that he was more comfortable after attending this Task Force meeting and hearing discussion on the issues; primarily the consensus decision making process. He also pointed out that it is the desire of the local constituency to support the Ecosystem Restoration Plan, as developed by the Klamath Basin Water Users Protective Association (KBWUPA). He cited offstream storage as a goal that the Task Force should adopt, making it a mutual goal of all interested parties. Additional Agenda item: discussion of salmon season. Orcutt opened the discussion by stating that the Pacific Fisheries Management Council would soon ;be making a recommendation to the Secretary__of_ Commerce, on the 1993 Klamath River harvest rates. He pointed out-that ior three years:?^:.. spawning escapement for natural spawning Klamath River fall chinook failed to meet minimum levels. He announced that the Hoopa Valley -Tribe_was_aSlSi_hgithe-_ Secretary of Interior to allow for additional-escapement-; (for a total of 54,000 natural fall chinook) in 1993. Orcutt asked for support from the Task Force on this position. "'••••------- •-• —. :- -.-.<.:--••- -- >,:,.^-.,-.-=^-=^.,m=,.,,_ Stokely and Rohde indicated that Trinity County and the Karuk Tribe supported this position. Bingham pointed out that the commercial ocean troll industry supported this conservation strategy in concept, but that the industry could not survive another harvest reduction. Wilkinson pointed out that the total commercial ocean harvest of Klamath River fall chinook in 1992 was only 1,400 fish, compared to the 1992 inriver harvest of 6,000 fall chinook. Farro reminded everyone that the 1983 run was also below the "floor" but that it produced record returns in the mid 1980s. *** Motion *** (Orcutt): I move that the Task Force support an escapement of 55,000 natural spawners and forward this recommendation to the Pacific Fishery Management Council. Mclnnis stated that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) must support the existing escapement goal of 35,000 natural spawners, and he could not support the motion. Shake said that the motion was out of order because the Task Force's responsibility is restoration not harvest management.