|
|
Hatfield
Co-Chairs: Mark Stern (mstern@tnc.org) World-Wide-Web: www.fs.fed.us/r6/winema/ukbwg May 30, 2002 Participation: Mark Stern, Marshall Staunton, Jim Carpenter, Steve West, Jack Sheehan, Anita Ward, Dale Foresee, Brandi Snoozy, Glenn Barrett, Allen Foreman, Curt Mullis (for Steve Lewis), Jim Myron, Linda Long, Teri Raml, Roger Hamilton (Governor's Office), Jennie Messmer Guests and Public: Mike Connelly, Stephanie Carpenter, Darrell Kenops (Governor's Office), Jennifer Allen (Oregon Department of Agriculture), Cindy Staunton, Felice Pace and others Support: Dave Ceppos (facilitation), Jerry Haugen (notes) Old and New Business - Mark Stern Quorum - A quorum (16) was not present Basin-Wide Planning and ESA Compliance -Mike Connelly Glenn Barrett pointed out that one expectation is that the results of the UKBWG planning effort will be legislated into a form like a HCP. Agricultural Brand Marketing - Darrell Kenops Darrell is working on the Oregon Advantage that currently involves 12 projects across the state. The State is trying to facilitate those folks that want to move forward. Urban, suburban, farm and forest projects are involved. Marshall Staunton asked about prices associated with some of these. Darrell responded that Klamath Fresh Potatoes is one example that has some price premium. Roger added that there are two possibilities: technical assistance to individuals, assistance to groups or products and identification of crops and value-added products that are appropriate to the basin climate. Relative to the costs, Roger noted that there is additional expense in maintaining consumer trust through certification that must generate more income for producers than it costs. Jennifer noted that there is a growing movement that recognizes conservation activities associated with products. The story needs to address where the product comes from and who produces it. The goal is to capitalize on this. Jerry Gardiner (Oregon Ag Department) is very keen on this, although it would need support locally. Roger asked if this approach is suitable in the basin at the moment. Glenn Barrett thinks that it is a good program with good ideas and he is glad it is coming around. Marshall Staunton added that he would like to see producers have the option to do this on a voluntary basis. This could tie the HCP with branding. Anita Ward noted that this ties in with a concept that has been discussed before. Mike Connelly added that a conference to address this topic was under development but planning stopped for unknown reasons. Jim Myron asked how the Oregon Advantage would be institutionalized to carry on beyond the current state administration. Roger responded that this depends upon the extent to which those involved wish to continue. Mark Stern circulated a paper on the subject. It is available online at www.oda.state.or.us/information/AgQuarterly/index.html (The Agriculture Quarterly, Spring 2002) Klamath Image Mark - Jim Carpenter Jim suggested the development of a newsletter-type piece as well as video pieces. The idea is to pull together basin interests then project a positive image to the outside world. The image involves a cornucopia pouring out water. In response to a question, Jim noted that everyone likes the idea, but funding has not been made available. He has met with Allen Forman and Bud Ullman relative to Tribal interests and Dan Chen relative to potential conflicts with the marketing approach he is doing. No problems were identified. Farm Bill - Mark Stern Mark's impression is that the Klamath Basin funds are coming from water conservation programs and directed through EQIP to private landowners. Operating Rules - Dave Ceppos Dave went through the changes for the group. Item 8 - Membership - now reads exactly like the legislation (Oregon Resource Conservation Act.). Mark Stern suggested that the Act be mentioned. Item 9 is also exactly the same as the legislation. Curt Mullis noted that appointments are to involve consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture as well as the Secretary of Interior, so Ag needs to be added to the discussion. The group needs to decide how long in advance it needs the ballot for the election of members. The group generally agreed that 7 calendar days is an appropriate time frame. The Working group chairs are expected to reflect the consensus of the group when representing the group and are not expected to get consensus on everything they do. The remainder of the changes were made as directed by the group at the earlier meeting. Based upon a straw poll the group unanimously endorsed the revised rules for ratification at a future meeting. Restoration Plan - Dave Ceppos Glenn Barrett likes the format and tone and would not change it. Anita Ward is impressed with the use of the photos and believes the photos are very appropriate. It is expected that the document will be bound using plastic spiral so that it lays flat. Unbound paper copies and electronic versions will be available to the group for copying and web posting. Dave suggested that the tone may be too self-congratulatory. Mark Stern noted that he may submit some wordsmithing that would tone that down a little. The group generally agreed that all comments would be to Jones and Stokes by June 10. Titles:
After some discussion, the group asked Joes and Stokes to re-craft some of these for a decision at the next meeting. Photos: Anita Ward would like to see pictures of restoration projects that have already been done. Cultural or community photos are also needed. Several sources of photos were suggested: Herald and News (Gary Thain and Ron Winn), Anders Tomlinson, Balancing Water photos, Dave Meinke, Klamath Tribes, NRCS etc. Other photos to be submitted by June 10. The photos that are used will be attributed. Jim Myron asked how many images would be used. Dave suggested 10 to 12. Each color page costs about a dollar to copy. Maps: Acknowledgements: Jim Carpenter, Alice Kilham and Karl Wenner are the only past chairs. Jerry Haugen is the only note taker. The group generally agreed to thank both the California and Oregon delegation and the Governors for their past and future support. Chapter 1: Chapter 3: Issue 3: The name of the law should be mentioned - Oregon Resources Conservation act. Issue 4: A proposed change here and in the operating rules is to strike bullet 1 and make bullet 3 more broad to include members and participants. There was no general consensus on this as members were ambivalent about changing the current wording. Dave Ceppos will attempt to reword this if time permits. Felice Pace raised a concern about how participants (other than members) would be kept informed. He suggested the key to keeping these people involved is to supply them with a continuing flow of information. Mark Stern responded that this should be fully addressed in the public participation plan. Marshall Staunton and Linda Long suggested that a more appropriate quote than the one from Jesse Jackson be used. Issue 5: The topic of membership was not deferred, it was simply defined by the legislation. "Members" are members of the Working Group. "Participants" includes everyone that chooses to participate in the planning process. Issue 6: The timelines associated with the Outreach Subcommittee cannot be determined until funding is available. Mark Stern suggested that the dates be deleted. There was general agreement to drop them. Teri Raml suggested adding caveats similar to those in Issue 4. The group generally agreed to include the Howard quote. Issue 7: Mike Eng has suggested that the last paragraph be clarified as to who the contract manager is. Dave Ceppos will talk to Mike about this and perhaps tweak the wording. Issue 8: Marshall Staunton noted that the ERO is mentioned in the legislation. Given that language and the fact that Steve Lewis has had to fulfill a different, regulatory, role, it is a prime time to ask for someone to be appointed to fill the ERO role. He suggested that the definition of ERO should be included. Jennie Messmer suggested that the wording say the ERO "as envisioned by Senator Hatfield and defined in the legislation." Marshall Staunton expressed his view that the expressed purpose of the ERO has been changed with Steve Lewis taking on the regulatory role. Curt Mullis noted that in 1991 and 1992 the four agencies wanted to cooperate in the ERO. He could not say that they are still interesting in cooperating, thus it may not be possible for one person to bring that together. He suggested that the group promote cooperation among the agencies. Steve West suggested that the label "ERO" is a tar baby - for all the wrong reasons - and should not be referenced by name. Curt agreed to write an expanded discussion on this and e-mail it to Dave Ceppos for inclusion in the document. The concept will be to look at coordinating and involving all appropriate agencies (state as well as federal). Jim Myron noted that it was only reasonable for the Working Group to expect that kind of cooperation among the agencies. Issue 9: The date will be struck. Mark Stern suggested: "Funding will be necessary to convene and support a Technical Advisory Committee." Issue 10: Marshall Staunton indicated that the Restoration Plan may, ultimately, be developed in ways differently from listed as phases. He is ok with the section as written although he would like to have more flexibility. Dave Ceppos noted that there is no guarantee that the final product will look at all like this. Nonetheless it is important to start somewhere - with a document like this. Jennie Messmer suggested that the plan needs an implementation component including how to select and fund the actual on-the-ground work and how to monitor. This was added as a phase 3 deliverable. Marshall Staunton suggested adding language that this would not be a mandated or regulated approach, but an incentive-based, voluntary approach. The group generally agreed to this. Teri Raml indicated that public outreach should start in phase one with plan initiation. It will be moved from Phase 2. It was generally agreed that BLM will take the lead with the Institute and other federal agencies to get an estimate for the detailed work plan. The first sentence under "Cost of the Proposed Plan" should indicate "upper basin restoration plan." Issue 11: Mark Stern suggested that a list of potential funders would be appropriate here. Teri Raml suggested that the Federal agencies be noted. Jennie Messmer noted that this section should talk about approaching any and all funding sources but include a starting list. It was suggested that the Presidential Working Group help identify federal funding sources. It was also noted that lack of participation by NMFS and BIA could also be resolved by the Presidential group. Chapter 4: Jim Carpenter suggested that while the group is committed to being out in front, it will probably prove to be an embarrassment if specific numbers of weeks are included. Jennie Messmer noted that funders will need this schedule. Marshall Staunton suggested that Chapter 4 include alternative descriptions of the final consensus as seen by each interest group (an "if I were king" exercise "what will a restoration plan look like - what's the answer - what can this group reach consensus on"). Jennie Messmer suggested that this may be an early step in the scoping process. Linda Long suggested that a hard sell is needed first followed by the details that Marshall suggests. Marshall added that there is a strong desire to get the ideas on the table soon. Anita Ward suggested a link to a collage of photos presenting the issues with a collage of visions as to what the group sees as possible consensus conclusions. Marshall Staunton clarified that this is not really a king-of-the-world exercise, but instead a description of what participants think the agreeable result would be. This is the first step in interest-based negotiations. Teri Raml suggested that this is parallel to the SWOT analysis the group did a few years ago that ended by returning to the three goals of the working group. She suggested that this would happen again. Steve West supports taking the three goals and discussing what identifiable things the group thinks could be agreed upon. Curt Mullis suggested that each participant provide three bullets of specific needs and another three bullets on what we think can be agreed upon for each of the three goals. This could be done in 10 days. Anita Ward suggested that this be on the agenda for completion at the next meeting. The group generally agreed to discuss this at the next meeting. This could involve a review of the situation assessment. Marshall reiterated that the major immediate need is a list of specific things every member has to have out of the process as well as what can be developed into a consensus. All participants will get suggestions for Chapter 4, and other sections, to Dave Ceppos by June 10. Next Meetings June 20: 5PM - 8PMPotential agenda Items: The chairs will work with the group via e-mail to establish a regular meeting schedule.
Questions? Comments? Suggestions?
This page last modified Friday, 28-Jan-2005 19:28:13 EST
|