Choosing the Best Fishery Restoration Planning Approach
As part of the initial preparation of this long-range plan, fishery restoration planning efforts underway elsewhere were examined to help identify useful concepts. From this analysis we gleaned those strong points of each program which could be applied to the 10-million-acre Klamath Basin effort (see Table 1-1 for the area distribution of Klamath River Basin subbasins). Most other restoration programs were limited in their scope, addressing only hydropower or logging problems, for example, or focusing on artificial propagation. Consequently, no one restoration program contained all the elements desireable in the local program, as expressed by the scope of issues suggested by Congress, the public and the members of the Task Force.
Some of the advantages of these other fishery restoration planning programs are:
Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program -- Northwest Power Planning Council (NWPPC): Through a policy of "adaptive management," this program is emphasizing monitoring, evaluation, and research so that its effectiveness can be improved over time. The interim goal is a doubling of the returns of salmon and steelhead to the mouth of the Columbia River, as compared to California's SB-2261 goal of doubling the survival of salmon and steelhead to adulthood. Cooperation and consensus is also gradually developing "among previously dissident factions."
Timber/Fish/Wildlife (T/F/W) Process -- State of Washington: Seeking a "win/win" situation, the T/F/W process replaces traditional legal confrontation and political bickering over forest management with the cooperative and adaptive management of Washington's forest related resources. One of many goals, the fishery resource goal is the long-term habitat productivity for natural and wild fish. New studies will provide in formation on the effects of forest practices on fish and water quality, among other resources.
Salmonid Enhancement Program (SEP) -- Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans/British Columbia: The most noted successes of this program are the SEP's education package for school children, "Salmonids in the Classroom," and its extensive community volunteer effort. Similar to the Klamath Program, the SEP is jointly funded by both Federal and provincial governments, but management depends on the species of fish. Its goal is also to double the number of salmonids.
Salmon and Trout Enhancement Program (STEP) -- State of Oregon: This ten-year-old Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife program emphasizes "hands on" public involvement. Department specialists assist more than 250 organized groups statewide to develop and carry out stream survey, habitat improvement, education, and egg incubation/broodstock development projects. STEP's grass-roots delivery system looks like one that would generally work well for the Klamath River Basin Restoration Program.
Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Management Program -- Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Task Force: Since the Trinity River Basin plan and the program that that plan contemplates has been in place since 1982 and has been funded by Congress and the State of California since 1986, it has several more years of experience with restoration efforts than the Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force. A mid-program review (year 5 of the 10-year program) is currently in progress and the results should be available to apply soon. Watershed stabilization and protection activities are ranked high in order of priority.
The development of this long-range plan for the Klamath River Basin Restoration Program involved the following steps:
2. Categorizing and consolidating the issues.
3. Identifying the findings related to the issues.
4. Developing goals and objectives.
5. Developing policies.
6. Identifying project selection criteria.
7. Designing a schedule for projects and tasks.
8. Developing an environmental assessment.
Everyone has a different perception of "The Problem" and its solutions. If we are to comprehend the problem adequately in the long-range plan and Restoration Program, then the critical issues and concerns must be thoroughly identified at the beginning of the process.
Identification of issues and expressions of concern were solicited and gathered from:
1. The general public -- through public "scoping" meetings conducted in Eureka and Yreka during fall, 1989. These meetings attracted nearly 200 interested persons who provided a great deal of information and a lengthy list of legitimate concerns. Forty letters were received from people interested in the Restoration Program.
2. The Task Force -- each member was interviewed by the consulting team during the start-up of the planning effort. In addition, the planning team combed the Task Force's meeting minutes, from the beginning, for indications of long-range planning direction.
3. Fishery scientists and managers -- from State and Federal agencies, Indian tribes, and research institutions, actively engaged in Klamath River fisheries research and management, responded to interviews, questionnaires and requests for both published and unpublished data.
4. The Klamath Fishery Management Council -- whose meetings the planning team attended, minutes we reviewed and, in several cases, whose members the team interviewed.
5. Congress -- the Klamath Act and its accompanying House Report were studied closely to ensure that the intent of Congress is pursued carefully by the Task Force in developing directions for the Restoration Program.
6. The 1985 Plan -- was reviewed thoroughly as a
point of departure for developing this Plan (see Table 1-3 for a comparison
of how this Plan's structure, the structure used by the Task Force since
1987 to organize project proposals and funding decisions, and the 1985
Plan structure all compare).
Categorizing and Consolidating the Issues
In order to better manage the lengthy list of issues, those that appeared to be related were put into the natural categories that appear in the left-hand column in Table 1-3.
Working from the list of issues (the public sessions, interviews, reviews of the minutes, the Klamath Act, the House Report, and the rest yielded nearly 700 expressions of concern, need, etc.) the planning team asked the Task Force and the fishery specialists "What do we know about these issues? Is this a real problem or just a perceived problem? Is there information enough to compel an action, or is more information needed?" The planning team tried to keep the findings short and to the point -- and used tables and figures wherever possible, so that the findings would not become lost in a thicket of information. The major issues addressed in the Plan have been listed at the beginning of each chapter.
Developing Goals and Objectives
Recalling that the Task Force wishes to structure
and maintain the Restoration Program's long-range plan in an updatable,
"step-down" format (a structure that we have borrowed from the Trinity
River Basin Task Force that shows the relationship of Plan objectives,
policies, and priorities to each major goal) the planning team kept the
concepts separated into goals (an enduring statement of purpose,
the end toward which effort is directed) and objectives (the specific
attainable ends toward which effort is directed) under which the selected
priorities, policies and tasks could be organized.
Developing Policies
Once the issues were evaluated, findings reached, goals and objectives framed, the planning team drafted recommended policies for the Task Force's consideration. The importance of having clearly-stated, adopted policies cannot be overemphasized. The policies set out in this Plan will provide a firm foundation for its position on issues and actions.
Identifying Project Selection Criteria
The basis for developing project selection criteria is discussed in Chapter 3 (Habitat Restoration), Chapter 5 (Population Restoration), and Chapter 7 (Administration).
Designing the Schedule of Projects and Tasks
The schedule of projects and tasks will be designed and incorporated into the step-down structure when the Task Force and its technical advisors, the public, and the agencies sharing jurisdiction for Klamath River Basin fishery management have reached agreement on the priorities for Program investment.
The following goals are to provide the Task Force its long-range direction in accomplishing the restoration of the Klamath River Basin anadromous fish populations.
I. Restore, by the year 2006, the biological productivity of the Klamath River Basin in order to provide for viable commercial and recreational ocean fisheries and in-river tribal (subsistence, ceremonial and commercial) and recreational fisheries.
II. Support the Klamath Fishery Management Council in development of harvest regulation recommendations that will provide for viable fisheries and escapements.
III. Recommend to the Congress, state legislatures, and local governments the actions each must take to protect the fish and fish habitats of the Klamath River Basin.
IV. Inform the public about the value of anadromous fish to the Klamath River region and gain their support for the Restoration Program.
V. Promote cooperative relationships between the lawful users of the Basin's land and water resources and those who are primarily concerned with the implementation of the Restoration Plan and Program.
These goals are repeated in Chapter 8 (Conclusions) where they are placed together with their associated objectives and policies.
