* Task Force composition and decision-making process.
* What level of staffing is necessary for administering the program.
* Need to stimulate new non-Federal financial contributions to fishery restoration.
* Need for Task Force, Council, and Trinity River Task Force's activities to be complimentary.
* How to reconcile the fishery management objectives of all agencies claiming jurisdiction over Klamath River anadromous fish.
* Better coordination and cooperation desired.
* How to best share data and information developed or used by the Program.
* Need to have project selection be driven by needs of system rather than by proposals received.
Congress determined that the Task Force:
(2) shall assist and coordinate its activities with, Federal, State, and local governmental or private anadromous fish restoration projects within the Area;
(3) shall conduct any other activity that is necessary to accomplish the objectives of the program; and
(4) may act as an advisor to the Council.
The Task Force's original composition was defined by Congress in the 1986 Klamath Act. Any changes in representation must be approved by Congress, as was done in 1988 when the Karuk and Yurok tribal representatives were specified in an amendment. Presently, the 14 member Task Force consists of representatives of the commercial salmon fishing industry, the in-river sport fishing community, the Hoopa Valley Tribe, the Yurok Tribe, the Karuk Tribe, the California Department of Fish and Game, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Department of the Interior, the National Marine Fisheries Service, local government (Del Norte, Humboldt, Siskiyou, and Trinity counties), and the Department of Agriculture.
Concern has been expressed by some that the composition does not include all of the natural resource users in the Basin which may be affected by the Restoration Program (i.e., farmers and ranchers, timber industry, miners, environmentalists, and all of the pertinent natural resource agencies (i.e., California Department of Water Resources, California Department of Forestry, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Soil Conservation Service)). To directly represent all of these interests, an additional nine members would be necessary. The current 14 member Task Force is already quite large and increasing its size by as many as nine members could make decision-making unwieldy.
When the Klamath Act was developed, the authors attempted to provide a mix of interests which the Task Force now represents, and not solely fishery users or solely agencies (like the Trinity River Task Force). Since membership is limited "to minimize expense and logistical difficulties," Congress encouraged the Task Force to "take full advantage of the experience and technical expertise of the bureaus, departments, or other subdivisions of the member agencies or other interested and knowledgeable parties" (USHR 1986).
The "Operating Procedures" of the Task Force require that all of its decisions must be made by unanimous consent, although the Act only imposed this requirement on the Council. As described in the House of Representative's report on the Klamath Bill in Congress, the intent of the "unanimity" procedure is "to ensure that recommendations to the Secretary have the necessary support to encourage full implementation by the respective agencies." Consensus decision-making has reportedly been successfully used in other fishery related committees, such as the Salmon Stamp Committee and the Timber/Fish/Wildlife (T/F/W) Program in Washington. The T/F/W process includes explicit "Ground Rules" which each of the participants agree to work under, with the intent to develop a "Win/Win" result.
How this consensus decision-making process is carried out can affect the outcome of many issues. At present, no action is the result if any objection is raised by a Task Force member. There is concern that consensus decision-making must be used more creatively to better resolve the more difficult and contentious issues. If narrow or parochial viewpoints dominate, then it may be impossible for the Task Force to agree on or implement a long-range plan, or the Program may be reduced by "vetoes" to the lowest common denominator of innocuous and ineffective actions. On the other hand, an occasional inability to reach consensus can be expected and does not mean that the Task Force is failing.
The Task Force has decided to form committees of its members or their appointees "in order to facilitate the mission of the Task Force." Its "Operating Procedures" define their mission, tasks, membership, and operations. In addition, the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) sets standards and uniform procedures to govern the operation and administration of the Task Force and Council, as well as each committee. Each non-agency member is eligible for reimbursement of travel expenses.
To date, two committees have been used only on an interim basis (Mission/Goals, and Education) and two are now regular standing committees:
Technical Work Group (TWG): This group was initially used to inventory pre-Task Force restoration projects in the Klamath Basin. Providing technical and scientific consultation to the Task Force, it was used to objectively rate project proposals for Task Force funding in FY89 and FY90. This task will be continued, along with others: preparing annual work plans, assisting in drafting the annual budget, and other technical assignments.
Budget Committee: Made up of Task Force members, its mission is to draft annual and multi-year budgets for the Program and other requested budgetary tasks.
Final decisions are made in every case by the Task Force and not by the Committees. For an illustration of how the Project Selection Process works, see Figure 7-3.
The Trinity River Task Force meets quite infrequently and has delegated much of its planning and review functions to the Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC), with several subcommittees then making recommendations to the TCC (e.g., Grant Proposal Subcommittee). Final decisions on project funding are made by the Program Field Office and Task Force, which must follow the latest Three Year Action Plan adopted by the Task Force.
During the 20 year effort, modifications will inevitably need to be made in this Plan and the Program. Changes in philosophy, restoration techniques, priorities, budgets, and other assumptions of the Plan will occur and adjustments must be made to the new realities. Through the process of "adaptive management," these uncertainties of the future should be recognized and incorporated into the planning process.
Other fishery restoration programs have completed,
or are in the process of completing, mid-program or five-year reviews:
Trinity Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, Salmonid Enhancement Program (SEP)
in British Columbia, and the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program.
Progress reports are presented to the public, in most cases, which summarize
the actions taken, the numbers of fish produced, the benefits and costs
involved, and other measurable variables. Evaluations have usually been
internal rather than external.
According to the Klamath Act, the Secretary of the Interior and the Director of the California Department of Fish and Game "shall provide the Task Force with the administrative and technical support services necessary for the effective functioning of the Task Force."
Klamath River Fishery Resource Office (KRFRO)
Representing the Secretary of the Interior, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has established an office for the Program in Yreka, California, near the upper part of the Klamath Basin. This Klamath River Fishery Resource Office was originally intended to be "operation central" for the Restoration Program, offering the services necessary to carry out the operations of the Task Force and the Council.
The currently proposed staffing plan is shown in Figure 7-1. As can be seen, the positions include three fishery biologists and two non-biologists.
The Project Leader supervises the Program's administration: staffing the Task Force and Council meetings and responding to their requests, reviewing progress on restoration projects, coordinating with other USFWS offices (Portland, Sacramento, Arcata, and Weaverville), and overseeing the Klamath River Fishery Resource Office. This staff leader is to act as a communication link and central coordination point for biological aspects of the Program.
A Senior Scientist serves to ensure technical evaluation of the restoration program, to maintain quality control for biological work, and to monitor adherence to, and accomplishment of, the biological aspects of the Plan.
An Interpretive Specialist performs community education and publicity, and serves to monitor adherence to, and accomplishment of, the education aspects of the Plan. Funding comes from the "Education" rather than the "Administration" budget category of the Task Force.
The Cooperative Agreements Specialist is in charge of the administrative details of the projects funded through the Task Force, mainly the processing of cooperative agreements and invoices.
A Clerk performs the necessary clerical functions of the office and the meetings.
Concern has been voiced about the Program budget being "top heavy" in administration. In comparison to the Trinity Basin Program, much less staff is involved in the Klamath Program. However, the proportion of the budget for Administration has ranged from 22% to 35% of the $1.0 million Federal share in recent years (Table 7-1). Of this amount, $80,000 goes to the USFWS Portland office for contract administration, and $20-25,000 goes to non-staffing costs (e.g., travel, lodging, and meals for Task Force and Council meetings).
Figure 7-1 -- Klamath River Fishery Resource Office Staffing,
1990.
To successfully implement the Program, a proper balance is needed between the costs of administration and implementation. If adequate communication and coordination is to occur, for example, the Task Force should expect a fair proportion of costs for phone bills, photocopying, and travel. Implementation of the Plan is not all construction projects and studies, either. As a policy planning document, much of the implementation will also be through staff helping to carry out the policies. Examples include: providing comments for the Task Force (based on the Plan's policies) on pertinent habitat protection issues (e.g., USFS Land Management Plans and EIS's, CDFG suction mining regulations), setting up local meetings or workshops with landowners, establishing and updating a restoration data base, seeking new funding sources, and attending coordination meetings with other agencies.
In addition, a balance is needed between the amount of time spent by staff on Task Force and Council matters. It is presently unclear what the proportion should be; in 1989, an estimated 80% of staff time was spent on Council's needs. To date, the Council and its Technical Advisory Team meet more frequently than the Task Force and its committees due to pressing annual deadlines for recommendations to the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC). The Task Force will need increasing staff time as more projects are approved and the Long Range Plan becomes implemented.
California Department of Fish and Game
The Department primarily offers staffing through its existing employees (biologists and contracting specialists) who are assigned to the Inland Fisheries Division's Fishery Restoration Program. A portion of their time is allocated to reviewing Klamath River Basin Proposals, awarding and administering these contracts, and performing field evaluations. CDFG's biologists also offer data collection and technical assistance to the Council.
With the Department's current budgetary difficulties, expansion of staff numbers or time commitments will require new sources of funding.
The Restoration Program is dependent on both Federal and non-Federal sources of funding.
Between October 1, 1986 (FY 1987) and September 30, 2006 (FY 2006), Congress has authorized to be appropriated to the Department of the Interior an amount of $21.0 million for the "design, construction, operation, and maintenance" of the Program.
As shown in Table 7-1, the Federal expenditure for FY89 and FY90 has averaged very close to the $1.0 million expected of it. These two years represent the first ones during which the Task Force was "fully" functioning. During the initial start-up years, no projects were funded and administrative costs amounted to $40,000 in FY87 and $130,000 in FY88. These funds were provided through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's regular operating budget and were not appropriated under the Act.
While not guaranteed, the Program has been fortunate in receiving its full appropriation from Congress each year that it has been requested. Whether unallocated funds can be carried over to the next fiscal year is still uncertain at this point, based on Federal fiscal policies. This issue has yet to be tested. Concern has also been raised about the additional uncertainty of receiving the full appropriation from Congress during particularly lean Federal budget years.
Since the $300,000 or so of annual administrative costs were considered to represent a large share of the Program's Federal cost-share, additional administrative augmentation monies are being sought by the Portland office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in future Interior Department proposals for the President's budget. Additional funds for the Council's operations have also been suggested as a possibility, as considerable administrative time is spent assisting the Council.
The Klamath Act stipulates that "50 percent of the cost of the development and implementation of the program must be provided by one or more non-Federal sources on a basis considered by the Secretary (of the Interior) to be timely and appropriate." "Non-Federal source" is defined to include State or local government, any private entity, and any individual. Federal money received by a State or local government cannot be considered a non-Federal source to carry out the program.
Besides the outlay of cash contributions, the value of in-kind contributions and real and personal property "for the purposes of implementing the program" can be included by the Secretary of the Interior. Volunteer services in carrying out surveys, censuses, and other scientific studies are specifically mentioned as one form of in-kind contribution. What qualifies for in-kind contributions will be officially defined in a Federal Register rulemaking on the subject, following a public comment period, recommendation by the Task Force, and approval by the Secretary of the Interior.
The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) has been looked to by the Task Force for providing much of the non-Federal funding portion. As can be seen in Table 7-2, the amount of its annual share for Klamath Basin projects has fluctuated since the Program began in 1986, averaging around $300,000 in recent years. In addition to funding projects, CDFG also contributes staff time (about $50,000 in FY88-89). If State-approved restoration projects do not get implemented, the remaining funds do not carry over for Klamath Basin use the next year but revert to statewide use. CDFG has no funds set aside for the Klamath Basin (M. Odemar, CDFG, personal communication).
Continued funding from CDFG is always a concern. As more fishery restoration projects get approved in other basins of the State (e.g., Sacramento, Russian), competition for limited State funds increases. For the Trinity River Restoration Program, the State is required to pay 15% of the restoration budget (minus certain projects) in cash, not through funded projects. Current funding for stream and fish restoration is primarily derived from voter initiative bond acts approved in the 1980's (Propositions 19, 70, and 99), each of which has specific constraints on how the funds can be spent. State funds in many cases are earmarked for construction projects and cannot be used for studies, monitoring, or assessments.
There is a need to seek and keep record of other non-Federal contributions besides those of California Department of Fish and Game. If significant non-Federal matching cannot be demonstrated, the Federal funding of the Program could be jeopardized in future Congressional budgets. In addition, the $1.0 million dollar annual cost-share which is to be provided by each of the sources (Federal and non-Federal) should also be considered as a minimum, not a maximum, amount to be spent on fish restoration in the Klamath Basin. Other sources of Federal and non-Federal funds for possible use in implementing the Klamath Program are listed in Table 7-3.
To count as a non-Federal contribution to the Program, the Task Force has decided that the project must be consistent with this Plan (or pre-1990, with the CH2M-Hill action plan); and be approved by the Task Force, even if no funds are received through the Task Force.
TABLE 7-1 Klamath Basin Fishery Restoration
Program Fiscal 1989-1990 Federal Funding Levels - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Klamath
River Fishery Resource Office
Additional new funding sources (See Table 7-3) which may be explored include:
o Through state legislative or voter initiative action, new bond acts (like Proposition 19, 70, or 99) could be adopted which would provide funds to help implement the Klamath Program.
o In the Columbian River Basin, Congress authorized an energy surcharge on hydropower revenues to help pay for fish restoration projects. The Sacramento River Management Plan has suggested a similar approach to provide additional implementation funds, which it estimates could amount to several million dollars each year at a 0.05 cent per kilowatt hour set-aside. The Upper Klamath River has three power plants in California and three in Oregon. Such action would require federal or state legislative action.
o A Klamath River Basin Stamp for sport fishing licenses could be offered for sale, with proceeds to be dedicated to Klamath fish restoration. Administration could be done through the California Department of Fish and Game, much like the Salmon Stamp program of the commercial salmon fishermen.
o Obtain a timber harvest surcharge tax for all timber cut on private and public lands in the Klamath Basin. At present, California collects a tax on all timber at the time it is cut (the Timber Yield Tax Act), so the administrative mechanism is in place. state and federal legislation would be needed to authorize such a tax.
A $42 million, 20 year Program will be developing and collecting a great deal of raw data and analyzed information over its lifespan. How to best get this information out to restoration workers, biologists, the public, and others is an important issue.
Several information sharing efforts are already underway by the Klamath Fishery Resource Office:
o A database was developed for inventorying completed fishery restoration projects in the Basin using existing DBase III+ software.
o A collection of pertinent fisheries management and habitat restoration documents which could be expanded and catalogued into a useful technical library. (The Trinity Program is also developing a formal reference library.)
o As part of the Education project, the staff Interpretive Specialist will be producing a periodic newsletter about the Program's progress, to be sent to a wide audience.
A Habitat and Population Database
The Restoration Program and its cooperators have no central information system, no "database," from which to evaluate the condition of anadromous fish in the Klamath River Basin or the effectiveness of the Program. A great deal of information concerning historic and present Klamath River fish and fish habitat exists, scattered about in the "gray literature" of government files and reports. More of it is being created every day and scattered beyond the current reach of the Restoration Program. While such information could bring an enormous benefit to the Program, it will take a focused effort by the Program to create that benefit.
With the increasing sophistication and flexibility of computer software and the decreasing costs of both software and hardware, the opportunity exists to develop a practical database for storing the field data developed through the Program. Floppy disks of raw data are already being submitted to the Klamath River Fishery Resource Office as part of completed project final reports. Data from other sources could also be incorporated. Such a useful database could then be shared with other agencies, groups, and individuals.
Since available software and hardware is changing almost overnight, only a brief description of some of the best options are presented here.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Reach File is a water quality assessment and monitoring system maintained by both the EPA and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Data is maintained on the map-based "Reach File," which assigns every stream reach in the nation its own unique catalog number. In this way, data gets posted to the right "Grouse" or "Indian" creek. In addition, data can be aggregated for several reaches, an entire stream or a stream system.
In the Columbia River Basin Program, a System Planning Model was developed by its Monitoring and Evaluation Group. Together with a Smolt Density Model, a Tributary Parameter Model, and the EPA reach file, this analytical procedure attempts to predict the production of salmon and steelhead based on various scenarios for each subbasin. It basically takes stream width measurements in different reaches along with very rough fish values, and then makes hypothetical improvements in tributaries to indicate hypothetical gains in fish numbers. If different questions are to be answered on the Klamath, the Program would have to reinvest in software and programming to manipulate the data.
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are becoming more and more commonly used by resource management agencies as well as by private timber companies. GIS combines two software technologies: data-base management and digital mapping. As a result, it has the ability to select, manipulate, and analyze data in both a spatial (two or three dimensions) and tabular format and interrelate the two. Natural resource data can be overlaid. One current GIS application is the effort by the Resource Agency's Timberland Task Force (Board of Forestry, CDFG, and others) to develop a GIS database statewide for helping make resource allocation decisions. Remote sensing images, such as from Landsat or aerial photos, can be digitized and added as one of the overlays for up-to-date watershed analysis.
Specific fisheries software, such as LSR Group's STREAM SURVEY, is also available. STREAM SURVEY, for example, is being used by the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (ODFW), which is developing a standardized stream survey format to be used with the software. Using a DBase III+ format for IBM compatible computers, the software adapts the stream classification methodology developed by Peter Bisson et al. (1981) and an expansion of another one developed by John Anderson of BLM Oregon. Its programs work together to store, analyze and report from as many as 200 variables of collected physical and biological data.
Each National Forest in the Basin has developed databases for storing and analyzing the habitat typing data which it collects, using DBase IV (Six Rivers NF), or ORACLE and LOTUS 1-2-3 (Klamath NF) software.
Each potential database needs to be carefully scrutinized for its strengths and limitations before adoption by the Task Force. Criteria for selection of the appropriate database should include:
o Compatibility with other computers and software.
o Accessibility by agency and non-agency users.
o Technical skills needed for data entry and reprogramming.
o User friendly for daily use.
o Standardized queries so the same questions are being asked.
o Ability to transfer data from other programs so data would not need to be reentered (automated data loading).
Benefit of the EPA Reach File System
Of all the existing data systems of possible interest to the Restoration Program, the one offering the greatest potential benefit (especially to the present habitat typing efforts) is the water quality assessment and monitoring system maintained by the SWRCB and the EPA. The reasons are:
o The water quality assessment and monitoring program will be continued and steadily improved throughout the coming decades to enable the states and the Federal government to evaluate their effectiveness in implementing the Federal Clean Water Act.
o Cold water fish production has been designated as a "beneficial" water use in the Clean Water Act basin plan prepared by California for the Klamath River, including its Shasta, Scott, Salmon, and Trinity tributaries.
o There is strong interest on the part of state and Federal water quality managers in obtaining information about the condition of fish habitat in the region's streams and in updating that information in their annual assessments.
o State-Federal Clean Water Act protection efforts, including financial and technical assistance, will be targeted increasingly on degraded streams where designated beneficial uses are shown to be inadequately protected.
o The Clean Water Act assessments of Klamath River basin streams have not tapped the abundant "gray literature" concerning the area's fish and fish habitat. Many of the basin's streams are being listed as "unimpaired" despite studies which show their fish habitat to be severely degraded, often by sedimentation and other "nonpoint" pollution sources.
o The Restoration Program can help organize the
missing information and contribute it on an ongoing basis to the State-Federal
data system. This will not only give direction to State-Federal Clean Water
Act efforts but will provide a database for evaluating the effectiveness
of the Program as well.
