The Federal role in fisheries management began in 1871 when Congress created the Office of the Commission of Fish and Fisheries to investigate the declining numbers of food fishes in the U.S. lakes and coastal waters. A year later the first Federal hatchery was established to restore food fishes. The Federal role has since expanded considerably, but is still primarily limited to Federal lands, waters, and projects.
A representative of the Secretary of the Interior is a member of both the Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force and the Klamath Fishery Management Council.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The Service is recognized as the Department's principal fact-finding arm and scientific authority on inland fishery resource matters, including anadromous fish when they reside in inland waters. Its responsibilities include facilitating the restoration of depleted, nationally significant fishery resources (of which the Pacific anadromous salmonids are one), mitigating fishery resources damaged by Federal water resource projects, administering the Endangered Species Act, and assisting with management of fishery resources on Federal and Indian lands. Jurisdiction over anadromous species in inland waters is shared with the National Marine Fisheries Service (see below).
The USFWS has two offices serving the Klamath Basin: the Klamath River Fishery Resource Office in Yreka, which provides the administrative function of the Program, and the California Coastal Fisheries Resource Office in Arcata, which offers monitoring and evaluation of chinook salmon runs in the Klamath River, the monitoring of Indian net harvest levels on reservation lands in the lower river, and general technical assistance.
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The Bureau's mission is to develop, apply, and preserve a national policy for the conservation of tribal fishery resources. In its role as the agency primarily responsible for assisting tribes in the administration of Indian trust property, the BIA operates on the basis of a government-to-government relationship with the tribes. The BIA funds fisheries studies and projects as well as law enforcement on reservation lands in the Klamath Basin. Since the passage of the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act in 1988, the role of the BIA is in transition. The tribes will become more autonomous and self-regulating as their own government. Funds may then go directly from Congress to the tribal government for use in fisheries studies, projects, and enforcement.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The BLM administers the public domain lands on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield concepts as described in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. In addition to producing commodities such as timber and minerals, the Bureau is also responsible for protecting and conserving fish, wildlife, and watersheds. Coordination with California Department of Fish and Game on habitat management is done through Sikes Act Cooperative Agreements. In the Basin, BLM lands are scattered but primarily located in the eastern portion and along the upper Klamath River. The river area above Copco Lake is being studied by BLM for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Local offices are found in Redding, California, and Klamath Falls, Oregon.
Bureau of Reclamation (BuRec). In the Klamath Basin, the Bureau's primary role is administering the Klamath Irrigation Project near Klamath Falls, Oregon. One of the first reclamation projects in the country, the Klamath Project has drained, diked, rerouted, and irrigated farmlands in the Upper Basin since 1906. Through the Klamath River Basin Compact, water rights for existing and future irrigated lands in the project area were guaranteed. The agency has also investigated water development sites in other subbasins.
In the Trinity Basin, the Bureau is operator of the Trinity River Project (Lewiston Dam) and is also administrator for the Department of the Interior of the Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Management Program.
Geological Survey (USGS): The Survey collects continuous streamflow data at the gauge stations located throughout the Basin, in conjunction with the California Department of Water Resources. USGS also conducts studies on the hydrology and geology of the area upon request.
The Department of Commerce is charged with regulation and administration of interstate commerce in commercial fisheries. Since the passage of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, the Secretary of Commerce has had responsibility for managing the ocean salmon fisheries between three and 200 miles off the coast.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The basic mission of NMFS is to protect and promote the wise and full use of marine fisheries, to bring the country's marine fisheries to an improved state of health and productivity, and to benefit consumers and industry in the process. NMFS administers the Magnuson Act for the Secretary of Commerce and has authority over anadromous fish in marine waters. Besides performing research for fisheries management needs, the NMFS scientists review and comment on public and private water and land development projects that may affect anadromous marine and estuarine fish. They also provide technical advice and assistance to permit applicants and regulatory agencies involved in these projects.
A representative of NMFS serves on both the Klamath Fishery Management Council and the Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force.
Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). This interstate council, created by the 1976 Act, makes annual recommendations to the Secretary of Commerce for ocean salmon management off the coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington. In 1978, the PFMC issued a Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Commercial and Recreational Salmon Fisheries, which is amended periodically. Its proposal for harvest seasons and quotas, once adopted by the Secretary, has a direct effect on the quantity of chinook and coho salmon harvested by commercial and ocean sport fishermen operating out of Fort Bragg, Eureka, Trinidad, Crescent City, Brookings, and other local ports. The PFMC has a professional staff in Portland, a Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), a Salmon Technical Team (STT), a citizen Salmon Advisory Subpanel (SAS), and a Salmon Select Group (SSG) made of representatives of the other three groups. It meets annually in March and April to decide on that season's salmon fishing season.
Recommendations to the PFMC regarding quotas, seasons and strategies are made annually by the Klamath Fishery Management Council, with help from its Technical Advisory Team. The PFMC also has a representative on the Klamath Fishery Management Council.
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
A representative of the USDA sits as a member of the Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force.
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). The agency administers national forest lands under the mandates of many laws, including the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act and the National Forest Management Act. It has primary responsibility for management of anadromous fish habitat on its lands, while the California Department of Fish and Game has primary management responsibility for the anadromous fish populations. A nationwide USFS fisheries program, "Rise to the Future," has focused local efforts on habitat monitoring and improvement. Coordination between USFS and CDFG for habitat improvement is provided by the Sikes Act Cooperative Agreement and a Memorandum of Understanding. Much of the agency decision-making is decentralized, with directives starting at the Washington, D.C. office, followed by the regional offices, each national forest, and finally each ranger district. Locally, the forests include Klamath National Forest in Siskiyou County, the Six Rivers National Forest in Humboldt and Del Norte Counties, and the Winema National Forest in Klamath County.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS). The SCS provides private landowners with technical assistance in soil and water conservation. Working through the local Resource Conservation Districts, the SCS office helps develop specific measures to rectify erosion problems, to improve irrigation practices, or to better manage farm, range, and forest soils. Soil scientists also prepare and interpret soil surveys on private lands. Its regional office is located in Red Bluff and a local office in Yreka.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Created in 1970, the EPA was charged with mounting a coordinated attack on the nation's environmental problems. Functions include: setting and enforcing Federal environmental standards; conducting research on the causes, effects, and control of environmental problems; and assisting state and local governments. Most pertinent to fisheries is EPA's responsibility for administering the Clean Water Act. While EPA has designated much of the administration to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the Agency retains final authority (e.g., approval of Best Management Practices for timber harvesting after certification by the SWRCB). Water quality assessment is promoted through the EPA Reach File database system. Its regional office is in San Francisco.
Army Corps of Engineers (ACE). The agency has done flood control studies and projects in the basin (e.g., levees along Klamath River near Klamath Glen). The Corps also has jurisdiction over projects involving the location of a structure in, or the excavation or discharge of dredge or fill material into, "navigable water." Most of the perennial streams in the Basin qualify, as do the coastal wetlands. This permit authority is derived from Section 404 (hence the term "404 permit") of the Clean Water Act. The Corps' regional office is in San Francisco.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Established in 1977 as the successor to the Federal Power Commission (FPC), FERC issues and enforces licenses for construction and operation of non-Federal hydroelectric power projects. In the Klamath Basin, FERC oversees several such licenses (e.g., Iron Gate) and will be making the final decision on conditions for their relicensing upon expiration of their current hydropower licenses. FERC's regional office for California projects is located in San Francisco.
The following description is provided by Ronnie M. Pierce, acting as clearinghouse for tribal statements.
There are three Federally recognized tribes in the lower reaches of the Klamath/Trinity Basin; the Yurok, Hoopa, and Karuk tribes: and the Klamath Tribe in the upper reach of the Klamath River.
Tribes are sovereign governments with the powers "to adopt and operate under a form of government of the Indians' choosing, to define conditions of tribal membership, to regulate domestic relations of members, to prescribe rules of inheritance, to levy taxes, to regulate property within the jurisdiction of the tribe, to control the conduct of members by municipal legislation, and to administer justice" (Getches, et al. 1979).
Jurisdictional issues in Indian law are generally confined to "Indian Country" wherein tribal and Federal laws normally apply and state laws do not normally apply. Indian Country is defined as: (a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and including rights-of-way running through the reservation, (b) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state, and (c) all Indian allotments, the Indian title to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way through same" (18 U.S.C.A., 1151, 1948).
The term "Indian Country" is not confined to trust lands within the boundaries of an Indian reservation. Indian country includes fee patent land within the boundaries of a reservation, and tribally owned fee land outside of reservation boundaries.
Indian law is dynamic by nature, and tribal jurisdictions within the Basin are often challenged. The basic principal of Indian law supported in major decisions regarding jurisdiction is that: " ... powers which are lawfully vested in an Indian tribe are not, in general, delegated powers granted by express acts of Congress, but rather inherent powers of a limited sovereignty which has never been extinguished" (Getches, et al. 1979).
Tribal jurisdictions will undoubtedly be further clarified and the tribes' active participation in the restoration planning process under the Act is with the understanding that nothing in this Plan is intended to, or shall, affect the jurisdiction or rights of any Indian tribe; including any claims to jurisdiction which may be contrary to Indian law made by other entities described in this section.
The 2,000 member Hoopa Valley Tribe occupies the Hoopa Valley Reservation along the lower Trinity River. The Hoopa Reservation is a 12 mile square (roughly 89,000 acres) straddling the Trinity River from Tish Tang Creek to the Klamath River. The Reservation was established under an 1864 Act of Congress. This Act has been interpreted by Federal and California courts, and by the Interior Department, as reserving tribal fishing rights in the Trinity River. These fishing rights include the right to regulate on-reservation fishing by tribal members. The State of California has no authority to regulate on-reservation fishing by Indians.
In addition, the Hoopa Valley Tribe's general, inherent civil regulatory authority entails the right to regulate land use and other activities within the Reservation that affect the fishery; this on-reservation regulatory authority of the tribe frequently extends to activities of non-members of the tribe on privately owned lands within the Reservation. Under its authority over Reservation territory, the tribe engages in a wide array of watershed, habitat, and fishery restoration activities. Tribal laws are enforced in the tribe's own court system. The tribe also participates in a variety of fishery management groups that affect off-reservation habitat and fishery activities.
The Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act of 1988, P.L. 100-580, separated the Hoopa Valley Reservation from the Yurok Reservation on the lower Klamath River, and confirmed the Hoopa Valley Tribe's right to govern its Reservation.
The Yurok Reservation is a long narrow strip of land along the lower 40 miles of the Klamath River; from the River's mouth to Weitchpec, at the northern border of the Hoopa Valley Reservation. The Yurok Tribe, though Federally recognized, to date has had no formal governing body. With the Settlement Act now in place, the tribe is forming its own government which will assume tribal management authority over their Reservation. Tribal resource and fisheries management programs are of the highest priority with the tribe.
Having their Federal recognition "status" confirmed in 1979, the Karuk Tribe of California is organized under its 1985 constitution and is governed by an elected Tribal Council. In addition to 400 acres of tribal trust lands, the Karuk ancestral territory is considered to be the lands and tributary streams along the Klamath River from Hopkins Creek to Seiad Creek. The Karuk Tribe has an established Fisheries Department which is currently involved in stream enhancement and pond rearing programs, as well as harvest monitoring activities.
In 1986, the Klamath Indian Tribe Restoration Act was passed by Congress to reinstate this Oregon tribe to its Federally recognized status. Federal recognition had been terminated by the U.S. Government in 1954. Its previous reservation lands near Upper Klamath Lake were converted during termination to Federal and private ownership. Official tribal rolls in 1989 indicated a membership of 2,522. A 1981 Federal court Consent Decree confirmed the tribe's retention of management responsibilities for fishing and habitat management on the former Reservation. It currently has biologists, technicians, game management officers, and water rights attorneys on its staff.
In 1870, the California Legislature created the Board of Fish Commissioners, the first wildlife conservation agency in the nation. Its original purpose was to establish "fish breederies" for the stocking of streams, to construct fish ladders, and to conserve fish. During the ensuing 120 years, the State's role in fisheries management has significantly broadened in scope and now involves a number of other agencies.
This Agency is charged with administering policies, laws, and regulations for the State's natural resources. It consists of several departments, boards, and commissions with at least some type of involvement with salmon and steelhead.
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). The Department of Fish and Game is charged with the protection, propagation, preservation and investigation of fish and wildlife resources in the State. Functions include protection and propagation of fish, review of EIRs, enforcement of fishing regulations, education, and research. Principle sources of funding are revenues from fishing and hunting licenses, a special tax on commercial fishing, and Federal aid, although General Fund money has been used since 1978 for supporting nongame fish and wildlife programs. The CDFG also has State responsibility for protecting rare and endangered species, recommending adequate stream-flows to preserve fish and wildlife for water permits, enforcing certain water pollution prohibitions, regulating streambed alterations, protecting fish spawning areas, timber harvest review, and operating State fish hatcheries. Federal and private projects needing Federal permits are reviewed by CDFG as a requirement of the Federal Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.
Locally, pertinent fisheries efforts are administered through the Inland Fisheries Division of the State Office (Klamath-Trinity Program, including the Natural Stocks Assessment Project; Ocean Salmon Coordination) and by the Regional Office (Region 1: Hatcheries Management, Fish Management, Habitat Improvement, Environmental Services). Field offices serving the Klamath Basin are located in Yreka, Weaverville, Arcata, and Eureka, in addition to Iron Gate Hatchery.
A representative of CDFG is the official representative of the State of California on the Task Force and Council.
Fish and Game Commission. The Commission adopts the general policies which govern the conduct of the CDFG, while the Director uses the policies for guidance and is responsible to the Commission for administration of the CDFG. Harvest management responsibilities include: setting terms and conditions for issuance of fishing permits and licenses; determining seasons, methods, and areas for sport fishing; and regulating commercial fishing.
Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB). The Board's efforts are mainly limited to acquiring land and to developing facilities or habitat for fish and wildlife. Projects include fishing access sites, hatcheries, egg-taking stations, fish ladders, stream clearance, and habitat improvement. Funds come from State horse-racing revenues, Federal sources, and State bond acts (e.g., Proposition 19).
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). This agency's responsibility is for the State's water quality and water rights programs. Its water quality authority is derived from the State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act as well as the Federal Clean Water Act, since the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has designated the SWRCB to carry out its policy. After the State Board adopts general policies and programs, the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) implements them through developing regional plans and issuing and enforcing waste discharge permits (the revised Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region was adopted in 1989). The Regional Board staff also performs water quality studies and reviews private Timber Harvest Plans with CDF & CDFG.
Water rights permits and licenses to appropriate water from streams and lakes are issued only by the SWRCB, which also must consider the preservation and enhancement of fish and wildlife.
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF). Under policies set by the Board of Forestry (BoF), the CDF oversees the protection and conservation of the State's forestlands. CDF's duties involve the regulation of logging operations on non-Federal lands (the Z'Berg-Nejedley Forest Practice Act of 1973); operation of State forest nurseries; technical assistance to landowners on forest, brush, and watershed management; and conducting studies on reforestation, range improvement, watershed, and other wildland management. Fishery values and stream habitat must be considered in its forest management activities, with CDFG and RWQCB staff now participating in field review of Timber Harvest Plans.
Department of Water Resources (DWR). The Department of Water Resources is primarily the water supply agency of the State. It develops the California Water Plan; oversees the State Water Project; promotes water conservation, reclamation, and recycling; performs studies; develops flood control measures; operates stream gages with USGS; and regulates dam safety. In adjudicated river basins, DWR provides watermaster service at the request of the water rights holders. The California Water Commission (CWC) is advisory to the Director of the Department and gives final approval for loans and grants for local projects.
California Coastal Commission. Based on the California Coastal Act, the Commission establishes policies governing land use activities in the Coastal Zone (averaging 1000 feet inland, plus significant estuaries). Specific land use policies are implemented locally through a county Local Coastal Plan (LCP), which must provide protection of the marine environment and land resources.
Coastal Conservancy (CC). The Conservancy is primarily an agency which funds selected projects approved by the Commission and in compliance with a certified LCP. For fisheries, its authority includes providing funds to state and local agencies and non-profit groups to correct the degradation of natural areas; providing funds to State agencies for the establishment of buffer zones around fragile park and natural areas; and making loans to the Department of Parks and Recreation for the acquisition of key park areas.
California Conservation Corps (CCC). The Corps provides public service assistance in the areas of resource management and conservation while its young members (ages 18-23) get on-the-job training. These public service projects may be requested by local, State, or Federal agencies, subject to review and approval by the Secretary of Resources. Its fisheries-related projects include barrier removal, instream structures, riparian planting, erosion control, and assisting community rearing pond programs.
State Lands Commission (SLC). Charged with exclusive management jurisdiction over State-owned lands, the SLC oversees public interest in coastal tide and submerged lands and beds of navigable rivers. The legal definition of "navigable" has caused some ambiguity in the SLC's role in rivers like the Klamath and its tributaries.
The University of California provides higher education and research as well as some public service programs.
Cooperative Extension, Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program. As an outreach of the National and California Sea Grant Programs, the Marine Advisory Program serves coastal resource users through education and technical assistance. Its marine advisors operate out of local farm advisor offices and directly communicate with fishermen, fish processors, and fish propagators, among others. Their methods include producing publications, holding conferences and seminars, informing the media, and attending local fisheries meetings. Sea Grant also funds fisheries research related to salmon and steelhead. In addition, Cooperative Extension has an Aquaculture Program based in Davis and Bodega Bay which can provide fish enhancement groups with disease and pathology information. Local Marine Advisors are located in Crescent City and Eureka.
Cooperative Extension, Farm Advisor. Operating similarly to Marine Advisors, the Farm Advisor (and Forest Advisor) offers educational and technical assistance to farmers, ranchers, and timberland owners. Resource management advice pertinent to fisheries includes irrigation practices, grazing and riparian management, and timber harvesting practices. Local offices are found in Yreka and Eureka.
Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
Created in 1975 with the merger of the Fish Commission and the Wildlife (Game) Commission, the Department manages both the commercial and sport fisheries of Oregon. A seven-member Fish and Wildlife Commission, through the Director, oversees the agency's staff and budget. Funding comes from fishing license revenues, the State general fund, and Federal support. The Fish Division's functions are administratively divided into three programs: fish propagation, freshwater resources (steelhead), and marine resources (salmon management). In addition, the Habitat Division focuses on habitat conservation. Statewide Management Plans for individual species identify priorities, objectives, and policies to guide future management: coho salmon (1982), steelhead (1986), and chinook salmon (in progress). Current emphasis includes fish restoration and enhancement projects (particularly through the volunteer Salmon and Trout Enhancement Program (STEP)), salmon management coordination with the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC), hatchery maintenance, habitat protection, and research.
A representative of ODFW is the official member for the State of Oregon on the Task Force and the Council.
Klamath River Basin Compact Commission
Created by the Klamath River Basin Compact in 1957, the Commission is composed of three members: a California representative (Department of Water Resources), an Oregon representative (State Engineer), and a Federal representative (with no vote). The Commission administers the Compact, which has the following purposes: 1) to facilitate and promote the development of water in the Upper Klamath Basin for domestic, irrigation, fish and wildlife, recreation, industrial, hydroelectric, navigation and flood prevention uses; and 2) to further intergovernmental cooperation and to prevent controversies over water uses in the two states. If agreement cannot be reached between the two state members, an arbitration forum is created.
The Board of Supervisors is the governing body of each county. Its five elected members enact legislation to govern the county; determine policies for county departments, commissions, and special districts (including land use policies for private lands); hear appeals from decisions of the Planning Commission; and adopt an annual budget. All of the counties look to the California Department of Fish and Game for advice on stream and fisheries protection measures in their decision-making process.
Each county also has a Fish and Game Advisory Commission (or Committee), whose role it is to advise the Supervisors on the use of the County Fish and Game Preservation Fund. This fund is derived from the fines charged violators of the California Fish and Game Code, half of which return to the county where the violation occurred. The collected money must be spent only for "the propagation and conservation of fish and wildlife," and may include educational and youth activities relating to fish and game. The committees' members also advise the Board on policy matters related to fish and wildlife.
Del Norte County. Land use policies for the area are defined in the County's Local Coastal Plan (1984) and General Plan (1976). Coastal jurisdiction extends up to Blake's Riffle (below Tarup Creek), in which a special zone (Resource Conservation Area) with restrictive conditions for allowable land uses is applied to estuary, riparian, and wetland sites. A Use Permit would be required for gravel mining on private lands under County Ordinance (SMARA). The county does not claim jurisdiction on BIA tribal trust lands within the Yurok Reservation or the Resighini Rancheria.
Humboldt County. The County General Plan (1985) includes natural resource policies addressing streamside management, riparian buffers, and sensitive habitats, which are used for development standards in discretionary projects needing county approval. For lands within the county's jurisdiction between Somes Bar and Blue Creek, zoning is either Timber Production Zone (TPZ) or unclassified (P).
Siskiyou County. Siskiyou County encompasses most of the Klamath Basin, although only 37% of its lands are in private ownership. Of these lands, about 13% are crop or pasture lands and 55% are woodlands. The County General Plan's (1980) goal is to protect the county's critical natural resources and still allow room for adequate growth and development. Urban growth is occurring mainly along the I-5 corridor, gradually moving north and infilling existing urban areas. Through its Land Use Element, ordinances and Specific Area Plans (e.g., Scott Valley), the county has standards for geologic and erosion hazards, riparian setbacks, and gravel removal operations. It also comments on water rights applications.
Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs)
The Districts are authorized to carry out a resource conservation program to help landowners, groups, and local, State and Federal officials conserve soil and water. Their focus is on private lands, where they encourage conservation practices to prevent or control soil erosion, control water runoff, protect water quality, reclaim water, and "treat each acre of land according to its need." Each district is governed by a five-member Board of Directors who are locally elected (or appointed by the County Board of Supervisors if candidates are not contested). Technical assistance for the RCD's activities is offered through the staff of the USDA Soil Conservation Service.
Within the Klamath Basin are the following districts: Shasta Valley RCD, Siskiyou (Scott Valley) RCD, and Butte Valley RCD. No RCDs are located in the lower Klamath Basin (Humboldt & Del Norte counties).
Governed by a City Council, each incorporated city has similar responsibilities as the county. Policies related to fisheries (e.g., streams, riparian zones, water quality, and runoff) would be located in their respective general plans.
Etna, Fort Jones, Happy Camp, Montague, and Yreka. Each of these cities is located on or near an anadromous fish stream. To date, only the City of Yreka has taken an active fish restoration role by participating in the Yreka Creek Greenway Project.
"Coordination" is one of the most often mentioned words or functions in the Klamath Act. The lack of it in the past and the need for it in the future were widely acknowledged. In particular, the Task Force's role includes coordination:
o Of its activities with Federal, Tribal, State, and local governmental or private anadromous fish restoration projects within the Klamath Basin Conservation Area.
o Between the Task Force and the Council.
o Between the Klamath Task Force and the Trinity Task Force.
Before offering coordination options, an understanding is needed of what inhibits coordination in the first place.
Improved inter-agency coordination is always a desireable goal yet the inherent nature of large governmental organizations often precludes it. Several organizational behavior theories offer insight into why interagency coordination is so difficult (Downs 1967).
Behavior of Large Organizations. Certain "laws" offer explanations of behavior:
a. Law of Interorganizational Conflict. Every large organization is in partial conflict with every other social agent it deals with.
b. Law of Decreasing Coordination. The larger any organization becomes, the poorer is the coordination among its actions.
c. Law of Diminishing Control. The larger any organization becomes, the weaker is the control over its actions exercised by those at the top.
d. Law of Imperfect Control. No one can fully control the behavior of a large organization.
Communication Barriers. Since communication helps to improve cooperation, ways to improve communication (within an agency as well as between agencies) are important. Certain observations on organizational communications are also offered (Downs 1967):
a. The vast majority of all communications in large organizations are unofficial or informal.
b. Conflicting organizations (or sub-sections) will tend to avoid subformal channels and communicate only formally. However, closely cooperating sections will rely primarily upon subformal communications.
c. When two organizations are in strong conflict, "informal networks of communication may be substantially closed to members of the other by orders of top-echelon officials, a feeling of mutual hostility at all levels, or a tactical need to keep procedures and ideas concealed so as not to yield any competitive advantage in the conflict."
d. An official in one organization is not usually familiar with the subformal communications networks in another organization, which limits his ability to communicate effectively. However, this difficulty can be overcome: "smart officials eat as many lunches with counterparts in other bureaus as they do with colleagues in their own bureaus."
One can conclude from these "rules" of organizational behavior that institutional obstacles to coordination and communication will always be present yet individuals can be effective coordinators and communicators if they learn the right channels.
Conflicting Missions and Constituencies. Each natural resource agency has evolved with a separate history and often a separate constituency, as well as having been given distinct mandates. The "pluralism" of the American society is therefore reflected in conflicting agency goals and lack of a coordinated direction. Some feel strongly that this pluralism in agencies is a positive trait too; a diversity of agency approaches may lead to some innovations and ambiguity should be tolerated in healthy institutions (Grodzins, in Henning, 1974).
One political historian noted that Federal natural resource agencies "had been born variously of a national crisis, a public outrage, a scientist's insight or a President's dream -- but all reflected that hoary first principle of American government: when something itches, scratch it" (White, in Henning, 1974).
Overlapping Missions, or "Turf Defense". More than one agency may have legal or implied jurisdiction of a certain resource or activity. Rather than share or redefine the responsibility, each one will tend to defend its maximum role. Such a defense can be caused by a competition for limited funds, the individual's or agency's desire for self-preservation, the perceived threat to its powers, or other reasons.
Coordination does not happen by a document or a person stating that it will happen, nor does it happen by having every agency represented at the same table. When coordination does occur, a combination of methods are usually used. Following is a list of several formal and informal methods of coordination possible among the various agencies and tribes, as well as others.
The Klamath Act instructs the Secretary of the Interior to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Federal, State, and local agencies and tribal governments having jurisdiction over the various activities planned by the Task Force. This agreement shall "specify the program activities for which the respective signatories to the agreement are responsible and shall contain such provisions as are necessary to ensure the coordinated implementation of the program." (460ss-1.(b)(4))
To date, such a long-term Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between all of the agencies and tribes has not been developed. Instead, they have been using short-term individual Cooperative Agreements between the USFWS and each agency in defining how a specific restoration activity is to be carried out when Task Force funds are being used. For example, a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Forest Service is made for a particular period of time with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to detail methods and authorize expenditures for stream habitat typing in certain locations, which is a project considered necessary by the Task Force to implement its Program.
Similar procedures are being used for the coordination requirement of the Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act. Only when a need arises is a formal agreement prepared. If no Federal or State funding is provided to complete the proposed project, then the agreement is cancelled. Difficulties in anticipating and guaranteeing each agency's specific role over the long-term implementation of the program were the main reasons for not literally following the Act's wording.
Memorandums of Agreement have been signed for other Klamath Act purposes: (1) Cooperative Enforcement Agreement (1989) between BIA and CDFG for law enforcement services, as required by the Act "to strengthen and facilitate the enforcement of Area fishery harvesting regulations," and (2) MOA between BIA and CDFG relating to the Indian commercial harvesting of spring-run chinook in the Klamath River for the 1989 season.
Other examples of agency agreements are: Sikes Act Cooperative Agreements between the U.S. Forest Service and California Department of Fish and Game over the use of Sikes Act funds for fish and wildlife projects; Joint Exercise of Powers Agreements (JPA) are formal agreements in California between two or more public agencies of any power common to them, with the Eel-Russian River Commission JPA by four counties an example; Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is an outline of each participant's authority to be involved a general program, such as the California Coordinated Resource Management and Planning MOU signed by 14 State and Federal agencies.
These general types of agency agreements have been criticized for being "like a treaty between nations" which limit policy innovations or other commitments and end up becoming superficial efforts (Henning 1974). However, without them, many agencies cannot officially commit themselves to long-term participation in an interagency effort.
Two or more agencies or tribal governments can adopt Joint Management Plans to address and coordinate a resource over which they each have some management authority. An example is the Summer Steelhead Management Plan adopted by the Mendocino National Forest and the California Department of Fish and Game for the Middle Fork Eel River (Jones and Ekman 1980).
Another method often used to promote coordination is appointing a representative of each pertinent agency or tribe on a committee. The Trinity River Basin Task Force is an example, with 14 Federal, State, local, and tribal representatives as members. While this approach does require each agency to sit together at the same table at least once a year, it does not necessarily improve communication or coordination.
Short term efforts, like Coordinated Resource Management Plans (CRMP), often begin with committees composed of agency, group, and citizen members who meet frequently and then end up signing an agreement to help implement the agreed upon plan.
Legislative Consultation Requirements
A formal mechanism for comment by one agency on another agency's proposed action is provided through several State and Federal directives. For example, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a "clearinghouse" review by all pertinent agencies of environmental impact reports, while the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) provides a similar function for Federal projects. Another example is the Federal Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. However, these reviews are only triggered by major projects which may have a significant impact on the environment, and such consultations do not necessarily lead to better resource management coordination on a daily basis.
Cooperation among field people of different agencies or tribes is a fairly common approach to coordination and, often, a very effective one in the short term. Mid-level managers can also communicate with their colleagues in other agencies through the subformal networks discussed above, and bypass the organizational barriers that may exist. However, without the official sanction of the agencies/tribes involved, such informal action may not have the power to be sustained for the long-term but only last as long as the individuals involved (Henning 1974).
Improving communication through periodic meetings, workshops, and conferences on fishery restoration and related topics can be one of the most effective informal means of coordination. Personal contacts are made, information is shared, and insights are gained.
How to best coordinate the efforts of the Task Force and the Council is another concern. The Council is developing its own long-term plan and policy, as the Klamath Act required, concurrently with this Plan. It is still unclear how the two plans will mesh to create the Restoration Program but Figure 7-2 generally describes the relationship of the two efforts.
The Council is primarily responsible for recommendations on in-river and ocean harvest allocation of Klamath and Trinity Basin anadromous fish populations. While the Task Force Plan addresses fish population trends, problems (including harvesting) and some solutions (Chapters 3 and 4), it defers to the Council for specific harvesting recommendations on all species.
The Council is in need of "the best scientific information available" (states the Act) upon which to base its recommendations to the harvest managers, and the Task Force is in the position to fund some of the needed studies. Their interdependence necessitates close cooperation and communication.
Figure 7-2 -- Relationship of the Long-Range Plans of the Task Force and Council.
Project proposals to implement the Klamath Basin Fisheries Restoration Program are solicited separately each year by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Klamath River Fishery Resource Office) and by the California Department of Fish and Game.
Application Procedure and Criteria
The Klamath River Fishery Resource Office will draft a Request for Proposals (RFP), based on the annual Action Plan of the Long-Range Plan, to be accomplished in the upcoming fiscal year. The RFP will be distributed to the public. The selection process is described in Figure 7-3.
The California Department of Fish and Game's fish habitat restoration activities are directed by policies in Section 1501 of the Fish and Game Code. CDFG has developed its own evaluation process for proposals submitted to its annual Fishery Restoration Program. Currently, the CDFG has established criteria for the selection of fishery restoration projects in the Klamath River Basin (excluding the Trinity Basin):
1. Consideration will be given in descending order of species priority, to projects benefitting fall-run chinook salmon, steelhead trout, spring-run chinook salmon, and other species or subspecies of fishes.
2. Highest priority will be given to projects which will result in increased natural production of the target species. Artificial propagation projects will also be considered.
Proposals submitted directly to CDFG are copied and sent to the appropriate CDFG unit biologist or other CDFG representative for comment and ranking. A Priority Rating System is used for each proposed project. For habitat rehabilitation projects, the rating categories include: biological soundness, technical merit, contractor's past performance, required funding, required CDFG staff assistance, and cost/benefit ratio.
The local CDFG biologist's priority ratings and comments are submitted to the regional headquarters, and then combined into a regional priority list to be transmitted to the Inland Fisheries Division in Sacramento. Those that would best be funded under the Klamath Program's Federal funds (e.g., studies) are then submitted to the Klamath River Fisheries Resource Office for further review. The others are either approved directly by the Director of the California Department of Fish and Game or are sent to the appropriate funding source (i.e, Salmon Stamp Committee, Wildlife Conservation Board, Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead Trout) for final selection.
Proposals submitted directly to the Klamath River Fishery Resource Office are grouped into major categories (e.g., Habitat Restoration, Education). These proposals and those received through CDFG's program for the Klamath Basin are directed to the Task Force's Technical Work Group (TWG) for ranking during a several day session. Proposers are asked during the first day to expand on information contained in written proposals, to respond to questions from the TWG, and to negotiate any needed changes. A second session is open only to the Technical Work Group, Task Force Budget Committee, and Klamath River Fishery Resource Office support staff. The proposals are then rated, individually and privately, using numerical rating criteria. The ratings are totaled and averaged for each project and ranked by averaging the rating within each category. The Budget Committee draws the line within each category to fit the available Federal funding. Only those projects above the funding cutoff line will be recommended to the Task Force as part of the annual work plan. At a Task Force public meeting, the Task Force makes the final decision. Unsuccessful proposers can appeal to the Task Force at that meeting. Figure 7-3 describes the above process.
Congress also requested that, "to the extent practicable," any restoration work of the Program be performed by unemployed commercial fishermen, Indians, and other persons whose livelihood depends upon the Basin's fishery resources (Section SS-1(b)(3). One of the difficulties in carrying out this request, such as recruiting these people in specific projects, has been the USFWS contracting procedures for "sole-source" awards. Giving preference to one group is difficult for the Federal government to implement, as competition is preferred in deciding the best project proposal. The Task Force has asked the USFWS to provide a waiver of sole-source constraints for Klamath funds. In contrast, the State of California has ways of selecting projects for these workers.
Project Administration Procedures
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service uses several types of legal arrangements to obtain agreements with those agencies, groups, and individuals who are implementing the Restoration Program:
Cooperative Agreements between the Service and states, Federally-recognized tribes, counties, and other levels of government.
Interagency Agreements between the Service and other Federal agencies.
Sealed-bid procurements. These are not used very often in acquiring professional services.
Negotiated procurements, which are typically used to contract for professional services such as studies or planning. The time required between a request for contracting and the contract award is typically 4-6 months.
Projects funded through CDFG will have contracts written which are then sent to the contractor for signature. After receipt by CDFG, the contract is sent to the Department of General Services (DGS) for approval. When DGS returns the contracts to CDFG, a Notice to Proceed can be written and sent to the contractor so work can begin. This process has proven to be very lengthy and work may not be completed during the same year in which funds were requested.
Figure 7-3 -- Klamath Fishery Restoration Program Project Selection Process.
Policies for Program Administration
Objective 7: Provide adequate and effective administration to successfully implement the Restoration Plan and Program.
7.1. Involve interests or agencies not represented on the Task Force through several methods:
a. Decision-making: Task Force members should each try to reflect public interest and equity values in their decisions and not just the views of their organization.
b. Technical Work Group membership: Appointments of technical specialists from other agencies or groups should be made to this Task Force subcommittee, which solicits and evaluate project proposals.
c. Public Involvement: Task Force should continue seeking public opinion at its meetings but also develop or support working groups to address different problems or problem areas. Coordinated Resource Management and Planning (CRMP) is another method to involve a wide spectrum of participants.
d. Cooperative or interagency agreements should be used to carry out restoration activities with non-Task Force agencies, which may be jointly funded.
7.2. Ensure the decision-making process will work well.
a. Arrange a training session for the Task Force in the consensus decision-making process.
b. As an option, use the "abstention" position when a member does not feel strongly enough about a proposal to vote "no," yet cannot support the proposal.
c. Adoption of rules similar to the "T/F/W Ground Rules," under which each member agrees to work.
d. Actively seek to negotiate a compromise that considers the needs of all parties.
e. Retain the consensus approach to decision-making.
7.3. Assign Committees, made up of Task Force and Technical Work Group members or representatives, to monitor each of the Plan's major components: Habitat Protection and Management, Habitat Restoration, Population Protection (includes liaison with Council), Population Restoration, Education and Communication, and Administration. Committees shall report at each Task Force meeting about progress of policy implementation.
7.4. Formally evaluate plan and program progress and provide for amendments to the Plan.
a. A Program Review shall be done every 5 years during the Program's lifespan. The first Program Review should begin in 1995, followed by reviews in the years 2000 and 2005.
b. An Annual Progress Report appropriate for public review shall briefly summarize the results of Task Force actions and projects to date, including an accounting of the costs. Both Federally and non-Federally funded projects should be included.
c. Plan Amendments shall be provided for on a regular basis, as new information and conditions arise. Policy changes should be based on new findings in the text.
7.5. The Task Force will use any or all of the following options to fulfill staffing needs:
a. Continue using permanent USFWS staff:
1. Review all administrative functions every 2 to 5 years to ensure that they are fulfilling their original purpose, and to evaluate whether the original purpose needs to be revised and updated.
2. Council and Task Force Chairs shall consult together annually about the appropriate balance of staff time needed in the coming year.
3. Evaluate need for a Watershed Specialist (as used in the Trinity Program).
b. Use consultants under contract to implement selected portions of the Plan.
c. Make greater use of Task Force Committees and the Technical Work Group to help implement the Plan.
7.6. Ensure adequate funding is available to implement the Plan.
a. Inform interested parties of other funding opportunities as they arise, and encourage the use of these funds to implement the activities of the Operational Plan, where needed.
b. Facilitate the coordination of interstate funding needs in the Klamath Basin.
c. Maintain files in the Klamath River Fishery Resource Office on each funding source and provide access to the public.
d. Pursue additional new funding sources, if needed.
7.7. Promote and provide opportunities for information sharing.
a. Klamath River Fishery Resource Office should develop a catalogued technical library as the repository for completed project reports, historical and recent Klamath Basin references, and other pertinent restoration materials.
b. Klamath River Fishery Resource Office should regularly produce a newsletter for continuous communication about ongoing and completed projects and their results, as well as other related topics.
c. The Technical Work Group should evaluate and recommend the best software option(s) for data storage and retrieval obtained through Task Force funded projects.
d. Staff or the TWG should thoroughly investigate the use of the EPA/SWRCB water body monitoring data system as a basic file for Klamath River fish and fish habitat information. Evaluate and apply the system's potential for stimulating Clean Water Act efforts, including technical and financial assistance, of direct interest to the Restoration Program. Request financial assistance from the EPA to explore and establish Program use of its Sect.205(b) water body data system.
e. Support publication of the results of Task Force-funded projects in the scientific literature, periodicals for the general public, and a Klamath River Fishery Resource Office Technical Report Series.
f. Encourage the dissemination of Program information, as well as the seeking of pertinent information from other areas, through conferences, workshops or similar means.
7.8. Improve the understanding of agency jurisdictions.
a. Resolve conflicts (existing or potential) resulting from overlapping jurisdictions by pursuing the coordination methods described in the text.
b. Continue clarifying the jurisdictions claimed by each agency involved with fishery or habitat management in the Klamath River Basin.
c. Encourage the expansion of jurisdiction in habitat activities having "underlapping" authority or little protection.
7.9. Ensure effective coordination through the following:
a. Support a combination of formal and informal methods for coordinating the implementation of the Program.
b. Develop a long-term, enduring Memorandum of Agreement among the various agencies and tribes, as required in the Act.
c. Promote local workshops and conferences on topics related to the Restoration Program.
d. Committees of the Task Force, Council, and the Trinity Task Force should meet with each other at least once a year to share progress reports and discuss mutual needs. Conclusions will then be shared with each policy-making body.
e. Monitor non-Program restoration and research work in the Basin.
f. Use the Task Force meeting as a forum for progress reports from the various agencies, tribes, and groups.
g. Promote the use of Coordinated Resource Management Plans (CRMP) to cooperatively implement projects or to better define a long-term coordination strategy in certain areas. Involve as broad a spectrum of participants as needed.
h. Provide adequate resources for coordination.
7.10. Ensure a practical and equitable project selection process.
a. Project solicitation by the USFWS Klamath River Fishery Resource Office shall be based on the annual Action Plan. This Action Plan shall be developed annually by the TWG, for approval by the Task Force, to define any necessary actions to implement the policies of this Plan. To the extent feasible, the CDFG projects for the Klamath Basin should also follow the Action Plan.
b. The Klamath River Fishery Resource Office should develop a complete Project Application Manual describing the project selection process and selection criteria to assist project proponents.
c. Clarify intent of Congress on the preferential employment requirement of the Act.
d. Cooperative Agreements with tribes or for work on Reservations shall be consistent with the Indian Self-Determination Act (PL 93-638), and Tribal Employment and Contracting Rights Ordinances (TECRO).
e. Seek coordination of project selection processes (e.g., timing and criteria) with Salmon Stamp Committee and CDFG.
7.11. Provide comments on proposed public and private projects within the Basin that have the potential for affecting the implementation and success of the Restoration Plan and Program.
a. The Klamath River Fishery Resource Office shall serve as the clearinghouse for all notices for proposed outside projects within the Basin.
b. The Task Force shall respond to those projects deemed to have the greatest potential for impact on the Restoration Plan and Program.
c. Task Force members are encouraged to respond to proposed projects on an individual basis consistent with the approved policies of the Task Force.
