This long-range plan for the Klamath Restoration
Program not only updates the 1985 Klamath River Basin Fisheries Resource
Plan, it virtually replaces it by redirecting its principal thrusts. This
closing chapter first summarizes the new plan's overall nature, then follows
with a presentation of the major conclusions and recommendation of each
key chapter. Finally, the Plan's goals, objectives, policies and, in some
instances, project priorities, are presented in the "step-down" manner
in which the Plan will be maintained during the Restoration Program's formative
Overall, this plan:
o Recognizes the public policy and investment linkage between the 1986 act of Congress that launched the Klamath River Basin Restoration Program and the 1988 California legislation (SB-2261) that calls for the restoration of anadromous fish throughout the state.
o Presents explicit goals, objectives and policies that recognize the necessarily long-term nature of the Klamath Basin Restoration Program.
o Emphasizes the need for both fish habitat protection and fish habitat restoration from a total watershed, not simply an instream, perspective.
o Recognizes that instream structures improve fish habitat in specific and limited ways and that they are not a panacea for the underlying causes of fish habitat degradation.
o Recognizes that habitat typing and fish population estimates should precede all but the most obviously needed restoration projects.
o Recognizes that the success of the Restoration Program will depend largely on the support and cooperation of the Basin's landowners and water users.
o Stresses the importance of education and communication in promoting the public understanding of, and sustained support for, the Restoration Program.
o Contemplates the on-going evaluation of habitat and monitoring of fish populations throughout the Basin.
o Addresses the need for improving laws and regulations that do not provide sufficient protection for fish and fish habitat.
o Advocates the protection of all stock groups of anadromous fish in the Basin.
o Provides for the maintenance of the genetic integrity of wild fish stock.
o Provides both formal and informal means of coordinating Program efforts with interested public and private groups.
o Calls for the periodic reevaluation and, where experience indicates the need, redirection of the Plan and Program (i.e., adaptive management).
o Is presented in a "step-down" structure that attempts to relate specific policies and project priorities to the Plan's specific stated goals and objectives.
Habitat Protection and Management
1. The first priority of the Plan is the protection of watershed and stream habitat in order to address the cause of habitat degradation rather than just the symptoms.
2. While greatly improved in recent years, timber harvest practices are still observed to be causing harm to local stream habitat. A quantitative surveillance and evaluation of the impact of current practices, particularly of the State Forest Practice Rules, has not been done yet and is needed to identify where additional improvements need to be made and how effective they are. The Task Force can contribute to this evaluation process and then seek the needed changes in State and Federal regulations.
3. The Task Force will request needed timber harvest policy and rule changes to protect riparian vegetation, highly erodible soils, and presently unimpaired streams supporting sensitive wild fish populations.
4. Timely monitoring and evaluation information on both stream habitat quality and anadromous fish locations can assist foresters in preparing more complete and accurate timber harvest plans.
5. Aquatic impacts of suction dredge mining are partially controlled through existing regulations, which include the closure of summer steelhead streams. The California Department of Fish and Game also needs to extend the season opening to July 1 to protect steelhead eggs and fry, and to require dredgers to restore the streambed contours. Studies are needed to evaluate the potential impacts of concentrated or frequent dredging activity and of the larger suction dredges (6 to 10 inches). Education of miners could help prevent such adverse impacts as undercutting streambanks, removal of large woody debris and boulders, and the destruction of riparian vegetation.
6. Gravel, lode and placer mining impacts need to be anticipated and prevented through the existing regulatory agencies.
7. Agricultural management practices have reduced water quality and impaired anadromous fish habitat, particularly in the Scott and Shasta River drainages, through the removal of riparian vegetation, the runoff of fertilizers and animal wastes from fields into streams, as well as past stream channelization.
8. While progress is being made by concerned farmers and ranchers, the Task Force will help speed up the process in several ways: improved communication about causes and solutions, encouragement of "best management practices", promotion of riparian fencing, investigation of conservation easements and by offering some funding. Trends in water quality and riparian cover need to be monitored and evaluated.
9. Salmon and steelhead have been blocked for 80 years from their historic spawning grounds in the upper Klamath River Basin above Copco Dam. Previous analyses have recommended against providing fish access over the dams, with the most recent study having been done in 1966. Providing access to return anadromous fish to their former habitat needs to be evaluated again, considering current knowledge and conditions.
10. While Iron Gate Dam eliminated the extreme flow fluctuations in the mainstem Klamath caused by Copco's releases, adverse impacts on the aquatic habitat from Iron Gate Dam and Reservoir are a concern of this plan. The upcoming federal relicensing of this hydroelectric proejct provides an opportunity to identify ways to improve its operation to benefit the Restoration Program.
11. Although most of the Klamath River and its tributaries are protected from additional large dams through the State and Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Acts, other portions are still vulnerable to new water storage and small hydroelectric projects. The Task Force will oppose any further storage or diversion projects that will adversely impact anadromous fish.
12. To protect the streamflows of the Klamath and Trinity Rivers Basins, the Task Force will oppose the exportation or marketing of any additional water.
13. Stream diversions for irrigation have reduced the salmon and steelhead populations of the Scott and Shasta Rivers to subsistence levels.
14. Through the cooperation of the farmers and ranchers, alternative practices could be implemented to provide a benefit to both the water users and the fishery. The Task Force is committed to creative solutions which will not substantially decrease agricultural productivity nor pose undue hardship on ranchers and farmers.
15. California water law for the Klamath Basin needs to be changed to provide 1) incentives for water conservation -- away from the "use it or lose it" philosophy; 2) instream water rights for fish; and 3) for water rights holders to sell their conserved water to an entity designated to protect instream uses.
16. The Task Force will involve the citizens of the Basin communities, not just the established agencies, in the restoration of the region's anadromous fish habitat.
17. Given the substantial role that sediment plays in the degradation of the Basin's fish habitat, the Task Force will give high priority to the evaluation of erosion areas and to their abatement.
18. The Task Force will work closely with the Trinity River Restoration Task Force in that Task Force's efforts to maintain sufficient streamflow to rebuild the Trinity's natural anadromous fish production. The Task Force should work to maintain Klamath River flows below Iron Gate Dam at least at their present levels. Dependable streamflow down both rivers is essential to the health of the estuary.
19. High priority will be given to habitat restoration in the Shasta and Scott Rivers. The potential for fall chinook and steelhead production is great in both rivers.
20. Extreme care will be taken to prevent further damage to the Salmon River watershed. The area serves as a refuge for irreplacable wild stocks of spring chinook salmon and summer steelhead.
21. The Task Force will pursue cooperative agreements with landowners in the lower Klamath Basin, in particular, that provide for the analysis of erosion problems and the development of watershed stabilization measures.
22. Barrier removal and modification provides the greatest benefit among the Basin's instream habitat restoration projects. Projects serving both salmon and steelhead will be given highest priority. These projects should leave as much large woody debris in the channel as possible.
23. Screening of the Basin's water diversions should be expedited. Fish rescue efforts should be evaluated to determine if they are justified in terms of the survival of the rescued fish.
24. Consideration of structural approaches to habitat restoration other than barrier removal/modification and screening will be based upon the specific criteria discussed in this plan.
Fish Population Protection
25. The Restoration Program should be judged ultimately on its success in restoring runs of anadromous fish that successfully spawn, grow and survive outside hatchery environments or hatchery influences. These have been referred to as "wild" fish in this plan's text.
26. The Task Force will work with the Klamath Fishery Management Council to protect locally-adapted anadromous fish stocks that spawn in diverse portions of the Basin.
27. The Task Force will regard the fish populations that utilize diverse portions of the Basin as "stock groups" until analyses indicate that finer or broader distinctions better serve the objectives of the Restoration Program.
28. The Task Force will work with the California Department of Fish and Game toward the marking of all steelhead produced in the Basin's hatcheries to enable voluntary selective harvest of hatchery fish. Constant fractional marking of hatchery salmon should be continued to assist the assessment of the Basin's natural stocks and to enable selective harvest if it is needed.
29. The Task Force will promote anti-poaching campaigns through expanded law enforcement, strengthened court actions and neighborhood "stream watch" groups.
Fish Population Restoration
30. Through its Technical Team, the Task Force will continue to work with the California Department of Fish and Game to assure that the Basin's fish hatcheries achieve their mitigation goals without creating adverse effects on wild stocks. Areas of concern include the levels of hatchery releases, the fate and health of imported hatchery broodstock, the planting of hatchery fish into different or distant stock groups, and the practicality of marking all hatchery fish to strengthen stock assessments and evaluation of hatchery/wild population interactions.
31. Through its Technical Team, and in consultation with the Indian tribes involved with fish restoration and the Department of Fish and Game, the Task Force will recommend guidelines, for adoption and implementation by the tribes and the Department, for the operation of small fish rearing programs.
32. The Task Force shall improve the cost-effectiveness of those small scale rearing programs that now focus only on fall run chinook salmon by encouraging the culture of coho, steelhead and other species where it would contribute to Restoration Program objectives.
33. Given their uncertain condition, the Task Force will give high priority to green sturgeon restoration opportunities.
Education and Communication
34. The Task Force will continue its funding of salmon and steelhead classroom and field studies curricula and the development of a corps of mentor teachers within the Basin counties and school districts. The curricula should be complete and the mentor teachers recruited and trained no later than 1994.
35. The Task Force will schedule level funding throughout the life of the Restoration Program to sustain the interest of Basin counties and school districts in updating and improving the salmon and steelhead teaching methods and materials. This will enhance the chances that the salmon and steelhead-related studies will be integrated over time into the permanent curricula of the region's schools.
36. Restoration Program personnel will continue regular communications with the region's television and print journalists and should enhance coverage of the Restoration Program by building an inventory of professional quality film, videotape, photos and other visual and graphic materials and by making these materials available to journalists for use in television, magazine and newspaper stories.
37. The Task Force shall commission a summary of the Restoration Program for wide public distribution.
38. The Task Force will schedule preparation of a progress "report to the people" to be released in 1993, a the end of five full years of Restoration Program effort.
39. To date the Restoration Program has been funded with $1.0 million a year from the Federal government, through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and at least $330,000 of non-Federal money from the California Department of Fish and Game. There are additional exisiting sources of Federal and non-Federal funding which could be made available to the Restoration Program, as well as potential sources which could be developed (e.g., new state bond acts, a Klamath River fishing stamp).
40. The sharing of the data and information gathered during the 20-year life of the Restoration Program can be facilitated through: a technical library in the Klamath River Fisheries Resource Office, a periodic newsletter, workshops and conferences, publications and computer databases. One of the databases with the greatest potential benefit to the Program is the water quality assessment and monitoring system maintained by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on the U.S. Geological Survey "Reach" file. This benefit will grow in the years ahead as the State Water Resources Control Board adapts its water quality assessment record-keeping to the EPA/Reach system.
41. Coordination of all fishery restoration entities and activities in the Klamath River Basin will require a combination of formal and informal agreements and methods.
Goal I: Restore, by 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.
Objective 2.A. Protect stream and riparian habitat from potential damages caused by timber harvesting and related activities.
2.A.1. Improve current timber harvest practices through the following:
a. Instigate local workshops and seminars on timber harvest methods, including erosion control and stream and riparian protection methods for timber operators and foresters by working with appropriate resource agencies and groups.
b. Develop salmonid habitat protection and management standards and guidelines (by the Technical Work Group) for agency endorsement and use.
c. Develop educational materials addressing stream protection measures for use by foresters, timber operators, and their employees.
d. Obtain existing fish habitat data and place into a data base system which can be easily accessed by agencies and field users.
e. Encourage foresters, land owners, and timber harvesters to view the existing regulations as minimum rather than maximum expectations.
f. Promote communication between timberland managers and salmon and steelhead users.
g. Foster Coordinated Resource Management and Planning in mixed ownership watersheds with important fish habitat (e.g., Blue Creek, Beaver Creek, French Creek, and others).
2.A.2. Contribute to evaluating the effectiveness of the current timber harvest practices in protecting stream habitat through:
a. Development of an index of habitat integrity to better understand the possible cumulative effects.
b. Incorporation of fish habitat and population data into clean water assessments of the State Water Resources Control Board and E.P.A.
c. Monitoring the recovery of stream habitat in logged watersheds.
d. Evaluating watershed and riparian conditions in logged areas.
2.A.3. If the results of the above and other evaluations reveal inadequacies, promote the necessary changes in:
a. The State's Forest Practice Rules and administrative actions.
b. The U.S. Forest Service's policies in its Land Management Plans, Best Management Practices, and administrative actions.
2.A.4. Anticipate potential stream protection problems by requesting:
a. Surveillance monitoring programs, which "208" certification requires, be conducted as soon as possible in Klamath Basin streams by the State Board of Forestry and the U.S. Forest Service.
b. Modification of the State Forest Practices Rules to:
1. Protect highly erodible soils like the decomposed granitic soils.
2. Incorporate watershed planning in THP reviews.
3. Provide adequate protection of riparian areas.
4. Allow for a longer review period for THPs in critical watersheds.
5. Provide a meaningful level of cumulative impact analysis.
6. Provide damaged fish habitat adequate time to recover before new timber harvesting or roads occur in watersheds that are over threshold.
c. Policies in the US Forest Service's Land Management Plans and changes in administrative actions to:
1. Give first priority to protection of salmonid habitat which is presently unimpaired (e.g., Clear Creek, Dillon Creek).
2. Protect highly erodible soils like the decomposed granitic soils.
3. Provide damaged fish habitat adequate time to recover before new timber sales or roads occur in watersheds that are over threshold.
4. Ensure the survival of anadromous salmonids through adequate protection of their habitat.
5. Provide adequate protection of riparian areas.
6. Provide a meaningful level of cumulative impact analysis.
7. Ensure the land base allocation and protective measure for water quality and fish habitat are adequate.
Objective 2.B. Ensure that mining activities do not cause habitat damage.
2.B.1. Seek to minimize impact of suction dredge mining on salmon and steelhead habitat and populations by:
a. Communicating with miners about fish habitat needs and possible impacts of dredging through personal contact as well as preparing a clear and concise illustrated handout to be distributed with suction dredge permits.
b. Evaluating the impacts of concentrated dredging activity, where cumulative effects may pose serious problems.
c. Supporting evaluation of the effects of the larger suction dredges (6 to 10 inch) on salmonid habitat.
d. Supporting CDFG in maintaining complete closure (no exceptions) of essential summer steelhead streams: Wooley Creek, Dillon Creek, and Clear Creek.
e. Requesting that the California Department of Fish and Game:
1. Change the season's beginning date from June 1 to July 1 to protect winter-run steelhead eggs and fry, which may still be in the gravels during early summer.
2. Require miners dredging in the river to mark the dredged site for safety reasons, and notify fishermen through the licensing process.
3. Promote a better record-keeping system through the permit process for collecting data on the numbers, locations, and sizes of dredge activity.
f. Based on the results of research, pursuing any necessary improvements in regulations and education to adequately protect the habitat.
2.B.2. Seek effective protections of salmonid habitat from potential impacts of other mining practices (gravel, lode, placer) by:
a. Promoting education of miners.
b. Supporting needed evaluations and monitoring.
c. Working with the appropriate regulatory agencies in establishing permit conditions.
d. Ensuring minimum reclamation standards be adopted, implemented and enforced.
e. Supporting a mandatory form of financial assurance (e.g., bond) to assure reclamation of mines.
f. Promoting the abatement of any water quality and habitat problems associated with abandoned mining operations.
g. Requesting lead SMARA agencies to assess penalties and fines for non-compliance with SMARA statute provisions, and also for failure to comply with reporting requirements.
2.B.3. Promote communication between miners and salmon and steelhead users.
Objective 2.C. Protect and improve the water quality of stream habitat from adverse agricultural practices.
2.C.1. Seek opportunities for farmers and ranchers to reduce their impact on stream water quality:
a. Instigate local workshops and seminars with local Resource Conservation Districts, County Farm Advisor, Soil Conservation Service, California Department of Fish and Game, Farm Bureau, Cattleman's Association, and others.
b. Encourage "best management practices" to reduce the amounts of animal waste and fertilizers entering watercourses, initially focusing on demonstration projects.
c. Promote the fencing of riparian areas in vulnerable sites to protect existing vegetation, to provide for natural regeneration, and to protect new plantings.
d. Explore the option of conservation easements to protect riparian zones.
e. Make funding available to help implement improvements which will provide a significant benefit to the fisheries.
f. Investigate and pursue other sources of financial assistance (e.g., ASCS, CDFG, SWRCB).
g. Promote communication between the farmers and ranchers and the salmon and steelhead users.
2.C.2. Monitor and assess stream quality to help evaluate the location, extent, and trends of water quality and riparian problems related to agricultural practices, particularly in the Shasta River, while coordinating with pertinent agencies.
Objective 2.E. Protect salmon and steelhead habitat from harmful effects of water and power projects in the Klamath Basin.
2.E.1. Support the evaluation of existing large water storage projects in the basin to determine their effect on limiting factors for anadromous fish production, including the following:
a. Reevaluate (from the 1966 study) the currently available spawning and rearing habitat located above Iron Gate Dam, where needed.
b. Monitor water quality, including water temperatures, above, within, and below the Copco and Iron Gate reservoirs, for a five year period to determine the effects of water storage and powerplant operations on downstream habitat conditions.
c. Evaluate the instream flow needs, using state-of-the-art methods, of each salmon and steelhead run and life stage affected by flows released from Iron Gate Dam.
d. Examine the impact of Lake Shastina on Shasta River's water quality problems.
2.E.2. Identify and implement methods to rectify habitat problems identified in #1 above, including the following:
a. Access above Iron Gate and Copco Dams to the Upper Klamath Basin.
b. Water quality above and below Iron Gate Dam.
c. Instream flow and habitat below Iron Gate Dam.
d. Water quality and flow from Lake Shastina.
2.E.3. Promote adequate fish protection requirements in the relicensing conditions for the Iron Gate Hydroelectric Project and other power projects by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
2.E.4. Advocate inclusion and enforcement of effective conditions for salmonid habitat protection on small and large hydroelectric projects and other water storage projects.
2.E.5. Oppose further large water storage projects until habitat problems caused by existing projects are rectified, and proof is available that any proposed project will not contribute to habitat problems.
2.E.6. Oppose the additional exportation (through water marketing or other means) of water from the Klamath River or Trinity River Basins, which is necessary to restore and protect anadromous fish populations.
2.E.7. Require water flows adequate to achieve optimal productivity of the basin.
2.E.8. Seek the establishment of law that mandates minimum streamflow standards.
2.E.9. Advocate improved streamflow releases from the Trinity River Project which will better mimic the natural or pre-dam streamflow patterns.
Objective 2.F. Protect the instream flow needs of salmon and steelhead in streams affected by water diversions.
2.F.1. As a first priority, seek opportunities for stream diverters to reduce their impact on salmon and steelhead habitat:
a. Involve landowners in the Scott and Shasta Valleys in developing solutions to the instream flow and water quality problems of the Scott and Shasta Rivers and their tributaries.
b. Develop an inventory of water conservation practices for agricultural users in the basin, and seek their implementation by working with the local Resource Conservation Districts, County Farm Advisor, Soil Conservation Service, Farm Bureau, Cattleman's Association, and other interested groups (e.g., through workshops, seminars, County Fair displays).
c. Promote more efficient water delivery practices in order to avoid serious waste of water in unlined ditches.
d. Support effective screening of all diversions.
e. Actively support needed changes in state water rights law so:
1. Water right holders will not be penalized for conserving water.
2. Instream uses like fish can have water rights.
3. Water right transfers can be made to instream uses.
f. If the above changes in water rights law occur, then support the purchase of water rights from willing sellers for the purpose of instream flow improvements.
g. Contribute financial support to water conservation measures which will provide significant benefit to the fisheries.
h. Investigate other sources of financial assistance which can help implement improved practices or purchase water rights (e.g., ASCS, DWR, Water Heritage Trust).
i. Promote communication between water users and salmon and steelhead users.
j. Evaluate the instream flow needs of the Scott and Shasta Rivers and their tributaries.
2.F.2. If fish population trends in a tributary system are found to be at critically low levels by the Task Force, the following policies will be instituted, along with necessary harvest restrictions:
a. Pursue appropriate agency solutions.
b. Exercise water allotment rights to provide emergency instream flows.
2.F.3. In the year 1995, if adequate progress towards improving instream flow conditions for salmonids has not been made as a result of Policy 2.F.1, then seriously pursue the available alternatives:
a. Seek enforcement of the conditions of the Scott River Adjudication through operation of Watermaster Service, including compliance with the October 15 diversion deadline for stream appropriations.
b. Encourage legal action by the US Forest Service to enable it to achieve the minimum fish flows required in the Scott River Adjudication.
c. Ask the State Water Resources Control Board to enforce the water rights condition pertaining to "unreasonable " use of water in agricultural irrigation practices in the Klamath River Basin.
2.F.4. In the year 2000, if adequate progress towards improving instream flow conditions for salmonids has not been made as a result of Policies 2.F.1. and 2.F.3., then investigate the option of reallocation of water rights under the public trust doctrine for protection of fish habitat.
Objective 3: Restore the habitat of anadromous fish of the Klamath River Basin by using appropriate methods that address the factors that limit the production of these species.
3.1 The Klamath River Basin Fisheries Restoration Task Force should solicit the support and cooperation of all the citizens of the Klamath River Basin in its mission to restore anadromous fisheries resources. The communities can be involved by:
a. Holding training sessions on restoration techniques and opportunities.
b. Holding training sessions to increase understanding of the contract and bid process to encourage local firms and groups to get involved.
c. Giving preference to projects that have strong local participation.
d. Encouraging the formation of local restoration groups to "adopt" subbasins and become advocates for fisheries resources and the Restoration Program.
3.2 Because large scale contributions of sediment continue to have substantial negative impacts on the ecosystem of the Klamath River, the Task Force will focus on evaluating areas where erosion continues to be a problem, and will work to solve the problem by:
a. Entering into formal long-term cooperative agreements with the U.S. Forest Service, Resource Conservation Districts, Indian Tribes other agencies.
b. Entering into Cooperative Resource Management Plans (CRMPs), with public and private landowners, with the objective of reducing erosion from their land.
c. Working with resource agencies such as the State Water Resources Control Board, the California Department of Forestry and the Environmental Protection Agency to identify problems, monitor progress on the abatement of sediment problems, and, where necessary, step up enforcement of clean water laws.
d. Exploring the feasibility of using a GIS system and the EPA Reach File to track the fate of sediment basinwide.
3.3 Technically sound habitat restoration measures which benefit depressed stock groups of concern will receive priority consideration for funding.
3.4 The Klamath River Task Force will support the Trinity River Task Force in its efforts to restore adequate streamflow for fisheries resources in the Trinity subbasin.
3.5 The Task Force will work to gain the release of flows of adequate quality and quantity for fishery resources from Iron Gate Dam.
3.6 The Shasta River should be given high priority in the Restoration Program because of its significant potential to produce fall chinook salmon and steelhead. Adequate streamflow for fish are needed here, together with the restoration of riparian areas.
3.7 The Scott River and its tributaries are also a high priority for restoration because of their substantial salmon and steelhead production potential. Solutions to the major problems in the basin include:
a. Improving stream flows and restoring riparian zones.
b. Using the recently completed sediment study to prioritize actions to control erosion of decomposed granite sands and identifying funds for their implementation.
c. Work with private timberland owners and others engaged in road construction and maintenance to insure that future activities do not continue to increase erosion.
3.8 The Salmon River, a refuge area for spring chinook salmon and summer steelhead, has a greatly elevated erosion risk as a result of recent fires. Therefore, the following actions will be taken:
a. Assess erosion problems in the Salmon River Basin, paying particular attention to areas burned during the 1987 fires.
b. Implement measures to stabilize subbasins as soon as possible using the results of the erosion control study to prioritize actions.
c. Make certain that any continuing timber harvest activities by the USFS in the Salmon River Basin do not contribute further to current high erosion hazard.
3.9 The Task Force will work closely with the Yurok Tribe to improve anadromous fisheries resources on the Reservation and on ancestral territories. Actions on lower Klamath tributaries will include:
a. Seeking cooperative agreements with the major private land owners to evaluate slope stability and take appropriate measures to avoid soil loss and related negative impacts on salmon, steelhead and cutthroat trout.
b. Funding a study using aerial photographs, such as the RAPID method, to speed the evaluation of erosion factors.
c. Seeking further agreements to expand fisheries restoration efforts if erosion hazards are reduced or found to be at lower-than-believed levels.
d. Join with the Hoopa and Yurok Tribes in making Pine Creek a model watershed through implementing erosion control and other fisheries restoration measures and working to minimize impacts from future land use.
3-10 The Task Force will pursue the following actions with regard to the middle Klamath tributaries:
a. Encourage the USFS to expand cooperative efforts in mixed ownership drainages having decomposed granite soils, such as Beaver Creek and Cottonwood Creek, to control erosion and modify future timber harvests and road building to prevent erosion from continuing.
b. Study the feasibility and cost of removing the fish migration barriers at or near the mouth of middle Klamath tributaries such as Humbug Creek.
c. Find a solution to the problem of fish passage over the diversion structure on Horse Creek.
d. Seek cooperation from farmers and ranchers in securing adequate flows for fish in drainages such as Seiad and Cottonwood Creeks.
3.11 Fish screens should be installed wherever needed. Adequate funds for screen maintenance shall be provided. An evaluation of fish rescue efforts will be made to determine how many of the rescued fish survive.
3.12 Proposed projects to structurally increase fisheries habitat in any Klamath tributary will be evaluated as to whether:
a. The erosion potential in the watershed and the expected sediment yield would place the project at risk during moderate storm events (10 year interval or less).
b. The stream channel remains highly aggraded and, thus, likely to threaten the stability of the proposed structure.
c. The project is properly engineered in terms of its setting (gradient and channel type) and expected flows.
d. Habitat assessment has been conducted and the suspected limiting factors identified.
e. The proposed project has a clear goal of remedying the identified limiting factors.
f. The proposal includes methods to evaluate whether the goal of the project has been reached after project implementation (ideally, a demonstration of its positive cost-benefit performance).
g. The project budget includes cost estimates for maintenance.
3.13 The Task Force will undertake an affordable evaluation and monitoring program, one which employs accepted, standardized techniques, in order to acquire the information needed for adaptive management. Specifically, the Task Force will:
a. Fund, or find funding from such cooperators as the USFS, for completion of habitat typing and other quantitative habitat assessment of all basin streams having significant restoration potential.
b. Work with agencies such as the EPA, SWRCB, and USFS, which have water quality protection responsibilities, to monitor stream conditions of interest to the Restoration Program.
3.14 The Task Force will seek to mandate by law, minimum habitat standards.
Objective 4: Strive to protect the genetic diversity of anadromous fishes in the Klamath River Basin.
4.1 Increases in populations of self-sustaining runs of fish separate in time or space from hatchery stocks, referred to here as "native" populations, will be the basis upon which the success of the Restoration Program will be judged.
4.2. The Task Force will work closely with the Klamath Fisheries Management Council to protect locally adapted anadromous fish stocks that return to all areas of the Klamath Basin, so that self-sustaining runs can be restored, with emphasis given to priority stocks for recovery.
4.3. The Task Force shall recognize the fish populations adapted to the various areas of the Klamath Basin as stock groups until further study indicates that finer or broader distinctions better serve the Klamath River Basin Fisheries Restoration Program. To this end, the following will be undertaken:
a. Fall chinook salmon escapement should continue to be monitored by use of weirs on the Shasta, Scott, and Salmon rivers and on Blue Creek, and an additional monitoring effort begun on a Middle Klamath tributary.
b. Native spring chinook populations shall continue to be monitored closely in the Salmon River and in the lower river net harvest.
c. CDFG will be requested to continue to monitor population trends of summer steelhead through direct observation surveys.
d. Study feasibility of weir operation later in the season to get more information on coho and steelhead.
e. The Task Force will provide training and supervision for community volunteers interested in conducting spawner surveys to help gather information about native salmon stocks, including coho.
f. Ask CDFG to analyze the angler success data currently collected from guides to provide a steelhead catch-per-effort baseline from which to measure the success of the Restoration Program.
g. Collect information on green sturgeon harvest.
h. Get the information suggested in Nicholas and Hankin (1988) with which to better identify stock groups, beginning with chinook salmon and proceeding on to all salmon and steelhead stock groups.
i. Include the fish counting methods suggested by Hankin and Reeves (1988) when habitat typing, in order to have consistent estimates of standing crops of juvenile fish.
j. Request NMFS to fund a study of green sturgeon, including its distribution, population structure, and level of harvest of Klamath stocks in other areas, to provide sufficient information so that a management plan for the Klamath green sturgeon can be devised.
k. Create incentives for graduate students and other qualified investigators on cutthroat trout, eulachon, and lamprey of the Klamath Basin.
4.4 The Task Force will work with the California Department of Fish and Game to:
a. Mark, by fin-clipping or other method, all hatchery steelhead at Iron Gate Hatchery as well as Trinity River Hatchery so that:
1. Voluntary selective harvest will be possible.
2. The problem of residualism can be investigated.
3. The contributions of hatchery and native steelhead to returns can be determined.
b. Mark a consistent fraction of all hatchery chinook salmon to help in the Natural Stocks Assessment study of the native-to-hatchery relationship of Klamath Basin chinook stocks.
c. Share information gathered through research in a timely manner to enable adaptive management techniques.
d. Investigate the practicality of closing anadromous fish producing streams to "trout" fishing.
e. Promote genetic stock identification or DNA programs for ocean and river sampling to determine fish stock identification.
4.5 To strengthen law enforcement protection of Klamath Basin fish populations, the Task Force will:
a. Encourage the formation of local citizen "watch groups" to help in the protection and monitoring of remnant fish populations throughout the basin.
b. Ask CDFG to seek cooperative agreements with other law enforcement agencies so that sheriffs' deputies, Forest Service and CDF officers, and highway patrolmen may be interested in helping wardens curb poaching.
4.6 The Task Force will encourage local judges to punish poachers to the full extent of the law. Where necessary, particularly to protect stocks in danger of becoming extinct, increases in penalties for poaching should be sought.
4.7 The Task Force will work towards determining spawning population levels appropriate to achieve optimal smolt production for all self sustaining populations of anadromous salmonids in the basin.
4.8 The Task Force will support the ban on the use of large-scale driftnets for fishing on the high seas.
Objective 5.A: Iron Gate Hatchery and Trinity River Hatchery should be operated to produce salmon and steelhead to mitigate for the losses of habitat above their dams and, at the same time, strive to reduce impacts on native fish.
5.A.1 The Task Force's Technical Team will work with CDFG to insure that the Basin's large-scale hatcheries operate to mitigate for loss of habitat above dams while limiting their impacts on wild stocks and maintaining the long term viability of hatchery broodstock. In coordination with Trinity River Task Force, the Task Force will:
a. Determine the optimal levels and composition of hatchery releases that can best achieve mitigation goals while minimizing impacts on native stocks.
b. Identify opportunities for enhancement and harvest supplementation using surplus hatchery eggs where it can be assured that there would be no disease transmission, genetic harm, in-river density dependent effects, or adverse harvest impacts to native stocks.
c. Encourage the continuation of hatchery practices that will maintain the fitness of hatchery broodstock and decrease undesirable impacts of straying on native fish.
d. Conduct a study to determine the resistance of Iron Gate Hatchery steelhead broodstock to Ceratomyxa shasta.
e. Support the CDFG in its effort to secure a water supply filter for Iron Gate Hatchery.
Objective 5.B: Small-scale rearing programs should be temporary measures, primarily for the purpose of accelerating the rebuilding of locally adapted native salmon and steelhead populations, and operated to maintain the genetic integrity of such populations. Ideally, small-scale rearing programs should be operated in conjunction with habitat restoration projects.
5.B.1 Those parties having management authority over small scale rearing and pond programs in the Klamath River Basin shall, through coordinated planning, formulate independent guidelines for activities which will avoid negative effects on the genetic characteristics of native stocks. (The relevant parties, in this instance, are the Yurok, Hoopa, and Karuk Tribes and the State of California, acting through the California Department of Fish and Game.)
5.B.2 The guidelines for small-scale facilities will, to the extent possible, be consistent in content. The guidelines will be developed in accordance with the best known biological practices and their development shall be guided by a technical advisory committee, appointed by the Task Force, having expertise in genetics and fish culture. The small-scale facilities guidelines shall consider, but need not be limited to:
a. Procedures for trapping, rearing, incubating, and transferring fish, and for the control of fish diseases.
b. Broodstock management rules that ensure the maintenance of genetic integrity and the diversity of the stocks handled.
c. Requirements that an appropriate number of fish produced by small scale rearing and enhancement programs are marked and coded wire tagged so that ocean migration may be determined and that inbreeding can be avoided.
d. Methods by which to determine release strategies for pond reared steelhead from rescue programs in order to minimize residual behavior.
e. Methods to by which to evaluate program success.
5.B.3 The Task Force shall encourage small-scale fish rearing project operators to participate in research to determine:
a. Habitat quality to assess appropriate stocking levels.
b. Early life histories of fish cultured so that appropriate time for release can be determined.
c. Those levels of spawning escapement that represent "full seeding" so the Task Force may determine when populations have recovered sufficiently to close or move a facility.
5.B.4 The Task Force will explore means of improving the cost effectiveness of those small-scale rearing programs now targeting late-run fall chinook by capturing other species, such as coho and steelhead, where such efforts would contribute to Restoration Program objectives.
5.B.5 The Task Force will explore the need for green sturgeon population restoration measures.
5.B.6 The Task Force will support the continuation of fish rescue efforts in the middle Klamath Basin and the Scott and Shasta rivers as a viable tool for providing additional salmon and steelhead production.
Objective 6: Promote public interest in the Klamath River Basin's anadromous fish, their beneficial use and habitat requirements and gain support for the Restoration Program's plans and efforts to restore fish habitat and population numbers.
6.1. The Task Force will maintain support for public school programs by:
a. Continuing to develop a curriculum and field activities for schools in the Klamath River Basin and adjacent counties.
b. Encouraging local school districts to make these materials part of the regular curriculum, once the materials are fully developed.
c. Sponsoring workshops and conferences on salmonid conservation to keep teachers interested in and updated about the Restoration Program.
d. Budgeting $5,000-10,000 a year for the operation and maintenance of class-room education projects once the current five-year development process is complete. Teachers should be encouraged to submit proposals to continue the development, operation and innovation of the Program, or for special projects.
6.2. The Task Force will support communications with the public by:
a. Supporting 4-H youth education projects involving riparian restoration.
b. Continuing to encourage the development of interpretive programs on the Yurok Reservation near the mouth of the Klamath River, at the Interstate 5 rest stop north of Yreka and within Yreka itself.
c. Assembling a suitable display for county fairs.
d. Working with angler groups, resort owners, guides, and county fish and game advisory committees to promote angler awareness of the Restoration Program's goals and objectives.
e. Cosponsoring workshops and seminars on water conservation with Resource Conservation Districts to assist the agricultural community.
f. Conducting workshops for state, county, and private road maintenance personnel concerning stream protection needs.
g. Setting up meetings between fisheries biologists and miners to explain the environmental requirements of fish and to learn more about mining activities.
h. Joining with the Klamath Basin tribes in sponsoring a conference about the Indian fisheries.
i. Cosponsoring workshops or "tailgate sessions" with foresters, road engineers, timber and equipment operators concerning watershed protection needs.
j. Providing public information services (e.g. Newsletters, Flyers) for the Klamath Fishery Management Council.
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.
Goal II: Support the Klamath Fishery Management Council in development of harvest regulation recommendations that will provide for viable fisheries and escapement.
Goal 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.
Goal IV: Inform the public about the value of anadromous fish to the Klamath River region and gain their support for the Restoration Program.
Goal V: Promote cooperative relationships between 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.