Klamath Basin Integrated Fisheries Restoration and Monitoring PlanPhase 2 Status Update

Conf

luen

ce o

f the

sal

mon

and

Kla

mat

h RI

vers

r,USF

WS

Clint Alexander, Marc Porter, and Darcy Pickard, ESSAWebinar, June 14th 2019

2

• 2008 National Research Council advice ⇒comprehensive, integrated basin-wide plan

• KBRA Fisheries Program included concepts for fisheries restoration and monitoring plans, but expired in 2015

• FWS/NMFS and others still need a science plan to guide highest priority ecosystem process, habitat & fish population restoration and monitoring actions

• The Integrated Fisheries Restoration and Monitoring Plan (IFRMP) complements Klamath and Oregon fisheries reintroduction implementation plan, KRRC Definite Plan, and other plans

What is This Project? (for new folks)

3

• When completed, a fully funded IFRMP will provide:– Prioritized and sequenced ecosystem process/habitat restoration

actions (and a methodology to iteratively update these priorities)– Status/trend & effectiveness monitoring to determine which

restoration actions over time provide greatest benefit– An adaptive management framework to learn & improve over time– Cost estimates for getting the work done

• USFWS contracted with the PSMFC, a neutral party, to oversee Plan development,

• And PSFMC contracted with to do the work.• Expected completion 2021 (subject to funding appropriations)

What is This Project? (for new folks)

4

The Focal (Fish) Species• A unified plan for basin-wide recovery of 10 focal fish species

“Fish Plan”

Recap on Progress to Date

Mouth of the Klamath River by Linda Tanner, 2011, licensed under CC by 2.0

Phase 2 WRAP UP: Jan 2019 to July 2019

Where Are We In the Process?Initial Rough Draft

Plan Document*Public review Oct 22 2018 - November 26,

2018

Initial Rough Draft Plan Document

**Federal review Dec 2018

Vol. I Vol. II

DRAFT Plan Document

**Jun 12 2019

Focused Peer Review

**Webinar June 14 2019**June 17 – July 8 2019

Revised DRAFT (Phase 2

complete) **July 17 2019

Phase 2 Jan 2018 to Dec 2018

7

Summary of Key Changes• Major restructuring of the candidate restoration actions section away from a high-

level sub-regional scale to individual sub-basin scale.

• Remove “fisheries” (& hatchery) actions and focus on watershed inputs, ecological processes & habitat restoration actions

• Restructuring the indicator framework to:

– Use spatially-explicit core performance indicators (CPIs)

– Remove strict "triggers" and "decision rules" to structure restoration decisions, instead relying on suitability thresholds within a weight of evidence approach (to be refined in Phase 3)

• Simplification of the prioritization methodology and use of specific projects from sub-basin chapters. Emphasize sequencing.

• Identify an adaptive management approach to implement the plan

• Overall: streamline and boil down document (ideally to ~100 pages of text + key infographics, visuals). Move conceptual models and process related information to an appendix or supplemental volume (in Phase 3)

8

Benefits of re-structuring

• Sub-basin scale plan more practitioner friendly. Plan is more versatile at multiple scales.

• Will facilitate more natural/easy engagement with broader sub-regional working group members who have expertise in specific parts of the basin (vs. regional scale).

• Info-graphics packed with information on stressors, focal species, restoration actions, with geographic references. Easy & helpful for variety of audiences.

9

10

The Other Players

Initial Restoration and Monitoring Priorities

12

Process-Based Restoration• Bottom-up restoration by tier of watershed functional processes

instead of population benchmarks (e.g., Elwha)

Still to be refined in next phase of work!

Core Performance Indicators (CPIs)

14

• For each indicator, suitability thresholds or benchmarks must be identified to help guide prioritization of restoration needs and progression through functional watershed tiers

Suitability Thresholds

15

Restoration & Monitoring Phasing, Sequencing• Scale specific CPIs and their thresholds can also be used

for planning restoration priorities over time, across spatial scales.

16

The report is organized by subsections for each HYDROLOGIC SUB-BASIN.

Benefits include:

• Based on recognized scientific subdivisions of watersheds, and consistent with org. in prior phases.

• Aligns with the scale of local monitoring and management planning, typically at sub-basin scale.

• Prevents perception that some sub-areas (e.g., individualtribs) are being given “special attention”.

• But still able to encompass tributary-scale information within each sub-basin profile.

Change in Focal Scale

17

Sub-Region Overviews• Restoration section

still includes sub-regional overviews.

• Includes summary of key issues and stressors at the sub-region scale.

• Then goes into each sub-basin.

18

Synthesis of Identified and Key Stressors

19

Sub-Basin Profiles• Subbasin profiles are

nested within their specific subregions.

20

Sub-Basin Profile OrganizationEach sub-basin profile covers:• Caveat that these require further review.• Overview of features, key species, and

stressors.• Summary of key restoration actions

(based on existing docs & stakeholder input)

• Description & key areas• Estimated costs (based on past

estimates from NMFS, KBRA)• High-level monitoring needs

• Summary of past restoration.• Summary of existing monitoring.• Summary of relevant existing plans,

studies, and initiatives in that subbasin.• Quick-reference infographic summary map.

21

Key Restoration and Monitoring Actions• Snapshot of example table of restoration actions for the Sprague

sub-basin to reduce key stressors affecting focal fish species/functional groups in rough (preliminary) order of importance

22

Current and Future State of Species, Restoration and Monitoring• Example summary of major restoration efforts in the Sprague sub-

basin to date. (●) indicates target focal species for each restoration activity, (○) indicates non-target species that will also benefit.

23

Current and Future State of Species, Restoration and Monitoring

This section of the sub-basin profiles presents background information for each species in this geography, including:• Past or ongoing plans and/or

monitoring• Any major gaps in the data to

be aware of• Recent or forthcoming plans

and how they will affect the geography

24

Summary InfographicsSimple Visual Summaries

These infographics roll up the substantial content in each sub-basin profile into one easy-to-interpret summary.

Later, these graphics can form the foundation of a much shorter “plan summary document” aimed at time-limited managers and policymakers.

25

Summary Infographics

Approach to Prioritization

27

Simplified Multi-Criteria Scoring Approach2-tiered approach

28

DRAFT Klamath Basin Integrating Tracking Inventory and Scoring Tool

29

Roles Involved in Conducting Iterative PrioritizationThe multi-criteria scoring relies on aligning inputs and judgements from two groups:• A Technical Rating Committee

– Decide how criteria weighting factors should be set based on the context (e.g., location of interest, focal species of interest, etc.).

– Determine the spatial scale at which the prioritization will occur: sub-basin, sub-region, basin-wide.

– Will be key to maintaining the Integrated Tracking Inventory & Scoring Tool

• Restoration Proponents– Submit key information on costing and other attributes of a restoration

proposal that can support some Tier 2 criteria

30

Caveat on Approach to Prioritization

NOT

IMPLEMENT

IS

IMPLEMENT

!

X

What’s Next?

Phase 3 (2019-2020)

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet,nibh est. A magnamaecenas, quam magna necquis, lorem nunc.Suspendisse viverra sodalesmauris, cras pharetra proin.

Phase 4 (2020-2021)

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet,nibh est. A magnamaecenas, quam magna necquis, lorem nunc.Suspendisse viverra sodalesmauris, cras pharetra proin.

What Now?Call for Feedback!

35

How You Can Help• Download & submit comments until July 8 2019

Option A: Address focal questions using online survey form.

Option B: Add Word comments in doc and send back to us.

How to Submit Comments?

36

How You Can Helphttp://kbifrm.psmfc.org/review/Our key questions for you:1. Did we catch the key habitat restoration actions for

each sub-basin? – Are any specific new actions recently proposed

missing? If so, please list these other actions with reference to supporting documentation.

2. Have any of the candidate restoration actions identified already been accomplished? Which ones?

3. Do you have any concerns about how this document is going to be received in your community?

4. Any other comments, questions or advice for us?

Visit the IFRMP website at: http://kbifrm.psmfc.org/

Where you can get a link to the Draft IFRMP and also read our Synthesis Report

Further Information

ContactsChris Wheaton (cwheaton@psmfc.org) – lead PSMFCClint Alexander (calexander@essa.com) – lead ESSALaurelle Santana (lsantana@essa.com) – communication coordinator, mailing lists, etc.

Thank You!

37

Mou

th o

f the

Kla

mat

h Ri

ver b

y Li

nda

Tann

er, 2

011,

lice

nsed

und

er C

C by

2.0