IFRMP Resources
IFRMP Resources
After careful consideration of alternatives, we adopted a multi-criteria scoring approach to prioritization that has undergone multiple rounds of peer-review by Sub-basin Working Group (SBWG) participants. The multi-criterion prioritization framework developed for Phase 3 of the IFRMP is based on six key questions to ask about any restoration project under consideration, which are linked to corresponding criteria. These criteria are explained further in the following Klamath IFRMP Prioritization Criteria Quick-Reference Guide (“explainer”). Note: This explainer is a more streamlined version of what is in Section 3 of the IFRMP.
Klamath IFRMP Prioritization Criteria Quick-Reference Guide (download)
Additional resources for each criteria:
Criterion 1 – Range Overlap: Overlap of relevant focal species distributions with the location(s) of the proposed restoration project.
Criterion 2 – CPI Status: The magnitude of impaired ecosystem processes and fish habitats, used as an indicator of restoration need.
Criterion 3 – Stressors Addressed: The total number of stressors addressed by the restoration action (in relation to biophysical tiers & species).
Criterion 4 – Scale: Perceived scale of restoration project benefit for relevant focal species, from local to basin-wide benefit. (This information was provided by participants. See the Restoration Prioritization Tool)
Criterion 5 – Implementability: Reflecting how easy it would be to implement the project based on current expert-based understanding of cost, permitting, political, logistical, or other similar considerations. (This information was provided by participants. See the Restoration Prioritization Tool)
ESSA developed conceptual models for what we considered the primary drivers of habitat conditions for fish in the Klamath Basin (i.e. fluvial geomorphic processes and water quality) and for each of the focal fish species currently present within each Klamath Basin sub-region or potentially present if fish passage is restored in the future. Different participants in the Klamath IFRMP process will have different preferences for the best form of conceptual models, some preferring simpler representations of system components while others will prefer more complex representations.
We developed conceptual models of intermediate complexity, neither too simple nor too complex. They are intended to provide acceptable representations of Klamath Basin issues in a format that is relatively easy to understand and stimulate collaborative engagement in technical workgroup and workshop settings.
The following document outlines the approach ESSA took to develop the conceptual models, as well as the conceptual models themselves (see Appendix A). Please note that these conceptual models were developed at a time when it was unclear whether or not the dams would be removed, so some may refer to “dams-in” and “dams-out” scenarios, which are no longer applicable.
To assist with future monitoring and status reporting for the Klamath basin, ESSA researched potential suitability thresholds for candidate performance indicators and compiled available information into a document. These suitability thresholds are not included in the IFRMP itself nor have they been vetted by project participants, but at the time of writing the IFRMP these were synthesized from available literature and available information, and may be useful as supplementary reference material.
Potential Performance Indicator Suitability Thresholds (Download)
The state of the science in river restoration ecology increasingly calls for more holistic approaches to restoration at the basin scale. Contemporary approaches seek to address multiple root causes of ecosystem degradation by emphasizing restoration of landscape-scale ecological processes and functions rather than the traditional focus on the resulting symptoms for individual sites and species.
This approach recognizes the inherent hierarchical nature of watershed processes, whereby improvements in underlying hydrogeomorphic and biogeochemical processes are expected to yield cascading benefits across more localized channel, habitat, and population processes. This concept is illustrated in a hierarchical pyramid of watershed functional processes which has been adapted from a similar one outlined by the EPA in their 2012 guidance document on a Function-Based Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration.
It is important to understand that natural systems often recover slowly, and that there will be a time lag between the successful restoration of underlying watershed processes and the benefits of these actions at higher levels of organization. Thus, many of these goals and objectives, particularly higher-order goals and objectives related to fish populations, may take many decades to achieve. In some cases, this may extend to several decades after the supporting watershed processes are sufficiently restored. For this reason, the IFRMP designated Core Performance Indicators (CPIs) that track overall progress towards the desired state of the system within each watershed tier rather than measuring success against a small subset of discrete indicators and benchmarks at higher biological tiers.
These maps were produced as part of the Klamath Integrated Fisheries Restoration and Monitoring Plan (IFRMP) and are being used as the basis for determining range overlap of focal fish species with potential project locations during the restoration prioritization phase of this project (which is only one of several prioritization criteria).
Note that the Keno Diversion area shown on this map indicated reassignment of these sub-watersheds from the Lost Subbasin to the Upper Klamath Lake Subbasin for the purpose of participant group discussions in this project only. This decision was made to reflect the hydrologic connectivity of the mainstem in these sub-watersheds to Upper Klamath Lake, which drains directly into this portion of the mainstem and has a significant influence on it. This ‘reorganization’ will ensure that discussion of restoration priorities in this segment of the mainstem occurs in the same group discussing restoration priorities for Upper Klamath Lake.
The maps are available for download in both low resolution (20 MB) and high resolution (70 MB) versions.
High Resolution: IFRMP_SpeciesRangeMaps_Web_2020_HiRes
Low Resolution: IFRMP_SpeciesRangeMaps_Web_2020_LoRes
The IFRMP Action-Stressor Definitions and Linkages Data Dictionary is the architecture of the IFRMP database and establishes how restoration actions and stressors are hierarchically linked together. It uses a standardized classification system for restoration actions in order to consistently describe restoration projects across multiple rounds of prioritization. Within this classification system, watershed restoration actions directly benefiting fish habitat and populations fall into one of nine major Action Type Categories which group similar restoration actions. These are further divided into Action Types describing specific restoration actions. Restoration projects within the IFRMP may have one or more Action Types (from one or more Action Type Categories) and are linked with specific sub-watersheds and a project narrative that provides the localized context for implementation.
Action Types and stressors were pulled from the original NOAA Pacific Salmon Restoration Fund Data Dictionary (click the “Definitions” tab at the top right of the webpage) and modified to reflect the chain of events between stressor-species-actions, which were captured in the Phase 2 conceptual models. The conceptual models from Phase 2 provide the framework for classification system for (1) which watershed restoration Action Types address which key stressors, and (2) which key stressors matter for which species and, by linking those two elements, we can understand (3) which actions should benefit which species. In some cases, the original framework includes multiple related stressors for a specific stressor type (e.g., there are 5 stressors linked to water quality condition). To avoid unbalanced weighting due to some repetitiveness in similarly detailed stressor types, the original complete list of 71 stressors was mapped onto a smaller set of 21 unique stressor categories.
The IFRMP Action-Stressor Definitions and Linkages Data Dictionary details restoration action types, stressor types, stressors addressed by each type, and linkages between actions and the stressors they are expected to help address. Each stressor type, or category, also falls under a functional watershed process tier.
IFRMP Action-Stressor Definitions and Linkages Data Dictionary (Download)
After careful consideration of alternatives, we adopted a multi-criteria scoring approach to prioritization that has undergone multiple rounds of peer-review by Sub-basin Working Group (SBWG) participants. The multi-criterion prioritization framework developed for Phase 3 of the IFRMP is based on six key questions to ask about any restoration project under consideration, which are linked to corresponding criteria as outlined in Table 1. These criteria are explained in this document.
Summary of key prioritization questions and corresponding criteria used to score and rank proposed restoration projects to determine priority sequencing based on available information.
The Integrated Fisheries Restoration and Monitoring Plan (IFRMP) prioritization results are the product of the coordinated efforts of a vast team committed to improving fishery restoration practices in the Klamath Basin. Additional input from interested participants during finalization of the Plan in Phase 5 will help make this Plan better.
To date, the data, advice and tools developed for the IFRMP would not have been possible without the invaluable contributions of the more than one hundred Federal Coordination Group and Sub-basin Working Group members. Collectively over the course of Phase 2 (2017-2018), Phase 3 (2019-2020), and Phase 4 (2020-2021) they committed many hundreds of person hours of time to the development and review of this Plan (see tables below). The IFRMP Sub-basin and Disciplinary Working Groups are comprised of habitat (including water quality) and fish professionals with regional and local expertise. Contributions included provision of data, professional judgement, opinions, critiques and other input to inform development of a well-integrated basin-wide Plan for the Klamath. Pathways for input included one-on-one interviews, group webinars and workshops, survey responses and review and critique of intermediary draft products. We are sincerely grateful for the participant’s time and expertise and commend all who contributed for their patience and dedication.
The tables below provide a breakdown of how people were organized regionally and by subject area to collaboratively develop and review the IFRMP:
