Primary Outputs

The primary outputs of the IFRMP planning process are summarized as follows:

  • A list of priority restoration project concepts by subbasin
  • Recommendations for closing important basin-wide gaps in monitoring
  • Cost estimates for these restoration and monitoring priorities
  • Recommendations for ongoing Plan implementation and adaptively updating above products.

These outputs were derived through a highly collaborative series of engagements by hundreds of basin participants 2016-2022.

Planning Outcomes

The restoration priorities emerging from the IFRMP and described in the Plan document provide a helpful, evidence-based starting point for further discussions to select restoration projects most suitable for near-term implementation. However, these are not intended to be viewed as definitive, static recommendations. Instead, the ‘point-in-time’ lists of priority project concepts in this plan are meant to:

  • Synthesize the big-picture view of key restoration actions that practitioners feel is needed to restore self-sustaining fish populations in the Klamath basin in one place, while recognizing that they cannot all be implemented simultaneously, and
  • Provide a starting point for more nuanced collaborative discussions taking into account the current basin context to define a narrower near-term Klamath Basin Restoration Action Agenda, which will set the search image for future restoration proposal solicitation processes inviting more detailed project proposals from practitioners in the basin.

These priorities are not meant to be fixed. Rather, this repeatable prioritization process is meant to be repeated in future years as currently proposed projects are completed, new project opportunities emerge, and conditions in the basin continue to change.

The implementation of any of these priority restoration activities requires the cooperation and support of private landowners, states, Tribes, local governments, and other organizations that call the Klamath Basin home. This support, in addition to project cost, funding, permitting, and other aspects of current local context, will need to be considered in addition to prioritization when making restoration funding decisions.