KlamBlog: What’s the best strategy for restoring Klamath Salmon to the Upper Klamath River Basin?

The train is rolling to get more federal funding to restore salmon to the Upper Klamath River Basin. Here’s why I think that is a bad idea:

If ESA-listed salmon are restored by the federal government to the Upper Basin they will be an “experimental population” and could be removed at any time by a decision of the federal Interior Department. That could actually happen and may be likely if Trump becomes president. In contrast, if the ESA-listed salmon are allowed to repopulate the Upper Basin on their own, they will retain the protection of the federal ESA until they are fully recovered and safe in the Upper Basin.

That is why I believe those who truly care about salmon themselves (and not just their or their tribe or organization’s interest in salmon, restoration jobs and funding), will advocate for giving all Klamath Salmon, including Spring Chinook and Coho, the opportunity to repopulate the Upper Basin on their own.

What is most needed now is an assessment of Upper Klamath River flow needs using existing information. Then we can go about seeking the flows Klamath Salmon need by purchasing and retiring irrigation water rights from willing sellers who receive irrigation water via the US Bureau of Reclamation’s Klamath Irrigation Project. There is no way we can restore abundant salmon if we refuse to even assess what flows the Klamath Salmon need for real recovery.

It should be a scandal that we’ve spent so many millions on “restoration” for so many years and we still have no comprehensive assessment of the Upper Klamath River’s flow needs. That assessment, using existing information, could be done in three to six months and should be our restoration priority. But instead organizational interests are trumping solid assessment and substituting their own restoration priorities.

Why Passive Restoration will work best:

Experience and research has made clear the errors humans make when they are in change of “restoration.” According to one broad assessment  of salmonid restoration:

“We reviewed habitat assessments and recovery plans to identify ecological needs and statistically compared these to the distribution of co-located restoration projects. We deployed two metrics at scales ranging from the sub-watershed to ESA listing units; one describes the unit scale match/mismatch between projects and ecological concerns, the other correlates ecological need with need treated by projects across units. Populations with more identified ecological concerns contained more restoration effort, but the frequency of ecological concerns in recovery plans did not correlate with their frequency as restoration targets.”

Too often it is “politics” which determines restoration priorities rather than the true priority needs of salmonids. For example, salmon naturally stray from their natal streams, sometimes widely. That evolutionary trait is why it would be better for Klamath Salmon and Steelhead if they are allowed to repopulate the Upper Basin on their own schedule. Based on what happened in the Elwha River and elsewhere, we will be amazed at how quickly salmonids repopulate the Upper Basin on their own if given the chance. 

But the tribes and others are unwilling to allow the Klamath’s “weak” stocks, including Coho and Spring Chinook Salmon, to repopulate the Upper Basin on their own. Humans apparently can not resist getting their hands on the fish and playing God. This is an ongoing problem across time that has plagued western efforts to recover Pacific Salmon and Steelhead.

Instead of trying to preempt Klamath Salmon’s repopulation of the Upper Basin, we should trust Klamath Salmon to repopulate the newly available habitat opened up via dam removal. We humans should concentrate human efforts to help them on improving water quality in the Upper Klamath River. The best way to do that is to establish many more treatment wetlands at the margins of Keno Reservoir below Klamath Falls, in the decommissioned dam reservoir footprints and elsewhere. 

Upper Klamath flow assessment/restoration and wetland restoration below Klamath Falls are clearly what our salmon most need. But these are not a priority for those in change of allocating restoration funding. That is a sad thing for Klamath Salmon and our River.

Leave a comment at KlamBlog.

From Group emails:

I am not sure Felice knows what he is talking about here.
ODFW and Klamath Tribes are leading the Upper Basin reintroduction planning. The current plan is the allow for passive reintroduction of Fall Chinook to the Upper Basin but to  provide hatchery assistance for coho and spring Chinook due to the very low numbers left. The details are not fleshed out.
The Fall Creek hatchery, just upstream of where iron gate was, is funded for 8 years as part of dam removal settlement but I presume there will be debates in coming years as to whether or not keep it operating and if so how to fund it
I do think we need to ensure a hatchery genetics management plan is developed. Many of us working on Klamath certainly hope that dam removal and other restoration activities will preclude the need for hatcheries in the future.

Craig Tucker

RESPONCE:

What Craig means is that he thinks I don’t know what I’m talking about. But plain talking, like much else we once had, has been severely damaged by “the suits”. As Craig said, “The current plan is to allow for passive reintroduction of Fall Chinook to the Upper Basin but to provide hatchery assistance for coho and spring Chinook due to the very low numbers left. The details are not fleshed out.”The details are not being “fleshed out” is precisely why I wrote about this. Whose “plan” is Craig referring to? Apparently it is one that emerged from closed consultations and secret meetings. I repeat: That is not the way I think it is proper to engage in restoration; it should be an open, community process not under the control of only certain interests and locking out the public. Down with all forms of elitism? Down with the “suits”!

Felice Pace

---