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. 

 

 

Keno Reservoir in the Upper Klamath River Basin

 

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.

.................

 

Readers, please leave a comment. What do you think would prove to be the most effective strategy for restoring Klamath Salmon to the Upper Klamath River Basin? 

Cattle are "Drinking the Colorado River Dry" - Is the same true for the Klamath?

by Felice Pace 

High Country News reported recently on a research study which found that, within the Colorado River Basin, agriculture:

• Consumes 74% of the water directly used by humans, including the water used producing cattle feed, and that

• Cattle-feed crops (alfalfa and other hay) consume more Colorado River water than any other crop category, accounting for 32% of all water from the basin; 46% of direct water consumption; and 62% of all agricultural water consumed.

That got me wondering about how much of the Klamath River Basin's surface water is consumed by agriculture in general and for beef production. According to US Bureau of Reclamation studies: 

• Agricultural irrigation uses about 98% of the total surface water used throughout the Klamath River Basin.

That staggering amount includes irrigation using surface water and surface water consumed directly by cattle and other livestock.

 

The dewatered Scott River and alfalfa fields 

under irrigation near Fort Jones

There is probably no other river basin in the USA where agriculture accounts for such a high percentage of total surface water consumption. While that reflects the overwhelmingly rural nature of the Basin, where population density is among the lowest in the West, it also points to the opportunity (some would call it "the necessity") for a rebalancing of Klamath waters.

 

Furthermore, because groundwater and surface flows are closely related in significant portions of the basin, including the Scott River Subbasin, and because of the significant use of groundwater for irrigation, especially cattle production, the impact of Upper Klamath, Scott and Shasta Valley agriculture on total water supplies is also likely to be in the 90 to 98 percent range. For this reason, any significant balancing of Klamath waters must include not only surface water but also our Basin's interconnected groundwater as well. 

 

Without a true balancing of the waters, that is, an alignment of supply and demand which including adequate streamflows, there can be no Klamath water peace, conflict over water will continue and intensify with climate change. 

 

The other main current impediment which is preventing a balancing of Klamath waters is the lack of political will within the Biden and Newsom Administrations to get the job done. Here as in the Columbia and other salmon basins, Biden's folks and Newsom's prefer to buy off tribes and restorationists with funding for "habitat restoration" while totally ignoring and omitting funds for the flow assessments which must form the basis for a true balancing of the waters. 

So far that has worked with most of the salmon tribes. But I still have hope that tribal leaders will awaken to the limits of "collaboration" and "habitat restoration" and will become, once again, the leading advocates for the necessary flow studies and a true balancing of the waters. 

 

For a return to Klamath River tribal flow advocacy to take place, I believe that new, young and dynamic leadership, ready to demand change, must replace those among current tribal, county and other leaders who are totally bought into the twin distractions - "collaboration" and "habitat restoration".

 Why I have hope!

 

 Some of those I'm counting on!

 

I have faith the young leaders our River needs will soon assert themselves. When they do, KlamBlog will do our best to report on it. 

 

Stay tuned! 

Postscript:  There will be some readers who take exception to my characterization of "habitat restoration" as a "distraction". I want those folks to know that I was an early advocate for restoration and led the successful first efforts to get Congress to fund salmon habitat restoration way back in the 90s. I still support smart, targeted habitat restoration. However, all the good habitat restoration possible will not restore living rivers. For true and sustainable restoration to take place, adequate flows are required. As a matter of equity, I believe adequate flows must be established by water year type. In that way, when there is abundance, all share in it. And when there is scarcity, all share in that as well.