Klamath River Basin Science Conference: Call made for ‘integrated science framework’

Jim O’ Connor of the United States Geological Survey and Douglas Markle of Oregon State University led the presentation on natural history in the Klamath Basin, with O’ Connor discussing the physical geography of the basin and Markle describing the processes by which scientists may be able to explain similarities in genetically and geographically separated fish.

O’Connor started by stating that the Upper Klamath Basin is “confused” hydrologically, as it runs out of farmlands and into mountainous areas, as opposed to the more common reverse scenario. He also described the formation of the basin due to tectonic plate movement and large-scale events such as the eruption of Mt. Mazama, which formed what is now Crater Lake, and the major flooding that has occurred in the past two centuries.

According to O’ Connor, the complexity of the Klamath system tends to exclude it from the application of models used for other rivers, and he believes that to create a model, one must take into account that the basin is “not in a steady state, never has been, or will be.”

Markle next took the floor, describing the division of species in the upper and lower Klamath basins, the indicators that suggest how that division came about, and how the fish came to be where they are. He described a number of strategies for doing so, including geological information, geochemical evidence, the fossil record and genetic evidence from the fish themselves.

Geological information, Markel said, indicates where rivers may have previously run, which can illuminate historical fish locations. He also gave an example of geochemical data, citing the discovery of sediments from Idaho at the mouth of the Klamath, which might indicate a prior connection to another waterway from that state.

After the discussion of the natural history, Mark Clark of the Oregon Institute of Technology presented a look at the cultural history of the region from the 1800s to the present day.
Clark identified three factors that characterize the history of the region – white settlement of the region and conflict with native peoples, an economy dependent upon the export of raw goods, and the isolated nature of the area that led to conflicts with outside influences from state and federal governments. Those factors, according to Clark, may be able to explain some of the current attitudes and perspectives in the basin.

Covering a forecast for future conditions in the Klamath Basin, Roger Hamilton from the University of Oregon touched on how scientific models have been used to predict how temperatures, vegetative carbon content and annual snowpack are expected to change in the coming century. Those model projections point toward an increase in average annual temperature and vegetative carbon content, with snow packs expected to decrease. He stated that a number of workshops have been utilized to identify recommendations and research and data needs to avert potential crises that may arise if the projections are proven correct in the future.

The next presentation focused on current conditions in the basin and raised a number of questions, as Jack Stanford of the University of Montana described a conceptual foundation for ecosystem restoration on the Klamath River.

Stanford stated that identified stressors in the Klamath system include high summer water temperatures and flow reductions due to human activity and fish disease, among others. He stated that those stressors “must be constrained to a normative level” in order to achieve fisheries restoration, and posed the question of whether or not the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) will effectively reduce those stressors. The KBRA, if approved and put into effect, will set restoration policy for the basin for a 50-year period.

Stanford also stated that scientists working on restoration solutions should ask themselves what makes the Klamath River good or bad for salmon production, identifying a number of “vital signs” of a healthy salmon ecosystem, including sustained habitats, natural or normative hydrology, and temperatures and high salmon biodiversity, among others.

The last two presenters touched on the idea of an “integrated science framework,” with Matthew Harwell of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service describing such a framework used in restoration efforts in Florida and Jim Sedell of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation calling for the formulation of an integrated science framework for the Klamath Basin.

Harwell described three tenets of the integrated science framework, which include applied science strategy, adaptive management and communicating science. The applied science strategy, he said, involves the use of societal values and research and modeling results to formulate goals and objectives, which then can be used to create conceptual ecological models.

The second tenet, adaptive management, involves planning, acting on the plan, monitoring the situation, assessing what is transpiring and then returning to the original plan with modifications based on what has been observed, according to Harwell. The principle behind the third tenet, he said, relies on translation of data into accessible but technically sound information for decision makers that explains both what is transpiring and the reasons why.

The tenets presented by Harwell were referenced by Sedell in his call for an integrated science framework in the Klamath Basin, as well as another idea that Harwell stated had been utilized in his work in Florida – the concept of large-scale, system-wide scientific efforts that reach across disciplines and depend on transparency.

Sedell’s call tied together the knowledge of historical trends in fish populations, awareness of historical and current cultural trends, assessment of the current ecological situation in the basin and utilization of predictions for the future in creating a science framework for restoration in the Klamath Basin. He also identified various uncertainties that he feels must be addressed as restoration efforts move forward, including the establishment of a stable, long-term funding source and the lack of a comprehensive understanding of the basin’s current conditions.

Wednesday’s agenda, which focused on water resources, needs for a secretarial determination of whether or not four dams will be removed along the Klamath River and watershed processes, will be covered in the Siskiyou Daily News. Coverage of Tuesday morning’s agenda appeared in the Wednesday, Feb. 3 edition.