Last month, we had the stakeholder meeting for the Klamath Basin bull trout reintroduction decision making process, where the decision makers gathered together and formulated the fundamental objectives for the project: 1- maximize the persistence of the existing populations of bull trout; and 2- maximize the number of bull trout in at least one reintroduced stream. This week we had our first “Tech-holders” meeting, where researchers and managers who work with bull trout in the Klamath Basin came together to pull together known information. The goal for the meeting was to come up with a list of potential streams for reintroduction and to discuss which existing populations might serve as “donor” populations for the reintroduction effort. We spent quite a bit of time discussing potential streams, and we ended up with a promising list of eleven possibilities.
We focused on streams that reflect the four C’s: cold, clean, complex, and connected. Bull trout typically do best in clear mountain streams (clean) that stay colder than 16°C ( about 60° F) and have plenty of gravel and woody debris (complex habitat) that the fish can use for cover. We also looked for streams that are connected to existing populations that would allow migratory bull trout to move between populations. Another important factor to consider was the presence of the non-native brook trout in many streams in the Klamath Basin. Brook trout were widely introduced in the early 1900s to increase fishing opportunities, but they also compete with bull trout for food and spawning grounds. As a result, most bull trout populations have become restricted to the headwater portions of creeks where the water stays colder then brook trout prefer. Many of the researchers and managers were able to give current accounts of stream habitat and the status of brook trout removal and stream rehabilitation projects (such as the Sun Creek restoration project, pictured above).
When the conversation shifted to potential donor populations, there was quite a bit more uncertainty in the conversation. Details about some populations are well known and have current data. Others, due to access or funding restrictions, only have older estimates. The uncertainty here illustrates the need for monitoring efforts, such as the monitoring plan that I am writing. Monitoring give us a clearer view of the current status of a system, so we can model the system to try out different scenarios. This is the goal of Structured Decision Making: use the information we have to predict how different management actions will affect the system, which then allows us to make the best decision for how to proceed. It is a lengthy, iterative process, where new information is incorporated and considered at every step. I look forward to seeing how the process plays out in the Klamath Basin over the next few years, and I’m excited to be a part of helping bull trout recover!
Agency: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Program: US Fish & Wildlife Service - DFP
Location: Klamath Falls Field Office