Forest Service set to rebuild salmon killing roads.

by Felice Pace

 

In a May 21st Public Safety Alert, the US Forest Service announced road closures on the Klamath National Forest due to storm damage. Some of these roads have failed time and again during large storms, delivering many tons of fine, salmon-killing sediment to our streams. Nevertheless, the agency is almost certain to reconstruct these roads using a permanent federal fund and NOT the Forest Service's own budget. 

 

The Forest Service will reconstruct failed, salmon-killing roads without a meaningful environmental review or analysis to determine if the roads are really needed. In this manner, the US Forest Service has kept over 8,000 miles of dirt and gravel roads on the Klamath National Forest alone, even though the agency only has funds sufficient to maintain about 25% of those roads. 

 

Research and on-the-ground experience has shown time and again that dirt and gravel roads which are not maintained to appropriate standards become chronic and episodic deliverers of fine sediment to our salmon streams. Yet Forest Service managers refuse to downsize the national forest road system to one that they have the funds to properly maintain. 

 

To make this point hit home, below I give an example of a road system that has failed catastrophically time and again during major storm events and which Forest Service managers have reconstructed after each failure. These roads are located in the Walker Creek Watershed on the Oak Knoll and Happy Camp Ranger Districts of the Klamath National Forest.

 

The Walker Creek Roads failed catastrophically during the 1997 storm flood event. As part of those failures a full 1/2 mile of National Forest Road 46N65 collapsed into Grider Creek, delivering many toms of salmon-killing fine sediment to one of the Klamath's few remaining salmon strongholds.

 

Since 1997 these same roads have failed during several subsequent storm events. Each time Forest Service managers have used off-budget funds to reconstruct the roads. 

 

Here's a photo showing road failure landslides in the Walker Creek Watershed after a storm event in 2017:

 

The Forest Service policy of reconstructing salmon-killing national forest roads after each major storm event is a recipe for permanently depressed salmon and steelhead runs. These roads also have serious impacts on terrestrial wildlife. And that is why it is necessary for those of us who care about our fisheries and the health of our watersheds to continue to pressure Forest Service officials to downsize the national forest road system to one which can be properly maintained. Below is contact information for Klamath National Forest managers. Please take the time to urge them to remove salmon-killing roads. 

 

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

 

Rachel Smith, KNF Forest Supervisor

530-841-4502

rachel.smith@usda.gov

 

Natale Kelly, Scott/Salmon District Ranger

530-468-5351

natalie.kelly@usda.gov

Roberto Beltran, Happy Camp/Oak Knoll District Ranger

530-398-4391 roberto.beltran@usda.gov

/530-493-2243

 

 

 

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? 

Federal Irrigation Interests go to court in an attempt to block flows needed for a healthy Klamath River

Klamath Basin Irrigators continue to challenge the right of the federal government to use water stored in Upper Klamath Lake to benefit threatened Klamath River salmon (see this link). They will likely take their challenge to the Supreme Court. Upper Klamath Lake is the Klamath River's source. As shown on the map below, the River begins at Upper Klamath Lake's outlet. 

The ongoing irrigator challenge to the rights of Salmon and the Tribes and fishermen who depend on them is a clear sign that the campaign to provide Klamath River flows adequate for a healthy River will continue to be fiercely opposed by Irrigation interests.  

The same will prove true in the Scott and Shasta River Basins. Get-along rhetoric not withstanding, Irrigators will not relinquish their hold on the water our rivers need unless and until they are forced to do so. This means that those of us who want a healthy Klamath River will need to sustain the struggle to overcome irrigator opposition and political power.  Anyone who tells you otherwise is either wrong or intentionally trying to get you to go along with the "program", that is, to buy into the lie that we can have a healthy River by doing "restoration projects" without providing adequate river flows. 

 

Algal mat in the Klamath River near Seiad Valley.

These mats indicating water quality too poor to sustain salmonids.

Please don't be fooled by this false hope. The political peacemaking by certain tribal leaders is all about political contributions and political support and is not in the interest of our River.

The Yurok Tribe has declared that the Klamath River has the rights of a person. If Yurok leaders sacrifice the River's interest for political gains we will need to go into Yurok Tribal Court to defend our relation, the Klamath River.

​​Let this be a warning to all political leaders. Selling out or compromising our River for your political gain will be fiercely opposed and will fail.