http://www.calepa.ca.gov/EnvJustice/Documents/2005/Klamath051805.pdf
Cal/EPA
Environmental Justice Action Plan,
pdf on KBC
Cal/EPA Environmental Justice Action Plan
Pilot Project Summary for Community Capacity Building – Klamath
River
May 18, 2005
KBC NOTE:
Lead Agency:
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
The plan: Considerations,
Anticipated
Challenges/Constraints: It may be
the desire of the Tribes to
restore the river to the
pre-European settlement condition.
This degree of restoration is
likely not possible. Restoration
will likely need to increase
flows, which might result in
reduced agricultural water supply.
To achieve necessary reductions
funding may be required to
purchase and fallow agricultural
lands. Competing interests will
all have positions, which at times
may be directly conflicting.
(KBC NOTE: This is an excellent agenda detailing the
strategies and timeline to be used
to take out dams, increase flows,
downsize agriculture, gain
funding, and use the "TMDL's" and
"target fish population or catch
numbers, quantifiable habitat
improvement" to achieve their
goal, and get the farmers to
agree.
A list of tribes and gov't agencies is included, the same
ones that are "stakeholders" in
the Klamath Basin Restoration
Agreement, KBRA. To their delight,
the farm leaders (the peasants had
no vote) have not only agreed to
downsizing agriculture and
receiving a reduced water supply,
but also giving FWS superior water
rights, ripping out hydro dams,
giving tribes all the water
rights, planting endangered fish
and fish parasites in a shallow
warm Klamath Lake, agreeing to
Endangered Species Act and
Biological Opinion mandates,
agreeing with no current
low-water-year water guarantee or
plan for agricultural survival,
and giving a tribe land they
previously sold to be put into tax
exempt trust. According to the
agenda, they doubted the farmers
would agree.
What they
did
not do
on their list of strategies was,
"In each step of the solution
process, public input will
be sought."
Why
are they (KBRA group) still holding secret
meetings in Sacramento with no
disclosure, no public input or
awareness, and far from the
Klamath Basin where nearly 3000
petitions have been collected
opposing
the agreement or parts of the
agreement in the past few years?)
|
I. Lead Agency: State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
II. Project Area:
The Klamath River in both Oregon and California. The following
Tribes have lands and/or interests in the Klamath River Watershed:
.
Hoopa Tribe
Yurok Tribe
Karuk Tribe
Klamath Tribes (Klamaths, Modocs, Yahooskin)
Resighini Rancheria
Quartz Valley Indian Tribe
Area Demographics: The Klamath River basin is located in
Siskiyou County in inland northern California, adjacent to the
Oregon border. As the fifth largest county in California by area,
Siskiyou County features spectacular natural beauty and scenic
cities and towns including Yreka, Mt. Shasta, Weed, Dunsmuir,
McCloud, & Tulelake as well as Butte Valley, Scott Valley, Shasta
Valley, & the Klamath River Corridor. As of 1998, the population
of Siskiyou County was 44,700, which is roughly a population
increase of 10,000 since 1970. The primary employment is retail
trade and services. The unemployment rate of the County is 10%.
Greater than 60% of the land within the County is currently
managed by agencies of the Federal and State governments. These
include: The U.S.D.A. Forest Service; Bureau of Land Management;
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and California Department of Fish
and Game. These lands are maintained in various National Forests;
Parks; Wilderness Areas; National Grasslands; National Wildlife
Refuges; and State Wildlife Areas.
The Tribes that occupy the region have close ties to this river.
Their combined population according to the California Native
American Heritage Commission is
12,411, of which 4,245 are under the age of 18. Their median
income was $26,875.
III. Background: The Klamath River is a valuable ecological
resource to the States of California and Oregon as well as the
Tribes that occupy its watershed. The Klamath River salmon
fishery, as other fisheries in the Pacific Northwest, has
dramatically declined over the years. Nonetheless, the Klamath
River is the third most productive fishery in the region.
Fortunately this watershed is less urbanized than most. As a
consequence, we are hopeful that the trend of declining fishery
resources can be halted and even reversed.
Cal/EPA EJ Action Plan SWRCB (Klamath) Pilot Project Summary May
18, 2005 – Page 2
The Tribes that occupy the region have close ties to this river.
It has provided them with sustenance and they need to be active
participants in actions taken to prevent the erosion of its
ecological values.
To tackle this problem, the State and Federal Klamath Basin
Coordination Group has been formed. This group is a coalition of
the state of California (State Water Resources Control Board and
Department of Fish and Game) and the state of Oregon (Governors
Office, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, and Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife) and Department of Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management, Environmental
Protection Agency, NOAA Fisheries, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service representing federal interests in this interstate stream.
The State and Federal Klamath Basin Coordination Group has
received the endorsement of the governors of both states. To
achieve its ends the State and Federal Klamath Basin Coordination
Group must effectively engage the Tribes having lands in the
watershed.
The North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board and the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality will be working in
establishing total maximum daily loads for pollutants entering the
river system. However, the environmental effects of the power
facilities in both Oregon and California will be evaluated as part
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission relicensing. This
review is an opportunity that only occurs in approximately every
fifty-year period. These steps will provide an opportunity to
assess methods for determining cumulative impacts and how to apply
precautionary approaches, if needed. These steps will provide an
opportunity to asses methods for determining cumulative impacts
and how to apply precautionary approaches, if needed.
IV. Project Start Date: Immediately.
V. Project End
Date: Issuance of a Clean Water Act section 401 certification
by the State Water Resources Control Board in the spring of 2007.
VI. Goal &
Objectives: a. Goal: Effectively involve the Klamath River
Tribes in the development of actions to restore fishery habitat
and consequently fishery production in this important
Pacific-Northwest watershed. Also, utilize cumulative impact
analysis and the proposed Cal/EPA precautionary approach in
implementation of this project. b. Objectives:
.
Seek to reduce or hopefully eliminate fish die-offs that have
occurred.
Increase the amount of productive habitat in an effort to restore
historic higher populations of salmon.
Allow the Tribes, as a primary stakeholder of interest, to enjoy
the benefit of increased fishery production.
Research and identify tools to conduct cumulative impact analysis.
2
Cal/EPA EJ Action Plan SWRCB (Klamath) Pilot Project Summary May
18, 2005 – Page 3
.
Research and inventory tried or proposed precautionary approaches.
.
Develop and implement a Children’s Environmental Risk Reduction
Plan.
VII. Activities – Planning, Implementation, Evaluation, &
Deliverables Planning
.
Site Selection: The Klamath River has avoided the
urbanization that has affected the remainder of California’s most
productive salmon streams. While the Klamath has experienced a
decline in fishery production similar to all the other major
streams it represents the best chance to take actions, which may
restore part of its last production. Furthermore, the Tribes that
inhabit the region have an economic, cultural, and religious tie
to this river which represents the chief resource in the region. A
rare opportunity exists because of the nature of the river, the
unique regulatory events that are occurring, and the agreement of
the two states and the federal government to cooperatively tackle
the problem of environmental degradation.
.
Reduction of Risk to Children’s Health: Historically the Tribes
have looked at the river and its fishery as a source of
sustenance. As the fishery has declined the diet of these native
peoples has had to change, and with that change there has been an
outbreak of diabetes, obesity, and heart disease. Return to a more
natural diet, largely dependent on fish protein, is recognized to
be healthier. Complete restoration of the fishery may lead to
reversal of the epidemic of chronic disease facing the Tribes.
.
Cal/EPA Cross-Media Implication: If the power production
along the river is reduced to provide additional fish habitat this
power will have to come from other facilities. These effects,
however, will be evaluated in the environmental disclosure
documents that must accompany the regulatory actions. SWRCB will
work with other Cal/EPA Boards, Departments, and Office to
identify cross-media opportunities as the project proceeds.
.
Partnerships: The major state/federal regulatory agencies
governing two states have joined together to tackle this difficult
environmental problem. The agencies include:
State of California
• State Water Resources Control Board
• California Department of Fish and Game
State of Oregon
• Oregon Governors
Office
• Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
• Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Federal Government
• Department of the Interior, Office of Policy Analysis
3
Cal/EPA EJ Action Plan SWRCB (Klamath) Pilot Project Summary May
18, 2005 – Page 4
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• NOAA Fisheries
• Bureau of Reclamation
• Bureau of Land Management
• Natural Resource Conservation Service
• Environmental Protection Agency
These agencies will
work with the Tribes and basin agricultural interests to formulate
workable solutions that will receive broad support in the region.
Implementation
.
Methodology & Performance Indicators: A number of methods
are possible, and should be developed by the State and Federal
Klamath Basin Coordination Group in consultation with
stakeholders. Performance indicators could include target fish
population or catch numbers, quantifiable habitat improvement, or
improvements in public health indicators (i.e. reduced rates of
diabetes, obesity, and heart disease).
Public Participation: The State and Federal Klamath Basin
Coordination Group is taking steps to meet with stakeholders
including the Tribes to seek their input before any decisions are
formulated. In each step of the solution process public input will
be sought. Environmental disclosure documents, at both the state
and federal levels, must under law be formulated and circulated.
Written responses to comments will be developed prior to any final
decisions.
See next page for Project Timeline.
4
Cal/EPA EJ
Action Plan SWRCB (Klamath) Pilot Project Summary May 18, 2005 –
Page 5
.Project Work Plan & Timeline:
Activity
Start Date
End Date
Phase 1
1. Identify pilot project location(s)
Completed
2. Define project parameters
Completed
Phase 2
1. Develop Project Data Needs
Ongoing
4th Qtr 2005
2. Implement Project Data Responsibilities & Timelines
Ongoing
4th Qtr 2005
3. Develop a Public Participation Workplan
1st Qtr 2005
2nd Qtr 2005
4. Establish Stakeholders Advisory Groups
2nd Qtr 2005
3rd Qtr 2005
Phase 3
1. Seek Information Regarding Tribal Chronic Health Statistics 2nd
Qtr 2005
4th Qtr 2005
2. Develop Children’s Environmental Risk Reduction Plan (ChERRP)
2nd Qtr 2005
4th Qtr 2005
Phase 4
1. Prepare Decisional Documents
1st Qtr 2006
1st Qtr 2007
Phase 5
1. Make A Decision Regarding Restoration Steps
4th Qtr 2005
2nd Qtr 2007
2. Develop An Evaluation Plan To Evaluate Long Term Effects Of
Decisions 1st Qtr 2007 2nd Qtr
2007
Evaluation & Deliverables
Results: The real results of restoration efforts can only
be evaluated over a reasonably lengthy period. Only in this way
can the independent variables of hydrography and biological
population fluctuations be removed from the equation. Immediate
but indirect evaluation can be performed using indicators such as
miles of habitat added or quantity of flow added to the system.
These short-term indicators will be utilized, but they cannot and
will not replace long-term resource evaluations. Unfortunately, no
short-term evaluations can be performed which would adequately
Page 5
Cal/EPA EJ Action Plan SWRCB (Klamath) Pilot Project Summary May
18, 2005 – Page 6
document the effect on the incidence of chronic disease. This will
of necessity be evaluated using long-term health trend analysis.
However, it may be possible to monitor the physical response to
dietary changes. This effort will of necessity also take some
time.
Deliverables: Establishment of Total Maximum Daily Loads,
renewal of power facilities license with appropriate environmental
conditions, establishment of appropriate in stream flow
requirements.
.
Considerations, Anticipated Challenges/Constraints: It may
be the desire of the Tribes to restore the river to the
pre-European settlement condition. This degree of restoration is
likely not possible. Restoration will likely need to increase
flows, which might result in reduced agricultural water supply. To
achieve necessary reductions funding may be required to purchase
and fallow agricultural lands. Competing interests will all have
positions, which at times may be directly conflicting.
VIII. For More Information: Comments, Questions, or Concerns
regarding this Pilot?
Please direct comments, questions, or concerns to:
via Email: EnvJustice@calepa.ca.gov
via Postal Mail: Cal/EPA Environmental Justice Program PO Box 2815
Sacramento, CA 95812
via Phone: Beth Jines at (916) 341-5260
Project Contacts:
Pilot Project Contacts:
Beth Jines Chief, Office of Public Affairs SWRCB
SWRCB Environmental Justice Coordinator:
Adrian Perez Chief, Office of Employee Assistance SWRCB
6
|