First Salmon: The Klamath Cultural Riverscape and The Klamath River Hydroelectric Project By Thomas F. King for the Klamath River Intertribal Fish and Water Commission March 25, 2004 (Go to Table of Contents) (Go to Abstract) (Go to Report Text) 1 First Salmon Table of Contents (All headings hyperlinked to text) Abstract………………………………………………………………………… i Introduction…………………………………………………………………….. 1 The Klamath “Riverscape”……………………………………………………... 6 The Riverscape’s Character…………………………………………………….. 10 Does the Riverscape Meet the National Register’s Criteria for Eligibility?.......... 18 The Effects of PacifiCorp’s Klamath Hydroelectric Project……………………. 40 Recommendations………………………………………………………………. 54 Summary Conclusions………………………………………………………….. 59 Bibliography…………………………………………………….. 60 Endnotes………………………………………………………… 63 Appendix: Author’s Qualifications……………………………… 67 2 3 First Salmon along the river. These effects damage tribal use of and relationships to the riverscape, and diminish its cultural integrity. Abstract The discussion of effects includes reference This report is based on studies done by or on to cultural resource legal authorities other behalf of the Yurok, Karuk, and Shasta than NHPA, offering recommendations to Tribes, together with documents provided by FERC, PacifiCorp, and other parties about the Hupa Tribe, dealing with the cultural how to address the requirements of such significance of the Klamath Riverscape – authorities as the National Environmental that is, the Klamath River and its Policy Act, the American Indian Religious surroundings. It addresses several questions Freedom Act, Executive Orders 12898 and that are fundamental to fulfilling the Federal 13007, and the California Environmental Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC’s) Quality Act. responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and under other cultural resource authorities, in considering relicensing of the PacifiCorp Klamath River Hydroelectric Project. The report first asks whether there is a definable “Klamath Riverscape” that may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. It concludes that there certainly is such a riverscape. It next outlines the characteristics that contribute to the riverscape’s cultural character, identifying such elements as the The Klamath Riverscape: 1 river itself, its anadromous and resident fish, typical view its other wildlife and plants, and its cultural uses and perceptions of its value by the The report recommends that FERC give Yurok, Karuk, Shasta and Hupa Tribes. serious consideration to not relicensing the Klamath Hydroelectric Project, or to The report then turns to whether the relicensing it with conditions requiring riverscape is in fact eligible for the National the removal of the facilities that appear Register – that is, does it meet the National to contribute most to ongoing impacts. Register Criteria at 36 CFR 60.4. It More comprehensive approaches to concludes that it does meet these criteria, as restoring the riverscape’s cultural a traditional cultural landscape. integrity are recommended to the Bureau of Reclamation and other agencies. Next, the report considers the effects of the Klamath Hydroelectric Project on the riverscape, concluding that there is a Go to Table of Contents complex pattern of cumulative adverse Go to full text effects, caused by multiple factors, to which the hydroelectric project contributes. Effects include obstructions to fish passage, alterations in water quality, quantity, temperature, and flow regime that affect fish, plant life, habitat, and human use of the river, and erosion of significant cultural sites 1 Photo by the author First Salmon: lives of the tribes. But questions have arisen about whether the River meets the The Klamath Cultural specific criteria of eligibility for the Riverscape National Register of Historic Places, and And is therefore entitled to the special consideration required by Section 106 of PacifiCorp’s Klamath NHPA. The core purpose of this report Hydroelectric is to help resolve these questions. Project NHPA does not exist in a vacuum, however, so we will also consider how a Introduction range of other legal requirements may pertain to the river and the effects of the Project on it. As a further aid to FERC Purpose and Scope in its compliance with Section 106 and other legal requirements, this report will This report has been prepared at the address the apparent impacts of the request of the Klamath River Intertribal PacifiCorp Klamath River Projects on Fish and Water Commission the cultural significance of the Klamath (KRITFWC) in connection with River. PacifiCorp’s application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Finally, we will offer recommendations for relicense of its hydroelectric dams to FERC, PacifiCorp, and others with and reservoirs on the Klamath River, jurisdiction in the area – such as the collectively known as the Klamath Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), Forest Hydroelectric Project (Project). The Service, and Bureau of Land geographic locations of the Project and Management – concerning actions that the Klamath River are shown in Figure they might take with respect to the 1 One . Klamath River and its cultural significance. In considering whether to relicense the Project, FERC must consider the impacts of doing so on the environment, including its cultural aspects. A key law dealing with aspects of the cultural environment is the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), which at Section 106 requires agencies to take into account the effects of their actions on “historic properties” – defined as places that are included in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. 2 Iron Gate Dam The KRITFWC and its member tribes have no question that the Klamath River This report is based largely upon data is a deeply significant cultural resource compiled for the KRITFWC by or on whose health is critical to the cultural behalf of the Yurok, Karuk, Shasta, and 2 Figure One: The Klamath River from the PacifiCorp dams downstream 3 Hupa Tribes regarding the cultural above works, each of which stands very qualities of the Klamath River, as competently on its own. Rather, the data detailed in the following reports: and analyses they present will be used to address the specific questions posed by • Ethnographic Riverscape: Klamath the KRITFWC for consideration in this River. Yurok Tribe Ethnographic report, quoting extensively from them Inventory. Kate Sloan, M.A.I.S., where appropriate. Yurok Tribal Archeologist, Yurok Tribe Culture Department; draft This report pertains only to cultural November 2003 (hereinafter “the values ascribed to the Klamath River and Yurok ethnographic report”). its environs by the Yurok, Karuk, Hupa, and Shasta Tribes – and indirectly by the • White Paper on Behalf of the Karuk Tribe of California: A Context Klamath Tribes, whose concerns are the Statement Concerning the Effect of subject of a separate report (Deur 2004). Iron Gate Dam on Traditional It may be that the river or specific Resource Uses and Cultural stretches of it are culturally significant to Patterns of the Karuk People Within others – for example, loggers, non- the Klamath River Corridor. John Indian residents, whitewater rafters, and F. Salter, Ph.D, Consulting hydroelectric project workers – but Anthropologist, November 2003 examining this kind of cultural value is (hereinafter “the Karuk beyond the scope of this report. ethnographic report”). Legal Authorities • Preliminary Shasta TCP Study (draft). Brian Isaac Daniels, The central purpose of this report is to November 2003 (herenafter “the Shasta ethnographic report”). evaluate the eligibility of the Klamath River and its environs for inclusion in • The Trinity River Mainstem Fishery the National Register of Historic Places. Restoration Environmental Impact It should be clearly understood that this Statement/Report, U.S. Fish and report is not intended to serve as the Wildlife Service, U.S. Bureau of basis for nominating the river or Reclamation, Hoopa Valley Tribe, anything else to the Register. Rather, its and Trinity County, October 2000, purpose is to help FERC, the tribes and especially Section 3.6, “Tribal Tribal Historic Preservation Officers Trust” (hereinafter, “the Trinity (THPOs), the KRITFWC, the California EIS”). and Oregon State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), PacifiCorp, and • Ethnographic Riverscape: others consulting about the relicensing Regulatory Analysis. Prepared by Yurok Heritage Preservation Office application to decide whether they for PacifiCorp, November 2003, should regard the river and its environs Contract #P13342 (hereinafter as eligible for the Register. If they “Regulatory Analysis”). decide to regard it as eligible, then further consultation about effects on it, No attempt is made here to summarize and means of mitigating adverse effects, or recast the material set forth in the will be required under Section 106 of the 2 National Historic Preservation Act this case relicensing or not relicensing (NHPA) and its implementing all or portions of the Project). It also regulations (36 CFR 800); if they elect may trigger the requirements of CEQA not to treat it as eligible, then further with respect to projects whose effects actions under Section 106 are not must be considered under that state law. required. There is often a degree of confusion Other purposes of this report include about the data needed to determine a considering how impacts on the cultural property eligible