1850-1854 1855-1869 1870-1899 1900-1919 1920-1929 1930 … · 2010. 10. 3. · 1855-1869 1860s Some...

ANGELICA GARRISON Somes Bar, age 11

DEVON TYGART Happy Camp, age 9

CHELSEA KING Happy Camp, age 8

BRIANNA CONRAD Somes Bar, age 12

MITCH HOKANSON Happy Camp, age 11

JENEVRA CLIFFORD Happy Camp, age 7

SHAWN HILLMAN Happy Camp, age 12

CHRISTIAN ROBINSON Happy Camp, age 13

ROYALE PINASSI Happy Camp, age 9

TAYLOR CORTES Happy Camp, age 6 NATHAN HUNTER BRICKELL Orleans, age 10ROCKY BRIGHT Happy Camp, age 6HOOPA HIGH SCHOOL Karuk Language Class, Hoopa

K A R U K L A N D S M A N A G E M E N T H I S T O R I C A L T I M E L I N E

8500 to 6000 BC Archaeological evidence suggests human occupation in northwestern California3

Prior to 1100 BP Linguistic studies suggest arrival of ancestral Karuk in northern California (BP stands for “before present”, i.e. before 1950)3;4

According to the Karuk themselves, the Karuk people have lived on this land from the beginning of time.

1827-1830 Interior Klamath explorations conducted by Jedediah Smith, followed by Ogden5

1848 Miners arrive in the Klamath Mountains6 Major Pierson B. Reading’s mining party removes $80,000 of gold on its first trip on the upper Trinity River near Douglas City.

1848 Number of Karuk people declines7

The aboriginal Karuk population is estimated to be 2,700. Declines are attributed to military operations, “social homicide,” privation, and disease brought by white settlers.

Until 1850 The Karuk used frequent, low intensity burns to manage the land8

The tribes of the Mid-Klamath managed natural resources through the use of prescribed fire and by limiting the take of plant and animal species. Traditional fire management created open and diverse forest stands, as well as patchy vegetation patterns of grasslands, woodlands, forests, and chaparral that were rich with plant materials and game.

Pre 1850 Up to one million salmon enter the Klamath River annually9;10

Today, annual returns are less than 100,000 fish.

Pre-contact 1800s Salmon are estimated to have made up close to 50% of the energy and total protein in the Karuk Tribe’s pre-contact diet9

1780-1855 Beginning of fire regime change under Spanish rule1

Introduced diseases, genocide, forced removal of indigenous people, and Spanish law all contribute to the exclusion of California Native American fire management.

1840-70s Government policies encourage settlement of the West2

“Manifest Destiny” policies encourage settlement and resource extraction, including the Preemption Act of 1841, the Homestead Act of 1862, and the Timber and Stone Act of 1878.

Pre 18501850 California passes an Act for the Government and Protection of Indians, codifying a caste system and indenture155

The Act determines that any white person can apply to a Justice of the Peace for the removal of Indians from lands he has claimed. White persons can also apply to obtain an Indian child for indenture, until the child reaches legal maturity. Indian peoples are effectively denied legal recourse, as other laws prohibit an Indian person from testifying against a white person in court.

1850 U.S. Declares California statehood5

White settlers begin occupation of the Klamath region. California was previously ceded to the U.S. by Mexico in 1848, through the Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo.

1851 Treaties are signed within Karuk Aboriginal Territory, but ratification is blocked in the US Senate11;12

Karuk representatives sign Captain McKee’s proposed tribal treaties at Weitchpec and Amekyaram. The U.S. Senate, under pressure from California government officials not wanting to constrain the search for gold, refuses to ratify the treaties.

1852 Siskiyou County is created13

1853 Congress authorizes the U.S. president to create Indian reservations from public domain through executive order18

1850s Early logging and Indian involvement14;15

Early logging is centered around mining settlements for local use. Lack of transportation limits industry growth until after WWII. Tribal people participate in the timber industry from the very beginning.

1852 White settlers burn the sacred villages of Yutamin and Katamin4, 12

1852 Displacement of Karuk tribal members by white settlers and new towns16

Whites burn most of the Indian towns as far north as the Salmon River, and Indians flee to the hills. White settlers establish the town of Orleans, and Indians return to find houses and farms on village sites. Military operations take 15 Karuk lives.

From 1852 Fish and game laws discourage and, in some cases, prohibit the majority of Karuk from mass harvesting salmon with nets and weirs11

1850s Karuk traditional fire management systems are disrupted17

Karuk people are forcibly prevented from setting fires needed to tend the forest and create proper growing conditions for acorns and other foods since the Gold Rush period.

1850 Beginning of steady decline of aquatic conditions and fisheries resources in the Klamath Basin5

1850s Invasive grasses displace culturally important plants8

Annual grasses such as dogtail, Kentucky bluegrass, rattlesnake grass, European hairgrass, ripgut brome and soft chess are introduced to the Klamath area, most likely by homesteaders.

1850s Mining adversely effects rivers courses, fish, and Karuk villages12

Hydraulic mining and the use of mercury and cyanide to recover gold results in widespread removal of vegetation, erosion, and pollution. Hardrock mines expose sulfite deposits to water and oxygen, which causes them to change to sulfates, and leads to chronic acid mine drainage. Many Karuk villages, houses, and cemeteries built on river terraces are washed away. Subsequent damming, moving of river channels, dredging and suction mining further impact river courses, fisheries, and aquatic habitat quality.

1850-1854FE

DER

AL

AN

D S

TATE

PO

LIC

IES

REG

ION

AL

AN

D L

OC

AL

LAN

DS

MA

NA

GEM

ENT

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTA

L CO

ND

ITIO

N A

ND

HU

MA

N H

EALT

H

1855 Conflict between miners and Indians culminate in the Red Cap War19;20

When Klamath miners decide to disarm local Indians, many comply, but a few, led by the Red Caps, refuse to give up their firearms. War erupts, and non-Indian settlement is temporarily halted. The conflict ends with the death of Red Cap leaders by vigilantes. Indians are relocated onto reservations.

1855 The Klamath River reservation is created18

The Klamath River reservation is confirmed, and the Hoopa reservation is created in later years; however, neither include the traditional territory of the Karuk tribe. Instead of occupying a joint reservation, Karuk people mainly retreat to the Mid-Klamath high country. The Karuk tribe does not have a reservation at present.

1864 Congress passes a law authorizing the president to create no more than four Indian reservations within the State of California18

The law states that any existing Indian reservations in California that are not retained should be offered for public sale.

1855 Karuk people are displaced from tribal lands16

Some refugees are given permission to build houses in unoccupied places near farms, resulting in their unattached existence. Military operations take 75 Karuk lives.

1861 After flooding, settlers claim that the Klamath Indian Reservation has been abandoned23

Reservation status is upheld by the courts, but a cannery is built by settlers in later years. These events put the jurisdictional status of the reservation and its fishery under question for almost a century.

1860-1930 Hydraulic mining washes millions of yards of sediment into the Klamath and its tributaries5

1863 Volunteer militia attacks on Indians increase during the Civil War24;25

Local militia groups called “California volunteers” perpetrate some of the worst massacres of Indians in the region. The federal government dispatches the U.S. Army to protect Indians from militias by relocating tribes to reservations. Troops are called back from California when the Civil War breaks out.

1855-1869

1860s Some wildlife is still abundant in the Mid-Klamath26

“My grandmother, Katherine Ferris said when she was sixteen in the 1860’s, they used to camp out at Salmon Summit and one fall she saw 30 plus bear and a grizzly bear, all moving to winter ground.“ --Ora Smith

1861 Large winter flooding event occurs, affecting Klamath Indian Reservation23

Ancient village sites are inundated and reservation structures are demolished.

1870-18991871 Congress declares the end of treaty-making156

Congress declares that the U.S. will no longer execute treaties with tribes, although existing treaties are preserved. After this point, reservations for tribes are established by presidential Executive Order.

1887 Congress passes the Dawes Act27

Also known as the General Allotment Act, the law allows for the president to break up reservation land, which was previously held in common by tribal members. Small allotments are parceled out to individuals, who are registered on a tribal “roll.”

1891 Congress passes the Forest Reserve Act, creating National Forests28

The Act does not reserve any particular forest, but allows the president to set aside “any part of the public lands wholly or in part covered with timber or undergrowth…as a public reservation.” Presidents Harrison and Cleveland then created 15 and 13 reserves (later designated as National Forests), respectively.

1897 Forest Service Organic Administration Act (“Organic Act”) is passed29;30

This Act governs the administration of national forest lands. Forest reserves are intended to improve and protect forests, for the dual purpose of ensuring favorable water flow conditions and providing timber for citizens.

1876 Beginning of commercial fishing and canneries on the Klamath River23;31

George Richardson and Martin V. Jones, two early settlers of Crescent City, start the first commercial fishery on the Klamath. The Yurok protest their presence, but they refuse to move. Yurok tribal members are employed in the fishery.

1880s Military land surveys occur in the Mid-Klamath32

Maps by military land surveyors show surveyed plots in lowland and upper Klamath areas. Portions of the surveys begin to reach more rugged Mid-Klamath towns.

1890-1910 “There were 33 hydraulic mines working between Somes Bar and Weitchepec…The first substantial diversions from the river began around 1890”4

--Phil Sanders, Orleans resident

1895 Link River Dam blocks fish passage to upper Klamath River33

1905 Beginning of Forest Service management of Karuk lands38

Most land comprising the original Karuk territory is claimed by the federal government for the Klamath National Forest. Fire suppression regime begins.

1906 Klamath National Forest managers issue grazing permits to limit livestock using national forest lands39

Cattlemen and settlers previously grazed cattle, horses, sheep and goats throughout the area. Conflicts between cattlemen and settlers over grazing areas are common.

1910 Klamath Forest Supervisors are directed to list all Indian families on National Forest lands that might qualify for allotments40;41

Survey results are submitted to the Secretary of Agriculture, and allotments are made to 25 Indian families in the lower Klamath River area in 1915. Additional allotments occur, but the work remained incomplete. Qualified families were still being found in 1977.

1918 California Oregon Power Company (Copco) builds first of three hydroelectric dams without fish passage in Klamath Basin33

Dams are built in 1917, 1925 and 1958.

1918 In a letter to Klamath Forest Supervisor Rider, Ranger Harley attributes increasing fire problems in the Orleans District to multiple factors, especially “renegades”42

Harley’s letter is most concerned about “renegade white and Indians in the district…. They set fires for pure cussedness or in a spirit of don’t care a damnativeness.” He describes other causes of fires as brush clearing by homesteaders for cattle, prospectors on claims, hunters accessing game, and Indians burning small fires for basket materials or burning around oak trees to facilitate acorn gathering. Harley advocates re-educating Indians about fire and to stop burning.

1905 Forest Reserves are transferred to the newly created Forest Service34

Forest reserves are transferred from the Department of the Interior to the growing Bureau of Forestry in the Department of Agriculture, under Gifford Pinchot’s leadership. This includes the reserves in the Mid-Klamath region that later become the Klamath and Six Rivers National Forests.

1906 Forest Homestead Act allows settlement within National Forest lands35

The Act allows homesteading inside forest reserve boundaries on land that is primarily considered agricultural. However, land is sometimes transferred to speculators, timber enterprises, or mining companies. The act is later repealed.

1910 Great Fires shift Forest Service policy on “Paiute forestry”36;37

Some US Forest Service employees initially promoted “light burning, the Indian Way.” However, when large wildfires spark public debate, critics begin referring to “light burning” pejoratively as “Pauite forestry.” Chief Forester Gifford Pinchot responds with fire suppression policies.

1911 The Weeks Act is passed, leading to additional fire suppression8

The Act provides federal financial aid to protect timberlands from fire.

1900-1920s Non-native blackberries are imported to Irvine [sic] Creek and increase likelihood of severe fire events43

1910 Extreme wildfires burn Forest Service lands across the U.S.44

2 million hectares of Forest Service land burn and 78 firefighters lose their lives.

Pre-1918 Frequent, unpredictable flooding disturbance naturally regulates Klamath River ecosystem processes45

Floods historically redistributed sandbar willow communities within the Klamath River flood zone. The largest floods created the biggest changes, but smaller floods also affected the river channel. Dam construction results in reduced flood magnitude, frequency, and changes in flood timing, which can lead to reduced river channel migration and changes in plant communities.

1900-1919

1924 Congress enacts the Indian Citizenship Act46

Citizenship is granted to all Native Americans born in the U.S.

1928 California Indian Jurisdiction Act is passed47;48

The Act transfers lands from Federal trust responsibility to state jurisdiction, allowing for the “termination” of some reservations.

1928 Meriam Report is published, leading to the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934156

The Institute for Government Research (Brookings Institution) conducts a study on Indian affairs, known as the Meriam Report. The report reveals that the living standards for Indians are below that of the general population and criticizes the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

1920 Indians in the Klamath Basin could gain fee title to land, but often cannot afford taxation and are forced to sell their property49

Many allotments are too small for an individual to make a living on and pay annual taxes. Thus, many Indians who opted for deeds, or “fee title” lands, ended up selling their land cheaply to private timber interests.

1920s Boarding schools lead to nutritional deprivation and assimilation for Karuk children50

A survey of Indian boarding schools concludes that diet is the primary inadequacy and recommends increasing in the quantity, quality and variety of food provided. Assimilation through boarding schools disconnects younger generation from traditions.

Circa 1927 “We only got the falls up there to get our fish and salmon”51

Game wardens prevent tribal members from fishing at family fishing places; Ishi Pishi Falls becomes the primary Karuk fishing location.

1928 “The White Man will not allow us Indians to have our food that is salmon and deer”52

A letter written by Finn Jacobs, a Karuk medicine man, expresses the resentment caused by state and federal restrictions imposed on fishing in the Mid-Klamath.

1920-1929

1930s Fire suppression begins to increase forest vegetation density and the accumulation of forest fuels12

1931 The spring run of spawning salmon declines from being the major run to the point of “relatively little economic importance”4

1934 - 1946 Ti Creek, flush with fish, continues to function as a family fishing site58

“We used to get some of our fish at Ishi Pishi Falls but we had enough fish in the river that my dad had his own little dipping hole right below Ti Bar. We used to catch eels on the bar too…We had nice deep holes in Ti Creek when I was young. The vegetation wasn’t dried out and broken up the way it is today…” --Vera Vena Davis

Around 1935 “We could drink the water. I wouldn’t drink it now. You had to drink it when you came off the ceremonies.” --Vera Vena Davis4

1955, 1964 Major flooding compounds past land use problems (dam construction, wetlands reclamation) and significantly alters many tributaries12

1955 Ti Creek stream channel shifts after floods4

“…[Ti Creek] used to go meandering around a camp ground through...a mature riparian area and come out about 100 or 200 yards above where it comes out now. Look at pictures after ’55 [floods], it just blew right through the bar right there and now there is absolutely no riparian cover there... . Because it keeps shifting around there has never been a really good riparian area able to establish itself down there in lower Ti Creek.” --Toz Soto, Fisheries Biologist

WWII era Mid-Klamath forests are heavily logged to meet demands for nation building5

1947 The lower section of Karuk Aboriginal Territory is made part of the Six Rivers National Forest, with its District Office in Orleans11

Post-WWII Road building, landfills and associated development negatively affects watershed values, wildlife and fisheries habitat on Karuk Aboriginal Territory12

1953 Dams cause changes in river flow, water availability, and fish habitat4

“Before they had that dam the salmon used to come three times further up river than they can now. (...) The springs that used to be here. The little creeks, the side lanes and all that’s just all dried up.. Now there is just a straight flow of water going down the creek with no life. There are no more ponds and air holes for fish in the water…” --Earl Aubrey, former tribal chairman

1930-1939

From 1964 Flooding leads to large debris flows in areas impaired by forest road building and clearcutting63

Flood damages include destruction of multiple state highway bridges, slides and washouts of road embankments, and stranding of local communities. Highway reconstruction plowed through village sites at the mouths of creeks.

1960s-1970s Algae levels increase in the Klamath Basin4

“In the late Sixties I used to dive for fishing tackle on the bottom of the river but by the Seventies I had to give it up because of the algae growth had gotten so bad that we could no longer effectively find fishing tackle at the bottom of the river. ” --Phil Sanders, Orleans resident

1960s Timber stands are treated with aerial herbicides61

1962 The Iron Gate Dam is completed, blocking salmon access to 120km of Klamath River mainstem habitat and tributaries62

Estimates claim that this area “could provide spawning habitat to 9,000 chinook salmon and 7,300 steelhead.” Fish hatcheries are later built as mitigation.

1960-1989 Forest Service builds an extensive road system in Mid-Klamath uplands for logging access5

This rapid road construction facilitates the transition from a mining economy to forestry.

1964 Trinity and Lewiston Dams are built on the upper Trinity, the largest tributary to the Klamath River62

Dams divert water to the Sacramento Basin as part of the Central Valley Project.

1960 - 19641966 National Historic Preservation Act is passed12;64

The Act seeks to preserve the cultural and historical legacy of the U.S., and requires consultation with affected Indian tribes when federal action may affect cultural property. Regulations require federal agencies to acknowledge the special expertise of Indian tribes in determining which historic properties are of religious and cultural significance to them.

1968 Klamath River is designated as a National Wild and Scenic River65

It is later designated as a California Wild and Scenic River in 1981. These Acts are intended to protect scenic, recreational, geologic, fish, wildlife, historic, cultural, and related values.

1969 National Environmental Policy Act is passed66;12;67;68

The Act requires Environmental Assessments (EA) and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) from all federal agencies for any proposed major federal action that may significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Agencies must invite the participation of any affected Indian tribe during the scoping stage of the EA or EIS process.

1970s The federal government forcibly denies the Karuk people the right to continue their traditional fishing practices71

1970s The State Department of Fish and Game allows unrestricted dip-netting at Ishi Pishi Falls by enrolled Karuk tribal members72

While dipnetting at Ishi Pishi Falls epitomizes Karuk traditional fishing, it was considered illegal up to this point.

Early 1970s The California Department of Transportation completes a section of State Highway 96 through Karuk traditional territory73

Previously, there were only small, dirt roads running in and out of Karuk ancestral lands. When Highway 96 is paved, Karuk people lose many villages, cemeteries, and spiritual sites, as well as Indian allotments located along the river and in the path of the road.

1972 Ethnographers note that the Karuk Tribe’s World Renewal Ceremonies are revived at Clear Creek7;74

According to the tribe’s oral history, individual medicine persons have continued to practice ceremonies at various World Renewal sites from time immemorial to present.

Post Iron Gate Dam Loss of spawning habitat above Iron Gate Dam leads to salmon population decline4

“Iron Gate was the one that put the nails in the coffin…All you have left is surviving remnants of both species—the spring Chinook and the Coho salmon in their habitat downstream of Iron Gate Dam. This is places like Wooly Creek, the Salmon River, Indian Creek, Dillon Creek, Clear Creek, Elk Creek. The bulk of those early runs were produced in the Scott and Shasta Rivers and the places that lie above Iron Gate Dam…The small tributaries couldn’t support those runs.” --Leaf Hillman, Vice Chairman, Karuk Tribe

From 1968 Changes in flows and fire lead to impaired quality of basket making materials4

“The water doesn’t come up enough to push out all the old willows and bring new growth back so here we have this big old stob of a willow that pushes out shoots that are all buggy because they’ve gotten too old. We’ve had to start using ceonothus because we can’t manage our hazel patches. I’ve been fighting for hazel for a long time. We’ve got hazel patches; they’ve got to be burned.” --Laverne Glaze, basketmaker

1965-19691975 Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act is passed12

The act allows tribes to operate federal programs, and creates the opportunity for establishing tribal natural resources management departments.

1976 Pacific Fishery Management Council is created77

The Council institutes new regulations for fisheries.

1978 Karuk Tribe begins efforts to receive Federal recognition72

The Bureau of Indian Affairs Central Office staff conducts a fieldtrip to Northern California, and determines that the aboriginal sub-entities of the tribe consists of three communities located in Happy Camp, Orleans, and Siskiyou (Yreka).

1978 American Indian Religious Freedom Restoration Act is passed12

The Act ensures that First Amendment religious clauses protect religions of Indian people, and requires that all laws passed after its enactment consider Indian peoples’ religious practices. The Act also requires federal land managers to consult with tribes on management plans, and protects tribal access to sacred sites.

1979 The Forest Service Water Quality Management Plan is published and includes an assessment of nonpoint pollution problem areas on each of the National Forests69

1977 Hog Fire burns about 80,000 acres76

The fire burns extensively in the lower North and South Fork watershed and in Nordheimer and Crapo Creeks.

1977 Continuing decline is observed in steelhead populations4

Steelhead populations are estimated at 135,000 fish, declining from 241,000 fish in 1972, and 250,000 fish in 1967.

1975 - 1979 1980 - 1989 1994 - 19951990 - 1991 1992 - 1993 1996 - 1997 2000 - 2001 2002 - 2003 2006 2007 - 2008 2009 - 2010+

2009-2010 Scheduled implementation of the Orleans Community Fuels Reduction and Forest Health Project5;154

The project includes a 3,000 acre commercial and pre-commercial forest thinning in Cheenitch, Whitney’s Gulch and Boise Creek drainages. This December, the Klamath Justice Coalition blocked the logging road in protest of the OCFR program. Coalition members claim that the logging company was not following the agreed-upon guidelines for protecting cultural sites in the district.

2016 Upcoming deadline for revising the Six Rivers National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan139

2009 California’s governor signs injunction on suction dredge mining151

Governor Schwarzenegger signs a bill to temporarily ban the destructive form of recreational gold mining known as suction dredging, placing an immediate moratorium on all suction dredge mining. The ban will be in place until the California Department of Fish and Game develops and implements new suction dredge regulations that are protective of fisheries and water quality.

2009 Formation of the Northwest California Regional Prescribed Fire Council152

Managers, practitioners, researchers,and others meet to help form the council as a regional network for facilitating the use of prescribed fire and information sharing.

2010 Formal Klamath dam removal and restoration agreements are signed, committing to removing four dams by 2020153

The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) and Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) are signed by Governor Kulongoski of Oregon, Governor Schwarzenegger of California, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, and PacifiCorp’s chief executive Greg Abel.

2020 Projected removal of four mainstem Klamath River dams (Iron Gate Dam, Copco 1, Copco 2, and JC Boyle Dams)5

Present Day Water quality problems impact ceremonial traditions4

“The Karuk people manage their resources by way of ceremonies and traditional rituals… there were four ceremonies in which the Medicine Man needs to go down to the river to bathe. From early July right on through September. They need to bathe in the Klamath River for ten days at a time -- up to three, four, five times a day. So there are associated health risks there with polluted water. Another issue of water quality and the ceremonies is the loss of species such as crayfish that are needed to make the medicine.” --Ron Reed, Dance Owning Family, Cultural Biologist, Karuk Department of Natural Resources

Present Day Historic Karuk cultural use sites, untreated with fire, continue to be invaded by Douglas fir8

Fire suppression has allowed Douglas fir to increase in numbers and expand into meadows and decreased diversity of forest trees.

Present Day Fish runs come later and for shorter time periods4

“I know that when I was a kid fishing at Ishi Pishi Falls we’d be done fishing by Labor Day. We’d already have enough fish. We’d be tired of fish. But now we don’t get started until after Labor Day. When they put in Iron Gate there was spawning above where Iron Gate is now so there was a substantial amount of fish creating that run we’re talking abut now. The elders tell us there used to be fish in the river all year round and I think the dams disrupted that pattern of migration.” --Ron Reed, Dance Owning Family, Cultural Biologist, Karuk Department of Natural Resources

2007-2008 Mid Klamath Watershed Council completes Klamath River Tributary Fish Passage Improvement projects147

The council works with volunteers to improve fish passage on creeks. For example, a Ti Creek culvert is improved, affecting 0.25 miles of juvenile habitat and 0.5 miles of adult habitat.

2008 Karuk Tribe Fisheries Department and Mid Klamath Watershed Council cooperate on fish habitat restoration projects5

Projects include the monitoring of Klamath tributary mouths for barriers to fish passage; treating three log jams on South Fork Clear Creek to open 1.3 miles of high quality coho and chinook spawning and rearing habitat; improving off-channel habitat at the mouths of Independence, Sandy Bar, Stanshaw, and Aikens Creeks; and restoring Ti Creek to improve juvenile and adult fish passage at the creek mouth.

2008 Forest Service and Karuk Tribe Department of Natural Resources rebuild Camp Creek Fish Hatchery after the 2006 flood event5;148

The hatchery creates potential for fisheries management that incorporates traditional ecological knowledge.

2007 Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act includes Klamath River Coho Salmon Recovery requirements143

Requirements include reports to Congress on actions relating to the recovery of Klamath River coho salmon. Reports should include progress made on restoration of salmon spawning habitat, including water conditions, and the status of other Klamath River anadromous fish populations, particularly chinook salmon.

2007 Forest Service management policy adopts the Interagency Traditional Gathering Policy144

“Native traditional practitioners have access to plant and fungal materials and such materials are managed in a manner that promotes ecosystem health and utilizes traditional management practices where appropriate. In general, personal use should have preference over commercial use.”

2008 PacifiCorp, federal agencies, and the states of Oregon and California sign an Agreement in Principle to remove Klamath dams145

2008 Large fires burn in the Klamath area all summer, including the Ukonom Complex Fire149;150

Starting with lightning strikes in June, fires burn an area of 192,038 acres, with federal costs of more than $124 million over 98 days

2006 Extensive flood events continue to cause substantial changes in stream channels throughout the Mid-Klamath Subbasin5;12

2006 Drastic reductions occur in the commercial salmon harvest for the Klamath Management Zone142

2006 The Klamath Act expires and is not reauthorized by Congress137;138

The charter and funding for the Klamath Fisheries Management Council is discontinued. At present, the council and associated structures have not been replaced by any formalized organization or process.

2004 Klamath Watershed Conference brings stakeholders together to discuss Klamath water allocation issues132

Tribal members, farmers, local agencies, environmental groups, and other community members all came together. Following the conference, stakeholders initiate follow-up workshops to negotiate solutions to competing water demands.

2004 Tribal representatives protest Klamath River dams at stockholder meetings in Scotland133

Yurok, Hoopa, Karuk, and Klamath tribal members attend the annual general stockholders meeting of Scottish Power, a partial dam owner and operator. The tribes ask the company to address damages to salmon and tribes caused by the dams.

2005 Six Rivers National Forest expresses renewed interest in creating a Karuk Environmental Management Practices Demonstration Area (KEMPDA) as a collaborative partnership between the Karuk Tribe and the Forest Service139

Jeff Walter of Six Rivers National Forest sends an official letter on reestablishing the KEMPDA to the Karuk Tribe on July 25, 2005.

2005 A Forest Service report on Tribal Relations Programs emphasizes collaboration with the Karuk130

The Pacific Southwest Region 5 report refers to the Karuk Environmental Management Practices Demonstration Area. The report also references collaboration with the Karuk Tribe to protect sacred sites and natural resource issues during the Wooley fire. The Forest Service intends to manage outfitter river use during Karuk tribal ceremonies, and to integrate Karuk tribal resource management with forest fuels reduction projects and increasing cultural burning.

2004 - 2005

2006 The Mid-Klamath Watershed Council is formed in order to solicit involvement in Mid-Klamath Subbasin fisheries restoration planning5

2006 The Orleans/Somes Bar Fire Safe Council acts as a community liaison during the Somes wildfire event5

This sets the stage for future community-based response to wildfires.

2006 A health and fish consumption survey reports actions denying access to traditional foods and cultural resources for Karuk tribal members135

Many Karuk tribal members surveyed report feeling harassed by game wardens when harvesting cultural resources, forgoing fish and eel harvests due to population declines, lacking sufficient fish to meet subsistence needs, and high license fees for gathering, despite policies that should provide free licenses to tribal members.

2006 Preliminary draft of the Karuk Tribe’s Eco-cultural Land Management Plan is published12;131

The plan is intended to direct land management values in a manner “consistent with Karuk tradition, custom, culture and ceremonial principles in order to ensure cultural perseverance for our members and descendants.”

2004 Tribal fish harvests are exceedingly low135

Only 100 fish are harvested at Ishi Pishi Falls for Karuk Tribal members. Tribal enrollment at this time exceeds 3,000 individuals.

2004 Report is published on “Effects of Altered Diet on the Health of the Karuk People”136

The report shows major dietary shift for Karuk tribe. Karuk diet currently contains 1.1% the amount of salmon consumed in pre-contact times.

2005 Winter floods contribute to fish passage problems in Ti Creek and Stanshaw Creek140;141

2005 The toxin microcystin is discovered in Klamath Basin waters12

2002 Massive die-off of spawning adult salmon occurs in the lower Klamath River134;12

68,000 adult salmon and steelhead die in the lower Klamath due to increased water temperature and disease.

2003 The environmental group American Rivers calls the Klamath River the second-most endangered of U.S. rivers4

The group references the decline in present-day salmon runs, currently less than 10% of historic numbers, and attributes the river’s decline to excess irrigation diversions and dams.

2002 Representatives from Yurok, Karuk and Hoopa tribes protest against the federal government’s irrigation deliveries131

Displaying dead and decaying salmon on the steps of the Bureau of Reclamation building, tribes and environmentalists join together in blaming salmon kills on full irrigation deliveries to upstream Oregon farmers. Although water deliveries were halted to protect fish from drought in 2001, farmers received full water deliveries during summer 2002.

2003 Mid-Klamath Subbasin Fisheries Resource Recovery Plan is completed5

2003 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rules that irrigation diversions led to the 2002 fish die-off4

Upstream irrigation diversions led to a delay in the salmon migration, allowing the spread of disease and a large die-off of chinook salmon.

2003-2008 The Orleans/Somes Bar Fire Safe Council conducts over 300 acres of prescribed burns within five years5

Fire Safe Councils convene stakeholders together on projects that fulfill multiple resource objectives. This leads to additional prescribed burns around the communities of Orleans and Somes Bar to help prevent wildfire damages to residences.

2004 The Tribal Forest Protection Act is passed, supporting collaborative stewardship on tribal trust lands through contracts130;12

The Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior are authorized to give special consideration to tribally-proposed Stewardship Contracting or other projects on Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land bordering or adjacent to Indian trust land. Indian trust resources should be protected from fire, disease, or other threat coming from Forest Service or BLM land.

2000 Karuk Tribe develops interim water quality standards12

2001 Mid-Klamath Restoration Council is created5

The council begins coordinating volunteer workshops and workdays in the subbasin to highlight the need to protect the declining fisheries resource.

2001 Orleans Somes Bar Fire Safe Council is formed129

The organization is a local chapter of the California Fire Safe Council working to reinstate historic fire regimes in the Mid-Klamath area through strategic fuels reduction.

2001 The Orleans/Somes Bar Fire Safe Council initiates fuel reduction and prescribed burning projects on private lands5

These actions help prevent fires originating on private land from spreading to surrounding National Forests, and facilitate broader use of prescribed fire as a management tool.

2000 The National Fire Plan (NFP) is initiated, following a landmark fire season123;124;125;126

President Clinton requests a report from the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior with three goals: recommend a response to the wildfires, reduce impacts on rural communities, and ensure future firefighting resources are adequate. The report emphasizes the need for close collaboration among federal agencies, states, local communities, and tribes.

2000 Executive Order 13175 directs consultation with Indian Tribal Governments12;127

The policy intends to establish “regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration” between federal agencies and tribal officials. Each agency is required to develop a written consultation process and designate a lead official, responsible for consultations with tribes.

2001 Federal government shuts off irrigation water to Klamath Project farmers128

1996 President Bill Clinton issues Executive Order 13007 for the protection of Indian sacred sites112; 12

Executive branch agencies are directed to “accommodate access to and ceremonial use of sacred sites”, and also to “avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites.”

1997 Forest Service Guidelines address tribal land tenure issues, including the contentious issue of co-management in National Forest Lands113

“National Forest Lands are public lands. While most Indian title to these lands has been extinguished, the Forest Service has to be concerned where there are tribal rights reserved...”

“The Forest Service can provide technical assistance or shared resources to work with tribes... . These actions may include training, transfer of technology, or cost-sharing projects and activities.”

“Joint and comanagement continues to be an issue between the tribes and the Forest Service. The tribes have interpreted joint or comanagement to mean codecisionmaking. Others interpret it to mean shared management in the sense of sharing information... . The Forest Service has not accepted these interpretations.”

1997 Secretarial Order 3206 “American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities and the Endangered Species Act” is passed12

The order directs Federal agencies to consult with tribes over the management and recovery of endangered species.

1997 Extensive flood events cause substantial changes in stream channels throughout the Mid-Klamath subbasin, and damage forest roads5;12;121;122

The greatest effects are in tributaries near the Happy Camp and Seiad Valley portion of the Mid-Klamath subbasin. Flood effects are found to be highest in a recently burned and highly roaded strip of land that encompasses Elk Creek, Grider Creek and Walker Creek. Flood events cause $27 million worth of damage to forest roads in the Klamath National Forest. Landslides occur at Ti Creek, diverting the creek and sediments into the Ti-Bar flat and potentially impact off-channel spawning areas.

1996 Klamath Watershed Restoration Program is established to identify, plan and implement projects that benefit water quality and quantity12

1996 Karuk Tribe prepares a document for the Forest Service on the Tribe’s position regarding “the management of lands falling within Aboriginal Karuk Territory”114

1997 Karuk Tribe’s Department of Natural Resources initiates community planning through its Mid-Klamath Subbasin Planning efforts5

The project is funded by the Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force. This results in the Mid-Klamath Subbasin Fisheries Resource Recovery Plan.

1998 - 1999

1998 Collaborative projects between the Karuk Tribe and Forest Service gain momentum115;116

Orleans/Ukonom District Ranger Jon Martin activates joint projects with the tribe, such as road decommissioning, organizing tribal monitors on forest fires, and the Ti-Bar Demonstration Project (which later becomes the Karuk Environmental Management Practices Demonstration Area).

1998 The Ishi Pishi/Ukonom Ecosystem Analysis Plan emphasizes self-determination for the Karuk Tribe114

“The Forest Service has an obligation to consult with Federally Recognized Indian Tribes on a government-to-government basis throughout the Forest Service planning process. The purpose of this to ensure tribes sovereignty over their ancestral lands and a voice in management over those lands.”

“Recognizing that tribes are not just another user-group or interest group requiring attention, the relationship requires going beyond simply discussing, exchanging views, or seeking tribal comment on internal policies and decisions...”

“The Ti Bar undertaking is anticipated to improve administrative processes which help enhance trust obligations while enhancing cultural, social, economic, and Subsistence use of the Karuk.”

1998 The Administrative Forest facility adjacent to Ishi Pishi Falls is relocated to accommodate Karuk sacred ceremonial uses114

1999 Karuk Air Quality Monitoring Program documents levels of particulate matter 10 microns or less in order to quantify effects of smoke12

1999 Phase II of decommissioning Steinacher Road is completed117;118;12

Steinacher is a 7-mile, dead-end logging road built in 1969. Road decommissioning prevents tons of unstable sediment from being washed into surrounding salmon streams. The project also provides intensive job training and employment for tribal members. This sets the stage for future road decommissioning projects.

1999 Karuk Tribe initiates the Offield Mountain Ceremonial Burn Project with the Forest Service, but the project is not completed119;120

The project is intended to reduce the risk of wildfire and allow for in-season, low-intensity burning, as a key component of the annual Karuk World Renewal ceremonies. Pre-burn fuel treatment is done, but the project is not completed.

1994 The Bureau of Reclamation cuts water allocations to Klamath Basin farmers for the first time since 1905 during drought period111

The decision is triggered by the listing of several fish under the Endangered Species Act. Federal agencies recommend higher lake levels for the shortnose and Lost River suckers in the Upper Klamath, and greater spills out of the lake for coho salmon in the lower Klamath River.

1994 Karuk Tribe and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service coordinate on stream temperature monitoring59

The Karuk Tribe is funded to monitor about half of temperature stations within the Klamath Restoration Program.

1994 Karuk Tribe Fire/Fuels Reduction Program is established to reduce excess fuel loads12

1995 Six Rivers National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan is published, which recognizes Native American Contemporary Use Areas112

The plan is intended for use over the next 10-15 years. The policy states, “Native American spiritual use will be the most frequent activity in these areas, and other types of visitation will be rare. Signs of management activity will not be readily apparent. The integrity of the areas will be maintained in a manner consistent with Indian Tribes’ customs and culture.” No regulated timber harvest or new road building is permitted.

1994 The Northwest Forest Plan is adopted98

The Act changes management practices for Pacific Northwest old growth forests.

1994 Federal law directs agencies to address environmental justice issues110

Executive Order 12898 states, “Each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations…”

1994 Dillon complex fire occurs95

A primarily low severity fire burns 28,160 acres of forest lands, including Karuk lands, Klamath and Six Rivers National Forest.

1992 The Chief of the Forest Service directs National Forest managers to apply ecosystem management12

1993 The loss of traditional food sources is linked to diet-related illnesses among Karuk, including diabetes, obesity, and heart disease109

1992 Salmon River Restoration Council is formed104

A series of community workshops raises awareness about decreasing Spring Chinook and Summer Steelhead in the Salmon River. The workshop is supported by the Klamath River Fisheries Task Force. As a result, illegal harvest declines, and community restoration programs begin the next year.

1992 Taxol, a cancer drug derived from the bark of yew trees, drives increased tree harvest105;106

The discovery provides a significant incentive for the Forest Service to cut yew wood, a sensitive and limited resource. The issue sparks controversy between the agency and the Karuk Tribe, which chooses not to share information about cultural species and gathering locations.

1993 The Yurok and Hoopa receive a 50% share of available fish harvest following a Department of Interior ruling; the Karuk tribe is not considered to be eligible59

This ruling applies only to tribes with recognized fishing rights. The Yurok and Hoopa shares were previously restricted to 37% of the harvest.

1993 Courts uphold treaty fishing rights, thus rejecting regulations that favor ocean fisheries allocations over tribal in-river fisheries107;108

Due to the migratory nature of the Klamath chinook, upstream tribal fishing rights depend on coordinating ocean and river fishing allocations. The court’s decision determines that the Pacific Fishery Management Council “consistently failed to set harvest regulations sufficient to meet conservation requirements, forcing the Interior Department to severely curtail Indian salmon harvesting in the Klamath River.“

1993 U.S. Bureau of Land Management overestimates timber inventories, and overstates reforestation success59

A government committee finds “data used to generate reforestation success rate and growth rate estimates over the past 30 years are inadequate to justify the level of timber harvest that occurred during that period.”

1993 Karuk Water Resources Program is initiated12

The program conducts monitoring, research and convey tribal concerns related to watershed management.

1990s Karuk Tribe and Six Rivers National Forest partner on road decommissioning to protect local streams100

1990s Karuk Tribe and Six Rivers National Forest enter into a long-term partnership to co-manage the Karuk Environmental Management Practices Demonstration area100

This area is approximately 10,000 acres, including the Ti Creek watershed. The objective is to showcase how to manage for biological diversity and ecosystem health by using Karuk cultural environmental practices and traditional ecological knowledge.

1991 Community members protest logging plans for the Somes-Butler area and participate in a Forest Service “Co-operative Working Group” process101;102

Working group members meet to discuss plans for a timber sale in Somes and Butler Compartments, first initiated by the Forest Service around 1981. Concerns include steep slopes and unstable granitic soils. After two years, community members walk out on the process when the Forest Service issues its own plan.

1991 Klamath River Basin Long Range Restoration Plan is published103

The plan pioneers a watershed-wide approach to fisheries restoration and uses data from the Klamath Resource Information System (KRIS) to assess restoration program progress quantitatively. The plan is a part of the state and federal Klamath River Restoration Program for the US. Fish and Wildlife Service.

1990 The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service lists the spotted owl as threatened under the Endangered Species Act98

The listing triggers conservation duties for the species by all federal agencies.

1990 National Indian Forest Resource Management Act is passed, and provides Indians with more active control over forest management12

1990 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act12;99

The Act requires federal agencies or museums to return human remains, associated funerary and sacred objects to the culturally affiliated Indian tribe upon the request of a known lineal descendant of the Native American or the tribe.

1991 National Marine Fisheries Services decides that salmon stocks from specific rivers can be listed under the Endangered Species Act62

The definition of “species” in the Endangered Species Act is clarified for salmon. Distinct population segments of salmon can be considered for listing if they are an “evolutionary significant unit.”

1991 Salmon population declines are linked to increased stream sediment5

Scientific analysis explicitly correlate salmon declines to upland land management of timber harvest and road networks.

1980s Forest service removes people from the land claims, sometimes burning homes91;92

U.S. Forest Service removal policy has almost eliminated homes of families (Indian and non-Indian) previously residing on mining claims located within National Forests. In the name of eliminating illegal occupancy, the policy has threatened local communities and reduced local school populations to minimal levels.

1981 Yurok tribal members are arrested for illegal sale of Klamath salmon93

Indians fish and sell salmon despite moratorium on commercial fishery. There is no set limit on subsistence harvest, which is permitted. Overall, few arrests have been made. Violence breaks out on the river with gun shots, but no one is harmed.

1985 The ocean commercial troll fishery is closed for fall chinook94

The Pacific Fisheries Management Council suggests creating two fisheries advisory groups to help address Klamath fisheries harvest and habitat restoration.

1987 The “G-O Road” Supreme Court ruling favors the Forest Service over tribes’ religious needs, but the road is not completed79;80

Community protests later lead Congress to protect a portion of the road corridor by creating the Siskiyou Wilderness Area, a designation which prohibits logging.

1989 Karuk Tribe Department of Natural Resources is established12

1981 The Forest Service and State Water Resources Control Board enter into a Management Agency Agreement towards mutual water quality goals69

The agreement approves Forest Service Best Management Practices; however, it requires more implementation details, including aerial application of herbicides, and stabilization of roads and soil disposal areas.

1984 Expansion of Trinity Alps and Marble Mountains Wilderness Area boundary occurs5

1985 Limited fishing rights for Karuk Tribe are confirmed at Ishi Pishi Falls through a State of California court decision85

1986 Karuk Tribe gains federal recognition12

Karuk gain rights and standing before U.S. federal government.

1986 The Klamath River Basin Fishery Resource Provisions Act is passed (later renamed the Klamath River Basin Fishery Resources Restoration Act)86;87;88

The Act creates the Klamath Fisheries Management Council, an 11 person council including two tribal representatives: one from the Hoopa Tribe, and a second from a non-Hoopa local tribe. It also forms the Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force, a 12 person group, including one tribal representative from Hoopa. A 1988 amendment later appoints additional tribal representatives from Yurok and Karuk to the Task Force.

1988 Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act89;90

In 1891, President Harrison expanded the Hoopa Valley Reservation to include the Yurok’s Klamath River Reservation, forming a joint reservation. In 1988, however, Congress partitions the reservation into two pieces, following a dispute between the tribes over timber income.

1987 “Hog/Off” complex of wildfires burns large area in Klamath Basin95

These are high to moderate severity fires that burned 80,000 and 9,000 acres of national forest, respectively. The fires affect the Klamath National Forest and Karuk traditional territory.

1987 Ti Bar flat becomes a base for thousands of fire responders during extensive fire disturbance events in the Mid-Klamath region96;97

The fires affect Titus, Independence, Kings, and Ukonom Creeks. Extensive amounts of soil wash into the river; many streamside ledges providing prime salmon refuges are filled in. Fire fighting activities affect archaeological sites at Ti Bar Flat.

1970-1974

1970s Lower river levels cause impaired water quality and lack of good basket materials4

“The basket weavers all started to complain in the Seventies that their willows were buggy. They weren’t sending out new shoots and they just got buggy and it’s because they were above the water line. The water had gone down. In ’76 the creeks all started to get low and get sluggy looking, dark green oily looking. All over the river moss was growing. We all started swimming in the creeks. We didn’t swim in the river no more.” --Mavis McCovey, medicine woman, retired Registered Nurse

1970s Basket makers are forced to use non-traditional plants for weaving materials because they cannot manage with prescribed fire4

Low intensity fire encourages the new shoots on hazel plants, which make for good quality weaving materials. “We’ve had to start using ceonothus because we can’t manage our hazel patches. I’ve been fighting for hazel for a long time. We’ve got hazel patches; they’ve got to be burned. Torch her off…” --Laverne Glaze, Basket Maker

1973 Offield Fire occurs75;76

The Offield Fire burns about 8,100 acres near the confluence of the Salmon and Klamath Rivers.

1970 The Clean Water Act is passed69

The Act covers nonpoint sources, including sediment; the control strategy uses “best management practices.”

1973 Endangered Species Act70

The Act provides for the conservation of ecosystems upon which threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants depend. It authorizes the determination and listing of species as endangered and threatened. The Act also requires federal agencies to ensure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by them is not likely to jeopardize listed species or modify their critical habitat.

1940-1959

1933 The in-river Klamath Basin commercial fishery is closed, after operating since 18764

Closure is due to concerns of overexploitation and declines in Klamath River salmon stocks. Even though non-Indian commercial salmon trollers out of Eureka were fishing off the mouth of the Klamath, investigative committees appointed by the legislature in 1929 and 1932 determined that the decline was caused by Indian in-river commercial fishermen.

1934 State of California bans all commercial fisheries and Indian gillnets in lower Klamath55;56

This affects the lower 20 miles in the Klamath River. The ban is primarily due to the political power of the recreational fishing community.

1935 Forest Service fire suppression is codified with the “10 AM policy”44

Wildfires detected are to be under control by 10 AM the following day, which calls for “…fast, energetic, and thorough suppression of all fires in all locations, during possibly dangerous fire weather…”. The rationale is that small wildfires are much easier and cheaper to suppress than large fires.

1936 Individual rangers retain awareness of Indian fires as cultural management57

“The Indian fires weren’t really incendiary, they were part of the cultural process. […] I had two incendiary fires in the three years I was here and they were set by an outsider that came in looking for work…” (Ross Bower, Orleans District Ranger 1936-1939)

1940s “When I came here in the 1940s the water was contaminated”4

“It had great big foamy things floating on the water. My Grandpa said it was from soap and stuff the farmers were putting into the water. There wasn’t much algae. He said the Indians around here never drank the river water…” --Mavis McCovey, medicine woman, retired Registered Nurse

1955 Forest Service road construction occurs in Ti Creek watershed60

1. Lake, F. 2007. Traditional ecological knowledge to develop and maintain fire regimes in northwestern California, Klamath-Siskiyou bioregion : management and restoration of culturally significant habitats. Dissertation. Oregon State University. Corvallis: OSU. p. 269. http://hdl.handle.net/1957/6222.

2. Agee, J. K. 2007. Steward’s Fork: A sustainable future for the Klamath Mountains. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 153.

3. Karuk Department of Natural Resources. Karuk Tribal Module for the Main Stem Salmon River Watershed Analysis. Scoping of Tribal Issues for Karuk Aboriginal Territory. Prepared for USDA Forest Service, Klamath National Forest. December 5, 1995. Ashland, OR: Cultural Solutions. p. 31.

4. Salter, J. 2003. White Paper on Behalf of the Karuk Tribe of California: A Context Statement Concerning the Effect of Iron Gate Dam on the Traditional Resource uses and Cultural Patterns of the Karuk People Within the Klamath River Corridor. November, 2003.

5. Soto, T. L. and M. M. Hentz. 2003. Mid-Klamath Subbasin Fisheries Resource Recovery Plan: Working Draft. Prepared for the Karuk Tribe of California. Funded by the Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force. August 25, 2003.


7. Bright, William. “The Karok.” Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 8: California. Ed. Robert F. Heizer. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. 1978. 180–89.

8. De Rijke, E. A. 2001. Current Status of the Vegetation in Historic Karuk Cultural Use Sites. Thesis, Humboldt State University, May 2001.

9. Hewes, Gordon W. 1973. “Indian Fisheries Productivity in Pre-contact Times in the Pacific Salmon Area” Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 7(3): 133-155. As cited by Norgaard, Kari. “The Effects of Altered Diet on the Health of the Karuk People: A Preliminary Report. Written Under Contract by The Karuk Tribe of California: Department of Natural Resources Water Quality Program.” California: Karuk Tribe of California. 2004

10. McEvoy, Arthur E. 2004. The Fisherman’s Problem: Ecology and Law in the California Fisheries 1850-1980. Cambridge University Press, 1986, as cited in Norgaard, Kari. “The Effects of Altered Diet on the Health of the Karuk People: A Preliminary Report. Written Under Contract by The Karuk Tribe of California: Department of Natural Resources Water Quality Program.” California: Karuk Tribe of California.

11. American Indian Technical Services Report. 1982. “Anthropological Study of the Hupa, Yurok, and Karok Indian Tribes of Northwestern California.”

12. Karuk Tribe Department of Natural Resource Management. 2006. Eco-cultural Resource Management Plan. Draft. Available at http://karuk.us/dnr/pdf/Public%20releaseECRMP%20May%202006.pdf

13. California Association of Counties. http://www.counties.org/default.asp?id=496/. Last viewed 2/12/10.


15. Martinez, D. 1995. Karuk Tribal Module of Mainstem Salmon Watershed Analysis: Karuk Ancestral Lands and People as Reference Ecosystem for Eco-cultural Restoration in Collaborative Ecosystem Management. Draft. p. 36.

16. Bright, William. Karuk Tribe Chi Ararahih Nuchuu Phiti Project, Karok.17. Margolin, Malcom. “The Way We Lived: California Indian Stories, Songs & Reminiscences.”

Berkeley: Heyday Books, 1993. as cited by Norgaard, Kari. “The Effects of Altered Diet on the Health of the Karuk People: A Preliminary Report. Written Under Contract by The Karuk Tribe of California: Department of Natural Resources Water Quality Program.” California: Karuk Tribe of California. 2004

18. Doremus, H. D., & Tarlock, A. D. 2008. Water war in the Klamath Basin: Macho law, combat biology, and dirty politics. Washington DC: Island Press. p. 66.

19. Bearss, E.C. 1969. Redwood National Park. History Basic Data. Del Norte and Humboldt Counties, California. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Division of History, Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation. Citing Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to the Secretary of the Interior, 1886, pp. 302-303; Bledsoe, Indian Wars of the Northwest, pp. 166-176. Available at http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/redw/history6c.htm

20. Yurok History/Culture. http://www.yuroktribe.org/culture/culture.htm. Last accesed 2/20/10.

21. Agee, J. K. 2007. Steward’s Fork: A sustainable future for the Klamath Mountains. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 117-120.

22. Lake, F. 2007. Traditional ecological knowledge to develop and maintain fire regimes in northwestern California, Klamath-Siskiyou bioregion : management and restoration of culturally significant habitats. Dissertation. Oregon State University. Corvallis: OSU. p. 270. http://hdl.handle.net/1957/6222.

23. Pierce, R.M. 1998. Klamath Salmon: understanding allocation. Background, policy of the procedure of the harvest allocation process for Fall Chinook Salmon. Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. p. 2. http://www.fws.gov/yreka/KFMC-Docs/KlamSalUndAlloc.pdf.

24. Agee, J. K. 2007. Steward’s Fork: A sustainable future for the Klamath Mountains. Berkeley: University of California Press. P. 117-120.

25. Lake, F. 2007. Traditional ecological knowledge to develop and maintain fire regimes in northwestern California, Klamath-Siskiyou bioregion : management and restoration of culturally significant habitats. Dissertation. Oregon State University. Corvallis: OSU. http://hdl.handle.net/1957/6222. p. 270.

26. Karuk Interviews, 1996-97, Smith, Ora KS017 10/22/96. Cultural Solutions and Karuk Tribe Department of Natural Resources 1999 “Karuk Forest Management Perspectives: Interview with Tribal Members.”

27. The National Archives. Teaching with Documents: Maps of Indian Territory, the Dawes Act, and Will Rogers’ Enrollment Case File. http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/fed-indian-policy/ Last viewed 2/19/10/.

28. Agee, J. K. 2007. Steward’s Fork: A sustainable future for the Klamath Mountains. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 155-156.

29. Federal Wildlife & Related Laws Handbook. Summary of the Forest Service Organic Administration Act of 1897. http://wildlifelaw.unm.edu/fedbook/fsact.html

30. U.S. Congress. Forest Service Organic Administration Act of 1897. 16 U.S.C. §§ 473-478, 479-482 and 551, June 4, 1897

31. Bearss, E.C. 1969. Redwood National Park. History Basic Data. Del Norte and Humboldt Counties, California. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Division of History, Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation. Citing Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to the Secretary of the Interior, 1886, pp. 302-303; Bledsoe, Indian Wars of the Northwest, pp. 166-176. Available at http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/redw/history6c.htm

32. Wheeler, G.M. 1889. Sketch indicating the advancement of the surveys of the public lands and the military topographical and geographical surveys west of the Mississippi. Prepared under the direction of 1st. Lieut. Geo. M. Wheeler, Corps of Engineers U.S. Army. 1879. U.S. Public Survey available at http://www.davidrumsey.com.

33. NOAA Technical Memorandum MNFS-NWFSC-19, 1994.34. Agee, J.K. 2007. Steward’s Fork: A sustainable future for the Klamath Mountains.

Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 120.35. Williams, G. W. 2005. The USDA Forest Service—The First Century. [Washington, DC]:

USDA Forest Service, Office of Communication.36. Pyne, S.J. 2001. The fires this time, and next. Science. 294: 1005.37. Pyne, S.J. 2001. “The Source.” A lecture delivered at the Joint Conference of the

American Society for Environmental History and the Forest History Society. Available at http://www.foresthistory.org/Events/lecture2001%20text.html

38. Ishi-Pishi/Ukonom Ecosystem Analysis Plan 1998. p. 5-2939. Bower, R. W. 1978. Chronological History of the Klamath National Forest, Volume I:

The Formative Years 1905-1910, People, Places, Programs, and Events. [Yreka, CA]: U.S. Forest Service, Klamath National Forest, p. 16-20, 40.

40. Bower, R. W. 1978. Chronological History of the Klamath National Forest, Volume I: The Formative Years 1905-1910, People, Places, Programs, and Events. [Yreka, CA]: U.S. Forest Service, Klamath National Forest, p. 116, 127.

41. Bower, R. W. 1979. Chronological History of the Klamath National Forest, Volume II : Protection and Development 1911-1920, People, Places, Programs, and Events. [Yreka, CA]: U.S. Forest Service, Klamath National Forest. p. 75

42. Ibid, p. 130-131.43. Karuk Interviews, 1996-97, Thom, Charlie KS002 11/96. Cultural Solutions and Karuk

Tribe Department of Natural Resources 1999 “Karuk Forest Management Perspectives: Interview with Tribal Members.”

44. Donovan, G.H. and Brown, T.C. 2009. Be careful what you wish for: the legacy of Smokey Bear. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 5(2):73-79.


46. The Library of Congress. American Memory. http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/jun02.html Last accessed 2/19/10.

47. Beckman, T. 1998. The View from Native California. Lifeways of California’s Indigenous People. http://mojavedesert.net/california-indian-history/04.html

48. Beckman, T. 1997. Historical Sketch of the California Indians. “Statehood.” http://mojavedesert.net/california-indian-history/04.html


50. Jackson, Y. 1993. p. 388 as cited by Norgaard, Kari. “The Effects of Altered Diet on the Health of the Karuk People: A Preliminary Report. Written Under Contract by The Karuk Tribe of California: Department of Natural Resources Water Quality Program.” California: Karuk Tribe of California. 2004

51. Karuk Interviews, 1996-97, Super, Violet (Vi) KS018 5/14/97. Cultural Solutions and Karuk Tribe Department of Natural Resources 1999 “Karuk Forest Management Perspectives: Interview with Tribal Members.”

52. American Indian Technical Services Report, 1982. “Anthropological Study of the Hupa, Yurok, and Karok Indian Tribes of Northwestern California.” p. 195.

53. Smokey Bear Kids. http://www.smokeybear.com/kids/assetframe.asp?id=7&html=1 Last viewed 2/27/10

54. Kosek, J. 2006. Understories: the political life of forests in northern New Mexico. Durham: Duke University Press. p. 203.

55. Pierce, R. 1991. “The Lower Klamath Fishery: Recent Times.” In Lufkin, Alan, editor. California’s Salmon and Steelhead: The Struggle to Restore an Imperiled Resource. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 143-44. http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft209nb0qn/

56. Pierce, R.M. 1998. Klamath Salmon: understanding allocation. Background, policy of the procedure of the harvest allocation process for Fall Chinook Salmon. Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. http://www.fws.gov/yreka/KFMC-Docs/KlamSalUndAlloc.pdf. p. 7.


58. Karuk Interviews: Goodwin, Norman KS008 10/96 p.22 Cultural Solutions and Karuk Tribe Department of Natural Resources 1999 “Karuk Forest Management Perspectives: Interview with Tribal Members.”

59. Whitehouse, P. (ed.) Klamath Restoration News. Spring 1993. [Yreka, Calif:] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

60. Toz Soto, personal communication, 14 August 2009.61. Sue Terence, personal communication, 16 August 2009. 62. Busby, Peggy J., Wainwright, Thomas C., and Waples, Robin S. Status Review for Klamath

Mountains Province Steelhead. NOAA Technical Memorandum MNFS-NWFSC-19. Seattle, Washington: National Marine Fisheries Service. 1994.

63. United States Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District. March 1971. “Special Report on Historical Flood Damages for Klamath River Basin, California-Oregon. San Francisco, California: United States. Army Corps of Engineers San Francisco District.”

64. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. List of Federal Tribal Consultation Statutes, Orders, Regulations, Rules, Policies, Manuals, Protocols and Guidance. http://www.achp.gov/programs.html Last accessed 2/24/10.

65. Lake, F. 2007. Traditional ecological knowledge to develop and maintain fire regimes in northwestern California, Klamath-Siskiyou bioregion : management and restoration of culturally significant habitats. Dissertation. Oregon State University. Corvallis: OSU. http://hdl.handle.net/1957/6222. p. 112-113.

66. Forest Service National Resource Guide on American Indian and Alaska Native Relations. US Forest Service. April 1997. Last accessed 8 November 2009. p. 58. http://www.fs.fed.us/people/tribal/

67. United States Environmental Protection Agency. NEPA. http://www.epa.gov/regulations/laws/nepa.html Last viewed 2/24/10.

68. National Park Service. Consultation with Native Americans. A Historic Preservation Responsibility. http://www.achp.gov/programs.html

69. Callaham, Robert Z. and DeVries, Johannes J. (Tech. Coord.) 1987. Proceedings of the California Watershed Management Conference, 18-20 November 1986, West Sacramento, California. Report No. 11. Berkeley, California: Wildland Resource Center, Feb.

70. Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered Species Act. http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/ESACT.html Last viewed 3/6/10.

71. Margolin, Malcolm. 1993. “The Way We Lived: California Indian Stories, Songs & Reminiscences.” Berkeley: Heyday Books, as cited by Norgaard, Kari. 2004. “The Effects of Altered Diet on the Health of the Karuk People: A Preliminary Report. Written Under Contract by The Karuk Tribe of California: Department of Natural Resources Water Quality Program.” California: Karuk Tribe of California.

72. Coleman, Penny. National Indian Gaming Commission. NP, ND. Last accessed 8 November 2009. <http://www.nigc.gov/LinkClick.aspx?link=NIGC+Uploads%2Findianlands%2F17_karuktribeofcalifornia.pdf&tabid=120&mid=957>

73. Stercho, Amy. 2006. “The Importance of Place-based Fisheries to the Karuk Tribe of California: A socio-economic study.” Master’s Thesis Humboldt State University Arcata California, p. 52.

74. Personal communication Ron Reed, 3/7/10.75. USDA Forest Service. Record of Decision. Orleans Ranger District, Six Rivers National

Forest Humboldt County, California Orleans Community Fuels Reduction and Forest Health Project, August 2008. http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/29581_FSPLT1_010918.pdf Last viewed 2/20/10.

76. Salmon River Community Wildfire Protection Plan, October 30, 2007. p. 18 http://www.srrc.org/publications/programs/firefuels/CWPP/SRRC%20Community%20Wildfire%20Protection%20Plan%20Final.pdf Last viewed 2/20/10.


78. Holmlund, Robert, C. 2006. Fish, Forests, Fire, and Freedom: Infringements of Karuk Religions Freedom Through Federal Natural Resource Management. Master’s Thesis. Humboldt State University.

79. Earth Island Institute. Sacred Lands Film Project. G-O Road. http://www.sacredland.org/g-o-road. Last viewed 2/20/10.

80. Professor JeDon Emenhiser, Department of Government & Politics. Humboldt State University. The G-O Road Controversy: American Indian Religion and Public Land. http://sorrel.humboldt.edu/~jae1/emenLyng.html. Last viewed 2/10/10.

81. American Indian Technical Services Report, 1982. “Anthropological Study of the Hupa, Yurok, and Karok Indian Tribes of Northwestern California.” p. 210.


83. Pierce, R. 1991. “The Lower Klamath Fishery: Recent Times.” Lufkin, Alan, editor. California’s Salmon and Steelhead: The Struggle to Restore an Imperiled Resource. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 145. http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft209nb0qn/

84. “On Klamath River, Battle Rages Over Salmon.” The Spokesman-Review. Friday, September 8, 1978. p. 32. Available at http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=D78RAAAAIBAJ&sjid=4O0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6734,2846744&dq=yurok+tribal+fishermen+arrested&hl=en

85. Bell, M. 1991. Karuk: The Upriver People. As quoted in Stercho, J. 2006. “The Importance of Place-based Fisheries to the Karuk Tribe of California: A socio-economic study.” Master’s Thesis Humboldt State University Arcata California.

86. United States Congress. Klamath River Basin Fishery Resources Restoration Act. New Mexico Center for Wildlife Law, University of New Mexico School of Law. 1988. Web. 10 November 2009. <http://wildlifelaw.unm.edu/fedbook/klamfish.html>

87. Title 16, U.S. Code 460ss. http://www.lawserver.com/law/country/us/code/us_code_16_usc_460ss-2 Last viewed 2/23/10.

88. Klamath River Basin Fishery Resource Provisions Act of 1986. Pub. L. 99-552, 27 October 1986. Stat. 100.3080.

89. Humboldt State University. Synopsis, Public Law 100-580, 102 Stat. 2924. http://www.humboldt.edu/~nasp/hoopa.html. Last viewed 2/20/10.

90. Doremus, H. D., & Tarlock, A. D. 2008. Water war in the Klamath Basin: Macho law, combat biology, and dirty politics. Washington DC: Island Press. p. 67-68.

91. Martinez, D. 1995. Karuk Tribal Module of Mainstem Salmon Watershed Analysis: Karuk Ancestral Lands and People as Reference Ecosystem for Eco-cultural Restoration in Collaborative Ecosystem Management. Draft. p. 31.

92. Personal communication, Ron Reed, November 13, 2009.93. Welkos, R. “Illegal West Coast salmon trade thrives.” Los Angeles Times, November,

24, 1981. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=0s8hAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vp4FAAAAIBAJ&pg=1280,605493&dq=yurok+guns&hl=en

94. Jordan, D.L. 1989. “Negotiating Salmon Management on the Klamath River.” as cited in Pinkerton, E. 1989. Co-operative management of local fisheries: New directions for improved management and community development. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. p. 77-78.


96. State of Jefferson Scenic By-Way Highway 96. Web. 1 November 2009. <http://www.jeffersonstate.com/bhelsaple/StateofJeffersonScenicBy.html>

97. Personal communication, Ron Reed, 3/7/10.98. Northwest Forest Plan Historic Overview. Regional Ecosystem Office. NP, ND. Web. 8

November 2009. <http://www.reo.gov/training/historic01.htm>99. The National Park Service National NAGPRA. http://www.nps.gov/history/nagpra/

MANDATES/INDEX.HTM. Last viewed 2/24/10.100. Pacific Southwest Region Tribal Relations Program FY05 Report. US Forest Service.

ND. Web. 8 November 2009. <http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/tribalrelations/dat/reports/fy2005ac/report05.pdf>

101. Personal communication, Sue Terence, 3/4/10102. Terence, M. 2005. “Timber plan meetingV2.” Manuscript.103. Klamath River Basin FisheriesTask Force and Kier Associates. 1991. Long Range Plan for

the Klamath River Basin Conservation Area Fishery Restoration Program. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath River Fishery Resource Office [Yreka, CA.] p. 1-6. Available at http://www.krisweb.com/biblio/gen_usfws_kierassoc_1991_lrp.pdf

104. Salmon River Restoration Council. http://www.srrc.org/aboutus/index.php. Last viewed 2/19/10.

105. Heiken, D. 1992. The Pacific Yew and Taxol: Federal Management of an Emerging Resource. University of Oregon School of Law. J. Envtl. L. & Litig.:175-246.

106. Personal communication, Bill Tripp, Karuk tribal forestry program manager. November 2009.

107. Doremus, H. D., & Tarlock, A. D. 2008. Water war in the Klamath Basin: Macho law, combat biology, and dirty politics. Washington DC: Island Press. p. 74.

108. Parravano V. Babbitt, 70 F.3d 539, 543 (9th Cir. 1995). http://www.msaj.com/cases/Babbitt.htm. Last viewed 3/8/10.

109. Young, Joe. 1993 as cited by Norgaard, Kari. 2004. “The Effects of Altered Diet on the Health of the Karuk People: A Preliminary Report. Written Under Contract by The Karuk Tribe of California: Department of Natural Resources Water Quality Program.” California: Karuk Tribe of California.

110. Norgaard, Kari. 2004. “The Effects of Altered Diet on the Health of the Karuk People: A Preliminary Report. Written Under Contract by The Karuk Tribe of California: Department of Natural Resources Water Quality Program.” California: Karuk Tribe of California.

111. Clarren, R. 2001. No refuge in the Klamath Basin. High Country News, August 13 issue. Available at http://www.hcn.org/issues/208/10647

112. United States Department of Agriculture. Forest Service Six Rivers National Forest. Land and Resource Management Plan. Six Rivers National Forest. 1995. Chapter IV, 33-35. Available at http://fs.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsinternet/!ut/p/c4/04_SzPy8xBz9CP0os3gDfxMDT8MwRydLA1cj72DTUE8TAwjQL8h2VAQAMtzFUw!!/?ss=110510&navtype=BROWSEBYSUBJECT&cid=stelprdb5084033&navid=360000000000000&pnavid=null&position=Not%20Yet%20Determined.Html&ttype=detailfull&pname=Six%20Rivers%20National%20Forest-%20Maps%20&%20Publications.

113. Forest Service National Resource Guide on American Indian and Alaska Native Relations. US Forest Service. April 1997. Web. 8 November 2009. p. 36. http://www.fs.fed.us/people/tribal/

114. U.S. Forest Service. 1998. Ishi-Pishi / Ukonom Ecosystem Analysis. Happy Camp, California: Ukonom and Happy Camp Ranger Districts, Klamath National Forest. 5-27.

115. Personal communication, Bill Tripp, November 14, 2009.116. Personal communication, Jon Martin, March 1, 2010.117. Steinacher Road Decommissioning Project and KRIS Workstation Cooperative

Agreement Number 14-48-11333-9-J107, Project Number 99-319(h)-VI-07 Final Report, January 2001. http://www.fws.gov/yreka/Final-Reports/ehrp/1999-319h-VI-07-KT.pdf

118. “Steinacher Project Update Film. 2000 Available at www.karuk.us119. Offield Mountain Ceremonial Burn Project Memo. A Collaborative Tribal / Federal

Partnership to enhance cultural and subsistence resources while reducing the threat of catastrophic wildfire. No date.

120. Personal communication, Bill Tripp, 11/14/09.121. Personal communication, Jon Martin, 3/1/10.122. Personal communication Ron Reed, 3/7/10.123. USDA Forest Service & U.S. Department of the Interior. 2000. Managing the Impact

of Wildfires on Communities and the Environment, A Report to the President In Response to the Wildfires of 2000. September 8, 2000. http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/hfi/president.pdf

124. Healthy Forests and Rangelands. National Fire Plan. http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/overview/index.shtml. Last viewed 2/24/10.

125. Pacific Northwest National Fire Plan. FAQs. http://www.nwfireplan.gov/faqs.htm#NFP. Last viewed 2/24/10

126. Western Governors’ Association. 2002. A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan. http://www.westgov.org/wga/initiatives/fire/implem_plan.pd

127. Executive Order 13175 - Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments. http://www.epa.gov/fedreg/eo/eo13175.htm

128. Cline, Harry. “Klamath water crisis painful betrayal, ag consultants told.” Farm Press 21 December 2002. <http://westernfarmpress.com/mag/farming_klamath_water_crisis_2/>

129. Mid Klamath Watershed Council Fire & Fuels Program. http://mkwc.org/programs/firefuels/index.html. Last viewed 2/19/10.

130. Pacific Southwest Region Tribal Relations Program FY05 Report. US Forest Service. ND. Web. 8 November 2009. <http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/tribalrelations/dat/reports/fy2005ac/report05.pdf>

131. Associated Press. Tribes protest salmon die-off on Klamath River. Seattle Post Intelligencer. Saturday, October 12, 2002. http://www.seattlepi.com/local/90942_salmon11.shtml

132. Powers, K, Baldwin, P., Buck, E.H., Cody, B.A. 2005, Klamath River Basin Issues and Activities: An Overview. CRS Report for Congress, September 22, 2005. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. p.38. Available at http://www.energy.ca.gov/klamath/documents/CRS_REPORT_RL33098.PDF

133. Bailey, E. Indians Take Fight Against Klamath Dams to Scotland. Los Angeles Times, July 17, 2004. Available at http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jul/17/local/me-klamath17

134. California Department of Fish and Game. September 2002 Klamath River Fish Kill: Final Analysis of Contributing Factors and Impacts. The Resource Agency State of California. July 2009. <http://www.pcffa.org/KlamFishKillFactorsDFGReport.pdf>

135. Stercho, Amy. 2006. “The Importance of Place-based Fisheries to the Karuk Tribe of California: A socio-economic study.” Master’s Thesis Humboldt State University Arcata California.

136. Norgaard, Kari. 2004. “The Effects of Altered Diet on the Health of the Karuk People: A Preliminary Report. Written Under Contract by The Karuk Tribe of California: Department of Natural Resources Water Quality Program.” California: Karuk Tribe of California.

137. Klamath Fishery Management Council. Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 10 October 2008. Web. 11 November 2009. http://www.fws.gov/yreka/kfmc.htm

138. Personal communication Ron Reed, 3/7/10.139. Walter, Jeff. “Karuk Environmental Management Practices Demonstration Area. A

Collaborative Parnership between the Karuk Tribe and Six Rivers National Forest.” Memo to Arch Super, Karuk Tribal Chairperson. Memo to Karuk Chairperson Arch Super, Karuk Tribal, Orleans, CA. 25 July 2005.

140. Mid Klamath Watershed Council. Mid Klamath Tributary Creek Mouth Assessment. The Bella Vista Mid Klamath Creek Mouth Assessment Project Presentation. 2006.

141. Personal Communication, Bill Tripp. November 14, 2009.142. Barnard, Jeff. “Tight Salmon Season Expected; Fishermen Seek Disaster Status.”

Associated Press 12 April 2005. 143. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2007. Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act

Klamath River Coho Salmon Recovery Plan. Prepared by Rogers, F. R., I. V. Lagomarsino and J. A. Simondet for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Long Beach, CA. Available at http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/salmon/MSRA_RecoveryPlan_FINAL.pdf.

144. US Forest Service. Policies Consultation. ND. Last accessed 8 November 2009. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/tribalrelations/consultation.php

145. Karuk Tribe. One Step Closer To Klamath Dam Removal. 13 November 2008. Last accessed 8 November 2009. http://www.karuk.us/press/08-11-13_AIP_release%20Tribes_farmers.pdf

146. Klamath Common Ground Alliance Policy document. www.klamathbasincrisis.org/kcga/KCGAPolicy-Mission122707.doc Last viewed, 3/8/10.

147. Soto, Toz. and Harling Will. Karuk Tribe of California Draft Final Report for DFG Grant #P0610315. Klamath River Tributary Fish Passage Improvement Project. December 31, 2008. Attachment 8 & 9.

148. Personal communication, Ron Reed, 3/7/10.149. Large-Cost Fire Independent Review Panel. 2009. Fiscal Year 2008 Large-Cost Fire

Independent Review. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture. Washington, D.C. p.2 Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/publications/ilwc-panel/report-2008.pdf

150. Western Institute for Study of the Environment. Orleans/Ukonom Complex Fires. http://westinstenv.org/f iretrack/2008/06/24/orleansukonom-complex-f ires/2008. Last accessed 2/23/10.

151. Tucker, Craig. Governor Signs Bill Banning In Stream Dredge Mining For Gold. Karuk Tribe. 6 August 2009. Last accessed 8 November 2009. http://www.karuk.us/press/09-08-06%20Gov%20signs%20SB%20670%20Final.pdf

152. Siskiyou County Prescribed Fire Council. www.firesafesiskiyou.org. Last accessed 2/19/10.

153. Yardley, W. “Pacts Signed to Help River and Salmon.” New York Times, February 18, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/us/19klamath.html

154. Walters, H. “Battle of Orleans.” North Coast Journal, December 24, 2009. Available at http://www.northcoastjournal.com/issues/2009/12/24/battle-orleans/

155. Raphael, R., & House, F. 2007. Two peoples, one place. Humboldt history, v. 1. Eureka, CA: Humboldt County Historical Society for the Writing Humboldt History Project. p. 110.

156. Isely, Mary B. 1970. Uncommon controversy; fishing rights of the Muckleshoot, Puyallup, and Nisqually Indians. A report prepared for the American Friends Service Committee. Seattle: University of Washington Press. p.48-75.

Copyr ight © by the authors: S iby l Diver, L isa L iu , Naomi Canchela, Sara Rose Tannenbaum,

Rafael S i lberblatt , and Ron Reed

Contact : sd [email protected] vers ion: June 29, 2010

NOTES

1944 First use of Smokey the Bear generates public support for fire suppression44;53;54

The image of Smokey is developed following an earlier wartime campaign against wildfire threats to the nation’s forests. Disney’s fawn“Bambi” is a first preference for a campaign symbol, but a bear is chosen instead due to copyright issues. The first poster of Smokey Bear is printed depicting a bear pouring a bucket of water on a campfire.

1946 Congress establishes the Indian Claims Commission156

The Commission is created to expedite claims by tribes, which feel they have been wronged by the U.S. government.

1953 House Concurrent Resolution 108 is passed, forwarding “termination” policy156

The Resolution declares it to be the “sense of Congress” that the unique trust relationship between the U.S. government and Indian tribes – meaning the federal government’s legal responsibility to provide for tribes’ basic needs – be terminated at the earliest possible date. This was an assimilation policy that later became known as “termination.”

1960 Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960 is passed59

US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management must ensure “sustained yield” and “the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of high-level annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the national forests without impairment of the productivity of the land.”

1964 Wilderness Areas are established in the Klamath Basin5

Areas include parts of the Trinity Alps and Marble Mountains; the designation prohibits timber harvest and road development.

1934 Congress passes the Indian Reorganization Act (Wheeler-Howard Act)156

The Act allows federally recognized tribes to organize representative tribal governments and aims to prevent alienation of tribal trust lands.

late 1970s The Forest Service initiates planning to build a seventy-five mile primary road through Karuk sacred sites78;79;80

Called the “G-O Road” (Gasquet-Orleans Road), the project would allow logging in a section of Six Rivers National Forest, considered a sacred place by the Karuk Tribe and other tribes. The project would include building 400 miles of secondary logging roads. Two lower court rulings decide the G-O Road would violate Native American freedom of religion, and the case is taken to the Supreme Court, where the tribes lose the case.

1976 Public health concerns lead to suspension of herbicide aerial spraying73

Of the 24 pregnancies serviced at the Orleans health clinic in 1976, one-third ended in miscarriages after the first trimester, one child was born with deformities, and three were molar pregnancies. Public pressure leads to the suspension of applications of 2,4,5-T on local forestlands.

1978 Karuk Tribe and the State Fish and Game Department begin cooperation on chinook salmon rearing projects81

Late 1970s Fish wars over Indian fishing rights occur in the Klamath82

Court rulings determine that states cannot regulate Indian fishing rights. The Bureau of Indian Affairs takes over Indian fishery management, and briefly opens the lower Klamath to Indian gillnet fishing for subsistence and commercial harvest in 1977. Intense conflict ensues between Indian and non-Indian fishers. In response to public pressure against Indians, a moratorium on Indian commercial fishing is put in place in 1978.

1978 A “strike force” of federal agents and park police closes the Indian net fishery in midseason83;84

Three groups -- a sportfishing organization called the Klamath River Basin Task Force, Del Norte County, and the Hoopa Valley Business Council -- collaborate to place a moratorium on commercial Indian gillnet fishing pending completion of an environmental impact statement.

THEMES land claimforest and plantsfire fish and wildlife traditional foods and tribal healthracial violence and discrimination water quality, dams and floodstribal self-determinationACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many thanks to those who provided essential guidance, support, and creativity towards our project:

Karuk-UC Berkeley Collaborative, co-founded by Ron Reed, Tom Carlson, and Jennifer Sowerwine; Karuk Department of Natural Resources; Marcia McNally, Randy Hester, and our citizen participation class at UC Berkeley;

all student artists, teachers, and community members who participated in the Klamath Art Contest; all contributing artists

Featured Artwork: Hoopa High School: Karuk Language Class, Devon Tygart, Brianna Conrad, Rocky Bright, Jenevra Clifford, Christian Robinson, Taylor Cortes, Nathan Hunter Brickell, Chelsea King, Angelica Garrison, Mitch Hokanson, Shawn Hillman, Royale Pinassi

River Collage Artwork: Sydney Snider, Roselyn Soto, Noah Easter, Chaas Hillman, Nicknekich Hillman, Maranda Mae Powers, Jacob Rachal, Emily Parry, Cody Haskell, Kara Brink, Cierra Eve Rhodes Silva, Jessica Williams, Ryan Reed, Rudolf Galindo, Timmy Watson, Cody Sindle,

Emma Boykin, Reed Cabot, Mitch Hokanson, Jenevra Clifford, Virusur Watson, and Royale Pinassi

This work is l i censed under the Creat ive Commons Attr ibut ion-NonCommercia l -ShareAl ike 3.0 Unported L icense.

1850-1854 1855-1869 1870-1899 1900-1919 1920-1929 1930 … · 2010. 10. 3. · 1855-1869 1860s Some...

Documents

Transcript of 1850-1854 1855-1869 1870-1899 1900-1919 1920-1929 1930 … · 2010. 10. 3. · 1855-1869 1860s Some...