TMDLs are set levels of contaminants that are discharged into a river,
as well as naturally occurring contaminants, which act as a regulatory
tool on those who discharge into rivers and their tributaries.
After the presentation from David Leland of the NCRWQCB, the
organization’s board members had time to ask questions about the
process. One board member asked how the model was developed for the
TMDLs on the Klamath.
Matt St. John, a staff member with the NCRWQCB, said that with respect
to the Klamath TMDL model, an agreement was reached between the
Environmental Protection Agency and PacifiCorp to utilize a model
created by a consultant for PacifiCorp.
St. John said that the consulting firm Tetratech was used to make
modifications to the model based on comments from the United States
Bureau of Reclamation, as well as various professionals in watershed
science.
“We take the concerns about the model seriously,” St. John said. He also
explained that recently the United States Geological Survey had
expressed concerns about the model.
Another board question was whether or not the Klamath TMDL would change
or affect the TMDLs already in place on tributaries such as the Shasta
and Scott rivers.
Leland said that the current TMDLs will remain in place until the end of
their term in about five years. A follow-up question was asked if there
would need to be a new public process if any changes were to be made to
those TMDLs, and Leland said that there would be.
The first public commenters to speak were members of the Siskiyou County
Board of Supervisors, with board chair Michael Kobseff stating that he
believes “the current draft does not recognize the achievements of
landowners on the Scott and Shasta.”
Kobseff claimed that the draft TMDL does not take into account the
contaminants flowing into California from Oregon. He also expressed his
desire to see the deadline for commenting extended due to the
“uncertainty” surrounding the model.
Supervisors Jim Cook, Marcia Armstrong and Grace Bennett also spoke,
voicing concerns about the addition of regulations on agriculture and
timber harvest, flooding and the way the draft TMDL is written.
Tom Guarino, Siskiyou County counsel, stated that Siskiyou County
objects to the representation of John W. Corbett on the board because of
Corbett’s affiliation with the Yurok Tribe, which is one of the groups
advocating for dam removal, as the group’s senior legal counsel.
The legal counsel for the NCRWQCB said that a review of Corbett’s
affiliation did not find any evidence that he would have a conflict of
interest.
Guarino also contested that staff from the NCRWQCB have been involved in
the closed-door negotiations regarding the proposed removal of four
PacifiCorp dams along the Klamath River. The NCRWQCB’s counsel responded
by saying that staff has had limited participation in the meetings, but
the agency is not a lead negotiator.
Asked by the board to clarify his statements, Guarino said, “I am
leveling the charge that board and staff are inappropriately involved
with dam negotiations.”
A number of comments were presented regarding the perceived effects that
the speakers believed would come about from implementation of the
Klamath TMDL. Mirroring the written comments Leland had summed up,
comments were divided between those who wanted to see the TMDLs
implemented and those who were opposed.
Jeff Fowle, a member of the Siskiyou County Farm Bureau as well as the
Siskiyou County Planning Commission, said, “What this TMDL implies with
basin-wide regulation of agriculture activities is unreasonable.”
Fowle stated that a flaw he sees in the model is that it treats the
Klamath as a cold water fishery. He said that he believes the Klamath is
a “conduit to the ocean and cold water tributaries.” He said that
treating the Shasta as a cold water fishery has increased the targeted
Coho populations, but Chinook populations in that tributary have
decreased.
Fowle also said that he believes that the setting back of international
fish boundaries in the 1970s adversely impacted the number of salmon
available to spawn, stating that he believes there should be a study to
find an accurate ratio of outbound juveniles to incoming spawners.
“Until we get the adults to spawn, we will not have a healthy fishery,” Fowle
said.
Kevin Collins, a commercial fisherman, said that up until the mid-1970s
the port at Eureka was filled with boats, but now there are none. He
claimed that four out of five fishermen in that area had gone out of
business due to declining fish numbers.
Collins also disputed Fowle’s claim that international waters had been
opened to other nations for fishing.
Collins said, “We should not have to sacrifice for upriver
benefit.” However, he said that fishermen appreciate the food provided
by farmers, but “we feel we should be able to produce food too.”
The next steps, according to Leland, are to review all comments and
prepare written responses, in most cases according to common themes.
NCRWQCB staff will also prepare their recommendations for changes to the
draft TMDL, which will then be presented to the board.
Readers Comments:
grant
4 days ago
The SCBS counsel objects to inclusion of a Yurok attorney due to
some kind of conflict of interest?
Since when did the SCBS represent anyone except the cow industry?
Isn't there a conflict when Guarino represents that he speaks for
Siskiyou country residents and in truth he's just representing the
cow interests?
dww
4 days ago
Looks and sounds like a lot of finger pointing to me. On the
government's side, we are just following guidelines, numbers,
etc. On the public's side, we want input, sources of data,
honest inpact statements, a seat at the table, etc. But it
really sounds like this train has already left the station.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who
have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for
non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml