By David Smith,
Siskiyou Daily News Aug 12, 2010
Yreka, Calif. —
Hoping to add protections for the county to Klamath dam
legislation, the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors on
Tuesday approved a draft of proposed amendments to be
sent to numerous representatives.
The legislation, released
from but not drafted by Representative Mike Thompson’s
office, would ratify the Klamath Hydroelectric
Settlement Agreement (KHSA) and Klamath Basin
Restoration Agreement (KBRA).
The KHSA details the
process through which the secretary of the Interior will
determine whether or not four dams and associted
hydroelectric facilities on the Klamath River will be
removed in an effort to open up river mileage for salmon
spawning. Both agreements require legislation in order
for the actions prescribed within to be carried out.
In a letter accompanying
the county’s initial amendment requests, it is stated
that supervisors feel the county’s concerns have not
been addressed by the legislation and that there is a
failure to ensure adherence to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
“The legislation in its
current form does not require that the proposals in the
KHSA and KBRA receive a full NEPA and CEQA review prior
to the Secretarial Determination,” the letter reads.
The draft legislation
states, “The Secretary, in cooperation with the
Secretary of Commerce and other entities, shall use
existing information, conduct any further appropriate
studies, prepare an environmental document under the
National Environmental Policy Act ... and take such
other actions as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate to support the Secretarial determination.”
CEQA requirements are not
discussed in the legislation, however, the KHSA states
that the governors of California and Oregon, signatories
to the agreement, will have to concur with the
secretary’s decision after appropriate review, including
CEQA review.
The county’s letter also
references the environmental review and secretarial
review being on “separate tracks,” with the secretarial
determination track focused on two scenarios – dams
removed or dams in place.
Dennis Lynch, program
manager for the Klamath Secretarial Determination
Technical Management Team, stated in a meeting May 6 in
Mount Shasta that while the secretarial determination
track considers the one alternative, the NEPA and
CEQA track will explore multiple alternatives, both
generated by the review team and submitted by the
public.
Lynch stated then that the
two tracks are both intended to inform the secretary’s
decision, which must be made by March of 2012, but may
be made as early as November of 2011.
The county disputes that in
its letter, stating, “We also believe this bifurcated
approach violates both NEPA and CEQA, as once the
Secretarial Determination is made, the decision to
proceed is final; before completing the NEPA and CEQA
process.”
The draft legislation also
touches on the execution and implementation of the KBRA,
which features a restoration plan for the Klamath Basin
with a proposed appropriation of $1,006,970,019 for the
time period from 2012 to 2022 to cover restoration
activities.
According to the
legislation, “In implementing the Restoration Agreement,
the Secretaries shall comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ... the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 ... and all other applicable
environmental Acts and regulations.”
Thus far, meetings held for
the public and stakeholders have covered the studies
underway to meet the goal of informing the secretary’s
determination as to whether “facilities removal (1) will
advance restoration of the salmonid fisheries of the
Klamath Basin, and (2) is in the public interest, which
includes, but is not limited to, consideration of
potential impacts on affected local communities and
Tribes.”
In the technical meeting in
May, studies on potential economic, fisheries, and
social impacts from dam removal were discussed, but
studies regarding the implementation of the KBRA were
not.
The county, in its draft
amendments, aims to ensure that the study of certain
impacts are required by the legislation, including what
contaminants, if any exist in the sediment behind the
dams; the availability, cost and environmental impact of
providing energy sources equal to those being lost; the
availability, cost and environmental impacts associated
with providing alternative water sources to Yreka and
the county; the cultural, religious and economic impact
of removing each facility on the Karuk, Yurok, Hoopa and
Shasta tribes; actions necessary to restore lakebeds,
shorelines and riverbanks impacted by facilities
removal; the number, type and economic value of jobs
that will be lost, in whole or in part, because of
facilities removal; and the revenue impact of removing
each facility in the county and the cities within it.
The county also requests
that a mitigation plan be required that addresses the
potential impacts named above, among others, as well as
requiring that the plan be put in place before dams are
removed.
The county’s amendments, if
approved, would also require that funds necessary for
implementing the mitigation plan, all permits and
authorizations and assurances for payments in leiu of
taxes and secure rural schools funding be acquired
before dam removal occurs.
A final amendment in the
county’s letter would change the definition of
“facilities removal” to include “measures to avoid,
minimize, mitigate, and compensate for the direct and
indirect environmental, economic, energy, and social
impacts” identified in the previous amendment and “all
permits or or other authorizations required by any unit
of government for any action or measure referred to in
this paragraph.”
At Tuesday’s meeting, the
board approved the draft letter with the amendments, and
directed staff to send copies to Thompson and to the
members of the House Natural Resources Committee.
