Salazar responds to Wally Herger’s Klamath settlement inquiry 

Salazar’s letter is a response to an inquiry made March 29 by Herger in which Herger asks a number of questions regarding the processes behind the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) and Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), two agreements tied to the possible removal of four dams along the Klamath River and a plan for alleviating water disputes and restoring the basin’s fisheries.

Specifically, Herger made six requests of Salazar, the answers to which Salazar includes in his response.

The first request asks for a summary of any review performed by the United States Department of the Interior (DOI) regarding the decommissioning of the four dams before and after the DOI became a signatory to the agreements.

Salazar states in his response that federal employees in the DOI, Department of Commerce, Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency “have informally reviewed hundreds of reports and documents” prepared as part of the relicensing process for the dams by “various agencies, tribes, PacifiCorp, and consultants that address not only dam decommissioning but also hydrology, sedimentation, and water quality.”

According to Salazar, those reports have been shared with stakeholder groups and have been discussed with the county supervisors.

Asked for the criteria that will be used to determine if dam decommissioning, which is required for dam removal, is in the public interest, Salazar lists potential impacts to agriculture, commercial fisheries, hydropower, recreation, real estate values, tax revenues, tribal sustenance fishing, commercial fishing, tribal health, tribal trust resources, wildlife and fisheries resources and the potential value of ecosystem restoration.

Salazar also explains that the DOI, during the processes, is subject to all laws applicable to review studies, including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act, including others that may be identified in the process.

Asked which agency or agencies will have primary responsibility for conducting the studies that will inform the dam decision, Salazar notes that agencies such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the United States Forest Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the United States Geological Survey and others are participating in the study work, along with outside contractors like CDM.

To answer the final question, Salazar states that the “DOI will require a peer review for all influential and interpretive scientific reports produced during the Secretarial Determination process.” He explains that for the “influential and interpretive” reports, two independent peer reviewers will be used, with the respective comments made part of the public record.

Authors’ responses to the peer reviewers’ comments will also be made a part of the public record, according to Salazar, who adds that an accountable official will act as a “referee” to ensure adequate responses to peer reviewers’ comments.

Both Herger’s and Salazar’s letters can be viewed at http://www.co.siskiyou.ca.us/BOS/bos.aspx.