Supervisors reject BLM proposal

YREKA - The Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) recommendation to acquire more land along the Klamath River as part of its Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement process was not favorably received by the Siskiyou County Supervisors.

The BLM recommendation, one of four options under consideration relating to the 20 mile segment of the Klamath River five miles of which are in California, is an option the supervisors have said following several presentations is unacceptable to them. It involves removing land now owned by PacifiCorp out of private ownership and into the public ownership of BLM, something that would further reduce the tax base of Siskiyou County and reduce agricultural potential.

BLM Environmental Coordinator Don Hoffheins from Klamath Falls, Ore. said BLM is obligated to make a recommendation from the four alternatives under consideration. The environmental document was released in May and the public comment period closes in August.

Those alternatives, in brief, include: 1. no change, 2. actions on the river to resolve management conflicts between Oregon and California, 3. resource enhancement with additional land acquisition to "manage it in a more natural way" and letting more water go down river for fish, and 4. expanding human-use opportunities.

Hoffheins said Alternative 3 is BLM's preferred one because it "follows a natural resource enhancement theme while allowing public recreation oriented use comparable to current levels."

Alternative 3 is also the one that places the maximum amount of private land into the public domain and reduces the most miles of roads. The supervisors expressed disappointment about the BLM recommendation, especially after voicing strong opposition to this alternative.

"This whole thing stinks," Hoy said. "What seems funny to me is that in the last two years PacifiCorp property comes to the forefront when BLM has a say in the relicensing."

Presently PacifiCorp, owned by Scottish Power, is in the preliminary stages of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's relicensing process for several of its power plants on the Klamath River. BLM claims that the power company came to them to consider purchasing surplus land not related to the generation of power.

Hoy said he is suspicious that PacifiCorp is being "encouraged" to give up land holdings along the Klamath River in exchange for a favorable BLM recommendation for the continuation of its hydroelectric plants on the river. He requested an agenda item in August concerning BLM property and possibly a petition to the Washington, D.C. office to turn over title of BLM land to Siskiyou County.

"Siskiyou County does not favor private lands going public," Supervisor Marcia Armstrong said, "but here again we see BLM acquiring land - a disappointing thing."

Armstrong referred to a recent Six Rivers National Forest decision where she said grazing was ruled contrary to wild and scenic river use.

PacifiCorp presently has granted grazing leases to portions of this land now under consideration for BLM acquisition. The FERC process also has a contingency of environmentalists pushing for the removal of the dams on the Klamath River.

"I do not like this land deal as a conditions to FERC licensing," Armstrong said.

Supervisor Joan Smith, who serves this area, said she is likewise opposed to BLM's Alternate 3 recommendation and desires to protect grazing, a topic of discussion and concern at a recent meeting of residents around Copco Lake.

"I am opposed to Alternate 3, especially the land trade issue," Smith said. "Taking private land out of the county is not acceptable."

Smith is also concerned about the restrictions on peak power production in the proposal.

Siskiyou County Natural Resource Specialist Jim DePree said Alternative 3 is a fish emphasis and limits electrical peaking, something that will affect PacifiCorp's revenue and rafting.

He said hydroelectric plants are better suited to providing peak power and the extra flow of water benefits the rafting industry using the river. FERC relicensing will take several years and will be in process through 2006 or beyond.

"What is wrong with the river right now?" Hoy asked. "I am not sure there is a problem. Right now our emphasis is on cooperative management, something BLM apparently does not want to see."

County Administrator Howard Moody said BLM is getting ahead of the FERC process; too far ahead, by at least two years.

"We are trying to cure a problem that does not exist and I fear this will create unknown problems," Supervisor Bill Overman said. "We should not try to change the river flow or limit our ability to reduce the fire hazard there."

Reviewing the history leading up to the management plan process, Hoffheins said BLM created a plan in 1983 that only addresses rafting and not the values for the wild and scenic river designation. BLM is required to update its management plans about every 10 years.

Since then, a 15 mile section in Oregon was designed an Oregon Scenic Waterway. In 1995 the contiguous five miles in California was designated an area of critical environmental concern, requiring the development of a management plan.

"We are doing it now because of the relicensing process with PacifCorp," Hoffiheins said. "We are developing management actions to manage the land in this section and incorporating it into the process of relicensing."

He said that presently BLM owns only 200 acres in the five mile California section. The rest is owned by PacifCorp and other private land owners. A total 6,860 acres, of which 5,830 are in California, are being considered for acquisition. The area of critical environmental concern includes all the land to the rim of the canyon.

BLM claims that their preferred Alternative 3 will provide the greatest fuel reduction, camping at a preferred level, and recreation at the current level. The agency said that riparian species will benefit the most with base flows out of the J.C. Boyle Dam favoring aquatic resources rather than whitewater rafting. It also creates the largest management area with most amount of land exchanged. - By John Diehm

Hadn't read that one. Thanks for posting. I said a few stronger "cherce woids."

This is the second BLM push for land takeover in that region. To the immediate west is the Horseshoe Ranch. The BLM has that scheduled for possible expansion by acquisition of private lands out west to I-5 and south to the Klamath. They want to own it all and annex it to the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument to the immediate north in Oregon.

Apparently, because of its biological diversity, the extreme enviros see the area as a mystical place where the creatures of the ark unloaded and will load up again.

Apparently, because of its biological diversity, the extreme enviros see the area as a mystical place

I suspect the reason for the attack location is that there's a low population density and they think they can win due to limited resistance. I doubt that they understand the resolve of those who have stayed.
The disaster of the parks in Santa Cruz County have made it clear why the 'Commons' are a disaster. I, for one, will do everything in my power to keep private property in the hands of citizens. It might be a good time to launch a counter attack. I'd love to buy some BLM land so that it can be healed.
I actually tried to buy a part of an acre in the KNF where we have a mining claim. It is contiguous to the site where our house now is. I was told that it was virtually impossible to do because of red tape. We now maintain it for weeds and fire...for free. (although, if we get caught, it'll probably cost us)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.