Full Text
Section 4: Consultation and Coordination 4.1 Public Notices 4.1.1 Determination of Significance/Scoping Notice The Klickitat County planning department determined that the proposed overlay has potential significant impact and that an EIS is necessary. The determination and public scoping notice was issued on June 6, 2002, and was published in the following three news agencies: • Goldendale Sentinel • White Salmon Enterprise • Washington Bureau of the Associate Press (Olympia) In addition, the notice was mailed to the following agencies: • Bonneville Power Administration, Portland • Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation (Clifford Washines), Toppenish • Confederated Tribes of Warms Springs Reservation • Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC), Olympia • Klickitat Public Utility District, Goldendale • Oregon Office of Energy • Skamania Public Utility District, Carson • State Environmental Policy Act Register (Ecology), Olympia • Umatilla Indian Confederated Tribes, Pendleton • United States Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle • United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey • Washington Energy Office, Bonneville Power Administration • Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation • Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development • Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia • Washington State Department of Ecology, Yakima • Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Lyle • Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Product Sales and Leasing • Washington State Department of Transportation, Goldendale • Washington State Department of Transportation, Vancouver Klickitat County Energy Overlay FEIS Page 4-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- The notice included information on the location of a public meeting on the EIS scoping, which was held in Goldendale on June 27, 2002. 4.2 Scoping Meeting and Comments Klickitat County held a public meeting on the scope of the EIS on June 27, 2002, and accepted written scoping comments through July 5, 2002. Klickitat County has a recording of the public hearing and has copies of written responses on file. The scoping meeting provided information on the proposed EIS scope and solicited additional scope comments. The comments received that were pertinent to the scope of the document are summarized below. 4.2.1 Oral Comments Given at Scoping Meeting 1. Comment: Address public safety issues. Of particular concern is the safety of gas pipelines. Response: Pipeline safety and other impacts to public safety will be considered in the EIS. 2. Comment: Need more information and outreach. Response: The County will follow SEPA requirements for public notices and will maintain a list of interested parties for information. Additional approaches for public participation will be available through regulation development and comprehensive plan amendment process. 3. Comment: Request more information; wanted to know what agencies have been notified. Response: List of notified agencies provided in Section 6.1.1 above. 4. Comment: Concerns that cultural resources and water impacts are addressed Response: Cultural resources and water impacts are addressed in EIS. 5. Comment: Why was one avian study point not in county; wants more information on scientific methods of study; five months of avian study data is insufficient. Response: The WEST report in Appendix B describes the statistical approach used to sample bird data; the locations were chosen based on representing the avian use in the region and practical considerations of site access. 6. Comment: Timing of EIS process was too fast. Response: The EIS process is following all SEPA procedural requirements. 7. Comment: Why is hydroelectric not being covered. Response: Hydroelectric was considered in the initial technology screening alternative analysis, but was considered beyond the scope of the overlay because of limited reasonable opportunities for development in the county. Klickitat County Energy Overlay FEIS Page 4-2 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8. Comment: Areas of concern include: solar resources information, utility grid capacity, and roads. Response: These areas of concern are specifically addressed in the EIS. 9. Comment: It is inappropriate to lump wind and thermal energy under one plan– should be separate overlays. Response: The EIS analyzes each technology The overlay area, as proposed, includes wind and other technologies, but mitigation is based on the individual characteristics of each technology. 10. Comment: Asked for economic analysis of benefits Response: Economic benefit analysis is not required under SEPA. However, certain socioeconomic issues are addressed in Section 3.11 11. Comment: Concerns for impacts to scenic area; concerns that county regulations will not fit with Scenic Act requirements. Response: The overlay specifically excludes the and the visual impact analysis identifies areas that can be seen from scenic areas and highways. 12. Comment: Concerns about power grid capacity Response: Impacts to power grid are addressed in EIS 13. Comment: Wants water, noise and pollution aspects of gas power plants addressed. Response: These aspects and impacts are considered in the EIS 14. Comment: Concerned that wind plants kill birds including endangered species and create noise and visual pollution Response: The EIS includes considerable effort to analyze impact to birds, including a county-specific study by WEST, Inc.; noise and visual impacts of wind facilities are specifically addressed in the EIS. 15. Comment: Energy production will lead to “industrialization” of county leading to impacts to roads, infrastructure; need to maintain rural character of county. Response: Impacts to land use, roads, and public services are considered in the EIS. Also, wind, but supporting rural uses, can help maintain rural character. 16. Comment: The County should complete critical areas ordinance first. Response: This comment is beyond the scope of the Comprehensive Plan EIS; however, the EIS does consider impacts to sensitive habitats, and a critical area ordinance is in effect. 17. Comment: Each project should be assessed individually. Klickitat County Energy Overlay FEIS Page 4-3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Response: The overlay ordinance will provide for consideration of impacts of each project and will include SEPA review; the purpose of the overlay is to avoid piecemeal analysis that does not address overall impacts. 18. Comment: The whole county is in a flood zone– how will that be addressed? Response: The EIS did not find that the whole county is in a flood zone; however, flood zones are not necessarily excluded from the overlay as projects can be sited to avoid them or appropriate mitigation can be developed. 4.2.2 Written Comments Written comments were received from several agencies, groups and private parties. Pertinent comments and responses are summarized below. 1. Comment: There has been no public discussion of the desire for energy development in Klickitat County. Response: Public input on the desire for energy development is beyond the scope of an EIS; however, the EIS does discuss the need for the Overlay, based on the demand for energy development in the County. The public comment period on the DEIS provides an opportunity for input, as will the public process of adopting the overlay ordinance and comprehensive plan amendment process. 2. Comment: There is no benefit to the public in conducting this PEIS. Response: The benefits of the Overlay and EIS are discussed in Section 2. 3. Comment: The Scope of the EIS is too broad. Response: Because this is a programmatic EIS, it is by nature broad. The EIS attempts to narrow the scope through geographic and technology alternatives screening and analysis. There will be additional opportunity to narrow the scope of the Overlay through the ordinance adoption process. 4. Comment: Critical Areas should be designated first. Response: The County has a Critical Areas Ordinance in place. 5. Comment: There is concern for Potential Impacts to the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Response: The proposed Overlay excludes the 6. Comment: The Overlay could impact air quality in the Response: Air quality impacts are considered in the EIS; however project specific modeling in connection with issuing air permits will provide more detailed assessment of potential air quality impacts. 7. Comment: The EIS must identify economic and social impacts of the proposed Overlay. Response: Economic impact analysis is not required by SEPA; however, socioeconomic impacts as they relate to public services are included in section 3.11 of the EIS. Klickitat County Energy Overlay FEIS Page 4-4 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8. Comment: To reduce avian mortality, turbines should be placed away from critical areas such as near cliff faces, and equipment should be state of the art. Response: The EIS includes an extensive study of impacts to birds and bats and provides proposed mitigation including avoiding cliff faces and using state of the art turbine and tower designs. 9. Comment: Impacted wildlife habitat should be restored using native vegetation; revegetation of difficult to establish habitats should be conducted at 3:1 ratio; noxious weeds should be controlled Response: These and other mitigation measures are suggested in the EIS; however, the EIS does not suggest specific revegetation ratios. Site specific restoration plans consistent with the County’s development regulation and state and federal regulations are recommended. Developments will be required to comply with the County’s existing noxious weed control program and ordinance and other mitigation developed during project review. 10. Comment: Priority Habitats should not be lost. Response: The EIS identifies a number of sensitive habitats and recommends site specific studies and management plans for habitat issues. 11. Comment: Wildlife studies should be conducted appropriately, including one-year pre- project assessments for bird use and mortality monitoring. Response: The EIS includes a county wide avian study that will help avoid bird impacts through appropriate siting. The EIS suggests potential monitoring as a mitigation measure. 12. Comment: Direct losses of wildlife caused by turbines should be compensated. Response: Evaluating compensation as a mitigation measure was not included in the EIS because there is no existing regulatory mechanism for such a compensation program; however mitigation to minimize wildlife loss is suggested. 13. Comment: An April through September period for natural resource evaluations is unreasonable. Response: The avian study period was designed to cover key breeding and migration periods. The EIS reviewed WDF&W and other species databases that have been collected over several decades. The EIS also recommends site-specific studies. 14. Comment: The EIS should include all areas of concern listed in the scoping handout given at the 27 June 2002 scoping meeting. Response: The scope of the EIS includes assessment of impacts to a) animals and plants including birds, b) sensitive habitats including wetlands, c) cultural resources, d) zoning/land use/scenic areas, e) water availability and use, f) air quality, g) noise, flood and geologic hazards, i) transmission and infrastructure, and j) soil and geologic impacts. The EIS also addresses public safety, socioeconomic impacts, and visual impacts based on scoping comments. Klickitat County Energy Overlay FEIS Page 4-5 ---PAGE BREAK--- 15. Comment: There needs to be a trigger for review and regulation when site evaluations are conducted that identify issues such as wetlands, habitat, cultural resources, etc. Response: The EIS recommends site specific studies for these issues; siting of an energy facility within the Overlay can be denied through the existing SEPA review process and presumably, through provisions in the proposed Overlay. 16. Comment: Any proposed hydroelectric projects should address potential impacts to water temperature and total dissolved gas. Response: See response to comment 17. Comment: The Overlay should encourage energy projects that produce the least amount of air pollution; SEPA review of projects should analyze potential impacts to visibility in the Response: The technology screening alternatives proposes to exclude diesel and coal fired power plants from the overlay because these technologies have the greatest air quality impacts. Impacts to air quality may be included in SEPA review of individual projects. 18. Comment: The comprehensive plan amendments should consider protecting shorelands and wetlands. Response: The Overlay does not circumvent existing federal and state wetland and shoreline protection regulations including the Shoreline Management Act. 19. Comment: Please provide text of Energy Overlay Zone and map of area to be included. Response: The proposed amendments were drafted based on the impact findings and recommended mitigation measures of this EIS and is attached. Maps of the geographic alternative are included as Figure 1-1 in the EIS. 20. Please provide an explanation as to why the current zoning procedures are not sufficient for handling the location of energy generating facilities. Response: The need for the project is discussed in Section 1.2 of the EIS. 4.3 Draft EIS Availability Klickitat County issued a public notice on the availability of the draft EIS on August 6, 2003, through notices in the following news agencies: • Klickitat County Monitor • White Salmon Enterprise • Washington Bureau of the Associate Press (Olympia) The County extended the public comment period by 30 days to October 3, 2003. The Draft EIS was available for viewing at the following locations: Klickitat County Energy Overlay FEIS Page 4-6 ---PAGE BREAK--- Klickitat County Planning Department Goldendale Public Library White Salmon Public Library Date Comments Due on Draft EIS: October 3, 2003 Date of Issue of Final EIS: September 3, 2004 4.4 Distribution List The County sent notices regarding the availability of the DEIS and soliciting comments to the agencies and interested parties listed below. Agencies: • Bonneville Power Administration, Portland • Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC), Olympia • Klickitat Public Utility District, Goldendale • Oregon Office of Energy • Skamania Public Utility District, Carson • State Environmental Policy Act Register (Ecology), Olympia • United States Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle • United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey • Washington Energy Office, Bonneville Power Administration • Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation • Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development • Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia • Washington State Department of Ecology, Yakima • Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Lyle • Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Product Sales and Leasing • Washington State Department of Transportation, Goldendale • Washington State Department of Transportation, Vancouver Interested Parties: • Bookmyer, Brad White Salmon, Washington • Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation (Carroll Palmer), Toppensih Washington • Confederated Tribes of Warms Springs Reservation, Warm Springs, Oregon • Friends of the Columbia Gorge (Nathan Baker), Portland, Oregon • Haymon, Rachel Trout Lake, Washington • McMahan, Timothy Stoel Rives LLP, Vancouver, Washington • River Ford Farm, Trout Lake Washington • Snowden Community Council (Chris Connolly), White Salmon, Washington Klickitat County Energy Overlay FEIS Page 4-7 ---PAGE BREAK--- • Snowden Community Council (Kathleen P. von Mosch, White Salmon, Washington • Umatilla Indian Confederated Tribes, Pendleton • Wolff, Benjamin, Lee, Vancouver, Washington Klickitat County Energy Overlay FEIS Page 4-8