[env-trinity] Times-Standard-Comment period for Klamath dams removal environmental report extended to Dec. 30

[Tom Stokely]

Comment period for Klamath dams removal environmental report extended to Dec. 30

The Times-Standard
Posted: 11/19/2011 02:19:02 AM PST
http://www.times-standard.com/ci_19372532?IADID=Search-www.times-standard.com-www.times-standard.com 
The deadline for comments on the Klamath dams removal project's environmental impact report has been extended to Dec. 30, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced Friday.
Dennis Lynch, program manager for the Secretarial Determination on Klamath River dam removal, said the deadline was extended to give the public more time to review the environmental impact statement (EIS) and environmental impact report (EIR) documents.
The document will help U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar decide if the project is in the public interest. Salazar has until the end of March to decide on the project, which removes four dams from the Klamath River and initiates restoration work.
”The decision to remove or retain four Klamath River dams is of immense importance to the many Klamath Basin communities,” he said in a news release. “In addition to the peer-reviewed science and the environmental analysis, public comments on the draft EIS/EIR is also an important and critical component in shaping this decision. The Department of the Interior and the California Department of Fish and Game listened to the numerous requests to extend the comment period on this lengthy draft EIS/EIR and determined that it is in the best interest of the public to give additional time to review and comment.”

The draft environmental impact statement and report -- containing environmental and economic analyses related to the removal project and subsequent restoration
programs -- fulfills a major condition of the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement, which was negotiated among state, local, tribal and water provider leaders to remove four dams from the Klamath River. The public comment period was scheduled to end on Monday.
Fish and Wildlife spokesman Matthew Baun said the service has received about 2,000 comments so far and is in the process of compiling and organizing them into 20 or so broad categories including engineering, biological, water quality, economics, recreation and real estate.
Proponents of the project, including dozens of groups that signed the agreement, said the reports validate the project and its economic and environmental benefits. The agreement invests more than $700 million in the Klamath Basin over the next 15 years.
Proponents said the plan protects and enhances a natural resource that is worth more than $750 million a year to the local economy. Humboldt County's submitted comments argue that the reports actually underestimate the economic benefits to Humboldt. The EIS estimates the creation of 4,600 jobs regionally, with more than 300 of those jobs in Humboldt.
”The (Humboldt County) board wishes to underscore that implementation of the agreements will provide a significant boost for sustainable jobs and economic productivity for Humboldt County and other coastal counties,” said the board's written comment. “We believe the analysis in the EIS/EIR likely underestimates this economic benefit.”
The agreement's detractors, such as the Hoopa Valley Tribe and the Resighini Rancheria, said the environmental report is inadequate and argue that water quality and availability was not sufficiently examined. The Hoopa Valley Tribe believes the dam's operator, Pacifcorp, would be forced to remove the dam itself if the relicensing process were to take its course.
The tribe's attorney, Tom Schlosser, said the relicensing process is delayed by the California State Water Board and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
”Nowhere in the 8,000 pages of the document and appendix do the drafters disclose that the most direct route to dam removal is the no-action alternative,” he wrote in an email to the Times-Standard. “Unlike the preferred proposal of the EIS, the no-action alternative does not require expensive legislation and it will not terminate tribal rights.”
Pat Higgins, a fisheries consultant for the Resighini Rancheria, a tribe located in Del Norte County, agrees. The tribe is arguing that the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, which was signed in conjunction with the hydroelectric settlement, terminates tribal rights and is “ecologically insufficient.”
”Had the government retained alternative 8 -- full facilities removal without the KBRA -- we would have favored it,” he wrote in an email to the Times-Standard. “Instead, we support the no action alternative, because we believe the KBRA will do more harm than good.”
Baun said all the comments will be addressed in the final report expected to be released early next year.
”The federal team is going to look at the comments and put a response together for the final EIS,” he said. “It's a bit premature right now to respond to those.”
_____________________________________
How to comment:
* online at www.klamathrestoration.gov.
* send to: Ms. Elizabeth Vasquez, Bureau of Reclamation, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825, or by fax to 916-978-5055 or email klamathsd at usbr.gov.
* send to: Gordon Leppig, California Department of Fish & Game, 619 Second Street, Eureka, CA 95501, or by fax to 441-2021 or email ksdcomments at dfg.ca.gov.
___________________________________

Donna Tam can be reached at 441-0532 or dtam at times-standard.com.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20111119/f3a03fa3/attachment.html>