DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix S Comment Responses Volume III to Rock Creek Final SEIS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix S Comment Responses Volume III to Rock Creek Final SEIS Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Rock Creek Project March 2018 Volume III Appendix S: Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIS Cliff Lake from Saint Paul Peak Photo by Michael Burnside United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Northern Region Kootenai National Forest The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice or text telephone (TTY)). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-5964 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 2001 FEIS and SEIS Appendices 2001 FEIS Appendix SEIS Appendix Volumes III and IV of the 2001 FEIS Volume III, Appendix S: Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIS APPENDIX S — RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SEIS Appendix S Responses to Comments on the Supplemental EIS 1.1 Introduction This appendix contains the comments received on the Draft Supplemental EIS document (SEIS) for the Rock Creek Project and the KNF’s responses to those comments. A Draft ROD and Final SEIS were issued in June 2017, and the KNF completed an administrative review of the Draft ROD in accordance with the requirements of 36 CFR 218. After the Draft ROD was issued, a predecisional objection process was conducted. The Objection Reviewing Officer issued a response letter on October 31, 2017, directing the Kootenai National Forest Supervisor to issue a final ROD that will approve only Phase I project activities and to carry out a number of other instructions. Although this appendix has been updated to incorporate clarifications resulting from implementation of the Objection Reviewing Officer’s instructions, where appropriate, responses to comments on the Draft SEIS, which included an analysis of the effect of Phase I and Phase II of the project, were not systematically revised subsequent to the predecisional objection process. 1.1.1 Draft SEIS Comments Issuance of the Draft SEIS was announced in the Federal Register (81 FR 8490) and made available to the public for a 45-day comment period starting on February 19, 2016. Requests made to extend the 45-day comment period were granted, extending the comment period an additional 15 days until April 19, 2016 (81 FR 18852). Two open house meetings, where members of the public had the opportunity to submit written comments and view posters detailing the project, were held in Noxon and Libby, Montana on March 15 and March 16, 2016, respectively. The KNF received 304 letters, emails, and comment sheets and 8,328 form letters during the public comment period. Comments were provided in two formats: 1) letters received either by e-mail or standard mail; and 2) comment sheets provided at the open houses. Excluding form letters, comments came from private individuals (230), federal or state agencies (40), tribal governments (1), local government (6), businesses (8), and other organizations (19). 1.1.2 Comment Coding Each letter, email, or comment sheet was given a unique document identification number. All submitted documents were systematically reviewed for content. Because the identification of form letters was made during the course of comment review, document identification numbers are not sequential; some document numbers are not used where documents were initially assigned document identification numbers but later identified as a form letter. Substantive comments were coded hierarchically according to subject Draft SEIS issues. Substantive comments: • Questioned the accuracy of the information in the document; • Questioned the adequacy of the environmental analysis; • Proposed other alternatives; • Suggested the need for changes in the Draft EIS or revisions to one of the alternatives considered in detail; or • Provided new or additional information relevant to the analysis. Issue codes were developed to correspond with Draft SEIS chapters. Comment codes 1000 to 1999 were assigned to issues in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need; comment codes 2000 to 2999 were assigned to issues in Chapter 2, Alternatives; comment codes 3000 to 4999 were assigned to issues in Chapter 3, Affected Environment; and comment codes 6000 to 8999 were assigned to Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences. Comments outside the scope of the SDEIS were coded in category 9100. Miscellaneous or general comments were coded in category 9000. 1.1.3 Comment Response Comment letters received from Native American tribes and federal, state, and local agencies on the Draft SEIS were reproduced and are included in this appendix (Table S-1). The KNF’s responses are presented alongside each comment (see Section 1.2). The applicant’s comments on the Draft SEIS (Table S-2) were also reproduced and responded to in the same manner (see Section 1.3). Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Rock Creek Project S-1 Appendix S Responses to Comments on the Supplemental EIS Substantive comments received by individuals and organizations on the Draft SEIS were organized for response according to issue codes. To reduce repetition, similar comments were grouped together and responded to collectively. Responses to comments from individuals and organizations begin on page S-4. An alphabetical list of individuals and organizations that provided substantive comments along with associated issue codes can be found in Table S-2 (see Section 1.4). Responses to substantive comments are organized by issue codes and can be found in Section 1.4. Where appropriate, the text of the Final SEIS was revised and the section where the change was made is noted in the response to comments. The KNF is not required to respond to every comment made by every person. According to NEPA regulations, “all substantive comments received on the draft statement (or summaries thereof where the response has been exceptionally voluminous), should be attached to the final statement whether or not the comment is thought to merit individual discussion by the agency in the text of the statement” (40 CFR 1503.5(b)). If the comment resulted in changes to the SEIS text, then it is usually so stated in the response, but not all responses required that the text in the SEIS be modified. All of the original comments on the Draft SEIS that the KNF received are available for public inspection at the addresses listed in the abstract at the front of the Final SEIS. The KNF appreciates the public’s interest in the proposed project and their participation in the SEIS. 1.2 Comments from Federal, State, and Local Agencies and Native American Tribes Comment letters received from Native American tribes and federal, state, and local agencies (Table S-1) on the Draft SEIS were reproduced and are included in this section. The KNF’s responses are presented alongside each comment. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Rock Creek Project S-2 Appendix S Responses to Comments on the Supplemental EIS Table S-1. Alphabetical list of agency commenters. DocID Commenter 228 City of Thompson Falls 148 Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 335 Kootenai Tribe of Idaho 293 Libby City Councilor Brian Zimmerman 262 Lincoln County Commission 224 Montana Chamber of Commerce 265 Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks 37 Montana State Representative Alan Redfield 297 Montana State Representative Alan Redfield 300 Montana State Representative Dan Salomon 210 Montana State Representative Daniel Zolnikov 258 Montana State Representative Debra Lamm 302 Montana State Representative Frank Garner 243 Montana State Representative Greg Hertz 220 Montana State Representative Jerry Bennett 271 Montana State Representative Keith Regier 301 Montana State Representative Kelly Flynn 290 Montana State Representative Kerry White 298 Montana State Representative Mike Cuffe 263 Montana State Representative Mike Miller 218 Montana State Representative Nancy Ballance 207 Montana State Representative Ray Shaw 230 Montana State Representative Rob Cook 236 Montana State Representative Ron Ehli 259 Montana State Representative Steve Lavin 30 Montana State Senator Bob Keenan 247 Montana State Senator Brian Hoven 277 Montana State Senator Cary Smith 248 Montana State Senator David Howard 223 Montana State Senator Dee Brown 253 Montana State Senator Doug Kary 161 Montana State Senator Duane Ankney 227 Montana State Senator Edward Buttrey 284 Montana State Senator Fred Thomas 267 Montana State Senator Frederick Moore 283 Montana State Senator Janna Taylor 245 Montana State Senator Jedediah Hinkle 222 Montana State Senator John Brenden 241 Montana State Senator Kristin Hansen 221 Montana State Senator Mark Blasdel 273 Montana State Senator Matthew Rosendale 282 Montana State Senator Nels Swandal 229 Montana State Senator Pat Connell 81 Sanders County Board of County Commissioners 274 Sanders County Community Development Corporation 219 Superintendent, Libby School District #4 239 Troy Public Schools, District #1 158 U.S. Environmental
Load more

Recommended publications
  • FERC Project No. 2058
    FERC Project No. 2058 Idaho Tributary Habitat Acquisition and Fishery Enhancement Program Appendix A As approved by the Management Committee on 3/14/2017 2017 ANNUAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SUMMARY – APPENDIX A Clark Fork Project, FERC No. 2058 Cabinet Gorge and Noxon Rapids Hydroelectric Developments Title Idaho Tributary Habitat Acquisition and Fishery Enhancement Program Implementation Staff Lead Ken Bouwens, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, (208) 770-3766, [email protected] Background The purpose of this program is to offset the impacts of the power peaking operation of the Cabinet Gorge Project to native salmonids through the restoration and enhancement of lower Clark Fork River and Lake Pend Oreille (LPO) tributary watersheds, fishery monitoring and management support, and a public education and enforcement initiative focused on Bull Trout and their associated habitats in Idaho. Outlined below is the 2017 annual implementation plan for Idaho Tributary Habitat Acquisition and Enhancement and Fish Resource Monitoring, Enhancement, and Management portions of this program. The public education and enforcement component of this program is described in Appendix D of the Clark Fork Settlement Agreement (CFSA). In addition, other CFSA appendices also support watershed and native salmonid protection, restoration, and enhancement (e.g., Fish Passage/Native Salmonid Restoration Plan, Watershed Council Program), and thereby augment the efforts to be initiated under this program. 2017 Project Plans Tributary Habitat Acquisition and Enhancement Fund 1. Habitat Restoration Scoping Allocation 2. Idaho Land Conservation Strategy 3. Habitat Restoration Maintenance and Monitoring Allocation 4. Grouse Creek Resurvey 5. Lightning Creek Large Woody Debris and Recruitment Project 6. Twin Creek Restoration Revegetation 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoration Plan for Bull Trout in the Clark Fork River Basin and Kootenai River Basin Montana
    RESTORATION PLAN FOR BULL TROUT IN THE CLARK FORK RIVER BASIN AND KOOTENAI RIVER BASIN MONTANA Prepared by: MONTANA BULL TROUT RESTORATION TEAM FOR GOVERNOR MARC RACICOT c/o Montana Department of Fish,Wildlife and Parks 1420 East Sixth Avenue Helena, Montana 59601 JUNE 2000 RESTORATION PLAN FOR BULL TROUT IN THE CLARK FORK RIVER BASIN AND KOOTENAI RIVER BASIN, MONTANA This restoration plan for bull trout in Montana was developed collaboratively by, and is supported by, the Montana Bull Trout Restoration Team, appointed by Governor Marc Racicot. Restoration Team members represented the organizations listed below. All parties to this restoration plan recognize that they each have specific statutory responsibilities that cannot be abdicated, particularly with respect to the management and conservation of fish and wildlife, their habitat, and the management, development and allocation of land and water resources. Nothing in this plan is intended to abrogate any of the parties' respective responsibilities. Each party has final approval authority for any activities undertaken as a result of this agreement on the lands owned or administered by them. The Restoration Plan was developed by the Montana Bull Trout Restoration Team, represented by the following organizations and agencies (arranged in alphabetical order by agency/organization): American Fisheries Society Bonneville Power Administration Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation National
    [Show full text]
  • Water Resources Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Notes September 11, 2018 Noxon Emergency Services Building
    Water Resources Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Notes September 11, 2018 Noxon Emergency Services Building WRTAC Representatives Attendees: Avista – Eric Oldenburg Bull River Watershed Council – Kathy Ferguson Idaho Department of Fish and Game – Ken Bouwens Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) – Ryan Kreiner Montana Dept. of Environmental Quality – Randy Apfelbeck Noxon-Cabinet Shoreline Coalition – Rick Robinson Panhandle Chapter Trout Unlimited – Bill Love U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Kevin Aceituno U.S. Forest Service (USFS) – Doug Grupenhoff Other Attendees: Avista – Nate Hall, Shana Bernall, Lisa Vollertsen, Susan Drumheller, and Sean Moran; Lower Clark Fork Watershed Group – Brita Olson; Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks – Jason Blakney and Mike Hensler (showed up at 10:28). General Updates: • Consent mails: o One consent mail was approved since the spring Management Committee (MC) meeting. This consent mail was for $10,000 to conduct a LiDAR survey of the future stream restoration site up Crow Creek as well as to provide $10,000 additional dollars for the Prospect Creek PIT tag array. • Budget Update o Eric discussed a correction regarding funding of the Westslope Cutthroat Trout Experimental Passage project during 2017. There were no concerns from the group. • 2019 project plans and annual work summaries o Project plans for 2019 are due to Avista on November 1. If you have a new project you would like to propose for next year you need to be working with the appropriate Program Leader so that deadline can be met. Project plan guidelines will be sent to the Program Leaders within the next couple weeks. The 2018 Annual Work Summary guidelines will also be sent to the Program Leaders in a couple of weeks.
    [Show full text]
  • CLARK FORK PROJECT FERC No
    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT OF LICENSE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF AN UPSTREAM FISH PASSAGE FACILITY AT THE CABINET GORGE DAM CLARK FORK PROJECT FERC No. 2058-098 Idaho and Montana Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20426 August 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... i LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ iii LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................ iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 APPLICATION ......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION ........................................................................................... 1 1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS...................................... 2 1.3.1 Clean Water Act ................................................................................................. 2 1.3.2 Endangered Species Act ....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hat00-16Doerr1999 Resident Fish Hatcheries Annual Report
    1999 ANNUAL RESIDENT HATCHERIES REPORT February 2000 IDFG 00-16 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 AMERICAN FALLS HATCHERY .................................................................................................. 3 ASHTON HATCHERY .................................................................................................................. 9 CABINET GORGE HATCHERY ................................................................................................. 15 CLARK FORK HATCHERY ........................................................................................................ 28 CLEARWATER HATCHERY ...................................................................................................... 37 GRACE HATCHERY .................................................................................................................. 45 HAGERMAN HATCHERY .......................................................................................................... 53 HAYSPUR HATCHERY.............................................................................................................. 65 MACKAY HATCHERY ................................................................................................................76 MCCALL HATCHERY................................................................................................................. 85 MULLAN HATCHERY................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Past, Present, and Future Fishery Management in Cabinet Gorge and Noxon Rapids Reservoirs
    Past, Present, and Future Fishery Management in Cabinet Gorge and Noxon Rapids Reservoirs Scott S. Rumsey and Joe E. Huston Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks Kalispell. MT 59901 Abstract Noxon Rapids and Cabinet Gorge Reservoirs are run-of-the-river hydroelectric impoundments on the Clark Fork River in western Montana. Operations at Noxon Rapids Reservoir changed in 1961 and 1978. The first change in operations increased average annual spring drawdown from less than 10 to more than 30 feet. The second eliminated drawdowns of more than 6 feet, except for unusual power demands. Establishment and maintenance of a satisfactory sport fishery has been largely unsuccessful in both reservoirs since the 1950's. Rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) exhibited potential from 1958 through 1960 when they produced an excellent fishery, followed by a dramatic decline in 1961. Continued planting of rainbow trout never reestablished a substantial fishery. Other fish species planted produced similar results with the exception of brown trout (Salmo trutta) and small mouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui), which presently provide a modest fishery. Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) were present prior to impoundment and appear to be increasing. Operation changes, combined with the brief retention times, have encouraged the downstream movement of most introduced salmonids in Noxon Rapids and Cabinet Gorge Reservoirs. Introduction Noxon Rapids and Cabinet Gorge Reservoirs are two run-of-the-river hydro- electric impoundments on the Clark Fork River in western Montana (fig. 1). Both dams are owned and operated by Washington Water Power Company of Spokane, Washington. The company has provided the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks with funds and personnel for ongoing fishery projects since construction.
    [Show full text]
  • Hat97-13Doerr1996 Resident Fish Hatcheries Annual Report
    1996 ANNUAL RESIDENT HATCHERIES REPORT May 1997 IDFG 97-13 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1 AMERICAN FALLS HATCHERY.......................................................................... 3 ASHTON HATCHERY.......................................................................................... 9 CABINET GORGE HATCHERY........................................................................... 21 CLARK FORK HATCHERY.................................................................................. 32 CLEARWATER HATCHERY................................................................................ 41 GRACE HATCHERY............................................................................................ 47 HAGERMAN HATCHERY.................................................................................... 60 HAYSPUR HATCHERY ....................................................................................... 75 KOOTENAI HATCHERY ...................................................................................... 89 MACKAY HATCHERY ......................................................................................... 126 MCCALL HATCHERY.......................................................................................... 132 MULLAN HATCHERY.......................................................................................... 147 NAMPA HATCHERY...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2014-2015 CF Monitoring Update
    2014-2015 Lower Clark Fork River Salmonid Abundance Monitoring Project Update Idaho Tributary Habitat Acquisition and Enhancement Program: Appendix A of the Clark Fork Settlement Agreement Prepared by: Kenneth A. Bouwens Regional Fisheries Biologist Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Robert Jakubowski Natural Resources Technician Avista Corporation Prepared for: Avista Noxon, MT and Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game Boise, ID May 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... II LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... II ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 2 STUDY AREA ................................................................................................................................ 3 METHODS ..................................................................................................................................... 4 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................ 6 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • LOWER CLARK FORK RIVER FISHERY ASSESSMENT Project
    LOWER CLARK FORK RIVER FISHERY ASSESSMENT Project Completion Report Idaho Tributary Habitat Acquisition and Enhancement Program Prepared by: Robert Ryan Regional Fisheries Biologist Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Robert Jakubowski Natural Resources Technician Avista Corporation May, 2012 Lower Clark Fork River Fishery Assessment Lower Clark Fork River Fishery Assessment ................................................................................................ i ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................................. ii INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1 STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................................. 2 METHODS ................................................................................................................................................... 4 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................................. 13 RECOMMENDATIONS ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • KNRD Conservation Plan-Adopted 2017
    Kalispel Natural Resource Department Resource Conservation Plan Adopted March 2017 1 CONTENTS KNRD Mission ................................................................................................................................................................... 3 An Introduction to KNRD ............................................................................................................................................... 4 Fisheries Program ............................................................................................................................................................... 6 Water Resources Program ............................................................................................................................................... 13 Wildlife Program ............................................................................................................................................................... 19 Forestry Program .............................................................................................................................................................. 23 Cultural Resources Program............................................................................................................................................ 26 Timber Fish and Wildlife ................................................................................................................................................. 29 Literature Cited .................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cabinet Gorge Fish Passage Project
    Cabinet Gorge Fish Passage Project Clark Fork Project FERC Project No. 2058 October 4, 2019 The Relicensing Process In the Beginning: • 1996 Avista issues public announcement inviting interested parties to participate in a collaborative relicensing for Cabinet Gorge and Noxon Rapids. • July 1996 first public meeting - Noxon High School. Over 60 participants attended: State and Federal Agencies Native American Tribes NGOs Local Residents Avista • Clark Fork Relicensing Team (CFRT) formed and identified 5 working groups: – Fisheries Working Group – Water Resources Working Group – Wildlife, Botanical, and Wetlands Working Group – Cultural Resources Working Group – Land Use, Recreation, and Aesthetics Working Group • Working groups research topics, develop study plans, provide direction to the work and bring results back to the larger group (Plenary). Relicensing . Relicensing process began - 1996 . Clark Fork Settlement Agreement signed - 1999 . EA completed - 1999 . License issued - 2/23/2000 . Reached comprehensive SA with all parties . Collaboratively prepared EA and license application . First on-time modern relicensing of a large project . Implementation began in early 1999 . 45-year license effective March 1, 2001 Native Salmonid Restoration Plan • An examination of five major factors that may influence the success of restoration activities: genetics, pathogens, exotic species, native fish distribution; and the suitability of current and potentially available habitat. • Ultimately, a consideration of permanent fish passage based on the success of implementation of the NSRP. Bull Trout Passage . Bull Trout Listed in 1998 . Began implementation of NSRP in 1999 . Goal: Reconnect migratory populations in the lower Clark Fork River . Montana and Idaho fish transport permitting requirements Upstream Fish Capture Methods Amendment to CFSA .
    [Show full text]
  • Clark Fork Settlement Agreement Management Committee Meeting Record Noxon Emergency Services Building September 25, 2018 10:00 A.M.–2:45 P.M
    Clark Fork Settlement Agreement Management Committee Meeting Record Noxon Emergency Services Building September 25, 2018 10:00 a.m.–2:45 p.m. (MST) Management Committee Representatives in Attendance Avista: Nate Hall Bull River Watershed Council: Kathy Ferguson Cabinet Resource Group: Jim Nash Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT): Les Evarts Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ): Tom Herron Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG): Chip Corsi Lake Pend Oreille Idaho Club: Ryan Roslak Montana Department of Environmental Quality: Jason Garber Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP): Mike Hensler (Alternate) Noxon-Cabinet Shoreline Coalition: Rick Robinson Panhandle Chapter Trout Unlimited (TU): Bill Love (Alternate) United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): Ben Conard United States Forest Service, Cabinet Ranger District (USFS): John Gubel Interested Parties in Attendance Avista–Bruce Howard, Heide Evans, Patty Shea, Mary Tyrie, Jason Pignanelli, Paul Kusnierz, Shana Bernall, Eric Oldenburg, Sean Moran, and Lisa Vollertsen; Avista Grant Writer–Susan Drumheller; IDFG–Andy Dux (arrived at 12:00) and Ken Bouwens; Kaniksu Land Trust–Regan Plumb (departed at 12:30); Lower Clark Fork Watershed Group–Brita Olson; Montana DEQ– Eric Sivers; MFWP–Ryan Kreiner (departed at 1400) and Jason Blakney; USFWS–Kevin Aceituno Welcome and introductions A quorum was recognized for this 49th meeting of the Management Committee Agenda review and approval The March 13, 2018 MC meeting record will be sent out next week to MC members. Consent Mail update Crow Creek LiDAR survey and Prospect Creek passive integrated transponder (PIT) array funding requests approved by the MC on 8/27/2018. FERC update The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved the 2017 Annual Report and 2018 Annual Implementation Plans.
    [Show full text]