The Klamath River Basin provides
essential habitat for several fish species including Chinook
salmon, Coho salmon, Steelhead trout, Pacific lamprey, and
Shortnose suckers. Some of these species are important components
of ocean and/or in-river harvest, while others are rarely harvested
due to fishery regulations, limited availability, and/or listed
status under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In addition to its
importance as fish habitat, the Klamath River and its tributaries
also provides water to agriculture through the Bureau of
Reclamation's Klamath Irrigation Project. Oversubscription of
Klamath water has thwarted recovery of depressed fish stocks and
led to economic hardship for farming and fishing communities
prompting federal disaster relief for farmers in 2001 and for
fishermen in 2006. In February 2010, the U.S. Government, the
States of Oregon and California, the chairmen of the Klamath, Yurok
and Karuk Tribes, and the utility company PacifiCorp signed the
Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) and the Klamath
Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement. These agreements define a set
of activities, including the removal of four dams on the Klamath
River by 2020, which are designed to restore fisheries and provide
water supply certainty in the Basin. The Hydroelectric Settlement
Agreement calls for the Secretary to determine whether dam removal
will advance restoration of the salmonid fisheries of the Klamath
Basin and is in the public interest. By March 31, 2012, the
Secretary of the Interior is expected to make a final determination
regarding dam removal and the KBRA, based, in part, on results of
an economic analysis that will address benefits, costs, and
distributional effects of dam removal. An interagency economics
team consisting of representatives from DOI agencies including the
Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Reclamation, and NOAA
National Marine Fisheries Service is responsible for completing the
economic analysis that will inform the Secretarial determination.
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared. One
important area of benefits that needs to be addressed as part of
the EIS is "nonuse value." Nonuse values accrue to members of the
public who value Klamath Basin improvements regardless of whether
they ever consume Klamath fish or visit the Klamath Basin. To
measure these benefits, DOI has contracted with RTI International
in Research Triangle Park, NC, to design and implement a nonuse
valuation survey of the U.S. public. A key aspect of the survey
design process is to thoroughly pretest the survey instrument using
focus groups and cognitive, one-on-one interviews (the cognitive
interviews will be addressed in a later ICR). The main objectives
of these information collection activities are to ensure that the
survey questions and scenarios are presented to respondents in a
way that is accurate, easily understood and least burdensome, while
at the same time collecting all of the necessary information for
estimating nonuse values. Because of the controversy over the
agreement in the Klamath Basin, the survey text needs to be neutral
and present all sides.
Statute at
Large: 123
Stat. 991 Name of Statute: Secure Water Act of 2009
Statute at Large: 32
Stat. 388 Name of Statute: Bureau of Reclimation's General
Planning Authority Act of June 17, 1902
The initial approval was for
four focus groups with small sample sizes. The focus groups were
used to hone the questions in the final survey. The survey requests
a larger burden, as it will be sent nationwide and requires a
larger numbers of responses from the public. Without a large
population to draw from, the survey may not accurately gage the
country's response to the Klamath Basin Dam removal efforts.
On behalf of this Federal agency, I certify that
the collection of information encompassed by this request complies
with 5 CFR 1320.9 and the related provisions of 5 CFR
1320.8(b)(3).
The following is a summary of the topics, regarding
the proposed collection of information, that the certification
covers:
(i) Why the information is being collected;
(ii) Use of information;
(iii) Burden estimate;
(iv) Nature of response (voluntary, required for a
benefit, or mandatory);
(v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and
(vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control
number;
If you are unable to certify compliance with any of
these provisions, identify the item by leaving the box unchecked
and explain the reason in the Supporting Statement.
Nonresponse bias sample mailing respondents (households with telephone numbers)
Justification for Nonsubstantive Change.docx
30 day notice, Klamath, 20110216.pdf
Supporting_Statement_PartB_Klamath 20110204.doc
Nonresponse bias sample mailing respondents (households without telephone numbers)