[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 224 (Tuesday, November 19, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58873-58876]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-29541]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Bonneville Power Administration
Albeni Falls Wildlife Management Plan
AGENCY: Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), DOE.
ACTION: Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and Floodplain
Statement of Findings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) proposes to fund the
development and implementation of the Albeni Falls Wildlife Management
Plan (Plan). The Plan addresses wildlife mitigation projects in the
Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho, vicinity that are approved by the Northwest
Power Planning Council (Council). The Plan is a cooperative effort led
by an Interagency Work Group that includes the Idaho Department of Fish
and Game (IDFG); United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS);
United States Forest Service (USFS); United States Army Corps of
Engineers (COE); the Kalispel Tribe; and the Upper Columbia United
Tribes (UCUT).
When implemented, the proposed action would meet BPA's obligation
to protect, mitigate, and enhance wildlife affected by construction of
Albeni Falls Dam and is consistent with the Council's F&W Program and
amendments. BPA's proposed action would guide the development of
wildlife mitigation projects, increase the quantity and quality of
wetland and riparian wildlife habitats in the Lake Pend Oreille study
area, and demonstrate the compatibility of habitat restoration and
wildlife management with the land use goals and objectives of Bonner
and Kootenai Counties, Idaho.
BPA's proposed action would increase opportunities for BPA to take
credit for wildlife mitigation under the Council's F&W Program and
allow funding of wildlife habitat protection, improvement, O&M, and M&E
activities for the life of the mitigation measures. The proposed action
would enable the Interagency Work Group to secure both public and
private lands to protect a variety of wetland and riparian habitats,
restore 28,587 habitat units lost as a result of the construction of
Albeni Falls Dam, and conduct long-term wildlife management activities
at individual mitigation projects located within the overall study
area. A detailed Site Plan would be developed for each wildlife
mitigation project that is consistent with wildlife mitigation goals
(See EA Chapter 2, pp. 6-9), and landowner or land management agency
objectives. Site Plans will document all site-specific habitat
improvement, O&M, and M&E activities to be performed at each individual
mitigation project area. Exhibits will include but are not limited to
cultural resource reviews, survey results, and mitigation plans; an
erosion control program; State and Federal permit approvals as
appropriate; engineering specifications; time schedules; equipment; and
personnel needs. To ensure environmental impacts are within the range
of those addressed in this EA, all completed Site Plans would be
submitted to and approved by BPA prior to funding and implementation
decisions.
BPA has prepared an environmental assessment (DOE/EA-1099)
evaluating the potential environmental effects of No Action
(Alternative A) and the proposed action (Alternative B). Restoring
wetland and riparian habitat under Alternative B would not cause
significant environmental impact because: (1) There would be only
limited, short-term impacts on soils, air quality, water quality,
wildlife (including no effect on endangered species), vegetation, and
fish; and (2) there would be no significant effects on cultural
resources or land use. Based on the analysis in the environmental
assessment (EA), BPA has determined that the proposed action is not a
major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment, within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) of 1969. Therefore, the preparation of an environmental
impact statement (EIS) is not required and BPA is issuing this FONSI.
A finding is included that there is no practicable alternative to
locating wildlife habitat mitigation projects within a 100-year
floodplain.
ADDRESSES: For copies of this FONSI, please call BPA's toll-free
document request line: 800-622-4520.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Robert L. Shank--ECN, Bonneville
Power Administration, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, Oregon, 97208-3621,
phone number 503-230-5115, fax number 503-230-5699.
Public Availability: This FONSI will be distributed to all persons
and agencies known to be interested in or affected by the proposed
action or alternatives.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under provisions of the Pacific Northwest
Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (Act), BPA
protects, mitigates, and enhances fish and wildlife and their habitats
affected by the construction and operation of the Federal hydroelectric
system in the Columbia River Basin. This is accomplished through
funding of measures that are consistent with the Council's Fish and
Wildlife Program (F&W Program) and other purposes of the Act [16 U.S.C.
839b(h)(10)(A)]. The site-specific fish and wildlife mitigation
projects that BPA funds are intended to help reach the Council's
mitigation goals and are ``in addition to, not in lieu of, other
expenditures authorized or required from other entities under other
agreements or provisions of law.''
In 1989, the Council amended its F&W Program to include assessments
of wildlife habitat losses resulting from construction of Albeni Falls
Dam. Consistent with Section 1003(7) of the Program's Wildlife
Mitigation Rule, the Council reviewed and approved Albeni Falls
wildlife mitigation projects in 1990.
Under Alternative B, the proposed action, effects on the physical
environment (soils, water quality, and air quality) would be localized
and short-term in duration. In the long-term wildlife habitat
improvement activities would be beneficial for the soils resource by
reducing the amount of soils that are exposed to erosion by Albeni
Falls Dam operations and other existing land use practices. In the
near-term, construction activities such as the installation of water
structures and breakwaters, creation of small islands, re-establishment
of native vegetation, and other work activities near water bodies would
be timed to minimize adverse soil rutting and compaction that could
temporarily increase soil erosion, transport, and stream sedimentation
at construction sites. In areas where re-establishing native vegetation
would temporarily disturb or expose poorly drained soils, erosion risks
would be reduced by planting cover crops, applying ground mulch, or
irrigating new plantings as appropriate. As part of Alternative B, a
qualified soil scientist would participate in each individual Site Plan
process prior to ground disturbing activities to coordinate site-
specific soil surveys that are critical in identifying and avoiding
significant soil erosion and sedimentation effects and establishing
cost-effective wildlife
[[Page 58874]]
mitigation projects. Each Site Plan will contain a Soils Capability
Section that identifies existing soil type, soil suitability, soil
monitoring, and all other mitigation factors that are relevant to the
design of structures, construction activities, and habitat improvement
efforts. If sediment will be released into navigable waters of the
United States, all conditions of Federal Clean Water Act permits,
including the development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan,
will be required as an attachment to the Site Plan. This would ensure
that erosion control measures are identified, implemented, and
monitored, during construction activities. Each Site Plan will document
Best Management Practices developed for soil stabilization, erosion
control structures, stormwater management, and other erosion monitoring
or conditions as required at all sites where construction activities
would occur on soils with a severe risk for erosion potential, or
disturb land of 2 or more hectares (5 acres) in size. The Albeni Falls
Interagency Work Group will avoid wildlife improvement activities that
would adversely impact soils and water quality parameters. These steps
would ensure that soil erosion and sedimentation effects are not
significant.
Wildlife habitat improvement and restoration of wetlands would be
beneficial for water resources in the long-term. Protection of existing
riparian systems and restoration of damaged riparian areas would
increase bank stabilization, increase shading, reduce stream
temperatures, and reduce sediment and pollutant load into study area
streams. Wetland restoration would contribute locally to an increase in
ground and surface water quality, raise groundwater levels, and buffer
the effects of adverse drawdown and wave action effects. Due to the
physical effects of sediment settling, uptake of nutrients in
vegetation, stream shading, and other natural wetland processes, the
quality of wetland return flows is expected to equal or exceed existing
water quality conditions.
Certification that a discharge would not violate State water
quality standards is a prerequisite for obtaining Federal Clean Water
Act permits. Because some construction activities such as the
installation of water structures, breakwaters, or creation of small
islands could unavoidably violate State of Idaho water quality
standards (particularly turbidity criteria) on a temporary basis, BPA
would ensure Federal Clean Water Act permits, (i.e. National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System including State of Idaho modifications,
and/or Nationwide permits as appropriate), are acquired and all
conditions or requirements necessary to avoid significant water quality
impacts are in place prior to the point discharge of any sediment into
Lake Pend Oreille or its tributaries. Any work in or near water bodies
involving the potential for dredge materials or soils entering streams
or waters of the United States would conform to all additional State of
Idaho conditions or permit requirements. Adverse water quality effects
as a result of Alternative B activities are not expected because
significant soil erosion and sedimentation would be avoided through
adherence to permit conditions. Water quality monitoring would be
implemented at all construction sites to ensure the amount of sediment
entering water bodies remains within permited limits.
Although burning of outdoor vegetation could occur on small, 0.8-
1.6 hectare (2-4 acre), dispersed plots to remove undesirable weeds,
the amount of required burning in the project area and, therefore, the
amount of air quality impact, would be slight because native vegetation
plots would increase in density and out-compete and shade out weedy
vegetation. It is estimated that revegetation efforts would effectively
decrease the amount of burning activities required to improve wildlife
habitat conditions within two to three years. Outdoor burning permits
would be obtained from the local Fire District prior to burning
activities. To minimize near-term smoke emission effects, outdoor
burning would occur only on days authorized by the local Clean Air
Authority. The amount of PM10 (smoke/particulate matter less than
10 microns) and carbon monoxide emissions would be minimized by seeking
alternatives to burning and/or meeting requirements for fuel type,
dryness, and quantity, and all other conditions of the burning permit.
Potential adverse effects on biological resources, including
vegetation, wildlife, and fisheries, would be localized and short-term
in nature. Because of the wetter climate and the availability of ground
and surface water in the aquatic, riparian, and upland zones of the
study area, it is predicted that plant response would be relatively
rapid and habitat improvement could be observed in a single growing
season for many herbaceous species, and from two to five years for
larger shrubs or trees. Near-term effects of native vegetation
restoration may involve the potential disturbance of localized native
plant species. Because construction activities would take place in
areas that have been disturbed in the past or contain large non-native
plant communities, negative long-term effects on native vegetation are
not anticipated. Near-term adverse effects to remnant wetland,
riparian, and upland native plant communities in site-specific areas
are not expected because Site Plan(s) for individual wildlife
mitigation projects would identify existing native plant communities
and the sensitive plant habitat areas to be avoided prior to ground
disturbing wildlife habitat improvement activity and/or revegetation
effort. In areas where construction activities can not be avoided with
out temporarily impacting existing native plant communities, top soils
would be stockpiled, replaced, and revegetated to the extent feasible
on completion of ground work. Chemical use to control noxious weeds
would decline in the long-term due to the lesser degree of soils
exposed to seed sources. Adverse effects to aquatic and other non-
target organisms are not anticipated as integrated pest management
techniques including bio-controls would be preferred. Chemicals, when
used, would be applied by licensed applicators and would conform to
State and Federal regulations including label restrictions and use of
chemical products suitable for aquatic environments.
Securing and enhancing land for wildlife purposes would provide
immediate and long-term benefits to wildlife populations. Wildlife
disturbances due to construction and other habitat improvement
activities are predicted to be of short duration, and localized in
nature. It is expected that near-term disturbance of wildlife could be
offset within one growing season by the greatly increased habitat
values. Because biological requirements of wildlife and protection of
wildlife habitat would take precedence over other considerations,
positive long-term benefits for both ESA-listed and candidate species
would result. Permanent protection of wetland and riparian habitat in
the study area is not expected to interfere with ongoing gray wolf,
grizzly bear, and woodland caribou recovery goals. It is likely the
near-term disturbance effects resulting from construction activities
would be minimal to ESA-listed species. Disturbance to nesting and
wintering bald eagles would be avoided because the majority of the work
would occur from late July through October. Consultation with the USFWS
would be re-initiated during the Site Plan process if work is planned
outside this timeframe, or construction activities are proposed within
4 km (2.5 mi) of known
[[Page 58875]]
nest sites or within 1 km (0.6 mi) of the shoreline of a lake, river,
or backwater area during the typical winter season (November-February).
BPA would coordinate with the USFWS prior to all construction
activities to determine if any new bald eagle nesting sites or newly
listed species have been identified in a given wildlife mitigation
area. After completion of site-specific habitat enhancement activities,
public access by motorized vehicles would be restricted, as necessary,
to reduce disturbance of nesting and wintering bald eagles. Potential
adverse effects to other listed species are expected to be minimal,
because it is unlikely that peregrine falcons, gray wolves, grizzly
bears, and/or woodland caribou would be found in the study area during
the time work activities are occurring. In a letter dated February 8,
1996, the USFWS concurred with BPA's determination that the proposed
action is not likely to adversely affect the Federally listed species.
Effects on fish resources resulting from increased stream turbidity
would be short-term and localized at construction sites occurring near
streams or water bodies. As part of Alternative B, adverse fishery
effects would be avoided by complying with all terms and conditions of
Federal and State water quality permits and/or other applicable IDFG
guidelines. These include guidelines such as timing of construction
activities to ensure water quality will at all times continue to
support aquatic life. On a site-specific basis, for example, potential
adverse effects on fish populations would be avoided through timing of
construction activities, inspection of the site for presence of
sensitive species, and, if necessary, capture and temporary removal of
sensitive fish species at the treatment site. Potential adverse impacts
to spawning or rearing habitats would be avoided by timing instream
work to avoid siltation on spawning gravels, instream hiding
structures, and rocks prior to and immediately after the egg hatching
phase.
Cultural resource sites listed or eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places are known to exist in the Lake
Pend Oreille study area, and the probability of yet-undiscovered sites
is high. Wildlife habitat improvement activities are generally
compatible with cultural resource goals for protecting, preserving, and
stabilizing historic, prehistoric, and traditional use sites and areas.
A Programmatic Agreement (PA) would be developed in consultation with
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Idaho State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO), and affected Tribes to ensure any effects
to cultural resources are not significant. The PA will outline the
provisions and steps necessary to protect cultural resources as site-
specific wildlife habitat improvement activities are planned and
implemented. In accordance with PA provisions, professional cultural
resource staff would participate in each individual Site-Plan process
prior to ground disturbing activities to coordinate cultural resource
literature reviews and surveys and all other cultural resource
mitigation efforts. SHPO and Tribal review of cultural resource
protection methodologies and findings would be obtained prior to site-
specific ground disturbing activities. The Albeni Falls Interagency
Work Group members would avoid wildlife habitat improvement activities
that would significantly impact historical or cultural resources on or
eligible for NRHP listing. These steps will ensure there are no
significant effects on cultural resources.
Because habitat mitigation objectives would not change existing
private land practices within the study area, the Albeni Falls Wildlife
management plan is consistent with current Bonner and Kootenai County
land use direction. Adverse effects to private property rights or to
public management objectives are not expected because site-specific
land use changes would occur only at the discretion of a landholder or
manager. No effects to local growth patterns are anticipated because
the current 50 percent vacancy rate of land available for recreational
and rural housing opportunities would remain high. Current zoning
categories would not change and wildlife mitigation projects would help
to meet open space objectives within Bonner and Kootenai Counties.
Because habitat and wetlands restoration activities are not an
irreversible process, prime and unique farmland designations would not
change and farm use would not be precluded in the future. Significant
effects to prime farmlands in the study area are not likely because
major portions of prime farmland would not be taken out of crop
production. If designated prime farmland currently under irrigated crop
production is secured for use as a wildlife habitat mitigation project,
cultivation of wildlife food plots and/or other agricultural options
would be developed in individual Site Plans to avoid large or major
cropland conversions.
Because conservation easements and leases are the preferred manner
for securing wildlife habitat acreage, land ownership and the
responsibility for property taxes would not be transferred from
existing land owners. No reduction in the tax base of Bonner or
Kootenai County would occur when BPA purchases fee property, because
title would be transferred to IDFG for wildlife mitigation and
management purposes. IDFG would be responsible for in-lieu taxes as
required by Section 63-105A of the Idaho Tax Code. Over half of current
waterfowl hunters reside outside of the local area. Over the next 10-12
years an increase of hunting opportunities would help to stimulate or
extend the local tourism economy thus increasing local tax revenues.
To avoid adverse disturbance effects on wildlife populations
seasonal road closures and/or public access restrictions would be
enacted, as appropriate, during critical winter and breeding periods.
No adverse recreation effects are expected because the majority of
public use occurs in summer and fall seasons. Management of public
access would provide greater flexibility in disbursing or focusing
increased recreation demand from or to existing local Wildlife
Management Areas.
Floodplain Statement of Findings
This is a Floodplain Statement of Findings prepared in accordance
with 10 CFR Part 1022. A Notice of Floodplain and Wetlands Involvement
was published in the Federal Register on June 15, 1995 and a floodplain
and wetlands assessment was incorporated into the EA. BPA funding of
wildlife mitigation projects in the Lake Pend Oreille study area would
result in the restoration of as much as 809 hectares (2000 acres) of
former wetlands over the next 5-10 years. Re-establishment of wetland
structures, processes, and functions in areas where floodplains and
wetlands have been altered by Albeni Falls Dam drawdown operations
would have positive benefits on floodplain vegetation that would help
to buffer the effects of wave and wind action on existing mudflats.
Although floods have not occurred in the study area since the
construction of Albeni Falls Dam, permanent buildings, roads, or
facilities would not be located in restored floodplain or wetland
areas. Adverse flooding effects would not occur as a result of wildlife
habitat mitigation projects. The proposed action conforms to applicable
State and local floodplain protection standards.
BPA will endeavor to allow 15 days of public review after
publication of this statement of findings before implementing the
proposed action.
[[Page 58876]]
Determination
Based on the information in the EA, as summarized here, BPA
determines that the proposed action is not a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the
meaning of NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. Therefore, an EIS will not be
prepared and BPA is issuing this FONSI.
Issued in Portland, Oregon, on November 1, 1996.
Alexandra B. Smith,
Vice President for Environment, Fish and Wildlife.
[FR Doc. 96-29541 Filed 11-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
