[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 88 (Friday, May 7, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24631-24634]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-11533]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Bonneville Power Administration
Mid-Columbia Coho Salmon Reintroduction Feasibility Project
AGENCY: Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Department of Energy
(DOE).
ACTION: Notice of Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and
floodplain statement of findings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces BPA's proposal to fund research for 2 to
3 years on the feasibility of reintroducing coho salmon into mid-
Columbia River basin tributaries. The research would take place in the
Methow and Wenatchee river basins in Chelan and Okanogan counties,
Washington. BPA has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) (DOE/EA-
1282) evaluating the proposed project. Based on the analysis in the 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.
The FONSI includes a finding that there is no practicable
alternative to locating a portion of the project within 100-year
floodplains.
ADDRESSES: For copies of this FONSI or the EA, please call BPA's toll-
free document request line: 800-622-4520.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Weintraub, KECN, Bonneville
Power Administration, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, Oregon, 97208-3621,
phone number 503-230-5373, fax number 503-230-5699.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: BPA proposes to fund coho research and
broodstock development in the Wenatchee and Methow river basins for 2
to 3 years. BPA is responding to a need to determine the ecological
risks and biological feasibility of reintroducing coho to mid-Columbia
River basin tributaries, from which they have been extirpated for at
least a half century. Reintroduction of coho into the mid-Columbia
region has been identified by regional fish-managing entities as one of
fifteen high-priority projects for the Columbia River basin. The
project is included in the Northwest Power Planning Council's (Council)
Fish and Wildlife Program, and was recommended by the Council to BPA
for funding in 1996. However, before a full-scale reintroduction
program is implemented, feasibility research needs to be conducted.
Besides BPA, project participants include Yakama Indian Nation (YIN)
and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), co-managers;
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS); U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS); U.S. Forest Service (USFS); and Confederated Tribes of
the Colville Indian Reservation.
Federal and State fish agencies and YIN, as well as environmental
groups and individual citizens, have been strongly interested in the
project. In the Wenatchee and Methow basins, there are several fish
species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as well as
several other game fish species, which are the subject of various
enhancement programs. The primary concern of most organizations and
citizens has been the potential for reintroduced coho to prey on or
compete with other weakened, sensitive, or prized species in the two
basins. BPA has participated in extensive discussions leading to
alternatives that BPA seriously considered and included in this EA/
FONSI (see below). BPA has remained open to the views of the community
and all project participants as well as those of the original project
proponents (YIN). We realize this project, if fully implemented, could
increase the risk of harm to other sensitive fish species in the basin.
We believe, however, that in this first phase, the feasibility studies,
the risks are low and that they are manageable through monitoring and
annual review by project participants, with adjustments as necessary to
minimize risks. This FONSI documents that the research can be conducted
without significant environmental impacts.
Several possible alternative plans have been identified and are
addressed in the EA (Chapter 2). Briefly, they are as follows:
Tribal Alternative (Proposed Action): BPA would fund
research into all life phases of coho and their interactions with other
species in the Wenatchee and Methow basins, including survival, natural
spawning, predation, residualism, and productivity studies; genetics
monitoring; and a broodstock development program. Research would depend
on acclimation and release of up to 1,000,000 coho smolts in the
Wenatchee basin and up to 400,000 smolts in the Methow. Up to three of
six alternative acclimation sites would be developed in the Wenatchee;
up to three existing acclimation sites in the Methow would be used.
[[Page 24632]]
Phased Study Alternative: BPA would fund research as
described above, including coho releases and acclimation site
development, in the Wenatchee basin only.
Hatchery Releases Alternative: BPA would fund research,
including coho releases, designed to answer one key question: can adult
coho return to the mid-Columbia in sufficient numbers to replace
themselves? Coho would be acclimated and released only at existing
hatcheries in the Wenatchee basin; acclimation in natural habitats
would not take place. Studies of coho predation and ability to
naturally reproduce would not be done.
No-Action Alternative: Continue coho releases of 700,000
smolts/yearlings/etc. as is done currently under the Management
Agreement for 1997 Brood Upper Columbia River Coho, a stipulated order
under United States v. Oregon. There would be no BPA funding or
participation and no in-basin acclimation. Release numbers and
locations would be agreed to annually by parties to the order. Little,
if any, research would be done.
Table 4 in the EA summarizes the impacts of each alternative. The
impacts of two of the three action alternatives (Tribal and Phased
Study) are similar in nature and intensity; the primary difference
between the two is that the geographic scope is reduced in the Phased
Study alternative. The impacts of the third action alternative
(Hatchery Releases) overall are lower in intensity than the other two.
BPA has determined, based on the context and intensity of these
impacts, that they are not significant, using the definition of this
concept in section 1508.27 of the Council on Environmental Quality
Regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act.
This determination is based on the following discussion of each point
listed in section 1508.27:
1. The project aims to develop knowledge about how a largely
domesticated stock might be reintroduced and naturalized in a basin
where it has long been absent. This knowledge may be applicable
throughout the Columbia basin. When combined with other current and
future research on similar issues, the cumulative benefit of the mid-
Columbia project would be to increase the chances that other
reintroduction projects would succeed, and that the concomitant
resource risks would be reduced. These activities would serve to answer
critical uncertainties associated with future reintroduction
activities. While the benefits of the proposed research warrant BPA
funding, the results from this 2-3 year project alone would not
significantly increase the potential for success of reintroduction
projects in the region.
2. Implementation of the Tribal, Phased Study, or Hatchery Releases
alternatives would not affect the health and safety of the people of
the Wenatchee or Methow basins. As documented in section 3.4.1.2 and
3.4.2 of the EA, water and chemical use and wastewater discharges would
be within permitted amounts. Water temperatures of local rivers would
not be increased because amounts used for acclimation sites (Tribal and
Phased Study alternatives) would be small, in most cases water would be
part of natural or existing ponds, and use would occur in early spring
when water is cold and flows are high (section 3.4.1.3). Screw traps
are an obstacle to recreational boaters such as rafters, kayakers, and
others. However, traps would be located away from high-use areas for
recreational boaters and would be flagged to warn boaters of their
presence. These issues are not significant in the context of NEPA
because the risks are small relative to other factors affecting health
and safety in the local area.
3. Research activities for all alternatives would take place in
environmentally sensitive areas. However, because acclimation sites are
already developed in the Methow basin (Tribal alternative), and because
only one of six alternative sites in the Wenatchee basin requires
construction-type activity to develop (Tribal and Phased Study), most
sensitive areas would not be affected. Specifically:
a. In the Wenatchee basin, Icicle Creek near one proposed
acclimation site, and White River near another have been recommended by
the Wenatchee National Forest for inclusion in the National Wild and
Scenic Rivers System as Recreational Rivers. Installation of a
temporary smolt screen at Icicle Creek, and installation of a temporary
net and smolt exit pipe in a beaver dam at White River Side Channels,
would not adversely affect the recreational and other values of the
rivers (EA, section 3.4.1.3).
b. Although proposed acclimation sites are located in ecologically
critical areas such as wetlands, floodplains, and State Shoreline
areas, development of only one alternative site in the Wenatchee basin
(Two Rivers) would adversely affect those areas. A wetland, a 100-year
floodplain, and a State Shoreline area could be affected if that site
is developed (Tribal Alternative and Phased Study). Acclimation ponds
for the site would be dug on the property of an operating sand and
gravel quarry in an already disturbed area. The smolt exit channel,
however, would disturb or destroy riparian and/or wetland vegetation
for a distance of about 80 meters (260 feet). Plant surveys would be
completed before ponds and channels are designed and constructed to
determine if any sensitive species occupy the area. If any sensitive
species are found, the areas would be avoided or the site would not be
developed. To avoid impacts on wetlands, information from wetlands
delineation surveys would be used during final design to develop
mitigation measures, if necessary, to ensure that the project would
result in no net loss of wetlands. Buffers from construction activities
would be provided. Upon completion of construction, disturbed land
would be restored to its previous condition wherever possible. (EA,
section 3.4.1.3). Therefore, impacts on wetlands, floodplains, and
State Shorelines would not be significant.
The actions proposed would not affect prime farmland or park lands,
as there are none present in the vicinity.
4. The impacts of actions proposed under the three action
alternatives are not significant due to their controversy. Controversy
that surfaced during development and review of the draft EA centered on
the number and locations of coho smolt releases and the consequent
level of risk to endangered spring chinook populations in the Wenatchee
basin, as originally proposed under the Tribal Alternative. BPA and
project participants subsequently developed release numbers and sites
for 1999 that parties agree pose minimal risk to spring chinook, and
they are committed to reaching agreement on future release numbers and
sites to maintain minimal risk for the research period.
5. The impacts of actions proposed under the three action
alternatives are not significant due to the degree of highly uncertain,
unique, or unknown risks. These issues were raised by project
participants and members of the public, particularly in regard to the
risks of predation by coho smolts on spring chinook. Concerns were that
not enough research has been completed to date to confirm that releases
of coho smolts in or near spring chinook habitat would not pose a
significant predation risk. While one year of study has been completed
in the Yakima Basin that did not show significant predation of coho
smolts on spring chinook, several project participants believe that
additional studies are needed. In order to address this issue, proposed
smolt release numbers in Nason Creek, the primary spring chinook
habitat, were
[[Page 24633]]
reduced for 1999, and an additional year of study is planned in the
Yakima Basin. The fish managers (YIN and WDFW) have agreed that they
will annually review the results of the previous year's research and
come to agreement on release numbers and locations for the subsequent
years based on the results of the ongoing research. The Biological
Opinion from the National Marine Fisheries Service supports the
conclusion that, with monitoring and risk containment measures (EA,
section 3.3.1.2), the risk to spring chinook would not jeopardize their
continued existence.
6. The actions proposed would not establish a precedent for future
actions with significant effects or represent a decision in principle
about a future consideration. Contrary to the assertions of some, this
project does not constitute a decision to reintroduce coho to mid-
Columbia tributaries. BPA is unwilling to commit substantial resources
to such an effort without some indication of its potential for success,
as reintroduction of an extirpated fish species is not a well-
researched action. If research shows that the potential exists for
full-scale reintroduction to be successful, and that impacts to other
sensitive species can be minimized to acceptable levels, then, under
NEPA, the time would be ``ripe'' to assess the effects of such a
program.
7. The proposal is not connected (40 CFR 1508.25(a)(1)) to other
actions with potentially significant impacts, nor is it related to
other proposed actions with cumulatively significant impacts (40 CFR
1508.25(a)(2)). Section 3.6 of the EA addresses the cumulative fishery
resource impacts. Although the proposed action is related to actions
being addressed under the Impacts of Artificial Salmon and Steelhead
Production Strategies in the Columbia River Basin Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (Draft EIS), it is not precluded by 40 CFR 1506.1 or
10 CFR 1021.211 because it is not a major Federal action and would not
significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The actions
proposed are independent of the actions proposed under the Draft EIS
and would not prejudice the ultimate decision on the program, as they
are low-tech, minimal-impact actions to be taken for research purposes
to answer specific questions regarding the potential impacts of and
viability of an artificial coho production program in the mid-Columbia.
Additional environmental review would be completed prior to the
initiation of any long-term, full-scale production program.
8. There are no sites listed on or eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places at or near any facility location. Only one
of the six potential acclimation sites in the Wenatchee basin (Tribal
and Phased Study alternatives) could require ground disturbance (EA,
section 3.4.1.3). If developed, its final location would be surveyed
before construction to insure that it would not adversely affect
cultural resources, including tribal traditional use areas.
9. Several fish, wildlife, and plant species in the Wenatchee and
Methow basins are listed or proposed for listing under the Endangered
Species Act. Of those discussed in the EA in Chapter 3, the following
could be affected:
a. Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook, listed as Endangered,
spawn and rear in habitat near proposed coho release sites in the
Wenatchee and Methow basins. However, little impact to spring chinook
is expected because most coho acclimation/release sites are downstream
of the primary spawning and summer rearing areas; once released, coho
tend to migrate downstream rapidly; most returning adult coho spawners
will home to their points of release, which are downstream of the
spring chinook spawning/rearing reaches; and most adult coho would be
collected to develop the localized broodstock, so few would be spawning
in the wild. In addition, as discussed in #4 and #5 above and in
section 3.3.1.2 of the EA, risk of impact to spring chinook would be
further minimized by working with other fish managers to determine coho
release sites and numbers that minimize risk; by releasing coho smolts
in low densities; by releasing fish that more closely resemble sizes of
wild coho, which tend to be smaller than hatchery fish; and by waiting
until smolts are ready to actively migrate before releasing them.
b. Bull trout are listed as Threatened. There could be minor,
temporary disturbances to bull trout migratory corridor habitat during
construction of the Two Rivers acclimation site smolt exit channel, but
erosion and sedimentation control best management practices would
ensure impacts were not significant. Migratory adult bull trout could
be taken during rotary screw trap sampling, beach seining, electro-
fishing, and adult coho broodstock collection. To minimize impacts,
rotary traps would be attended 24 hours a day and checked every hour to
remove fish and debris from the livebox. Bull trout found in the
livebox would be released immediately. Bull trout captured by other
collection methods also would be released immediately. To reduce
potential mortality from electro-fishing, only personnel trained in the
technique would be employed. They would follow guidelines for such
procedures recently established by NMFS (NMFS 1998) (EA, section 3.5.1;
Biological Assessment [BA], section 5.10). Therefore, impacts to bull
trout would not be significant.
c. The grizzly bear is listed as Threatened. To access the White
River Side Channel acclimation site (Tribal and Phased Study
alternatives), the Sears Creek Road would be plowed in late March. This
area has been identified as potential spring emergence grizzly habitat,
although no use occurs at present. The project would install a locked
gate at the point where plowing would begin to control the amount of
disturbance from use of the road. All the acclimation sites are in
areas with at least moderate human disturbance. There would be no
disturbance to grizzly bear habitat from the project (EA, section
3.4.1.3; BA, section 5.4). Therefore, there would be no significant
effects to grizzly bears from this project.
d. Two plants--Ute's Ladies Tresses (Threatened) and Wenatchee
(Oregon) checkermallow (Proposed, Wenatchee basin only)--could be at or
near the Two Rivers acclimation site (Tribal and Phased Study
alternatives). If the site were developed, it would be surveyed before
ground disturbing activity begins. If plants are found, they would be
avoided or the site would not be developed, so these two plants would
not be adversely affected (EA, section 3.4.1.3).
Other listed and proposed fish and wildlife species in the two
basins would not be adversely affected (EA, Chapter 3).
10. The actions proposed would not threaten to violate Federal,
State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the
environment. The following permits and consultation may be required and
will be obtained, as needed: Section 7 consultation and incidental take
permit for trapping and electroshocking activities proposed in 2000 and
2001 (NMFS and USFWS), shoreline development permit (Chelan County),
hydraulic project approval permit (Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife), State water quality certification (Washington Department of
Ecology), modifications to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permits, USFS land use permits, Clean Water Act Section 404
permit (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), and use permits for nets across
highway culverts (Washington Department of Transportation). Final
determinations regarding the need for permits will be
[[Page 24634]]
made after project participants decide on the final course of action.
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 November 9, 1998, and impacts
to floodplains and wetlands were assessed in the EA (section 3.4.1.3).
At one alternative acclimation site (Two Rivers), BPA would dig a smolt
exit channel from the new ponds to the Little Wenatchee River, within
the 100-year floodplain. The channel needs to pass through the
floodplain in order to allow smolts access to the river. There are no
alternatives that would avoid constructing the smolt exit channel in
the floodplain at the Two Rivers site; however, there are alternative
acclimation sites identified in the EA that would not affect
floodplains. The actions proposed would conform to applicable State and
local floodplain protection standards; a county floodplain development
permit would be obtained, if needed, for work in the floodplain of the
Little Wenatchee River.
The steps to be taken to avoid or minimize potential harm to or
within the affected floodplain and wetlands include:
In floodplain and shoreline areas, disturbed land would be
restored as closely as possible to pre-project contours and replanted
with native and local species. However, site topography could require
bank disruption. A restoration and monitoring plan would be prepared
before disturbing floodplain and shoreline areas.
Erosion control measures would be implemented within the
60-meter (200-foot) State Shoreline area.
Location of new structures within the identified shoreline
and floodplain would be avoided.
BPA will endeavor to allow 15 days of public review after
publication of this statement of findings before implementing the
selected alternative.
Determination
Based on the information in the EA, as summarized here, BPA
determines that the actions proposed, as described and analyzed in
either the Tribal, Phased Study, or Hatchery Releases alternatives, are
not major Federal actions 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 April 28, 1999.
James R. Meyer,
Acting Vice President, Environment, Fish and Wildlife Group.
[FR Doc. 99-11533 Filed 5-6-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
