Albeni Falls Wildlife Management Plan

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