Mid-Columbia Coho Salmon Reintroduction Feasibility Project

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