[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