[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