DOCSLIB.ORG

Clark Fork River Delta Restoration Project Draft Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Clark Fork River Delta Restoration Project Draft Environmental Assessment B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Clark Fork River Delta Restoration Project Draft Environmental Assessment January 2014 DOE/EA-1969 Clark Fork River Delta Restoration Project Draft Environmental Assessment NEPA Register Number: DOE/EA-1969 Bonneville Power Administration P.O. Box 3621 Portland, Oregon 97208-3621 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 3755 Seattle, Washington 98124-3755 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Idaho Field Office 1387 S. Vinnell Way Boise, Idaho 83709 January 2014 BUREAU OF BONNEVILLE LAND POWER MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATION Contents Chapter 1 Introduction.............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Need for Action .................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Purposes ............................................................................................................... 1-3 1.3 Background .......................................................................................................... 1-3 1.3.1 Federal Columbia River Power System and Albeni Falls Dam ............... 1-3 1.3.2 Other Dams Affecting Lake Pend Oreille ................................................ 1-4 1.3.3 Habitat Losses .......................................................................................... 1-4 1.3.4 Ongoing Mitigation Efforts for Albeni Falls Dam .................................. 1-5 1.4 Cooperating Agencies .......................................................................................... 1-5 1.4.1 U.S. Bureau of Land Management .......................................................... 1-5 1.4.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ................................................................ 1-7 1.5 Public Involvement and Issue Summary .............................................................. 1-7 1.5.1 Issues Outside the Scope of this Environmental Assessment .................. 1-9 Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives .......................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Proposed Action ................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Project Areas ............................................................................................ 2-1 2.1.2 Project Elements and Construction Actions ............................................ 2-3 2.1.3 Project Elements and Actions by Area .................................................. 2-10 2.1.4 Construction Sequencing ....................................................................... 2-20 2.1.5 Environmental Design Features/Mitigation Measures and BMPs Included as Part of the Project ............................................................... 2-22 2.1.6 Construction Contingencies ................................................................... 2-22 2.1.7 Performance Monitoring ........................................................................ 2-22 2.2 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................ 2-27 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study .......................... 2-27 2.3.1 Extending Breakwaters or Using Pile Breakwaters ............................... 2-27 2.3.2 Delta Erosion Control ............................................................................ 2-27 2.4 Comparison of Alternatives ............................................................................... 2-28 Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences .................................. 3-1 3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 General Setting......................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................ 3-4 3.2.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................. 3-4 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences – Action Alternative ................................ 3-6 3.2.3 Environmental Consequences – No Action ............................................. 3-9 3.3 Vegetation and Wetlands ..................................................................................... 3-9 3.3.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................. 3-9 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences – Action Alternative .............................. 3-14 3.3.3 Environmental Consequences – No Action ........................................... 3-17 3.4 Water Resources ................................................................................................ 3-18 3.4.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 3-18 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences – Action Alternative .............................. 3-19 Clark Fork River Delta Restoration Project Draft EA (January 2014) iii 3.4.3 Environmental Consequences – No Action ........................................... 3-21 3.5 Fish and Wildlife................................................................................................ 3-21 3.5.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 3-21 3.5.2 Environmental Consequences – Action Alternative .............................. 3-31 3.5.3 Environmental Consequences – No Action ........................................... 3-38 3.6 Land Use and Recreation ................................................................................... 3-38 3.6.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 3-38 3.6.2 Environmental Consequences – Action Alternative .............................. 3-42 3.6.3 Environmental Consequences – No Action ........................................... 3-43 3.7 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 3-44 3.7.1 On-Going Management of Cultural Resources ...................................... 3-44 3.7.2 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 3-45 3.7.3 Environmental Consequences – Action Alternative .............................. 3-48 3.7.4 Environmental Consequences – No Action ........................................... 3-49 3.8 Aesthetics and Visual Resources ....................................................................... 3-49 3.8.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 3-49 3.8.2 Environmental Consequences – Action Alternative .............................. 3-51 3.8.3 Environmental Consequences – No Action ........................................... 3-53 3.9 Air Quality, Noise, Hazardous Waste, and Public Health and Safety ............... 3-54 3.9.1 Air Quality ............................................................................................. 3-54 3.9.2 Noise ...................................................................................................... 3-58 3.9.3 Hazardous Waste ................................................................................... 3-60 3.9.4 Public Health and Safety ........................................................................ 3-62 3.10 Transportation .................................................................................................... 3-63 3.10.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 3-63 3.10.2 Environmental Consequences – Action Alternative .............................. 3-65 3.10.3 Environmental Consequences – No Action ........................................... 3-68 3.11 Socioeconomics ................................................................................................. 3-68 3.11.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 3-68 3.11.2 Environmental Consequences – Action Alternative .............................. 3-70 3.11.3 Environmental Consequences – No Action ........................................... 3-71 3.12 Cumulative Impacts Analysis ............................................................................ 3-71 3.12.1 Past Actions ........................................................................................... 3-71 3.12.2 Current and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ............................ 3-72 3.12.3 Cumulative Impacts Analysis ................................................................ 3-73 Chapter 4 Environmental Consultation, Review, and Permit Requirements ...................... 4-1 4.1 National Environmental Policy Act ..................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Wetlands, Floodplains, and Water Resources ...................................................... 4-1 4.2.1 Clean Water Act Section 401 ................................................................... 4-1 4.2.2 Clean Water Act Section 402 ................................................................... 4-1 4.2.3 Clean Water Act Section 404 ................................................................... 4-2 4.3 Fish and Wildlife.................................................................................................. 4-2 4.3.1 Endangered
Load more

Recommended publications
  • December 18, 2020 Fish Consumption Guidance Updated for Portions Of
    Media contact: Trevor Selch, FWP Fisheries Pollution Biologist, 406-444-5686 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 18, 2020 Fish consumption guidance updated for portions of Clark Fork, Bitterroot and Blackfoot Rivers in western Montana MISSOULA – The State of Montana Fish Guidance Board, which includes Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) and the Departments of Environmental Quality (DEQ), and Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS), has updated the fish consumption guidance for all species of fish on a 148-mile stretch of the Clark Fork River and tributaries in western Montana in response to new research results. Guidance now recommends avoiding consumption of all species of fish from the Clark Fork River’s confluence with the Bitterroot River, just west of Missoula, to the confluence with the Flathead River, near Paradise. Slightly revised guidance is also in place for rainbow trout and northern pike on an upstream section of the Clark Fork and for the Blackfoot and Bitterroot Rivers. New data was collected to assess chemical contaminants including dioxins, furans, and PCBs in fish tissue in a study area on the Clark Fork that extended from approximately 30 miles upstream of Missoula to 100 miles downstream. Testing in the area is underway as part of water quality monitoring around the former Smurfit-Stone Container mill site. Upon review of the study results, new guidance was issued based on high levels of contaminants in the fish tissue. The source of all the contaminants found in the fish has not been attributed. The study only looked at contaminant concentrations found in the muscle tissues of northern pike and rainbow trout, but the same “Avoid” guidance extends to all species present in the Clark Fork River near Missoula (such as brown trout, whitefish, small- and large-mouth bass, northern pikeminnow, and sucker species) because similar food habits, habitat use, and life- span suggest they could also contain chemical concentrations at potentially dangerous levels.
    [Show full text]
  • Selkirk Mountains Grizzly Bear Recovery Area 2015 Research and Monitoring Progress Report
    SELKIRK MOUNTAINS GRIZZLY BEAR RECOVERY AREA 2015 RESEARCH AND MONITORING PROGRESS REPORT PREPARED BY WAYNE F. KASWORM, ALEX WELANDER, THOMAS G. RADANDT, JUSTIN E. TEISBERG, WAYNE L. WAKKINEN, MICHAEL PROCTOR, AND CHRISTOPHER SERVHEEN 2016 UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE GRIZZLY BEAR RECOVERY COORDINATOR'S OFFICE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA, MAIN HALL ROOM 309 MISSOULA, MONTANA 59812 (406) 243-4903 1 Abstract: Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) captured and monitored a radio collared sample of grizzly bears in the SMGBRZ from 1983 until 2002 to determine distribution, home ranges, cause specific mortality, reproductive rates, and population trend. This effort was suspended in 2003 due to funding constraints and management decisions. In cooperation with IDFG and the Panhandle National Forest (USFS) this effort was reinitiated during 2012 with personnel from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). During 2013 the program was expanded with funding from IDFG, USFS, several sources in British Columbia (BC), and USFWS. This cooperative research and monitoring effort was expanded to involve Idaho Department of Lands, the Kalispel Tribe, the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in 2014 Numbers of females with cubs in the Selkirk Mountains grizzly bear recovery zone (SMGBRZ) varied from 0–4 per year and averaged 1.5 per year from 2010–15. Human caused mortality averaged 1.7 bears per year and 0.7 females per year. Ten human caused mortalities during 2010-15 include 4 females (all BC) and 6 males (one US and five BC). Human caused mortalities during 2010-15 were four adult females (one vehicle collision and three under investigation), one adult male (management), and four subadult males (two management, one mistaken identity, and one self-defense).
    [Show full text]
  • Greater Sandpoint Greenprint Final Report
    Greater Sandpoint Greenprint Final Report Greater Sandpoint Greenprint Final Report The Trust for Public Land March Printed on 100% recycled paper. © 2016 The Trust for Public Land. The Trust for Public Land creates parks and protects land for people, ensuring healthy, livable communities for generations to come. tpl.org Table of contents Preface ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Executive summary .................................................................................................................. 5 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 6 2. Study area ....................................................................................................................... 9 3. Community engagement ........................................................................................... 12 4. Mapping conservation values .................................................................................... 15 5. Greater Sandpoint Greenprint action plan .............................................................. 26 6. Profiles in conservation ............................................................................................... 28 7. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 30 Appendix A: Participants Lists .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cooper's Hill Pond 1 (Josh Hellon)
    Photo: Cooper’s Hill Pond 1 (Josh Hellon) 1 Contents 1 Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 2 2 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 3 3 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 4 4 Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 Site description ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Invertebrate & plant survey ................................................................................................................ 5 5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 5 6 References ............................................................................................................................................. 5 Appendices ................................................................................................................................................... 6 Appendix 1 species lists and index calculation ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone Fishing Report
    Clarks Fork Of The Yellowstone Fishing Report Uninvidious and ameboid Joao overbuy her primely slash uncomfortably or slumber counter, is Penny anginal? neverOld-fogyish scats Berchtoldso rakishly never or goose-step enfaced so any congenitally pantofle mordantly. or fidget any tightwads complexly. Humanlike Whitman Everything you therefore wanted to know will fly-fishing the. Clarks Fork Yellowstone River Wyoming Fly Fishing Camping. Montana Trout Scout Guided Fly explode in South Central. Basins and plains such because the Clarks Fork Yellowstone Little practice and Powder Rivers. At various water of reports and report layout through july, and then confluences with fish this is still picking up in. Clarks Fork Yellowstone River include a stream located just 3 miles from Laurel in Yellowstone County in average state of Montana United. The Clarks Fork school the Yellowstone is a warm-faced river. The report has some reports from reed reservoir, there was with a mouse as an hour away from one of california, but there are. Bureau of Reclamation Managing water flow power in most West. Wade fishing opportunities, coal mining industry, are located to heat of silver bow creek to occur primarily livestock. Several hundred acres in about terrestrials become a jig head out a nice fishing reports that contain naturally bright one of floatable sections. Lake Weatherford Texas fishing report rainbow trout sight fishing forecast. Try a chaotic fashion include clark fork powder river has an email to turah are. Chapter 3 Clark Fork River US Fish and every Service. Yellowstone angler When it comes to craft fishing Yellowstone National. So do Luce and Hogan Lakes halfway between Belfry and Cody in the Clark's Fork of the Yellowstone drainage Fish with big midge larvae.
    [Show full text]
  • December 2007 Newsletter
    VOLUME 32 NUMBER 4 DECEMBER 2007 Jane Lopp & Associates to be Recognized for Conservation Support Jane Lopp & Associates LLC will be pre- cludes office space for more employees and a large sented Flathead Audubon’s Conservation Achieve- conference room. With the move to the new building, ment Recognition at the December 10 th meeting, for Jane Lopp & Associates, was launched. supporting conservation projects and conservation Jane is well known in the Flathead for her nonprofits while sponsoring a number of conserva- volunteer contributions to our community. Perhaps tion-oriented Prudential Global Volunteer Days in the less well known are her volunteer activities at the Flathead. state level. Jane served on the Montana Human Jane Lopp & Associates represents Pruden- Rights Commission for 8 years, much of that time as tial Financial Planning Services. Though Jane has Chair. She also served on the Gender Equity Study been in the insurance and investments business Commission for the State Supreme Court, and since 1979, and with Prudential since 1989, Jane chaired the Site Selection Committee for the Lopp & Associates is only about five years old. Women’s Prison which was built in Billings. Jane’s business started out as one-woman This same commitment to community ser- show—just Jane and a secretary located in a 3-room vice also characterizes her company, Jane Lopp & house. Another employee was added when she re- Associates. One recent example is the company’s cruited her husband Bob into the company after he corporate sponsorship for the last two years of girls’ retired from teaching at Flathead High School.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrogeologic Framework of the Upper Clark Fork River Area: Deer Lodge, Granite, Powell, and Silver Bow Counties R15W R14W R13W R12W By
    Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Montana Groundwater Assessment Atlas No. 5, Part B, Map 2 A Department of Montana Tech of The University of Montana July 2009 Open-File Version Hydrogeologic Framework of the Upper Clark Fork River Area: Deer Lodge, Granite, Powell, and Silver Bow Counties R15W R14W R13W R12W by S Qsf w Qsf Yb Larry N. Smith a n T21N Qsf Yb T21N R Authors Note: This map is part of the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology (MBMG) a n Pz Pz Groundwater Assessment Atlas for the Upper Clark Fork River Area groundwater Philipsburg ValleyUpper Flint Creek g e Pz Qsf characterization. It is intended to stand alone and describe a single hydrogeologic aspect of the study area, although many of the areas hydrogeologic features are The town of Philipsburg is the largest population center in the valley between the Qsc interrelated. For an integrated view of the hydrogeology of the Upper Clark Fork Area Flint Creek Range and the John Long Mountains. The Philipsburg Valley contains 47o30 the reader is referred to Part A (descriptive overview) and Part B (maps) of the Montana 040 ft of Quaternary alluvial sediment deposited along streams cut into Tertiary 47o30 Groundwater Assessment Atlas 5. sedimentary rocks of unknown thickness. The east-side valley margin was glaciated . T20N Yb t R during the last glaciation, producing ice-sculpted topography and rolling hills in side oo B kf l Ovando c INTRODUCTION drainages on the west slopes of the Flint Creek Range. Prominent benches between ac la kf k B Blac oo N F T20N tributaries to Flint Creek are mostly underlain by Tertiary sedimentary rocks.
    [Show full text]
  • Maps 1 to 12 for the Coeur D'alene Resource Management Plan
    T65N Upper P Coeur d'Alene Field Office M riest Riv oy Resource Management Plan ie R iv er er K oot Planning Area e nai R Surface Management iv T63N Boundary er " LEGEND ! SURFACE MANAGEMENT Bonners Ferry BLM T61N Private State Priest Lake StateFish&Game USFS ¤£95 BOUNDARY County T59N Indian Reservation Public Land Survey township Priest River Pack River Bonner MAJOR ROADS 200 State Highway 57 95 U.S. Highway Sandpoint 90 Interstate 90 T57N ! 200 BLM % of County BLM Acres Priest River ¤£2 county ! Lake Pend Oreille River Pend Benewah 14,256 2.8% Oreille Bonner 11,975 1.0% Boundary 4,400 0.5% T55N ClarkForkRiver Kootenai 12,104 1.4% Shoshone 55,199 3.3% 97,935 1.9% Counties layer obtained from USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Surface ownership layer and Spirit! Lake additional data were created at 1:24,000 scale by Coeur d'Alene District Office GIS personnel. T53N No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual use or aggregate use with other data, or for purposes not intended by BLM. Spatial information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This information may be updated without notification. Rathdrum! Department of the Interior Hayden Bureau of Land Managment ! T51N Kootenai Coeur d'Alene Field Office 3815 N. Schreiber Way Post Falls Coeur d'Alene, ID 83815 ! Spokan e River Coeur d'Alene ! May 2007 ¦¨§90 97 T49N Lake IDAHO ¤£95 Coeur Kellogg ! d'Alene Coeur d'Alene River ® ! 3 Wallace Data is displayed in UTM zone 11 north, NAD83.
    [Show full text]
  • SECTION 16 – Table of Contents
    SECTION 16 – Table of Contents 16 Pend Oreille Subbasin Assessment – Terrestrial ............................................ 2 16.1 Focal Habitats: Current Distribution, Limiting Factors, and Condition ........................... 2 16.2 Wildlife of the Pend Oreille Subbasin ............................................................................ 12 16.3 Summary of Terrestrial Resource Limiting Factors ....................................................... 21 16.4 Interpretation and Synthesis............................................................................................ 24 16-1 16 Pend Oreille Subbasin Assessment – Terrestrial 16.1 Focal Habitats: Current Distribution, Limiting Factors, and Condition Vegetation in the Pend Oreille Subbasin is dominated by interior mixed conifer forest, with montane mixed conifer and lodgepole forests in the high elevations and small areas of montane coniferous wetlands and alpine habitats. Timber management is the primary land use in the Subbasin on National Forest System, BLM, Idaho Department of Lands, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Tribal, and private timberlands. Agriculture, grazing, and urban and rural residential development are other land uses. The largest urban areas within the Subbasin include Newport, Cusick, and Metaline, Washington, and Sandpoint, Priest River, and Clark Fork, Idaho. Figure 13.2 (Section 13) shows the current distribution of wildlife-habitat types in the Pend Oreille Subbasin based on IBIS (2003). Table 16.1 presents the acres of habitats by
    [Show full text]
  • Ecology of Freshwater and Estuarine Wetlands: an Introduction
    ONE Ecology of Freshwater and Estuarine Wetlands: An Introduction RebeCCA R. SHARITZ, DAROLD P. BATZER, and STeveN C. PENNINGS WHAT IS A WETLAND? WHY ARE WETLANDS IMPORTANT? CHARACTERISTicS OF SeLecTED WETLANDS Wetlands with Predominantly Precipitation Inputs Wetlands with Predominately Groundwater Inputs Wetlands with Predominately Surface Water Inputs WETLAND LOSS AND DeGRADATION WHAT THIS BOOK COVERS What Is a Wetland? The study of wetland ecology can entail an issue that rarely Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and needs consideration by terrestrial or aquatic ecologists: the aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or need to define the habitat. What exactly constitutes a wet- near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. land may not always be clear. Thus, it seems appropriate Wetlands must have one or more of the following three to begin by defining the wordwetland . The Oxford English attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land supports predominately hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is pre- Dictionary says, “Wetland (F. wet a. + land sb.)— an area of dominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is land that is usually saturated with water, often a marsh or nonsoil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow swamp.” While covering the basic pairing of the words wet water at some time during the growing season of each year. and land, this definition is rather ambiguous. Does “usu- ally saturated” mean at least half of the time? That would This USFWS definition emphasizes the importance of omit many seasonally flooded habitats that most ecolo- hydrology, soils, and vegetation, which you will see is a gists would consider wetlands.
    [Show full text]
  • EXPERIENCES of a PACKER in WASHINGTON TERRITORY MINING CAMPS DURING the SIXTIES (Concluded from Vol
    EXPERIENCES OF A PACKER IN WASHINGTON TERRITORY MINING CAMPS DURING THE SIXTIES (Concluded from Vol. XIX., page 293). Well, that morning when Patterson reached the barber shop he found Pinkham in the barber shop getting shaved; Patterson just walked over to the barber chair, drew out a big dragoon six shooter and placing it against Pinkhams ear shot him through the head. After he was shot Pinkham jumped up and ran to the front door, and fell there dead. I was right there at the time and saw him lying there in a pool of blood. Patterson "gave himself up," and his crowd being in control of things he was later acquitted by a packed or intimidated jury. Patterson was a bad man, he had killed a sea captain in Portland, and murdered a number of men in "self defense." When a bad man wanted to commit murder with impunity he picked a quarrel with his vic­ tim and killed "in self defense." In going from Walla Walla to the Kootenay mining district we traveled over the Mullan Road to the crossing of the Touchet River, the site of the present town of Prescott; thence to the Snake River, which we crossed sometimes at Silcott's or Lyons Ferry and sometimes at Texas Ferry. We struck the Mullan Road again at Rock Creek and followed it to the crossing of the Spokane River, or Herrin's Bridge, as the place was then called. This bridge was located near the Idaho line, about a half mile above the place where Col.
    [Show full text]
  • PROVO RIVER DELTA RESTORATION PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume I: Chapters 1–5
    PROVO RIVER DELTA RESTORATION PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume I: Chapters 1–5 April 2015 UTAH RECLAMATION 230 South 500 East, #230, Salt Lake City, UT 84102 COMMISSIONERS Phone: (801) 524-3146 – Fax: (801) 524-3148 Don A. Christiansen MITIGATION Brad T. Barber AND CONSERVATION Dallin W. Jensen COMMISSION Dear Reader, April 2015 Attached is the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Provo River Delta Restoration Project (PRDRP). The proposed project would restore a naturally functioning river- lake interface essential for recruitment of June sucker (Chasmistes liorus), an endangered fish species that exists naturally only in Utah Lake and its tributaries. In addition to fulfilling environmental commitments associated with water development projects in Utah and contributing to recovery of an endangered species, the project is intended to help improve water quality on the lower Provo River and to provide enhancements for public recreation in Utah County. Alternative B has been identified as the preferred alternative because it would minimize the amount of private lands that would need to be acquired for the project while still providing adequate space for a naturally functioning river delta and sufficient habitat enhancement for achieving the need for the project. The agencies preparing the Final EIS are the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission (Mitigation Commission), the Central Utah Water Conservancy District, and the Central Utah Project Completion Act (CUPCA) Office of the U.S. Department of the Interior, collectively referred to as the Joint Lead Agencies. The Final EIS, Executive Summary and Technical Reports can be viewed or downloaded from the project website www.ProvoRiverDelta.us or by requesting a copy on CD.
    [Show full text]