DOE/EIS-0340; Grand Ronde – Imnaha Spring Chinook Hatchery
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
M A Y 2 0 0 3 NORTHEAST OREGON HATCHERY PROGRAM GRANDE RONDE - IMNAHA SPRING CHINOOK HATCHERY PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Statement DOE/EIS-0340 Northeast Oregon Hatchery Program Grande Ronde – Imnaha Spring Chinook Hatchery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0340) Responsible Agency: U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) Cooperating Federal Agencies: U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries); U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Cooperating Tribes: Nez Perce Tribe (NPT), Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) Cooperating State Agencies: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) Abstract: To assist in the conservation and recovery of Chinook salmon native to the Grande Ronde River and Imnaha River subbasins, the Proposed Action of updating and modifying two existing hatcheries and constructing three new hatchery facilities at other sites is being studied in this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS). BPA proposes to fund the capital improvements and the operation and maintenance of all five facilities to aid BPA’s efforts to mitigate and recover anadromous fish affected by the Federal Columbia River Power System. The Lower Snake River run of spring/summer chinook was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1992. The existing hatchery facilities, Lookingglass Hatchery in the Grande Ronde subbasin and Imnaha Satellite Facility in the Imnaha subbasin, have become over-extended, outdated or otherwise unsuitable for producing the numbers of hatchery fish necessary to recover the threatened Chinook stocks. The Lostine River Hatchery, Lostine Adult Collection Facility (both on the Lostine River in the Grande Ronde subbasin), and Imnaha Final Rearing Facility (in the Imnaha subbasin) would help alleviate the risk of fish production failure or disease epidemic at the existing hatcheries; and allow hatchery fish production, evaluation and monitoring programs described in the Northeast Oregon Hatchery Program Spring Chinook Master Plan (Master Plan, Ashe et al. 2000) to meet objectives of the fishery co-managers (NPT, CTUIR, ODFW, USFWS, & NOAA Fisheries). This Draft EIS evaluates the Proposed Action and a No Action Alternative in detail. Considered, but eliminated from detailed study were nearly 40 alternative sites, which were found to be unsuitable due to insufficient water quality and/or volume at critical times of the fish production cycle, distance to native spawning grounds (important for young fish ‘imprinting’ to native waters), or lack of space (too little land available). All proposed sites are privately owned except the existing Imnaha Satellite Facility, which is on Forest Service land under Special Use Permit to the USFWS. The two Imnaha facilities are within the Imnaha Wild and Scenic River corridor and the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area boundary. Public review and comment of this Draft EIS will continue through July 7, 2003. Responses to comments will be made part of the Final EIS, which is scheduled for completion in August 2003. BPA expects to issue a Record of Decision whether to implement the project in September 2003. Public review and comment of this Draft EIS will continue through July 7, 2003. Responses to comments will be made part of the Final EIS, which is scheduled for completion in August 2003. BPA expects to issue a Record of Decision whether to implement the project in September 2003. For more information about the Draft EIS, please contact: Mickey Carter, Environmental Protection Specialist Bonneville Power Administration P. O. Box 3621, KEC-4 Portland, OR 97208-3621 Phone: (503) 230-5885 Email: [email protected] To receive additional copies of the Draft EIS: Call BPA’s document request line at 1-800-622-4520; record your name, address, and which document and format you would like to receive. Executive Summary - Grande Ronde-Imnaha Hatchery Project Draft EIS (9 pages) Draft EIS - Grande Ronde-Imnaha Spring Chinook Hatchery Project (about 200 pages) Formats available: Paper copy, or CD. The documents are also available on BPA’s website at: http://www.bpa.gov under links to environmental analysis, Active Projects. Or, write to: BPA Communications Office – DM-7 P.O. Box 12999 Portland, OR 97212 For information on Department of Energy’s National Environmental Policy Act activities, contact: Carol Borgstrom, Director Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance, EH-42 U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20585 Phone: 1-800-472-2756 Website: http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa Table of Contents Page Executive Summary..................................................................................................ES-1 to ES-9 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need 1.1 Need for Action..............................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Purposes of Taking Action.............................................................................................1-1 1.3 Decisions to be Made and Responsible Officials ..........................................................1-2 1.4 Background....................................................................................................................1-2 1.4.1 Regional Perspective....................................................................................................... 1-2 1.4.2 Grande Ronde – Imnaha Spring Chinook Management Perspective .............................. 1-3 1.5 Public Scoping and Key Issues......................................................................................1-6 1.6 Issues Beyond the Scope of this EIS..............................................................................1-7 1.7 Relationship to Other Fish Projects and Programs in the Vicinity ................................1-7 Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Other Alternatives 2.1 Proposed Action.............................................................................................................2-1 2.1.1 Grande Ronde Facilities.................................................................................................. 2-3 2.1.2 Imnaha Facilities ........................................................................................................... 2-11 2.2 No Action Alternative..................................................................................................2-17 2.3 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study..............................................................2-17 2.3.1 Modify Lookingglass Hatchery and Use, Add or Modify No Other Facilities ............. 2-17 2.3.2 Use or Modify Existing Facilities Elsewhere in the Columbia Basin to Assist with Lookingglass Hatchery Production...................................................................... 2-18 2.3.3 Put New Facilities at Other Sites in Northeast Oregon to Assist Lookingglass Hatchery Production .................................................................................................... 2-18 2.4 Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................................2-18 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................3-1 3.2 Fish ........................................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.2.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................................... 3-2 3.2.2 Impacts Evaluation Summary ....................................................................................... 3-12 3.2.3 Consequences of the Proposed Action.......................................................................... 3-13 3.2.4 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................................... 3-40 3.2.5 Consequences of Taking No Action.............................................................................. 3-41 3.3 Wildlife .................................................................................................................................. 3-43 3.3.1 Affected Environment................................................................................................... 3-43 3.3.2 Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................................................ 3-51 3.3.3 Consequences of the Proposed Action.......................................................................... 3-51 3.3.4 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................................... 3-54 3.3.5 Consequences of Taking No Action.............................................................................. 3-54 3.4 Plants and Wetlands ............................................................................................................. 3-54 3.4.1 Affected Environment................................................................................................... 3-54 3.4.2 Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................................................ 3-61 3.4.3 Consequences of the Proposed Action.........................................................................