Kootenai Lower Meander Project - BPA.gov...Idaho’s (Tribe) Lower Meander Project. The Lower...

KootenaiLowerMeanderProject

DraftEnvironmentalAssessment

March2017

DOE/EA‐2051

LowerMeanderProject2 DraftEnvironmentalAssessment

TableofContents

1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ........................................................................................ 6 1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 6

1.2 Need for Action ..................................................................................................................................... 6

1.3 Purposes ................................................................................................................................................. 6

1.4 Background ............................................................................................................................................ 7

1.5 Public Involvement ............................................................................................................................... 8

2 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................... 9 2.1 Proposed Action .................................................................................................................................... 9

2.2 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................................................ 16

2.3 Comparison of Alternatives ............................................................................................................... 16

2.4 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................................... 20

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................. 25 3.1 Soils and Geology ................................................................................................................................ 25

3.2 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................................... 26

3.3 Water Resources .................................................................................................................................. 28

3.4 Fish and Fish Habitat .......................................................................................................................... 32

3.5 Recreation ............................................................................................................................................. 35

3.6 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................................. 37

3.7 Visual Resources .................................................................................................................................. 39

3.8 Noise ..................................................................................................................................................... 39

3.9 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gasses ................................................................................................. 41

3.10 Public Health and Safety .................................................................................................................... 42

3.11 Transportation and Utilities ............................................................................................................... 43

3.12 Socioeconomics .................................................................................................................................... 44

3.13 Other Environmental Resources ....................................................................................................... 47

3.14 Cumulative Effects Analysis .............................................................................................................. 47

4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTATION, REVIEW, AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS .. 51 4.1 National Environmental Policy Act .................................................................................................. 51

4.2 Wetlands, Floodplains, and Water Resources ................................................................................. 51

4.3 Fish and Wildlife ................................................................................................................................. 52

4.4 Land Use Plan Consistency ................................................................................................................ 54

4.5 Farmland Protection Policy Act ........................................................................................................ 54

4.6 Cultural and Historic Resources ....................................................................................................... 54

4.7 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................................... 55

4.8 Climate Change ................................................................................................................................... 55

4.9 Noise ..................................................................................................................................................... 56

4.10 Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................................................... 56

4.11 Executive Order on Environmental Justice ...................................................................................... 56

5 TRIBES, AGENCIES, AND PERSONS CONSULTED ........................................................... 57 5.1 Federal Agencies ................................................................................................................................. 57

LowerMeanderProjectDraftEnvironmentalAssessment 3

5.2 State Agencies ...................................................................................................................................... 57

5.3 Tribes ..................................................................................................................................................... 57

5.4 Local Governments ............................................................................................................................. 57

5.5 Other ..................................................................................................................................................... 57

6 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 58

7 WORKS CITED .............................................................................................................................. 59


ListofFigures

Figure 1 Lower Meander Project Location ............................................................................................................. 9

Figure 2 Lower Meander Project Area .................................................................................................................. 10

Figure 3 Kootenai Lower Meander construction actions, Phase 1 (upstream) ................................................ 11

Figure 4 Kootenai Lower Meander construction actions, Phase 2 (downstream) .......................................... 11

Figure 5 Examples of large bank structures in the Kootenai River ................................................................... 13

Figure 6 Pool excavation actions in the Kootenai River ..................................................................................... 14

Figure 7 Vegetated brush bank structures under construction at the 2015 Bonners Ferry Islands

project ............................................................................................................................................... 14

Figure 8 Staging areas and temporary haul roads .............................................................................................. 15

Figure 9 Examples of temporary river access road construction ...................................................................... 16

Figure 10 Peak Flows in the Kootenai River ,1932‐2012 ..................................................................................... 28

Figure 11 Sediment plume during 2015 Island Construction ............................................................................ 30

Figure 12 Excerpt from FEMA FIRM Panel 16027 0575 B showing the regulatory floodplain in the

Lower Meander Project area within Boundary County. ........................................................... 31

Figure 13 Main public access roads into the project area .................................................................................. 43

ListofTables

Table 1. Lower Meander project features by construction phase ...................................................................... 10

Table 2. Design details for large bank structures ................................................................................................ 12

Table 3 Design details for excavated pools ........................................................................................................... 13

Table 4 Comparison of Alternatives by BPA purposes ...................................................................................... 16

Table 5 Comparison of Alternatives by Resource Impact1 ................................................................................. 17

Table 6 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................................. 20

Table 7 Summary of wetlands mapped in the Lower Meander project area .................................................. 27

Table 8. Native and non‐native fish species in the Kootenai River likely to inhabit the project area .......... 32

Table 9. Common activities and associated noise levels .................................................................................... 40

Table 10 Demographic Characteristics, 2012........................................................................................................ 45


AcronymsandAbbreviations

BiOp BiologicalOpinion

BPA BonnevillePowerAdministration

cfs cubicfeetpersecond

dB decibel

dBA A‐weighteddecibel

EA EnvironmentalAssessment

EPA U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency

ESA EndangeredSpeciesList

FCRPS FederalColumbiaRiverPowerSystem

FEMA FederalEmergencyManagementAgency

FIRM FloodInsuranceRateMap

GHG greenhousegas

IDFG IdahoDepartmentofFishandGame

KRHRP KootenaiRiverHabitatRestorationProgram

NEPA NationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct

NHPA NationalHistoricPreservationAct

OHW ordinaryhighwater

SHPO StateHistoricPreservationOffice

Tribe KootenaiTribeofIdaho

U.S.C. UnitedStatesCode

USACE USArmyCorpsofEngineers

USFWS U.S.FishandWildlifeService


1 PurposeandNeedforAction

1.1 IntroductionTheBonnevillePowerAdministration(BPA)proposestoprovidefundingfortheKootenaiTribeofIdaho’s(Tribe)LowerMeanderProject.TheLowerMeanderProjectisoneofseveralprojectsbeingimplementedundertheTribe’sKootenaiRiverHabitatRestorationProgram.ThisprojectwouldbelocatedontheKootenaiRiver0.5to1.0milesabovethetownofBonnersFerry,IdahoandisdesignedtoimprovehabitatconditionsforKootenaiRiverwhitesturgeon,whicharelistedasendangeredundertheEndangeredSpeciesAct(ESA;16U.S.Code[USC]§1531etseq.),andothernativefishbyenhancingislands,sidechannels,restoringstreambanksandcreatingdeeppools.

BPApreparedthisdraftEnvironmentalAssessment(EA)undertheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA;42USC§4321etseq.)andtheCouncilonEnvironmentalQualityimplementingregulations,whichrequirefederalagenciestoassesstheeffectsthattheiractionsmayhaveontheenvironment.ThisdraftEAwaspreparedtodetermineiftheprojectislikelytosignificantlyaffecttheenvironmentandwarrantpreparinganenvironmentalimpactstatementorwhetheritisappropriatetoprepareaFindingofNoSignificantImpact.

1.2 NeedforActionTheneedfortheProposedActionistorestorefishhabitatfeatureslostordegradedbypastandcurrentlandusepracticesintheKootenaiRiver.TheLowerMeanderProjectisdesignedtomeetthisneedbyrestoringandimprovingKootenaiRiverwhitesturgeonhabitatintherivernearBonnersFerry,Idahobyexcavatingnewpools,enhancingexistingislandsandsidechannels,installinglargewoodstructures,andplantingriparianvegetation.TheKootenaiRivernearBonnersFerry,Idahoisamigratorycorridorfornativefishbutcurrentlyprovidespoorfishhabitatduetoanumberoflimitingfactors,including:lackofnutrients,cover,pools,andinstreamhabitatcomplexity.

1.3 PurposesInmeetingtheneedforaction,BPAseekstoachievethefollowingpurposes:

HelpmitigateforeffectsoftheconstructionandoperationofLibbyDamandtheFederalColumbiaRiverPowerSystem(FCRPS)onfishandwildlifeintheKootenaiRiver,pursuanttothePacificNorthwestElectricPowerPlanningandConservationActof1980(NorthwestPowerAct)(16U.S.C.§839etseq.).

Assistincarryingoutcommitmentsrelatedtothe2006LibbyDamBiologicalOpinionasclarifiedin2008thatdirectstheBPAandUSArmyCorpsofEngineersto“supporttheKootenaiTribeofIdaho’sgood‐faitheffortstoimplementtheKootenaiRiverRestorationProjectMasterPlan.”(USFWS2006,2008)

ImplementBPA’sFishandWildlifeImplementationPlanEnvironmentalImpactStatementandRecordofDecisionpolicydirection,whichcallforprotectingweakstocks,liketheKootenaiRiverwhitesturgeon,whilesustainingoverallpopulationsoffishfortheireconomicandculturalvalue(BPA2003).

Minimizeharmtonaturalorhumanresources,includingspecieslistedundertheESA.

InadditiontoBPA’spurposes,theTribeseekstoachievethefollowingbiologicalobjectives:

IncreasedistributionandabundanceoflargedeeppoolstoprovideholdingandstaginghabitatforKootenaiRiverwhitesturgeonandtoencouragesturgeontomigrateupstreamtohigherqualityspawninghabitatbasedona"poolladder"concept,andtosupportburbotspawning,staging,foraging,andmigration.


Increasetheamountofriparianvegetationinthefloodplaintoimproveprimaryproductionandincreasefoodsourcesofalllifestagesofwhitesturgeon,burbot,bulltrout,kokanee,westslopecutthroattrout,andredbandtrout.

1.4 BackgroundBPAisafederalpowermarketingagencywithintheUnitedStatesDepartmentofEnergy.BPA’soperationsaregovernedbyseveralstatutes,includingtheNorthwestPowerAct.UndertheAct,BPAmustprotect,mitigate,andenhancefishandwildlifeandtheirhabitatsaffectedbythedevelopmentandoperationoftheFCRPS.BPAmustfulfillthisdutyinamannerconsistentwiththeFishandWildlifeProgramdevelopedbytheNorthwestPowerandConservationCouncil(Council).Underthisprogram,theCouncilreviewshabitatimprovement(orrestoration)planssubmittedbyvariousentities,andmakesrecommendationstoBPAaboutwhichfishandwildlifeprojectstofund.

TheTribebegandatacollectionandanalysisofKootenaiRiverhabitatconditionsundertheCouncil’sProgramin2006andcompletedtheKootenaiRiverHabitatRestorationProgramMasterPlan(MasterPlan)in2009(KootenaiTribeofIdaho,2009)(describedinSection1.3.3).In2011,theTribesubmittedaproposaltotheCounciltoimplementspecifichabitatrestorationprojectsconsistentwiththeframeworkpresentedintheMasterPlan.In2012,theCouncil’sIndependentScientificReviewPanelreviewedtheKootenaiRiverHabitatRestorationProgramandthelistofproposedprojects,andrecommendedthatBPAfundtheproposal.

1.4.1 LibbyDamBiologicalOpinion

LibbyDamisontheKootenaiRiverinMontanaapproximately220milesfromitsconfluencewiththeColumbiaRiver.TheUSArmyCorpsofEngineers(USACE)operatesLibbyDamforfloodcontrol,hydropowergeneration,navigation,recreation,fish,andwildlife.Itisamajorupriverstoragedamfortheregion.

TheUSACE,theBureauofReclamation,andBPAhaveconsultedwiththeUSFishandWildlifeService(USFWS)andNationalMarineFisheriesServicetoaddresstheeffectsoftheoperationofFCRPSprojects,includingLibbyDam,onfishlistedundertheEndangeredSpeciesAct(ESA)andtheirdesignatedcriticalhabitat.Damoperationshaveaffectedannualpeakflows,temperature,andsedimenttransportintheKootenaiRiver.In2003,theUSACEbeganalteringdischargesatLibbyDam,onaninterimbasis,tomorecloselymimictheKootenaiRiver’shistoricalflowpatterns,whilestillprovidingfloodcontrol.

InFebruary2006,theUSFWSissuedaBiologicalOpinionontheEffectsofLibbyDamOperationontheKootenaiRiverWhiteSturgeon,BullTroutandKootenaiSturgeonCriticalHabitat(LibbyDamBiOp)(USFWS2006).TheKootenaiRiverwhitesturgeonisoneof18land‐lockedpopulationsofwhitesturgeoninwesternNorthAmerica.ThepopulationofKootenaiRiverwhitesturgeon,afreshwaterfish,hasdeclinedprimarilyduetothechangesinriverflowscausedbytheexistenceofLibbyDamanditsoperations,otherfactorsalsoincludehistoricalover‐harvest,andfloodplaindevelopmentforagriculturalactivities.Damoperationshavereducedannualpeakflowsby50percentanddisruptedthehistoricalriseandfallofwaterlevels.Thishascreatedunnaturalflowfluctuationsandlargelyeliminatedtheriver’sconnectionwithitsfloodplain.

TheLibbyDamBiOpidentifiesgeneralcategoriesofactionsandhabitatimprovementsthatwouldenhanceconditionswheresturgeoncurrentlyspawn,coaxsturgeontospawninupstreamareaswherethereismoresuitablehabitat,andimprovehabitatconditionsassociatedwiththeKootenaiRiver.TherestorationactionsproposedfortheLowerMeanderProjectareconsistentwiththoseidentifiedintheBiOp.


1.4.2 KootenaiRiverRestorationProgramMasterPlan

In2006,BPAprovidedfundingtotheTribetobegindevelopmentofaMasterPlan,andtocontinuewithcriticaldatacollectionandplanningactivities.In2009,theTribecompletedamasterplanforalarge‐scale,ecosystem‐basedriverhabitatrestorationprogram.Thismasterplancalledforrestorationofa55‐milesegmentoftheKootenaiRiver,extendingfromtheconfluenceoftheMoyieandKootenairivers,downstreamtotheCanadianborder.Itprovidesasummaryofhistoricalandexistingconditionsinthe55‐mileprojectarea,andidentifiesspecificphysicalandbiologicalcharacteristicsineachoftheriversegmentsoftheprojectarea.Italsoidentifiedfactorsthatlimithabitatforaquaticspeciesincludingsturgeon,burbot,trout,andothernativefishspecieswithintheprojectarea.Basedonthisinformation,theplanidentifiedrestorationstrategiesandhabitatenhancementstoaddressthelimitingfactorsineachriversegment.

BPA’sfundingallowedtheTribetousethecompletedMasterPlantoidentifyspecifichabitatprojectsintheKootenaiRiverthatwouldenhancehabitatforKootenaiRiverwhitesturgeonasrequiredbytheLibbyDamBiOp.Theseprojectsalsoaddresshabitatandnutrientlimitingfactorsforburbot,troutandothernativefish.

WithfundingprimarilyfromBPA,theTribehasimplementedsixhabitatrestorationprojectsunderthisplanfrom2011to2016upstreamoftheLowerMeanderprojectsiteandoneprojectimmediatelydownstreamofthisproject.TheLowerMeanderProjectwouldbetheeighthprojecttobeimplementedundertheKootenaiRiverHabitatRestorationProgramandisdesignedtoachievethefollowingobjectivesthataddresssite‐specificlimitingfactorsforfishhabitat:

Establishingasequenceofhigh‐quality,deeperpoolsupstreamofBonnersFerrytosupportmigrationofadultKootenaiRiverwhitesturgeontohigherqualityspawninghabitat;

Addingfillandplantingstoexistingislandstopromoteriparianvegetationdevelopmentandfoodwebsupport;

Gradingandplantingerodingriverbankstoestablishsustainableriparianbuffers; Installingbankstructurestoincreasecomplexity,promotebankstabilityandtomaintainpools;

and Installingwoodydebrisstructuresinsidechannelsandalongbankmarginstoimprovehabitat

complexity.

1.5 PublicInvolvementBPAmailedscopinglettersonOctober12,2016tolandowners,Tribes,governmentagencies,andotherpotentiallyaffectedorconcernedcitizensandinterestgroupsthatprovidedinformationabouttheproposalandEAscopingperiod,requestedcommentsonissuestobeaddressedintheEA,anddescribedhowtocomment.ThepublicletterwaspostedonaprojectwebsiteestablishedbyBPAtoprovideinformationabouttheproposalandtheEAprocess(www.bpa.gov/goto/KootenaiMeander).ThepubliccommentperiodbeganonOctober12,2016,andBPAacceptedcommentsontheproposalfromthepublicuntilNovember14,2016.

BPAidentifiedfivetribesthatcouldhaveaninterestintheproposedproject,basedontheirhistoricalorcurrentuseofthelandintheprojectarea:theKalispelTribeofIndians,theCoeurd’AleneTribe,theConfederatedSalishandKootenaiTribes,theSpokaneTribeofIndians,andtheKootenaiTribeofIdaho.BPAprovidedinformationto,andrequestedinformationfrom,thesetribes.

BPAconsideredcommentsitreceivedduringthescopingperiodinthedevelopmentofthisdraftEA.Fourcommentletterswerereceived:threeexpressedsupportoftheproposedprojectandthefourthwasaninquiryregardinganunrelatedissue.Thefulltextofthecomments,includingcopiesofanylettersreceived,isavailableonBPA’swebsiteat:www.bpa.gov/goto/KootenaiMeander.Noneofthecommentsreceivedinscopingresultedinthedevelopmentofadditionalalternatives.


2 ProposedActionandAlternativesThischapterdescribestheProposedActionandtheNoActionAlternative,andcomparesthealternativesbyprojectpurposesandtheirpotentialenvironmentalconsequences.

2.1 ProposedActionTheLowerMeanderProjectislocatedbetween0.5and1.0milesupstreamfromBonnersFerry,Idaho(Figures1and2)andisoneofseveralriverhabitatimprovementprojectsthattheTribehasimplementedsincebeginningrestorationeffortsin2011.Aswiththepreviousprojects,theProposedActionisintendedtoimprovehabitatforjuvenileandadultKootenaiRiverwhitesturgeon,burbot,bulltrout,andothernativefishes.

Figure1.LowerMeanderProjectLocation


Figure2.LowerMeanderProjectArea

TheProposedActioncallsforcreatinglargeexcavatedpoolswithinthemainchanneloftheKootenaiRiver.Severalmid‐channelislandswouldbeenhancedusingmaterialexcavatedfromtheriverbottomtocreatethepools.Materialremovedfromthenorthbankoftheriverwouldalsobeusedtoenhancetheislands.Threestreambankstructureswouldbeconstructedandbankstabilizationmethodswouldbeusedtoreduceerosionandestablishriparianvegetation.Eachoftheseprojectelementsisdescribedinthesectionsthatfollow.

ConstructionoftheLowerMeanderProjectwouldoccurintwophases,duringlatesummer/earlyfallof2017and2018.ThephasingisdesignedtoworkfromupstreamtodownstreamasdisplayedinTable1andFigures3and4.

Table1.LowerMeanderprojectfeaturesbyconstructionphase

ProjectFeature Phase12017

Phase22018

BankStabilization(gradingandbrush‐bankstructures) 2600ft. 2100Ft.

LargeBankStructures two structures(structures#1and#2)

onestructure(structure#3)

Side‐ChannelLargeWoodStructures 15structures none

ExcavatedPools Onepool(pool#1) Onepool(pool#2)

IslandEnhancement Threeislands(total20acres)

Threeislands(total6.5acres)


Figure3.KootenaiLowerMeanderconstructionactions,Phase1(upstream)

Figure4.KootenaiLowerMeanderconstructionactions,Phase2(downstream)


2.1.1 LargeBankStructures

Threelargebankstructureswouldbeinstalledtoprovidelargerecirculationzones(eddies)andprotectadjacentbankareasfromerosion.Thetwoupstreamstructureswouldbeconstructedfromtimberpiles,importedgravel/riprap,andwoodydebris.Thethirddownstreamstructurewouldbeconstructedfromimportedcobbleonly.

Forthetwoupstreamlargebankstructures(Structure1,Structure2),timberpileswouldbedrivenintotheriverbedwithapproximatelyfourtosixfeetofeachpileremainingexposed.Largelogswouldbeplacedinbetweentheverticalpilesandthenboltedtosecuretheminplace.Abarriercomposedofwoodandrockwouldbeinstalledattheupstreamendofeachstructurethatwoulddirecttherivertoflowaroundthestructuretoreducetheriskoferosion.Thedownstreamstructure(Structure3)createdusingimportedrockwouldhavemoderatelyslopingsidesandfunctionsimilarlytootherexistinggravelbarfeaturesintheriver.

Vegetatedbrushbankstructures(asdescribedinSection2.1.3.3)wouldbeinstalledbetweenStructures1and2andatthebanktie‐inpointstocreatestabletransitionstotheexistingbankattheupstreamanddownstreamedgesofthelargebankstructures.

DesigninformationforlargebankstructuresisprovidedinTable2.Figure5displaysphotographsofsimilarlargebankstructuresatpreviousrestorationsitesalongtheKootenaiRiver.

Table2.Designdetailsforlargebankstructures

Structure1(upstream)

Structure 2(middle)

Structure3(downstream

BankLength(feet) 180 390 350

ProjectionintoRiver(feet) 100 180 200

Projectionangle(degrees) 25 25 17

Elevation(NAVD88feet) 1756to1765 1756to1764 1757to1758

Distancefromnextstructuredownstream(feet)

900 1,800 N/A

Numberoftimberpiles 52 134 0

Riprap(cubicyards) 1,900 4,800 0

Gravel(cubicyards) 1,400 8,900 0

Cobble(cubicyards) 0 0 6,400

Area(squarefeet) 4,100 20,300 28,200

Volume(cubicyards) 3,300 13,700 6,400


Figure5.ExamplesoflargebankstructuresintheKootenaiRiver

2.1.2 PoolExcavation

PoolswouldbeexcavatedattwolocationsinhopesofprovidingstagingandholdinghabitatforKootenaiRiverwhitesturgeonandtoencouragesturgeontomigratefurtherupstreamtosuitablespawninghabitat.Locationsforpoolexcavationwereidentifiedprimarilybasedontheirexpectedmorphologicsustainabilityandtheiraccessibilitybyland‐basedexcavationequipment.Gravelandsandexcavatedfromthepoolswouldbeusedtoconstructislandsasdescribedbelow.

Eachpoolwouldbeapproximatelyfourtofiveacresand,oncecompleted,wouldbe10to15feetdeeperthantheexistingriverbed(Table3).Tocreatebothpools,approximately120,000cubicyardsofmaterialwouldberemoved.Figure6displaysphotographsofpoolexcavationactivitiesconductedin2015duringconstructionoftheBonnersFerryIslandsProject.

Table3Designdetailsforexcavatedpools

Pool1(Upstream) Pool2(Downstream)

Maximumwidth(feet) 180 300

Length(feet) 1,200 1,000

SideSlopes 5:1 5:1

Area(acres) 4 5

Volume(cubicyards) 51,000 69,000

2.1.3 IslandConstructionandEnhancement

Sixexistingislandswouldbeenhancedusinggravelandsandfromexcavatedpoolsandbankgrading.Thenewislandareaswouldthenbeplantedwithnativeriparianvegetationandalsoreceivefloodplainroughnesstreatments.


Figure6.PoolexcavationactionsintheKootenaiRiver

IslandelevationswouldbesimilartoexistingislandswithintheKootenayLakebackwaterinfluence,upstreamfromtheprojectarea,thatdisplaydesiredvegetationcommunities.Thefloodplainroughnesstreatmentswouldcreateprotectedmicrositesbothforplantedspeciesaswellasnativeseedlingsthatareexpectedtocolonizethenewlyconstructedfloodplainsurfaces.Floodplainroughnesswouldbecreatedusingfurrowsandridgesuptoonefoothighandpartiallyburiedpiecesofwoodandbrush.Theburiedpiecesofwoodwouldbesixtotwelveinchesindiameterandeighttotwelvefeetlongandsmallerbrushuptosixinchesindiameterandeighttotwelvefeetinlength.

2.1.4 BankStabilization

Highbanksandbankswithsteepangleswouldbegradedandloweredtoimprovebankstability,increasethewidthofriparianbuffers,establishfloodplainconnection,andtosetelevationsandslopessuitableforestablishingtreesandshrubs.Existingcarbodiesandothernon‐naturaldebrisusedhistoricallyforerosioncontrolwouldberemoved.Finishedgradeswouldincludefloodplainroughnesstreatmentsasdescribedabove.Approximately18,400cubicyardsofmaterialwouldbeexcavatedinthisprocessinPhase1,and39,800cubicyardsinPhase2.

Vegetatedbrushbankstructureswouldbeinstalledinthere‐gradedbankstoestablishvegetationandprovidestability.Thesestructuresconsistoflayeredbrushandsmalllogsbuiltonasmallriprapfoundationwithlivevegetativecuttingswithinthebrushlayersatelevationsthatareincontactwiththewatertableduringthegrowingseason(Figure7).Approximately2,400linealfeetofthesestructureswouldbeinstalledinPhase1and2,100linealfeetinPhase2.

Figure7Vegetatedbrushbankstructuresunderconstructionatthe2015BonnersFerryIslandsproject


SideChannelLarge‐WoodStructures

Approximately15large‐woodstructureswouldbeinstalledinthesidechannelstoprovidehydrauliccomplexitybetweentheislandsandtocreateaseriesofsmallscourpoolsinthesidechannels.Thestructureswouldbeinstalledingroupsofthreestructuresasshownbythesmall‘X’s’inFigure3.Eachstructurewouldoccupyapproximately400squarefeet(20ft.by20ft.)andwouldbeconstructedfromtimberpilesandlargewoodydebris.Thetimberpileswouldbedrivenintothebedbelowscourdepthtoprovidestability.Largewoodydebriswouldbeboltedtothetimberpilesinavarietyofconfigurationstoresembleanaturalaggregateofrackedlogs.Gravelwouldbeexcavatedfromthelocationoftheexpectedscourpoolandusedtobackfilltheinteriorofthestructure.Overtimethesestructuresmaycollectadditionaldebrisandpromotedepositioninthesidechannels,thuscontributingtofloodplaindevelopment.

2.1.5 AccessandStaging

AccessonthenorthsideoftheKootenaiRiverareaswouldbefromtheDistrict2RoadviaBallParkRoadandaprivateunimprovedroadacrossprivatelandthatisusedasapasture.Atemporarystagingareawouldbeestablishedinthepasture.Temporaryhaulroadswouldbeconstructedtoaccesstheriverbankandstructurelocations(Figures8and9).

Figure8.Stagingareasandtemporaryhaulroads

AccesstothesouthbankwouldbefromCowCreekRoadviaWaterhouseLane.FromWaterhouseLane,accesswouldbeviaaprivateunimprovedroad.Atemporarystagingareawouldbeestablishedandtemporaryhaulroadswouldbeconstructedtoaccesstheriverbank,islandsandpoolexcavationareas(Figures8and9).


Figure9Examplesoftemporaryriveraccessroadconstruction

2.2 NoActionAlternativeUndertheNoActionAlternative,BPAwouldnotfundtheKootenaiRiverLowerMeanderProjectandtheTribewouldnotmakethefishhabitatimprovementstotheKootenaiRiverasproposed.Inaddition,BPAwouldnotusetheprojecttohelpmeetitsfishandwildlifemitigationobligationsundertheNorthwestPowerAct,orfurthersupporthabitatimprovementeffortsidentifiedintheLibbyDamBiologicalOpinion.

2.3 ComparisonofAlternativesThefollowingtwotablescomparetheProposedActionandtheNoActionalternative.Table4comparesthealternativesbythepurposesofthisproject.Table5displaysasummaryoftheeffectsofimplementingeachalternative,withdetailedinformationavailableinChapter3.

Table4ComparisonofAlternativesbyBPApurposes

Purposes ProposedAction NoActionAlternative

SupporteffortstomitigateforeffectsofthedevelopmentandoperationoftheFCRPSonfishandwildlifeinthemainstemColumbiaRiveranditstributariesundertheNorthwestPowerAct.

WouldhelpsupportmitigationeffortscalledforintheNorthwestPowerActbyenhancingfishandwildlifehabitatintheKootenaiRiveraboveBonnersFerry.

WouldnotsupportBPA’seffortstoenhancefishandwildlifehabitatintheKootenaiRiveraboveBonnersFerry.

Seektofurtheraddressobligationsunderthe2006LibbyDamBiOpasclarifiedin2008,whichdirectstheBPAandUSACEto“supporttheKootenaiTribeofIdaho’sgood‐faitheffortstoimplementtheKootenaiRiverRestorationProjectMasterPlan.”

WouldfurtheraddressBPA’sobligationsunderthe2006LibbyDamBiOp.

WouldnotcontributetoBPA’seffortstomeetobligationsspecifiedunderthe2006LibbyDamBiOp.

ImplementBPA’sFishandWildlifeImplementationPlanEISandRODpolicydirection,whichcallforprotectingweakstocks,liketheKootenaiwhitesturgeon,whilesustainingoverallpopulationsoffishfortheireconomicandculturalvalue.

Wouldcontributetoestablishingself‐sustainingpopulationsofKootenaiRiverwhitesturgeonandothernativespeciesintheKootenaiRiverwhichareofculturalvalueandmayprovide

WouldnotfurtheractionstohelpprotectKootenaiRiverwhitesturgeonorothernativefishforeconomicandculturalvalues.


Purposes ProposedAction NoActionAlternative

economicbenefits,whileatthesametimeprotectingESA‐listedfish.

Minimizeharmtonaturalorhumanresources,includingspecieslistedundertheESA.

Proposedmitigationmeasureswouldminimizeharmtonaturalandhumanresources.Approvalsby,andreporting,toregulatoryagencieswouldminimizetheriskofadverseeffectstoESA‐listedspecies.(SeeTable5forasummaryofeffects.)

Withnoconstructionofnewfacilities,therewouldnopotentialtoeffectnaturalandhumanresourcesorshort‐termeffectstonativeESA‐listedspecies;therewouldalsobenoadditionalpotentialforlong‐termKootenaiRiverwhitesturgeonrecoverybenefits.(SeeTable5forasummaryofeffects.)

Table5ComparisonofAlternativesbyResourceImpact1

ResourceAffected EffectsofProposedAction1 EffectsofNoAction

GeologyandSoils Changedtopographyofriverbanksandnearlytriplethesizeofislandsinriver.Short‐termerosion/soillossandsedimentationfromexcavationandtemporaryroadbuilding.Long‐termerosionprotectionfromstabilizedbanksandislandsandimprovedriparianvegetationconditions.Theoveralleffecttogeologyandsoilswouldbelow.

Noneweffectstogeologyandsoils.Riverbankandislandtopographywouldremainunchanged.Ratesandpatternsoferosionwouldlikelycontinuesimilartopresentconditions.

Wetlands Lessthanoneacreofwetlandswouldbepermanentlyimpacted.Therestorationactivitieswouldestablish24acresofnewwetlandsonthenewlycreatedislandsandalongtheriparianareawheretheriverwouldbehydraulicallyconnectedtotheareasofnewplantings.Theeffectswouldbebeneficialandmoderate.

Noneweffectstowetlandsorfloodplains.

WaterResources Nolong‐orshort‐termchangestowaterquantity.Short‐termeffectstowaterqualityareexpectedfromturbidityduringconstructionbutstabilizationofbanksandimprovedriparianvegetationconditionsareexpectedtoreduceerosion/turbidityandimprovedwaterqualityinthelongterm.Riverwouldbechangedhydrologicallybyisland,channelandpoolconstruction,thoughthesefeaturesareexpectedtochangesomewhatwithriverconditionsovertime.Theeffectstowaterresourceswouldbelow.

Theprojectwouldcausea0.15footincreaseinbasefloodelevationswithintheprojectareaandnoincreaseatBonnersFerry,butwouldnotrequireachangeinoperationsatLibbyDamtopreventflooding.

Noneweffectstowaterresourcesintheprojectarea.Waterqualityandhydrologicconditionswouldremainunchanged.



Fish Long‐termimprovementinfishhabitat.Shorttermadverseeffectsfrompile‐drivingnoise,turbidity,excavation,rockplacement,andaccidentalhazardousmaterialspillsduringconstructionactivities.Intheshort‐termfishareexpectedtomoveoutoftheconstructionareawhenwoodenpilesaredriven.Long–termincreasesinfishpopulationsfromimprovedhabitatsareexpected.Therewouldthusbealowtomoderateshort‐termandtemporaryeffecttofishpopulationsintheprojectarea.

Noneweffectstofishintheprojectarea.Noshort‐termdisplacementeffects.Nobenefittofishorincreasedpopulationpotentialfromnotimprovingriverbanks,pools,channels,islands,andriparianhabitats.

Recreation Short‐termadverseeffectonfishingopportunitiesduringconstructionactivities.Long‐termbeneficialeffectonfishingopportunitiesfromincreasedfishpopulationsinareaswherehabitathasbeenimprovedforfish.Someeffectsonboatersusingsidechannelswithlargewoodstructuresasthesemaycreateanobstacleneedingavoidance,butwouldalsocreatefishhabitatwithincreasedfishingopportunities.Effectswouldbelow.

Noeffectstoboatingrecreationsinceconstructionactivitieswouldnotoccur.Noadditionofboatingobstacles(largewoodstructures),butnoimprovementinfishingopportunitiesfromincreasedfishpopulations.

CulturalResources

Noknownculturalresourceswereidentifiedintheareasimpacted.

Ifunanticipatedsitesarediscoveredduringconstruction,sitescouldbeaffected;however,stopwork,notification,andmitigationrequirementswouldlessenpotentialeffects.

Noeffectstoculturalresources.

VisualResources Visualchangeswouldincludeanapproximatethree‐foldincreaseinislandsizeswithmorevegetativecoverthanarevisibleatpresentonbothislandsandriverbanks.Largewoodstructuresnotlikelydiscernablefrompublicroadways,butclearlyevidenttoboaters.Effectswouldbelow.

Nochangestolanduseorvisualcharacteroftheriveroritsislandsandbanks.

Noise Piledrivingwouldbetheprimaryeffect,thoughdistancetoBonnersFerryisnearlyonemileaway,largelyattenuatingtheimpact.Approximately30‐daynoiselevelchangewouldbenoticeable,butlikelynotmuchgreaterthanroutinebackgroundnoiseintown.Effectswouldbelow.

NochangestoambientnoiselevelsinprojectareaorinBonnersFerry.

AirQuality,andGreenhouseGasses

Airpollutantsandgreenhousegasesfromvehicleemissionsanddustfromconstructionactivitieswouldbegeneratedduringtheconstructionperiod.Effectswouldbeshort‐term,temporary,andlowbecauseofapplicationofmitigationmeasures.

Noneweffectstoairqualityortheexistingconditionsrelativetogreenhousegas(GHG)emissions.



PublicHealthandSafety

Minorincreaseintraffic,potentialforaccidents,anddemandsonlocalemergencyservicesduringconstructionactivities.Introductionoflong‐termboatinghazardsintotheKootenaiRiverthoughthesetypesofriverhazardsareroutineforboatersandmitigationwouldbeimplementedtominimizetheeffectstoboaters.Effectswouldbelow.

Noeffectonpublichealthandsafety.

TransportationandUtilities

Temporaryincreaseintraffic,includinglargeconstructionvehicles,onlocalroadsduringconstruction;thoughnoroutingthroughresidentialareas.Noanticipatedalterationoftrafficpatterns.Effectswouldbelowtomoderate.

Noneweffectstotransportationorutilitiesneartheprojectsite.

Socioeconomics Onlyafewtemporaryjobsprovidedbyconstructionactivity,withnolong‐termemploymentopportunitiesprovided.Noimpactonhousing.Moderateshorttomid‐termbeneficialeconomicimpactfromconstructionspendingandneedforsupplyandhauloflocalgravel,logs,etc.andthemultipliereffectsthroughthelocaleconomy.Noeffecttoenvironmentaljusticepopulations.

Nosocioeconomiceffects.

1TheeffectsdisplayedinthistablepresumetheapplicationoftheMitigationMeasureslistedinTable6.


2.4 MitigationMeasures

Table6liststhemitigationmeasuresthatwouldlessenoravoidpotentialimpactofimplementingtheKootenaiLowerMeanderProject.

Table6MitigationMeasures

EnvironmentalResource MitigationMeasure

GeologyandSoils

Prepareandimplementaplanforerosionandsedimentationcontrolandastormwaterpollutionpreventionplanforconstructionactivitiestominimizeerosionandsoilloss(e.g.,usesiltfences,strawbales,interceptortrenchesorotherperimetersedimentmanagementdevices;maintainasnecessarythroughoutconstruction).

Locatestagingareasinpreviouslydisturbedorgraveledareastominimizesoilandvegetationdisturbance,wherepracticable.

Designandbuildaccessroadsthatminimizedrainagefromtheroadsurfacedirectlyintosurfacewaters,anddirectsediment‐ladenwatersintovegetatedareaswherepossible.

Inspectandmaintainaccessroadsandotherfacilitiesduringconstructiontoensureproperfunctionandnominalerosionlevels.

Reseeddisturbedareas,monitorseedgermination,andimplementcontingencymeasuresasnecessaryuntilareasdisturbedfromconstructionactivityarestabilized.

Existingunimprovedroads,temporaryhaulroadsandthestagingareawouldbegraded,surfacedwithgravelandtreatedfordustcontrol(waterapplication)asneededtosupporthaultrafficduringconstruction.

Wetlands

Identifyclearinglimitsonallconstructiondrawingsandflagas“no‐work”areasbeforeconstruction.

Revegetatedisturbedareas(includingwetlands)withappropriatenativespeciesusingseedmixesthatmeettherequirementsoffederal,state,andcountynoxiousweedcontrolregulationsandguidelines.

Implementmitigationmeasurestocontrolpotentialnoxiousweedinfestationsbefore,during,andafterconstruction.



Implementbestmanagementpracticesduringconstructiontominimizeadverseeffectsonwetlands(e.g.,limitwetlanddisturbanceareas;flagorstakewetlandboundaries;refuelmachineryandstorefuelsawayfromwetlands;developandimplementerosionandsedimentationcontrolplan).

Installsiltfencesandstrawwattlesatculvertlocationsandwetlandareastopreventeffectsfromstormwaterrunoffandconstruction‐relateddisturbance.

WaterResources

Depositandstabilizeallexcavatedmaterialnotre‐usedinanuplandareaoutsideoffloodplains.

FollowtheIdahoDepartmentofEnvironmentalQuality’sCatalogofStormwaterBestManagementPracticesforIdahoCitiesandCounties(IDEQ,2005)tocreateastormwaterpollutionpreventionplanforconstructionactivities.Useandmaintainthisplanthroughoutconstructiontominimizeerosionandsoilloss(e.g.,usesiltfences,strawbales,interceptortrenchesorotherperimetersedimentmanagementdevices).

Implementmeasurestopreventstockpileerosionduringrainevents(e.g.,surroundpileswithcompostberms,coverpileswithimperviousmaterials,oruseotherequallyeffectivemethods).

Minimizestagingareastothesizenecessarytoconductthework,andlocatethestagingareasinpreviouslydisturbedareasatleast150feetfromtheriverorwetlands.

Createandusea spillprevention,controlandcountermeasuresplantominimizethepotentialforspillsofhazardousmaterial,whichincludesprovisionsforstorageofhazardousmaterials,andrefuelingofconstructionequipmentoutsideofriparianzones,aspillcontainmentandrecoveryplan,andnotificationandactivationprotocols.

Storespillcontainmentkitsateachworksiteandtraintheconstructioncrewsinproperuse.



Washallequipmentbeforemovingittotheprojectsite,tominimizetheintroductionofforeignmaterialsandfluidstotheprojectsite.

Useonlyhydraulicfluidscertifiedasnon‐toxictoaquaticorganismsinequipmentusedtoworkinthewater.

Inspectallequipmenttoensureitisfreeofoil,hydraulicfluid,anddieselfuelleaks.Repairdetectedleaksinthevehiclestagingareabeforethevehicleresumesoperation.Documentinspectionsinarecordthatisavailableforreviewonrequest.

Locatevehiclestaging,cleaning,maintenance,refueling,fuelstorageareas,andsanitaryfacilities,suchaschemicaltoilets,atleast150feetfromtheKootenaiRiverorwetlands.

Cleanallequipmentoperatedinstreambeforebeginningoperationsbelowthebankfullelevationtoremoveallexternaloil,greaseanddirt.Everyday,inspectallpowerequipmentoperatingwithin150feetofthewaterforfluidleaks.

Applytruckdiaperstoanystationarypowerequipment(e.g.,generators)operatedwithin150feetofanystream,waterbodyorwetlandtopreventleaks.

Floatingsiltcurtainsand temporarybermswouldbeusedwherewaterdepthallowsforturbiditymanagement.Practicaleffortswouldbemadetoinstallfloatingsiltcurtainsinlowervelocityareasatthedownstreamendoftheworkareassuchthatconstructionrelatedturbiditycansettleoutinlowervelocitybackwaterareas.Floatingsiltcurtainswouldbeanchoredwith12‐inchdiametertemporarysteelpiles.

Fish

ConductworkbelowtheOrdinaryHighWaterMark(OHWM)fromAugustthroughNovember

OperatemachineryforbelowOHWMconstructionfromthetopofthestreambankalongadjacentuplandareas,totheextentpossible.

Protectexistingriparianandwetlandvegetation



totheextentpossible.

RecreationInstallsignageattheTwinRiversCanyonResortboatlaunchtoinformboatersofrestorationactivitiesandindicatetheirlocation.

CulturalResources

InstallpermanentsignsattheTwinRiversboatramprequestingthatboatersandtubersstayclearoftherestorationareainordertoprotecttherestorationwork.Signswouldalsocontainaneducationalelementtodescribethedifferentprojectlocations,thetypesofstructures,andthebenefitstheyprovideforfish.

Markknownculturalresourcesitesasavoidanceareasonconstructiondrawingsandflagasno‐workareasinthefieldpriortoconstruction.

Protectanyunanticipatedculturalresourcesdiscoveredduringconstructionasfollows:

Stop allwork;coverandprotectthe‘find’inplace.

Notify ProjectManagerandBPAculturalresourcesspecialistimmediately.

Implement mitigationorothermeasuresasinstructedbyBPAculturalresourcespecialist.

VisualResources

Retainexistingvegetation,whenpossible,tovisuallyscreendisturbancecreatedbyconstructionactivities.

Reseedandplantdisturbedareaswithappropriatenativespecies.Controlweedsfollowingconstruction.

NoiseLimitconstructionnoisetonormaldaytimeworkinghours.

PublicHealthandSafety NoMitigationnotrequired

AirQualityandGreenhouseGasses

Confinevehiclefuelingandmaintenancetoapprovedlocations.

Usewatertruckstocontroldustduringconstruction,asneeded.

Ensurethatallvehicleenginesaremaintainedingoodoperatingconditiontominimizeexhaustemissions.



Implementvehicleidlingrestrictions.

Encouragetheuseofthepropersizeofequipmentforeachjob.

Usealternativefuelsforstationaryequipmentattheconstructionsites,suchaspropane,oruseelectricalpower,wherepracticable.

Reduceelectricityuseintheconstructionofficebyusingcompactfluorescentbulbsandturningoffcomputersandotherelectronicequipmenteverynight.

Recycleorsalvagenonhazardousconstructionanddemolitiondebris,wherepracticable.

Keepconstructionactivitiesandequipmentclearofresidentialdriveways,tothegreatestextentpossible.

TransportationandUtilities

Employtrafficcontrolflaggersandpostsignsalongroadswarningofconstructionactivityandmergingtrafficfortemporaryinterruptionsoftraffic,whereneeded.

CoordinatewithBurlingtonNorthernSantaFe

todeterminewhethertheywouldrequireaflaggerbepresentduringconstructiontimestoavoidtrainconflictsordelaysattheunmarkedcrossingoftheBurlingtonNorthernSantaFerailline.

Limitconstructionnoisetodaytimeworkinghours(seeNoise,Section3.8).

Usewatertruckstocontroldustduringconstruction,asneeded(seeAirQuality,Section3.9).

Socioeconomics N/A


3 AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequencesThischapterevaluatesthepotentialeffectsoftheProposedAction,aswellastheNoActionalternative,onhumanandnaturalresources,todeterminewhethereitherhavethepotentialtocausesignificantenvironmentaleffects.Foreachresource,theexistingenvironmentthatcouldbeaffectedbythealternativesandthepotentialenvironmentalconsequencesofthealternativesaredescribed.ManyoftheeffectswouldbeminimizedbytheapplicationofthemitigationmeasureslistedinSection2.4andthediscussionsherepresumetheapplicationofthoseconditions.Discussionofthecumulativeeffects(incrementaleffectsoftheProposedActionwhenaddedtootherpast,present,andreasonablyforeseeablefutureactions)isattheendofthischapter.

3.1 SoilsandGeology3.1.1 AffectedEnvironment

RegionalGeology

TheproposedprojectareaiswithintheBoundaryCountysoilsurveyarea,whichiswithintheNorthernRockyMountainsgeographicprovince.Between100,000and11,000yearsago,theCordilleranicesheet(alargemassofice,alsoknownasacontinentalglacier)coveredmostofthevalleyareasintheregion,leavingonlythehighermountainpeaksexposed.Theseglacialepisodescreatedmuchofthesurfacematerialsandtopographythatexiststoday.Alpineglacierserodedthecraggy,jaggedpeaksandfilledinmountainvalleyswithmoraine(soilandrockdepositedbyglaciers)andoutwash(sandandgravelleftbymeltingwater)deposits.TheicesheetextendedasfarsouthasCoeurd’AleneLake,75milestothesouth.Theglaciersleftthickdepositsofglacialtill(unsortedglacialsediment)andsilt,transportedlargeboulderstothearea,andscouredsomeareas,leavingbedrockexposedatthesurface(USDANRCS,2013).

SeismicFaults

TherearenoknownseismicfaultsinBoundaryCounty.TheBoundaryCountyComprehensivePlanstatesthatthecountyisinSeismicZone2,asdelineatedintheUniformBuildingCode.SeismicZone2indicatesthatamoderatedamageriskcouldbeexperiencedinthisareashouldanearthquakeoccur(BoundaryCounty,2008).

LocalSurfaceSoils

SoilsintheKootenaiRiverfloodplainarecomprisedofsilty,alluvial(materialdepositedbyflowingwater)depositsleftbehindfromfloodwatersthatspreadoverthefloodplainanddepositedsilt,clay,andveryfinesands(USDANRCS,2013).Moreashy,siltyloamsoilsoccuronthegentlyslopingareasborderingtheshoreline,floodplain,andthesteepescarpments.(ToxicitysamplingofriversedimentsisdiscussedinSection3.3,WaterQuality.)

3.1.2 EnvironmentalConsequences–ProposedAction

WithintheareaoftheProposedAction,largeamountsofsoilwouldbemovedandtopographywouldbechanged(loweringpoolelevationsintheriverbed,raisingislandelevations,andgradingofcurrentlyerodingriverbanks).Theworkwouldcausesedimentationanderosionintheshorttermduringconstruction,butthebankgradingandbankstabilizationstructuresandplantingofnativevegetationwouldhelpstabilizesoilmovementinthelongterm.

Thetwopoolstobeexcavatedwouldrequirerelocationof51,000and69,000cubicyardsofgravelandsandfromthemainchanneloftheriver.Thisexcavatedmaterialwouldbedepositedonexistingadjacentgravelbarsandislandstoenhancesixislandsandraisetheirelevationssotheyareableto


supportriparianvegetation.Thenewlycreatedislandsurfaceswouldbestabilizedthroughgradingandcreationoffloodplainroughnesstominimizeerosionandthroughextensiveplantingofnativeriparianvegetation.

Gradingtostabilizeerodingbankswouldresultinsometemporarysoillossduringconstructionbuterosionandsedimentcontrolmeasureswouldbeusedtocontrolandmanagethoseeffects.Overthelongterm,theProposedActionwouldhavebeneficialeffectsonsoils,asbankstabilization,largebankstructures,andmorevegetativelyrobustriparianareaswouldreducetheamountofsoilsexposedtorivercurrents.

About1.25milesoftemporaryaccessroads,wouldbebuilttoallowheavymachinerytoaccessprojectlocationsalongtheriverforexcavation,gravelandsandrelocation,rockandlogplacement,etc.Thesetemporaryroadswouldcompactanddisplacesoilswhileinusebutwouldberemovedandthelandrestoredfollowingconstruction.

Constructioncouldresultinerosioncausedbystormwaterrunofforwindblowndustduringdryconditions.Theseeffectswouldbeminimizedbyimplementingbestmanagementpractices(seeSection2.4).

Althoughimplementationofconstructionbestmanagementpracticesandmitigationmeasureswouldreducethepotentialforshort‐termincreasederosion,someincreasedlevelsoftemporaryerosionandsoillosswouldbeexpectedduringandimmediatelyafterconstruction.Forthelongterm,however,stabilizedandrevegetatedbanksandislandswouldreducethepotentialforerosivelossofsoilresources.TheoverallimpactoftheProposedActiononsoilsandgeologywouldbelow.

3.1.3 EnvironmentalConsequences–NoAction

UndertheNoActionalternative,therewouldbenoshort‐termsoillossesortopographychangesbecauseconstructionactivitieswouldnotoccur.Theongoingerosionalprocessesoccurringintheriverandonitsbanksandislandswouldcontinue.

3.2 Wetlands3.2.1 AffectedEnvironment

Ingeneral,wetlandfunctionsareseparatedintothreeprimarycategories:waterquality,hydrology,andhabitat(Novitzki,1996).Palustrinewetlandsnexttoriversystemshavethepotentialtoimprovewaterqualitybyfilteringandstoringsediments,processingpollutants,andstoringandcyclingnutrients.Hydrologicfunctionsoftenincludegroundwaterrecharge,floodmoderationandfloodwaterstorage.Wetlandscansupporthighlevelsofprimaryproductivityandprovideuniquehabitatforfishandwildlife(Hruby,2004).Theirabilityandopportunitytoperformanyofthesefunctionsdependslargelyontheirpositioninthelandscape,sizeandcomplexity,adjacentlanduse,andlevelofdisturbance.

Palustrineemergentwetlandsarecharacterizedbyerect,rooted,andnon‐woodyvegetation.Ascrub‐shrubwetlandisdominatedbywoodyvegetationlessthan20feettall(Hruby,2004).

AwetlanddelineationfortheprojectareawasconductedonJuly19,20,and21,2016andfollowedthemethodsforroutinedelineationsinareasgreaterthanfiveacresinsizefromtheCorpsofEngineersWetlandDelineationManual(EnvironmentalLaboratory1987).DatacollectionandwetlandboundarydelineationsfollowedmethodsdescribedinRegionalSupplementtotheCorpsofEngineersWetlandDelineationManual:WesternMountains,Valleys,andCoastRegion(U.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers2010).WetlanddelineationdatacollectionoccurredonalllocationswithintheLowerMeanderProjectarea(includingthepotentialaccessroutes)andalllocationswerevisitedtoidentifyareaswithwetlandcharacteristics.


Wetlanddelineationsamplingdatawerecollectedtocapturevariationsinvegetationcommunities,landscapepositionandtopography.Datacollectionpointswerelocatedtobepaireduplandandwetlandplots,exceptwheresamplepointsonlydocumenteduplandconditions.

TheOHWMwasidentifiedforwatersoftheU.S.usingguidancefromTitle33oftheCodeofFederalRegulations,Part328“DefinitionofWatersoftheUnitedStates”andtheRegulatoryGuidanceLetternumber05‐05fromtheArmyCorpsofEngineers(2005).

OnthenorthsideoftheKootenaiRiverthereisarelicsidechannel.Thisareawasdelineatedaspalustrineunconsolidatedbottomwetlands.WhilenotpartoftheareatobedisturbedbytheProposedAction,theareawasdelineatedbecauseofitsproximitytotheprojectarea.ThesidechannelisnotconnectedtotheKootenaiRiverbutdoesreceiveoverbankflowsduringhighwaterevents.Palustrineunconsolidatedbottomwetlandsnormallyhaveshallowwaterthroughoutthemostoftheyearandaresurroundedbypalustrineemergentwetlands.Theboundarybetweenthetwowetlandclassesismarkedbyatransitionfromareaswheresurfacewaterexistsyearroundandisdeepenoughtosuppressvegetationgrowthtoareaswithestablishedemergentvegetationcommunities.

WithintheLowerMeanderProject,thereareapproximately11acresofpalustrinescrubshrubwetlandsandabout9.5acresofpalustrineemergentwetlands(Table7).Thereisalsoapproximately7acresofwetlandsclassifiedasamixofscrub/shrubandemergentwetlands.Thevegetationfoundintheemergentwetlandintheprojectareaisdominatedbyeitherwaterknotweedorsedges.Thevegetationfoundwithinthepalustrinescrubshrubwetlandsincludessandbarwillow,yellowwillow,andred‐osierdogwood.

Table7SummaryofwetlandsmappedintheLowerMeanderProjectarea

Wetland Class Existing Area (acres)

Palustrine emergent 9.53

Palustrine emergent/scrub shrub 7.29

Palustrine scrub shrub 10.85

Palustrine unconsolidated bottom 3.13

Total wetland area 30.80


Theplacementofexcavatedmaterialaroundexistingvegetationonthemid‐channelislandswouldoverlapwiththeedgesofsomeofthedelineatedpalustrinescrubwetlandsresultinginapermanentlossof0.4acresofwetland.Streambankregradingisexpectedtoalsoresultinapermanentlossofapproximately0.2acrespalustrineemergentwetlands.Temporaryeffectsassociatedwithconstructedaccessrouteswouldresultinalossof0.25acresofwetlands,whichwouldberestoredonceconstructioniscompleted.

Inaddition,asaresultoftheProposedActiontherewouldbeanetgainofapproximately24acresoverallofwetlandarearesultingfromthecreationofnewfloodplainandislandsurfacesthatarehydrologicallyconnectedtotheKootenaiRiver.Theareaofpalustrinescrubshrubwetlandwouldbeincreasedontheconstructedislandsasaresultofnaturalrecruitmentandplanting.Theregradedstreambankswouldalsobeplantedandresultinnewpalustrinescrubshrubwetlands.Becauseofthenetincreaseinoverallwetlandarea,theeffectsonwetlandswouldbebeneficial.Theeffectswouldbemoderateoverall.



UndertheNoActionalternative,theexistingwetlandswouldremainunaffectedandtherewouldbenowetlandcreation.

3.3 WaterResources3.3.1 AffectedEnvironment

HydrologicCharacteristics

TheKootenaiRiver(spelled“Kootenay”inCanada)originatesinsoutheasternBritishColumbia(BC).Fromtheheadwaters,itflowssouthintoLakeKoocanusa,whichstraddlestheborderbetweenBritishColumbiaandMontana.LakeKoocanusaisameldingofthewordsKootenai,Canada,andtheUSA.LibbyDam,operatedbytheUSACE,holdstheriverbacktoformtheLakeKoocanusaReservoir.Downstreamofthedam,nearLibby,Montana,theriverturnsandflowswestwardtowardIdaho.NearBonnersFerry,Idaho,theriverturnsnorth,andflowsagainintoBCwhereitentersKootenayLake.FromtheoutletonthewestarmofthelakenearNelson,BC,theriverflowswestward,throughseveralhydropowerfacilities,toitsconfluencewiththeupperColumbiaRivernearCastlegar,BC.

TheKootenaiRiversubbasinencompassesapproximately18,000squaremiles(sevenpercent)oftheColumbiaRiverbasin.Itisthethirdlargestsub‐basinbyarea,andthesecondlargestbyvolumeofwater(KTOI2009).

Historically,theamountofwaterintheKootenaiRiverhasvariedgreatlythroughtheyear.AswithmanyriversintheColumbiaRiverbasin,theKootenaiisfedbymeltingsnow,andtheannualpeakflowsoccurredinthespring.Oncethesnowhadmeltedathigherelevations,hotdrysummerswouldresultindramaticdecreasesinflowsthroughlatesummerintothefall,whenwinterrainswouldresume.FollowingtheconstructionofLibbyDamin1972,peakspringtimeflowshavebeenreducedby50percent,andwinterflowshaveincreasedby300percent(USFWS2006,2008)(Figure10).

Figure10.PeakFlowsintheKootenaiRiver,1932‐2012


FlowsintheKootenaiRiverthroughBonnersFerryarealsoaffectedbyabackwatereffect(reducedwatersurfaceslopewhichcauseslittleornocurrentintheriver)causedbyKootenayLake.KootenayLakeis70milesdownstreamofBonnersFerryandisregulatedbyCorraLinnDam.WhenhighflowsraisethelevelofKootenayLakeduringthespringrunoff,abackwatereffectoccursintheportionoftheKootenaiRiverbetweenKootenayLakeandBonnersFerry.Inmostyears,theupstreamextentofthebackwaterreachesrivermile153nearBonnersFerry.Thisbackwatereffectchangestheslopeofthewatersurface,andconsequently,thevelocityofthewaterpassingthroughtheproposedprojectarea.Whentheamountofwaterintheriverisgreatest,thevelocityofthewaterslowsthroughtheproposedprojectareaandthewatersurfaceelevationincreases.Whentheflowsarelower,andthelakeleveldrops,thevelocityofthewaterthroughtheproposedprojectareaincreases,andwatersurfaceelevationdecreases.

Floodplains

Afloodplainisanareanearariverorastreamthatfloodswhenthewaterlevelreachesfloodstage.The100‐yearfloodplainisusedandisdefinedasanyareadeterminedbytheFederalEmergencyManagementAgency(FEMA)tohaveaonepercentchanceoffloodedduringagivenyear.

FEMAusesfloodinsuranceratemaps(FIRM)toidentifytheareaswiththepotentialtoflood.FortheproposedprojectthemostrecentFIRMmapshowingfloodplainsinthisareawasissuedAugust2,1982andshowstheprojectareaiswithinthe100‐yearfloodplain(FEMA,1982b).

Theareajustdownstreamoftheprojectarea,wheretheKootenaiRiverpassesthroughBonnersFerry,isprotectedfromfloodingbylevees.Intheareasprotectedbylevees,abasefloodelevation,ratherthanafloodplainarea,isusedtodeterminefloodrisk.Likethe100‐yearfloodplain,thebasefloodelevationistheheightthathasaonepercentchanceorgreateroffloodinginagivenyear.ThebasefloodelevationwithintheCityofBonnersFerryis1,768feetatthedownstreamend,and1,769feetattheupstreamend.TheUSACEoperatesLibbyDamandmanagesflowsintheKootenaiRiver,tominimizethepotentialforflooding.


Theinstallationofthethreelargebankstructuresalongthenorthbankwouldprovideerosionprotectionbydeflectingriverflow.Theselargewoodandriprapstructureswouldalsoprovideareaswithslowerflowsandrecirculationeddies.Theuseofriverbottommaterialfrompoolexcavationtocreatenewislandswouldcreatenewareasofshallowwateralongtheshoresoftheseislandsthatwouldslowwatervelocitiesinareaswhereadeeperchannelandfasterwaterexistcurrently.

Poolsustainabilityattheprojectsitewouldbeinfluencedbyrivergeometry(meanderradiusandwidth‐depthratio),transitorybackwaterconditions,andtheflowpartitioningbetweenthemainstemandsidechannels.Thepotentialforpoolfillingwasminimizedtothedegreepossibleinprojectdesign,buttheexcavatedpoolswouldlikelyfilloverthenextfewyears.Poolscreatedbythethreelargebankstructurescouldforminthesameareabutthesizeandlocationofthosenewpoolsareuncertain.

Theside‐channellargewoodstructureswouldcreatehydrauliccomplexityinthesidechannelsbetweentheislands.Thestructureswouldpromotedevelopmentofbedformdiversitybyestablishingaseriesofsmallscourpools.Overtime,thesestructuresmaycollectadditionaldebrisandpromotedepositioninthesidechannels,thuscontributingtofloodplaindevelopment.

ConstructionactivitiesinandadjacenttotheKootenaiRiverwouldgeneratetemporaryandlocalizedincreasedturbidity.However,previoussamplestakenintheKootenaiRiverareashowthattheriverbottommaterialiscomprisedpredominantlyofgravelandsand(95‐97percent)withverylittlesiltorfinematerial(3‐5percent)(RiverDesignGroup,2012).Becauseofthesmallamountoffinematerialinthesediment,turbidityintheriverduringconstructionwoulddissipatequickly.Figure11showsthe


addedsedimenttotheKootenaiRiverduringislandconstructionattheBonnersFerryIslandlocation.Thesedimentplumestayedinanarrowbandalongonesideoftheriveranddissipatedwithin0.6milesdownstreamofthesourceofthesediment.

Stormwaterrunofffromtemporarily‐disturbedconstructionandstagingareascouldalsocontributesedimentladenwatertotheriverandincreaseturbidity.Erosionandsedimentcontrolmeasureswouldbeusedduringallconstructionactivitiestopreventdischargesfromconstructionsitestotherivertothemaximumextentpracticable.

Figure11.Sedimentplumeduring2015IslandConstruction

TheuseofhazardousmaterialsorsubstancesduringconstructionoftheProposedActionhasthepotentialtoresultinthecontaminationofsurfacewaterorgroundwater.Constructionequipmentcontainspetroleumproducts,suchasgasoline,dieselfuel,motoroil,andhydraulicfluid,andotherhazardousfluids,suchasanti‐freeze.Equipmentleakagemayleadtothereleaseofsmallquantitiesofthesesubstancesintotheenvironment.Theimplementationofaspillprevention,controlandcountermeasureplanandBMPswouldreducethepotentialforleaksorspillsofhazardousmaterialsfromequipmentduringconstruction.Releasesofhazardoussubstancestotheenvironmentmayalsooccurifexistingsitesofcontaminationareencounteredduringconstruction.Asdescribedabove,thesedimentanalysisconductedintheprojectareashowedlowlevelsofcontaminantsbuttheywerewithinallowablelevels(Bartonetal.2012).


PlantingsassociatedwiththeProposedActionwould,whenmature,provideabeneficialeffectonwatertemperaturebycreatingadditionalshadealongtheriver.

Insummary,riverhydraulicswouldbechangedinlocalizedareasintheprojectarea.Constructionactivitieswouldresultintemporaryandlocalizedsedimenteffectsonsurfacewaterquality,thoughtheseeffectswouldbemitigatedbytheapplicationofbestmanagementpracticesandmitigationmeasures(seeSection2.4).Overthelong‐term,reducedstreambankerosionandturbiditywouldresultfromthecreationofnewriparianhabitatareasalongtheregradedriverbanksandnewenhancedislands.Thus,theeffectsoftheProposedActiononwaterresourceswouldbelow.

InaccordancewitharequestfromtheUSACE,ananalysiswasconductedoftheproject’spotentialtoincreasefloodingintheprojectareaaswellasareasdownstreamwithinBonnersFerrythatisregulatedbyUSACE.TheanalysisincludedthecumulativeeffectsofallthecompletedandproposedKRHRPprojectsintheBraidedReach.Modelingresultsoftheeffectsofa;theKRHRPprojectsshowlessthan0.15feetofincreasetowatersurfaceelevationsatBonnersFerry(ZoneAE)forthe100‐yearfloodeventand0.2feetforthe10‐yearfloodevent.TheseincreasesweredeterminedtobetheresultoftheBonnersFerryIslandsProjectthatwascompletedin2016.WhentheBonnersFerryareaswasanalyzedtodeterminetheeffectsoftheLowerMeanderProject,noadditionalincreaseinwaterseeninthewatersurfaceelevationforeitherthe100‐yearor10‐yearfloodevents.ModelingofpotentialchangesofwatersurfaceelevationchangeswithintheLowerMeanderprojectareashowedanincreaseoflessthan0.1feetforboththe10‐yearand100‐yearfloodevents.Basedontheseresults,theProposedActionwouldnotnotablyincreasetheBonnersFerryfloodelevationstoadegreethatwouldrequirechangesintheUSACE’swatermanagementactivitiesatLibbyDamforfloodregulationoperations(RiverDesignGroup,Inc.,2017).

Figure12.ExcerptfromFEMAFIRMPanel160270575BshowingtheregulatoryfloodplainintheLowerMeanderProjectareawithinBoundaryCounty.


UndertheNoActionalternative,therewouldbenochangesinriverhydrology,noconstruction‐relatedturbidity,andnochangeinbasefloodelevationsinBonnersFerry.Ongoingshorelineerosionwouldcontinuetocontributetosomesedimentationintheriver.


3.4 FishandFishHabitat

3.4.1 AffectedEnvironment

Fish

Numerousnativefishspeciesincluding,bulltrout,westslopecutthroattrout,ColumbiaRiverredbandtrout,kokanee,burbot,andKootenaiRiverwhitesturgeonexistintheKootenaiRiver,inorneartheproposedprojectarea.Noanadromousfish(fishthatlivepartoftheirlifeintheocean,thenreturntotherivertospawn,e.g.salmonandsteelhead)populationsoccupytheKootenaiRiver.Table8showsalistoffishspeciesintheKootenaiRiver.

Table8.Nativeandnon‐nativefishspeciesintheKootenaiRiverlikelytoinhabittheprojectarea

Commonname ESAstatus IdahoStatestatus

Whitesturgeon Endangered Endangered

Burbot None Endangered

Bulltrout Threatened Threatened

Westslopecutthroattrout None Gamefish

RedbandRainbowtrout None Gamefish

Kokaneesalmon None Gamefish

Mountainwhitefish None Gamefish

Redsideshiner None Unprotectedwildlife

Peamouthchub None Unprotectedwildlife

Northernpikeminnow None Unprotectedwildlife

Largescalesucker None Unprotectedwildlife

Slimysculpin None Unprotectedwildlife

Longnosesucker None Unprotectedwildlife

Torrentsculpin None Unprotectedwildlife

Rainbowtrout None Gamefish

BrownTrout None Gamefish

Brooktrout None Gamefish

Bluegill None Gamefish

Pumpkinseed None Gamefish

SmallmouthBass None Gamefish

LargemouthBass None Gamefish

NorthernPike None Gamefish

Yellowperch None Gamefish

Blackbullhead None Gamefish


TwofishspecieslistedundertheESAmayexistintheprojectarea:theKootenaiRiverwhitesturgeon(endangered),andtheColumbiaRiverbulltrout(threatened)(USFWS2013).

JuvenileandadultKootenaiRiverwhitesturgeonliveyear‐roundintheKootenaiRiverdownstreamofBonnersFerry(USFWS,2006,2008).JuvenilesturgeoncanbefoundallyearlongupstreamofBonnersFerry,butadultsturgeonarefoundinfrequentlypastBonnersFerry.Aboutone‐thirdofKootenaiRiverwhitesturgeoninspawningconditionarebelievedtomigrateupstreamtotheBonnersFerryareaannually(MaythroughJuly),butfewremaintheretospawn(USFWS2013).

TheKootenaiRiverisoneof22designatedbulltroutrecoveryunitsintheColumbiaRiverBasin,andhasbeendesignatedascriticalhabitat.FieldstudiesshowthatadultbulltroutexistintheIdahoportionofthemainstemKootenaiRiverinverylowdensities.Bulltrouthavetwolifehistorystrategies:migratoryorresident.Migratoryformsmovebetweenlakesormainstemriverstosmalltributariestospawn.Residentformsremaininthesmalltributariesallyearlong.MigratoryformsofbulltroutintheKootenaiRiverusethemainstemKootenaiRiverasamigratorycorridortoaccessthesmalltributaries,locatedupstreaminMontana,inJuneandJuly.AfterspawninginsmalltributariesinSeptemberandOctober,theymovedownstreamintodeeppoolsinthemainstemKootenaiRiverorKootenayLakeinlateOctoberandNovember.

FishHabitat

Humanactivitysincetheearly1900shascausedsignificantlossesinriparianandwetlandareasalongthelowerKootenaiRiver,negativelyaffectingfishhabitatintheKootenaiRiver(USEPA,2004).Someofthemostseriouseffectstofishhabitathavecomefromthefollowingactivities:

Waterimpoundmentanddiversion Riverdiking Floodcontrolandchannelization Damconstructionandoperation Wetlanddrainingandassociatedreductionofnativespeciesdependentonwetlands(including

beavers) Livestockgrazing Urbanandsuburbandevelopment Landclearingforagriculture Roadbuilding Recreation

Theseactivitiescausedriparianandriverinehabitatlossanddegradationthatimpairedkeyecologicalfunctions,includingsedimentfiltering,streambankbuilding,waterstorageandaquiferrecharge,dissipationofstreamenergy,primaryproductivity,andnutrientretention.ThedegradationofthesekeyecologicalfunctionshascausedthelossofaquatichabitatsthatareimportantforthesurvivalofthenativefishfoundintheKootenaiRiver(USEPA2004).

Intheprojectarea,landusepracticesincludinggrazing,bankarmoring,gravelmining,dikeconstructionandvegetationclearinghavealteredriverbank,floodplainandvegetationconditions.Inaddition,theprojectareaisaffectedbythealteredmagnitudeandtimingofflowsreleasedfromLibbyDamlocatedupstream,andbyatransientbackwaterconditioncreatedbyKootenayLakelocateddownstreaminCanada.Multiplevegetatedislandshavedevelopedintheprojectarea,thoughvegetationdevelopmentonthemhasbeenslowduetointensebrowsepressurefromwildlife,thealteredflowconditions,andlowsupplyofsedimentandwoodydebris.

Aquatichabitatlimitingfactorsinthisreachincludealackofcover,complexity,andpools.BasedonmonitoringdatafromtheIdahoDepartmentofFishandGameandUniversityofIdahograduatestudies,


thissectionoftheKootenaiRiverisusedprimarilyasamigratorycorridorfornativefish(Zelch2003).Nativefishhavealsobeendocumentedinthenearbyenhancedoff‐channelandside‐channelhabitatcreatedbytheKootenaiTribe’sNorthSideChannelsproject.InfrequentKootenaiRiverwhitesturgeonusehasbeendocumentedinthisreachbutnospawninglocationshavebeenidentified(USFWS2013).JuvenileKootenaiRiverwhitesturgeonappeartobemovingthroughthisreach.


AlthoughtheProposedAction’sactivitiesareintendedtoimprovefishhabitatconditionsoverthelongterm,short‐termadverseeffectstofishandfishhabitatmayoccurbecauseofconstructionactivities.TheProposedActioncouldtemporarilyaffectfishbyincreasingturbidity,generatingnoisefrompiledrivingandgeneralconstructionactivities,andbydisturbanceandinjuryfromrockplacement.

In‐waterworkwouldoccurbetweenlateAugustandearlyNovember,pertheworkwindowidentifiedbyIDFGandUSFWS,andtheperiodoflowestseasonalflowsintheKootenaiRiver.TheworkwindowfortheprojectwasestablishedsothatconstructionwouldoccurwellafterthespawningperiodforKootenaiRiverwhitesturgeon,andtoensurethatadultKootenaiRiverwhitesturgeonwouldnotbeintheareaduringprojectimplementation.Evenatsuchlowflows,becauseofthesizeoftheworkareaandthedepthandvelocityofthewater,worksiteisolationanddewateringwouldnotbepractical.Consequently,dewateringisnotproposed,andpoolexcavation,bankgrading,andbankstructureinstallationwouldoccurinwetconditions.Inaddition,siltcurtainsarenotfeasiblebecauseofthewaterdepthandvelocity–anymaterialusedtocaptureorslowwatersufficientlytoallowturbiditytosettleoutwouldbequicklyover‐topped.However,becausetheriverbottommaterialispredominantlygravelandsandwithverylittlesiltorfinematerialtoremainsuspendedinthewatercolumn,turbidityintheriverduringconstructionwoulddissipatequickly.

Floatingsiltcurtainsandtemporarybermswouldbeusedatthedownstreambankstabilizationareaandislandcreationareabecausewatervelocityintheseareasisexpectedtobelowenoughtoallowconstruction‐relatedturbiditytosettleout.Floatingsiltcurtainswouldbetemporarilyanchoredwithone‐inchdiametersteelpiles.Temporaryhaulroadswouldbeusedasbermstodirectflowaroundtheworkareasandreduceflowvelocityintheworkareas.Floatingsiltcurtainswouldnotbeusedintheupstreamareasbecausewaterdepthandvelocitythereisexpectedtobetoogreattoallowconstruction‐relatedturbiditytosettleout.

Becauseoftheamountofin‐waterworknecessarytoimplementtheProposedAction,othereffectstofishhabitatcouldoccur,suchasaccidentalhazardousmaterialspillsorfluidleaksfromconstructionequipment.TheuseofBMPswouldreducethelikelihoodofanyexposuretoaquaticorganismsshouldaspilloccur(seeSection2.4.).

ImplementationoftheProposedActionwouldrequiredrivingtimberpilesintotheriverbedtocreatetwoofthethreeproposedpool‐formingstructuresalongthenorthbankandfifteenside‐channellarge‐woodstructuresinthesidechannels.Thetwoupstreampool‐formingstructureswouldrequireapproximately52piles(Structure1)and134piles(Structure2)foratotalof186piles.Eachpilewouldbe30to50feetlong,and12to18inchesindiameter.Thefifteenside‐channelstructureswouldrequire150piles(10pileseach).Drivingeachpileintotheriverbedwouldrequireabout380impacthammerstrikesallowingforabouteightto10pilestobeinstalledperday.Atthisrate,installationofpilesintotheriverbedwouldtakeabout30to40workdays.

Thelevelofimpacttofishfromthispile‐drivingisbasedonthesoundexposurelevel,whichisdeterminedbytheloudnessanddurationofthenoise,andthedistancefishwouldbefromthenoise.Fisharealsoaffectedbytheaccumulatedsoundexposurelevel.Theaccumulatedsoundexposurelevelthatafishwouldexperienceiscalculatedbyusingthenumberofhammerstrikesduringaone‐dayworkperiod(assumingtherewouldbeabreakofatleast12hoursbetweenworkperiods)minusthe


amountofsoundenergyabsorbedbythewater.Theaccumulatedsoundexposurelevel,perworkperiod/day,determinesthelevelofeffecttofishfromtheexposuretoprolongednoise(USFWS2013).

Duringinstallationofthelargebankstructures,thesoundpressurelevelswouldlikelyexceedthephysicalinjurythresholdforbulltroutandKootenaiRiverwhitesturgeon.AccumulatedsoundexposurelevelswouldalsoreachthethresholdforadversephysicaleffectstobothbulltroutandKootenaiRiverwhitesturgeon,extending420feetfromthepilebeingdriven.BulltroutandKootenaiRiverwhitesturgeonupto705feetawayfrompiledrivingactivitieswouldlikelybebehaviorallyaffected(moveawayfromthenoise)bynoisegeneratedbydrivingpiles(USFWS2013).

Althoughitispossiblethatbulltroutwouldbeintheprojectareaduringconstruction,theyareinlowabundance,andthehabitatareaavailableinthelowerKootenaiisquitelargecomparedtotheareathatwouldbetemporarilyaffectedbyelevatednoiselevelsduringconstruction.Additionally,theprojectareaiscurrentlycharacterizedasdegradedhabitat,whichmakesitunlikelythatbulltroutwouldbepresentatall.Inaddition,becausebulltrouttypicallymigrateatnight(HowellandBuchannan,1992),itisunlikelythattheywouldbepassingthroughtheprojectareaswhenpiledrivingisoccurring.Therefore,theeffectsonbulltroutfromnoisegeneratedbypiledrivingwouldbelow.

Sturgeonarenotexpectedtoremaininthevicinityofpiledrivingforanytimelongenoughtobemorethantemporarilyaffectedbypiledrivingnoise.Thehabitatispoortobeginwith,sofewareexpectedtobepresent,andthosemovingthroughwouldbeexpectedtoremainforonlybriefperiodsoftime‐notlongenoughfortheaccumulatedsoundexposurelevelstocauseharm.Therefore,theeffectsonKootenaiRiverwhitesturgeonfromnoisegeneratedbypiledrivingwouldbelow.

Otherfishspecieswouldlikelybepresentintheprojectareaduringconstruction(Table9)andwouldalsobeaffectedbytheshort‐termandtemporaryconstructionactivities.Thelargesteffecttofishwouldbetheirshorttermdisplacementfromoccupiedhabitatsfromthenoisegeneratedbypiledriving.Thoughadjacenthabitatsareavailableforthemtodisplaceinto,thosehabitatsarelikelyalreadyoccupiedbyotherfish.Thissetsupacompetitivescenariothatputsindividual,likelysmallerorweaker,fishathigherriskfromincreasedexposuretopredationorsomeadverseenvironmentalfactorsuchastemperature,flow,preyscarcity,etc.fortheperiodoftimetheyaredisplacedandexposed.However,thenumbersoffishimpactedwouldlikelybelow,asfishhabitatinthisareaislimitedandofpoorqualityandfishpopulationsherearethusanticipatedtobelow.Therewouldthusbealowtomoderateshort‐termandtemporaryeffecttofishintheprojectarea.

Asaresultoftheproject,however,fishhabitatwouldbeimprovedandexpanded.TheProposedActionwouldcreatehabitatconditionsconsistentwithwhatonceexistednaturallyintheKootenaiRiversystembuthassincebeenlostduetohuman‐causedchangestothebasin.Theseimprovementswouldprovidehighercarryingcapacitythanbeforeformultiplespeciesandalllifestages,andthelong‐termoutcomeswouldbebeneficial.


UndertheNoActionalternative,therewouldbenodisturbancetofishduetoconstructionactivitiesandpoorhabitatconditionsforKootenaiRiverwhitesturgeon,burbot,bulltrout,andothernativefishspecieswouldremainandpossiblyworsen.

3.5 Recreation3.5.1 AffectedEnvironment

TheKootenaiRiverisawide,slow‐movingriverinthereachesaboveandbelowtheprojectareaandthusholdslittleattractionforkayakersandrafterswhopreferthefasterwaterfoundupstreamoftheprojectarea.Itsuseisprimarilybyrecreationalboatersandanglersastheriversupportscutthroat


andrainbowtroutaswellasmountainwhitefishandotherspecies.FishhabitatqualityhasbeenimprovingduetotheTribe’shabitatrestorationeffortsandsoitsattractionforfishandanglersisincreasing.In2009,theestimateoftroutpermilehadincreasedfrom50fishpermiletoalmost300fishpermile(RyanHardy,perscom,2016).

Theriverisrelativelyinaccessiblefromshoresincemostshorelineisinprivateownership.Thereissomeevidenceoflimitedprivateshorelineusebuttherearenopublicaccesssitestotheriverwithintheprojectarea.ThenearestboatrampsarelocatedfourmilesupstreamattheTwinRiversResortandtwomilesdownstreamattheSearchandRescueBoatRamp.BoatslaunchedatthislocationwouldtravelthroughtheprojectareaandtakeoutattheBoundarySearchandDiveRescueboatramplocatedonthesouthbankoftheKootenaiRiver,offRiversideDrivedownstreamofBonnersFerry.Approximately200boatslaunchfromTwinRiverseachyear(RexHoisington,personalcommunication,Dec2016).SomeoftheseboatsmotorupstreamintotheKootenaiRiverCanyon;theremainderfloatdownstreamtoBonnersFerry.


BecausetheKootenaiRiverisregularlyusedforrecreationalboating,theimplementationoftheproposedprojecthasthepotentialtoaffectrecreation,bothduringconstructionandfromthelong‐termpresenceoflargewoodstructuresonthebankorinthesidechannels.

Theinstallationoflargebankandinstreamwoodstructuresalongthebanksandwithinthechannelscouldposeadangertoboaters,kayakers,andtubers.Theselogstructureswouldextendintothecurrentoftheriverandcouldcreatethepotentialforsnaggingordamagingpassingboatsorthatpeoplefloatingoninnertubescouldbebeinginjuredorentrainedbytheswirlingcurrentscreatedbythestructures.

ConstructionoflargebankandlargewoodstructuresintheprojectareawouldoccurbetweenlateAugustandearlyNovemberin2017and2018.Duringconstruction,someequipmentwouldbeinorneartheriverthuscreatingthepotentialforaboatinghazard.Thispotentialislikelytobelowbecauseofthelongsightlinesthatwouldallowboaterstoseetheconstructionactivitiesbeforereachingthearea.AlsotheTribewouldpostsignsattheTwinRiversResortboatlaunchnotifyingboatersoftheconstructionactivityandtoremainaware.

Becauseofhighflowsandcoldwater,themajorityoftheboatingthroughtheprojectareaoccursbetweenJulyandSeptemberwhenflowsrangefrom20,000cfsinJulytolessthan10,000cfsinSeptember.Atthelowestflows,thelargebankstructureswouldextendapproximately200feetoutintothemainchanneloftheriver,leaving200‐300feetofchannelwidthforboaterstonavigate.Intheside‐channelsestablishedbetweenthenewlyconstructedislands,fifteenlargewoodstructureswouldbecomestationaryobjectsthatrecreationalboaterswouldneedtoavoid.Atlowflows,therewouldbeapproximately100feetofchanneltonavigatearoundthestructures,thoughthemajorityofboatersareexpectedtoremaininthemainchannelandnotenterthesidechannelsatall.Inaddition,thestructureswouldmimictheappearance,function,andeffectsonflowofsimilarnaturalfeaturesoccurringalongmajorwaterwaysliketheKootenaiRiver.Flowsareexpectedtobedeflectedawayfromthestructuresandtowardtheunobstructedareasoftheriver,andexperiencedriverfloatersroutinelyusesuchflowstoavoidriverobstacles.Oncecompleted,therecreationeffectswouldbelowbecausethestructureswouldbevisibletoboatersapproachingfromupstreamandtherewouldbeampletimeandspacewithwhichtonavigatethroughthearea.

Temporaryconstruction,transportation,andstagingactivitiesalongthebanksandislandsareexpectedtohavenoeffectonrecreationastheseareasarenotaccessibletothepublicandarenotusedrecreationally.


Long‐termimprovementinfishingopportunitiesareanticipatedasfishpopulationsrespondtoimprovedhabitatconditions.AsrecentlyasSeptember2016,aSpokane,Washingtonnewspaper(Landers2016)citedtheseongoinghabitatimprovementsintheKootenaiRiverasboostingfishpopulationsandincreasingfishingopportunities.


UndertheNoActionalternative,norestorationactionswouldbeimplementedandtherewouldbenoeffect(positiveornegative)onrecreationactivitiesontheKootenaiRiver.

3.6 CulturalResourcesCulturalresourcesarethingsandplacesthatshowevidenceofhumanoccupationoractivityrelatedtohistory,architecture,archaeology,engineering,andculture.Historicproperties,asdefinedby36CFR800(theimplementingregulationsoftheNationalHistoricPreservationAct[NHPA],54USC306108)areasubsetofculturalresources.Thissubsetconsistsofanydistrict,site,building,structure,artifact,ruin,object,workofart,ornaturalfeatureimportantinhumanhistorythatmeetsdefinedeligibilitycriteriafortheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces(NRHP).

TheNHPArequiresthatfederalagenciesinventoryandevaluateculturalresourcesforeligibilityforlistingintheNRHP,andevaluateandconsidereffectsoftheiractionsontheseresources.FederalagenciesevaluateculturalresourcesforeligibilityintheNRHPusingspecificcriteria,includinganexaminationoftheculturalresource’sage,integrity(oflocation,design,setting,materials,workmanship,feelingandassociation),andsignificanceinAmericanculture,amongotherthings.AculturalresourcemustmeetatleastonecriteriontobeeligibleforlistingintheNRHP.HistoricpropertiesincludeprehistoricresourcesthatpredateEuropeancontactandsettlement.

3.6.1 AffectedEnvironment

EthnographicOverview

TheprojectareaiswithinthetraditionalterritoryoftheKtunaxa(Kootenai)Nation,andspecifically,theLowerKootenaipeople.TheKootenaiTribeofIdahoispartoftheKtunaxaNation.TheLowerKootenaipeopletraditionallyoccupiedtheKootenaiRivervalleys,andthesurroundingareas,fromwhatarenowLibbyandJennings,Montana,toKootenayLakeinBritishColumbia.

AfewLowerKootenaiwouldaccompanytheUpperKootenaionsnowshoes(beforetheyhadhorses),toareaseastoftheRockyMountainsontheiryearlybison‐huntingexpeditions(Brunton,1998).OneofthestopsalongtheKootenaiRiverwheregroupswouldfindresourceswasatthemouthoftheMoyieRiver,nowthesiteoftheKootenaiTribe’sTwinRiversCanyonResortandTwinRiversSturgeonandBurbotHatchery(onaportionoftheKootenaiTribe’sreservation).

SomeoftheKootenai,especiallytheLowerKootenai,wouldjoinlargetribalgatheringsatKettleFalls,fortheJulyandAugustrunsofChinook,coho,andsockeyesalmon(KennedyandBouchard,1998).BirdhuntingwasessentialtotheLowerKootenaiandsought‐afterspeciesincludedcranes,ducks,gulls,sprucegrouse(knownasfoolhens),andgeese.

TheKootenaiTribeofIdahoreliedheavilyonthelocalfisheryincludingsturgeon(whichtheircanoesweremodeledafter)andburbotaswellasothernativefish.Inthesummerandfall,theycollectedberries,fallroots,seeds,andvariousplants,andhuntedfordeer,elk,caribou,andmoose.Theyalsohuntedortrappedbeaver,muskrat,mountaingoats,bear,lynx,wolf,andotheranimalsfortheirhidesand,occasionally,forfood.


HistoricalOverview

DavidThompson,aBritish‐Canadiansurveyorandfurtrader,wasthefirstnon‐Indiantoexplorethearea.In1807,ThompsontravelleduptheKootenaiRiverfromKootenayLakeinsoutheasternBritishColumbia.HestoredcanoesnearBonnersFerryandtraveledonhorsebackuptheMoyieRivervalley,totheareathatisnowCranbrookandFt.Steele,B.C.(TyrellJ.B.,1916).

Followingtheearlyexplorationoftheregionbyfurtraders,thediscoveryofgoldcausedthefirstsustainedrushofEuro‐AmericansettlerstonorthernIdaho.Thisinspiredtheconstructionofatransportationsystemsufficienttocarrypeopleandgoods.Aftertheinitialrushofprospectorsbroughtdevelopmentofmorestablecommunities,interestturnedtorockmines.This,inturn,requiredaregionaltransportationsystemtobringthemassiveequipmentthatthemillsandsmeltersrequired(Ostrogorskyetal,1991).

In1882,workerscompletedthetranscontinentalNorthernPacificRailroad.ItspannednorthernIdaho,northoftheClarkForkRiver,aroundthenorthsideofLakePendOreille,alongthenorthsideofthePendOreilleRiver.There,itcrossedjustaboveAlbeniFalls,andthenwentsouthwestfromNewporttoSpokane,Washington.

In1893,JamesJ.HillcompletedhisGreatNorthernRailroad,whichranfromDuluth,Minnesota,toSeattle,Washington,bywayoftheKootenaiRiverandBonnersFerry.TherailwayrouteinnorthIdahocrossedtheKootenaiRiveratBonnersFerry,ransouthtocrossLakePendOreilleatSandpoint,andcontinuedacrosstheRathdrumPrairietoSpokane.TheSpokaneInternationallinefollowedin1905,crossingtheKootenaiRiveratBonnersFerry,andconnectingSpokanewiththeCanadianPacificRailway(BonnerCountyHistoryBookCommittee,1991).

Railroadsopenedtheareatolarge‐scalelogging,mining,andagriculturaldevelopment.Thisgaverisetosmallcommunitiesandlumbermillsalongtheirroutes.SmalltownsincludingAddie,MeadowCreek,Snyder,andMoyieSpringsinIdaho,dependedontherailroadforsuppliesandcommunication.


BasedonthereviewofarchaeologicalsiterecordsandculturalresourcesurveyreportsonfileattheIdahoStateHistoricPreservationOfficeandnineteenth‐centurymapscreatedbytheGeneralLandOffice,twopreviouslyrecordedarchaeologicalsiteswithintheprojectareawereidentified.

ApedestrianandsubsurfacesurveywasconductedonNovember16,2016andfinishedNovember19,2016.RonAbraham,KootenaiTribeofIdahoTribalCouncilman,observedthefieldwork.Duringthepedestriansurvey,twonewarchaeologicalsiteswereidentified.OneofthesiteswaspreviouslydeterminedeligibleforlistingintheNRHP;however,thesiteremainsarelocatedoutsideoftheconstructionfootprintthusdirectimpactstoitwouldnotoccur.ThesecondsitewaspreviouslyidentifiedanddeterminednoteligibleforlistingintheNRHP(Dampf,Perrin,&Tarman,2014).Thus,thepotentialfortheproposedactiontoeffectculturalresourcesislow.

Thoughthepotentialforadditionalundiscoveredsitestobefoundduringconstructionislow,aprotocolformanaginganinadvertentdiscoverywouldbedevelopedandfollowedthatwouldpreventorlessenpotentialeffectstositesifdiscoveredduringconstructionactivities.


UndertheNoActionalternative,becausenorestorationactionswouldbeimplemented,therewouldbenopotentialforeffectsonculturalresources.


3.7 VisualResources3.7.1 AffectedEnvironment

Thevisualcharacteroftheprojectareaisdominatedbythenaturalfeaturesoftheriverandthehuman‐alteredfeaturesofagriculturalareasandprivatehomesites.

Theriver’sfeaturesincludethebroad,nearlyquartermile‐wideKootenairiversurface,willow‐shruborwoodedriparianislandsandriverbanks,andexposedgravelandsandbars.Theagriculturalandhomesitefeaturesalongtheriverincludeplowedorcultivatedhayfields,farmhouses,outbuildings,barns,andfarmroadsandequipment.

TheprojectareaisvisibletoonlyasmallsectionoftheelevatedresidentialnortheasternsectionofBonnersFerryeastofUSHighway95/2andsouthofCowCreekRoad;andtotheriver‐levelresidencesimmediatelyeastoftheKootenaiRiverInn.TheprojectareaisnotvisiblefromtheKootenaiRiverInn.

TheprojectareawouldbeclearlyvisiblefromtheCowCreekRoadinplacesasitiselevated30to50feetabovetheriver.Thisroadfollowstheriverupstreamandisbetween0.35and0.65milesfromtheprojectareaatvariousspots,thustheprojectareawouldbemiddlegroundtobackgroundviewing.Noneoftheprojectareaisinforegroundornearmiddle‐groundviewingdistance.


BuildingtheProposedActionwouldcauseseveralchangestothevisuallandscape.Thenewandenhancedislands(anearlythree‐foldincreaseinsize),bankgradingandstabilization,andlargewoodstructureswouldbevisiblefromCowCreekRoadandthebluffsouthofthemaindowntownarea,andbyrecreationalboaters.Whilevisible,theywouldlikelynotbethatnoticeabletomostviewersduetotheirdistanceaway(generallyoverone‐halfmile).Noneofthelargebankstructureswouldbeclearlydiscernabletoanyoneotherthanboatersontheriverorthetwoprivateresidencesnearthesouthbankoftheriver.

ConstructionactivitiesfromAugusttoNovemberin2017and2018mightbevisible,butnotclearlydiscernablebecauseofdistance.Constructioneffectsonvisualresourcesfromlocationsthepublicmightbepresentwouldbetemporaryandlow.

Duringandafterconstructioniscompleted,thehabitatstructuresandenhanced/newislandswouldbevisibletoboatersandthefewresidentsadjacenttotheprojectsite.Overtime,asnewvegetationestablishesandmatures,thesitewouldresemblenaturalfeaturesthatoccuralonglargerivers,andwouldbeconsistentwiththeexistinglandscape.Consequently,thelong‐termeffectsonthevisualresourceswouldbelow.


UndertheNoActionalternative,norestorationactionswouldoccurintheKootenaiLowerMeanderprojectarea.TheviewsoftheKootenaiRiverbothfromlandandwaterwouldstillchangeovertimeastheshorelineandexistingislandserode,cutbanksshift,andastheriverredepositsmaterials.

3.8 Noise3.8.1 AffectedEnvironment

Forthepurposesofthisanalysis,noiseisanysoundthatisloud,disruptive,unexpected,orotherwiseundesirable.EnvironmentalnoiseiscommonlyquantifiedintermsofA‐weighteddecibels(dBA);anoverallfrequency‐weightedsoundlevelthatapproximatesthefrequencyresponseofthehumanear.Table9containsexamplesofcommonactivitiesandtheirassociatednoiselevelsindBA.


Table9.Commonactivitiesandassociatednoiselevels

Source/Location SoundLevelThresholdofHearing 0dBALibrary 35dBAChicagoSuburbs–nighttime minimum40dBASmallTown/QuietSuburb 47‐53dBAPrivateBusinessOffice 50dBALightTrafficat100ftAway 50dBAAverageResidence 50dBALargeRetailStore 60dBAAccountingOffice 60dBABoston‐InsideHouseonMajorAvenue 68dBAAverageTrafficonStreetCorner 75dBAInsideSportsCar(50mph) 80dBALosAngeles‐¾milefromJetLanding 86dBAInsideNewYorkSubwayTrain 95dBALoudAutomobileHorn(at1m) 115dBA

Source:EPA1974

Theabilitytoperceiveanewnoisesourceintrudingintobackgroundconditionsdependsonthenatureoftheintrudingsound,andthebackgroundsound.Forsituationswherethenatureofthenewsoundissimilartothebackgroundsound(e.g.,newtrafficnoiseaddedtobackgroundtrafficnoise),anoiseof3dBAisjustnoticeable,achangeof5dBAisclearlynoticeable,andachangeof10dBAisperceivedasdoublingthesoundlevel(orhalving,ifthesoundisreduced).Forsituationswherethenatureofthenewintrudingsoundisdifferentfrombackgroundsound(e.g.,constructionnoiseinanotherwisequietsetting),thenewsound(includingsporadic“clanks”fromconstructionequipment)canbeeasilyperceived,evenifitonlyraisestheoverallnoiselevelbylessthan1dBA.

Therearenearbyresidentsandthoserecreatinginorneartheprojectareathatwouldbesusceptibletonoiseeffects.ExistingnoisesourcesincludetrafficalongUSHighway95/2andCowCreekRoad,traintrafficontheBurlingtonNorthernSantaFerailwaylineimmediatelysouthoftheprojectarea,theUnionPacificrailwaywestoftheprojectarea,andsawmilloperationssouthoftheprojectarea.

BackgroundnoiselevelsinsmalltownssuchasBonnersFerryaretypicallyaround45dBAduringthedayand35dBAatnight(EPA,1974).Thetraingeneratesintermittent,loudsoundsasitpasses.Noisegeneratedbyanindividualtraindependsonthetraintype,length,speed,andwhetherthetrainusesitswarningwhistle.Trainssoundtheirwarningwhistleatthe“at‐grade”vehiclecrossings,liketheoneonOakStreetinBonnersFerry,towarnmotoristsoftheon‐comingtrain.Atadistanceof100feet,atrain‐warningwhistlecangeneratemaximumnoiselevelsofabout100to105dBA.Trainenginestypicallygeneratemaximumnoiselevelsofapproximately80to85dBA,whiletraincarsgeneratenoiselevelsofabout70to75dBA.


Theprimaryeffectfromconstructionactivitiesforthisprojectwouldcomefromthenoiseofpiledriving.Animpactpile‐drivinghammerisalargepiston‐likedevicethatisusuallyattachedtoacrane.Mostimpactpiledriverhammershaveaverticalsupportthatholdsthepileinplace,andaheavyweight,orram,movesupanddown,strikingananvilthattransmitstheblowoftheramtothepile.Thenoisefromanimpactpile‐drivinghammercomesfromtheimpactofthetoolagainstmaterial.Theselevelscanvarydependingonthetypeandconditionofthematerial.Noiselevelsat50feetfromimpact


pile‐drivinghammercanrangefrom80to110dBA.ThenearestresidencetotheprojectareaisonthesouthbankoftheKootenaiRiverandmorethan1,000feetawayfromwherepiledrivingwouldoccur.

Thetwoupstreamlargebankstructureswouldrequireapproximately186piles,30to50feetlong,and12to18inchesindiameter.Thefifteenside‐channelstructureswouldrequire150piles(10pileseach).Drivingeachpileintotheriverbedwouldrequireabout380impacthammerstrikes.Workerswouldlikelyinstalleightto10pilesperday,andwouldthusbedrivingpilesintotheriverbedforapproximately34to42daysMondaythroughSaturday,7:30AMto6PM.

Assumingmaximumconstruction‐generatednoiselevelof110dBAat50feetandanaverageexteriororinteriorstructuralattenuationof15dBA,inhabitantsofresidenceswithinapproximately2,000feetoftheconstructionareasandmaterialyardscouldexperienceincreasesinambientnoiselevelsofgreaterthan10dBA.Ifconstructionactivitiesweretooccurduringthemorenoise‐sensitiveperiodsoftheday(i.e.,eveningandnighttimehours),resultantincreasesinambientnoiselevelscouldresultinsleepdisruptiontooccupantsoftheseresidentialdwellings.Becausetheprojectwouldrestrictconstructiontodaytimehours,effectsfromconstruction‐generatednoisewouldbemoderatebutshorttermfornearbyresidences.

ForallothergeneralconstructionactivitiesintheLowerMeanderProjectareas,noisegeneratedduringconstructionwouldlikelybeonlyslightlyhigherthanexistingbackgroundlevels.Becauseofthelownoiselevelsandtheshortdurationoftheconstructionperiod,noiseeffectsduringconstructionwouldbelow.


UndertheNoActionalternative,norestorationactionswouldbeimplementedintheKootenaiRiverLowerMeanderProjectareaandtherewouldbenoeffectsfromconstruction‐relatednoise.

3.9 AirQualityandGreenhouseGasses3.9.1 AffectedEnvironment

Existing,localizedsourcesofairpollutantsinthestudyareaincludevehiclesonstateandlocalhighways,dieseltrainlocomotives,agriculturalactivities,andindustriallanduses,suchastimbermills.BoundaryCountyis“inattainment”withtheNationalAmbientAirQualityStandardsundertheCleanAirAct.Being“inattainment”meansthattheconcentrationsofairpollutantsintheareaarehistoricallybelowthelimitsdescribedintheNationalAmbientAirQualityStandardswhichcontaincriteriathattheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)usestodetermineairqualitybasedonwhatkindofcontaminants,andhowmuchofthem,areinanairsampleforagiventimeperiod(IDEQ,2016).


AirpollutantemissionswouldbegeneratedduringtheconstructionoftheProposedAction.Ifthepollutantsoccurinsignificantamounts,theycouldposeapublichealthhazard,especiallyforpeoplewithrespiratoryailments.Theemissionscouldreducevisibilityonroads,highways,andinscenicareastothedetrimentofpublicsafetyorenjoyment.Inaddition,vehicleemissionsandcombustionoffossilfuelsduringprojectoperations,aswellasduringconstruction,couldemitgreenhousegases.

Thepollutantsthatcouldincreasebecauseofprojectconstructionarecarbonmonoxide,ozone,andparticulatematter(dust).Dustcouldbecreatedduringconstructionbyvehiclestravellingonunpavedsurfacesandfromground‐disturbingactivities.Thereisnoresidentialareacloseenoughtotheconstructionsitestobeaffectedbyconstructionactivitydust–thenearestisoveramileaway.However,dusteffectswouldbelowbecausetheywouldonlyoccurduringconstruction(AugustthroughNovemberof2017and/or2018),wouldbetemporary,andwouldoccurinlocalizedareas.Consequently,airqualityeffectsduringconstructionwouldbelow.


Emissionsfromconstructionvehicleswouldcontributegreenhousegasestotheatmospherethroughgasolineanddieselcombustionmotors.

Greenhousegas(GHG)emissionswereestimatedbasedontheapproximatenumberofvehiclestobeusedduringprojectconstruction,andtheapproximatedistancethosevehicleswouldtravelduringtheconstructionperiod.FortheProposedAction,workerswouldhaveanestimated30vehicleroundtripsperdayatthesiteduringtwo,threemonthconstructionperiods(2017and2018).Theestimatedgreenhousegasemissionsforthesetwoconstructionperiodswouldbe383metrictonsofcarbondioxide(CO2).Whileallemissionsofgreenhousegasescontributetoglobalgreenhousegasconcentrationsandclimatechange,thetotalCO2emissionsfromtheproposedprojectwouldbelowcomparedtoemissionsfromothercontributors.


UndertheNoActionalternative,norestorationactionswouldbeimplementedintheKootenaiLowerMeanderprojectareaandtherewouldbenoeffectonairqualityandnoemissionsofGHGs.

3.10 PublicHealthandSafety3.10.1 AffectedEnvironment

TheProposedActionislocatedinaruralsettingonprivatepropertiesonwhichtheownersconductresidential,ranchingandotheractivitiesthatarenottypicallyregardedaslikelysourcesoftoxicorhazardoussubstances.Publichealthandsafetyriskspresentatandnearthesitesaretypicalofthoseforruralareaswithlimiteddevelopment,includingeventssuchastrafficaccidents,weather‐relatedtravelhazards,wildfires,floodsandmedicalemergencies.Numerousfederal,stateandlocalgovernmentjurisdictionsprovidelawenforcement,fireprotection,emergencymedicalandrelatedpublichealthandsafetyservicesintheBonnersFerryarea.


Workaroundwaterisinherentlydangerous,andriskofdrowningwouldincreasebecauseworkermobilitywouldberestrictedwhileequipmentisoperating.Riskofinjurytoworkerscomesfromtheuseofheavyequipment,workingnearhigh‐voltagelines,workinginwater,andbeingexposedtohazardousmaterialssuchasfuelsduringtemporaryroadconstructionandearthwork,andplacementofstructures.Constructionactivity,however,wouldbeconductedsubjecttostandardBPAcontractrequirementsforworkersafety;accesstotheconstructionsitesandtravelonlocalroadswouldbemanagedtominimizesafetyrisksfornon‐projecthumanactivityintheprojectarea,andconstructionactivitieswouldmeettheguidelinesforuse,handling,storage,anddisposalofhazardoussubstances.

Futureneedsforlawenforcement,fireprotection,emergencymedical,andrelatedpublichealthandsafetyserviceswouldremainwithinthecapacityoftheexistingserviceproviders.Therewouldbenoimpactfromtheseactivitiesonthecontinueddeliveryofthoseservices.

Largewoodstructuresintroducealong‐termpotentialboatinghazardatmultiplelocationswithintheriverintheprojectarea.Projectdesignsforthesefeatureswouldprovideadequatetimeandspaceforboaterstoavoidthestructures.Also,theTribehasinstalledsignageattheTribally‐ownedTwinRiversCanyonResortboatlaunchtoinformboatersoftherestorationactivitiesalongtheriverandindicatingtheirlocation.

Becauseprojectactivitieswouldbeconductedincompliancewithapplicablelaws,regulations,andguidelines;andtherewouldbenoeffectsonpublichealthandsafetyservices,theeffectoftheProposedActiononpublichealthandsafetywouldbelow.



UndertheNoActionalternative,norestorationactionswouldbeimplementedintheKootenaiLowerMeanderprojectarea,andtherewouldbenoeffectonpublichealthandsafety.

3.11 TransportationandUtilities3.11.1 AffectedEnvironment

PublicandPrivateRoadsaffected

Theprojectareaisaccessibleonlybyprivatefarmroads.ThenearestpublicroadsaretheCowCreekRoadandWaterfrontLanetothesouthandtheDistrict2Road(CountyRoad60)andBallParkRoadtothenorthandwest.PrivatefarmroadsthatconnecttothesepublicroadswouldbeimprovedandusedforconstructionaccessasdiscussedinSections2.1.5and2.1.6.Figure8displaystheexistingandproposedtemporaryaccessroads.Figure13displaysthetransportationinfrastructureinandneartheprojectarea.

Figure13Mainpublicaccessroadsintotheprojectarea


RailroadsandPublicUtilities

TheBurlingtonNorthernSantaFeraillineparallelstheKootenaiRiveralongitsouthernbank,andapproximately42trainsusethisraillineperday.TheUnionPacificraillinecrossesDistrict2Roadonthenorthsideoftheriverandisusedbyapproximatelyeighttrainsperday.

Therearenomajorutilitycorridorswithinoradjacenttotheprojectarea,thoughthereisalocaldistributionpowerlinethatcrossestheriverimmediatelydownstreamoftheprojectarea,andburiedlocalpowerlinesupslopeof,butnotwithin,thebankstabilizationsworkareasinphase2(seeFigure4).


TheProposedActionwouldtemporarilyincreasetrafficfromvehiclescarryingconstructionmaterialstoandfromtheprojectareasites.Largeconstructionequipmenttravelingtotheprojectareasmayalsoperiodicallyblocktraffic,causingshort‐termdelaysforothervehicles.

ConstructionvehicleswouldberequiredtocrosstheunmarkedlevelcrossingoftheBurlingtonNorthernSantaFeraillineonWaterfrontLane.Becausethiscrossingisunmarked,aBurlingtonNorthernSantaFeflaggermayneedtobepresentduringallconstructiontimestoavoidtrainconflictsordelays.TrafficwillalsocrosstheUnionPacificrailwayonthenorthsideoftheriveratDistrict2Road.Thisisapublicmarkedcrossingsowouldnotrequireaflagger.

BoththeDistrict2RoadandtheCowCreekRoadarereadilyaccessiblefromHwy2.ConstructiontraffictravelingalongthesouthbankoftheKootenaiRiveronCowCreekRoadwouldpassthroughseveralsmallresidentialareas.Whileconstructionwouldtemporarilyincreasetraffic,theeffectwouldbeminorcomparedwithexistingroadwayuse,andisnotexpectedtosubstantiallyaltertrafficoperationsonthelocalroads.Althoughlargeconstructionvehiclesandtruckscontainingmaterialscouldcausetrafficdelays,thosedelayswouldbebriefandinfrequent.Therefore,transportationeffectsduringconstructionatbothlocationswouldbelowtomoderate.


UndertheNoActionalternative,restorationactivitiesintheKootenaiLowerMeanderProjectareawouldnotoccur;therefore,therewouldbenoeffectontransportation.

3.12 Socioeconomics3.12.1 AffectedEnvironment

BoundaryCounty,Idaho,isthestudyareaforsocioeconomics.

PopulationandHousing

BoundaryCounty'sscenery,recreationalopportunities,qualityoflifeandexpandingjobmarketdrewmanynewresidentsinthe1980sand1990s.Theeconomicdownturnin2001slowedeconomicandpopulationgrowthofthecountywithgrowthresumingin2005aspopulationandemploymentexpandedacrossthestate.Thecounty’slowerhousingcostsandrurallifestyledrewsomepeoplefromneighboringBonnerCounty.From2005to2015,thecounty’spopulationgrew10percentfrom10,303to11,318whileIdaho'spopulationgrew16percentandtheU.S.populationgrew9percent.(IdahoDept.ofLabor2016)

About90percentofthecountyisforestedsomostofthepeopleliveintheKootenaiRiverValley.BonnersFerryhadapopulationof2,549andMoyieSpringshadapopulationof717in2015.(IdahoDept.ofLabor2016)


Table10DemographicCharacteristics,2012

BonnersFerry BoundaryCounty StateofIdaho

TotalPopulation 2,543 10,972 1,567,582

MinorityPopulation 146(5.7%) 574(5.2%) 171,095(10.9%)

Low‐IncomePopulation 23.9(+/‐7.9) 16.1(+/‐3.8) 15.0%(+/‐0.3)

EmploymentandIncome

Agriculture,forestryandrelatedenterpriseshavehistoricallybeentheeconomicmainstaysinBoundaryCountybutotherindustriessuchastransportation,wholesaling,retailing,servicebusinesses,andgovernmentalserviceareincreasingintheircontributiontothecounty’seconomy.Healthcare,manufacturingandretailplayanincreasinglyimportantrole(IdahoDept.ofLabor2016).

Agriculture'simportanceincreasedinthe1980swhenAnheuser‐BuschbegangrowinghopsatElkMountainFarms,andseveralornamentaltreenurseriesandChristmastreefarmsopened.WiththechangeinownershipfromAnheuser‐BuschtotheBelgium‐basedIn‐Bevcompany—formingAnheuser‐BuschInBev,ElkMountainFarmscutbackproductionandremainsinflux.(IdahoDept.ofLabor2016)

In1986,theKootenaiTribeopenedtheKootenaiRiverInn,contributingtothecounty'stourismsectorpotential.Inthe1990s,theTribeaddedacasinoandmostrecentlyexpandedthehotel.ThecountyalsobenefitsfromeconomicactivityatitstwoportsofentryontheCanadianborder—PorthillandEastport.Importsincreased24percentatthetwoportsthroughthedepthsoftherecessionandexportsincreased37percentfrom2009to2011.BonnersFerry,namedbytouristsasIdaho’s“friendliestcity,”hasmademajorimprovementstoitsdowntowntoattractmorevisitors(IdahoDept.ofLabor2016).

BoundaryCountyhasbeensuccessfulindiversifyingandexpandingitseconomywiththenumberofprivate‐sectoremployersinBoundaryCountyincreasingby13.4percent(374to424)sincetheyear2000.Theindustriescreatingthemostnewbusinesseswerehealthcare,professional,andbusinessservices(IdahoDept.ofLabor2016).

About4,288peopleage16andoverhadjobsinsomecapacityinBoundaryCountyin2012(USCensus,2012).Theunemploymentrateinthestudyareain2012was5.6percent.In2012,per‐capitapersonalincomeinthestudyareawas$18,298(USCensus,2012).BoundaryCountygovernmentandBoundaryCommunityHospitalarethelargestemployers;andIdahoForestGroupandWelcoarethelargestprivateemployers(IdahoDepartmentofLabor,2017).

EnvironmentalJustice

ExecutiveOrder12898directsfederalagenciestoidentifyandaddress“disproportionatelyhighandadversehumanhealthorenvironmentaleffectsofitsprograms,policies,andactivitiesonminoritypopulationsandlow‐incomepopulations”(collectively,environmentaljusticepopulations)(59FederalRegister7629[February11,1994]).ThisexecutiveorderdirectsagenciestoanalyzetheeffectsofpotentialactionsonminorityandlowincomecommunitiesthroughtheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyActreviewprocess(CouncilonEnvironmentalQuality,1997).

Todeterminepotentialeffects,federalagenciesidentifygeographicareaswhereethnicandracialminoritiesexceed50percentofthepopulation,inadditiontogeographicareaswherethepercentageoftheethnicandracialminoritypopulationis“meaningfullygreater”thanthepercentageinthesurroundingarea.Low‐incomepopulationsarepopulationsthatareatorbelowthepovertyline,asestablishedbytheU.S.DepartmentofHealthandHumanServices.


InBonnersFerry,4.7percentofthepopulationisconsideredaminority.InBoundaryCounty,3.6percentofthepopulationisconsideredaminoritypopulation.InthestateofIdaho,5.4percentofthepopulationisconsideredaminoritypopulation(USCensus,2012).

TheU.S.CensusBureauusesasetofdollarvaluethresholdsthatvarybyfamilysizeandcompositiontodeterminethepovertylevel.Between2008and2012inBonnersFerry,23.9percentofpeoplehadincomesbelowthepovertylevelBoundaryCountyascomparedto16.1percentofthepopulationofBoundaryCountyand13.6percentofthestatewidepopulation(USCensus,2014).


PopulationandHousing

BecausestagingandconstructionfortheproposedactionwouldoccurbetweenJulyandNovemberin2017and2018,thedurationofworkwouldlikelynotbelongenoughtoinduceanypermanentchangestopopulationinthestudyarea.Constructionwouldrequireapproximately20workers,withtheworkforcecomingfrombothinsideandoutsideBoundaryCounty.WorkersfromoutsideBoundaryCountywouldlikelyresidetemporarilywithintheprojectvicinityandhaveanindiscernibleeffectontheoverallpopulationofthestudyarea.Theworkersfromoutoftheareawouldrequiretemporarylodginginthelocalarea.Constructionworkerswouldlikelyoccupyrecreationalvehicleparksandhotelsormotels.Thereisexpectedtobesufficienttemporarylodgingtoaccommodatethissmallincreaseindemandovertheconstructionperiod.Therefore,thepotentialforeffectsonpopulationandhousingfromconstructionwouldbelow.

EmploymentandIncome

Asdiscussedabove,thetemporaryincreaseinjobsduringconstructionwouldrepresentaverysmallproportionofthecurrentworkforceinthestudyarea.Therefore,thetemporaryeffectonthelabormarketinthestudyareawouldbelow.Forthosepeoplewhogetconstructionjobs,especiallyiftheyarecurrentlyunemployed,theindividualeffectwouldbepositive.ConstructionoftheProposedActionisexpectedtocostapproximately$7million.Thiscostwouldincludeexpendituresonmaterialsandequipment,andlabor–someofwhichwouldbespentlocallyinthestudyarea.Theselocalexpenditureswouldhavemultipliereffectswithintheeconomy,asworkersandbusinessesreceivingincomewouldre‐spendsomeofthemoneylocally,theworkersandbusinessesthatreceivethatmoneywouldre‐spendsomelocally,andsoon.Thesedirectandindirectexpenditureswouldrepresentasmallproportionofthetotalannualincomeinthestudyarea,sotheeffectwouldbetemporaryandlow.

EnvironmentalJustice

Noresidentialorconcentratedhumanuseareasneartheprojectsitewouldbeaffectedbyconstructionnoise,dust,orairqualityreductions.Humanhealthandthelivingconditionsofanycommunitywouldbeunaffected,includingthosewhereenvironmentaljusticemightbeofconcern.

Asdescribedabove,constructionoftheProposedActionwouldhavealowbutpositivetemporaryimpactontheeconomyintheaffectedarea,withmultipliereffectslikelybenefittingmanytoasmalldegreeandadverselyaffectingnone.Thus,constructionoftheProposedActionwouldlikelyhavenoadverseordisproportionateeffectsonminorityorlowincomepopulations.


UndertheNoActionalternative,restorationactionsintheKootenaiLowerMeanderProjectareawouldnotoccur;therefore,theeffectsrelatedtoconstructionwouldnothappen.Short‐termcontributionstothelocaleconomywouldnotoccur.Noothereffectsonsocioeconomicsorenvironmentaljusticehavebeenidentified.


3.13 OtherEnvironmentalResources

3.13.1 Wildlife

Effectsonwildlifewouldbelow.VegetationremovalalongthenorthbanksoftheKootenaiRiveratSites1and2wouldmodifysomehabitat,butallofthiswouldbereplacedwithnative‐speciesplantings.Thisisexpectedtoincreasethevalueofthehabitatforthespeciescurrentlyusingtheseareas.Theindividuals,however,wouldlikelybetemporarilydisplacedduringconstructionactivities,,inthatprocess,butmayreturnorbereplacedbyotherindividualsofthesametypesofspeciesastheplantingsmatureovertime,andareabletosupportgreaternumbersofanimals.

Theproposedrestorationofin‐riverandriparianhabitatsalongtheKootenaiRiverwouldlikelybenefitnativewildlifespeciessuchasbeaver,muskrat,otter,mink,andvariousspeciesofbirds.TheprojectwouldhavenoeffectonESA‐listedwildlifespeciesbecausetheprojectareaisoutsidemanagementareasordesignatedcriticalhabitatforthreeESA‐listedwildlifespeciesknowntooccurinBoundaryCounty:grizzlybear,woodlandcaribou,andCanadalynx.StagingandconstructionwouldoccurbetweenJulyandNovember,whichisoutsideofthenestingperiodformigratorybirds.

3.13.2 Vegetation

Effectsonuplandvegetationwouldbelow.Scatteredlimitednumbersoftreesandshrubswithinstreambankgradingareaswouldberemovedduringconstruction;however,existingnativevegetationwillbepreservedtothegreatestextentpossible.Whereconstructionrequiresremovalofnativevegetation,effortswillbemadesalvageandtransplantappropriatespecieswherefeasible.Plantingnativevegetationonover21acresofimprovedislandsandapproximately8acresofstreambankswouldfullymitigatetheremovalofthisminoramountofexistingvegetation.

3.13.3 LandUse

Effectsonlandusewouldbelow.TheconstructionwouldoccurinthemainchanneloftheKootenaiRiverandcausenochangestolanduse.Somelandcurrentlyusedforagricultureandpasturewouldbeusedfortemporaryaccessandstagingareasbutthoselanduseswouldcontinueduringconstruction,andnopermanentchangeintheiruseisproposed.

3.14 CumulativeEffectsAnalysisCumulativeeffectsarethosethatcouldoccurwhenconsideredinadditiontootherpast,present,andreasonablyforeseeablefutureactionsregardlessofwhatagency(federalornon‐federal)orpersonundertakessuchotheractions.Currentactionsarethoseprojects,developments,andotheractionsthatareunderwaybecausetheyareeitherunderconstructionoroccurringonanongoingbasis.Reasonablyforeseeablefutureactionsgenerallyincludethoseactionsformallyproposedorintheplanningstages.Cumulativeeffectscanresultfromindividuallyminorbutcollectivelysignificantactionstakingplaceoveraperiodoftime.

PastactionsthathaveaffectednaturalandhumanresourcesalongtheKootenaiRiverinIdahoincludetheconstructionofLibbyDam,timberharvest,diking,agriculture,roaddevelopment,commercialandresidentialdevelopment,andmining.Since2011,theTribehasimplementedaquaticandriparianhabitatrestorationprojectsalongtheKootenaiRiverintendedtobenefitnativefishandwildlifespecies,focusinginparticularontherecoveryofKootenaiRiverwhitesturgeonandburbot.TheTribehasalsoimplementeduplandrestorationactionsalongtheKootenaiRiver’shistoricalfloodplainandtributaries.


Indeterminingthepresentandreasonablyforeseeableactionswiththepotentialtocontributetocumulativeeffects,whencombinedwiththeeffectsofthealternatives,BPAconsideredotherplanningefforts,large‐scaleprojects,orrestorationactionsalongtheKootenaiRiverbelowLibbyDamthatwouldbelikelytoresultineffectsthatcouldinteractcumulativelywiththosefromtheproposedproject.

TimberharvestingactivitiescontributesedimenttotheriversandstreamsthatflowintotheKootenaiRiver.TheKootenaiRiverbelowLibbyDamflowsthroughtheThreeRiversRangerDistrictoftheKootenaiNationalForestinMontanaandtheBonnersFerryRangerDistrictoftheIdahoPanhandleNationalForestinIdaho.TherearenotimbersalesbeingconsideredineitheroftheserangerdistrictsthatwouldresultineffectstotheKootenaiRiver(USFS,2014a,2014b).Privatetimbersalescouldoccurthatcouldresultineffectstowetlands,vegetation,andwaterquality.

TheU.S.ForestService’sCollaborativeForestLandscapeRestorationProgram(CFLRP)providesfundingforcollaborative,science‐basedecosystemrestorationofpriorityforestlandscapes.Pastpracticeshavedegradedforesthealthandincreasedfirerisk.TheKootenaiValleyRestorationInitiativehasreceivedCFLRPfundingtoimplementrestorationactionsonU.S.ForestServicelandsthatfocuson:

Reforestation Pre‐commercialThinning PrescribedBurning InvasivePlantManagement CulvertUpgrades FishPassageCulvertReplacements RoadDecommissioning RoadMaintenance

3.14.1 SoilsandGeology

Thepast,present,andreasonablyforeseeablefutureactionsthatcouldcumulativelyaffectsoilsandgeologyarehabitatrestorationactionsandcontinuedhydroelectricdamoperationsaswellasland‐disturbingoperationssuchasroadconstruction,agriculture,commercialandresidentialdevelopment,andmining.

TheProposedActionmaycumulativelyaffecterosion‐preventingvegetationandwetlandsduringconstructionbecausetherewouldbeotheractionsimpactingvegetationandwetlandsduringthesamegeneraltimeframeasthisproject.TheProposedAction,whenconsideredwithpast,present,andfuturehabitatrestorationprojectsintheKootenaiBasinbelowLibbyDamwouldcontributetopreventingsoillossovertimebyreestablishinghealthynativevegetationalongtheriverandintheadjacentuplands.Environmentaldesignfeatures/mitigationmeasuresdescribedinSection2.4wouldensurethatnegativecumulativeeffectsfromtheprojectonsoilsandgeologywouldbelow.

3.14.2 Wetlands

BecausetheProposedActionwouldresultinanoverallincreaseinwetlandareaandimprovedwetlandfunctionsforthelongterm,theProposedActionwouldnotcontributetothecumulativeeffectsofthelossofwetlandsalongtheKootenaiRiverthathaveoccurredovertime.ImplementationofthemitigationmeasuresdescribedinSection2.4wouldensurethenegativeshort‐termcumulativeeffectsonwetlandswouldbelow.


3.14.3 WaterResources

Thepast,present,andreasonablyforeseeablefutureactionsthatcouldcumulativelyaffectwaterresourcesarehabitatrestorationactionsandcontinuedhydroelectricdamoperationsaswellasland‐disturbingoperationssuchasroadconstruction,agriculture,commercialandresidentialdevelopment,andmining.

AsdiscussedinSection3.3.2,waterqualityeffectsfromtheProposedActionwouldbelowandofshortdurationduringconstruction,andwouldlikelyimprovewaterqualityfromthebankstabilization,riparianplantings,anderosioncontrolelementsoftheproject.Thus,whenaddedtopast,present,andreasonablyforeseeablefutureactions,thecumulativeeffectsoftheProposedActiononwaterresourceswouldbelow.

3.14.4 FishandFishHabitat

Thepast,present,andreasonablyforeseeablefutureactionsthathaveaffected,andarecontinuingtocumulativelyadverselyaffectfishandfishhabitatincludecontinuedhydroelectricdamoperationsaswellasland‐disturbingoperationssuchasroadconstruction,agriculture,commercialandresidentialdevelopment,andmining.Thesecumulativeactionshavedegradedhabitatforsturgeon,burbot,bulltrout,andotherspeciesandaretheprimarydriversforthiscurrentaction.ThecumulativeeffectofKootenaiRiverfishhabitatrestorationactionsintherecentpasthavebenefittedfishtosomedegree,butthecumulativeeffectsoftheadverseactionslistedabovecontinuetodepressfishpopulations.

TheProposedActionwouldhaveshort‐termadverseeffectsonfishandfishhabitat(asdiscussedinSection3.4)yetprovidelong‐termbenefitsfromtheincreasedhabitatquantity,diversity,andcomplexity.Thisactionwouldcontinuethetrendoftherecentpasttowardimprovedfishhabitatandincreasedfishpopulations,andthoughnotexpectedtoreversethecumulativeimpactofthehistoricaladverseactionsdiscussedabove,thecumulativeeffectonfishandfishhabitatwouldbelow.

3.14.5 Recreation

Pastandpresentactionssuchas,hydroelectricdamoperations,roadconstruction,agriculture,mining,andcommercialandresidentialdevelopment,havenothadasignificantcumulativeimpactonrecreationaluseofthisriverbeyondthelossoffishingopportunitiesresultingfromreducedfishhabitatandfishpopulations.

TheProposedActioncontributestothereversaloflostfishingopportunitiesbyimprovingfishhabitatandinthelongterm,increasingfishpopulations.Thoughtheprojectwouldcreatelong‐termobstacles(largewoodstructures)thatrecreationalriverusersmustnavigate,projectdesignsforthesefeatureswouldprovideadequateavoidancetimeandspaceforboaters.Thisprojectwouldcontributepositivelytothisriver’srecreationattractionthroughthepotentialfutureimprovementinfishingopportunities.Therefore,theProposedAction’soverallcumulativeeffecttorecreationwouldbelow.

3.14.6 CulturalResources

Culturalresourcesintheprojectareahavelikelybeencumulativelyaffectedbypast,present,andcurrentdevelopmentactivities.Mosteffectshavelikelyoccurredasaresultofinadvertentdisturbanceordestructionfromland‐disturbingoperationssuchasroadconstruction,agriculture,mining,andcommercialandresidentialdevelopment.

ImplementationofthemitigationmeasuresdescribedinSection2.4wouldreducethepotentialforconstructionactivitiestocontributeincrementallytothecumulativeeffectsonunknownculturalresources.Intheeventthatpreviouslyundiscoveredculturalresourcesareencountered,potentialeffectswoulddependonthelevelandamountofdisturbance,andtheeligibilityoftheresourceforlistingintheNRHP.


3.14.7 VisualResources

Thecurrentvisualcharacteroftheprojectareaisthecumulativeresultofpastandpresentlandusesandhuman‐causedchangesintheKootenaiRiver.WhilethisprojectisintendedtochangetheKootenaiRivertoimprovefishhabitat,theelementsandscaleofthatchangearestillconsistentwiththeexistingcharacterofthislargemeanderingriver.Therefore,thecumulativeeffectonthevisualcharacterofthisareawouldbelow.

3.14.8 Noise

WhiletheProposedActionwouldcauseatemporaryincreaseinnoiselevels,therewouldbenolongtermorpermanentsourceofnewsoundintroducedintothisareabythisproject.Thesoundscapethatexistsnowwouldnotbechangedinthelongterm.Thisprojectwouldmakenocumulativepermanentcontributiontonoiselevelsinorneartheprojectarea.

3.14.9 AirQuality

Ongoingvehicularuse,agriculturalactivities,andcommercialandresidentialfacilitiesintheanalysisareaallcontributetoambientairpollutantemissions.Theseexistingsourcesofpollutantswouldcontinuetooccur.WhiletheProposedActionwouldcontributeasmallamounttopollutantlevelsduringconstruction,whencombinedwithpast,presentandreasonablyforeseeablefutureactionsintheaffectedarea,theseactionsarenotexpectedtoviolateNationalAmbientAirQualityStandardsand,therefore,cumulativeeffectsonairqualitywouldbelow.Therewouldbenolongterm,orpermanentsourcesofpollutantemissionsfromthisproject.

AlllevelsofgreenhousegasemissionsplayaroleincontributingcumulativelytoglobalGHGconcentrationsandclimatechange.However,giventhelowemissionscausedbythetemporaryconstructionoftheProposedAction,itscumulativecontributiontoglobalgreenhousegasconcentrationsisconsideredlow.

3.14.10 PublicHealthandSafety

TheProposedActionmayintroduceaminoramountofroadwaytravelriskonpublicroadsandhighwaysasheavyequipmentismovedinandout,butitmakesnopermanentorlongtermchangeinanyroadwaytravel,utility,orcommunicationfeaturethatwouldaffectpublicsafetyorthedeliveryoflawenforcement,fireprotection,oremergencyresponsecapabilitiescurrentlyavailable.

Theinstallationofside‐channellargewoodstructures,however,mayconstituteaslightincreaseinrisktoboatersafetysincetheyarepermanentandmid‐streaminthesechannels.Thiswouldcontributecumulativelytowhateverexistingboatersafetyhazardsarepresentontheriver.Thisadditionalrisk,however,isconsideredtobelowandthusthecumulativeeffectofthisprojectonpublichealthandsafetyislow.

3.14.11 TransportationandUtilities

TheProposedActionwouldcauseminimaltemporaryincreasesintrafficduringconstruction,butitmakesnochangestotheexistingtransportationorutilityinfrastructure,normodifiesanyenvironmentalfeaturethatwouldputtheseexistinginfrastructuresatrisk.Thisprojectdoesnotrequireapowersource,anddoesnoteffectexistingtransportationandutilityinfrastructure.Thisprojectwouldhavenocumulativeeffectontransportationorutilityinfrastructureordemands.

3.14.12 Socioeconomics

TheProposedActionwouldprovideaverysmallandshorttermcontributiontothelocaleconomy,withverylittletemporaryandnolong–termeffectonpopulation,housing,employment,andincome.Increasedrecreationalanglingoverthelonger‐termcouldprovidesomeeconomicbenefits.Because


thepositiveeffectsoftheProposedActionwouldbetemporaryandlow,itwouldhavealow,effectonpopulationandhousing,employmentandincome,andnoeffectonenvironmentaljusticepopulations.

4 EnvironmentalConsultation,Review,andPermitrequirements

4.1 NationalEnvironmentalPolicyActBPApreparedthisEApursuanttoregulationsimplementingNEPA(42U.S.C.4321etseq.),whichrequirefederalagenciestoassesstheeffectstheiractionsmayhaveontheenvironment.NEPArequirespreparationofanEISformajorfederalactionssignificantlyaffectingthequalityofthehumanenvironment.BPApreparedthisdraftEAtodetermineiftheProposedActionwouldcreatesignificantenvironmentaleffectsthatwouldwarrantpreparinganEnvironmentalImpactStatement,orifaFindingofNoSignificantImpactisjustified.

4.2 Wetlands,Floodplains,andWaterResourcesAspartoftheNEPAreview,U.S.DepartmentofEnergyNEPAregulationsrequiretheassessmentofeffectsonfloodplainsandwetlands,andtheevaluationofalternativesforprotectionoftheseresourcesinaccordancewithCompliancewithFloodplain/WetlandsEnvironmentalReviewRequirements(10CFR1022.12)andExecutiveOrders11988(FloodplainManagement)and11990(ProtectionofWetlands).AnevaluationofeffectsoftheprojectonfloodplainsandwetlandsisdiscussedinSection3.2,Wetlands,andSection3.3,WaterResources,ofthisEA.

SeveralsectionsoftheCleanWaterAct(33USC1251etseq.)andtheIdahoStreamChannelProtectionAct(Title42,Chapter38,IdahoCode)addresswetlandandwaterwaymanagement,regulation,andprotection.TheTribewouldsubmitaJointPermitApplicationtotheUSACEandIdahoDepartmentofWaterResourcesbeforeconstruction.Theapplicableregulationstotheprojectarediscussedbelow.

4.2.1 CleanWaterActSection401

AfederalpermittoconductanactivitythatcausesdischargesintonavigablewatersisissuedonlyaftertheStateofIdahocertifiesthatexistingwaterqualitystandardswouldnotbeviolatedifthepermitwereissued.DEQwouldreviewtheproject’sSection402andSection404permitapplicationsforcompliancewithIdahowaterqualitystandardsandgrantcertificationifthepermitscomplywiththesestandards.


ThissectionauthorizesNationalPollutantDischargeEliminationSystempermitsforthedischargeofpollutants,suchasstormwater.TheEPA,Region10,hasageneralpermitfordischargesfromconstructionactivities.TheTribeanditscontractorwouldfileNoticesofIntentforcoverageunderthisgeneralpermit,andwouldprepareastormwaterpollutionpreventionplantoaddressstabilizationpractices,structuralpractices,stormwatermanagement,andothercontrols.


WhendredgedorfillmaterialdischargesintowatersoftheUnitedStates,includingwetlands,itrequiresauthorizationfromtheUSACEinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofSection404oftheCleanWaterAct.TheTribewouldworkwiththeUSACEtogetaSection404permitforfillplacedinwetlandsandwatersoftheUnitedStates,andworkwithDEQtogetSection401waterqualitycertification(see


Section4.2.1).Sections3.3,Wetlands,and3.4,WaterResources,ofthisEAdescribepotentialeffectsonwetlandsandotherwaters.

4.2.4 IdahoStreamChannelProtectionAct

TheIdahoStreamChannelProtectionActrequiresprotectionofstreamchannelsofthestateandtheirenvironmentagainstalterationtoprotectfishandwildlifehabitat,aquaticlife,recreation,aestheticbeautyandwaterquality.IdahoDepartmentofWaterResourcesissuesaStreamChannelAlterationpermitbeforeanyworkisdonewithinthebedsandbanksofacontinuouslyflowingstream.TheTribewillsubmitaJointPermitapplicationtotheUSACEandIdahoDepartmentofWaterResourcesbeforeconstruction.

4.3 FishandWildlife4.3.1 EndangeredSpeciesAct

TheESA(16USC1531etseq.)establishesanationalprogramfortheconservationofthreatenedandendangeredspeciesoffish,wildlife,andplants,andthepreservationoftheecosystemsonwhichtheydepend.TheUSFWSadministerstheESAforterrestrialspeciesandsomefreshwaterfishspecies,whileNationalMarineFisheriesServicehasjurisdictionoveranadromousfishandmarinespecies.Section7(a)oftheESArequiresfederalagenciestoensurethattheactionstheyauthorize,fund,andcarryoutdonotjeopardizethecontinuedexistenceofanyendangeredorthreatenedspeciesorresultinthedestructionoradversemodificationofcriticalhabitat.Section7(c)oftheESAandotherfederalregulationsrequirethatfederalagenciesprepareabiologicalassessmentaddressingthepotentialeffectsoftheiractionsonlistedorproposedendangeredspeciesandcriticalhabitats.

In2013,BPApreparedaprogrammaticbiologicalassessmentandsubmittedittoUSFWS(MeridianEnvironmental,Inc.,2013).ThisprogrammaticbiologicalassessmentevaluatedtheeffectstoKootenaiRiverwhitesturgeon(endangered)andColumbiaRiverbulltrout(threatened),andtheirdesignatedcriticalhabitatassociatedwiththeTribe’sproposaltoimplementtheir2013‐2015RestorationProgram.The2013‐2015RestorationProgramincludesprojectsidentifiedintheKootenaiTribe’sKootenaiRiverHabitatRestorationProgram,whichidentifiedspecifichabitatprojectsintheKootenaiRiverthatwouldenhancehabitatforKootenaiRiverwhitesturgeonasrequiredbytheLibbyDamBiOp.TherestorationactionsdescribedinthisEAareinthesameactionareaandimplementthesametypesofactionswiththesameobjectivesasthoseevaluatedinthebiologicalassessmentandevaluatedbytheUSFWSforthelargerrestorationprogram.CommunicationswithUSFWSledtoanagreementthattheLowerMeanderProjectevaluationunderESAsection7isadequatelycoveredinthe2013consultation.

TheUSFWSissuedabiologicalopiniononJuly30,2013withthedeterminationthatimplementingtheKootenaiRiverHabitatRestorationProgramisnotlikelytojeopardizethecontinuedexistenceoftheKootenaiRiverwhitesturgeonoritscriticalhabitat.ThebiologicalopinionprovidedanincidentaltakestatementtoauthorizethepotentialincidentaltakeofKootenaiRiverwhitesturgeonthatmayoccurduringconstructionactivities,andstatedthatnoreasonableandprudentmeasuresnortermsandconditionswerenecessary,inadditiontothosemeasuresincorporatedintotheprogram'sdescription,tofurtherminimizesuchincidentaltakeofKootenaisturgeon.ThebiologicalopinionalsoconcurredwithBPA'sdeterminationof"mayaffect,notlikelytoadverselyaffect"bulltroutandbulltroutcriticalhabitat.


InadditiontoKootenaiRiverwhitesturgeonandbulltrout,BPAdeterminedthatfourterrestrialspeciesarelistedasthreatenedorendangeredunderthefederalESAinBoundaryCounty,Idaho.

Basedonthescope,timing,andlocationoftheproposedprojectsintheKootenaiRiver,BPAhasdeterminedthattheProposedActionwouldhavenoeffectonwoodlandcaribou(endangered),grizzlybear(threatened),Canadalynx(threatened),orNorthAmericanwolverine(proposedthreatened).

BecausetheKootenaiRiverHabitatRestorationProgramwasexpectedtobeimplementedoverseveralyearswithatimelinethatwassubjecttochange,theUSFWStreatedtheESAconsultationinasemi‐programmaticway.ThismeansthattheUSFWSdeterminationisbasedonanagreementthatBPAwillinformallyconsultwiththeUSFWSbeforetheimplementationofeachphaseofrestoration.Asaresult,BPAhasreviewedtheproposalfortheKootenaiRiverLowerMeanderProjectinrelationtotheinformationpresentedintheoriginalbiologicalassessment,consideringanynewinformationavailable,andmadeadeterminationthattheeffectsuponESA‐listedspeciesandcriticalhabitatarewithinthetypeandscopeofeffectsaddressedwithinthisopinion.OnFebruary22,2017BPArequestedconfirmationfromtheUSFWSthattheproject’seffectsonbulltroutanditsdesignatedcriticalhabitat,andKootenaiRiverwhitesturgeonanditsdesignatedcriticalhabitatareidenticaltothetypeandscopeofeffectsaddressedintheoriginalbiologicalassessmentandopinion.USFWSconfirmedthatthespecificproject’seffectsareconsistentwiththebiologicalassessmentandopinion.

4.3.2 FishandWildlifeConservationActandFishandWildlifeCoordinationAct

TheFishandWildlifeConservationActof1980(16USC2901etseq.)encouragesfederalagenciestoconserveandpromoteconservationofnon‐gamefishandwildlifeandtheirhabitats.TheFishandWildlifeCoordinationAct(16USC661etseq.)requiresfederalagencieswithprojectsaffectingwaterresourcestoconsultwithUSFWSandthestateagencyresponsibleforfishandwildliferesources.TheanalysisinSection3.5,FishandFishHabitat,ofthisEAindicatesthattheProposedActionwouldhavelowtomoderateshort‐termadverseeffectsonfishandfishhabitat,withimplementationofappropriatemitigation;withthegoalofprovidinglong‐termhabitatbenefits.BPAandtheTribehaveconsultedwithUSFWSregardingpotentialeffectsoftheprojectonESA‐listedfishandwildlifespeciesandwillimplementthemitigationmeasuresincludedinthebiologicalassessmentandanyothermeasuresthatUSFWSrequires.TheUSFWSandIDFGhavebeennotifiedoftheprojectandwillbesentcopiesoftheDraftandFinalEA.

4.3.3 MigratoryBirdTreatyActandFederalMemorandumofUnderstanding

TheMigratoryBirdTreatyActof1918,asamended,implementsvarioustreatiesandconventionsbetweentheUnitedStatesandothercountries,includingCanada,Japan,Mexico,andRussia,fortheprotectionofmigratorybirds(16USC703–712).Undertheact,taking,killing,orpossessingmigratorybirds,ortheireggsornests,isunlawful.Theactclassifiesmostspeciesofbirdsasmigratory,exceptforuplandandnonnativebirdssuchaspheasant,chukar,graypartridge,housesparrow,Europeanstarling,androckdove.

BPA(throughtheU.S.DepartmentofEnergy)andUSFWShaveamemorandumofunderstandingtoaddressmigratorybirdconservationinaccordancewithExecutiveOrder13186(ResponsibilitiestoFederalAgenciestoProtectMigratoryBirds).ThisorderdirectseachfederalagencytakingactionsthatcouldnegativelyaffectmigratorybirdstoworkwiththeUSFWStodevelopanagreementtoconservethosebirds(DOEandUSFWS,2013).Thememorandumofunderstandingaddresseshowbothagencies


canworkcooperativelytoaddressmigratorybirdconservation,andincludesspecificmeasurestoconsiderimplementingduringprojectplanningandimplementation.

TheanalysisinSection3.14.1Wildlife,ofthisenvironmentalassessmentindicatesthattheprojectwouldhaveloweffectsonbirds,includingmigratorybirds.Theprojectmayhaveshort‐termadverseeffectsonafewnestingbirdsbecauseafewtreeswouldberemoved.ButstagingandconstructionactivitieswouldbeconductedbetweenJulyandNovember(outsidethenestingperiodformigratorybirds),andriparianhabitatswouldbeexpandedandimproved,providingmorehabitatinthefuturethanisthereatpresent.

4.3.4 BaldEagleandGoldenEagleProtectionAct

TheBaldEagleandGoldenEagleProtectionAct(16USC.668–668d)addressestakingorpossessingofandcommerceinbaldandgoldeneagles,withlimitedexceptions.TheActonlycoversintentionalactsoractsin“wantondisregard”ofthesafetyofbaldorgoldeneagles.

Baldandgoldeneaglesmaytemporarilyusetheproposedprojectarea,butnonestingsitesorlongtermoccupancyhasbeenobserved.Becausetheprojectwouldnotinvolveknowingtakeorotheractsinwantondisregardofbaldorgoldeneagles,itsimplementationwouldnotviolatetheprovisionsoftheBaldEagleandGoldenEagleProtectionAct.

4.4 LandUsePlanConsistencyAsindicatedinSection3.14.3,constructionactivitieswouldoccurinthemainchanneloftheKootenaiRiverandresultinnochangestolanduse.Also,therewouldbenochangeinlandusefromtemporaryaccessroadconstructionandstagingofmaterials.

4.5 FarmlandProtectionPolicyActTheFarmlandProtectionPolicyAct(7USC4201etseq.)directsfederalagenciestoidentifyandquantifyadverseeffectsoffederalprogramsonfarmlands.ThisactminimizesthenumberofFederalprogramsthatcontributetotheunnecessaryandirreversibleconversionofagriculturallandtonon‐agriculturaluses.ThereisnoprimefarmlandinthesitesaffectedbythisprojectandtheProposedActionwouldnotpermanentlyconvertanyareaofagriculturallandtonon‐agriculturaluses

4.6 CulturalandHistoricResourcesLawsandregulationsgovernthemanagementofculturalresources.Aculturalresourceisanobject,structure,building,site,ordistrictthatprovidesirreplaceableevidenceofnaturalorhumanhistoryofnational,state,orlocalsignificance,suchasNationalLandmarks,archaeologicalsites,andpropertieslisted(oreligibleforlisting)intheNRHP.Culturalresourcerelatedlawsandregulationsinclude:

AntiquitiesActof1906(16U.S.C.431–433), HistoricSitesActof1935(16U.S.C.461–467), Section106oftheNHPA(16U.S.C.470etseq.),asamended, ArchaeologicalDataPreservationActof1974(16U.S.C.469a–c), ArchaeologicalResourcesProtectionActof1979(16U.S.C.470aa‐mm),asamended, NativeAmericanGravesProtectionandRepatriationAct(25U.S.C.3001etseq.), ExecutiveOrder13007IndianSacredSites,and AmericanIndianReligiousFreedomActof1978(42U.S.C.1996,1996a).


Section106oftheNHPArequiresfederalagenciestoconsidertheeffectsoftheiractionsonhistoricproperties.TheNHPAprovidestheSection106processthatenablesagenciestoassesseffectsonhistoricpropertiesalongwithparticipationfrominterestedandaffectedpartiessuchastribes,andthenavoid,minimize,ormitigatetheseeffects.Historicpropertiesmaybeprehistoricorhistoricsites,includingobjectsandstructuresthatareincludedinoreligibleforinclusionintheNRHP.Historicpropertiesalsoincludeartifactsorremainswithinhistoricsitesandpropertiesoftraditionalandculturalimportancetotribes.

Tothisend,BPAhasprovidedinformationabouttheProposedActionto,andrequestedinformationfromnumerousagencies,onthelevelandtypeofproposedidentificationandevaluationeffortsoftheprehistoricresources.AgenciesconsultedincludetheIdahoStateHistoricPreservationOffice,theConfederatedSalishandKootenaiTribes,Coeurd’AleneTribeofIdaho,KalispelTribeofIndians,theSpokaneTribeofIndians,andtheKootenaiTribeofIdaho.

4.7 AirQualityTheCleanAirAct,asamended(42U.S.C.7401etseq.),requiresstatesandtheEPAtocarryoutawiderangeofregulatoryprogramsintendedtocomplywithNationalAmbientAirQualityStandards.InIdaho,boththeEPAandIdahoDepartmentofEnvironmentalQualityareresponsibleforairquality.BecausetheProposedActionwouldoccurinanareathatisinattainmentwiththeairqualitystandards,andbecausenostationarysourcesofairemissionswouldresult,constructionassociatedwiththeProposedActionareexemptedfromstateregulation.AirqualityeffectsfromconstructionwouldbelowandmitigatedasdiscussedinSection2.4.

4.8 ClimateChangeGasesthatabsorbinfraredradiationandpreventheatlosstospacearecalledgreenhousegases(GHGs).ModelspredictthatatmosphericconcentrationsofallGHGswillincreaseoverthenextcentury,buttheextentandrateofchangeisdifficulttopredict,especiallyonaglobalscale.AsaresponsetoconcernsoverthepredictedincreaseofglobalGHGlevels,variousfederalandstatemandatesaddresstheneedtoreduceGHGemissions,includingthefollowing.

TheCleanAirActisafederallawwithregulationstocontrolemissionsfromlargegenerationsourcessuchaspowerplants;limitedregulationofGHGemissionsoccursthroughtheNewSourceReviewpermittingprogram.

TheEPA’sFinalMandatoryReportingofGreenhouseGasesRule(40C.F.R.98)requiresreportingofGHGemissionsfromlargesources.Undertherule,suppliersoffossilfuelsorindustrialGHGs,manufacturersofvehiclesandengines,andfacilitiesthatemit25,000metrictonsormoreperyearofGHGsmustsubmitannualreportstotheEPA(CEQ,2010).

ExecutiveOrders13423(StrengtheningFederalEnvironmental,Energy,andTransportationManagement)and13514(FederalLeadershipinEnvironmental,EnergyandEconomicPerformance)requirefederalagenciestomeasure,manage,andreduceGHGemissionsbyagency‐definedtargetamountsanddates.

GHGemissionswouldbebelowEPA’smandatoryreportingthresholdof25,000metrictonsormoreperyearfortheproposedproject(383metrictonsofCO2equivalentsforthetwo‐monthconstructionperiods).TheeffectoftheProposedActiononGHGconcentrationswouldbelow,asdiscussedinSection3.9,AirQuality,ofthisEA.


4.9 NoiseTheNoiseControlActof1972(42USC4901etseq.)setsforthabroadgoalofprotectingallpeoplefromnoisethatjeopardizestheirhealthorwelfare.TheActfurtherauthorizesfederalagenciestocarryouttheprogramswithintheircontroltofurtherthispolicy.Idahodoesnothavestatewideregulationslimitingnoiseemissionsfromcommercialfacilities.Similarly,neitherBoundaryCountynortheCityofBonnersFerryhasanoisecontrolordinancethatlimitsnoiseemissions.Thenoiseeffectsfromtheprojectwouldbetemporaryandmoderateforpeoplewithin2,000feetofconstruction,andlowtononeforthosefartherthan2,000feetfromprojectactions.AsdescribedinSection3.8,theprojectwouldhavetemporarylowtomoderatenoiseeffects,andmitigationwouldfurtherreducenoiseeffects.

4.10 HazardousMaterialsSeveralfederallawsrelatedtohazardousmaterialsandtoxicsubstancespotentiallyapplytotheproject,dependinguponthequantitiesandtypesofhazardousmaterialsbeingused.

4.10.1 TheSpillPrevention,Control,andCountermeasuresRule

TheSpillPreventionControlandCountermeasuresRule(40CFRPart112)includesrequirementstopreventdischargesofoilandoil‐relatedmaterialsfromreachingnavigablewatersandadjoiningshorelines.Itappliestofacilitieswithtotalabovegroundoilstoragecapacity(notactualgallonsonsite)ofgreaterthan1,320gallons,andfacilitieswithbelow‐groundstoragecapacityof42,000gallons.Thisprojectdoesnotproposeon‐sitestorageofoiloroil‐relatedmaterials.

4.10.2 ComprehensiveEnvironmentalResponse,Compensation,andLiabilityAct

TheComprehensiveEnvironmentalResponse,Compensation,andLiabilityAct(42USC9601etseq.)providesfundingforhazardousmaterialstraining,emergencyplanning,preparedness,mitigationimplementation,response,andrecovery.Eligibleindividualsincludepublicofficials,emergencyserviceresponders,medicalpersonnel,andothertribalresponseandplanningpersonnel.Nohazardousmaterialssitesarelocatedwithintheprojectarea.

4.11 ExecutiveOrderonEnvironmentalJusticeInFebruary1994,thePresidentreleasedExecutiveOrder12898,FederalActionstoAddressEnvironmentalJusticeinMinorityandLow‐IncomePopulations.Thisorderdirectsfederalagenciestoidentifyandaddress,asappropriate,disproportionatelyhighandadversehumanhealthorenvironmentaleffectsofitsprograms,policies,andactivitiesonminorityandlowincomepopulations.TheProposedActionwouldnotcausedisproportionatelyhighandadverseeffectsonminorityandlow‐incomepopulations.(seeSection3.12,Socioeconomics).

Therearenoresidentialorconcentratedhumanuseareasneartheprojectsitesuchthatoff‐siteconstructioneffectssuchasnoise,dust,orairqualityreductionsmightimpacthumanhealthortemporarilyimpactlivingconditionsofanycommunity,includingthosewhereenvironmentaljusticemightbeofconcern.Also,constructionactivitieswouldhavealowbutpositivetemporaryimpactontheeconomyintheaffectedareawithmonetarymultipliereffectslikelybenefittingmanyandadverselyaffectingnone.Thus,constructionoftheProposedActionwouldlikelyhavenoadverseordisproportionateeffectsonminorityorlowincomepopulations.


5 Tribes,Agencies,andPersonsConsulted

Thoseconsultedorreceivingnoticeofdocumentavailabilityincludelocal,state,andfederalagencies,publicofficials,andtribesintheprojectvicinity.Specificindividualswerecontactedtogatherinformationanddataabouttheprojectareaandapplicablerequirements,aspartofconsultation,orforpermitapplications.

5.1 FederalAgencies U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency U.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers U.S.FishandWildlifeService,SpokaneOffice

5.2 StateAgencies IdahoDepartmentofEnvironmentalQuality IdahoDepartmentofFishandGame StateofIdahoHouseandSenatemembersforDistrictsencompassingtheprojectarea IdahoStateHistoricPreservationOffice MontanaFishWildlifeandParks

5.3 Tribes KootenaiTribeofIdaho

5.4 LocalGovernments BoundaryCounty BonnersFerry,Idaho

5.5 Other BurlingtonNorthern–SantaFeRailroad


6 References

BPA.2003.FishandWildlifeImplementationPlanEnvironmentalImpactStatement.Availableathttp://efw.bpa.gov/environmental_services/Document_Library/Implementation_Plan/.WebsiteaccessedMarch3,2016.

EIA(EnergyInformationAdministration).2009.EnergyandtheEnvironment.GreenhouseGasesBasics.Availableat:http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=environment_about_ghg.WebsiteaccessedMarch3,2016.

IdahoDepartmentofLabor.2016.WorkforceTrends.InformationprovidedbyBureauofEconomicAnalysis.September2016.https://labor.idaho.gov/publications/lmi/pubs/BoundaryProfile.pdf

IPCC(IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange).2007.ClimateChange2007,WorkingGroupI:ThePhysicalScienceBasis.Chapter2:ChangesinAtmosphericConstituentsandRadioactiveForcing:AtmosphericCarbonDioxide.Availableat:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2.htmlAccessedMarch3,2016

Landers,Rich(2016,September22).KootenaiRiverimprovementsputshineonfallfishing.TheSpokesman‐Review.Outdoors.Availableathttp://www.spokesman.com/stories/2016/sep/22/kootenai‐river‐improvements‐put‐shine‐on‐fall‐fish/

NMFS(NationalMarineFisheriesService).2011.AnadromousSalmonidPassageFacilityDesign.NMFSNorthwestRegion.PortlandOregon.

U.S.CensusBureau.2010.P2:HispanicorLatino,andNotHispanicorLatinobyRace–Universe:TotalPopulation.2010CensusRedistrictingData(PublicLaw94‐171).Availableonlineat:http://factfinder.census.gov/.AccessedonJuly29,2015.

U.S.CensusBureau.2015.StateandCountyQuickFacts.Availableonlineat:http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html.AccessedonMarch3,2016.

U.S.DepartmentofHealthandHumanServices.2013.2013PovertyGuidelines.Availableonlineat:http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm.AccessedonMarch3,2016.

USFWS.2013.BiologicalOpinionforKootenaiRiverHabitatRestorationProgram,KootenaiRiver,Idaho.FWSRef.01EIFW00‐2013‐F‐0278.NorthernIdahoFieldOffice.Spokane,Washington

Zelch,K.2003.AggradingalluvialfansandtheirimpactonfishpassageintributariesoftheKootenaiRiver,IdahoandMontana.UnpublishedMastersthesis,UniversityofIdaho,Moscow,ID.


7 WorksCitedBrunton,B.(1998).Kootenai.InPlateau.InJ.editedbyDewardE.Walker,HandbookofNorthAmerican

Indians,Vol.12(pp.pp.223–237).Washington,D.C.:SmithsonianInstitution.

EnvironmentalLaboratory.(1987).CorpsofEngineersWetlandsDelineationManual,TechnicalReportY‐87‐1.Vicksburg,Miss.:U.S.ArmyEngineerWaterwaysExperimentStation.

Hruby,T.(2004).WashingtonStateWetlandRatingSystemforWesternWashington,Revised..Olympia,WA:WashingtonStateDepartmentofEcology.

IdahoDepartmentofEnvironmentalQuality(IDEQ).(2016).Attainmentv.Nonattainment.RetrievedDecember12,2016,fromIdahoDepartmentofEnvironmentalQuality:http://www.deq.idaho.gov/air‐quality/monitoring/attainment‐versus‐nonattainment/

IdahoDepartmentofLabor.(2017).WorkforceTrends.RetrievedfEBRUARYFebruary,2017,fromIdahoDepartmentofLaborpUBLICATIONS:https://labor.idaho.gov/

KootenaiTribeofIdaho.(2009).KootenaiRiverHabitatRestorationProjectMasterPlan:AConceptualFeasibilityAnalysisandDesignFramework.BonnersFerry,ID.

Novitzki,R.,Smith,R.,&Fretwell,J.(1996).Restoration,creation,andrecoveryofwetlands:wetlandfunctions,values,andassessment.InNationalWaterSummaryofWetlandResources,USGSWaterSupplyPaper2425.FretwellJD,WilliamsJS,RedmanPJ,editor.

RiverDesignGroup.(2012).KootenaiRiverBonnersFerryIslandsProjectSedimentEvaluationFramework.Whitefish,Montana.

RiverDesignGroup,Inc.(2017).PreliminaryFloodRiskAnalysisResultsforLowerMeanderProject.Whitefish,Montana.

UnitedStatesArmyCorpsofEngineers.ERDC/ELTR‐10‐3.Vicksburg,.(2010).RegionalSupplementtotheCorpsofEngineersWetlandDelineationManual:WesternMountains,Valleys,andCoastRegion(Version2.0).Vicksburg,MS:U.S.ArmyEngineerResearchandDevelopmentCenter.

BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION

DOE/BP-4792 March 2017

Kootenai Lower Meander Project - BPA.gov...Idaho’s (Tribe) Lower Meander Project. The Lower...

Documents

Transcript of Kootenai Lower Meander Project - BPA.gov...Idaho’s (Tribe) Lower Meander Project. The Lower...