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.

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

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

Meander Designer: Automatically Generating Meander Channel ...iic.jku.at/files/eda/2018_micromachines_meander_designer.pdf · the meander signiﬁcantly affects the desired resistance

Kootenai Health University - kh

KOOTENAI RIVER RESIDENT FISH MITIGATION

MEANDER ANTENNAS

Meander Medisch Centrum ermöglicht innovative … · Meander Medisch Centrum ermöglicht innovative Patientenversorgung mit einem echenzentrum auf asis von Cisco HyperFlex Meander

FAST DANUBE · 2018. 9. 27. · Geosynthetic tubes Best practice Mississippi, US Lower Columbia River, US Kootenai/Lower Meander River, US Rhine, Holland (Rijkswaterstaat) mid-Danube,

Meander 2010-3

Meander Book 2

Meander 2004-2

Meander 2009-3

Meander 2010-4

PSO Meander Line

Kootenai April 2021

Deliverable 2: Meander Migration ModelingDeliverable 2: Meander Migration Modeling During the initial phases of this study, we attempted to model meander migration within the lower

The Kootenai Tribe’s · • importance: project has become monitoring “vessel” for kootenai river, especially for lower trophics & fish community dynamics • project now has

Meander 2005-2

Stream Restoration Long Term Performance: A Reassessment...OSM cooperative agreement S11AC20024 AS Final Report ... meander bend lower to allow for flow across the meander during bankfull

Meander 2009-2

Meander 2009-1

MEANDER - GaleriaArt.pl