BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

July 1997

Responsible Agency: Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), U.S. Department of Energy

Cooperating Agencies: Bureau of Reclamation, Natural Resources Conservation Service

Title of Proposed Action: Watershed Management Program Standards and Guidelines

States Involved: Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming

Abstract: Under the Northwest Power Act, BPA is responsible for mitigating the loss of fish and wildlife habitat caused by the development of the Federal Columbia River Power System. BPA accomplishes this mitigation by funding projects consistent with those recommended by the Northwest Power Planning Council (Council). The projects are submitted to the Council from Indian tribes, state agencies, property owners, private conservation groups, and Federal agencies. Future watershed management actions with potential environmental impacts are expected to include in-channel modifications and fish habitat enhancement structures; riparian restoration and other vegetation management techniques; agricultural management techniques for crop irrigation, animal facilities, and grazing; road, forest, urban area, and recreation management techniques; mining reclamation; and similar watershed conservation actions. BPA needs to ensure that individual watershed management projects are planned and carried out with appropriate consistency across projects, jurisdictions, and ecosystems, as well as over time. BPA proposes to standardize the planning and implementation of individual watershed management programs and projects funded by BPA. Alternative 1 is the No Action alternative, i.e., not to establish program-wide standards. Five standardizing (action) alternatives are identified to represent the range of possible strategies, goals, and procedural requirements reasonably applicable to BPA-funded projects under a standardized approach to project planning and implementation. All action alternatives are based on a single project planning process designed to resolve site-specific issues in an ecosystem context and to adapt to changing conditions and information. Alternative 2 would prescribe only existing legal requirements (which would also form the "base" for Alternatives 3 - 6). Alternative 3 would additionally prescribe goals, strategies, and requirements emphasizing strict pursuit of project aquatic habitat objectives. Alternative 4 would emphasize cost and administrative efficiency in achieving watershed management objectives. Alternative 5 (environmentally preferred) would emphasize protection and improvement of general environmental resources in addition to watershed management objectives. Alternative 6 (BPA-preferred) would balance watershed management objectives, cost and administrative efficiency, and protection and improvement of general environmental resources. Decisions to be made are which strategies, goals, and procedural requirements, if any, should regularly apply to BPA-funded watershed management projects.

For additional information:	Please mail comments to:
Eric N. Powers	Bonneville Power Administration
Bonneville Power Administration	Communications Office - ACS-7
P.O. Box 3621-ECN-4	P.O. Box 12999
Portland, OR 97208-3621	Portland, OR 97212
(503) 230-5823	comment@bpa.gov
enpowers@bpa.gov

To receive additional copies of the EIS, call BPA's document request line at 1-800-622-4520.

For information on Department of Energy NEPA activities, please contact:
Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance, EH-42, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585, 1-800-472-2756; or visit the DOE NEPA Web at www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/.

BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SUMMARY

Purpose of and Need for Action

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) is responsible for mitigating impacts on fish and wildlife habitat from development of the Federal Columbia River Power System. BPA meets this responsibility primarily by funding projects submitted to and recommended by the Northwest Power Planning Council (Council). Project submissions come from Indian tribes, state agencies, property owners, private conservation groups, and Federal agencies. Future fish mitigation and watershed conservation and rehabilitation actions with potential environmental impacts are expected to include in-channel modifications and fish habitat improvement structures; riparian restoration and other vegetation treatment techniques; agricultural management techniques for crops, animal facilities, and grazing; road, forest, urban area, and recreation management techniques; mining reclamation; and similar watershed conservation actions. BPA needs to ensure that these BPA-funded individual projects are planned and managed with appropriate consistency across projects, jurisdictions, and ecosystems, as well as across time.

BPA intends to base its choices among alternatives on the following objectives:

• Achievement of the Fish and Wildlife Program's aquatic habitat objectives through an ecosystem-based approach for watershed management projects to be funded by BPA;
• Achievement of cost and administrative efficiency;
• Compliance with all laws and regulations; and
• Environmental protection.

Proposed Action and Alternatives

BPA's proposed action is to establish a comprehensive program that addresses the common issues and environmental impacts associated with management projects. With such a program in place, BPA implementation of individual watershed management projects would change in two fundamental ways.

• First, BPA's site-specific involvement would be greatly reduced as project proponents take the lead in preparing Project Management Plans according to the program requirements.
• Second, because this environmental impact statement (EIS) explores, identifies, and discloses many of the environmental impacts expected from watershed management projects, environmental review of individual projects would have a narrower, more project-specific focus, so long as project managers follow the program require- ments. Additional broad environmental analysis would be required only if anticipated impacts or project components were to differ substantially from those evaluated in this EIS.

No Action

Alternative 1, No Action, would continue the current case-by-case approach to project implementation. The eight-step process (see below) would not be formally adopted to implement watershed management projects. Environmental review and decisionmaking would be conducted at the individual project level through separate categorical exclusions, environmental assessments, or EISs. BPA would continue to maintain a high level of involvement in making site-specific decisions.

Action Alternatives

Five action alternatives are evaluated and compared to accomplish the proposed action. The action alternatives identify different approaches to standardize the planning and implementation of individual watershed management projects funded by BPA. All action alternatives are based on a standard, interactive eight-step planning process (described below, under Alternative 2). Each alternative contains prescriptions (goals, strategies, and procedural requirements) that would be applied to BPA-funded watershed management projects under a standardized program.

Alternative 2, Base Response, would standardize the planning and implementation of individual watershed management projects funded by BPA, but only with respect to those prescriptions required by regulation or law. Note that Alternatives 3 through 6 include all prescriptions listed under Alternative 2 as part of their actions. These required prescrip- tions are described below, under the appropriate process step.

1. Define the Area of Concern/Interest. In the first step, project proponents/project managers delineate the affected watershed boundaries and project issues.

Under all action alternatives, project managers would:

• Identify watershed(s) potentially affected by the proposed project.
• Coordinate with water resource agencies to verify viability of new water sources and uses and to design and implement features necessary to protect aquatic systems and other water users.
• Contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) to determine whether threatened or endangered species are known to occur or potentially occur in the vicinity of the project area.
• Identify any minority and/or low-income populations that may be adversely affected by the management project being considered (Environmental Justice).
• For projects involving ground-disturbing activities, make preliminary identification of the presence of historic and archeological resources.
• For project involving soil disturbance or channel relocation, make preliminary identification of the presence of hazardous and toxic wastes.

2. Involve Stakeholders. In the second step, managers gather input from affected agencies, landowners, tribes, individuals, and organizations. This step is similar to the project scoping and public involvement that occurs in a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis. Interested parties may include individuals; interest groups; tribes; local governments; and county, state, regional, or Federal agencies.

Under all action alternatives, project managers would:

• Consult with affected tribes, state fish and wildlife agencies, local governments, and adjacent landowners.

3. Develop a Statement of the Desired Future Condition. Under BPA's standard planning process, project managers develop a statement that expresses a clear conceptual picture of the ideal long-term state towards which efforts are directed.

Under all action alternatives, project managers would:

• Identify a desired future condition that responds specifically to achievement of aquatic habitat objectives.

4. Characterize the Historical and Present Site Conditions and Trends. Project managers identify current and past conditions of the project area in terms of compo- sition, structure, function, stresses, and other variables.

Under all action alternatives, project managers would:

• Consult with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and affected tribes to identify potential occurrences of cultural resources.
• Survey for threatened or endangered plant or animal species before disturbing land or conducting other activities that may affect such species if the USFWS and/or NMFS identify these species as potentially occurring in the vicinity of the project area.

5. Establish Project Goals. In step 5, project managers identify the specific targets (in terms of conditions, outputs, features, or functions) against which progress and success will be measured.

• No standard prescriptions required.

6. Develop and Implement an Action Plan for Achieving the Goals. Project managers create a Project Management Plan that details the actions to be taken to achieve project goals, including the specific techniques, standards, and guidelines to be implemented and protocols for coordination with others.

Under all action alternatives, project managers would:

• Take no action inconsistent with tribal legal rights, or with other legally mandated protections such as the Endangered Species Act.
• Ensure that the project does not result in disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations, in accordance with Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice).
• Follow State and Federal regulations for all activities in or near streams and wetlands, whether for maintenance or improvement, including (1) the Clean Water Act, Section 401, Section 404; (2) Protection of Wetlands, Executive Order 11990; (3) Floodplain Management, Executive Order 11988; and (4) Rivers and Harbors Act of 1879 (Section 10).
• Avoid activities that might adversely affect threatened and endangered species or their habitat. Document compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
• Use only Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-approved pesticides, and use only in the manner specified by EPA. For projects involving use of herbicides, prevent use of herbicides in or near surface water, unless the herbicide has been EPA-approved for such use.
• Screen streambank and habitat structures from sensitive viewing locations or develop designs that comply with Wild, Scenic, or Recreational River management guidelines, as appropriate.
• For projects involving prescribed burns, obtain required permits and use state-defined smoke management direction to determine allowable smoke quantities.
• If consultation with the SHPO and tribes indicates a potential for cultural resources, conduct cultural resource surveys to document any resources that are present.
• Incorporate a cultural resource management plan or other SHPO-approved actions where deemed necessary.
• Ensure that barriers are not created that unduly restrict access for physically disabled persons where public access is allowed.
• Specify that new public-use facilities be free of barriers to persons with physical disabilities.
• Ensure that the project does not shift problems to another watershed or portion of a watershed.
• Consider the results of similar, previous projects, and consult the literature and other people doing similar types of projects to incorporate adaptive management strategies as the plan develops.

7. Monitor Conditions and Evaluate Results. Once a Project Management Plan is being implemented, project managers start a program to (1) monitor implementation of relevant standards and guidelines; (2) verify achievement of desired results; and (3) determine soundness of underlying assumptions.

• No standard prescriptions required.

8. Adapt Management According to New Information. In this step, project managers respond to new information and technology by adjusting management actions, directions, and goals; management planning, action, monitoring, and feedback are established as a continuous cycle.

• No standard prescriptions required.

Note: Each of the prescriptions under Alternative 2 applies to each of the other four action alternatives described below. Additional prescriptions for each individual alternative can be found in the EIS itself, as noted below.

Alternative 3, Aquatic Habitat Objectives Emphasis, would standardize the planning and implementation process by supporting primarily those management projects with an aggressive habitat restoration approach. Funding priority would be given to improvement of in-stream habitats and of immediately adjacent riparian areas that contribute to the poor quality of those habitats. Projects in upland and urban areas might be approved where relationships between identified non-point-source pollution and fish and fish habitat are clear. Projects funded under this alternative might generally provide immediate and long-term habitat improvement through projects of larger scope, both in areas of greatest need and in areas known as aquatic refugia (strongholds of high habitat quality).

Project managers would retain a great deal of flexibility to adapt application of specific techniques and other actions to best meet the aquatic objectives of the project. (Specific management techniques are listed in Appendix A in the EIS.) Comprehensive watershed management objectives, such as protection or improvement of natural ecosystems and general species diversity, would be advanced through implementation of this Aquatic Habitat Objectives Emphasis alternative. However, benefits to non-aquatic resources, such as wildlife, would be purely coincidental to the accomplishment of aquatic objectives. See EIS pages 14 to 17 for additional prescriptions for this alternative.

Alternative 4, Cost and Administrative Efficiency Emphasis, would standardize the planning and implementation process by supporting \lonly the least costly approach(es) to achieving the project's aquatic habitat objectives. Achievement of more comprehensive watershed-scale objectives, such as protection or improvement of natural ecosystems and general species diversity, would occur only incidentally to achievement of the priority objectives.

As with Alternative 3 (Aquatic Habitat Objectives), BPA would support only those actions directly aimed at achieving the goals of the Watershed Management Program. However, whereas Alternative 3 placed an emphasis on aggressive (and generally more expensive) in-stream and riparian habitat improvement, projects funded under the management style of Alternative 4 could occur across the watershed. No preference would be given to in-stream, riparian, or upland areas, or to any one land use. Project managers would focus on minimizing administrative costs and maximizing site-specific application of watershed management funds. Managers would also be restricted to the least costly techniques available. Projects funded under this alternative would therefore provide more gradual habitat improvement through projects of smaller scope that might be removed from direct influence on aquatic habitat. Sustained, cumulative benefits would result in slow, steady improvements in fisheries and aquatic habitat, meeting only the minimum aquatic habitat objectives. See EIS pages 17 to 20 for additional prescriptions for this alternative.

Alternative 5, General Environmental Protection\l (environmentally preferred alternative), would standardize the planning and implementation process and provide coincidental benefits for fisheries, water quality, wildlife, recreation, local economic productivity (related to the natural or physical environment, and including, for instance, agricultural or forestry uses), and other resources. Projects would focus equally on fish habitat and other ecological needs throughout the watershed. Habitat improvements would occur in step with other ecological improvements.

Although all techniques addressed in this assessment could be used to improve fisheries and aquatic habitat, some would be more aggressive or "invasive" during implementation, and some might preclude benefits to other resources. Project managers would apply either selected or multiple, complementary techniques and program-wide measures as appropriate to protect all environmental resources, including soils, fish and water resources, wildlife, vegetation, and air quality. These measures would also be implemented in a manner that would avoid or reduce adverse impacts on land use and local economies dependent on agriculture, forestry, and recreation. This alternative would minimize even the immediate and short-term disturbances of implementation. See EIS pages 20 to 24 for additional prescriptions for this alternative.

Alternative 6, Balanced Action (BPA's preferred alternative) would\l standardize the planning and implementation process by undertaking the prescriptions of Alternative 2 and by achieving balance among the purposes individually emphasized in the other Action Alternatives (3, 4, and 5): (1) meeting the aquatic habitat objectives of watershed management projects, (2) achieve- ment of cost and administrative efficiency, and (3) protection and improvement of other environmental resources, when these actions would support watershed management.

Under Alternative 6, BPA would support a wide range of actions to support fisheries, fish habitat, and aquatic ecosystems consistent with Council's goals and priorities. BPA would strongly emphasize achieving aquatic habitat objectives in the least costly manner. The preferred alternative would accept the environmental disturbances of project implementation, while planning for the prevention or control of unforeseen consequences and environmental responses through pre-project surveys, modeling of project parameters, and post-implemen- tation monitoring. Habitat improvements would be moderate in quantity, but high in quality and sustained in benefit.

Fish habitat improvement would also be recognized as the project priority, but those projects that favor multiple resource benefits would receive funding. Project managers would apply program-wide measures as appropriate to provide maximum benefit practicable to other resources, including soils, vegetation, wildlife, and air quality. These measures would also be implemented in a manner that would avoid or reduce adverse impacts on land use and local economies dependent on agriculture, forestry, and recreation.

Alternative 6 is most similar to the current situation in terms of maintaining the balanced management strategy under which proposed management projects are funded. The primary difference between this preferred alternative and the existing situation (No Action) is that, under Alternative 6, (1) BPA would establish a standard planning process and (2) project managers would apply program-wide mitigation measures, as appropriate, to protect the environment. These two differences would allow BPA to implement watershed management programs more efficiently and with greater consistency than under the current case-by-case approach. See EIS pages 25 to 28 for additional prescriptions for this alternative.

Areas of Controversy

The following major issues were brought up during the scoping process.

Project planning process. Project managers want to act quickly and efficiently. Affected interests, especially tribes and county officials, want to participate in project management planning.

Social and economic concerns. People are concerned that, because our focus is on im- proving conditions for fish and wildlife, human concerns would be ignored. Others are concerned about the impact on farmers of additional taxes and restrictions that would affect their profitability. Some feel that there should be direct compensation for economic impacts (takings of property). Environmental studies should include land use, cultural, and historic practices.

Scope of EIS. The complete watershed needs to be covered. For example, upland range and dryland farming need to be addressed, not just the riparian zone. Some stress that the focus should be on whole aquatic ecosystems, not just specific species. Others hold that the EIS should address how the individual watersheds would be cumulatively and programmatically linked together in order to address Columbia River Basin issues such as the hydroelectric and navigation operations and configurations in the mainstem Columbia and Snake rivers.

Who to Involve. Concerns focused on the importance of positively involving local landowners who live on the lands in the watershed, and the importance of seeking out agencies/groups with special expertise and/or information to help us. Some people hold that any watershed management program must be driven by and acceptable to the residents who live and work in the watershed.

Major Conclusions

• Watershed mitigation activities may have short-term adverse impacts on soils and water quality, with increasingly beneficial impacts in the long-term.
• Fish species and species with similar habitat needs would benefit most from watershed mitigation activities.
• Watershed mitigation sites are generally compatible with cultural resources. Ground-disturbing activities near streams and rivers often have a high probability of adversely affecting historic and cultural resources because those resources are more likely to be found there. Impacts can usually be avoided through surveys and avoidance of identified sites.

Issues to Be Resolved
Bonneville Power Administration must decide:

• whether to adopt a set of management principles to guide all watershed management projects as selected by the Council, and
• if so, which set.

In the course of making these decisions, BPA will also be resolving the following issues:

• Whether and to what extent BPA should prescribe conditions of funding types of watershed mitigation actions.
• Whether BPA should eliminate any watershed mitigation techniques from future funding consideration.
• What role(s) might be most appropriate for public, tribal, and agency participation in planning proposed watershed management projects.

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) must mitigate for fish and wildlife habitat that was lost during development of the Federal Columbia River Power System; it does so in part by funding individual watershed programs and projects recommended by the Northwest Power Planning Council. (Watershed is defined as an area(s) drained by a specific stream.) At present, Bonneville addresses all watershed project issues and impacts on a site-specific basis: project by project and watershed by watershed. This approach is inefficient, because BPA must readdress many common issues that arise repeatedly with each successive project, and because it does not foster consistency across projects, jurisdictions, and regions, or over time. BPA needs to find a way to ensure that consistency.

1.1 UNDERLYING NEED FOR ACTION

The network of rivers that feeds into the Pacific Northwest's Columbia River Basin has been altered by dams built to generate power, as well as to control flooding and to provide navigation, irrigation, and recreation services. Twenty-nine Federal hydroelectric dams and numerous other dams now regulate the flows of many of these rivers. Figure 1-1 shows the Columbia River Basin watersheds.

Development of this hydropower system has had far-reaching effects on wildlife and fish, and their habitats. Many floodplains and riparian habitats important to fish and wildlife were inundated when reservoirs filled behind dams. These developments have acted to change or eliminate fish and wildlife habitat. The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) is responsible for mitigating the loss of fish and wildlife habitat caused by the construction and operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System. (See Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act [Northwest Power Act], 16 U.S.C. 839 et seq., Section 4.[h][10][A].)

Specific mitigation actions that BPA may support to satisfy this responsibility are generally developed in a public process managed by the Northwest Power Planning Council (Council). BPA is asked to implement projects included in the Council's Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program (Fish and Wildlife Program). BPA's proposed approach to the watershed planning process and this EIS is designed to be fully consistent with the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program. The EIS anticipates future refinements to the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program by providing flexibility through a wide array of techniques, and through a planning approach that does not dictate site-specific solutions. Potential actions addressed under this EIS cover a wide range of activities and a variety of potential implementors, each with different points of view and mandates. For instance, present and future BPA fish mitigation and watershed conservation and rehabilitation actions with potential environmental effects are expected to include the following:

• in-channel modifications and fish habitat improvement structures;
• riparian restoration and other vegetation treatment techniques;
• agricultural management techniques for crops, animal facilities, and grazing;
• road management techniques;
• forest management techniques;
• urban area techniques;
• recreation management techniques;
• mining reclamation; and
• similar watershed conservation actions.

Potential project implementors and managers include Indian tribes, state agencies, property owners, private conservation groups, and Federal agencies. The range of actions and actors means that ensuring consistency from project to project is difficult. BPA needs to ensure that individual watershed management projects are planned and managed with appropriate consistency across projects, jurisdictions, and ecosystems, as well as over time.

1.2 PURPOSES

BPA intends to base its choices among alternatives on the following objectives:

• Achievement of the Fish and Wildlife Program's aquatic habitat objectives through an ecosystem-based approach for watershed management projects to be funded by BPA. Reports by at least three independent scientific panels (Independent Scientific Group, National Research Council, and the National Marine Fisheries Service Salmon Recovery Team) have called for ecologically oriented approaches to restoration of fish and wildlife habitat. While the primary emphasis of the watershed program is to address anadromous and resident fish habitat impacts, BPA realizes the importance of looking for ways to address mitigation from an ecosystem standpoint, not focusing just on fish;
• Achievement of cost and administrative efficiency;
• Compliance with all laws and regulations; and
• Environmental protection.

See Council's Fish and Wildlife Program (sections 7.6A, Habitat Goal, and 7.6D, Habitat Objectives) for more detailed information on the program's aquatic habitat objectives.

1.3 USES OF THIS DOCUMENT

This environmental impact statement (EIS) is being prepared to help meet BPA's goals by establishing a process and protocols to standardize and coordinate the environmental decision and compliance processes needed to approve watershed projects within various watershed management plans. This EIS, and the processes within it, will be used by BPA staff to meet their National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance requirements as they make decisions about funding proposed projects. We anticipate that projects could fall into two categories:

• Proposed projects that do not adhere to the guidance and procedures discussed in this EIS. They will either be denied (if they are contrary to the preferred alternative) or will be evaluated under a separate and project-specific NEPA process.
• Proposed projects that follow the general procedures and protocols discussed in the EIS. They are more likely to be funded and are more likely to be processed promptly if their techniques and impacts are considered consistent with this EIS.

Watershed Plans developed through the Watershed Management Planning Process for specific watersheds in the basin are expected to contain many concepts, policies, and individual projects. It is not anticipated that the Plans themselves would be submitted to BPA for approval and funding; rather, specific projects within such Plans would be submitted. Therefore, this EIS has no direct relationship to future Watershed Plans except to provide guidance as to the types of steps that BPA expects that proposers will follow in order to receive funding approval for the projects within those Plans and to do so in a coordinated NEPA process.

In the future, BPA expects to continue to receive applications for funding watershed improvement projects in various watersheds. To receive approval, the projects must have been evaluated by sponsors using the eight-step process (described in Chapter 2). BPA further expects that such projects will have been proposed and evaluated within a Watershed Management Plan that would have examined numerous projects-some near term, and some for future consideration. BPA will consider projects proposed individually or collectively, use this EIS as appropriate to help satisfy the NEPA process for funding those projects, and make funding decisions on those projects. BPA considers Watershed Management Plans to be a vehicle for proposing and evaluating watershed projects by the authors of the Plans. Thus, this EIS may assist in plan development, but it is not intended to be used as a NEPA compliance document for plans. This EIS will be used as a NEPA compliance document for projects only.

FIGURE 1-1 Columbia River Basin Watersheds

1.4 BACKGROUND

The Northwest Power Act recognized that development and operation of the Federal hydroelectric dams of the Columbia River and its tributaries have affected fish and wildlife resources. The Act created the Council, in part, to develop a program to protect, mitigate, and enhance recovery efforts for fish and wildlife in the Columbia River Basin.

Since 1992, BPA has funded a number of small demonstration projects under the Model Watershed Program. The intent of these projects was to design a restoration plan and begin to carry out some of the activities on a small scale. The model watersheds include the Grande Ronde River and its sub-basins in Oregon (Board of Directors of the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program 1994); the Tucannon River and Pataha Creek watersheds (which currently have plans in the draft stage in Washington); the Asotin Creek watershed (Asotin Creek Conservation District 1995), also in Washington; and the Lemhi River, Pahsimeroi River and East Fork Salmon River watersheds in Idaho (Idaho Soil Conservation Commission 1995).

In addition to the Model Watershed Program, the Council approved (April 1996) a number of "Early Action" watershed projects for implementation with FY 1996 funds earmarked for Endangered Species mitigation. The goal of these projects is to assist recovery efforts for anadromous and resident fish in the Columbia River Basin.

The Council has incorporated the principle of adaptive management as part of its Fish and Wildlife Program:

In forging a program to address the needs of fish and wildlife in the Columbia Basin, the region faces the problem of resolving these facts: 1) prompt action must be taken to arrest the declines in many populations; and 2) the scientific basis for many actions is limited and often conflicting. This conflict is recognized in the (Northwest) Power Act. Congress directed the Council to use the best available scientific information and not to await scientific certainty prior to acting.

Reflecting this charge, the Council has taken, and will continue to take, a number of significant actions on the basis of the available, and often limited, scientific information. The Council continues to recognize the need for prompt action despite scientific uncertainty. . . . The Council emphasizes the need to improve the scientific basis for the program and to learn from the implementation of the program. [Council 1995, pages 2-5]

With planning completed for many of the model watersheds and with the potential to expand the watershed program, BPA decided to prepare this Watershed Management Program EIS to evaluate the potential environmental impacts, both positive and negative, of establishing a guidance framework for all future watershed projects.

1.5 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER DOCUMENTS

1.5.1 Other BPA Watershed Mitigation Program Environmental Analysis

Planning for several watershed management projects, and associated environmental review, has proceeded during preparation of this EIS. These projects are as follows:

• Watershed Management Program Early Actions Projects (Categorical Exclusion or CX), covering several projects throughout the Columbia River Basin in the states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana.
• Methow Valley Irrigation District Project (Environmental Assessment or EA), covering a specific project to provide in-stream flows for fish in the Methow and Twisp rivers in the state of Washington.

BPA decisions regarding these projects have been covered by separate NEPA compliance documents; these are independent of this EIS and will not in any way dictate its outcome.

1.5.2 Columbia River System Operation Review (SOR) EIS

In December 1995, BPA, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), as joint lead agencies, published the SOR final EIS (DOE/EIS-0170). That EIS examined the impacts of various hydro system operating strategies, including impacts on fish resources. Appendices C and K of the EIS focus on resident and anadromous fish and recommended mitigation measures that may be included in future Fish and Wildlife Program amendments.

1.5.3 Wildlife Mitigation Program EIS

In March 1997, BPA published a Final EIS (DOE/EIS - 0246) on its Wildlife Mitigation Program. As with the Watershed Management Program, BPA proposes to establish standards and guidelines for planning and implementing wildlife conservation and rehabilitation projects throughout the Columbia River Basin. Although the underlying need of the Wildlife Mitigation Program is mitigation for the loss of wildlife habitat caused by the construction and operation of Federal hydroelectric projects in the Basin, many of the program's techniques are similar (but not identical) to those for watershed mitigation. Much of the environmental impact analysis and many of the potential standards and guidelines addressed in the Watershed Management Program EIS have also been included in the Wildlife Mitigation Program EIS (BPA 1997).

1.5.4 Coordination with Other Federal Agency Ecosystem EISs

BPA has attempted to integrate this EIS with other Federal ecosystem-type EISs, such as the U.S. Forest Service(USFS)/Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Interior Basin Ecosystem Management Project EISs, by proposing to adopt the watershed-based project planning process developed for the USFS Ecosystem EISs. The eight-step planning process proposed in the Watershed Management Program EIS is adapted from The Ecosystem Approach: Healthy Ecosystems and Sustainable Economies (Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force, 1995). Several of the steps from this report further integration by the following means:

• requiring coordination with other stakeholders, which would include Federal agencies (Step 2); and
• requiring a characterization of the historical and present site conditions and trends, which would include ongoing ecosystem management activities by other agencies and entities (Step 3).

Each of these steps in this EIS has been modified according to the respective emphasis of each alternative. Watershed groups would be encouraged to consult with other agencies regarding management direction that might apply in their watersheds, and to use the database of information developed for these EISs wherever it appears to be useful.

1.6 DECISIONS TO BE MADE

Preparation of this document is intended to fulfill BPA's NEPA requirements. Two decisions will be made from this document.

BPA must decide:

• whether to adopt a set of management principles to guide all watershed management projects as selected by the Council, and
• if so, which set.

In the course of making these decisions, BPA will also be resolving the following issues:

1. Whether and to what extent BPA should prescribe conditions for funding types of watershed mitigation actions.

2. Whether BPA should eliminate any watershed mitigation techniques from future funding consideration.

3. What role(s) might be most appropriate for public, tribal, and agency participation in planning proposed fish and wildlife management projects.

If BPA were to adopt a set of watershed governing principles, individual projects could then be undertaken (once approved for funding) with the development and implementation of a Project Management Plan and a tiered, more focused project-specific NEPA analysis (unless the anticipated impacts or project components were to differ substantially from those evaluated in this EIS). If BPA were to decide not to adopt a set of principles (the No Action alternative), each individual project would be required to evaluate environmental impacts under NEPA.

1.7 SCOPING

A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS for the Watershed Management Program EIS was issued on March 18, 1996. Scoping meetings were held throughout BPA's service area with interested parties, including representatives of Native American tribes and of local and county governments. Meeting sites included Salmon, Idaho; Missoula, Montana; Elgin, Oregon; and Asotin, Starbuck, and Pomeroy, Washington. About 50 people attended these meetings in all, and 48 letters and comment sheets were received on issues of concern for the project.

The following issues were identified during the scoping process:

• the EIS process itself, including the extent to which public involvement and local consultation and review would play a part;
• socioeconomic issues centering on land acquisition and multiple-use opportunities and conflicts, as well as on potential local effects on the economy;
• cultural values and resource protection;
• tribal rights;
• public access;
• project management (who, and by what means);
• resources management: water, vegetation, wetlands, fish and wildlife; weeds/chemicals;
• fire management;
• issues related to public versus private land ownership; and
• government "taking" of private property.

Many of these issues were also identified for and addressed in the Wildlife Mitigation Program EIS.