s

574.526

325

F2fper

1995

MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS

FINAL PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

ON THE
RIPARIAN AND WETLAND HABITAT CONSERVATION PROGRAM

SEPTEMBER 11, 1995

STATE DOCUMENTS COLLECTION

w

23 1396

MONTANA STATE LIBRARY

1515 E. 6th AVE
HELENA, MONTANA 59620

1 :, 'i - I 1 *; \

v;
8 «

apr t 8 m

'* — <?n

Panr?

" \

w

c

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PURPOSE

This document contains the final analysis of the environmental effects associated with the Montana Fish,
Wildlife & Parks (FWP) Riparian/Wetland Habitat Conservation Program for the Libby and Hungry
Horse hydroelectric projects. This document addresses significant issues raised during public review of
the Riparian/Wetland Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS); summarizes major
conclusions related to environmental effects and issues; and describes FWP's Preferred Alternative
(modified from DEIS Proposed Alternative Two).

Four Alternatives were evaluated in the DEIS: One: Status Quo; Two: Prioritized Mix of Protection and
Enhancement; Three: Protection Only; Four: Enhancement Only.

Following a 30-day comment period on the FEIS, the FWP Regional Supervisor in Kalispell will issue
a Decision Notice describing the final action FWP will make to determine guidelines for the
Riparian/Wetland Conservation Program.

SUMMARY OF MAJOR CONCLUSIONS

Physical Impacts: All of the considered Alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, would
result in a positive direct benefit to the physical and biological environment through the long-term
conservation of wetland/riparian habitat values at project areas. The expected benefits may be greater
for Alternatives One, Two, and Three than Alternative Four if Alternative Four were to focus on
enhancement on public lands and not address resources on private lands.

The cumulative impacts of all the Alternatives (except Alternative One in Lincoln County) to the
physical and biological environment would be significantly positive. The cumulative impact on
biodiversity and threatened and endangered species habitat would be more positive if currently rare
habitats are considered during implementation.

Social-Economic Impacts - Positive: Because Alternative One does not include Lincoln County, this
alternative would not generate any social or economic benefit or impact to this area. Alternatives
Two - Four and the Preferred Alternative would result in positive economic benefits due to an
increase or maintenance of outdoor recreation or amenity based economies. Other potential economic
benefits to private landowners include an increase in land values by owning land adjacent to
perpetual open space and wildlife habitat; possible inheritance and income tax benefits for rural
agricultural or timber landowners; financial compensation to landowners who decide to sell
development rights or restore/enhance riparian/wetland values, thus precluding the potential for lost
land value through zoning or other government regulations that could limit development. These types
of benefits were not included in the DEIS.

Social-Economic Impacts - Negative: Negative effects could occur to land use and the tax base,
depending on the Alternative. We acknowledge that the use of conservation easements under
Alternatives Two, Three, and the Preferred Alternative may preclude the future development of some
lands to their "highest and best use" and that this may preclude future tax revenues. Under the
Preferred Alternative, conservation easements may be used more than under the original Alternative
Two for Libby and may result in slightly greater potential negative impacts to future land uses and
tax bases.

Villi

S^J^

Cumulative Effects. Alternatives One and Three could potentially have the greatest cumulative
negative impact on local land uses and tax base. The impacts of Alternative Two and the Preferred
Alternative would be somewhat less. The cumulative effects of any Alternative on local communities,
land use, and taxes would be additive to other mitigation or habitat protection programs occurring
within the same area (e.g. Kerr mitigation, Highway mitigation).

CONCLUSIONS TO SIGNIFICANT ISSUES:

Conservation Strategies: The primary issue which is being decided through this EIS process is the
approach or the method of habitat conservation to be emphasized by this program.

Mitigation Objectives (Acres): A proposed change in the existing wildlife mitigation program is
to use mitigation objectives based on riparian/wetland habitats lost at the 2 hydroelectric projects
rather than target species acres (i.e. waterfowl, black bear/grizzly bear). This change will result in
an increase in overall acreage to be mitigated and an expansion from the Flathead area to the
Kootenai.

Program Achievability, Budget, and Time-Frame: The analysis we completed on this issue shows
that the existing funding structure may not be sufficient to achieve Alternatives Two-Four program
objectives. As a result, this program may need to leverage available funds, undertake joint projects,
cost-share to the fullest extent possible without sacrificing quality projects, and look for other
creative means to extend the available funds to reach habitat objectives. We recognize that 100%
mitigation may not be achievable.

Mitigation Project Areas/Distance Factors: Using a single distance or identifying counties within
which riparian/wetland mitigation must occur would result in lopsided project areas for the 2
hydroelectric projects. Further, this approach may be too restrictive during implementation. In
response to these concerns and the need to set guidelines for the program, we propose to define 2
or 3 prioritized project areas or levels surrounding each reservoir. For Hungry Horse, project area
levels would be defined as within: 1. Flathead River drainage area; 2. Columbia River basin,
Montana. For Libby the priority areas would be within: 1. 15 miles of Lake Koocanusa; 2. 50 miles
of Lake Koocanusa (includes all of the Kootenai River and portions of Clark Fork drainages); 3.
Columbia River basin, Montana.

Concerns Related to Strategies: The DEIS discussed 3 major strategies to replace habitat values
lost due to hydroelectric power development: fee-title purchase, conservation easements, and
enhancement activities. Land exchange was not specifically mentioned in the DEIS but is another
strategy which could be used to maintain current private land base while benefitting
riparian/wetlands. It could be viewed as a variation of the fee-title strategy as it redistributes land
ownership patterns.

We also recognize that the annual goals used in the DEIS to show how the program may be
implemented could be constraining during program implementation. To provide adaptability in this
program over time and to allow for flexibility in project development, we suggest maintaining the
priority ranking similar to Alternative Two in the DEIS without annual goals.

Riparian & Wetland Habitat Conservation Program

Executive Summary
Page 2 of 3

^"iiJH"^

■ ,

V

w

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribal Issues: The state will meet with the tribal government
to clarify the definition of lead agency and ultimate ownership and responsibilities for
Riparian/Wetland Conservation projects within the exterior boundaries of the Flathead Indian
Reservation; to determine how the state ancLtribes will coordinate program and project activities and
how we will address cultural and other concerns during implementation. Some type of agreement
may be necessary to outline policies and procedures.

PRIORITIZED STRATEGIES - HUNGRY HORSE

1 . Conservation easement acquisition through donation, cost-share, partial purchase, or outright
purchase with willing landowners.

2. Fee-title purchase with placement of conservation easement and return to private sector if a
conservation easement is not an option.

3. Fee-title acquisitions from willing landowners through bargain sale, donation, partnerships,
and direct purchase.

4. Long-term riparian/wedand habitat enhancement activities on private, corporate, county, or
state lands or on federal lands (i.e. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or Forest Service) which
is clearly over and above their current budget and management responsibility.

5. Land exchanges with federal, state, corporate entities which result in protection or
enhancement of riparian/wetlands.

PRIORITIZED STRATEGIES - LD2BY

1. Long-term riparian/wedand habitat enhancement activities on private, corporate, county, or
state lands or on federal lands (i.e. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or Forest Service) which
is clearly over and above their current budget and management responsibility.

2. Conservation easement acquisition through donation, cost-share, partial purchase, or outright
purchase with willing landowners.

3. Fee-tide purchase with placement of conservation easement and return to private sector if a
conservation easement is not an option.

4. Land exchanges with federal, state, corporate entities which result in no net gain of public
lands yet protects or enhances riparian/wedands.

5. Fee-tide acquisitions from willing landowners through bargain sale, donation, partnerships,
or direct purchase.

Riparian & Wetland Habitat Conservation Program

Executive Summary
Page 3 of 3

'„..

u

MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS

W

FINAL PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

ON THE
RIPARIAN AND WETLAND HABITAT CONSERVATION PROGRAM

SEPTEMBER 11, 1995

\^Lg4/

c

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES v

LIST OF FIGURES vi

APPENDIX A FWP Response to All Other DEIS Comments A-l

APPENDED B Summary Impact Tables on Environmental Effects from DEIS . . B-l
APPENDIX C Hungry Horse and Libby Wildlife Mitigation Plan;
Amendment to the Northwest Power Planning
Council's Fish and Wildlife Program (NPPC

1987) C-l

APPENDDC D FWP Draft Wildlife Mitigation Policy - 1983 . D-l

APPENDK E Environmental Assessment Checklist for Potential Projects ..... E-l

I. INTRODUCTION 1

A. OVERVIEW 1

1. Purpose ^ . 1

2. Report Organization 1

3. Decisions To Be Made 1

B. BACKGROUND 3

1. Authority .3

2. Montana's Wildlife Mitigation Plans .......................... 3

3 Montana Wildlife Mitigation Trust Fund 3

4. Montana Environmental Policy Act 4

a. Public Scoping 4

b. Follow-up Meetings ............ 5

c. Issues Evaluated During DEIS Development ................... 5

d. DEIS 5

E. ISSUES RAISED BY DEIS AND FWP RESPONSES .................... 6

A. GENERAL INFORMATION 6

B. SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES . 6

1. Purpose of EIS: Habitat Objectives; Scope of Decisions to be made 6

a. Specific Comments 6

b. FWP Responses . 7

i. Scope of EIS; Decisions 7

ii. Habitat Objectives 7

iii. Hydropower Allocation 8

2. Ability of DEIS alternatives meet program goals; insufficient funds

on annual basis to meet objectives 10

a. Specific Comments 10

b. FWP Response 11

i. Funding/Time Constraints 11

ii. Summary 13

3. How does habitat protection equal mitigation? 14

a. Specific Comments 14

b. FWP Response 14

i. Mitigation Goal 14

ii. Threats 14

iii. Summary 15

4. Values of and concerns about habitat enhancement. ............... 15

a. Specific Comments 15

b. FWP Response 16

i. Definition of Habitat Enhancement 16

ii. Crediting Assumptions in DEIS 16

iii. Enhancement Criteria . 17

iv. Protection of Investment 17

v. Commercial Activities 17

vi. Impacts to Land Resources 18

5. Value of conservation easements versus fee-title acquisition versus
enhancement and appropriate mix of strategies in each project area 18

a. Specific Comments 18

b. FWP Response 19

i. Existing Policies Guiding Mitigation Strategies 19

ii. WMAC Role 20

iii. Creating Assumptions 20

iv. Relative Value of each Strategy 20

v. Annual Goals 21

6. Issue of where mitigation should occur and achieving objectives

within 15-50 miles of reservoirs 22

a. Specific Comments 22

b. FWP Response 22

i. Distance Factors 22

7. Need for DEIS 25

a. Specific Comments . 25

b. FWP Response 25

8. Cumulative effects; impacts of other land protection programs on

the environment 25

a. Specific Comments 25

b. FWP Response 26

i. Kerr Mitigation 26

ii. Habitat Montana (HB 526 funds) 26

iii. Highway Mitigation 27

iv. Cumulative Effects 27

ii

9. Insufficient discussion of Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes
(CSKT) participation in previous mitigation planning; no clear

justification for program participation; concern with future process 27

a. Specific comments: . . . : 27

b. FWP Response 28

i. CSKT Participation in Mitigation Planning 28

ii. Lead Agency Agreement . 29

iii. CSKT Cultural Concerns 29

10. Socio-economic impact analyses of Alternatives .................. 29

a. Specific Comments 29

b. FWP Response 30

i. Fee-title 30

ii. Conservation Easements . 30

iii. Enhancement Activities 30

iv. Land Exchanges 31

v. Comparison of Alternatives 31

vi. Community Impacts of Preferred Alternative 31

HI. SUMMARY OF MAJOR CONCLUSIONS FROM DEIS ................ 33

A. PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS 33

1. Direct Effects 33

2. Secondary and Cumulative Effects 33

B. SOCIAL-ECONOMIC EFFECTS . 33

A • JL/JL1C\^1 X-'Ai-WV'lo aaaooaeaeaoaaoaaeeoaoaaeaeaceaaeoeaaaa JJ

{la i tJolUVG XJfXIwwto t **«••«•■••*••• « * • a * • a «••••«•««• V • a 3D

b. Negative Effects 34

2. Secondary and Cumulative Effects 34

C. OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES RAISED BY THE PUBLIC 35

1. Scope of DEIS Decisions 35

a. Riparian/Wetland Conservation Strategies . 35

b. Mitigation Objectives 35

c. Hydropower Allocation and Mitigation Objectives 35

d. Mitigation Project Areas/Distance Factors 36

2. Program Achievability, Budget, and Time-frame . . 36

3. Concerns Related to each Strategy 36

a. Priority Strategies/Mis of Strategies 36

b. Fee-title 37

c. Conservation Easements 38

d. Enhancement Activities 38

i. Cost-effectiveness . 38

ii. In Lieu of Funding 38

iii. Duration of Expected Benefits 38

iv. Ecological Considerations . 39

e. Land Exchanges 39

4. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribal Issues 39

iii

IV. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 40

HUNGRY HORSE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT „ „ 40

A. GOAL 40

B. OBJECTIVES . . 40

C. PRIORITIZED STRATEGIES 40

D. RATIONALE 41

E. PROJECT AREA DEFINITION 41

LIBBY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 42

A. GOAL 42

B. OBJECTIVES 42

C. PRIORITIZED STRATEGIES 42

D. RATIONALE 42

E. PROJECT AREAS 43

V. REFERENCES 45

IV

1^^^

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Comparison of mitigation objectives (acres) for Hungry Horse,

Libby, and both hydroelectric projects for Alternative One (Status
Quo) and other Alternatives

Table 2. Comparison of acreage which could be mitigated (percent of

hydropower objectives) between Alternative One (Status Quo) and

Alternatives Two through Four given 3 different spending scenarios

with 2 different land appreciation rates (3 percent and 7 percent) 12

^

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Riparian/Wetland Mitigation Area in Northwest Montana 2

Figure 2. Potential Mitigation Project Areas within 15 and 50 miles of

Hungry Horse Reservoir and Lake Koocanusa „ „ . 24

„ J

vi

LIST OF APPENDICES
C

Appendix A FWP Response to All Other DEIS Comments A-l

Appendix B Summary Impact Tables on Environmental Effects from DEIS ........ B-l

Appendix C Hungry Horse and Iibby Wildlife Mitigation Plan; Amendment to
the Northwest Power Council's Fish and Wildlife Program NPPC

lyoi) C-l

Appendix D FWP Draft Wildlife Mitigation Policy - 1983 D-l

Appendix E Environmental Assessment Checklist for Potential Projects .......... E-l

\^^,

vu

SECTION I

C

INTRODUCTION

A. OVERVIEW

1. Purpose

This document contains the final analysis of the environmental effects associated
with the Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) Riparian/Wetland Habitat
Conservation Program for the Iibby and Hungry Horse hydroelectric projects (Fig.
1). This document addresses significant or substantive issues raised during public
review of the Riparian/Wetland Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS); summarizes major conclusions related to environmental effects
and issues; and describes FWP's Preferred Alternative (modified from DEIS
Proposed Alternative Two).

2. Report Organization

The first Section includes a description of the decisions to be made and relevant
background information. Section n addresses substantive issues raised during the
public comment on the DEIS. Comments are organized by subject area followed by
specific related individual public comments and FWP responses. Appendix A
contains FWP responses to other issues and comments on the DEIS.

Section m provides a summary of major conclusions and supporting information
from the DEIS. Section IV describes the modified preferred alternative based on
analyses of the environmental data, substantive issues and major conclusions.

A detailed description of the original proposed alternatives and the environmental
effects of the alternatives were presented in the DEIS. The FEIS includes summary
tables displaying expected physical and social impacts of original alternatives
(Appendix B) from the DEIS. Copies of the DEIS can be obtained through FWP
Region One Office in Kalispell, 490 N. Meridian Road, Kalispell, MT. 59901 (406-
752-5501).

3. Decisions to be Made

The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) discloses new information in
response to public comments on DEIS, addresses issues of concern, summarizes
significant findings, and describes the preferred alternative.

*w

County Boundary

Indian Reservation Boundary

Figure 1. Riparian/Wetland Conservation Program area in northwest Montana.

Following a 30-day comment period on the FEES, the FWP Regional Supervisor in
Kalispell will issue a Decision Notice describing the final action or Alternative FWP
will select as the program guidelines for the riparian/wetland conservation program.

B. BACKGROUND

1. Authority

FWP is mandated by law (87-1-201) to protect, enhance and regulate the wise use of
Montana's fish and wildlife resources for public benefit now and in the future. The
Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L.96-
501) "authorized the states of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington to enter
into an interstate compact to create a policy-making and planning body, known as
the Northwest Power Planning Council (NPPQ for electrical power and the
Columbia River basin's fish and wildlife" (NPPC 1987 p.5). One of the primary
NPPC tasks was to design a Fish and Wildlife Program to mitigate the impacts of
hydroelectric power development on the region's fish and wildlife resources.

2. Montana's Wildlife Mitigation Plans

Pursuant to the NPPC's Fish and Wildlife Program, Montana completed wildlife
loss estimates and mitigation plans for the Hungry Horse and Libby hydroelectric
facilities in the mid-1980's (Casey and Yde 1984; Yde and Olsen, 1984; Bissell and
Yde, 1985; Mundinger and Yde, 1985). FWP lead this effort in cooperation with
numerous federal and state agencies, public interest groups, and the Confederated
Salish and Kootenai tribes.

In 1987, the Council amended their Fish and Wildlife Program to include specific
wildlife mitigation programs for Libby and Hungry Horse hydroelectric dams
targeting habitats for waterfowl, black and grizzly bears, Columbian sharp-tailed
grouse, and big game species (Appendix Q. The proposed waterfowl and black
bear/grizzly bear projects contained elements to protect or enhance riparian and
wetland habitat types in northwest Montana.

3. Montana Wildlife Mitigation Trust Fund

In December 1988, the State of Montana and Bonneville Power Administration
(BPA) signed the Wildlife Mitigation Agreement (Settlement Agreement) for Libby
and Hungry Horse Dams which established the Wildlife Mitigation Trust Fund
(Trust Fund) with FWP to fund all of the state's wildlife mitigation projects over the
life of the licensed hydroelectric projects (60 years). Interest from the Trust provides
the funding for implementation of all proposed wildlife mitigation projects. BPA
completed their contribution to the Trust Fund in December, 1994. As of May 1995,

k^p.

the Trust Fund has a balance of nearly 13.5 million dollars. The Settlement
Agreement includes stipulations that the Trust Fund must equal or exceed $8 million
from the period of final BPA payment until year 30 of the agreement (2019). The
agreement also requires an unobligated balance of $4 million from year 30 to the
end of the agreement to pay for the operation and maintenance of mitigation actions
undertaken under the terms of the agreement.

The Settlement Agreement set up a Wildlife Mitigation Advisory Council (WMAC)
to oversee review projects and expenditures for the various wildlife mitigation
programs. WMAC meets 2 times a year, spring and fall.

4. Montana Environmental Policy Act

Due to the issues related to habitat protection programs during the early 1990's,
FWP made the decision in 1993 to undertake a programmatic FJS on those portions
of the BPA wildlife mitigation program which emphasized riparian/wetland habitats.
The purpose of the DEIS was to develop alternatives, describe and analyze the
impacts of the alternatives on the physical and social environments, and receive
public input so that FWP could make a more informed decision on how to
implement a riparian/wetland habitat conservation program.

a. Public Scoping

FWP began the public scoping phase of its DEIS in fall of 1993. Scoping
meetings were advertised by legal notices in Helena, Kalispell, and Libby in
October of 1993. A FWP press release was distributed in October of 1993.
Numerous articles concerning the plan and public scoping were published in
northwest Montana newspapers in October of 1993. Over 200 private citizens,
landowners, sportspersons, interest groups, and government agencies were
mailed background information and notices of public scoping meetings held at
the following dates and cities:

City. Date

Poison

10-05-93

Kalispell

10-11-93

libby

10-18-93

Thompson Falls

10-20-93

Missoula

10-22-93

Eureka

10-25-93

^

c

b. Follow-up Meetings

In addition to public scoping, 3 public "follow-up" meetings were held in
January, 1994 to explain progress made since the original scoping meetings and
to collect additional comments relating to the alternatives being developed. The
dates of the public "follow-up" meetings were:

City Date

Iibby

01-10-94

Eureka

01-12-94

Kalispell

01-17-94

c. Issues Evaluated During DEIS Development

Four significant issues were raised through public scoping and "follow up"
meetings. These issues were described in the DEIS (pp. 6-7) and addressed
under all the considered Alternatives (One - Four) in the DEIS. The issues
were: 1. Land Acquisition, 2. Individual Project Distance From Reservoir, 3.
Ecosystem Approach, and 4. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes.

d. DEIS

The DEIS was completed and sent out for review to interested parties on May
6, 1994. A total of 3 public hearings were held and facilitated by a FWP
attorney in May, 1994 to collect comments related to the DEIS. The public
comment period for the DEIS was May 6, 1994 - June 6, 1994. The dates of
the public hearings were as follows:

City Dais

Libby 05-18-94

Kalispell 05-19-94

Eureka 05-29-94

FWP received written comments from 9 individuals or organizations and oral
comments from 13 individuals during the DEIS public comment period.
Continued work on this program was delayed nearly a year due to personnel
changes in the Region 1 wildlife staff during 1994 and 1995.

c

section n

ISSUES RAISED BY DEIS AND FWP RESPONSES

A. GENERAL INFORMATION

Substantive issues raised by the public are grouped by subject area and followed by
FWP responses. Each comment has been assigned a specific alpha-numeric code that
identifies the individual or organization commenting and the issue they raised. A "W"
indicates written comment; a "H" indicates it was given during public hearing. Each
substantive issue is followed by FWP responses. FWP responses to other issues and
comments are included in Appendix A. All materials concerning the EIS process are
being held in a project file located in Region 1 Office of FWP, 490 North Meridian
Rd., Kalispell, MT. 59901.

B. SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

1. Purpose of the EIS; habitat objectives; scope of decisions to be made. (G&T-
W2, W3, W12; USFWS-W16)

(^ a. Specific Comments:

i. "Is the decision whether or not to protect and enhance "prime wetlands"
only or to protect and enhance wetlands and riparian areas"? (G&T-W2)

ii. "The secondary decision is whether to acquire the land, purchase an

easement, or enhance habitat on land owned by others... This is a difficult
question to address without having site specific information". (G&T-W3)

iii. "For Alternatives Two, Three, and Four, there will be less acres of prime
wetland protected or enhanced and more acres of riparian area protected
or enhanced... The nature of the impacts would certainly change (under
Alternatives 2-4) but the total benefits gained from the status quo would
be small or non-existent" (G&T-W12)

iv. "Since the Trust Fund which financed this draft EIS is based on the

NPPC's Program, it appears that the Department already has the authority
to protect and enhance both prime wetland and riparian habitats. We
suggest your EIS clarify this situation and account for the riparian habitat
protection called for the NPPC program." (USFWS-W16)

'^,

b. FWP Response:

i. Scope of ECS; Decisions: The major purposes of this EIS process is to
look at various alternative mitigation strategies, disclose the various
environmental effects of those strategies, and get public input into the
decision-making process. The primary substantive issue which is being
decided through this EIS process is the approach or the method of
habitat conservation to be emphasized by this program. This issue has
generated most of the concern and comment. Each of the alternatives was
designed to address the issues surrounding the different approaches to
habitat conservation i.e. via enhancement, conservation easement, and/or
fee-title acquisition. The principal decision FWP is making is to select
the alternative or combination of alternatives which will most
completely meet the mitigation goals and objectives with the least
negative social and environmental impact. Following selection of the
preferred alternative, the Department will complete detailed
implementation plans describing criteria and priority strategies for specific
projects for each of the hydroelectric project areas.

ii. Habitat Objectives: There are clear differences in habitat objectives of
Alternative One (Status Quo) and the other Alternatives. The amendment
to the NPPC Fish and Wildlife Program set out 2 habitat protection
programs which affected riparian/wetlands: 1. waterfowl and 2. black
bear/grizzly bear. These programs focused on mitigating for target species
impacts. The waterfowl program objective was to protect 4,564 acres of
"prime wetlands" l; the black bear/grizzly bear program objective was to
protect 8,590 acres of riparian, wetland, shrubland areas lost at Hungry
Horse 2. All of the waterfowl program and the riparian portion of the
bear program are considered habitat objectives for the Status Quo or No
Action Alternative (Table 1).

Alternatives Two, Three, and Four based objectives on actual acreage of
riparian and wetland habitats lost at Iibby and Hungry Horse. Rather than

"Prime wetlands" represent a conversion of all the riparian/wetland habitat types
affected by both hydroelectric projects (Libby and Hungry Horse) converted to
waterfowl production habitat.

The original black bear/grizzly bear habitat objective of 11,298 acres was based on
5,585 acres of riparian/wetland habitats (49.4% ) plus 5,518 ac of upland shrub habitat
(50.6%). The 8,590 acreage habitat objective represents the hydropower allocated
proportion (76%) of the total 11,298 acres. The 4,243 acre objective in Table 1
represents 49.4% (riparian portion) of the hydropower allocated habitat objective.

w

use the modified target species acreage described above, the goals of these
Alternatives emphasize value and acres of riparian and wetland habitat lost
(Table 1). The reasons for the change from target species objectives
(Alternative One) to habitat objectives (Alternatives Two through Four)
are to: 1. clearly tie objectives to habitat losses; 2. focus primarily on
mitigation for habitats lost and secondarily on the species impacted in an
effort to mitigate for all wildlife species affected, not just the target
species; and 3. provide a better and more direct way to measure the
success of the habitat conservation program by habitat (acres) rather than
species. A wildlife mitigation plan which addresses actual habitat losses at
both reservoirs would better address the overall wildlife impacts than a
mitigation program with an artificial goal focusing on certain species
losses.

Under Alternatives Two through Four, the remaining upland shrub and
travel corridor components of the black bear/grizzly bear program would
continue unless another program change is made.

Based on program history, the decision on whether or not to protect
wetland and riparian habitats has already been made by the NPPC.
Therefore, it was not a major substantive decision of mis programmatic
FJS process (see Section IB, BACKGROUND and Appendix B).

iii. Hydropower Allocation: The habitat objectives of the Status Quo

Alternative differ from the other alternatives not only because they were
part of species based program but also because they represented
hydropower allocated acreage (Table 1). As part of the amendment to the
NPPC fish and wildlife program which authorized the wildlife mitigation
projects for Hungry Horse and Libby, Montana agreed that BPA would
fund mitigation for that portion of dam construction and operation which
was allocated to hydropower production: 79% of libby and 76% of
Hungry Horse. Other benefits of the dams such as irrigation and flood
control were not considered part of the mitigation program under the
Northwest Power Act. Thus, the funding provided in the Trust Fund
primarily reflects the hydropower allocation and not full (100%)
mitigation.

Alternatives Two through Four in the DEIS did not use the hydropower
allocation formula and, thereby, represented 100% of losses. Table 1
includes both the 100% and the hydropower allocated portions of the
habitat objectives for each Alternative.

^

3

Table 1. Comparison of mitigation objectives (acres) for Hungry Horse, libby, and both
hydroelectric projects for Alternative One (Status Quo) and the other Alternatives.

HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT AREA

PERCENT

ALLOCATION TO

HYDROPOWER

(%)

ALTERNATIVE ONE
(Status Quo)

OBJECTIVES (acres)

ALTERNATIVES
TWO-FOUR

OBJECTIVES (acres)

76

4,245 Bear
1.146 Waterfowl
5,391 Total

5,303 Riparian/
Wetland

100

5,585 Bear
1.5Q8 Waterfowl
7,093 Total

6,978 Riparian/
Wetland

LIBBY PROJECT AREA

79

OBear
3.418 Waterfowl
3,418 Total

9,261 Riparian/
Wetland

100

OBear
4.326 Waterfowl
4,326 Total

11,724 Riparian/
Wetland

BOTH HUNGRY HORSE AND LIBBY TOTALS .

Hydropower
Allocated

4,245 Bear
4.564 Waterfowl
8,809 Total

Wetland

100%
Mitigation

5,585 Bear
5.834 Waterfowl
11,419 Total

18,702 Riparian/
Wetland

^^^

2. Ability of DEIS Alternative to meet program goals; insufficient funds on annual
basis to meet objectives. (USFWS-W19, W20, W21, W22, W23; Cole-W26; Iffi-
W30; Worthington-W33; Cole-H4,H7; McConkey-H21; Fairchild-H24)

a. Specific Comments:

i. "The monetary amount of the Trust Fund was negotiated between Montana
and Bonneville Power Administration at a level needed to accomplish a
mitigation-protection-replacement goal of 4,564 acres" ... (alternative 1)...
"Under the draft FJS projected rate of alternative implementation" (see
Table 2 this document) "only Alternative 1 is funded at a level capable of
achieving its objectives during the remaining life of the Trust Fund... It
does not appear that Trust Fund monies will be available to fund
Alternatives 2 through 4. (USFWS-W19); "

ii. "We recommend that the FJS depict the current Trust Fund balance and
revenue and projected expenditures over the 10-year planning period."
(USFWS-W20)...

iii. "The FJS should also disclose the reality of the proposed time frames for
implementation". (USFWS-21)

iv. "The draft EIS fails to fully disclose the facts about the improbability of
accomplishing the subject mitigation due to a lack of funds or inordinately
long time periods needed for implementation." (USFWS-W22)

v. "Alternative 1 could be implemented in less than half the time of the
preferred alternative (2), at less cost and more efficiently (better cost/acre
ratio)" (USFWS-W23).

vi. "Common sense tells one that spending $125,00 per year, basing future
purchases on 1994 values will be valid in... 55 years... can't be taken
seriously." (Cole-W26)

vii. "The wetlands plan should include the flexibility to not have $125,000 as a
cap for any annual expenditure in Flathead County... At the rate the
Flathead is being developed, we have no more than a 10-20 year window of
opportunity to protect and enhance wetlands"... [wetlands] "should take
priority over administrative funding and wildlife studies". (Hli-W30)

viii. "Another concern is the expenditure of only $250,000 annually. With 12.5
million in the bank and at a 5 per cent interest rate, [it] would generate
$625,000 per year" (Worthington-W33)

10

ix. 'wetlands are more important than half of the interest from the trust; more
mitigation money should be spent on the wetland program' (Cole-H4); 'no
one in this room will be alive to see the benefits at the rate we are moving;
land values are rising fast and we should act now (Cole-H7).

x. "Land acquisition by FWP and purchases of conservation easements should
be the #1 priority; opportunities are passing us by; & larger percent of the
Trust should be spent on this plan now*. (Fairchild-H24)

b. FWP Response:

i. Funding/Time Constraints: The Trust Fund was set up to fund all wildlife
mitigation programs including upland and riparian/wetland programs. The
amount of the Trust Fund was negotiated between the state, BPA, and the
northwest utility industry. The Settlement Agreement stipulates that once
the Trust Fund is fully funded (December 1994), the Department is free to
spend interest and principal through the year 2019 (25 more years) as long
as the principal is maintained above $8 million dollars. After the year 2019,
the Department can spend an additional $4 million of the principal but it
must maintain $4 million in perpetuity to cover operating and maintenance
costs of the mitigation projects.

Given the Trust Fund sideboards, we developed various scenarios which
assume different amounts of annual funds available, 10 or 25 year
implementation time-frames, and fixed costs or no fixed costs. We set the
appreciation rate for land values at both 3% and 7% and set the annual
interest rate for the Trust Fund interest at 7%. Fixed costs were assumed to
be $2,000/acre fee-title and $l,000/acre conservation easement. Based on
costs for other wetland habitat enhancement programs (J. Herbert pers.
comm. 1995; D. Vaughn pers. comm 1995), we found minimum
enhancement costs for western Montana to be close to $l,000/acre. To
simplify the scenarios, we dropped enhancement and assumed fee-title and
conservation easement costs would equate to $2,000/mitigation acre based
on the credit ratios given in the DEIS of 1:1 for fee title and 2:1 for
conservation easement. If enhancement costs are near $l,000/ac and we
need to enhance 3 acres for 1 mitigation acre, we can assume that an
enhancement scenario would use up available funds even faster.

11

w

Table 2. Comparison of acreage which could be mitigated (% of hydropower objectives)
between Alternative One (Status Quo) and Alternatives Two through Four given 4
different spending scenarios with 2 different land appreciation rates (3% and 7%).

Total Acreage and Percent (%> of Hydropower Allocated Objectives Accomplished

M*fcNIM«lr
SCENARIOS

toot

TWO

"DO IT IT

li::2ei^::i:I

m as

::::YEARS):-.3

THREE
"GET REAL

«.;::: ::Spead

b,::::;:;::

&lnterc8t

Land.

Alt One

8,809

4,169 ac (47%)

4,399 ac (50%)

8,056 ac (91%)

8,277 ac (94%)

it

Interest

& Interest

2,084 (24%)

2,199 (25%)

Alts. Two-Four

14,564

4,169 (29%)

4,399 ac (30%)

8,056 ac (55%)

8,277 ac (57%)

Alt. One

8,809

3412 ac (40%)

3,779 ac (43%)

5,536 ac (63%)

5,899 ac (67%)

2,084 (14%)

2,199 (15%)

1,756 (20%)

1,890 (21%)

AlU. Two-Four

14,285

3,512 (24%)

3,779 ac (26%)

5,536 ac (38%)

5,899 (40%)

1,756 (12%)

1,890 (13)

COSTS*

m

881ac/yr@
$993/ac (100%)

1,456 ac/yr &
$601/ac

881 ac/yr &
S993/ac (100%)

1,456 ac/yr @
$601/ac

Scenario 1. "All in 10": 10-year implementation time-frame with all available funds directed to
Riparian/Wetland Program.

Scenario 2: " Do it in 25": 25 year implementation time-frame beginning in 1995 with all available
funds directed to Riparian/Wetland Program.

Scenario 3: "Get Real in 10?": Only 50% available interest (rest shared with other wildlife
mitigation projects) over 10 years.

Scenario 4: "Float Costs": Divide total acreage objective by 10 years. Divide all available annual
funds ($875,000) by annual target to get cost/ac

t^

Interest on 12.5 million at 7% is $875,000/year.
4 Does not incorporate decreasing value of dollar each year, projects will be harder and harder to find.

12

In Table 2, Scenario One assumes all available Trust Fund interest and/or
principal would be spent on the Riparian/Wetland Conservation Program for the
next 10 years. Under this Scenario we included 2 variations: a. spend interest
only, b. spend all available principal and interests. Scenario Two assumes the
same parameters as Scenario One except the implementation time-frame would
be 25 years. Scenario Three assumes a more realistic approach of only 50% of
the available Trust Fund could be used in the Riparian/Wetland Conservation
Program over a 10 year period. The Fourth Scenario assumes a 10 year time-
frame, and interest only available to estimate what the cost would have to be per
acre to reach the goal. This scenario does not take inflation into account.

The Settlement Agreement precludes the state of Montana from requesting
additional funds from BPA. Given these sets of assumptions, the best scenario is
to spend principal and interest and implement Alternative One. Scenario 4
indicates that if relatively inexpensive projects ($601/ac) can be found, 100%
mitigation is possible for Alternatives Two-Four.

The results of the most realistic scenario (Scenario 3) indicates insufficient funds
exist to achieve hydropower objectives, let alone 100% of the program
objectives. FWP believes that the Riparian/Wetland Conservation Program
budget can not be developed at the expense of palouse prairie or upland habitat
programs. However, these spending scenarios do demonstrate that more
mitigation will be accomplished if we can complete projects with low average
costs (near $600/mitigation acre, Table 2) in earlier years.

ii. Summary. The costs of project implementation can impact the FWP ability to
meet mitigation objectives. An important consideration in the Riparian/Wetland
Conservation Program will be how well we can maximize the value of Trust
Fund dollars through leveraging, cost-sharing, donations, and other incentives or
means to most fully mitigate habitat losses. Strategies to maximize dollar value
must also be used without sacrificing or forgoing program quality, need, or
meaningful projects. Although the program will strive for 100% mitigation, we
recognize this may not be achievable.

The issue of how much of the Trust Fund will be spent on each of the different
wildlife mitigation programs over time is not within the scope of the DEIS. The
proportion of the Trust Fund money available to each program will be addressed
as other portions of this program begin to go through their 5-year review. For
the decision set forth in this FEIS, we are assuming an annual budget of at least
$250,000 to begin implementation of the Riparian/Wetland Conservation
Program.

13

c

3. How does habitat protection equal mitigation? (G&T-W5; Kaniksu-W36)

a. Specific Comments:

i. " The Federal Wetlands Protection Act, I understand, is intended to prevent
wetlands being destroyed or substantially altered. If that is true, existing
wetlands will not be destroyed and acquiring them by MDFWP will not
create new wetlands... Acquiring a non-wetland and converting it into a
wetland could provide net benefit, but simply acquiring an existing wetland
does not confer incremental benefit to the species which might use it."
(G&T-W5)

ii. "Rather than attempt to enhance the protected habitat immediately, the
goal... should be to acquire as much habitat— as much ecosystem- as
possible and then, at some future time, begin the enhancement of these
much larger and more intact... ecosystems where such enhancement proves
necessary (Kaniksu-W36).

b. FWP Response:

i. Mitigation Goal: The goal of riparian/wetland mitigation is to replace the
wildlife habitat values lost due to hydroelectric power development. Habitat
conservation strategies which seek to maintain quality riparian/wetland
i^, values are a means of replacing riparian/wetland values lost. Given the

degree of human population growth in northwest Montana and the desire
for people to live along riparian and wetland areas, there is a very obvious
threat to these inherent riparian/wetland values as described below.

ii. Threats: Although under some "protection" by federal laws such as the
Clean Water Act, these riparian/wetland habitats can still be easily
exempted from review and developed (Montana Audubon Council 1993).
Additionally, the extent of legal protection is always subject to change via
Congressional action. Riparian/wetland values can also be lost as a result of
land management that doesn't give adequate consideration for wildlife
values. Even if a wetland itself is not altered directly by an activity,
riparian/wetland values are easily destroyed or degraded by humans and
their activities on the adjacent uplands. For example, people living near
riparian/wetlands tend to increase wildlife disturbances, remove or alter
native riparian and upland vegetation, change bank configuration or
integrity, increase nutrient loading, introduce noxious weeds, or harbor a
host of predators (domestic pets, raccoon, fox, skunks, etc.) Intact natural
riparian/wetlands in remote settings which still support large predators such
as black bear, grizzly bear, mountain lion etc. are faced not only with these
types of threats but also direct conflicts with new residents. Human
conflicts with large predators usually result in removal of the depredating
wildlife individuals. Over time this removal can have an impact on that

14

species habitat use of the riparian/wetland and/or on the large predator
population.

iii. Summary: Conserving existing wetland riparian areas from further human
development or degradation results in a net gain of wetlands or riparian
acreage through time because without the conservation action, losses are
likely to occur. The net benefit is preventing further loss or degradation of
wetland/riparian areas due to human influences.

4. Values of and concerns about habitat enhancement. (G&T-W4,; Hn-W27,W28;
Worthington-W31, W32; CSKT-W40, W42, W47; Cole-H5; MitcheU-H9;
McConkey-H20; FaircMld-H25; Kuhl-H28; Jewell-H35)

a. Specific Comments:

i. "On what basis has it been determined that it takes three acres of habitat
enhancement to be equivalent to one acre of habitat protection?" (G&T-W4)

ii. "Enhancement on private lands seems kind of uncertain at this stage. The
DEIS does not clearly spell out exactly what enhancement means and how
long the enhancement project would continue on private land". "All private
land enhancement projects should have a minimum enhancement period of
20 years. Investing public money on private land should not be done unless
there are long-term guarantees the land will stay enhanced for a long period
of time" (Illi-W27,W28)

iii. "I have a major concern when "enhancement" is the major method of a
mitigation goal. What is it?... "How long is the enhancement program to go
on? Short-term will not do. It should be a long-term benefit for at least 25
years." (W. Worth-W31,W32)

iv. "There may also need to be enhancement at some of these [protected] sites.
Language needs to be added to include construction and restoration as
components of enhancement." (CSKT-W42)

v. "... since Alternative 4 [Enhancement Only] does not protect land from
subdivision, it would not be as positive for land resources as Alternatives 2
[Preferred] and 3 [Protection Only]." (CSKT-W47)

vi. 'projects must be long term (do not want a CRP situation; if enhancement
is not long-term, I support alternative # 3 which utilizes fee-title
acquisition' (Cole-H5)

vii. 'Enhancement projects on private land could turn into private paid hunting
and fee access areas'; 'I am not too wild about enhancement projects on
private land due to lack of long term benefits; 'developments would hurt
enhancement projects (land sold)' (Mitchell-H9)

15

c

viii.'3:l ratio of enhancement versus protection is raise'. (McConkey-H20)

ix„ 'we need long term benefits from enhancement projects; enhancement is
short-term in most cases' (Fairchild-H25)

x. 'you need some guidelines for long-term benefits' (Kuhl-H28)

xi. 'I question the 3:1 ratio' (Jewell-H35a)

b. FWP Response:

The issue of what enhancement is and how this tool will be integrated into this
program needs to be clarified and expanded. Habitat enhancement is an accepted
mitigation strategy. Although FWP has policies and guidelines for upland game
bird and waterfowl habitat enhancement programs (duck stamp program), there
is no specific policy other than the FFJS guiding the riparian/wetland
enhancement activities. For the purpose of this Riparian/Wetland Conservation
Program, we have adopted the following definitions and criteria.

i. Definition of Habitat Enhancement: In general, habitat enhancement is
defined as the improvement of wildlife habitat through the establishment of
food, cover or other habitat requirements or conditions. (Appendix 1,
DEIS). To replace the riparian/wetland values lost due to hydroelectric
power development (i.e. mitigation), habitat enhancement projects must
increase existing riparian/wetland values or restore or re-create a
functioning riparian/wetland system from one which is degraded or
impacted in other ways.

There are several types of enhancement activities which can increase
wildlife values. For example, one activity is the restoration of a degraded
or impacted riparian or wetland site to a natural or nearly natural condition
through plugging a drainage ditch; another might be adding a fence to
reduce grazing impacts to banks or vegetation. Enhancement could also
include the use of extensive dike and water control structures to
restore/enlarge a drained wetland. Until specific projects are designed and
proposed, it is difficult to compare or evaluate the enhancement projects. In
general, enhancement activities have the potential to be very positive for
riparian/wetland values; but these activities can also be very expensive.
They also often require long-term maintenance or management to maintain
their habitat values.

ii. Crediting Assumptions in DEIS: For the purpose of estimating habitat
enhancement costs and target acreage for each program alternative in the
DEIS, we made an assumption based on our best scientific estimate of the
relative value of habitat enhancement versus protection. It was assumed that
enhancement projects would include both habitat creation and restoration
where there would be a net gain in riparian/wetland values. Because some

16

type of habitat already exists at enhancement sites, it was assumed these
existing habitats could be "improved" by at least an average of 1/3; hence it
takes 3 acres of enhancement to achieve 1 acre of mitigation. We used
available literature on upland projects which indicates we can usually
improve habitat by at least 20% but usually not more than 50%. Actual
habitat enhancement crediting could be determined at the project level and
based on net gain of habitat values. It may be that 1:1 is appropriate if a
wetland is restored and it may be 3:1 for a project which simply improves
wetland condition.

iii. Enhancement Criteria: Enhancement activities could be independent of
land ownership or title encumbrances. However, some guarantees must be
in place to insure the long-term integrity of the enhancement sufficient to
justify the investment. For the purpose of mitigating for habitat values lost
due to hydroelectric power development, and ensuring enhancement
projects extend the life of the Trust Fund (55 more years), these projects
must be carefully scrutinized, evaluated, and insured against future or
neighboring activities which might have an impact on the enhancement
project. Additionally, some enhancement activities will require operation
and maintenance costs.

Criteria for evaluating enhancement projects will include: a. cost-
effectiveness and/or relative cost in comparison to other projects; b.
operation and maintenance costs; c. expected duration of achieved benefits;
d. potential partnerships; e. value or relationship to existing
wetland/riparian ecosystems; f. condition or trend in neighboring
wetland/riparian ecosystem; g. effect of adjoining land uses on
enhancement activities; h. private versus public lands; and i. in lieu of cost
funding for public agencies. The implementation plans for Hungry Horse
and Libby will show how these criteria will be used for specific project
review.

iv. Protection of the Investment: To replace the habitat values lost due to
hydroelectric power development, riparian/wetland enhancement projects on
private lands should be accompanied by either an interest in the land (i.e.
conservation easement) or a long-term agreement (10-30 years) which has a
reasonable chance of extending through the length of the mitigation
program (55 more years). In cases where 10-20 year leases are undertaken
and not continued, other enhancement or protection projects would be
sought to continue to meet the mitigation objectives over the life of the
hydroelectric projects.

v. Commercial Activities: Habitat Montana is a program recently adopted by
the Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Commission to guide FWP wildlife land
protection programs including habitat protection portions of the mitigation
program. Under current Habitat Montana guidelines, we cannot undertake
any projects which create fee-hunting situations. Commercial activity for

17

fc

Wg^^.

(^

private gain would not be allowed on lands under contract or conservation
easement with FWP.

vi. Impacts to Land Resources: Under circumstances where habitat

enhancement on private lands is accompanied by conservation easement or
long-term agreement, Alternative Four could have a potentially significant
positive impact on land resources. However, if habitat enhancement is
restricted to federal lands, the benefits to land resources in the long run
may be less than what we indicated (Appendix B) because this Alternative
would not address development occurring on private lands along wetlands
and riparian areas.

5. Value of conservation easements versus fee-title acquisition versus enhancement
and appropriate mix of strategies in each project area. (G&T-W6; USFWS-
W17; Young-W24b; IUi-W27; Worthington-W35b; Kaniksu-W36,W37; CSKT-
W40; Mitchell-HIO; McConkey-H17,H21; Fairchild-H24; Young-H51)

a. Specific Comments:

i. "How does this [land policies under Alternative Two] comport with existing
policies of the MDFWP, Power Planning Council, and the Wildlife
Mitigation Advisory Council with regard to the order of preference for
dealing with land issues" (G&T-W6)

ii. "Although no distinction was made between the relative biological value of
conservation easements versus fee title acquisitions, monetary costs were
determined to be $l,000/acre and $2,000/acre, respectively. This implies
that fee-title acquisition (and subsequent wildlife management) may be
twice as valuable biologically as conservation easements". (USFWS-W17).

iii. "The priority of mitigation strategies is acceptable, but land purchase

should be used if needed to meet the objectives. I support land purchase..."
(Young-W24b)

iv. "Key wetlands should be under permanent protection through the
Department ownership". (Dli-W27)

v. "I prefer protection over enhancement. With the purchase in fee title, we
can be assured of habitat improvement over the long haul." (Worthington-
W35b)

vi. "Although your proposed action, Alternative 2, is well intentioned, I
believe it will fall short of the long-term benefits to be realized from
Alternative 3."..." this protection should be extended to as much habitat as
possible"... "the goal more properly should be to acquire as much habitat—
as much ecosystem — as possible..." (Kaniksu-W36)

18

vii. "Alternative 3 will contribute more to the long term success of ecosystem
management in the project areas. I encourage you to consider Alternative 3
as your preferred alternative". (Kaniksu-W37)

viii."We question why habitat enhancement or restoration appears to be less
valuable than habitat protection when enhancement and restoration should
result in a net gain of wetland habitat compared to protection which, at
best, will maintain status quo." (CSKT-W40)

ix. 'long term projects only on private land such as conservation easements are
good but acquisitions are best' (Mitchell-HlO)

x. 'Conservation easements are a good project; short term 5-10 year projects
are not acceptable' (McConkey-H17). 'FWP is deviating from old policies
with this new plan' (McConkey-H21).

xi. 'I support alternative 3 (protection only); land acquisition by FWP and
purchases of conservation easements should be the # 1 priority;
opportunities are passing us by; I do not support alternative # 2 because it
limits land acquisition in Lincoln County' (Fairchild-H24)

xii. I support the preferred alternative (#2)' (Young-H51).

b. FWP Response:

i. Existing Policies Guiding Mitigation Strategies: At the time of the DEIS,
few formal FWP "policies" existed to prioritize wildlife mitigation
strategies. What did exist were the "Mitigation Guidelines" drafted in 1983
by FWP staff to guide development of the first wildlife mitigation plans;
but, this policy was never formally adopted by FWP Commission
(Appendix D); the general NPPC Acquisition of Wildlife Habitat guidelines
(NPPC 1987, p. 133), and various project level criteria used by WMAC
and technical subcommittees. The DEIS alternatives "were designed to
present an array of strategies for public review and input from which
policies and decisions could be formally made.

In fall of 1994, the FWP Commission adopted formal rules outlining FWP
policy for wildlife habitat protection (Habitat Montana) and drafted the
implementation plan. This official policy specifies the preferred use of
conservation easements over fee-title purchase in the overall Habitat
Montana program. Habitat Montana policies and plans now guide the part
of the Riparian/Wetland Conservation Program which involves an interest
in land (e.g. conservation easements and fee-title).

Habitat Montana does not address habitat enhancement activities. The FWP
upland game bird habitat enhancement program is guided by legislation and
resulting FWP rules (see Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment

19

v***

for Upland Game Bird Habitat Enhancement Program, FWP, 1994). The
duck stamp or waterfowl habitat enhancement program is also guided by
legislation and resulting rules.

Therefore, in this FEIS, we established definitions and criteria for
riparian/wetland enhancement activities which respond to public concerns
(see #4 issue above). The habitat enhancement projects which are funded by
the Trust Fund for the Riparian/Wetland Conservation Program will be
guided by this FEIS, the Final Decision, and resulting implementation
plans. The enhancement guidelines in this FEIS are consistent with past and
present FWP habitat related programs. If projects under the
Riparian/Wetland Program are combined with other FWP habitat programs,
then the other programs' policies, rules and guidelines will apply and be
incorporated.

iio WMAC Role: WMAC has been involved throughout this EIS process by
receiving copies of drafts, attending scoping and public hearings, and
having opportunities to comment. WMAC will have the opportunity to
comment on the FEIS at their fall meeting, October 4-5, 1995. WMAC will
provide input into both the Libby and Hungry Horse Riparian/Wetland
Implementation Plans.

iii. Crediting Assumptions: The 2: 1 crediting for conservation easements
compared to fee-title is based on the assumption that lands purchased in fee
would be managed 100% for wildlife values whereas lands under a
conservation easement would include stipulations that allow most existing
land uses to continue. The net gain for wildlife is usually greater with fee-
title than with a conservation easement. The 3: 1 rationale for enhancement
is explained under issue 4.b.ii.

iv„ Relative Value of each Strategy: Clearly, there is a diversity of opinion
about the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of these 3 general strategies: fee-
title, conservation easement, and habitat enhancement. Much of the concern
is due to the fact that in the programmatic DEIS, these approaches or
strategies were generic. However, all 3 tools plus many others are being
successfully used to protect, improve, or mitigate wildlife habitat values by
FWP as well as many other agencies and private interests. The success of
the program will depend on how well these tools are applied to meet the
mitigation goals.

In the DEIS (page 10-11), we proposed various mixes of these tools in the
Alternatives based on public concerns with land acquisition, distance from
impact area, ecosystem approach, and CSKT issues as well as potential
opportunities and cost-effectiveness. Specifically, prioritized strategies
under Alternative Two were:

20

1. Conservation easements (first priority)

2. Purchases of land (if conservation easements are not an option)

3. Enhancement projects on public and private lands with willing and
interested cooperators

UBBY

1. Enhancement projects on public land (high priority)

2. Enhancement projects on private land with willing and interested
cooperators

3. Conservation easements

4. Purchases of land

Since the DEIS was completed, FWP Commission adopted a policy which
prioritizes conservation easement over fee-title; this is consistent with the
DEIS Alternative Two. This prioritization is a reflection of public concern
about government purchasing private lands in Montana, particularly western
Montana.

v. Annual Goals: Under each Alternative in the DEIS, we illustrated how
many acres might be affected each year by setting annual goals (acres)
assuming various percentages of each strategy would be used in the
program (e.g. 50% protection and 50% enhancement for Hungry Horse and
90% enhancement and 10% protection for Libby) with an annual budget of
$250,000.

It is important to remember that the selection of a strategy at the project
level is a function of landowner desires, project objectives, partnerships,
results of negotiations and studies, costs, and many other site-specific
factors. It may not be desirable to set out annual goals in a programmatic
EIS and discover later that the program is unable to meet these goals. It is
conceivable that in any one year, projects using the highest priority strategy
simply may not be available. Or, it may be that over time, use of the
priority strategy is maximized and other opportunities to use that strategy
no longer exist. It is also possible that projects meeting the top strategy are
not cost-effective or addressing the most critical habitat needs identified in
the implementation plans. The wildlife mitigation program has consistently
built in an adaptive management philosophy to enable the program to adapt
to changes over time.

It may be more responsive to program needs to maintain the prioritized
strategies listed under Alternative Two while excluding the annual goals.
This allows for some degree of adaptation to changing conditions and meets
the expressed concerns about strategies.

21

, J

c

c

l^.

6. Issue of where mitigation should occur and achieving objectives within 15-50
miles of reservoirs. (G&T-W7; USFWS-W18; Young-W24; Levandowski-H23;
Bli-W25, W29; Worthington-W34; Windom-H43; McClure-H46; Newton-H48)

a. Specific comments:

i. "Logic would argue that when you increase the number of acres to be dealt
with (enhancement) one may have to increase the distance that would be
allowed from the project areas." (G&T -W7)

ii. "It is unlikely that the enhancement goal of 56, 106 acres of

wetland/riparian areas exist with such a restrictive boundary" (i.e. 15 air
miles under alternative 4). (USFWS-W18)

iii "It is important to use all of Lincoln County for consideration of mitigation
projects and not limit it to some arbitrary distance from Koocanusa
Reservoir or the Kootenai River. I am quite familiar with the
riparian/wetland situation on public lands near Koocanusa Reservoir, and
there probably is not enough to meet the objectives using only public land".
(Young-W24)

iv. '50 mile radius for projects, people want that linkage' (Levandowski-H23)

v. "Mitigation for Hungry Horse Dam should be concentrated in the Flathead
Valley rather than Lake County. The wetland losses are in Flathead
County, not Lake County." (Hli-W29)

vi "Flathead County should have a higher priority than Lake County. How did
Hungry Horse dam affect Lake County?" (Worthington-W34)

vii. 'all mitigation funding from Lincoln County should stay here within 15 air
miles of the reservoir and no where else in the State' (Windom-H43)

viii. 'I want mitigation projects implemented within a 15 mile radius of the
impact area' (McClure-H46)

ix. 'projects should be near the impact area' (Newton-H48)

b. FWP Response:

i. Distance Factors: The 15-mile buffer from the reservoirs was established
for Alternative 4 (p. 17, DEIS) in response to public desires during scoping
to link the mitigation to the area impacted. Establishing county boundaries
for all other Alternatives in the DEIS was also a response to public
comments on recouping benefits to local economies. The 50-mile buffer
from the reservoirs was an important guideline during development of the

22

original wildlife mitigation plans (see Montana's previous draft Mitigation
Policy, Appendix D).

We agree with the public concerns listed above that the acreage objectives
for Alternative Four may not be achievable within some arbitrary distance
from the reservoirs (Fig. 2). For example, given the amount of federal
land, rough terrain, and general lack of riparian/wetland habitat within IS
miles of Lake Koocanusa, a IS mile limitation for this extensive a
mitigation program may be limiting.

We also have a concern about using county as a boundary within which
mitigation would occur. Lincoln County is significantly smaller than
Flathead and Lake Counties combined; yet the mitigation goal for Lake
Koocanusa is nearly twice that of Hungry Horse. Further, using Lake
County as a description lead to confusion over whether it is the county or
the Flathead Indian Reservation or both where projects could take place.
These concerns plus the need to allow for program adaptations in the
future, suggests we outline several prioritized areas to guide
riparian/wetland implementation plans.

One possible ecological approach is to use the subbasin of the reservoir.
However, both Lake Koocanusa and Hungry Horse drain lands primarily in
federal ownership. Even if we expand the area to the entire drainage basin,
we find the Flathead basin is significantly larger than Kootenai basin and
would not be comparable project areas (Fig. 1). Therefore, it appears we
need to tailor the different project area definitions to each hydroelectric
project to make them comparable.

We suggest using a 2 or 3-tiered approach with the first definition of
project area having more value in comparison to second or third project
area descriptions. To reflect distance concerns from Lincoln County, the
first level for Libby would be the 15-mile buffer. Recognizing mitigation
may not be achievable within this distance and valuable projects may occur
outside this area, we suggest the second level comprise a 50-mile buffer
(Fig. 2); this area includes all of the Kootenai drainage and portions of the
lower Clark Fork River basin. The third level for Libby would be the entire
Columbia basin within Montana. This parameter is set by the Settlement
Agreement.

For Hungry Horse, we suggest using the entire Flathead basin as the
primary project area. This region encompasses the entire Flathead Indian
Reservation and is similar in size to Lake and Flathead Counties as
described in the DEIS. The second level would include the entire Columbia
River basin as set by the Settlement Agreement.

23

w

m

HATHBftD

ii

m

11

11111

; itHWiik*

m

ii

liiSS

ill

■t J!

^v-;JlllIl;I-?!$

Mmi

mms

m

i THOMPSON FALLS

HOT I

.PLAINS

MILES

10 13 20

LEWIS1

■fV::.' . ^a Lew.

%V ' AND

- ',. 4.CLAI

Reservation «

jf

s

rwrwi

MO N TANA

c

Within IS miles

Within SO miles - Lake Koocanusa

Within 50 miles - Hungry Horse Reservoir

County Boundary

Indian Reservation Boundary

Figure 2. Potential mitigation project area within 15 and 50 miles of Hungry Horse Reservoir and Lake Koocanusa
and within the Columbia River Basin, Montana.

1A

7. Need for DEIS. (G&T-W14)

a. Specific Comments:

i. "not sure if there is enough substance in the decisions the MDFWP is
contemplating to warrant an EIS at this time. Each wetland-type project
could be evaluated on its own merits to determine the issues involved in
land acquisition and in whether to protect or enhance riparian areas. This
EIS will not likely shield the MDFWP from dealing with land acquisition
issues in the future" (G&T-W14)

b. FWP Response:

The Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) requires agencies to conduct a
systematic and interdisciplinary environmental review for planning and decision-
making for any action which may impact the human environment. (The human
environment encompasses the biological, physical, social, economic, cultural,
and aesthetic factors that interrelate to form the environment) (MEPA Model
Rules n (12)). An impact may be adverse, beneficial, or both (MEPA Model
Rule IV (2)). Considering the nature and extent of the Riparian/Wetland
Conservation Program, the potential effects easily fall within the "may effect"
criteria. FWP believes the MEPA process encourages better and more
responsible decision-making on the part of agencies. This process provides the
interested public the opportunity to participate in the decision.

The programmatic EIS process does not relieve FWP from reviewing the
environmental effects of each habitat protection project. It allows for a broader
evaluation of Program level effects not easily identifiable with individual
projects. During project implementation, each project will need to go through an
environmental review process to identify potential impacts. If significant impacts
are found, they will need to be disclosed via an EA or EIS process. The impact
discussions can refer or tier from this Programmatic EIS to reduce duplication.
An example of a environmental review checklist designed to reveal potential
impacts is attached (Appendix E).

8. Cumulative effects; impacts of other land protection programs on the
environment. (G&T-W1; Worthington-W35a; Jewell-H36)

a. Specific Comments:

i. "Cumulative impacts... by all of these [e.g. federal agencies] need to be
examined in order to determine whether the proposed actions by [FWP] are
appropriate in that context"... "The public needs to know how wetlands are
now being dealt with by all parties, and the need for additional action by
the State. It is suggested you carefully review guidelines for preparing a
programmatic EIS and revise the document accordingly." (G&T-W1)

■*J

25

ii. "Can the mitigation money be combined with say, 526 funds, to come up
with payment for some really ideal and excellent projects?" (Worthington-
W35a).

iii, 'I think that there are secondary and cumulative impacts' (Jewell-H36)

b. FWP Response:

Under MEPA (Model Rules II (7)) cumulative impact "means the collective
impacts on the human environment of the proposed action when considered in
conjunction with other past and present actions related to the proposed action by
location or generic type. Related future actions must also be considered when
these actions are under concurrent consideration by any state agency through
pre-impact statement studies, separate impact statement evaluation, or permit
processing procedures."

MEPA (Model Rules V 3d and 3e) requires an evaluation of the "impacts,
including cumulative and secondary impacts, on the physical environment"... and
..."on the human population in the area to be affected by the proposed action".

In essence, FWP must consider the cumulative impacts that other habitat
protection programs have had in the past and those in which we or another
state agency are likely to be participate in the future. The following are the
potential programs which might cause cumulative effects and our responses:

i. Kerr Mitigation: Although FWP has been part of the mitigation planning
and EIS review for the Federal Regulatory Agency's (FERC) relicensing of
Kerr Dam, we are not part of the decision-making process. At present, the
mitigation plan is going though its own EIS process. The Kerr mitigation
program may call for fee-title or conservation easements on riparian or
wetlands within the Flathead Valley as well as enhancements on existing
wetlands. If both Kerr and Hungry Horse mitigation programs focus within
the Flathead valley north of Flathead Lake, there may be cumulative effects
both on the physical and social-economic environments. The environmental
effects would include maintenance or improvements in wildlife habitat
quality, water and air quality, habitats for threatened and endangered
species, and biodiversity. The social-economic effects may be the long-term
preclusion of development rights around wetland and riparian areas. The
combined effects of Hungry Horse and Kerr may affect 3,000 to 5,000
acres under conservation easement or fee-title within the Flathead Valley
both north and south of Flathead Lake.

ii. Habitat Montana (HB 526 funds): The FWP Commission makes the final
decisions regarding land issues for Habitat Montana, a program which
outlines agency review and approval processes for all Department wildlife
habitat conservation efforts including the BPA Wildlife Mitigation Trust
fund. Habitat Montana also includes projects derived from ear-marked

26

general hunting license dollars (HB 526 program) and moose, sheep, and
goat auction funds. The HB 526 funds provide approximately $2 to $2.5
million each year to protect wildlife habitat; some of these funds are likely
to protect additional wildlife habitat in northwest Montana and could be
used in combination with BPA Trust funds.

iii. Highway Mitigation: For wetlands impacted by state highway projects, the
Montana Department of Highways usually looks for projects adjacent to or
near the areas impacted. For the highway 35 expansion in the Flathead
Valley, 3 acres of wetlands will still require mitigation in the future.
Another 6-10 acres will be impacted by Highway 93 expansion between
Somers and Whitefish (Shelley, pers. comm. 1995). The Highway
Department uses mitigation banking which is the establishing wetland
credits through enhancement or protection projects as a tool to address the
cumulative impacts of highway construction. When suitable mitigation
projects to replace the expected 9-13 acres of impacted wetland are
developed, the Highway Department will then contribute the necessary
funds to complete the mitigation projects. The highway mitigation projects
may be undertaken in conjunction with Kerr or Hungry Horse
Riparian/Wetland Conservation programs or they may be independent. In
either case, there may be an additional cumulative impact of the Highway
wetland mitigation program; the impacts would be similar to those
described for the Kerr mitigation program in i. above.

iv. Cumulative Effect: The above programs could be used in combination with
the Riparian/Wetland Conservation Program and cumulatively impact land
use in the affected counties. This impact was described as being greatest for
Alternative Three (protection only) in the DEIS (page 57, paragraph 4)
because of the increased number of acres affected. All effects of the
Riparian/Wetland Conservation Program both adverse and beneficial will be
additive to the effects of these other programs.

Insufficient discussion of Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT)
participation in previous mitigation planning; no clear justification for program
participation; concern with future process (e.g. cultural concerns, project
identification, implementation, cost-sharing (CSKT-
W37,W38,W39,W41,W46,W48; Mitchell-H8)

a. Specific comments:

i. "In reference to this map (map of northwest Montana), we request that the
map of the Flathead Indian Reservation also be added to the current map".
(CSKT-W37)

ii. "no specific mention of review and participation in project planning efforts
by Indian tribes, which is an integral component of Columbia river
hydroelectric mitigation procedures. (CSKT-W38)

27

\m*^

c

iii. "it should be noted that the Tribes wish to consult on proposed projects
outside of the boundaries of the Flathead Indian Reservation due to the
Tribes' reserved rights under the Treaty of Hellgate for the use of usual
and accustomed areas in aboriginal territory and due to the potential for
disruption of cultural sites." (CSKT-W39)

iv. "...we wish to inquire what the Department views as the practical definition
of the term "lead agency"... who would hold title to acquired mitigation
lands and ...oversee easements? ...To implement the relationship between
the Tribes and the Department anticipated, a Memorandum of Agreement
will probably be required (CSKT-W41).

v. "...discussion needs to include the need to actively involve the Tribes'
Kootenai and Salish Culture Committees in reviews of any plans that
involve cultural sites, both on an off the Reservation." (CSKT-W46)

vi "On pages 54 through 68, the document [DEIS] analyzes impacts of
wetland mitigation projects in the various counties. We find it disturbing
that no similar analysis is developed for the Reservation." (CSKT-W48)

vii. 'defer to CSKT as lead agency on their lands' (Mitchell-H8)

b. FWP Response:

i. CSKT Participation in Mitigation Planning: Both Libby and Hungry
Horse hydroelectric projects significantly impacted aboriginal hunting and
religious grounds for the CSKT. Due to that fact, The DEIS should have
included a clearer description of CSKT role in developing the wildlife
mitigation program for the 2 hydroelectric projects. We revised the project
area map to include the exterior boundaries of the Flathead Indian
Reservation (Fig. 1).

During the 1980's, the CSKT staff joined other agencies and public
interests in estimating habitat losses and designing the wildlife mitigation
projects. Once the plans were incorporated into the NPPC's fish and
wildlife program, FWP then entered into negotiations directly with BPA to
set up the Trust Fund; the CSKT did not enter into a separate negotiation
with the understanding our program would continue to reflect CSKT
interests. The CSKT comments make it clear they want to continue to
actively participate in the implementation phase of the Riparian/Wetland
Conservation Program. We fully anticipate their continued participation as
members of WMAC and the Riparian/Wetland Conservation Committee
which both provide input on program direction and review of individual
projects.

28

The CSKT have recognized that riparian/wetland conservation projects
which help conserve the wildlife habitat base in northwest Montana,
particularly those projects. which benefit culturally important wildlife
species, are desirable. In addition, the tribes have indicated that projects
within the Swan valley and on the Flathead Indian Reservation which
increase or help to maintain the value of remaining linkage or travel
corridors between the Swan Mountains and Mission Mountains will also
benefit wildlife populations within the Flathead Indian Reservation and
adjoining lands. These interests will be incorporated into the
implementation planning process as project areas, criteria, and strategies
are prioritized.

ii. Lead Agency Agreement: FWP considers the CSKT as the lead agency for
identifying, developing, proposing, and implementing riparian and wetland
conservation projects within the exterior boundaries of the Flathead Indian
Reservation. Questions about ultimate ownership of title or conservation
easement is not resolved at this time. These issues could be achieved via a
formal agreement such as a Memorandum of Understanding.

iii. CSKT Cultural Concerns: FWP environmental review process will
include both cultural and historical site reviews by the CSKT culture
committees for projects both on and off the Reservation. Their participation
at both the individual project level and overall program direction should
provide for their opportunity to review all mitigation actions as CSKT
deems appropriate.

10. Socio-economic impact analyses of Alternatives. (G&T-W13,W15; CSKT-W48;
Mitchell-Hll; McConkey-H19; Jewell-H34; Windom-H41, H42; McClure-H47;
Truman-H52)

a. Specific Comments.

i. "Management agencies such as the MDFWP... must look ahead and

anticipate the highest and best use for lands. In the case of privately-owned
riparian areas in western Montana, they are extremely desirable for
attractive homesites. Any actions by MDFWP to prohibit construction of
such homes in riparian areas will definitely affect the tax future of the
affected counties. " (G&T-W13)

ii. "One activity which could find acceptance with Lincoln County residents is
to exchange land rather than outright purchase." (G&T-W15)

iii. "There seems to be a need to also evaluate the effects of habitat

preservation on the quality of life of each area. Current economic analyses
seem to indicate that quality of life factors are often as important as
economic factors" (CSKT-W48)

29

iv. TILT (payment in lieu of taxes) is for real property taxes only; real
property taxes are only a small part of private farm expenditures
(machinery, inventory, income taxes); FWP does not consider the above in
a socioeconomic analysis' (McConkey-H19)

v. 'alternative # 4 (enhancement only) potentially affects 55 sections of land in
Lincoln County so their would be an economic impact' (Jewell-H34)

vi. 'PILT is not sufficient (does not look at potential for future development
of that land' (Windom-H42)

vii. 'I support alternative # 2; alternative # 2 does not have any negative
economic impacts on northwest Montana (Mitchell-Hll)

viii. 'support alternative # 4; no private land acquisition from a rapidly eroding
tax base in Lincoln County' (Windom-H41)

ix. 'do not take any more property out of the tax rolls in Lincoln County;
enhance land in public ownership or already in control of the state'
(McClure-H47)

x. 'land acquisition will result in the taxable value of the land decreasing'
(Truman-H52)

b. FWP Response:

i. Fee-title: We acknowledge that use of fee-title purchase could result in
greater impacts to land uses and existing or future tax base because it may
alter existing land use on that property. On page 64 and 67 in the DEIS, we
stated: "Due to the lack of future improvements on acquired lands, property
taxes may be reduced slightly on some wetland and riparian habitat
mitigation projects". However, for fee acquisitions, the Department would
pay in lieu of tax payments (PILT) which partially offsets lost tax revenues.

ii. Conservation Easements: Because conservation easements keep land in
private ownership and usually maintain current land uses, use of this tool
often helps to maintain current tax base. Use of conservation easements
could, however, preclude future tax income to local communities depending
on future land use changes.

iii. Enhancement Activities: Enhancement activities on public land should
have no significant impact on existing land uses or tax base. Enhancement
activities on private lands when accompanied by conservation easements
will result in impacts described above under conservation easements. When
accompanied by a lease or agreement, the impacts of enhancement projects
could be similar to the conservation easement but only for the lease

30

duration. Direct expenditures for enhancement activities should also have a
positive economic effect.

iv. Land Exchanges: If Riparian/Wetland Conservation projects entail land
exchanges which do not affect net amount of private or public land within
a county, then the community impacts might be negligible. This is a viable
strategy which may maintain current private land base, be responsive to
social-economic impact issues. We have included land exchanges as a
strategy in the Preferred Alternative (Section IV).

v. Comparison of Alternatives and Community Impacts: The impact to
existing land use and tax base would be greatest under the Protection Only
Alternative (Alternative Three) and Alternative One (Status Quo) both of
which use fee-title within the protection strategy. Alternative One would
only impact Flathead and Lake Counties and not Lincoln County. The
impacts under Alternative Four, enhancement on both public and private
lands, will be proportional to the amount and nature of the land which is
enhanced but accompanied by a conservation easement. In general, the
impacts of Alternative Four to land uses and taxes will be the least.

The impact of Alternative Two in the Hungry Horse project would be
intermediate between Alternative Three (Protection Only) or One (Status
Quo) and Alternative Four (Enhancement Only) because it proposes to use
an even mix of protection and enhancement tools. For the Libby, project
area, the impacts of Alternative Two to local land use and tax base would
be closer to Alternative Four because Alternative Two proposes 90%
enhancement and mostly on public lands.

In general, the benefits of conserving the integrity of riparian/wetland
habitat can outweigh the land use and local tax impacts, particularly where
the local tax and land use impacts are minimized. Some of the benefits
include maintenance of the existing quality of life for residents,
maintenance of community income generated from amenity-related
recreation such as floating, hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, aesthetics;
benefits to the community of clean water and clean air; and possibly
benefits of lower tax rates, particularly where population pressures tend to
increase property taxes (American Farmland Trust 1992 and 1993).

vi. Community Imparts of Preferred Alternative: The Preferred
Alternative could have the same or slightly greater negative impact on local
land uses and tax base in Lincoln County than the original proposed
Alternative Two. The Preferred Alternative prioritizes all strategies
similarly to Alternative Two with habitat enhancement first. However, we
do expect that under the Preferred Alternative enhancement on public lands
would be less than 90% therefore increasing the percentage of projects on
private lands.

31

c

The land use and tax base impacts for Flathead County would probably be
the same as described in the DEIS Alternative Two because of the
similarity in strategies and priorities.

All proposed projects whether a simple enhancement or land purchase must
go through the Environmental Assessment process during which the socio-
economic impacts are disclosed and evaluated. All potentially affected
parties are encouraged to provide information and concerns during this
decision-making process.

W

32

\^

section m

SUMMARY OF MAJOR CONCLUSIONS

A. PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVES

1. Direct Effects:

All of the considered alternatives would result in a positive direct benefit to the
physical and biological environment through the long-term conservation of
wetland/riparian habitat values at specific project areas. Such values of
riparian/wetlands include maintaining air quality, water quality, healthy
riparian/wetland vegetation, fish and wildlife resources, biodiversity, threatened and
endangered species habitat, and functional riparian/wetland ecosystems (Appendix
B). The expected benefits may be greater for Alternatives One, Two, and Three than
Alternative Four if Alternative Four were to focus on enhancement on public lands
and not address resources on private lands.

2. Secondary and Cumulative Effects:

In the DEIS, we assumed the alternatives would have no effect on air quality; in
retrospect, we believe there may be a net cumulative positive effect on air quality
where conservation strategies preclude subdivision or other developments. This was
not an issue raised by the public. In addition, the cumulative impacts of all the
alternatives (except Alternative One in Lincoln County) to the physical and biological
environment would be significantly positive. The cumulative impact on biodiversity
and threatened and endangered species habitat would be more positive if currently
rare habitats are considered during implementation. Appendix B contains summary
table of physical and biological impacts described in the DEIS.

B. SOCIAL-ECONOMIC EFFECTS

1. Direct Effects:

All alternatives including the modified proposed Alternative 2 would have both
positive and negative effects on the social environment of the region where
implementation occurs (Summary Table, Appendix B). Because Alternative One does
not include Lincoln County, this alternative would not generate any social or
economic benefit or impact to this area.

a. Positive Effects: Positive economic benefits from Alternatives Two (including
Modified Two), Three and Four would include an increase or maintenance of
outdoor recreation or amenity based economies such as wildlife viewing,
tourism, science education, or hunting; maintenance of existing land uses and
open space; aesthetics; assistance in maintaining water and air quality; provision
of incentives that help counties and local communities direct development to less

33

sensitive areas; and maintenance of local property tax rates which might
otherwise increase to provide community services to rural communities
experiencing population growth.

In light of the rapid rate of subdivision and development which is occurring in
northwest Montana, Alternatives One, Two, and Three would increase aesthetic
and recreation values within the local communities because a portion of the
riparian/wetland habitat base would be conserved through conservation
easements, fee-title purchase, or long-term leases (enhancement). Alternative
Four, enhancement only, would use enhancement on public land over
enhancement activities on private land. Therefore, Alternative 4 would result in
fewer expected benefits to the overall community because this option ignores
ongoing development along private riparian/wetlands. Where Alternative Four
includes a long-term lease or conservation easement on private land, the
community will see the economic and social benefit described above.

Potential long-term benefits to private landowners within or adjacent to
riparian/wetland conservation projects include a possible increase in land values
by owning land adjacent to perpetual open space and wildlife habitat; possible
inheritance and income tax benefits for rural agricultural or timber landowners;
financial compensation to landowners who decide to sell development rights or
restore/enhance riparian/wetland values, thus precluding the potential for lost
land value through zoning or other government regulations that could limit
development. These types of benefits were not included in the DEIS and will
also occur under the modified Alternative Two.

b. Negative Effects: Negative effects could occur to land use and the tax base, the
degree depends on the Alternative. We acknowledge that the use of conservation
easements under Alternatives Two and Three may preclude the future
development of some lands to their "highest and best use" and that this may
preclude future tax revenues (DEIS pg 64). Under the modified Alternative
Two, conservation easements may be used more than under the original
Alternative Two and may result in slightly greater potential negative impacts to
future land uses and tax bases.

Some members of the public felt quality-of-life issues were equally important as
other social-economic issues such as tax base or land use. We believe these
values will be enhanced by those alternatives which help to maintain existing
land uses and values without changing actual land ownership patterns through
the use of conservation easements (Alternatives Two, modified Two, and
Three).

2. Secondary and Cumulative Effects:

Under Alternative One (Status Quo) and Three (Protection Only), the use of
conservation easements and fee-title acquisitions would potentially have the greatest

34

cumulative negative impact on local land uses and tax base (Appendix B). The
impacts of Alternative Two and the Preferred Alternative would be somewhat less.

The cumulative effects of any alternative of the Riparian/Wetland Conservation
Program on local communities, land use, and taxes would be additive to other
mitigation or habitat protection programs occurring within the same area (i.e. Ken-
mitigation, Highway mitigation etc.).

C. OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES RAISED BY THE PUBLIC

1. Scope of the DEIS Decisions:

The scope of the decisions to be made through the programmatic EIS process was
not as clearly stated as it should have been in the DEIS. The riparian/wetland
conservation Program is an extension and modification of existing programs already
authorized under by the NPPC. The strategy to achieve riparian/wetland mitigation is
the chief substantive issue addressed by the alternatives in the DEIS. Other
substantive issues include modifications in the total mitigation objectives (acreage),
and the definition of project areas.

a. Riparian/Wetland Conservation Strategies: The primary substantive issue
which is being decided through this EIS process is the approach or the method
of habitat conservation to be emphasized by this program. Considered
alternatives included fee-title, conservation easements and enhancement projects.

b. Mitigation Objectives (Acres): Another proposed change in the existing
wildlife mitigation program is to use mitigation objectives based on
riparian/wetland habitats lost at the 2 hydroelectric projects (Table 1) rather than
acres based on target species acres (i.e. waterfowl, black bear/grizzly bear).
That change has resulted in an increase in overall acreage to be mitigated by
5,755-7,283 acres (hydropower allocated to 100% mitigation) as well as a re-
distribution of these objectives back to the reservoirs project areas. (Note: the
upland habitats within the black bear/grizzly bear program have been excluded
from Alternatives Two - Four and are part of an ongoing program). Under all
Alternatives excluding Status Quo, Libby mitigation objectives will take place
closer to Libby dam and not in the Flathead valley.

c. Hydropower Allocation and Mitigation Objectives: Public comments on both
the scope of decisions to be made and program achievability (see below) raised
the issue of the hydropower allocation of the responsibility to pay for
mitigation. The Trust Fund was set up fund mitigation for that portion of the
impacts attributable to the hydroelectric power interests (which did not include
irrigation and flood control). The NPPC and BPA arrived at the conclusion that
hydroelectric power interests are responsible for 76% of Hungry Horse and
79% of Libby dam's wildlife impacts. The objectives used for riparian/wetland
conservation in the DEIS represent 100% of the losses rather than a hydropower
allocated proportion. Although we maintain the goal of mitigating 100% of the

35

losses, we recognize the Trust Fund is not set up for that purpose and may not
be sufficient to do so.

d. Mitigation Project Areas/Distance Factors: This issue was a concern during
development of the DEIS and was a substantive issue raised by DEIS comments.
Using a distance or identifying counties within which riparian/wetland mitigation
must occur would result in lopsided project areas for the 2 hydroelectric
projects. Further, this approach does not address the need to set some guidelines
which will meet the mitigation goals but be not too restrictive during
implementation. In response to these concerns, we propose to define 3
prioritized project areas or levels for Libby dam and 2 project areas for Hungry
Horse. The reasons for the differences in definitions of each level between the 2
hydroelectric projects is to make the area at each level more similar between
hydroelectric projects and to respond to public concerns.

For Hungry Horse, project area levels would be defined as within: 1. Flathead
River drainage area; 2. Columbia River basin, Montana. For Libby the priority
areas would be within: 1. IS miles of Lake Koocanusa; 2. 50 miles of Lake
Koocanusa (includes all Kootenai River drainage plus portions of Clark Fork
River; 3. Columbia River basin, Montana.

2. Program Achievability, Budget, and Time-Frame

The analysis we completed on these issues (Table 2) shows that the existing funding
structure may not be sufficient to achieve Alternatives Two-Four program objectives;
the best scenario was to spend all available principal and interest on Alternative One
over 25 years (with 3% land interest rates) to achieve 94% of the objectives. These
same funds would achieve 57% of objectives for Alternatives Two-Four. Therefore,
this program may need to leverage available funds, undertake joint projects, cost-
share to the fullest extent possible without sacrificing quality projects, and look for
other creative means to extend the available funds to reach habitat objectives. We
recognize that 100% mitigation may not be achievable.

The decision on how much Trust Fund money should be spent on the
Riparian/Wetland Conservation Program or other wildlife mitigation programs was
not within the scope of the EIS process. The Department will address this issue
during the next 5 year wildlife mitigation program evaluation process (beginning in
1996). The DEIS assumed the annual budget to be approximately $250,000/year.
The assumption is that at least this amount will be available to implement the
Riparian/Wetland Conservation Program until any more program level evaluations
take place.

3. Concerns Related to Strategies

a. Priority Strategies/Mix of Strategies: The DEIS discusses 3 major strategies to
replace habitat values lost due to hydroelectric power development: fee-title
purchase, conservation easements, and enhancement activities. Land exchange

36

■>- -.

was not a tool specifically mentioned in the DEIS but is another strategy which
could be used to maintain current private land base while benefitting
riparian/wetlands. It could be viewed as a variation of the fee-title strategy as it
redistributes land ownership patterns.

We also recognize that the annual goals used in the DEIS to show how the
program may be implemented could be constraining during program
implementation. To provide adaptability in this program over time and because
projects are dependent on many external factors, we suggest maintaining the
priority ranking similar to that proposed in the DEIS and listed in the Preferred
Alternative (Section IV).

The strategies outlined in the Preferred Alternative are similar to those proposed
under Alternative Two. In response to cost, time-frame, and protection versus
enhancement issues, we have expanded and clarified these strategies under the
Preferred Alternative. For example, we put fee-title acquisition as a low priority
for Libby but suggested a higher priority for fee-title acquisitions from willing
landowners with the goal of placing a conservation easement on the property
and then returning that property to the private market.

Another way to implement a conservation easement might be to provide
incentives to landowners through loans or administrative support to donors.
These tools can used in combination with private land trusts to further expand
strategies. The Preferred Alternative allows for development of this flexibility.

be Fee-title: Because northwest Montana has a large federal and state land base in
comparison to private land, there is a major public sentiment against
government purchase of private land to achieve mitigation. This sentiment was
clearly reflected in the public comment, particularly in Lincoln County.
Additionally, the adopted policy of Habitat Montana reflects this concern and
has put other tools such as conservation easements above fee-title. However,
fee-title may be the only option available. Other versions for fee-title include
bargain sales and donations. Fee-title transfer to a conservation program may be
the only acceptable choice for some landowners. Under bargain sales or
donation projects, fee-title transfer is clean and cost-effective. The land could be
returned to private market after placement of a conservation easement on that
property. Fee-title acquisition may be a desirable strategy when other values
such as recreation, access, viewing, or open space are driving forces. In this
situation, the project could be cost-shared with other partners.

For these reasons, we conclude that fee-title acquisitions (not necessarily
purchases) will be an available option for in the Riparian/Wetland Conservation
Program at both project areas. However, fee-title purchases would be the lowest
priority for Libby. Fee-title acquisitions could be considered a higher priority at
Libby if the purpose is to temporarily hold a property with significant habitat
values until a conservation easement can be placed on that land; the land would

37

then be traded back to the private sector or sold in exchange for conservation
easements on other riparian/wetland habitats.

c. Conservation Easements; The conservation easement is a very useful tool
which can be customized for each landowner, keeps land in private ownership,
maintains current land uses and tax base, and usually has more public support.
Conservation easements can be donated, cost-shared or purchased. There is a
network of agencies and non-profit organizations using this tool extensively,
primarily through donations, who could be potential partners or assist us in our
use of this tool. Conservation easements are a tool which can help a community
or neighborhood implement its own land use plan. Disadvantages of the
conservation easement include relatively high up-front administrative costs, the
potential for community impacts (e.g. loss of future taxes derived from future
"highest and best" use); annual monitoring costs; and potential violation costs.
There may be some risk to definition of perpetuity by the courts.

Because the public concern about eroding private land base and potential social
impacts of for fee-tide acquisition, conservation easements will continue to be a
higher priority strategy than fee-tide for both project areas. Because the tool can
be used to complement planning efforts at the neighborhood level, we would
coordinate our activities with local or county planning organizations to cooperate
in their land use planning efforts for protection of riparian/wetlands as they so
desire.

d. Enhancement Activities: Enhancement activities can occur on private or public
lands; can cover a variety of habitat manipulations ranging from inexpensive
fences to expensive dikes and water control structures; they may require no
maintenance or require a high level of operation and maintenance cost; they can
also be managed by lease, easement, or by another organization. Because of the
wide range of enhancement activity types, FWP believes we should consider this
strategy as a high priority if these projects meet certain criteria. Based on issues
raised to the DEIS, we recommend the following general criteria which can be
expanded upon in the implementation plans.

i. Cost-effectiveness: This includes planning, implementation, and operation
and maintenance costs; the potential for cost-sharing with partners; and the
amount of mitigation which would be achieved.

ii. In lieu of Funding: Consistent with the NPPC's guidelines for mitigation,
projects funded by the Trust Fund must be in addition to existing or
mandated expenditures of federal or state agencies. Thus, all enhancement
projects on public lands must be considered beyond existing activities or
responsibilities of these agencies.

Hi. Duration of Expected Benefits: An enhancement project on private or
possibly state school trust lands should be accompanied by an interest in the
land (i.e. conservation easement) or by relatively long-term lease (10-30

38

s^^^

I

years) with a good chance or incentive for renewal. For federal lands, the
expected duration would be the same as for the Trust Fund. Mitigation
benefits would be pro-rated according the length of the protection
agreement

iv. Ecological Considerations: These criteria include project size, location
with respect to other protected riparian/wetland habitats or other mitigation
projects; habitat types created and/or affected; rare plants or communities;
activities on surrounding lands (i.e. subdivision).

e. Land Exchanges: This strategy is essentially a type of fee-title strategy which
can be used with 2 or more landowners as a means to protect or enhance
riparian/wetlands. The land exchange could result in the same amount of public
and private land; the exchange simply modifies the pattern. Large land
exchanges often take years to implement; planning costs are relatively high.
However, many landowners are interested in trading out of wetland/riparian
lands as a means to acquire timber, agricultural, or recreational lands
somewhere else. This is a tool that needs to be included because it has the
potential to meet private landowner, community, and well as the
Riparian/Wetland Conservation Program needs.

4. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribal Issues

The potential project areas consisting of tiered levels for both Hungry Horse and
Libby include all of the aboriginal hunting grounds of the CSKT in Montana as well
as the entire Flathead Indian Reservation (most of which is within the Flathead River
drainage). The state will meet with the tribal government to clarify the definition of
lead agency and ultimate ownership and responsibilities for riparian/wetland
conservation projects within the exterior boundaries of the Flathead Indian
Reservation; to determine how the state and tribes will coordinate program and
project activities and how we will address cultural and other concerns during
implementation. Some type of agreement may be necessary to outline policies and
procedures.

i^,

39

W*

\oy«W

SECTION IV
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

This Preferred Alternative is modified from the DEIS Alternative Two by restating habitat
goals and objectives, clarifying potential project areas, and modifying the priority strategies
for both Hungry Horse and Libby. Because of differences in objectives and strategies
between Hungry Horse and Libby, we separated the Alternative into 2 project areas.

HUNGRY HORSE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

A. GOAL

TO FULLY REPLACE THE RIPARIAN AND WETLAND HABITAT VALUES LOST
AT HUNGRY HORSE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT BY:

1. Conserving significant intact riparian and wetland communities which best represent
those habitat values lost and/or,

2. Conserving significant rare, unique, or productive riparian or wetland communities
which might otherwise be lost from the ecosystem.

B. OBJECTIVES

Conserve 5,303 (hydropower allocated) to 6,978 (100% goal) acres of riparian/wetland
habitat within: 15 miles of Hungry Horse Reservoir or within the Flathead River basin,
or within the Columbia River basin, Montana.

Co PRIORITIZED STRATEGIES

The following strategies are proposed in priority order as a guideline for developing the
implementation plans for Hungry Horse. During actual implementation, the type and
nature of projects is dependent on what is available at a certain time and place.

1. Conservation easement acquisition through donation, cost-share, partial purchase, or
outright purchase with willing landowners.

2. Fee-title purchase with placement of conservation easement and return to private
sector if a conservation easement is not an option.

3. Fee-title acquisitions from willing landowners through bargain sale, donation,
partnerships, direct purchase.

40

4. Long-term riparian/wetland habitat enhancement activities on private, corporate,
county, or state lands or on federal lands (i.e. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or
Forest Service) which is clearly over and above their current budget and
management responsibility.

5. Land exchanges with federal, state, corporate entities which result in protection or
enhancement of riparian/wetlands.

D. RATIONALE

The public has clearly stated that to mitigate for Hungry Horse, habitat protection
strategies are preferable over habitat enhancement. This is due in part to increasing
human population and the subdivision of lands adjacent to riparian/wetland areas in the
Flathead. The priority strategy, conservation easement acquisition, is consistent with
existing FWP policies guiding habitat protection and the priorities listed under Alternative
Two. It is an approach which can be used to meet public concerns about loss of private
land base and program needs. The second priority, fee-title with return to private sector,
is a means to acquire a conservation easement on a property which is for sale. The third
priority, fee-title acquisition, is retained to meet public desire for protection of other
values in addition to habitat. This strategy would be used if conservation easements were
not an option. To purchase property using this program, high values along with
partnerships or below-cost factors must be present. The fourth priority, habitat
enhancement can often be used in conjunction with the other strategies. Large
enhancement projects often require a land interest because they may affect existing land
uses. Small enhancement projects may be a means to improve habitat and build
relationships with landowners. Enhancement would be pursued as a complement to other
strategies. Because of the complexity with land exchanges, this strategy was placed last.
However, it may be an important option in some circumstances.

E. PROJECT AREA DEFINITION

The primary project area is the entire Flathead River drainage basin. The second level is
the Columbia basin of Montana as established by the Settlement Agreement.

41

c

LTBBY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

A. GOAL

TO FULLY REPLACE THE RIPARIAN AND WETLAND HABITAT VALUES LOST
AT HUNGRY HORSE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT BY:

1. Conserving significant intact riparian and wetland communities which best represent
those habitat values lost and/or,

2. Conserving significant rare, unique, or productive riparian or wetland communities
which might otherwise be lost from the ecosystem.

B. OBJECTIVES

Conserve 9,261 (hydropower allocated) to 11,724 (100% goal) acres of riparian/wetland
habitat within: 1. IS miles of Lake Koocanusa; 2. SO miles of Lake Koocanusa; 3.
Columbia River basin, Montana.

C. PRIORITIZED STRATEGIES

1. Long-term riparian/wetland habitat enhancement activities on private, corporate,
county, or state lands or on federal lands (i.e. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or
Forest Service) which is clearly over and above their current budget and
management responsibility

2. Conservation easement acquisition through donation, cost-share, partial purchase, or
outright purchase with willing landowners

3. Fee-title purchase with placement of conservation easement and return to private
sector when conservation easements are not an option.

4. Land exchanges with federal, state, corporate entities which result in protection or
enhancement of riparian/wetlands.

5. Fee-title acquisitions from willing landowners through bargain sale, donation,
partnerships, or direct purchase.

D. RATIONALE

Selection of habitat enhancement activities on public and private lands were the preferred
over other strategies by the public from Lincoln County. These 2 strategies were also the
top 2 priorities listed under Alternative Two in the DEIS. The "in lieu of funding"
stipulation is as a reflection of the NPPC program guidelines for mitigation programs.
The "in lieu of funding" issue can make it difficult to implement habitat enhancement on
public lands; therefore, enhancement on both private and public lands were included in
the first strategy. The second and third strategies include the use of the conservation

42

easements from willing or selling landowners. Conservation easements were third under
Alternative Two. The fourth strategy includes land exchanges which result in no loss of
private land base as a alternative means to achieve mitigation. Fee-title acquisitions are
the lowest priority which is consistent with Alternative Two.

£. PROJECT AREAS

The primary project area is within 15 miles of Lake Koocanusa. The secondary project
area is within 50 miles of Lake Koocanusa. The third level is the Columbia basin of
Montana as established by the Settlement Agreement.

■* *

43

\^^-

SECTION V
REFERENCES

American Farmland Trust. 1992. Dews Farmland Protection Pay? The Cost of Community
Services in Three Massachusetts Towns. Submitted to the Massachusetts Department of
Food & Agriculture by the American Farmland Trust, Northeastern Office.

1993. The Cost of Community Services in Madison Village and

Township Lake County, Ohio. American Farmland Trust, Northeastern Office.
Northhampton, Mass.

Bissell, G.N. and C.A. Yde. 1985. Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Plan for Hungry
Horse Hydroelectric Project (Revised). MDFWP, USDE, BPA. Project 83-464. 46pp.

Casey, D., C.A. Yde and A.O. Olsen. 1984. Wildlife Impact Assessment and Mitigation
Summary. Montana Hydroelectric projects Volume HI - Hungry Horse Dam. MDFWP-
USDE BPA. Final Report Project 83-464. 66pp.

Montana Audubon Council, 1993. Protecting Montana's Wetlands: An Overview of
Montana's Section 404 Program. A report by the Montana Audubon Council. Helena,
MT.

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 1994. Draft Programmatic Environmental
Assessment. Upland Game Bird Habitat Enhancement Program.

Mundinger, J. and C. Yde, 1985. Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Plan for Libby
Hydroelectric Project. USDE, BPA Project 83-464. Completion Report. 50pp.

Northwest Power Planning Council, 1987. Columbia River Fish and Wildlife Program
Amended February 11, 1987. Portland, Oregon.

Yde, C. A. and A.O. Olsen. 1984. Wildlife impact assessment and mitigation summary.
Montana Hydroelectric Projects Volume I - Libby Dam. MDFWP - -USDE BPA. Final
Report Project 83-464. 91pp.

44

APPENDIX A

FWP Response to All Other DEIS Comments

'l.

APPENDIX A

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN AND PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS WHICH WERE NOT
ADDRESSED ELSEWHERE IN THE FEIS

1. Concerns voiced about farmland.

a. Specific Comments:

i. 'you cannot forget about the farmers; 485,000 acres out of 3 million belong to
fanners'(Van Rinsum-Hl)

ii. 'you did not acknowledge the farmers in your plan; valley floor is held by
farmers' (McConkey- H16)

iii. T think that there is no problem with wetland acquisition projects; buying

wetlands will not decrease the economic value of a farm because most wetland
areas are not the productive areas or are undevelopable anyway; farmers may
increase the value of their farms through FWP wetland projects' (Kuhl-H29)

iv. 'land acquisition will result in the taxable value of the land decreasing;
converting farmland to non farm land will lower the taxable value of the land;
I think there is an impact on taxes' (Truman-H52)

b. FWP Response:

We recognize the agricultural industry serves a vital role in northwest Montana (e.g
17.6% of Flathead County is in rural private ownership and agricultural lands provide
county tax income; pp. 26-29 DEIS). We also appreciate the value agricultural lands
provide to wildlife, particularly where these lands contain quality riparian and wetland
habitats. We also appreciate the values resulting from efforts of the agricultural
community to keep their lands in production rather than in subdivision.

The riparian/wetland conservation program is designed to work with willing landowners
who want to conserve wildlife values, particularly the riparian/wetland values of their
lands as a means of replacing habitats lost due to hydroelectric power development. The
available tools can all be tailored to meet the individual landowners needs so that both
the landowner and wildlife benefit in the end.

The primary strategies which are emphasized in the proposed alternative include
conservation easements and enhancement activities. Both these strategies focus on keeping
land in private ownership, thus maintaining existing land uses, and thereby maintaining
existing lifestyles, and tax base.

^--'

A-l

c

2. Concerns about land management and game damage on protected lands.

a. Specific Comments:

i. 'we are not picking up any land to feed the waterfowl we raise; ducks and deer
can cause damage on ag land from field feeding; there will be a farmers rebellion
if we do not do something about game damage' (Van Rinsum-H3)

_ii. 'I have turkeys, ducks, geese all causing game damage on my farm; wild turkey
and geese are the major problem; white-tailed deer also cause game damage'
(McConkey-H18)

b. FWP Response:

Should a proposal to enhance or purchase riparian/wetland habitat within an agricultural
setting be developed as a potential Riparian/Wetland Conservation project, game damage
issues would be addressed during the Environmental Assessment process. At this time
various site-specific techniques to reduce game damage could be explored such as the
planting of lure crops.

3. Concerns with U.S. fish and Wildlife Service management.

a. Specific Comment:

i. 'poor management on USFWS land' (Van Rinsum-H2)

b. FWP Response:

In addition to public concerns about the government buying more land, we also
recognize there are significant costs associated with the operation and
maintenance of any fee-title purchased lands, particularly if the lands include
farmland. Costs of managing weeds, cover, excess forage, grazing and other
wildlife habitat manipulations as well as paying taxes can be $20-$40/acre/year
and may make little economic sense if conservation easements or other strategies
are more available.

4. Concerns for value of wetlands,
a. Specific Comments:

i. 'wetlands are more important than just raising ducks and geese' (Cole-H4)

ii. 'this plan will move towards no net loss of wetlands' (Mitchell-Hll)

iii. '95% of Flathead County surveyed (CPC) believed that water quality was very
important; wetlands value never fell below a ranking of 6 out of 14; wetlands
benefit many species, not just waterfowl (amphibians, songbirds, T & E spp)'
(Mitchell-H12)

A-2

b. FWP Response:

We recognize that riparian/wetland areas provide highly significant habitats for wildlife
as well as other important benefits such as flood control, water quality, nutrient trapping
etc. (see p. 20-22, DEIS for description of the benefits of wetland areas for wildlife,
pollution, and flood control). A proposed change from a program directed toward prime
waterfowl habitat (Alternative One) to a program directed toward riparian/wetland habitat
is consistent with this interpretation.

5. Definitions of wetlands.

a. Specific Comment:

i. 'you need to be consistent with federal government definitions and criteria

concerning wetlands (e.g. Army Corp); I have problems with 4 separate State
agencies designating wetlands; agencies should not have the right to change
biological definitions' (Jewell-H31)

b. FWP Response:

FWP is not a federal agency with jurisdiction over wedands under Clean Water Act or
other federal program; we do not define or delineate jurisdictional wetlands. For the
purpose of this program, we will adopt existing functional definitions for riparian and
wedands to insure consistency with other agencies and institutions.

6. Land Acquisition, Condemnation, and Linkage Concerns.

a. Specific Comments:

i. "We are generally opposed to the idea of linkage or connecting areas (corridors?)
because it allows MFW&P the leeway to acquire any land they want, under the
guise of linkage areas." (G&T-W15)

ii. "land acquisition should be priority # 3 and FEC board wants adherence to this
policy; I personally oppose land acquisition and I think that you have heard this
before' (McConkey-H22)

iii. 'people in the Flathead valley support land acquisition By FWP' (Kuhl-H30)

iv. 'I am against condemnation of private lands; pressure on private citizens to
condemn land has been used in the past' (Jewell-H33)

v. 'no private land acquisition in Lincoln County' (Newton-H49)

vi. 'I support enhancement projects on public land; any loss of private land is
important to me in Lincoln County' (Truman-H54)

b. FWP Response:

Issues surrounding land acquisition were raised during the public scoping meetings in
1993 and became the central theme around which the various DEIS alternatives were

A-3

\./'

w

\^^

developed. The riparian/wetland program will only work with interested and willing
landowners; condemnation is not an option under this mitigation program. Under Habitat
Montana, the original FWP mitigation guidelines and Alternative Two, the Proposed
Alternative, we specified that fee-title purchase will be a lower priority than conservation
easements.

Under the Perferred Alternative, we propose to maintain fee-title purchase as a secondary
emphasis and subject this option to other conditions: a. purchase property with intent to
place a conservation easement on the property and re-sell or trade such property back to
private individual; or, b. use fee-title purchase when access, recreation, or values other
than just habitat conservation are deemed highly important to public and are cost-shared
as part of the fee-title purchase agreement.

7. Habitat Losses due to dam construction

a. Specific Comment:

i. 'this plan targets too many acres of wetlands as not that much was originally lost'

(Jewell-H37)

b. FWP Response

The 2 hydroelectric projects affected approximately 18,702 acres of riparian/wetland
habitats along the South Fork and Kootenai Rivers. The goal of Alternative One, Status
Quo, was to replace waterfowl habitat losses through protection and enhancement of
"prime wetlands" and bear habitat through the protection of riparian and shrubfield
habitats. The other considered Alternatives utilized the actual acres of different
riparian/wetland habitat types which were lost due to hydroelectric power development.
These losses were defined using aerial photographs of die reservoir areas taken prior to
dam construction. These loss estimates were outlined in original impact assessment
reports (Casey et al. 1984 and Yde and Olsen 1984). The rationale for modifying target
acreages based on strategy are: 1: 1 for fee-tide because the habitat would be exclusively
managed for wildlife; 2:1 for conservation easement as existing land uses are preserved
as well as the habitat; and as much as 3:1 for enhancement because enhancement may
only improve riparian/wedand values incrementally. These issues are discussed in this
FEIS under issue 4.b.ii. and S.b.iii. "Crediting Assumptions."

8. Trust Fund Budget.

a. Specific Comments:

i. 'wedands are more important than half of the interest from the trust'; 'more
mitigation money should be spent on the wedand program' (Cole-H6)

ii. 'the budget should not be altered without public input' (Jewell-H39)

iii. 'a larger percent of the Trust should be spent on this plan now' (Fairchild-H26)

iv. 'do not spend principal, only interest' (Windom-H44)

A-4

b. FWP Response:

The present policy for expending Trust Fund dollars is to spend the interest only. We
concur that the riparian/wetland conservation portion of the wildlife mitigation program
is very important and must be implemented as soon as possible. The proportion of the
Trust Funds spent on various wildlife programs is an issue we plan to address during the
10-year evaluation of the overall mitigation program in 1996. At mat time, all the issues
surrounding how the money should be spent to maximize wildlife habitat mitigation can
be fully evaluated.

Concerns about Physical Impacts.

Specific Comments and FWP Responses

i. "Page 20 under Physical Environment, second paragraph, the physical
environment has also been altered by recreation, fishing and hunting activities."
(G&T-W8)

FWP Response: We assumed recreation, fishing and hunting activities (page 20) would
fall under "human activities;" those depicted included the most obvious large scale types
of activities.

ii. "Page 23, Section 6. It is hard to imagine how global warming would adversely
affect amphibians and reptiles in Montana. It seems global warming would help
increase the populations of those critters in Montana" (G&T-W9)

FWP Response: The scientific community has listed many environmental factors which
may be causing the observed global decline in amphibians and reptiles one of which may
be global warming. Under this scenario, changes in temperature and moisture regimes
could have a significant impact on distribution, quality, and abundance of amphibian
habitat.

iii. "Page 24 under Section 8, Birds, isn't it true there are a number of species which
are increasing in population in northwest Montana?... geese, sandhill cranes..."
(G&T-W10)

FWP Response: It is true that many waterfowl species populations are on the upswing
in northwest Montana, particularly Canada geese. However, on a national scale,
waterfowl experts are concerned about the effect of habitat losses and our ability to
reverse downward trends and stabilize or increase waterfowl populations.

iv. "Page 27, Section 2a. Using a newspaper article as a reference is not credible
when preparing an EIS. You should quote a noted scientist or peer-reviewed
papers". (G&T-W11)

FWP Response: The Missoulian article was used simply to illustrate the recent
population trend in growth in northwest Montana. It was considered a reliable reference
for that purpose.

A-5

c

v. 'wetland creation may create stagnated water and more problems with stream
sedimentation; wetland creation may affect some species negatively' (Truman-
H53)

FWP Response: During construction of a wetland or wetland structure such as a dike
or ditch, there will be associated impacts to the environment which may include
sedimentation. Additionally, there will be an impact to the vegetation being removed or
flooded and consequently to associated wildlife. These impacts will be considered during
the Environmental Assessment for each proposed project. Enhancement projects will not
be pursued unless there is a reasonable expectation of a net benefit to wildlife.

10. Concerns about Social-Economic Environment and Impacts.

a. Specific Comment:

'there are more negative impacts than you predict; where you say a positive impact on
communities there may be neutral or even negative impacts; all impacts in tables should
be shifted towards the negative side' (7ewell-H40)

b. FWP Response:

In the DEIS, all impact analyses compared each considered alternative against Alternative
One, Status Quo. Because Alternative One includes fee-title purchase as a major strategy,
this may explain why some of the community impacts of Alternatives Two and Four are
more positive. Effects of no mitigation are considered because we are legally obligated
to mitigate for wildlife habitat losses as described under the background section of this
document.

11. Miscellaneous Comments and Opinions.

Specific Comments and FWP Responses:

i. "The Wetlands Plan should continue to focus on the creation of a wildlife
management area in the lower Flathead Valley where there is an opportunity to
concentrate a number of wetlands purchases." (DH-W30)

FWP Response: Our plan would not create a public wildlife management area. Reasons
and rationale for our preferred option are described in this FEIS. Our mitigation
program should, however, contribute to a network of key wildlife habitat that will help
to perpetuate wildlife population into the future.

ii. "On page 26, the listing of land ownership does not include the acreage of Tribal
lands within the Flathead County land ownership description. It should be noted
that Tribal lands within Flathead County also include the area encompassed by
Flathead Lake and other bodies of water located within the Reservation."
(CSKT-W43)

A-6

FWP Response: It was an oversight to exclude information about the amount of tribal
or Reservation land by Flathead County. Most of the Reservation falls within Lake
County.

iii. "On page 27, we question the percentages of land ownerships within Lake
County. These figures need to be checked for accuracy. Again, these acreages
should include Flathead Lake and other water bodies within the Reservation."
(CSKT-W44)

FWP Response: These data were obtained from the Flathead Economic Development
Council and were used only to display the land ownership patterns at the time the DEIS
was written. Acreages from the south half of Flathead Lake and other bodies of water
within the Flathead Indian Reservation were not used in this calculation.

iv. "On page 29, we question why Tribal government is not listed in the table of
employment statistics. Also on page 29, a discussion of contributions to local tax
bases by various governmental entities, such as in lieu of payments, should be
included to provide a more accurate summarization of positive and negative
economic impacts." (CSKT-W45)

FWP Response: We included tribal employment within the local government statistic.
The most recent information on payment in lieu of taxes (PILT) and federal forest
receipts for all 3 counties for 1994 for each county is listed below:

County Flathead Lais Lincoln

PILT $244,879 $45,812 $ 178,154

Fed. Forest Receipts $848,223 $57,487 $6,187,417

v. 'this document is very readable for an EIS' (Mitchell-H13)

FWP Response: Thank you for your review and input into this decision-making process.

iii. *I do not like the new $1,500.00 tax rule' (Levandowski-H14)

FWP Response: This is related to legislative actions and not the DEIS.

iv. 'there is a lack of listening at these hearings' (McConkey-H15)

FWP Response: One key purpose of the EIS process is to get public input which helps
us evaluate the impacts of these decisions. We held numerous scoping and public hearings
to get this input; we believe the Alternatives reflect a reasonable balance to all the public
concerns that were expressed.

v. T do not like and object to the term ecosystem management' (Jewell-H32)

FWP Response: This term is one of today's catch words and could imply many
meanings. In the context of the Riparian/Wetland Mitigation Program, we used this
definition: natural resource planning and management activities that assure consideration
of the relationships between all organisms and their environment to achieve productive

A-7

resource management by blending social, physical, economic, and biological needs and
values to provide healthy ecosystems (DEIS p. 79, Appendix 1). Within the
riparian/wetland program this implies that we need to look at the whole river/wetland
system and see where we can put together a project which is integral part of an intact
functioning river/wetland system or is a functioning system unto itself. We may want to
consider project relationships, species interactions and the habitat's relationships to the
local community and economy. In other words, we may need to do more than put
together a few isolated projects.

vi. 'by using environmentalist terms in the document you will place restrictions on
private citizens' (Jewell-H38)

FWP Response: Terms appearing in this document are those commonly accepted terms
often used in the scientific and academic communities.

vii. 'FWP as professional biologists should manage wildlife and habitat by biological
opinion, not management by public referendum' (Fairchild-H27)

FWP Response: We as a government agency must be responsive to all issues and
concerns, not just biological ones. Through the EIS process, we must disclose all the
environmental effects of our program, including socio-economic ones, and obtain and
consider public input. In our final decision, we need to respond to public concerns;
however, our final decision must be the best decision we can make to meet our legal
objectives, weighing the environmental effects, and respond to public concerns; it may
well differ from some of the expressed public sentiments.

C

V—

viii. 'game habitat in Lincoln County is not broken, game abounds; these mitigation
efforts may not be needed; I have 9 deer in my yard and 50 elk at the golf
course' (Windom-H45)

FWP Response: We recognize that deer and elk populations are thriving across
northwest Montana. However, Montana has accepted the responsibility to undertake
mitigation for the wildlife impacts resulting from the construction of two major
hydroelectric power projects. The focus of the program is to replace all the wildlife
values associated with 18,702 acres of riparian/wetland habitat which were lost due to
dam construction. Our focus is to conserve remaining riparian/wetland habitats to benefit
all wildlife species as well as other aspects of the environment (e.g. water quality) not
just replacing common species.

ix. 'good range of alternatives; easy to read document' (Young-H50)

FWP Response: Thank you for your review and input into this decision-making process.

A-8

■-,„-

APPENDIX B

Summary Impact Tables on Environmental Effects from DEIS

L

APPENDIX B

Table 3. Summary of impacts on the socioeconomic environment (0 =
no impact, + = slight positive impact, ++ = moderate positive
impact, +++ = potentially significant positive impact, - = slight

negative impact, — = moderate negative impact, = potentially

significant negative impact) .

MEPA Impact Analysis
Categories

Alt 1

No

Action

Alt 2

Preferred

Alt

Alt 3

Protect

Only

Alt 4

Enhance

Only

Land Use Flathead

-

-

—

-

Land Use Lincoln

0

-

—

-

Land Use Lake

0

-

—

-

Communities Flathead

+

++

++

+

Communities Lincoln

0

++

++

+

Communities Lake

0

++

++

+

Property Taxes
Flathead

0

0

0

0

Property Taxes
Lincoln

0

0

0

0

Property Taxes
Lake

0

0

0

0

Aesthetics and
Recreation

+

++

++

+

Cultural and
Historical Resources

0

0

0

0

B-l

c

Table 1. Summary of impacts on the physical environment (0 = no
impact, + = slight positive impact, ++ = moderate positive impact,
+++ = potentially significant positive impact, - = slight negative

impact, — = moderate negative impact, = potentially

significant negative impact )

MEPA Impact Analysis
Categories

Alt 1

No

Action

Alt 2

Preferred

Alt

Alt 3

Protect

Only

Alt 4

Enhance

Only

air

0

0

0

0

water

++

+++

+++

+++

land resource

++

+++

+++

+++

Table 2. Summary of impacts on the biological environment (0 = no
impact, + = slight positive impact, ++ = moderate positive impact,
+++ = potentially significant positive impact, - = slight negative

impact, — = moderate negative impact, = potentially

significant negative impact)

MEPA Impact Analysis
Categories

Alt 1

No

Action

Alt 2

Preferred

Alt

Alt 3

Protect

Only

Alt 4

Enhance

Only

biodiversity

+

++

++

++

wetland vegetation

+++

+++

+++

+++

riparian vegetation

0

+++

+++

+++

T & E species

++

++

++

++

invertebrates

+

++

++

++

amphibians /reptiles

++

++

++

++

fish

+

++

++

++

waterbirds

+++

+++

+++

+++

migratory landbirds

+

++

++

++

resident landbirds

+

++

++

++

small mammals

+

++

++

++

furbearers /predators

+

+++

+++

+++

large mammals

+

++

++

++

c

B-2

w*

APPENDIX C

Hungry Horse and Libby Wildlife Mitigation Plan;

Ammendment to the Northwest Power Council's

Fish and Wildlife Program (NPPC 1987)

Section 1000

APPENDIX C

Table 4

Wildlife Mitigation
Projects

Wildlife or

Habitat Losses

Project

Target

Attributable to

Mitigation Goal

or Area

Species

Hydropower

Projects/Schedule

Hungry

Elk/

133 elk

Bonneville shall fund projects to enhance

Horse

Mule Deer

6,650 acres of

and maintain winter range on Flathead

Dam

winter range

National Forest lands to support a target
carrying capacity of an additional 133 elk.
Total number of acres to be treated will be
established when the increase in carrying
capacity for winter range enhancement is
determined. An initial limit of 6,650 acres of
winter range will be enhanced until increased
carrying capacity is determined. Year 1,
advanced design. Years 1-5, implement, test
and monitor; report to Council for further
action.

Black Bear

27-34 animals

Bonneville shall fund projects to protect

8,590 acres of

8,590 acres of riparian habitat and travel

critical habitat

corridors through the acquisition of

Grizzly Bear

2-4 animals

conservation easements. Years 1-2,

8,590 acres of

advanced design; interagency coordination;

critical habitat

prioritizing sites; appraisals. Upon
completion, acquire easements.

Waterfowl

1,863 acres

Bonneville shall fund projects to protect and/

(1,146 acres of

or enhance 1,146 acres of wetland habitat in

prime habitat)

Flathead Valley. Same schedule as bear
projects.

Terrestrial

11,050 acres

Bonneville shall negotiate cooperative

Furbearers

agreements with state and federal agencies
and private landholders to protect 11,050
acres of selected old-growth forest stands.
Years 1-2, advanced design; report to
Council for further action.

Libby Dam

White-tailed

1,340 animals

Bonneville shall fund projects to enhance

Deer

8,745 acres of

and maintain winter range in northwestern

winter range

Montana to support a target carrying
capacity of an additional 1,340 white-tailed
deer. Total number of acres to be treated will
be established when the increase in carrying
capacity for winter-range enhancement is
determined. An initial limit of 8,745 acres will
be enhanced until increased carrying
capacity is determined. Years 1-2, advanced
design. Years 3-10, implement and monitor.

C-l

c

Section 1000

Project
or Area

Target
Species

Mule Deer

Bighorn
Sheep

C

Columbian

Sharp-tailed

Grouse

Waterfowl

Wildlife or

Habitat Losses

Attributable to Mitigation Goal

Hydropower Projects/Schedule

485 animals Bonneville shall fund projects to enhance

10,586 acres and maintain winter range on Kootenai

National Forest lands adjacent to Lake
Koocanusa to support a target carrying
capacity of an additional 485 mule deer.
Total number of acres to be treated will be
established when the increase in carrying
capacity is determined. An initial limit of
10,586 acres will be enhanced until
increased carrying capacity is determined.
Year 1, advanced design. Years 2-10,
implement and monitor.

66 sheep Bonneville shall fund projects to enhance

3,190 acres and maintain winter/spring range on

Kootenai National Forest lands adjacent to
Lake Koocanusa to support a target carrying
capacity of an additional 66 sheep. Total
number of acres to be treated will be
established when the increase in carrying
capacity for habitat enhancement is
determined. An initial limit of 3,190 acres will
be enhanced until increased carrying
capacity is determined. Year 1, advance
design. Years 2-10, implement and monitor.

2,462 acres Bonneville shall fund projects to protect

2,462 acres of prairie habitat within the
vicinity of Tobacco Plains. Years 1-2,
advanced design. Years 3-10, acquire
easements.

10,460 acres Bonneville shall fund projects to protect and/

(3,418 acres of or enhance 3,418 acres of wetland habitat

prime habitat) within the Flathead Valley. Years 1-2,

advanced design. Years 3-10, upon
completion of design, implement projects.

Further Action: Bonneville shall consult with the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks,
the Corps, Bureau of Reclamation and Bonneville customers to explore alternative methods,
including a trust fund, for financing wildlife mitigation measures at Hungry Horse and Libby dams.
If all relevant parties reach agreement on a suitable method for financing and on an alternative
package of mitigation projects, Bonneville shall fund the projects covered by that agreement, upon
approval by the Council.

\v ,

Table 4

(continued)

C-2

w*

\^~0f

APPENDIX D

FWP Draft Wildlife Mitigation Policy - 1983

C

v^.

APPENDIX D

May 31, 1983

MONTANA DEPARTMENT OP FISH, WILDLIFE, AMD PAItXS
MITICATION GUIDELINES

When mitigation as provided by lau is proposed for development projects.. -the ■
Montana Dcparc^nc of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks shall request funding from the
devaloper, or th* appropriate agency, to conduct those studies necessary to
detente impacts of the development on fish and wildlife and their habitat and
to develop a project specific mitigation plan.

WILDLIFE SECTION

The principle objective of Che mitigation plan shall be to mitigate within the
project area impacts to wildlife and to compensate for animal losses a tribu abl.

L 'nfSr!1 '"J'"' J?1' Plan Sha11 idenCify measu"s » ^""i* popula-
tion, of atfecced species. The plan shall prescribe appropriate measures to

to those TA^l^T^ °f ChC "5s**rt« PackaSe- " monitor wildlife response
to those measures, and to document the sufficiency of mitigation.

The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks shall request funding from the

ItlATl'J/r W?^* •8»cy1 to implement, monitor, and documan B!
igacion measures prescribed in the mitigation plan.

thel^UowS'g^riferL0: ""^ '" "»'«*^ ^^ ^ll b« <"™^ *

A. The mitigation objective shall be to replace, on an animal for
animal basis, animal losses attributable to the development pro-

ltl% " elSU" vhe "P1"^" °f lost animal production into

the future. This objective may be modified according to this

1. To replace, on an animal for animal basis, animal losses
specifically attributable to the development project.

2. To replace, on an animal for animal basis, some or EU*
animal losses and an appropriate equivalent of animals of

• other species.

3. To replace, on an animal for animal basis, an appropriate
equivalent of other species.

B. Mitigation measures:

1. The highest priority shall be assigned to the development and
implementation of measures to enhance wildlife hab a7 and

t^enarS aeenCi"' COrp0"cio-' « dividual,. vitSl
the Department acquiring management authority to those lands.

Implantation of enhancement measures shall be dependent upon

!£i:i«1VVa,!T^Wlth thi aPP"Pr"" land management
5J«5i« ttnTha n all0"'i°« compatible ulch mitigation ob-
jectives The Department shall request funding for implanta-
tion of chose measures. lncludine operacion J L^SnlScTSr

D-l

t

w

Che life of che development project, and, when appropriate,
research and development of enhancement measures.

2. If the Department cannot negotiate agreements to implement
enhancement measures on lands in other ownership within a
reasonable time, then the Department shall attempt to acquire
management authority over lands identified in the mitigation
plan. Acquisition of management authority by conservation
easement, when applicable, shall have priority over acquisition
by fee title from willing sellers. Lands to be acquired shall
be determined by priorities established by this policy, while
procedures for acquisition shall be consistent with principles
outlined in the Department's statewide habitat acquisition
policy. The Department shall develop a management plan for
acquired lands. The Department shall request che developer,

or che appropriate agency, co acquire che lands and co provide
funding for development of • the management plan, research and
development appropriate to the management of chose lands, and
ongoing operation and maintenance of those lands.

3. On new projects^ the Department shall request chat micigacion
lands be acquired at the same time as ocher project lands and
be included in basic project costs.

C. The location of mitigation projects shall be consistent with che
mitigation objectives, and be determined according to che following
priority:

l..i Immediate vicinicy of che development project or within che
annaul range of che species affected.

2. Hichin the county (or within a 50-mile radius) of che develop-
ment project.

3. Within the corresponding Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks
administrative region.

4. Within Montana.

D. Micigacion measures shall feature chose species identified in Seccien
A-l, 2 or 3, consisccnc with che micigacion objeccive. Those species
shall have prioriey ac all projeccs wichin locacion priorieics Section
C-l, 2, and 3. Thereafcer, feacures species shall be determined by
SCORP.

Decisions regarding accepcance or rejection of proposed micigacion recoircuends-
cions shall be made wich full public knowledge, inpuc, and revieu.

Approved by:_

Dace:

D-2

APPENDIX E

Environmental Assessment Checklist for Potential Projects

C

W

APPENDIX E

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FOR WETLAND AND RIPARIAN HABITAT MITIGATION
PROJECTS

This section describes a potential checklist environmental
assessment that would be used for individual wetland and riparian
habitat projects. Potential impacts on the physical, biological,
and socioeconomic environment of Montana are explored. An "other"
impact category is also included to explore potential impacts on
other aspects of the physical, biological, and socioeconomic
environment not listed.

When completing the following section consider the potential
positive or negative impacts that could occur as a result of
implementing a potential wetland or riparian habitat mitigation
project. Please indicate (+) or (-) in the appropriate category.

Physical Environment:

a) Air Quality

None Minor Potentially Significant

b) Water Quality

None Minor Potentially Significant

c) Land Resource

None Minor

Potentially Significant

d) Other

None Minor Potentially Significant

Biological Environment:

a) Biodiversity

None Minor Potentially Significant

b) Wetland Vegetation

None Minor Potentially Significant

c) Riparian Vegetation

None Minor Potentially Significant

E-l

c

c

,

d) Threatened or endangered species

__ None m Minor Potentially Significant

e) Invertebrates

None Minor Potentially Significant

f) Amphibians/reptiles

None Minor Potentially Significant

g) Fish

None Minor Potentially Significant

h) Waterbirds

None Minor Potentially Significant

i) Migratory landbirds

None Minor _____ Potentially Significant

j) Resident landbirds

None Minor Potentially Significant

k) Small mammals

None Minor ___ Potentially Significant

1) Furbearers/predators

None Minor Potentially Significant

m) Large mammals

None Minor - Potentially Significant

d) Other __

None Minor Potentially Significant

Socioeconomic Environment:

a) County land use

None Minor Potentially Significant

E-2

b) County Communities

None Minor Potentially Significant

c) County property taxes

None Minor Potentially Significant

d) Aesthetics/recreation

None Minor Potentially Significant

e) Cultural/historical resources

None Minor Potentially Significant

d) Other

None Minor Potentially Significant

SUMMARY

Explain minor negative impacts in a narrative format:
(attach additional pages as necessary)

:,,,_/

Will the project result in any negative cumulative or secondary
impacts?

If 'iyes" explain and determine if cumulative or secondary impacts
would be potentially significant (attach additional pages as
necessary)

E-3

w

Does the project have any potentially significant negative impacts?

If "no" further environmental review is not necessary
If "yes" can all the impacts be mitigated?

* If "yes" prepare a mitigated EA or EIS

* If "no" prepare an EIS

Title:

Prepared by:
Date:

E-4

"''«*#*'

J