[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 196 (Thursday, October 8, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63834-63870]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22147]
[[Page 63833]]
Vol. 85
Thursday,
No. 196
October 8, 2020
Part VI
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bonneville Power Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Record of Decision; Columbia River System Operations Environmental
Impact Statement; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 196 / Thursday, October 8, 2020 /
Notices
[[Page 63834]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Bonneville Power Administration
Record of Decision; Columbia River System Operations
Environmental Impact Statement
AGENCY: Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Department of Energy
(DOE).
ACTION: Record of decision (ROD).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY:
Section 1. Introduction
The Columbia River System Operations Environmental Impact Statement
(CRSO EIS) dated July 2020 addresses the ongoing operations,
maintenance, and configuration of the 14 federal Columbia River System
(CRS) projects on the Columbia and Snake rivers. The 14 projects are
Libby, Hungry Horse, Albeni Falls, Grand Coulee, Chief Joseph,
Dworshak, Lower Granite, Little Goose, Lower Monumental, Ice Harbor,
McNary, John Day, The Dalles, and Bonneville. The co-lead agencies (the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [Corps], Bureau of Reclamation
[Reclamation], and Bonneville Power Administration [Bonneville]) share
responsibility and legal authority for managing the Federal elements of
the CRS. These three co-lead agencies coordinate the operation of the
CRS and have worked together to develop this EIS.
ADDRESSES: This Record of Decision will be available to all interested
parties and affected persons and agencies and is being sent to all
stakeholders who requested a copy. Copies of the Draft and Final CRSO
EISs, and additional copies of this document can be obtained from
Bonneville's Public Information Center, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, Oregon
97208-3621. Copies of these documents may also be obtained by calling
Bonneville's nationwide toll-free request line at 1-800-622-4520, or by
accessing the CRSO EIS project website at https://www.bpa.gov/efw/Analysis/NEPADocuments/Pages/Columbia-River-System-Operations-Project.aspx. Additional information is also available at
www.crso.info.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Kennedy, Environmental Planning
and Analysis, Bonneville Power Administration--EC-4, P.O. Box 3621,
Portland, Oregon, 97208-3621; or toll-free telephone number 1-800-622-
4519; or email ECAdmin@bpa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Section 1. Introduction, Continued
The Corps and Reclamation develop operating requirements for their
projects. These are the limits within which a reservoir or dam must be
operated. Some requirements are established by Congress when a project
is authorized, while others are established by the agencies based on
operating experience. Within these operating limits, Bonneville
schedules and dispatches power. This process requires continuous
communication and coordination among the three agencies. The co-lead
agencies have identified the Preferred Alternative, as described in
detail in Chapter 7 of the Final EIS, as the Selected Alternative in
this Record of Decision (ROD).
This CRSO EIS and ROD represent the detailed work, evaluation, and
decision-making of the three co-lead agencies. The CRSO EIS was
completed considering the input and assistance of the multiple
cooperating agencies with special expertise and authority over the
resources evaluated. The co-lead agencies provided for robust public
and stakeholder review beginning with scoping and continuing throughout
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.
As part of the CRSO EIS, the agencies considered six alternatives
to Columbia River System operations, maintenance, and configuration.
The agencies analyzed the effects of these alternatives on the human
environment, including environmental, economic, and social impacts. On
February 28, 2020, the co-lead agencies released for public comment the
Draft CRSO EIS describing the effects of these alternatives and
identifying the agencies' Preferred Alternative. The 45-day public
comment period ended on April 13, 2020, and the agencies reviewed and
responded to these comments in the Final CRSO EIS. The co-lead agencies
released the Final EIS on July 28, 2020, and the agencies issued this
joint Record of Decision on September 28, 2020.
All three co-lead agencies recognize selecting an alternative is a
complex decision, and have identified the Preferred Alternative as the
Selected Alternative to implement. The agencies' expertise, developed
over decades of experience operating the projects, allowed for careful,
comprehensive consideration of current, high quality technical and
scientific information, as well as expert analysis for thorough
evaluation of each alternative. The agencies conferred with tribes,
public interest groups, the Northwest's Congressional delegation and
governors, as well as stakeholder groups, and Federal, state and local
public service agencies. The co-lead agencies also closely read,
considered, and responded to the public comments which represented
diverse voices with numerous perspectives. The agencies considered the
effects of making this decision, and sought to provide a balanced
approach and the flexibility needed to continue operations and
maintenance of the CRS in this dynamic environment.
On March 20, 2018, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued an OMB/CEQ Memorandum to
Heads of Federal Departments and Agencies titled ``One Federal Decision
Framework for the Environmental Review and Authorization Process for
Major Infrastructure Projects under Executive Order 13807'' (OFD
Framework), in accordance with Executive Order 13807 (82 FR 40,463
(Aug. 24, 2017)). This ``One Federal Decision'' policy has increased
federal coordination on environmental processes and review, shortened
previous timelines, and resulted in the utilization of a joint ROD for
federal agencies. This CRSO EIS ROD is consistent with the One Federal
Decision policy.
1.1 Decision Summary
1.1.1 Corps' Decision Summary
The information presented in this joint ROD is the Corps'
determination of the Selected Alternative for implementation, the
agencies' compliance with the NEPA policy and procedures, environmental
regulations, and public and agency review. The NEPA process has
produced sufficient and accurate assessments of the resources, needs,
concerns, and other issues that relate to the evaluated alternatives
and has undergone public and agency review as required by 33 CFR part
230 and 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508. The conclusions additionally
have been reviewed and evaluated by an independent review panel and
found to be appropriate. Consultation on the Selected Alternative has
been completed per Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
and incorporated into the Selected Alternative. The Corps has
determined, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) CRS Biological Opinions demonstrate,
based on the best available commercial and scientific information, that
the Corps' implementation of the Selected Alternative will not
jeopardize listed
[[Page 63835]]
species or adversely modify or destroy critical habitat.
Based on the analysis contained in the Draft and Final EIS
(including review of a reasonable range of alternatives), the reviews
by other Federal, State, and local agencies, Tribes, input of the
public, and the review by my staff, I, D. Peter Helmlinger, P.E.,
Brigadier General, U.S. Army, Division Commander, select the
alternative identified as the Preferred Alternative in the Final EIS as
the Selected Alternative in this ROD. I find the Selected Alternative,
along with the incorporation of the identified mitigation, and
consistent with the requirements outlined in the Incidental Take
Statements contained in the 2020 USFWS and NMFS CRS Biological
Opinions, which were also incorporated in this decision, to be
technically feasible, meets the Purpose and Need Statement and many of
the objectives developed for the EIS, is in accordance with
environmental statutes and in the public interest. Additionally, it
best balances the human and natural environment in a manner calculated
to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain
conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony,
and to fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present
and future generations of Americans. I have also considered tribal
treaty rights and the United States' trust responsibilities to the
tribes in selecting this alternative. Actions that will be implemented
by the co-lead agencies will improve salmonid survival, which will
benefit tribal fisheries. Therefore, the Corps is deciding to operate
its 12 CRS projects, and implement associated mitigation and
conservation actions, according to the description of the Preferred
Alternative in the Final EIS and the proposed action analyzed in the
2020 USFWS and NMFS CRS Biological Opinions.
1.1.2 Reclamation's Decision Summary
Reclamation is deciding in this ROD to operate its two CRS
projects, Grand Coulee and Hungry Horse, and implement associated
mitigation and conservation actions, according to the description of
the Preferred Alternative in the Final EIS and the proposed action
analyzed in the 2020 USFWS and NMFS CRS Biological Opinions. The Final
EIS provides Reclamation a reasonable range of alternatives to
implement, identifies key issues and significant effects of alternative
actions, and complies with the procedural requirements of NEPA and its
implementing regulations. The Final EIS shows that the Selected
Alternative is feasible and satisfies Reclamation's statutory
obligations. The NMFS and USFWS CRS Biological Opinions demonstrate,
based on the best available commercial and scientific information, that
Reclamation's implementation of the Selected Alternative will not
jeopardize listed species or adversely modify or destroy critical
habitat.
This decision improves upon multiple existing measures related to
project operations, such as by limiting winter drafting of Reclamation
reservoirs to conserve water for spring flow augmentation for migrating
salmon and steelhead. Reclamation will also coordinate with the
sovereign inter-agency Technical Management Team to solicit, review,
comment, and make recommendations for consideration during preparation
of the Water Management Plan and during in-season operational
adjustments. Additionally, Reclamation's tributary habitat restoration
program has improved salmonid and lamprey habitat across the basin
since its inception in the early 2000s. It has matured significantly
over that period, and this decision implements several advancements
resulting from program maturation. In particular, this decision
implements improvements in project prioritization, focused research and
monitoring efforts to directly support implementation knowledge, and
efficiency gains in the design process.
Reclamation's decision implements new measures, including several
operations at Grand Coulee. One allows additional maintenance
flexibility on generating units and spillways, which the Final EIS
shows could result in small increases in spill and thus downstream
total dissolved gas (TDG) concentrations. It also updates flood risk
management calculations, which Corps and Reclamation will apply in a
coordinated and adaptive manner consistent with the Final EIS.
Reclamation is also deciding to utilize local water supply forecasts in
its operation of Hungry Horse, which will better balance downstream
flow augmentation with local resident fish needs.
Before reaching this decision, Reclamation reviewed a reasonable
range of alternatives in the EIS; the results of the physical,
environmental, economic, and human resources impact analyses; comments
submitted by federal, state, and local agencies, tribes, interested
parties, and the public; and applicable laws and regulations. The
Selected Alternative meets the Purpose and Need of the action,
balancing Reclamation's ability to meet its statutory project
obligations while also complying with the requirements of the ESA,
Clean Water Act (CWA), and other applicable laws.
1.1.3 Bonneville's Decision Summary
Summary of the Decision
Bonneville is deciding to implement its part of the Preferred
Alternative identified in the CRSO EIS (DOE/EIS-0529, July 2020), which
also constitutes the proposed action reviewed in the 2020 NMFS and
USFWS CRS Biological Opinions. Under the Selected Alternative,
Bonneville will market and transmit the power generated by the CRS
projects as part of coordinated system operations. More specifically,
Bonneville will use the CRSO EIS for any operational changes associated
with power marketing. These operations will be coordinated with other
operational, maintenance or configuration actions for flood risk
management, irrigation, fish and wildlife conservation, water quality,
navigation and other congressionally authorized purposes. Bonneville's
implementation of the Selected Alternative will also comply with all
applicable laws and regulations, including the NEPA, the ESA, the
Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act and the
CWA.
As part of the Selected Alternative, Bonneville will continue to
mitigate for the effects of its power operational actions. Bonneville
will fund non-operational conservation measures as part of
implementation of the proposed action consulted upon in the NMFS and
USFWS CRS Biological Opinions and mitigation actions associated with
the CRSO EIS (see Section 7.6 of the CRSO EIS; Attachment 1, Mitigation
Action Plan). These actions will be included in its existing Fish and
Wildlife Program and are consistent with the Northwest Power and
Conservation Council's Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
(see Chapters 2, 5, 7 of the CRSO EIS; Attachment 1, Mitigation Action
Plan).
In addition to Bonneville's fish and wildlife mitigation
commitments described above, there are fish and wildlife mitigation
costs associated with fulfilling Bonneville's power share
responsibilities that are direct funded by Bonneville to the Corps and
Reclamation for mitigation activities, such as hatchery operations,
fish stocking, elk habitat maintenance, and others. In addition to the
hatchery operations that are funded through the Fish and Wildlife
Program, Bonneville will continue to provide USFWS with annual
operations and maintenance
[[Page 63836]]
funding for the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP), in
accordance with Bonneville's direct funding agreement with USFWS and
any future renewals.
Section 2. Background
2.1 Purpose and Need
The CRSO EIS evaluated the long-term coordinated operation and
management of the CRS projects for the multiple authorized project
purposes. An underlying need is to review and update the management of
the CRS, including evaluating measures to avoid, offset, or minimize
impacts to resources affected by managing the CRS in the context of new
information and changed conditions in the Columbia River Basin
subsequent to the 1995 System Operation Review EIS, with the RODs in
1997. In addition, the co-lead agencies responded to the Opinion and
Order issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
(District Court), described in more detail in Section 2.3. This
included evaluating mitigation and non-operational conservation
measures to address impacts to ESA-listed species from CRS operations.
The CRSO EIS evaluated actions within the current authorities of the
co-lead agencies, as well as certain actions that are not within their
authorities, based on the District Court's observations about
alternatives that should be considered and comments received during the
scoping process. The CRSO EIS also provided information and analyses
that allowed the co-lead agencies and the region to evaluate the costs,
benefits, and tradeoffs of various alternatives as part of reviewing
and updating management of the CRS. The co-lead agencies will use the
information garnered through this process to guide future decisions,
and allow for a flexible approach to meeting multiple responsibilities
including resource and legal and institutional purposes of the action.
A full discussion of the Purpose and Need for the CRSO EIS is discussed
in Section 1.2 of the Final CRSO EIS.
2.2 Objectives
The eight objectives presented below, along with the CRSO EIS
Purpose and Need Statement (Section 1.2 of the Final CRSO EIS), guided
the development of a reasonable range of alternatives. The co-lead
agencies evaluated the alternatives to determine how effectively they
met the objectives as described in Chapter 2. The specific objectives
are as follows:
(1) Improve ESA-listed anadromous salmonid juvenile fish rearing,
passage, and survival within the CRSO project area through actions
including but not limited to project configuration, flow management,
spill operations, and water quality management.
(2) Improve ESA-listed anadromous salmonid adult fish migration
within the CRSO project area through actions including but not limited
to project configuration, flow management, spill operations, and water
quality management.
(3) Improve ESA-listed resident fish survival and spawning success
at CRSO projects through actions including but not limited to project
configuration, flow management, improving connectivity, project
operations, and water quality management.
(4) Provide an adequate, efficient, economical, and reliable power
supply that supports the integrated Columbia River Power System.
(5) Minimize greenhouse gas emissions from power production in the
Northwest by generating carbon-free power through a combination of
hydropower and integration of other renewable energy sources.
(6) Maximize operating flexibility by implementing updated,
adaptable water management strategies to be responsive to changing
conditions, including hydrology, climate, and the environment.
(7) Meet existing contractual water supply obligations and provide
for authorized additional regional water supply.
(8) Improve conditions for lamprey within the CRSO project areas
through actions potentially including but not limited to project
configurations, flow management, spill operations, and water quality
management.
2.3 Recent Litigation History
On May 4, 2016, the District Court issued an opinion invalidating
NMFS' biological opinion evaluating the operation of the Columbia River
System. The Court held that the 2014 biological opinion violated the
ESA and remanded the biological opinion to NMFS and ordered it to
complete a new biological opinion. In addition to its findings under
the ESA, the District Court found the Corps and Reclamation did not
comply with NEPA when they adopted the biological opinion. The District
Court ordered that a new environmental impact statement under NEPA be
prepared by March 26, 2021 and that the agencies' respective related
Records of Decision be issued on or before September 24, 2021. The
District Court further ordered the Corps and Reclamation to continue to
implement the biological opinion until a new biological opinion is
prepared and filed. On October 18, 2018, the Presidential Memorandum on
Promoting the Reliable Supply and Delivery of Water in the West
directed the co-lead agencies to develop a schedule to complete the
CRSO EIS and the associated biological opinions by 2020.
On January 9, 2017, plaintiffs filed motions for injunction with
the District Court requesting (1) increased spring spill at eight lower
Snake and Columbia River Federal projects beginning with the spring
2017 fish migration season, (2) initiation of bypass operations on
March 1, 2017, for smolt monitoring, and (3) a halt to spending by the
Corps on certain ongoing and future capital projects at the four lower
Snake River projects. On March 27, 2017, the District Court issued an
Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part the motions for
injunction with respect to spill, smolt monitoring, and capital project
funding.
In its spill ruling, the District Court indicated that it intended
to order ``increased spill'' for the spring 2018 migration season. It
ordered the Federal defendants\1\ to work with regional experts to
develop a plan for increased spill during the spring fish passage
season at eight lower Snake and Columbia River projects beginning in
the 2018 spring migration season.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Federal defendants referred to in Section 2.3 are NMFS,
Corps, and Reclamation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its capital project ruling, the Court concluded that capital
spending at the four lower Snake River dams is ``likely to cause
irreparable harm'' under NEPA by creating a significant risk of bias in
the CRSO EIS process. The Court declined, however, to enjoin two
specific projects at Ice Harbor because their primary benefit is
increasing fish survival. On May 16, 2017, the Federal defendants filed
a joint proposed notification process to disclose sufficient
information to the plaintiffs on future capital spending projects at
each dam during the NEPA remand period at appropriate and regular
intervals, as directed by the District Court, which it adopted in an
order dated May 25, 2017. On June 8, 2017, the Corps and Bonneville
provided information to National Wildlife Federation as part of the
notification process on 13 capital hydropower improvement projects.
Since June 2017, the Corps and Bonneville have continued to provide
information on certain capital hydropower improvement projects,
Columbia River Fish Mitigation (CRFM) and Other Non-Power capital
projects (primarily navigation) at the lower Snake River
[[Page 63837]]
dams (Lower Granite, Little Goose, Lower Monumental, and Ice Harbor).
On October 30, 2017, the Federal defendants filed a status report
with the Court addressing: (1) The appropriateness of the remaining
NEPA schedule; and (2) how the agencies intend to integrate and
coordinate the NEPA process and the ESA Section 7(a)(2) consultation.
The Federal defendants reported they are on target to complete the NEPA
process and will integrate the NEPA/ESA processes so the agencies can
make informed decisions on the future management of the Federal
Columbia River Power System (FCRPS).
On December 8, 2017, the Federal defendants and the plaintiffs
filed a joint proposed order and spill implementation plan with the
Court. On January 8, 2018, the District Court entered a final spill
injunction order governing 2018 spring fish passage spill operations,
in which the Court adopted the joint proposed order without
modification.
In December 2018 the Federal defendants, the State of Washington
(defendant-intervenor), the State of Oregon (plaintiff-intervenor), and
the Nez Perce Tribe (amicus curiae) executed an agreement on spring
operations (the 2019-2021 Spill Operation Agreement) in which these
parties agreed to certain operations and also agreed not to litigate
issues relating to the biological opinion until the CRSO EIS process is
complete. On December 18, 2018, the parties filed a joint status report
with the District Court\2\ notifying the Court of this agreement and
that the Federal defendants intended to complete consultation on a new
biological opinion before spring operations began in April 2019. NMFS
issued a new BiOp on March 29, 2019, incorporating the spring spill
operations that were agreed upon in December 2018. The 2019 Columbia
River System Biological Opinion went into effect on April 1, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Status Report RE: 2019-2021 Spill Operation Agreement During
the NEPA Remand Period, Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Nat'l Marine
Fisheries Serv., No. 3:01-CV-00640-SI (D. Or. Dec. 18, 2018).
Footnote 3 stated: ``The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla
Reservation, the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs, and the
State of Idaho indicated that they support the Agreement. The
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, the Kootenai Tribe of
Idaho, and the State of Montana collectively do not oppose the
Agreement so long as its implementation does not adversely affect or
preclude the improvement of the Montana Operations. . ..''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.4 Statutory Background
The statutes defining how the agencies operate, maintain, and
configure the CRS play a critical role in this decision. Those laws
fall primarily into two categories: (1) Specific authorizations to
construct and operate projects for particular purposes; and (2) general
operation and maintenance authorities and responsibilities.
Collectively, these statutes define the full extent of the agencies'
abilities to operate, maintain, and configure the CRS.
Congress enacted numerous specific statutes authorizing the
construction and operation of each CRS project. Congress authorized the
first two projects, Bonneville and Grand Coulee, in the Rivers and
Harbors Act of 1935, Public Law 74-409.\3\ Congress then authorized
Hungry Horse in 1944 under Public Law 78-329; McNary and the four lower
Snake River dams (Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose and Lower
Granite) in the River and Harbor Act of 1945, Public Law 79-14; and
Chief Joseph in the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1946, Public Law 79-525.
Congress authorized the remaining CRS projects in the Flood Control Act
of 1950, Public Law 81-516, except for Dworshak, which Congress
authorized in the Flood Control Act of 1962, Public Law 87-874.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Construction of Bonneville and Grand Coulee commenced under
the 1933 National Industry Recovery Act, which authorized the
Federal Emergency Administrator of Public Works to develop
hydropower, transmit electricity, construct river improvements, and
control floods. Public Law 73-67, 202 (June 16, 1933). After
litigation concerning application of the Act to another project,
Congress formally reauthorized both Bonneville and Grand Coulee in
the 1935 Rivers and Harbors Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each project's authorizing statute differs, identifying, among
other things, the specific purposes for which Reclamation or the Corps
must operate a project. Likewise, each project's authorization may vary
in defining how that purpose is implemented at each specific project.
Every CRS project's authorizing statute includes hydroelectric power
generation, and most also include navigation. All of the Corps projects
are authorized to support recreation and fish and wildlife
conservation.\4\ The storage projects--Grand Coulee, Dworshak, Albeni
Falls, and Hungry Horse, John Day, and Libby--are authorized for flood
risk management. The two Reclamation projects, Grand Coulee and Hungry
Horse, as well as the Corps' John Day project, include in their
authorizing statutes authority to operate for irrigation purposes.
Congress also authorized irrigation as an incidental benefit at the
Corps' projects on the lower Snake River and at The Dalles. Fish and
wildlife mitigation at the lower Snake River projects was the result of
negotiations under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Public Law
85-624.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Recreation as a Corps' project purpose was generally
authorized under the Flood Control Act of 1944, Public Law 78-534.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overlaying these specific project laws is the Pacific Northwest
Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act, Public Law 96-501. Passed
in 1980, the Act seeks to fulfill many objectives, including to provide
``an adequate, efficient, economic, and reliable power supply'' and
``to protect, mitigate and enhance the fish and wildlife . . . of the
Columbia River and its tributaries.'' In support of these goals, the
Act requires federal agencies, including the co-lead agencies, to
exercise their responsibilities for operating and maintaining CRS
projects ``to adequately protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and
wildlife . . . affected by such projects or facilities in a manner that
provides equitable treatment for such and fish and wildlife with the
other purposes'' of the projects. It also obligates the co-lead
agencies to take into account, at the relevant stages of their
decision-making and to the fullest extent practicable, the Columbia
River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program adopted by the Northwest Power
and Conservation Council.
As a backdrop to the foregoing legislation specific to the CRS,
general agency statutes also guide the agencies' operation,
maintenance, and configuration of the CRS. These include foundational
laws, like the Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Public Law 75-329, which
governs aspects of Bonneville's power marketing activities; the
Reclamation Project Act of 1939, Public Law 76-260, which guides
Reclamation's operation of its two CRS projects; and the Flood Control
Act of 1944, Public Law 78-534, which authorizes the sale of power from
Corps dams, defines the Corps' role in flood risk management at non-
Corps dams, and establishes recreation as a purpose of Corps projects.
In addition to these statutes, requirements of the ESA heavily
influence CRS operations. Still other laws, including the CWA and
National Historic Preservation Act, are important considerations in how
the agencies operate and maintain the CRS projects.
Fulfilling these many statutory responsibilities, some of which
must be balanced with each other and often pose conflicts, is extremely
complex, requiring consideration of multiple factors across an
expansive geographic scale. Many additional factors impacting these
responsibilities involve matters beyond the reach of the agencies'
authorities, including incoming water
[[Page 63838]]
quality, ocean conditions, and historical environmental degradation.
2.5 Alternatives Considered
The agencies used an iterative process to develop a range of
alternatives for the future physical configuration, operation, and
maintenance of the 14 projects of the CRS to achieve a reasonable
balance of competing resource demands for the available water and for
the multiple authorized purposes, including evaluating measures to
avoid, offset, or minimize impacts to resources affected by managing
the CRS in the context of new information and changed conditions in the
Columbia River Basin since the System Operation Review EIS in 1997.
This process began by identifying the EIS Purpose and Need Statement
and objectives for future management of the CRS. A suite of eight
preliminary draft alternatives were developed to focus on individual
resources. These Single Objective Alternatives provided information
regarding how well measures might perform when combined, and helped
identify any conflicts between resources, actions, or locations. These
alternatives informed the next iteration of alternatives development,
resulting in a reasonable range of Multiple Objective Action
Alternatives (MOs) suitable for analysis. Following analysis and
identification of effects for the four MO alternatives, the co-lead
agencies used these findings to develop a fifth action alternative,
which was described as the agencies' Preferred Alternative.
2.5.1 No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative includes all operations, maintenance,
fish and wildlife programs, and mitigation in effect when the CRSO EIS
was initiated in September 2016. Juvenile fish passage spill operations
at the eight lower Columbia River and Snake River dams would follow the
2016 Fish Operations Plan developed by the Corps, which used
performance standard spill provided under previous NMFS biological
opinions. The co-lead agencies would also implement structural measures
that were already budgeted and scheduled as of September 2016 that
affected CRS operations. The majority of these structural measures are
dam modifications to improve conditions for ESA-listed salmon and
steelhead. For example, installation of Improved Fish Passage (IFP)
turbines planned for Ice Harbor and McNary Dams would occur. Other
ongoing habitat and mitigation programs would continue, as was planned
at the time the CRSO EIS process started. A detailed description of
measures included in the No Action Alternative is included in Section
2.4.2 of the CRSO EIS.
2.5.2 Multiple Objective Alternative 1
Multiple Objective Alternative 1 (MO1) was developed with the goal
to avoid unreasonable effects--and if possible, achieve--
congressionally authorized project purposes while also benefiting ESA-
listed fish species relative to the No Action Alternative. MO1 differs
from the other alternatives by carrying out a juvenile fish passage
spill operation referred to as a block spill design. The block spill
design alternates between two operations: A base operation that
releases surface flow, where juvenile fish are most present, over the
spillways using different flows at each project based on historical
survival tests; and a fixed higher spill target at all projects. For
the block that uses the same target at all projects, the operators
would release flow through the spillways up to a target of 120 percent
TDG in the tailrace of projects and 115 percent TDG in the forebay of
those projects. The intent of these two spill operations is to
demonstrate the benefit of different spill levels to fish passage. In
addition, MO1 sets the duration of juvenile fish passage spill to end
based on a fish count trigger, rather than a predetermined date. MO1
proposes to initiate transport operations for juvenile fish
approximately two weeks earlier than under the No Action Alternative.
MO1 also incorporates measures to increase hydropower generation
flexibility in the lower basin projects and alters the use of stored
water at Dworshak for downstream water temperature control in the
summer. MO1 includes measures similar to the other action alternatives,
which include increased water management flexibility and water supply,
and using local forecasts in whole-basin planning. MO1 also includes
measures to disrupt predators of ESA-listed fish. A detailed
description of the measures in MO1 is in Section 2.4.3 of the CRSO EIS.
2.5.3 Multiple Objective Alternative 2
Multiple Objective Alternative 2 (MO2) was developed with the goal
to increase hydropower generation and reduce regional greenhouse gas
emissions while avoiding or minimizing adverse effects to other
congressionally authorized project purposes. MO2 would slightly relax
the No Action Alternative's restrictions on operating ranges and
ramping rates to evaluate the potential to increase hydropower
generation efficiency and increase operators' flexibility to respond to
changes in power demand and changes in generation of other renewable
resources. The measures within MO2 would increase the ability to meet
power demand with hydropower generation during the periods when it is
most valuable (e.g., winter, summer, and daily peak demands). The upper
basin storage projects would be allowed to draft slightly deeper,
allowing more hydropower generation in the winter and less during the
spring. MO2 also differs from the other alternatives by excluding the
water supply measures and evaluating an expanded juvenile fish
transportation operation season.
This alternative proposed to transport all collected ESA-listed
juvenile fish for release downstream of the Bonneville project, by
barge or truck, and to reduce juvenile fish passage spill operations to
a target of up to 110 percent TDG. Inclusion of the target up to 110
percent TDG spill operation provided the lowest end of the range of
juvenile fish passage spill operations evaluated in the CRSO EIS.
Structural measures of MO2 are aimed at benefits for ESA-listed
fish and lamprey. These measures are similar to other alternatives and
include making improvements to adult fish ladders, upgrading spillway
weirs, adding powerhouse surface passage, and IFP turbine upgrades at
John Day Dam. A detailed description of measures included in MO2 is in
Section 2.4.4 of the CRSO EIS.
2.5.4 Multiple Objective Alternative 3
Multiple Objective Alternative 3 (MO3) was developed to integrate
actions for water management flexibility, hydropower generation at the
remaining CRS projects, and water supply with measures that would
breach the four lower Snake River dams (Lower Granite, Little Goose,
Lower Monumental, and Ice Harbor). In addition to breaching these four
projects, MO3 differs from the other alternatives by carrying out a
juvenile fish passage spill operation that sets flow through the
spillways up to a target of 120 percent TDG in the tailrace of the four
lower Columbia River projects (McNary, John Day, The Dalles, and
Bonneville). This alternative also proposes an earlier end to summer
juvenile fish passage spill operations than the No Action Alternative.
Instead, flows would transition to increased hydropower generation when
low numbers of juvenile fish are anticipated.
Structural measures in this alternative include breaching the four
lower Snake River dams by removing the earthen embankments at each dam
location, resulting in a controlled drawdown. A
[[Page 63839]]
detailed description of measures included in MO3 is in Section 2.4.5 of
the CRSO EIS.
2.5.5 Multiple Objective Alternative 4
Multiple Objective Alternative 4 (MO4) was developed to examine a
combination of measures to benefit ESA-listed fish, integrated with
measures for water management flexibility, hydropower production in
certain areas of the basin, and additional water supply. This
alternative included the highest fish passage spill level considered in
this CRSO EIS, dry-year augmentation of spring flow with water stored
in upper basin reservoirs, and annually drawing down the lower Snake
River and lower Columbia River reservoirs to their minimum operating
pools (MOP). This alternative also included spillway weir notch
inserts, changes to the juvenile fish transportation operations, and
spill through surface passage structures for kelts, overwintering
steelhead and steelhead overshoots. In MO4, the juvenile fish transport
program would operate only in the spring and fall, while juvenile fish
passage spill is set up to 125 percent TDG during the spring and summer
spill season. The alternative contains a measure for restricting winter
flows from the Libby project to protect newly established downstream
riparian vegetation to improve conditions for ESA-listed resident fish,
bull trout, and Kootenai River white sturgeon (KRWS) in the upper
Columbia River Basin.
The structural measures in this alternative are primarily focused
on improving passage conditions for ESA-listed salmonids and Pacific
lamprey. The inclusion of spillway weir notch inserts is the only
structural measure unique from the other MO alternatives. A detailed
description of measures that are included in MO4 is in Section 2.4.6 of
the CRSO EIS.
2.5.6 Preferred Alternative
This alternative was developed using a combination of measures
already described in one or more of the four MO alternatives, with some
measures slightly refined based upon previous analysis during the EIS
process. The Preferred Alternative also drew upon new information
obtained from spill operations implemented in 2019 and 2020. The spill
regime in this alternative includes a high rate of spill at six of the
eight lower Columbia and lower Snake River projects (up to 125% TDG,
consistent with the relevant state water quality standards) for up to
16 hours a day, then reduces spill for up to 8 hours, producing
benefits for both out-migrating juvenile salmonids and hydropower. The
Preferred Alternative also includes measures for lamprey and resident
fish, and other measures intended to provide flexibility for water
management and water supply operations over the foreseeable future. The
Preferred Alternative also improves upon the actions committed to in
the past to benefit ESA-listed fish species described in the No Action
Alternative, ongoing routine maintenance of the 14 CRS projects,
including maintenance of hydropower assets, navigation infrastructure,
and fish facilities, continued management of invasive species, and
management of avian and pinniped predators of ESA-listed salmonids.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ MO3 would provide the highest potential benefit to ESA-
listed Snake River salmon and steelhead but would not address the
full range of environmental resources to the same degree as the
Preferred Alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Structural measures in the Preferred Alternative are focused on
improving and maintaining hydropower assets, and making changes at the
dams to improve passage and conditions for ESA-listed salmonids,
resident fish, and lamprey. These include power plant modernization
projects at the Hungry Horse, Grand Coulee, and Ice Harbor projects.
Fish passage improvement projects are planned at Lower Granite, Little
Goose, John Day, and Bonneville. One new structural measure was added
to this alternative--closeable floating gate orifices at Bonneville to
benefit lamprey.
Operational measures would provide flexible water management across
the basin to adjust to local conditions and ensure water availability
to benefit resident fish in the upper basin and improve flow conditions
for ESA-listed fish in the middle and lower basin. The Juvenile Fish
Passage Spill measure would be implemented using adaptive management as
more information on the effects of increased spill becomes available.
The Preferred Alternative also includes a measure to ensure future
flexibility for Reclamation to meet authorized water supply
obligations.
The Preferred Alternative endeavors to provide the most balanced
way to fulfill all of the CRS projects' congressionally authorized
purposes, meets a majority of the CRSO EIS objectives, minimizes and
avoids adverse impacts to the environment, benefits tribal interests
and treaty resources, and provides additional improvements for ESA-
listed species. The Preferred Alternative is described in detail in
Chapter 7 of the CRSO EIS. The Preferred Alternative is selected in
this ROD.
2.5.7 Environmentally Preferable Alternative
Federal agencies are required to identify the ``environmentally
preferable alternative'' in their Record of Decision consistent with 40
CFR 1505.2. If the environmentally preferable alternative is not
selected as the alternative for implementation, the agencies are to
discuss the reasons for not selecting the environmentally preferable
alternative. CEQ provided guidance on the ``environmentally preferable
alternative'' in its Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's
National Environmental Policy Act Regulations: ``The environmentally
preferable alternative is the alternative that will promote the
national environmental policy as expressed in NEPA's Section 101.'' \6\
As stated by CEQ, ``Ordinarily, this means the alternative that causes
the least damage to the biological and physical environment; it also
means the alternative which best protects, preserves, and enhances
historic, cultural, and natural resources.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 46 FR 18026 (Mar. 23, 1981), as amended (1986), available at
https://www.energy.gov/nepa/downloads/forty-most-asked-questions-concerning-ceqs-national-environmental-policy-act.
\7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To identify the environmentally preferable alternative, the co-lead
agencies used the policies identified in 42 U.S.C. 4331(b) (Section 101
of NEPA), to compare the alternatives and determine which meets the
environmental intent of the law.\8\
[[Page 63840]]
Through this evaluation, the agencies determined the Preferred
Alternative is the environmentally preferable alternative.
Comparatively, it meets each of the policies of NEPA and achieves the
widest range of environmental benefits, while minimizing adverse
effects to the environment and avoiding hazards to human health and
safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Section 101 of NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4331, states the following:
(a) The Congress, recognizing the profound impact of man's
activity on the interrelations of all components of the natural
environment, particularly the profound influences of population
growth, high-density urbanization, industrial expansion, resource
exploitation, and new and expanding technological advances and
recognizing further the critical importance of restoring and
maintaining environmental quality to the overall welfare and
development of man, declares that it is the continuing policy of the
Federal Government, in cooperation with State and local governments,
and other concerned public and private organizations, to use all
practicable means and measures, including financial and technical
assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general
welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and
nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social,
economic, and other requirements of present and future generations
of Americans.
(b) In order to carry out the policy set forth in this chapter,
it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to use
all practicable means, consistent with other essential
considerations of national policy, to improve and coordinate Federal
plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that the Nation
may--
(1) Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee
of the environment for succeeding generations;
(2) Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and
esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;
(3) Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the
environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other
undesirable and unintended consequences;
(4) Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects
of our national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an
environment which supports diversity and variety of individual
choice;
(5) Achieve a balance between population and resource use which
will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's
amenities; and
(6) Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the
maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Preferred Alternative assures safe, healthful, productive, and
esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings by maintaining
current riparian habitat, for example, while providing safe and
reliable power generation. The Preferred Alternative supports the
widest range of beneficial uses of the environment, without appreciable
degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable or
unintended consequences by providing flood risk management, power
generation and reliability, navigation, and fish and wildlife
conservation, including improvements to fish survival, water supply,
and irrigation. Commercial and tribal fishing in the lower Columbia and
lower Snake rivers would improve over the No Action Alternatives. There
would be fewer effects to cultural resources and improvements to tribal
fisheries. The Preferred Alternative includes fish passage
improvements, creating some job loss and potential higher power rates,
as compared to the No Action Alternative. The agencies would monitor
for potential shoaling at projects for unintended effects to
navigation, resident fish, and anadromous adult fish passage at certain
fish passage projects; this is included as mitigation. Effects to
cultural resources will continue, but would be mitigated through the
FCRPS Cultural Resource Program. Viewed with respect to ``the
interrelations of all components of the natural environment,'' \9\ the
Preferred Alternative is deemed the environmentally preferable
alternative based on its wide benefits to the environment, and the
minor adverse effects compared to the other alternatives analyzed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 43 U.S.C. 101(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.6 Summary of Potential Effects
For all alternatives, the potential effects were evaluated, as
appropriate, and discussed in Chapters 3, 4, 6, and 7 of the CRSO EIS.
A summary of the potential adverse effects of the Selected Alternative
is listed in Table 1.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[[Page 63841]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN08OC20.000
[[Page 63842]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN08OC20.001
BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
There are some localized moderate hydrological changes at Libby and
Dworshak projects, affecting storage reservoir elevations and flows
immediately downstream. Mitigation was proposed for habitat and
riparian stabilization, as wetlands and aquatic habitat are primarily
affected. Lower Snake River and lower Columbia River projects have
increases in spill, potentially adversely affecting tailrace
conditions, increasing energy dynamics that could cause sediment
movement and damage to federal infrastructure. Shoaling and navigation
channel effects would be monitored and any adverse effects would be
mitigated, including dredging and potential coffer cells. This
increased spill operation also creates a moderate impact to water
quality because it could increase TDG, especially on the lower Snake
River projects, which could adversely affect aquatic life and fish.
Additionally, the spill could create eddies and delay migrating
juvenile and adult salmon. These adverse effects have associated
mitigation components including monitoring, maintenance actions, and
fish transport, as well as adaptively managing operations as needed.
These actions are described in the Mitigation Measures, Section 2.7,
below, Chapter 5 of the CRSO EIS and Appendix R of the CRSO EIS, which
includes the description of monitoring and adaptive management.
Modifications of reservoir operations could result in earlier and
longer duration drafts of Lake Roosevelt in wet years, resulting in the
Inchelium-Gifford Ferry being out of operation for on average four days
per year more than under the No Action Alternative. This limits
communities, primarily on the Confederated Tribes of the Colville
Reservation, from accessing basic services such as medical and
education services. Mitigation is proposed to extend the ramp for the
Ferry to improve access and allow operation of the ferry under a wider
range of reservoir elevations.
The Selected Alternative will negligibly affect cultural resources.
The ongoing FCRPS Cultural Resource Program manages and treats cultural
resources affected by operations and maintenance in the region, under a
Programmatic Agreement between the agencies and consulting parties, and
will continue with implementation of the Selected Alternative. There is
the additional potential for impacts to built resources, such as
modifications of the federal projects themselves, which could affect
their historic value.
Under the Selected Alternative, hydropower generation will decrease
and the CRS will lose 330 average megawatts (aMW) of firm power during
critical water conditions (roughly the
[[Page 63843]]
amount of power consumed by about 250,000 Northwest homes in a year)
and lose an average of 210 aMW across all historical water conditions
modeled. The decrease in hydropower generation across the Pacific
Northwest (an average decrease of 230 aMW regionally, including Federal
and non-Federal projects) results in social welfare costs ranging
between $12 million and $17 million. In addition, the Selected
Alternative will result in additional costs of compliance with
greenhouse gas emission reduction programs in the region of between $16
and $83 million per year. Residential, commercial, and industrial end
users will experience slight upward retail rate pressure as a result.
The potential effects to commercial and tribal fisheries relative
to the No Action Alternative vary from moderately adverse to majorly
beneficial. Migrating juvenile anadromous fish could be affected by the
Juvenile Fish Passage Spill Operations measure. In addition to the
mitigation measures, the Preferred Alternative will be implemented
using a robust monitoring plan, which is detailed in the CRSO EIS,
Appendix R, part 2, Process for Adaptive Implementation of the Flexible
Spill Operational Component of the Columbia River System Operations
EIS.
The EIS included a discussion of practicable mitigation measures to
avoid or minimize adverse environmental effects that were analyzed and
incorporated into the Selected Alternative. Best management practices
will be implemented to minimize impacts during operations of the
projects.
2.7 Mitigation Measures
To mitigate for the unavoidable adverse impacts discussed in the
previous section, the co-lead agencies will implement the mitigation
actions described below. The descriptions also identify which agency is
proposing to adopt each action. Each such measure is discussed in
detail in Section 7.6 of the CRSO EIS, as well as the Monitoring and
Adaptive Management Plan and the Process for Adaptive Implementation of
the Flexible Spill Operational Component of the Columbia River System
Operations Environmental Impact Statement in Appendix R of the CRSO
EIS. A Mitigation Action Plan, consistent with Department of Energy's
NEPA regulations, is included as Attachment 1 to this ROD. This
Mitigation Action Plan identifies the mitigation actions Bonneville is
adopting as part of this NEPA process.
2.7.1 Plant Cottonwood Trees (Up to 100 Acres) Near Bonners Ferry
The flow regime at Libby makes natural establishment of riparian
vegetation downstream of the dam challenging. Higher winter flows make
it difficult to sustain young stands of cottonwoods to maturity. The
co-lead agencies would plant up to 100 acres of riparian forest along
the Braided and Meander reaches of the Kootenai River near Bonners
Ferry, using 1- to 2-gallon cottonwood trees, with the expectation that
the larger size trees would be better suited to withstand the higher
winter flows. This would improve habitat and floodplain connectivity to
benefit ESA-listed KRWS, and complement other actions already being
taken in the region to benefit their habitat. To the extent possible,
this work will be completed through ongoing projects under Bonneville's
Fish and Wildlife Program, such as the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho's
Kootenai River White Sturgeon Habitat Restoration Program.
2.7.2 Plant Native Wetland and Riparian Vegetation (Up to 100 Acres) on
the Kootenai River Downstream of Libby
The co-lead agencies would plant up to 100 acres of native forested
and scrub-shrub wetland vegetation at a lower river elevation in Region
A (see CRSO EIS, Section 3.2.2.1, for descriptions of the regions).
This would offset effects to existing wetlands and riparian forests
downstream of Libby, which would be caused by the Modified Draft at
Libby measure, and result in lower water levels on the Kootenai River.
To the extent possible, this work will be completed through ongoing
projects under Bonneville's Fish and Wildlife Program, such as the
Kootenai Tribe of Idaho's Kootenai River White Sturgeon Habitat
Restoration Program.
2.7.3 Temporary Extension of Performance Standard Spill Operations
It is expected that higher spill levels and the resultant TDG
associated with the Juvenile Fish Passage Spill measure could result in
delays to adult passage. Eddies created by a high spill operation may
confound upstream passage by salmonids. If a delay in adult salmon and
steelhead upstream passage is observed, operations would revert to
performance standard spill until the adult fish pass the dam, and this
would be managed adaptively, through the established Regional Forum
process and as described in the CRSO EIS, Appendix R, Part 2. This work
would be carried out by the Corps.
2.7.4 Update and Implement Invasive Species Management Plans
Deeper drafts at Libby would result in lower lake elevations in
spring, exposing previously submerged lands during the growing season
and potentially allowing establishment of invasive weeds. The Corps
would update and implement an invasive species management plan to
combat the establishment and proliferation of invasive species, as
required by Executive Order 13751.
2.7.5 Spawning Habitat Augmentation at Lake Roosevelt
In Lake Roosevelt, changes in elevation would result in higher
rates of kokanee and burbot egg dewatering in winter, and lower
reservoir levels in spring would decrease access to tributary spawning
habitat for redband rainbow trout. Increased flexibility of refilling
Lake Roosevelt through the month of October, depending on the annual
water conditions, may affect the spawning success of kokanee, burbot
and redband rainbow trout. In 2019, Bonneville funded year one of a
three-year study to determine potential effects of modifications in
Lake Roosevelt refill to resident fish spawning habitat access. Other
evaluations will be conducted to determine potentially affected areas.
If study evaluations and other available data indicate resident fish
spawning habitat areas are affected by changes in reservoir elevations,
the co-lead agencies will work with regional partners to determine
where to augment spawning habitat at locations along the reservoir and
in the tributaries (up to 100 acres). This mitigation action, when
combined with the existing study funded by Bonneville, would evaluate
existing effects to reservoir elevation changes from fall operations in
Lake Roosevelt and would mitigate for additional effects of the new
action. Exact sites and acreage would be determined post-alternative
implementation. The Bureau of Reclamation commits to provide staff time
and to seek technical assistance and funding to support collaboration
with the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, the Spokane
Tribe of Indians, and other interested parties to better understand the
effects of Grand Coulee operations on the life history requirements of
fish and wildlife resources in the Lake Roosevelt area.
2.7.6 Extension of the Boat Ramp for the Inchelium-Gifford Ferry in
Lake Roosevelt
Earlier and longer drafts at Grand Coulee would affect water
levels,
[[Page 63844]]
making the Inchelium-Gifford Ferry on Lake Roosevelt unavailable on
average four days per year more than under the No Action Alternative.
Reclamation would work with the Bureau of Indian Affairs to extend the
ramp at the Gifford-Inchelium Ferry on Lake Roosevelt so that it would
be available at lower water elevations. This work would be subject to
available appropriations.
2.7.7 Monitoring at Lower Granite, Lower Monumental, and McNary To
Evaluate Effects of Shoaling From Increased Spill, and if Warranted,
Install Coffer Cells To Dissipate Energy
It is expected that higher spill and variable timing of the spill
over the course of a day could result in changes to the tailraces at
Lower Granite, Lower Monumental and McNary. The Corps would monitor the
tailrace at each project to track changes that could affect safe
navigation or conditions for ESA-listed fish. If changes to the
tailrace warrant action, the Corps would construct coffer cells to
dissipate energy.
2.7.8 Increased Dredging at McNary, Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, and
Lower Granite Projects
In Regions C and D, the increased spill operations and lower
tailwater would increase shoaling in the navigation channel due to
increased spill operations in the lower Snake and Columbia rivers,
adversely affecting navigation. In order to maintain the navigation
channel and reduce effects to negligible, effects would be mitigated by
increasing the frequency and total volume of dredging at McNary, Ice
Harbor, Lower Monumental, and Lower Granite at a four- to seven-year
interval. As discussed above, shoaling would be monitored to determine
if additional installation of coffer cells at Lower Monumental, Little
Goose, and McNary could reduce dredging needs and further maintain the
channel. Coffer cells would dissipate energy during high spill
operations, which would support movement of sediment in the navigation
channel, thereby maintaining navigational capacity and river
transportation. This would increase overall maintenance costs for the
projects, but would reduce the adverse effects to negligible. This work
would be carried out by the Corps.
2.7.9 Federal Columbia River Power System Cultural Resource Program and
Systemwide Programmatic Agreement
For new effects to archaeological resources, traditional cultural
properties, and the built environment at storage projects caused by
implementation of the Preferred Alternative relative to the No Action
Alternative, the co-lead agencies would use the existing FCRPS Cultural
Resource Program and the Systemwide Programmatic Agreement to implement
mitigation actions, as warranted and appropriate.
Section 3. Key Considerations for the Decision
3.1 Introduction
The agencies considered several factors when making their decisions
in this ROD. These considerations are described in detail below, and
are in addition to considering the overall Purpose and Need Statement.
The agencies also considered the authorized purposes for which the co-
lead agencies operate the Federal projects, including how the purposes
complement or conflict with each other, as briefly summarized in
Section 2.4.
3.1.1 Alternatives Not Fully Meeting the Purpose and Need
The co-lead agencies considered whether an alternative met the
Purpose and Need Statement in making their decisions. Initially, eight
single objective alternatives were developed to maximize certain
project purposes and emphasize specific resources, utilizing the
analytical assumption that other purposes did not constrain the actions
that could possibly be taken. These single objective alternatives
provided the framework for comparing the tradeoffs associated with
different objectives throughout the Columbia River Basin. None of the
single-objective alternatives were found to fully meet the Purpose and
Need, and they were screened from further consideration; however, many
of the measures in these alternatives were integrated into the MOs. In
comparing the multiple objective alternatives, MO3 and MO4 did not
meet, or did not fully meet, the Purpose and Need (see Table 7-1 in the
Final EIS).
3.2 Responding to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon's
Opinion and Order
As outlined in the Purpose and Need Statement, the co-lead agencies
responded to the Opinion and Order issued by the District Court \10\ by
updating the long-term system operating strategy for the CRS projects
with updated information, including information on ESA-listed species
and their critical habitat and climate change. The co-lead agencies
also responded to the Opinion and Order by evaluating actions that
ensure CRS operations, maintenance and configuration are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or
threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification
of designated critical habitat. To begin, the co-lead agencies, in
coordination with the cooperating agencies, proposed measures as part
of the alternatives development process to benefit ESA-listed juvenile
and adult anadromous and resident fish species. Through this process,
the agencies evaluated actions within their current authorities, as
well as certain actions that are not within the co-lead agencies'
authorities, based on the District Court's observations about
alternatives that could be considered and comments received during the
scoping process. This analysis included evaluating breaching the four
lower Snake River dams. Based on the proposed alternatives' effects
analysis, the agencies then developed additional mitigation measures as
part of the CRSO EIS process for affected resources. The analysis from
the No Action and Multiple Objective Alternatives, including the
mitigation measures, climate effects and cumulative effects analysis
informed the development of the Preferred Alternative. The co-lead
agencies then proposed non-operational conservation measures through
the ESA consultations for the Preferred Alternative that are responsive
to uncertainty from the effects of the proposed action and from climate
change to ESA-listed species. These same measures were analyzed in
Chapter 7 of the EIS to evaluate the direct, indirect and cumulative
effects as well as climate change effects and unavoidable adverse
effects of the Preferred Alternative. Finally, the co-lead agencies
committed to continue funding their ongoing programs that benefit fish
and wildlife and other resources affected by the CRS projects (see
Chapters, 2, 5 and 7 of the CRSO EIS for more information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., 184
F. Supp. 3d 861 (D. Or. 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.3. ESA-Listed Species
Based on input received during development of the EIS, and in
response to the Order and Opinion issued by the District Court, the
agencies focused on developing a Preferred Alternative that maintained
and improved on their existing commitments for fish improvements in the
region. As reflected in both the Purpose and Need Statement and EIS
objectives, a key consideration for the co-lead agencies in their
decision-making is how the alternatives could affect ESA-listed and
[[Page 63845]]
non-listed species. The effects analysis is available in Chapters 3, 4,
6 and 7 of the CRSO EIS.
In addition to routine operations and maintenance of the CRS, the
co-lead agencies implement a number of actions and programs to benefit
ESA-listed species in the Columbia River Basin. Examples of these
actions include habitat measures (e.g., tributary habitat improvements
for salmon, steelhead, KRWS, and in consideration of bull trout),
operational measures at storage and run-of-river projects (e.g., flow
management and fish passage), conservation and safety-net hatcheries
(funding, support, design, construction), and predation management
(avian, piscivorous, pinnipeds). See Table 7-5 of the CRSO EIS, and,
for greater detail, reference the associated Biological Opinions
(BiOps) and Chapters 2, 5, and 7 of the CRSO EIS.
3.3.1 Anadromous Adult and Juvenile ESA-listed Species
The Selected Alternative provides a balanced approach between
spring and summer flow and spill operations to benefit ESA-listed
juvenile and adult salmonids, while also providing benefits to ESA-
listed resident fish in the upper Columbia River Basin. It includes
measures that benefit adult and juvenile salmonids and continues
commitments for ongoing actions to improve conditions for ESA-listed
species through habitat improvements. The Selected Alternative is
predicted to benefit survival of ESA-listed juvenile salmonids by
improving fish passage conditions through reductions in juvenile travel
times and instances of powerhouse and juvenile bypass system passage,
as detailed in Section 7.7.4 of the CRSO EIS.
The Selected Alternative is also designed to evaluate return rates
to the Columbia River Basin of ESA-listed salmonid will increase due to
the improvements in the juvenile migration as detailed in Section 7.7.4
of the CRSO EIS. Improved adult abundance is predicted to increase as a
result of improved juvenile survival and decreases in latent mortality,
(i.e., the delayed death of salmonids), associated with juvenile
passage through the CRS projects as discussed in Section 3.5 of the
CRSO EIS.
The co-lead agencies will monitor fish passage at the projects and
utilize adaptive management principles in implementing the Selected
Alternative based on results of biological studies and monitoring
information.\11\ These results will be discussed and operations
modified in collaboration with Federal, state, and tribal sovereigns to
ensure expected benefits to salmon and steelhead are being realized
based on the best available scientific information. The adaptive
implementation plan is discussed in the CRSO EIS, Appendix R, Part 2,
Process for Adaptive Implementation of the Flexible Spill Operational
Component of the Columbia River System Operations EIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Biological Assessment of Effects of the Operations and
Maintenance of the Federal Columbia River System (January 2020)
(2020 CRS Biological Assessment), at 2-1 to 2-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.3.2 Resident ESA-Listed Species
The Selected Alternative is predicted to benefit ESA-listed bull
trout and KRWS, as well as other resident fish through both operational
and mitigation measures as detailed in Section 7.7.5 of the CRSO EIS.
The Selected Alternative benefits resident fish by improving
productivity and food resources in storage reservoirs and by including
additional mitigation measures to improve habitat. Structural and
operational measures developed for anadromous fish that regulate
reservoir levels and remove predators may also provide beneficial
effects to resident fish, especially in the lower Columbia River. The
co-lead agencies would continue to utilize the Kootenai River Regional
Coordination workgroups to guide adaptive management of operations and
address technical issues related to KRWS.
3.3.3 Other Considerations Under the ESA
In their analysis of the Selected Alternative under Section 7 of
the ESA and its implementing regulations, the co-lead agencies conclude
that the benefits to ESA-listed species' survival and recovery and to
the conservation function of designated critical habitat are sufficient
to outweigh and offset the Selective Alternative's adverse effects on
ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat. As such, the
Selected Alternative as a whole is not likely to contribute to any
reductions in reproduction, numbers, or distribution of ESA-listed
species that could appreciably reduce their survival and recovery, nor
is the action as a whole likely to diminish the conservation function
of designated critical habitat. For these reasons, the Selected
Alternative is not an action that is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of ESA-listed species or destroy or adversely modify their
designated critical habitat. Because of this, the co-lead agencies
agree with the determinations of the USFWS and NMFS (together referred
to as the Services) in the 2020 USFWS and NMFS CRS BiOps (together
referred to as the 2020 CRS BiOps) that implementation of the Selected
Alternative and the actions described in the Incidental Take Statements
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of ESA-listed
species or destroy or adversely modify their designated critical
habitat. The jeopardy and destruction or adverse modification analyses
in the 2020 CRS BiOps that facilitated the Services' determinations are
based on the regulatory definitions for both ``jeopardize the continued
existence of'' and ``destruction or adverse modification'' of
designated critical habitat. The ESA regulations define ``to jeopardize
the continued existence of'' a listed species, which is ``to engage in
an action that would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce
appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a
listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or
distribution of that species.'' \12\ Therefore, the analyses considered
both survival and recovery of the species. The critical habitat
analysis is based upon the regulatory definition of ``destruction or
adverse modification,'' which ``means a direct or indirect alteration
that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as a whole
for the conservation of a listed species.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 50 CFR 402.02.
\13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The analysis under these regulatory definitions must always
consider whether the effects of the Selected Alternative's effects
cause appreciable reductions to survival and recovery or cause
appreciable diminishment of the conservation function of critical
habitat. This analysis is separate from the analysis of the
environmental baseline \14\ or a characterization of the condition of
the species prior to implementation of the proposed
[[Page 63846]]
action,\15\ even where the proposed action is a continuation of a prior
federal action. ``Effects of the action'' is defined as ``all
consequences to listed species or designated critical habitat that are
caused by the proposed action, including the consequences of other
activities that are caused by the proposed action. A consequence is
caused by the proposed action if it would not occur but for the
proposed action, and it is reasonably certain to occur. Effects of the
action may occur later in time and may include consequences occurring
outside the immediate area involved in the action.'' \16\ The Services
and the co-lead agencies analyzed the Selected Alternative's
consistency with the ESA's substantive mandates by using these
applicable statutory and regulatory standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Id. (``Environmental baseline refers to the condition of
the listed species or its designated critical habitat in the action
area, without the consequences to the listed species or designated
critical habitat caused by the proposed action. The environmental
baseline includes the past and present impacts of all Federal,
State, or private actions and other human activities in the action
area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in
the action area that have already undergone formal or early section
7 consultation, and the impact of State or private actions which are
contemporaneous with the consultation in process. The consequences
to listed species or designated critical habitat from ongoing agency
activities or existing agency facilities that are not within the
agency's discretion to modify are part of the environmental
baseline.'').
\15\ The ESA utilizes the term ``proposed action'' in its
implementing regulations to describe the agency action that is
subject to consultation under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. Proposed
action is not a term that is used in NEPA. In order to avoid
confusion in this ROD, the co-lead agencies have consistently
referred to the agency action subject to decision in this ROD as the
Selected Alternative.
\16\ See 50 CFR 402.17 (the preamble explains that the terms
``effect'' and ``consequences'' are generally used interchangeably.
84 FR 44976 (Aug. 27, 2019). The co-lead agencies use these terms in
that manner in this document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By maintaining or improving actions that arose through past
consultations, along with significant additional actions through the
CRSO EIS process, the co-lead agencies developed the Selected
Alternative to, on the whole, benefit ESA-listed species' likelihood of
survival and recovery and the conservation function of designated
critical habitat. The co-lead agencies worked closely with the Services
throughout this development process, as well as cooperating agencies
contributing to the CRSO EIS, to ensure that continued operation and
maintenance of the CRS and implementation of the non-operational
conservation measures, is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of listed species and is not likely to destroy or adversely
modify designated critical habitat.
The co-lead agencies have ensured compliance with the ESA through
improvements to system operations and fish passage, with resulting
higher dam passage survival rates and faster fish travel times.\17\ The
co-lead agencies will continue to implement these operations, along
with the Juvenile Fish Passage Spill Operation measure or Flexible
Spill with Adaptive Management with spill levels that are higher than
the co-lead agencies have discretionarily implemented prior to 2020. In
order to determine the effects of this operation, the Action Agencies
and NMFS considered results from lifecycle models created and
implemented by state and Federal agencies, the Comparative Survival
Study (CSS) managed by the Fish Passage Center, and the Comprehensive
Passage Model (COMPASS) and Lifecycle models (LCM) conducted by NMFS'
Northwest Fisheries Science Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and
Bonneville Power Administration. 2017. Federal Columbia River Power
System, 2016 Comprehensive Evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CSS model predicts substantial juvenile survival increases for
Snake River spring-summer Chinook salmon and steelhead, and further
predicts that fewer powerhouse passage events (as a result of higher
spill levels and higher proportions of juveniles passing the projects
via spillbays) will increase adult returns. NMFS LCMs did not predict
increases to the levels that the CSS model did, but did qualitatively
predict improvements in adult abundance if reductions in latent
mortality occurred. The differences resulting from these two models are
due to a number of factors, including how latent mortality is addressed
in each model. The Juvenile Fish Passage Spill Operation measure will
be implemented with a robust monitoring plan for salmon and steelhead
that will help narrow the uncertainty between these two models and
determine how effective additional spill can increase salmon and
steelhead returns to the Columbia Basin.\18\ Despite the differences in
the predictions from these models, the co-lead agencies have determined
that implementation of the Juvenile Fish Passage Spill Operation
measure is anticipated to substantially contribute to offsetting the
adverse effects resulting from other measures in the Selected
Alternative in a manner that will not reduce appreciably the likelihood
of survival and recovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See CRSO EIS, Appendix R, Part 2, Process for Adaptive
Implementation of the Flexible Spill Operational Component of the
Columbia River System Operations Environmental Impact Statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the co-lead agencies have included other operational
measures that are intended to offset the adverse effects of the
operation and maintenance of the CRS. These measures include Providing
Surface Spill to Reduce Adverse Effects to Overshooting Adult Steelhead
and John Day Reservoir Spring Operations for Caspian Tern Nesting
Dissuasion. Details of these operational measures can be found in the
CRSO EIS. These operational measures, among others, will not
appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of ESA-
listed species.
The Selected Alternative also includes structural improvements for
both juvenile and adult fish, as well as maintaining or improving
implementation of non-operational conservation measures to help address
uncertainty related to residual adverse effects of system operations
and maintenance and the uncertainty related to effects of climate
change, including habitat improvement and restoration actions in the
tributaries and estuary, nutrient enhancement, continued support for
conservation and safety net hatcheries, and predation management. In
addition, the Selected Alternative and the Incidental Take Statements
in the Services' 2020 CRS BiOps call for the co-lead agencies to submit
regular reports to the Services on implementation progress, to conduct
ongoing research, monitoring and evaluation (RM&E) of the biological
effectiveness of conservation measures, and to manage implementation of
the conservation measures adaptively as new information about
mitigation action effectiveness emerges. Regular reporting facilitates
transparency and co-lead agency accountability for implementing the
Selected Alternative and Terms and Conditions. Taken together, the
effects of the measures in the Selected Alternative will not
appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery for ESA-
listed species.
3.3.4 Southern Resident Killer Whales
The overall health and condition of the Southern Resident Killer
Whale (SRKW) depends on the availability of a variety of fish
populations throughout their range. SRKW are Chinook specialists, but
also consume other available prey populations while they move through
various areas of their range in search of prey. There is no evidence
that SRKW feed or benefit differentially between wild and hatchery
Chinook salmon.\19\ Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon is a small
portion of SRKW overall diet, but can be an important forage species
during late winter and early spring months near the mouth of the
Columbia River.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Southern Resident Killer Whale and the Snake River Dams,
NOAA Fisheries Service West Coast Region (March 16, 2016).
\20\ Ford, M. J., J. Hempelmann, M. B. Hanson, K. L. Ayres, R.
W. Baird, C. K. Emmons, et al.
2016. Estimation of a killer whale (Orcinus orca) population's
diet using sequencing analysis of DNA from feces. PLoS ONE
11(1):e0144956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The co-lead agencies would continue to fund the operations and
maintenance of safety-net and conservation hatchery
[[Page 63847]]
programs with implementation of the Selected Alternative. The agencies
would also continue to fund certain independent congressionally-
authorized hatchery mitigation responsibilities \21\ over the 15-year
implementation period of the 2020 NMFS CRS BiOp. This continued funding
was an important consideration in the analysis of effects to SRKWs
because production from these hatchery programs is expected to offset
any adverse effects from the Selected Alternative. For this reason,
NMFS concurred with the co-lead agencies' conclusion that the Selected
Alternative is not likely to adversely affect the SRKW.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Clarification and Additional Information to the
Biological Assessment of Effects of the Operations and Maintenance
of the Columbia River System on ESA-listed Species Transmitted to
the Services on January 23, 2020 (April 1, 2020). These independent
congressionally-authorized hatchery mitigation responsibilities are
consulted upon separately and are considered part of the
environmental baseline for purposes of this consultation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.4 Lamprey
The Selected Alternative addresses adult and juvenile lamprey
passage through specific structural modifications to the projects.
These measures provide benefits to lamprey through reducing
impingements and incidences of lamprey falling out of the Washington
Shore Fish Ladder. The Selected Alternative also includes other
measures that are expected to further benefit lamprey passage
conditions. These measures are described in Chapter 7 of the CRSO EIS.
3.5 Tribal Viewpoints
Input from the tribes was a key consideration in the co-lead
agencies' decision to select the Preferred Alternative. The tribes of
the Columbia River Basin represent distinct cultures, each unique. Most
of the 19 tribes identified as being affected by the operations of the
CRS provided extensive input into the CRSO EIS either as cooperating
agencies or through their comments, or both.
Many upper basin tribes were concerned there was an inequity in the
analysis resulting from a historical continuation of focusing on lower
river issues at the expense of others in the region. They expressed
their perception that the co-lead agencies prioritize resources on the
lower rivers over upper basin needs and problems. This group was very
interested in the construction of fish passage facilities and
reintroduction above Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph dams, which had been
eliminated from further detailed analysis in the CRSO EIS. Many upper
basin tribes commented that the co-lead agencies failed to adequately
engage or consider their concerns as a cooperating agency in the
process. In response, the co-lead agencies worked closely to keep a
balance in the Selected Alternative to benefit the entire Columbia
Basin, and not disproportionately affect upper basin cultural or tribal
resources. They also committed to ongoing regional collaboration to
discuss future studies and initiatives for fish management in blocked
areas above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee dams.
Lower basin tribes engaged in CRSO EIS cooperating agency teams;
however, these tribes expressed that the EIS failed to analyze a broad
range of alternatives and inadequately considered climate change. Most
tribes also were concerned whether the co-lead agencies complied with
several laws, including the ESA, NEPA, and the Pacific Northwest
Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (Northwest Power Act).
Generally, their comments expressed that consideration of breaching the
four lower Snake River dams was completed without a thorough analysis
and with biased methods. They expressed that the co-lead agencies fell
short of regional salmon and steelhead recovery goals, and did not
prioritize or place ESA-listed species recovery on equal footing with
other resource improvements. They expressed their belief that there was
bias in the methods and analysis conducted by the co-lead agencies
against fish and for power and other project purposes. Throughout the
process, the co-lead agencies discussed with the Tribes their concerns
and preferences in alternatives, and many Tribes, as cooperators,
participated in the analysis of alternatives. This was important in
having a shared understanding of the resource effects and ultimately in
determining the effects of implementing the Selected Alternative.
A few tribes around Libby and Hungry Horse shared that they found
the CRSO EIS to be thorough and balanced, and supported both the
analysis and the Preferred Alternative. Their focus was primarily
around the resident fish, wildlife, and cultural resources in this
region, and provided the CRSO EIS cooperating agency teams with
measures and assisted in effects analysis for this region.
3.6 Protect and Preserve Cultural Resources
As discussed in Chapters 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the CRSO EIS, the co-
lead agencies considered the effects the alternatives had on cultural
resources. Ongoing major effects to cultural resources under the
Preferred Alternative would be similar to the No Action Alternative.
The co-lead agencies determined that cultural resources affected by the
implementation of the Preferred Alternative would be addressed under
the ongoing FCRPS Cultural Resource Program.
The FCRPS Cultural Resource Program implements the terms of the
existing Systemwide Programmatic Agreement for the Management of
Historic Properties Affected by the Multipurpose Operations of Fourteen
Projects of the Federal Columbia River Power System for Compliance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Systemwide
Programmatic Agreement).\22\ The FCRPS Cultural Resource Program had
its origins in the System Operation Review Environmental Impact
Statement and Records of Decision in the 1990s. During that process,
eight cooperating groups were eventually established to address the
effects of operations and maintenance on cultural resources. The
cooperating groups formed the basis of the FCRPS Cultural Resource
Program then and continue to do so today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ A description of the FCRPS Cultural Resource Program can be
found here: https://www.bpa.gov/efw/CulturalResources/FCRPSCulturalResources/Pages/default.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Systemwide Programmatic Agreement commits the co-lead agencies
to work collaboratively with the cooperating group participating
organizations including states, tribes, and other federal agencies. The
agencies will continue to support the FCRPS Cultural Resource Program
over the course of implementing the CRSO EIS ROD. The agencies will
continue to collaborate with participants in prioritization of actions
and implementing treatments for cultural resources that are eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places that are
adversely affected by implementation of the CRSO EIS ROD. Treatments
may include a variety of both on-site and off-site options including
less conventional treatments sometimes referred to as creative or
alternative treatments. All treatments will be consistent with the
respective implementing agency's authorities.
3.7 Protect Native American Treat and Reserved Rights and Trust
Obligations for Natural and Cultural Resources Throughout the
Environment Affected by System Operations
The co-lead agencies also took into account Native American treaty
and reserved right as well as their trust
[[Page 63848]]
obligations in their decision-making. To the extent that the Preferred
Alternative provides for protection and mitigation of natural and
cultural resources, then it also helps protect and preserve Native
American treaty and executive order rights and meet agency trust
obligations. The Preferred Alternative includes operational measures
designed to protect ESA-listed anadromous and resident species as
identified by NMFS and USFWS, and to improve the quality of other
natural resources through reservoir operation and management of natural
streamflows. Operations at John Day, The Dalles, and Bonneville dams
also facilitate tribal treaty fisheries.
The co-lead agencies' commitment to implement actions that benefit
ESA-listed fish, their designated critical habitat, and other wildlife
helps fulfill Federal tribal treaty and trust responsibilities. As part
of the implementation of the Selected Alternative, the agencies
committed to ongoing coordination and open dialogue through the
established Regional Forum. The Regional Forum workgroups have
consistent participation by regional tribal sovereigns and this
participation is critical to informing management actions and policy
decisions. The co-lead agencies will continue to fund actions that
benefit tribal partners, including the implementation of hatchery
programs, habitat improvement actions, and other projects. This funding
provides jobs for tribal members and promotes broad opportunities for
exercising natural resource management expertise. These opportunities
help protect trust resources while supporting tribal sovereignty and
the exercise of treaty and resource management rights both on
reservations and in ceded areas throughout the Columbia River Basin.
The co-lead agencies also engaged tribes during the development of
the CRSO EIS and made extensive fish and wildlife mitigation
commitments to tribes through the Columbia Basin Fish Accords and the
2018 Accord Extensions. These commitments further tribal sovereignty by
supporting the tribes' exercise of their rights as comanagers of the
fisheries in coordination with other resource managers in the region.
3.8 Indian Trust Assets
Reclamation, consistent with its requirements for decision-making
under this ROD, has complied with its policy to evaluate potential
impacts to Indian Trust Assets (ITAs) in the development of the EIS.
ITAs are ``trust lands, natural resources, trust funds, or other assets
held by the federal government in trust for Indian tribes or individual
Indians.'' \23\ Although there are multiple federally recognized Indian
tribes in the vicinity of the project area on the Columbia and Snake
Rivers and associated tributaries, Reclamation did not identify any
potential impacts to ITAs as a result of the Preferred Alternative.
Potentially adverse effects to the interests of federally recognized
tribes evaluated include erosion of land or sites of cultural
importance, degradation of water quality, detrimental effects on
salmonid populations, and impediments to access for tribes with fishing
rights. The Preferred Alternative is expected to improve some
conditions for salmonid populations while other conditions are not
expected to vary greatly from the No Action Alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 25 CFR 115.002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.9 Water Quality
In Region A, the Preferred Alternative is expected to have
negligible to minor effects to water temperatures and TDG conditions at
the projects when compared to what would occur under the No Action
Alternative. In Regions B and D, the Preferred Alternative is expected
to have negligible effects on water temperatures and TDG when compared
to the No Action Alternative. In Region C, the Preferred Alternative is
expected to have negligible effects to water temperature at Dworshak
and all four lower Snake River projects. For TDG, moderate increases in
Regions C and D are anticipated due to the Juvenile Fish Passage Spill
measure that would allow for spill up to 125 percent TDG 16 hours per
day, from the beginning of April through the third week of June.
Effects to other water quality parameters would be negligible.
Under the Selected Alternative, the co-lead agencies will continue
to implement certain measures to improve water temperature, where
practicable, to address potential effects from the dams and reservoirs.
For example, the effects of the Dworshak Dam summer cool water releases
are expected to continue to influence water temperatures in the lower
Snake River. At the Lower Granite and Little Goose Projects, the
forebay tends to stratify, with warm water near the surface and cool
water from the Dworshak Project deeper in the water column. When
temperatures in the fish ladders are equal to or greater than 68
degrees Fahrenheit, the Corps operates pumps to supply the fish ladders
with cool water pumped from deep in the reservoir. The pumps are
typically operated from mid- to late summer, depending on climatic
conditions. From June 1 to September 30, water temperature data is
collected at adult ladder entrances and exits at each Corps project in
the lower Snake and lower Columbia Rivers. This serves to monitor for
temperature differentials in the ladder that could act to block adult
fish from ascending the fish ladders to migrate upstream of each dam.
Moreover, the Corps would continue several actions related to adult
fish ladder water temperature differentials: (1) Continue monitoring
all mainstem fish ladder temperatures and identifying ladders with
substantial temperature differentials (>1.0 degree Celsius); (2) where
beneficial and practicable, develop and implement operational and
structural solutions to address high temperatures and temperature
differentials in adult fish ladders at mainstem dams with identified
temperature issues; (3) complete a study that evaluates alternatives to
assess the potential to trap-and-haul adult sockeye salmon at lower
Snake River dams after development of a contingency plan by NMFS and
state and tribal fish managers; and (4) maintain or improve the adult
trap at Ice Harbor Dam to allow for emergency trapping of adult
salmonids as necessary. The Corps may refurbish the trap in the future
to prepare for the implementation of emergency trap-and-haul activities
(e.g., sockeye during high temperature water years similar to 2015).
In terms of impacts from TDG, measures under the Preferred
Alternative would be implemented consistent with state water quality
standards to manage TDG exposure to fish in the Clearwater River below
Dworshak Dam as well as manage TDG at Ice Harbor, John Day and McNary
dams. Juvenile fish passage spill operations would be implemented at
the lower Snake River projects and the lower Columbia River projects.
The spill would benefit salmon and steelhead through increased spring
juvenile spill, while providing a degree of protection against
unexpected or unintended consequences that may occur due to spilling up
to the 125 percent TDG cap, such as adult migration delay, gas bubble
trauma, or damage to infrastructure. These spill levels are slightly
variable, depending on the project, and may be higher or lower,
depending on river conditions and the opportunity to spill in the
spring. Spring and summer juvenile spill operations would be managed
adaptively, through the established Regional Forum processes and as
described in the CRSO EIS, Appendix R, Part 2, to address anticipated
and unexpected challenges, such as
[[Page 63849]]
potential delays to adult migration, effects to navigation, and other
challenges or opportunities that may require either a temporary or
permanent change. Additionally, operations of the spill deflectors at
Chief Joseph Dam would continue to decrease TDG saturations between the
forebay and tailrace during high flow and high spill years, consistent
with the Preferred Alternative.
3.10 Provide an Adequate, Efficient, Economical and Reliable Power
Supply That Supports the Integrated Columbia River Power System
Bonneville, along with the Corps and Reclamation, evaluated whether
the Preferred Alternative would continue to provide an adequate,
efficient, economical and reliable power supply that supports the
integrated Columbia River Power system. This purpose and objective
holistically looks at maintaining the federal power system's ability to
reliably produce power at a reasonable cost, while also balancing
Bonneville's other statutory objectives and responsibilities. To assess
whether the alternatives met this objective, the Final CRSO EIS
measures the effects of the Alternatives on not only the federal system
but also on broader regional reliability using the loss-of-load
probability or LOLP metric.
LOLP is an electric industry reliability planning standard that
measures the likelihood of an energy shortage in a given year.\24\ In
simple terms, the higher the LOLP percentage, the greater the chance
that utilities supplying power in the region will have at least one
blackout that year. The LOLP of the No Action Alternative is 6.6
percent, or roughly one or more blackouts in one of every 15 years.\25\
This is the baseline from which all the Alternatives are measured.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ CRSO EIS, Appendix H, Power and Transmission, Section 2.1;
id., Appendix J, Hydropower, Section 4.1. While not a mandatory
standard, LOLP operates as an ``early warning'' of a potential
resource shortage for the region. See id., Section 3.7.3.2 at 3-881,
n. 58.
\25\ CRSO EIS, Appendix H, Power and Transmission, Section 2.1,
tbl. 2-1. For context, the regional LOLP target adopted by the
Northwest Power and Conservation Council (Council) in 2011 was 5
percent. Id., Section 3.7.2.2 at 3-823.
\26\ CRSO EIS, Section 3.7.3.2 at 3-880.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the effects analysis for CRS operations from the
Alternatives, the Final CRSO EIS calculates an LOLP for each
alternative and then compares this value to the LOLP of the No Action
Alternative, (i.e., 6.6 percent).\27\ If the Alternative's LOLP is
higher than the LOLP of the No Action Alternative (i.e., higher than
6.6 percent), then additional resources would be needed until the LOLP
of the alternative is equal to the LOLP of the No Action Alternative.
The Final CRSO EIS identifies two resource groups that reduce LOLP cost
effectively and presents these resources as a range of possible options
that Bonneville or regional utilities would have when selecting
specific resources to acquire.\28\ The Final CRSO EIS then performs a
rates analysis to estimate the incremental impact the alternative would
have on Bonneville's wholesale power rate and regional retail
consumers' rates as compared to the No Action Alternative.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Id., Appendix J, Hydropower, Section 4.1 at J-4-1.
\28\ Id., Appendix H, 2.2.2.4.3, at H-2-15. The CRSO EIS does
not identify whether Bonneville or regional utilities would acquire
the resources necessary to return regional reliability to the level
of the No Action Alternative. This follows from the uncertainty
around the nature of Bonneville's future power obligation. In
general, if the supply of power from the federal power system
declines, leaving Bonneville with insufficient power to meet its
customers' firm power needs, Bonneville's customers have a choice:
they may elect to have Bonneville acquire resources to make up the
difference or they may choose to acquire the resources themselves.
\29\ See id., Section 3.7.3.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After reviewing the Final CRSO EIS, public comments, and analysis,
the co-lead agencies concur with the findings in the Final CRSO EIS
that the Preferred Alternative meets this objective and, therefore, is
the agencies' choice for the Selected Alternative for CRS operations,
maintenance and configuration. The Selected Alternative would decrease
CRS hydropower generation relative to the No Action Alternative by 330
aMW of firm power assuming critical water conditions (roughly the
amount of power consumed by about 250,000 Northwest homes in a
year).\30\ This decrease, however, would have no adverse effect on
regional reliability compared to the No Action Alternative. The LOLP of
6.4 percent under the Selected Alternative is slightly lower than the
LOLP of 6.6 percent under the No Action Alternative, but is essentially
the same for purposes of the risk to regional reliability.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Id., Section 7.7.9.9.
\31\ Id., Section 7.7.9.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The LOLP does not increase even with the loss of generation because
of the shape of the remaining generation in the Selected Alternative.
The largest reductions in annual average hydropower generation occur in
periods when the system generally has surplus (spring) and loads are
easier to meet. The reduction in generation in the Selected Alternative
during this period does lead to some risk of power shortages in June
when there was none in the No Action Alternative, and increases the
risk of power shortages in July and the first half of August compared
to the No Action Alternative. Conversely, the Selected Alternative
increases generation in late August and in the winter, periods when
demand is often high and it is more difficult to meet load, reducing
the risk of power shortages compared to the No Action Alternative. The
net effect of the spring and early summer generation decreases combined
with the late-summer and winter increases returns the LOLP to
essentially the same level of the No Action Alternative.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the Selected Alternative maintains reliability at the No
Action Alternative levels in the near term, the analysis shows that
over the long term this alternative meaningfully reduces the region's
risk of blackouts when taking into account likely retirement of
regional coal-fired resources in the future. As described in Section
3.7 of the Final CRSO EIS, the LOLP estimates used in the EIS analysis
rely on the assumption that 4,246 megawatts (MW) existing coal
generating capacity would continue to serve loads in the region over
the study period.\33\ The risk of blackouts in the region increases
significantly under the No Action Alternative if some or all of the
existing coal plants are retired. The Final CRSO EIS evaluates the
impact additional coal retirements could have on regional reliability
through two scenarios: a ``limited coal scenario'' (which captures
current and expected coal retirements) and a ``no coal scenario''
(which assumes all regional coal is retired).\34\ Under the ``limited
coal scenario'', the No Action Alternative LOLP increases to 27 percent
(a one in four chance of one or more blackouts each year), while under
the ``no coal scenario'', the No Action Alternative LOLP jumps to 63
percent (a two out of three chance of one or more blackouts each
year).\35\ While these LOLP numbers are indicative of a serious
reliability problem facing the region, the Selected Alternative has a
downward effect on these high LOLP values. Specifically, the Selected
Alternative decreases the LOLP by 3 percentage points (to 24 percent)
under a limited coal scenario, and decreases it by 4 percentage points
under the no coal scenario (to 59 percent), compared to the No Action
Alternative.\36\ In this way, the Selected Alternative not only
maintains current regional reliability, but also reduces the
[[Page 63850]]
amount of additional resources that would likely be need if/when
additional coal facilities are retired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Id., Section 3.7.3.1, at 3-875 to 3-877.
\34\ Id., Appendix H, Section 2.3, at H-2-24.
\35\ Id. at H-2-25.
\36\ Id., Section 7.7.9.2, at 7-163.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the Selected Alternative essentially maintains regional
reliability at the No Action Alternative levels, the Final CRSO EIS
concludes that no replacement resources are needed to replenish lost
firm power from the CRS projects.\37\ Similarly, with no additional
resources entering the grid, no new transmission interconnections or
reinforcements would be required under the Selected Alternative.\38\
Both of these factors contribute to the Selected Alternative having a
low overall effect on wholesale and retail rate pressure, which is an
important consideration in selecting this alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Id., Section 7.7.9.3, at 7-163.
\38\ Id., Section 7.7.9.4, at 7-166.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the Selected Alternative, Bonneville's average wholesale
Priority Firm (PF) power rate would experience upward rate pressure of
$0.94 per megawatt-hour (MWh) or a 2.7 percent increase relative to the
No Action Alternative, which results in a PF power rate of $35.50/
MWh.\39\ This rate pressure occurs because of a combination of
increased costs for structural measures and reduced firm power sales to
Bonneville's public power customers.\40\ The upward rate pressure on
Bonneville's wholesale transmission rates would be smaller--around 0.09
percent annually, largely due to reduced short-term transmission
sales.\41\ This pressure is modest and within a range that is generally
manageable within Bonneville's cost structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Id., Section 7.7.9.5, at 7-169, tbl. 7-33. It should be
noted that the wholesale rates described here represent the average
rates paid by Bonneville's customers as calculated for the Preferred
Alternative using the methodology and assumptions established in the
Final EIS and is a useful comparison to the calculated rate for the
No Action Alternative. It does not represent the effective rate paid
by a particular Bonneville customer and it is not an actual or
forecasted rate in Bonneville rate cases. Further, this rate
pressure does not account for potential offsetting cost reductions
Bonneville may engage in to reduce this pressure.
\40\ Id.
\41\ Id., Section 7.7.9.5, at 7-173.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional average residential retail rates would experience slight
upward rate pressure of +0.44 percent, though the effect would be
larger for power customers of Bonneville and would range up to +1.2
percent in some counties.\42\ Across the Pacific Northwest, changes to
the average residential retail rate would range from an increase of
less than of 0.01 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) to an increase of 0.11
cents/kWh (in percentage terms this represents an increase of less than
0.1 percent to an increase of 1.2 percent). For commercial end users,
rate effects range from an increase of less than 0.01 cents/kWh to an
increase of 0.11 cents/kWh (an increase of less than 0.1 percent to an
increase of 1.4 percent). Moreover, for industrial customers, the rate
effects range from an increase of less than 0.01 cents/kWh to an
increase of 0.11 cents/kWh (an increase of less than 0.1 percent to an
increase of 2.0 percent).\43\ These increases are lower than the
regional retail impacts created by MO1, MO3, and MO4. Moreover, they do
not include potential offsetting reductions, which Bonneville may be
able to achieve through cost management actions that could reduce the
upward pressure on the PF rate paid by Bonneville's firm power
customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Id., Section 7.14, at 7-236, tbl. 7-55; see also id.,
Section 7.7.9.6, at 7-175 to 7-178, tbls. 7-37, 7-38.
\43\ CRSO EIS, Section 7.9.7.5, at 7-173; see also id., Section
7.9.10, at 7-221.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.10.1 Alternatives Considered
The co-lead agencies considered, but ultimately chose not to
select, the No Action Alternative, MO1, MO2, MO3, or MO4. CRS
operations under MO1, MO3, and MO4, reduce federal power generation,
which results in a corresponding reduction in power system reliability
relative to the No Action Alternative, i.e., they increase the LOLP
percentage. To return the region to the LOLP of the No Action
Alternative, additional resources would need to be built or acquired at
a substantial cost to regional ratepayers. As described more fully
below, MO3 and MO4 result in long-term, major, adverse effects on power
costs and rates.\44\ Similarly, MO1 results in long-term, moderate,
adverse effects on power costs and rates.\45\ Furthermore, until
replacement resources are built and operating, regional reliability
would decline below the level of the No Action Alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ CRSO EIS, Section 7.14, at 7-236, tbl. 7-55.
\45\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.10.1.1 No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative met the Purpose and Need Statement of the
CRSO EIS, but it did not meet all of the objectives developed for the
CRSO EIS.\46\ The No Action Alternative generally satisfied the Power
Objective \47\ as it resulted in no additional upward power rate
pressure or potential regional reliability issues. However, it only
partially met the objectives for water supply and adaptable water
management because it did not provide the additional authorized
regional water supply. Further, it did not include effects of the
changes to CRS operations from important maintenance activities at
Grand Coulee needed in the near term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Id., Section 7.3.1, at 7-5 to 7-6.
\47\ The ``Power Objective'' refers to Objective 4, (``providing
an adequate, efficient, economical, and reliable power supply that
supports the integrated Columbia River Power System'') described
above in Section 2.2, and in the CRSO EIS, Section 2.2.1, at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.10.1.2 MO1
The Final CRSO EIS concludes that MO1 would not meet the Power
Objective.\48\ Under this alternative, hydropower generation from the
CRS projects would decrease by 130 aMW (roughly enough to power 100,000
households annually).\49\ The FCRPS, which includes the CRS, would lose
290 aMW of firm power under critical water conditions. This reduces the
total amount of firm power available to Bonneville for supplying power
customers under current long-term, firm power sales contracts. While
the decrease in generation in MO1 is less than under the Preferred
Alternative, MO1 had a greater impact on regional reliability because
of the timing of when these declines occur. Specifically, MO1 changed
the availability of generation in the summer months, when demand for
electricity is relatively high and existing generating capacity is
already relatively low.\50\ As such, regional reliability would decline
under this alternative, with LOLP increasing to 11.6 percent (or one or
more blackouts in 1 in every 9 years) in MO1.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ CRSO EIS, Section 7.3.2, at pg. 7-7.
\49\ Id., Section 3.7.3.3; id., Section 3.1.3, tbl. 3-1.
\50\ CRSO EIS, Section 3.7.3.3, at 3-896.
\51\ Id.; id., Appendix H, at H-2-3, tbl. 2-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Final CRSO EIS concluded that additional resources would need
to be built to maintain regional reliability at the same level as the
No Action Alternative. It considered two resource portfolios that
regional utilities could likely select from to replace the decrease in
generation capability under MO1. Those portfolios include: (1) A
conventional least-cost portfolio (natural gas); and (2) a zero-carbon
portfolio (solar and demand response). Under the conventional least-
cost portfolio, approximately 560 MW of natural gas fired generation
would be needed at a cost of around $43 million per year to return
regional reliability to the level of the No Action Alternative.\52\ If
the zero-carbon portfolio is selected, then 1,200 MW of solar produced
power and 600 MW of demand response would
[[Page 63851]]
be needed, for a cost of around $162 million a year.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ CRSO EIS, Section 3.7.3.3, at 3-899.
\53\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, the Final CRSO EIS included a rate analysis to
estimate the impact of each MO on Bonneville's wholesale power and
transmission rates. This analysis showed that MO1 placed upward
pressure on Bonneville's PF power rate. Depending upon the type of
resources acquired and the source of funding for those resources, MO1
placed upward pressure on Bonneville's PF rate of between 4.5 percent
and 8.6 percent over the No Action Alternative.\54\ Sensitivities
performed in the Final CRSO EIS around these values showed the range of
rate impacts widening from a low of 5.9 percent to a high of 14.3
percent (if Bonneville acquires the resources).\55\ The upward
transmission rate pressure under MO1 has annual increases between 0.62
and 0.74 percent depending on the resource replacement scenario.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Id. at 3-904, tbl. 3-135, and 3-907, tbl. 3-136.
\55\ Id. at 3-904, tbl. 3-135.
\56\ Id. at 3-908.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The regional average residential retail electric rates would also
see increases under MO1. Regional retail rates could see upward rate
pressure from between +0.65 percent and +0.79 percent annually
depending on the applicable scenario.\57\ The retail impact would be
even larger for power customers of Bonneville, with the retail increase
ranging as high as +7.6 for residential consumers in some counties.\58\
These effects could be greater if fossil fuel generation is reduced
under the No Action Alternative, as is expected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ Id. at 3-909.
\58\ Id. at 3-918 to 3-919, tbl. 3-147.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.10.1.3 MO2
MO2 best met the Power Objective.\59\ MO2 was developed with the
goal to increase hydropower production and reduce regional greenhouse
gas emissions while avoiding or minimizing adverse effects to other
authorized project purposes. MO2 would slightly relax the No Action
Alternative's restrictions on operating ranges and ramping rates to
evaluate the potential to increase hydropower production efficiency,
and increase operators' flexibility to respond to changes in power
demand and to integrate variable renewable resources.\60\ Average CRS
generation would increase under MO2 by 450 aMW or 5 percent.\61\ Firm
generation would increase by 380 aMW or 6 percent.\62\ The LOLP
improves under MO2 to 5 percent, which is below the No Action
Alternative level of 6.6 percent and is consistent with the Northwest
Power and Conservation Council's target for the region.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Id., Section 7.3.3, at 7-8.
\60\ Id. at 7-7.
\61\ Id., Section 3.7.3.4, at 3-920.
\62\ Id.
\63\ Id. at 3-922.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MO2 also has the smallest wholesale power and transmission rate
pressure of the alternatives, with a base power rate impact of -0.8
percent and a range of between -3.2 percent to a high of 1.3 percent
under the sensitivity analysis.\64\ Transmission rate pressure was
approximately 0.11 percent annually. MO2 also has long-term benefits to
regional reliability if additional coal retirements occur.\65\ Because
MO2 increased CRS hydropower generation, fewer replacement resources
would be needed to maintain regional reliability if existing plants
serving load in the region are retired.\66\ While MO2 provides the
greatest benefits for the Power Objective, it generally produced minor
to major adverse effects for anadromous fish except for minor
beneficial effects for Snake River Chinook as modeled by NMFS. Thus,
this alternative was not selected as the Preferred Alternative because
of the adverse effects to anadromous and resident fish as well as
cultural resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Id. at 3-927, tbl. 3-150.
\65\ Id., Section 3.7.3.4 at 3-922.
\66\ Id. at 3-923.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.10.1.4 MO 3
The Final CRSO EIS concludes that MO3 would not meet the Purpose
and Need Statement for the integrated FCRPS \67\ or the Power
Objective.\68\ This is due primarily to the decline in reliability and
the upward rate pressure resulting from breaching the four lower Snake
River dams. Under MO3, FCRPS generation would decline by 1,100 aMW, or
roughly 8 percent.\69\ The firm power capability of the FCRPS--power
that on a planning basis is made available to meet Bonneville's
customers' firm power needs--would decrease by 750 aMW, or roughly 12
percent.\70\ The risk of a regional shortage of power would more than
double compared to the No Action Alternative to 14 percent under MO3,
or one or more blackouts in one out of every 7 years.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Id., Section 7.2, at 7-4.
\68\ Id., Section 7.3.4, at 7-10.
\69\ Id., Section 3.7.3.5, at 3-939 to 3-940.
\70\ Id. at 3-941.
\71\ Id., Section 3.7.3.5, at 3-942; id., Appendix H, Power and
Transmission, Section 2.1, tbl. 2-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional generation resources would be needed to maintain
regional reliability at the No Action Alternative level. As with other
MOs, the Final CRSO EIS considered two replacement resource portfolios:
(1) Conventional least-cost; and (2) zero-carbon.\72\ The conventional
least-cost portfolio required approximately 1,120 MW of natural gas
generation for an annual cost of around $249 million.\73\ The zero-
carbon portfolio required 1,960 MW of solar generation supported by 980
MW of batteries and 600 MW of demand response to return regional
reliability to the No Action Alternative levels.\74\ This portfolio
included battery storage to return some of the lost sustained peaking
and ramping capability that would occur under MO3.\75\ This feature of
the MO3 resource portfolio recognized the important role that
generation capacity (the ability of a generator to increase or decrease
generation) plays in balancing solar resources. Without batteries,
solar resources would need to rely on other regional resources to help
balance their generation when the sun goes down or clouds roll in.\76\
The cost of the zero carbon portfolio is about $416 million a year.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ CRSO EIS, Section 3.7.3.5, at 3-942.
\73\ Id. at 3-943.
\74\ Id.
\75\ Id.
\76\ Id.
\77\ Id. at 3-960, tbl. 3-168.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ``base case'' evaluation in the Final EIS described the
resources needed to return regional reliability to the level of the No
Action Alternative (i.e., LOLP of 6.6 percent). These resources,
however, would not return to the Federal system, or the region, the
full functionality, flexibility, and capability provided by the four
lower Snake River dams. The four lower Snake River dams provide many
operational benefits to power system functionality, such as 2,000 MW of
quickly responding up or down (i.e., ramping) generation capacity that
can be deployed to meet fluctuations in load and generation.\78\ This
type of flexibility is crucially important during times of system
stress, such as when generation goes offline or wind and solar
generation fluctuate. To account for these additional operational
benefits, the Final CRSO EIS performed a sensitivity analysis to
estimate the amount of additional resources needed to replace the
flexibility attributes of the four lower Snake River dams. The EIS
concludes that to fully replace the capability of these projects, 3,306
MW of solar, 1,144 MW of wind, and 2,515 MW of batteries (at a cost of
over $800 million a year) would be needed.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ Id. at 3-945 to 3-946.
\79\ Id. at 3-947 to 3-948, tbl. 3-164.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63852]]
The Final CRSO EIS rates analysis showed that MO3 would place
substantial upward rate pressure on Bonneville's PF power rates. Under
the least-cost conventional portfolio, Bonneville's power rates could
see rate pressure in a range between 8.2 percent and 9.6 percent.\80\
The rate sensitivity analysis for this portfolio shows this range
expanding from a low of 4 percent to a high of 10.1 percent (if
Bonneville acquires the resources).\81\ The upward pressure to
Bonneville's PF power rate under the zero carbon portfolio would range
from 9.8 percent (if regional utilities acquire replacement resources)
to 20.6 percent (if Bonneville acquires the resources).\82\ The rate
sensitivity analysis in the Final CRSO EIS shows these rate impacts
potentially growing even larger under MO3, with the low end of that
range at 11.8 percent to a high end of over 50 percent, if Bonneville
acquires the resources.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ Id. at 3-960, tbl. 3-168 and at 3-964, tbl. 3-169.
\81\ Id. at 3-960, tbl. 3-168.
\82\ Id.
\83\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MO3 results in upward pressure on Bonneville's transmission rates
as well. Upward transmission rate pressures would be 1.3 percent
annually for the conventional least-cost portfolio and 1.6 percent
annually under the zero-carbon portfolio, relative to the No Action
Alternative.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ Id. at 3-965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The regional average residential retail rates for power would see
substantial increases under MO3. Regional retail rates across all
utilities (both Bonneville customers and non-Bonneville customers)
could see upward rate pressure from between +1.7 percent and +2.8
percent depending on the applicable scenario.\85\ The retail impact
would be even larger for Bonneville's power customers, with the retail
increase ranging as high as +14 percent for residential consumers in
some counties and +28 percent for some industrial consumers.\86\ These
effects could be greater if fossil fuel generation is reduced under the
No Action Alternative, as is expected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ Id. at 3-965 to 3-966.
\86\ Id. at 3-966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the high cost of MO3 is an important factor in the co-lead
agencies' decision to not include breaching the four lower Snake River
dams in the Preferred Alternative, other factors under MO3 also weigh
against its selection. For example, the time involved to select,
permit, and build the replacement resources and any associated
transmission facilities is unknown. The Final CRSO EIS assumes
breaching the four lower Snake River dams would occur starting in 2021.
The Final CRSO EIS also assumes all replacement resources would be
available to serve load beginning in 2023.\87\ This is a methodological
assumption designed to create a level playing field to measure the
effects of the Alternatives compared to the No Action Alternative.
While useful for the rates analysis (and other affected resources),
this assumption does not take into account the elements of the planning
required, and the time needed to site, permit, and build the
replacement resources. In the case of MO3, the zero-carbon replacement
resources would be on a level well above those currently operating in
the region. For a sense of scale, the region has around 1,000 MW of
installed solar capacity,\88\ and the largest operating battery in the
world is 100 MW, though several larger batteries are in
development.\89\ Installing 1,960 MW of solar would require roughly
12,000 acres of land or approximately 18 square miles.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ Id., Section 3.7.3.1, at 3-859.
\88\ Id., Section 3.7.3.2, at 3-882.
\89\ Id., Section 3.7.3.5, at 3-947.
\90\ Id. at 3-943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CRSO EIS acknowledges the timing issues with these large
resource builds, noting that it would likely take years--perhaps
decades--to complete the planning, environmental analysis, permitting,
land acquisition, and physical construction of the transmission and
generation resources needed in this alternative.\91\ Moreover, the
environmental effects from building this level of renewable resources
would require its own evaluation. That evaluation would include, among
other matters, impacts to the natural environment and methods to
dispose of or recycle the metals and minerals used in large-scale
solar, wind, and battery installations at the end of their useful
life.\92\ The feasibility of building thousands of megawatts of new
resources, miles of new transmission infrastructure, upscaling emerging
technologies (e.g., batteries) to unprecedented levels, and the
associated environmental review of these actions, is a factor in the
co-lead agencies' choice of an alternative. Until those resources are
constructed and operating, actions to implement MO3 could not be
undertaken without seriously undermining regional reliability.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ Id., Section 3.7.3.3 at 3-899; see also id., Appendix H,
Section 2.2.4.
\92\ CRSO EIS, Appendix H, Section 2.2.4, at H-2-24.
\93\ Id. at H-2-3, tbl. 2-1 (showing the region facing blackout/
energy shortages in 1 out of every 7 years under MO3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another important consideration weighing against selection of this
alternative is the long-term regional reliability impacts of reducing
existing carbon-free, flexible resources. As discussed in the Preferred
Alternative, the Final CRSO EIS analysis assumes that coal plants
generating 4,246 MW would continue to serve loads in the region over
the study period.\94\ Several of these plants have already been slated
for retirement, while others are likely to retire in the coming years
as state policymakers continue to take actions to reduce the use of
fossil fueled resources.\95\ While the CRSO EIS focuses on selection of
the operating strategy for the CRS projects, the Final CRSO EIS
recognizes the effects that coal plant retirements can have on regional
reliability.\96\ The resource retirement choices that utilities make
affect the reliability of the broader interconnected grid and markets,
likely putting additional strain on the existing power system,
particularly if the replacement resources are intermittent or variable
renewable resources. If regional utilities retire their coal plants,
the need for existing hydropower becomes greater.\97\ A similar
paradigm applies to hydropower generation. Breaching existing
hydropower projects places additional strain on the existing power
system, including thermal and renewable resources, compounding the
reliability problems the region will already be facing with additional
coal plant retirements. The end result is that regional utilities would
need to fill the holes in reliability left by reductions in both
resources (coal and hydropower), which may result in even more
investments in resources by regional utilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ Id., Section 3.7.3.1, at 3-875-77.
\95\ Id., Appendix H, Section 2.3.
\96\ Id., Section 6.3.1.7, at 6-68 to 6-69.
\97\ Id., Appendix J, Hydropower, Section 4.2.5, at J-4-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Final CRSO EIS analyzed the effects of coal plant retirements
plus reductions in hydropower generation in the ``Other Regional Cost''
pressure sensitivity.\98\ In simple terms, this sensitivity asks
whether the combination of (1) accelerated coal plant retirements, and
(2) operations under the applicable alternative, would require regional
utilities to build incremental zero carbon resources, above and beyond
what would be needed if (1) and (2) were viewed
[[Page 63853]]
separately. For MO1 and MO4, the Final CRSO EIS concludes in the Other
Regional Cost pressure analysis that no incremental resources were
needed to maintain regional reliability when viewing (1) and (2)
together. For MO3, however, an effect is identified, with a range of
between 660 MW to 3,460 MW of additional zero-carbon resources.\99\
This effect shows that the combined effects of MO3 operations plus coal
plant retirements would potentially lead the region to build even more
resources than the sum of coal plant retirements and hydropower
generation losses occurring in isolation. This analysis confirms that
eliminating the generation of the four lower Snake River projects would
exacerbate the existing resource adequacy issue already facing the
region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ Id., Section 3.7.3.1, at 3-875 to 3-876.
\99\ Id., Section 3.7.3.5, at 3-952, tbl. 3-167.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.10.1.5 MO4
The Final CRSO EIS concludes that MO4 would not meet the Power
Objective.\100\ This is primarily due to the large reductions in
generating output resulting from CRS operations under MO4. Average CRS
generation under MO4 would decline by 1,300 aMW, which is a 15 percent
reduction.\101\ The firm power capability of the CRS would decline by
890 aMW or 14 percent.\102\ The risk of a regional shortage of power
(LOLP) would increase to 30 percent, an almost fivefold increase to the
No Action Alternative LOLP of 6.6 percent. This is equivalent to one or
more blackouts every 3 years.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ Id., Section 7.3.5, at 7-14.
\101\ Id., Section 3.7.3.6, at 3-978.
\102\ Id. at 3-979.
\103\ Id. at 3-980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Returning regional reliability to the level of the No Action
Alternative would require substantial investments in new resources.
Using conventional least-cost resources, the Final CRSO EIS estimates
that 3,240 MW of power produced by new natural gas plants would be
needed to return regional reliability to the level of the No Action
Alternative at an annual cost of approximately $242 million.\104\ If
zero-carbon resources are selected, then roughly 5,000 MW of power
produced by solar resources and 600 MW of demand response would be
needed at an annual cost of roughly $576 million.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ Id. at 3-981. Although MO4 requires more natural gas plant
capacity than MO3, the cost of operating and running these plants is
slightly less because they will be operated less frequently than in
MO3, and a lower-cost technology (frame as opposed to combined
cycle) was selected in the resource selection process for MO4.
\105\ Id. at 3-981 to 3-982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MO4 would place substantial upward rate pressure on Bonneville's PF
power rates. Under the least-cost conventional (natural gas) portfolio,
Bonneville's PF power rates could see base case rate pressure in the
range between 15.3 percent (if regional utilities acquire the
resources) and 23.5 percent (if Bonneville acquires the
resources).\106\ The rate sensitivity analysis showed this rate
pressure increasing, from a low of 18.6 percent to a high of 26.4
percent (if Bonneville acquires the resources).\107\ The rate pressure
to Bonneville's wholesale power rate under the zero-carbon portfolio
ranges from 18.3 percent (if regional utilities acquire replacement
resources) to 25.3 percent (if Bonneville acquires the resources).\108\
The rate sensitivity analysis in the Final CRSO EIS shows these rate
impacts potentially growing even larger under MO4, with the low end of
that range at 20.2 percent to a high end of over 40 percent (if
Bonneville acquires the resources).\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ Id., Section 3.7.3.6, at 3-989, tbl. 3-184, and at 3-992,
tbl. 3-185.
\107\ Id.
\108\ Id. at 3-989, tbl. 3-184.
\109\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MO4 resulted in the most substantial upward pressure on
Bonneville's transmission rates as well. Upward transmission rate
pressures would be 1.6 percent annually for the conventional least-cost
portfolio, and 1.9 percent under the zero-carbon portfolio, relative to
the No Action Alternative.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ Id. at 3-993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional retail rates would also see significant upward rate
pressure. On average, counties would experience a 2.9 to 3.3 percent
upward rate pressure on their residential retail rate, depending on the
replacement portfolio, relative to the No Action Alternative.\111\ The
largest effect for all end-user groups under MO4 is a 36 percent upward
rate pressure in the industrial retail rate for some counties.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ Id. at 3-994.
\112\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with MO3, the co-lead agencies considered the long-term impacts
on regional reliability and the feasibility of implementing this
alternative. If the region selects a zero-carbon portfolio to replace
the lost generation in MO4, then upwards of 30,000 acres of land or
roughly 47 square miles would be needed to site a solar project capable
of producing 5,000 MW.\113\ These replacement resources, which would
take years, if not decades to site, permit, construct, and acquire
would need to be up and running before CRS operations under MO4 could
be in place. Without these resources, regional reliability would
decline to unprecedented low levels, with a 30 percent chance of a year
with one or more blackouts, i.e. one year every three years, creating
potential public safety and health effects from decreased power
reliability. In addition, as with MO3, the mass buildup of resources
called for in MO4 would involve environmental effects that would have
to be evaluated and considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ Id. at 3-981 to 3-982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.11 Minimize Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Power Production in the
Northwest by Generating Carbon-Free Power Through a Combination of
Hydropower and Integration of Other Renewable Energy Sources
Similar to MO1, MO3, and MO4, the Selected Alternative does not
meet the CRSO EIS objective of minimizing greenhouse gases (GHG)
emissions from power production in the Northwest. Hydropower generation
will decrease, resulting in increased generation from existing gas and
coal plants. The air quality analysis for the Selected Alternative
concludes that power sector GHG emissions in the Northwest will
increase by approximately 0.54 million metric tons per year, which is
about 1.5 percent of total power sector emissions in the region. This
increase is not as substantial as the increases for MO3 or MO4, but
similar to the increase under MO1. For states that have established
policies for reducing GHG emissions, such as Oregon and Washington,
this could adversely impact the timeframe and costs associated with
meeting these targets. Similarly, this could also increase the cost for
utilities that need to comply with state policies that place a price on
carbon or require use of a high percentage of renewables to meet retail
load. For example, Washington's Clean Energy Transformation Act (2019)
directs Washington retail utilities to serve loads with 100 percent
carbon-neutral power by 2030 and 100 percent carbon-free power by 2045
(Revised Code of Washington 19.405). The CRSO EIS analysis indicates
that in 2030 the approximately 0.54 million metric ton increase in GHG
emissions could cost utilities--and ultimately ratepayers--across the
region $15 to $77 million a year in compliance costs under these types
of state programs (prices are stated in 2019 dollars).
Given the Selected Alternative's changes in hydropower generation
largely occur in April through June,--a time of year when hydropower
generation is typically surplus to Bonneville's preference customers'
loads--it is more likely that increased
[[Page 63854]]
fossil-fuel generation owned by the investor-owned utilities in the
region would be serving investor-owned utility load, thus resulting in
these GHG emissions costs being borne largely by investor-owned
utilities. However, there could be conditions when some of these costs
could also be borne by Bonneville and its preference customers
depending on which entity is responsible under state programs for the
GHG compliance costs associated with the increases in fossil-fuel
generation. While the Selected Alternative results in increases in GHG
emissions and likely additional costs to ratepayers, thus not meeting
this CRSO EIS objective, this represents a trade-off to allow for
potential benefits to ESA-listed salmonids.
3.12 Climate Change
Future climate projections indicate warming temperatures and
changes in precipitation trends, which generally are likely to result
in declining snowpack, higher average fall and winter flows, earlier
peak spring runoff, and longer periods of low summer flows. These
changes could lead to higher and more variable winter flows and lower
flows during summer months across all regions in the basin. Water
temperatures throughout the basin are likely to increase. Climate
change is expected to affect nearly all purposes and uses of the CRS.
These effects are not caused by the CRS (though changes in operations
of the system evaluated in the CRSO EIS impact hydropower generation
and in turn regional GHG emissions) and are expected to occur
regardless of the alternative selected. However, certain measures could
exacerbate or ameliorate the impacts of climate change, thus affecting
the overall resiliency of a resource in response to these expected
changes in climate.
The analysis concluded that climate change is expected to have
negligible to moderate effects (beneficial or adverse) on resources and
the effectiveness of the Preferred Alternative. The EIS analysis showed
minor to moderate effects from climate change to these resources:
Hydrology and Hydraulics; River Mechanics; Water Quality; Anadromous
Fish; Resident Fish; Vegetation, Wildlife, Wetlands, and Floodplains;
Power Generation and Transmission; Flood Risk Management; and
Fisheries.
In the final biological opinion, NMFS states that climate change
poses a substantial threat to anadromous fish species over the next
twenty years. While climate change will affect anadromous fish in all
stages of life, the impacts are largely driven by changes in ocean
conditions that are projected to reduce survival during the marine life
history stage. NMFS concluded that ``these conditions are not caused
by, nor will they be exacerbated by, the continued operation and
maintenance of the CRS as proposed in the biological assessment.'' The
USFWS concluded in its final biological opinion that the Preferred
Alternative, in combination with other Federal and non-Federal actions,
is likely to exacerbate the effects of climate change on resident fish
by further diminishing habitat quality, decreasing forage availability,
causing migration delays, and increasing the risk of injury and
mortality. The USFWS recommended measures be taken where possible to
increase instream flow to improve water quality, decrease stream
temperatures, and otherwise reduce the impacts to resident fish from
climate change. The Selected Alternative contains measures that are
adaptive to emerging changes in climate and ensure there is flexibility
to respond to future changes.
Operational measures for the Selected Alternative as well as non-
operational conservation measures are expected to improve the existing
survival levels of fish species and contribute to overall resiliency in
light of climate change. For example, the co-lead agencies committed to
continuing the tributary and estuary habitat improvement program for
salmon and steelhead (with considerations for benefits to bull trout,
where appropriate), habitat restoration actions for KRWS, and to
evaluate and improve tributary habitat access for species such as bull
trout which will give spawning fish access to additional habitat. These
actions improve resilience to climate change by increasing access to
more diverse spawning habitat. Another example of this is the tributary
habitat restoration program that counters increased stream temperature
with deeper pools and more shaded areas. These types of habitat
improvement projects are examples of many actions that will be
implemented throughout the Columbia Basin. The Selected Alternative
also contains operational measures that are expected to contribute to
species resiliency, such as the continued use of cool water stored
behind Dworshak Dam and structures to address ladder temperature
differentials to help to reduce water temperatures in the lower Snake
River as fish approach and pass Lower Granite and Little Goose dams.
The Preferred Alternative also contains measures that provide
additional flexibility for operations of the CRS, which may contribute
to the resiliency of other resources to climate change. For example:
The reduction in fish passage spill in the second half of
August, which increases generation during a time when climate change is
expected to increase demand for power while at the same time reducing
the volume of water.
The updated flood risk management drawdown operation at
Dworshak, which will provide more planning certainty counteracting the
increased uncertainty from climate change.
Sliding scale operations for summer flow augmentation are
staged to better respond to local water supply conditions by using
local forecasts and to better balance anadromous and resident fish
needs.
A full discussion of climate and evaluation of resources are
included in Chapters 4 and 7 of the CRSO EIS.
3.13 Scientific Integrity and Commitments to Independent Review
Based on the nature of the CRSO EIS, the standards in the
applicable statutes, and comments during scoping from the public, the
co-lead agencies concurred that scientific integrity and independent
review of both the analysis in the CRSO EIS and the methodologies used
to conduct the evaluation were important parts of the process.
Following the Corps and OMB guidance described in Corps (2018) and OMB
(2004), the agencies had independent technical review conducted in
addition to agency and cooperator agency technical review. This helped
assure the evaluations were sound and identified where materials need
clarity or where the information had considerable risk and uncertainty.
These findings were used by the decisionmakers in considering
alternatives and making a final selection. Several of the tools used
were not owned or operated by the co-lead agencies. The results of
these peer reviews are discussed in the body of the CRSO EIS. The
owners of these tools were provided the results from the peer review
panel to help improve the tools in the future, should those entities
choose to do so.
3.14 Comparable Benefits and Adverse Effects of the Alternatives
In addition to the benefits that could be achieved by implementing
each of the alternatives, the agencies closely reviewed the analysis of
both benefits of implementing an alternative, and potential adverse
impacts to the human and natural environment, including risk to human
health or safety, changes to community culture and wellbeing, impacts
to local and regional economies, and ability to access and enjoy the
natural environment. The Northwest region has diverse tribal
[[Page 63855]]
communities and a rich history of cultural resources; the co-lead
agencies gave particular consideration to not exacerbate any effects
to, or adversely or disproportionately impact, tribal resources or
communities. The agencies also consider risk, potential undesirable and
unintended consequences of alternatives, and how climate variability,
such as conditions of both the short term and long term shifts in
climate, including extended droughts, or wetter and warmer weather, may
affect the system operations and the resources in the region.
The No Action Alternative would continue with the planned
operations and mitigation components in place in September 2016. The No
Action Alternative also would not include the additional water supply
commitments from Lake Roosevelt, or the operations of Grand Coulee
during planned maintenance activities over the next 25 years. The No
Action Alternative also would not meet the Power, GHG, or water supply
objectives of the EIS for balancing considerations of future
operations.
All of the alternatives included measures to benefit ESA-listed
anadromous and resident fish and lamprey. MO1 included several
measures, which were carried forward or modified in the Preferred
Alternative. MO1 included all lamprey structural measures included in
the Preferred Alternative, except the Closeable Floating Orifice Gates
measure, which was only added to the Preferred Alternative. Measures
unique to MO1 for fish were the juvenile spill operation, the Predator
Disruption Operations measure, and the Modified Dworshak Summer Draft
measure. The Predator Disruption Operations measure (like the Preferred
Alternative) could result in larval lamprey being stranded in shallow
rearing areas, depending on dewatering rates. The Modified Dworshak
Summer Draft measure was intended to provide cooler water for
anadromous fish. The analyses showed it would actually increase
temperatures and have an adverse effect on ESA-listed anadromous and
resident fish as well as non-ESA-listed lamprey. This measure was not
carried forward into the Preferred Alternative. Finally, MO1 did not
meaningfully meet resident fish, power or GHG objectives.
MO2 included measures with less spill and spring flow compared to
the No Action Alternative and generally had lower expected performance
related to anadromous adult and juvenile fish. For some species, such
as Snake River Chinook salmon, the analysis produced mixed results with
the NMFS Lifecycle models predicting minor improvements and the CSS
Lifecycle models predicting major declines. The MO2 resident fish
results showed the measures to increase power generation and water
supply would have moderate to localized major adverse effects to
resident fish throughout the basin, especially at Hungry Horse Dam
where increased winter flows and lower summer reservoir elevations
would affect food productivity, tributary access, habitat suitability,
and entrainment. Regions B and C would also experience adverse effects
to resident fish from power generation and water management measures
that were eliminated or modified for the Preferred Alternative.
Finally, MO2 included the same lamprey structural measures as MO1.
Relative to the Preferred Alternative, the overall shift to more
powerhouse flow and passage makes this alternative less effective at
improving conditions for lamprey. Greater numbers of lamprey would
likely pass near fish bypass screens and would be at a higher risk of
injury or impingement compared to the No Action Alternative. Thus,
although MO2 met the power and GHG objectives, it did not meet the
objectives for ESA-listed juvenile fish or resident fish and may not
meet the ESA-listed adult anadromous fish objective. These adverse
effects could impact tribal and commercial fishing. It also did not
meet the water supply objective.
MO3 included improvements to fish passage by structural
modification with the Removal of the Earthen Embankments measure at the
four lower Snake River dams. Model estimates for MO3 showed the highest
predicted potential smolt-to-adult returns (SARs) for Snake River
salmon and steelhead as compared to the other alternatives analyzed in
the CRSO EIS. Quantitative model results from both the CSS and NMFS
Lifecycle models were available and indicated a range of potential
long-term benefits largely due to how the models address latent
mortality. Quantitative predictions for improvements for Upper Columbia
Chinook were not anticipated to be at the same magnitude as Snake River
species since upper Columbia stocks do not pass the four lower Snake
River dams. Moreover, resident fish would have major adverse short-term
effects during construction followed by major long-term benefits to
bull trout and white sturgeon (not ESA-listed in this reach) due to
habitat connectivity. Other native fish in the Snake River would also
benefit from the conversion of reservoir conditions to more riverine
habitat. MO3 analyses showed similar effects as MO1 for resident fish
in other regions. The primary benefit is anticipated to be for ESA-
listed fish in the lower Snake River, which could improve commercial
and tribal fishing and recreation. Finally, MO3 included the same
lamprey structural measures as MO1. Relative to the Preferred
Alternative, the most substantial change would be the breaching of the
four Lower Snake River dams. This could reduce mortality to lamprey
during the downstream migration phase and would substantially improve
the ease of upstream migration. Finally, MO3 did not meet the power or
GHG objectives.
Significant human health and safety concerns were identified for
MO3. This alternative has the potential to temporarily contaminate
water, used for both municipal and agricultural purposes. Indirect
impacts included potential to contaminate fish and communities that may
consume these fish. The uncertainty around remediation actions that
would be required to clean hot spots and underground storage leaks
elevates the risk. Much of the safety improvements needed to public and
private infrastructure (roads, rails, water intakes, pipes) in the
reach of the lower Snake River would be conducted by other entities.
The method of dam breaching would be staged and water levels lowered to
prevent shoreline slumping, but changes in river velocities on
infrastructure could contribute to degradation that would need to be
addressed. Water intakes for municipal water access would need to be
extended in some areas, a concern for communities to have access to
adequate water supply. Several communities currently use the lower
Snake and McNary reservoirs for fire prevention and emergency services
via boats and sea planes, and would need to adjust their emergency
plans. Carbon emissions and traffic congestion would be elevated in
some communities as commodities shift from shipping by navigation to
truck or rail. As sediment is moved through the system, areas of the
navigation channel and shorelines could capture sediment and create
temporary shoaling areas, which could pose hazards to boaters.
MO3 additionally would have adverse effects to the communities
along the lower Snake River and confluence with the Columbia River.
This area would have to adjust to changes in agricultural and shipping
practices, and jobs. While economically these shifts will pass from one
type of service to another, the people involved are likely to change,
and the composition of these communities with it. There would be
[[Page 63856]]
higher cost for shipping in the region, as well as upward pressure on
power and transmission rates and increased risks for power outages
unless and until replacement resources are acquired. Additionally,
there would be significant shifts in use of this region for
recreational purposes, from a reservoir to river system. Most access
points to the river will be inaccessible until regional entities
provide local infrastructure. Over time, it is anticipated these
communities would stabilize. In the interim, these communities would
have limited and changed use of the river, shifts in community
practices, and impacts to visual and aesthetic enjoyment of the natural
environment.
There was significant short term risk to the natural environment
with MO3 implementation. While mitigation and time could help offset
those impacts to wetlands, floodplains and wildlife usage adversely
affected by the breaching measure, there is significant uncertainty
around responses to extended years of low dissolved oxygen. Significant
die-off of aquatic organisms could occur. Long term risks include
increases in ambient air temperature, which could exacerbate water
temperatures in a post breach lower Snake River, which would be much
shallower and narrower. It is anticipated it would be more sensitive to
air temperatures, including getting hotter in the spring, and cooling
earlier in the fall. The potential of unintended consequences is higher
as there is greater uncertainty in multiple breaching scenarios, which
could also implicate funding and associated production at mitigation
hatcheries.
MO4, which had the highest juvenile fish passage spill levels and
the most flow augmentation, also produced mixed results based on the
two primary modeling approaches. NMFS Lifecycle models predicted that
survival and abundance would decrease under MO4 while the CSS models
predicted increases. MO4 incorporates a flow augmentation measure to
benefit juvenile anadromous fish that would have major adverse effects
to resident fish in the upper basin (Region A), and also in Lake
Roosevelt (Region B), especially in dry years. Notably, this
alternative is the only one that showed adverse effects to resident
fish in the Pend Oreille River and Lake Pend Oreille. Additionally, MO4
included the same lamprey structural measures as MO1. Relative to the
Preferred Alternative, the increased spill and flow augmentation under
MO4 may result in minor beneficial effects for out-migrating juvenile
lamprey. Adults migrating upstream in July would experience higher
water temperatures in the Columbia River from Chief Joseph Dam to
McNary Dam that would likely lower their survival and migration success
relative to the Preferred Alternative. In MO4, drawdowns in late March
could dewater sediment used for larval lamprey rearing, and this
alternative could reduce the amount of habitat available for larval
lamprey. MO4 has the potential to affect communities adversely along
the upper storage reservoirs and rivers. The increase in water flows in
the lower Columbia River would pull water from the upper basin
projects, adversely affecting riparian and resident fish habitat. Many
of these areas have tribal and commercial fishing, directly affecting
the fish resources, economics, and community wellbeing. Additionally,
these areas would have adverse visual effects. Several cultural sites
would also be at risk of damage.
MO4 would remove flexibility for water discharge outlets at
projects, and increase TDG in the water column. This has a known
adverse impact to aquatic organisms, but uncertainty around the scale
of adverse impacts at the project level. Additionally, the energy
associated with the discharged spill could confuse and prevent
migrating ESA-listed adult fish from passing the projects. There would
be additional infrastructure maintenance and dredging of the navigation
channel to sustain the higher spill, impacting the sediments and
aquatic organisms more frequently. Finally, MO4 did not meet the ESA-
listed resident fish, power or GHG objectives.
With these results, in concert with results relating to the other
objectives in mind, the co-lead agencies developed the Preferred
Alternative. A major difference from past operations is the Preferred
Alternative includes a new spill operation to test balancing fish
benefits and flexibility for hydropower production by spilling more
water in the spring for juvenile fish passage. The Preferred
Alternative did not carry forward some measures that were initially
expected to provide a benefit to anadromous fish, including
construction of additional powerhouse surface collectors because
neither NMFS nor CSS Lifecycle modeling efforts predicted a measurable
benefit to fish.
Relative to resident fish, the Preferred Alternative includes
measures that provide benefits for resident fish, such as ramping rate
restrictions, minimum downstream flow requirements, and temperature
control, as well as ongoing non-operational conservation measures such
as Kootenai River white sturgeon habitat restoration projects and
leveraging benefits for bull trout where feasible when developing
tributary habitat projects for salmon. Other measures allow for the
summer draft from Libby and Hungry Horse Reservoirs for downstream flow
augmentation to be determined based on local water supply forecast and
to be sensitive to water supply conditions. As a result, water
reservoir elevations would be a little higher in the summer, especially
in dry years. This action is expected to affect resident fish by
improving food production, tributary access, entrainment, and
downstream habitat suitability. Finally, measures included in the
Preferred Alternative should decrease susceptibility to physical stress
and mortality for lamprey relative to the No Action Alternative. The
Preferred Alternative is expected to contribute to improvements in
spatial distribution and recruitment of Pacific lamprey in the Columbia
Basin, though it remains difficult to quantify effects and benefits of
some actions. Finally, the Preferred Alternative meets all EIS
objectives except the GHG objective.
Section 4. Public Review
Public review of the Draft CRSO EIS was conducted February 28, 2020
through April 13, 2020 (85 FR 11986). All comments submitted during the
public comment period were responded to in the Final CRSO EIS and can
be found in Appendix T. A 30-day waiting period and state and agency
review of the Final EIS was completed on August 31, 2020 (85 FR 46095).
4.1 Comments Recevied on the Final EIS
The co-lead agencies received two comment(s) after issuance of the
Final EIS. Commenters, included the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the Columbia-Snake River Irrigators Association.
EPA provided comments pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act, (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act.
The comments focused on appreciation for adding information requested
during a meeting of the co-lead agencies with EPA; support for refining
monitoring and adaptive management proposed in the EIS; and
acknowledgement of modifications that were made in collaboration with
Federal and non-Federal agencies, cooperating agencies, and tribes. EPA
also expressed its willingness to continue support on wide-ranging
water quality issues, where appropriate.
The Columbia-Snake River Irrigators Association submitted comments
related to irrigation and navigation
[[Page 63857]]
effects of MO3. In response to Draft EIS comments received regarding
over-estimating transportation costs associated with dam breaching, the
Final EIS included a sensitivity analysis that examined the potential
use of the Great Northwest Railroad for transporting grain to export
elevators on the Columbia River. The sensitivity analysis determined
that the costs to upgrade the rail lines to meet Positive Train Control
(PTC) requirements, add sufficient space to port facilities, and modify
port facilities to load trains would likely be economically unfeasible
when compared to other options. The co-lead agencies deemed that the
sensitivity analysis was sufficient for informed decision-making and
that a more detailed and costly analysis would not result in a
significantly different estimate of impacts or ultimately change the
Selected Alternative.
4.2 Cooperating Agencies, Tribes, and Stakeholders Review
4.2.1 Review from States
The four states--Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana--all
provided expertise and contributions to the CRSO EIS as cooperating
agencies. The states were unified in calling for a continued commitment
to improving conditions for the region's fish and wildlife. In support
of requests for continued regional collaboration, the co-lead agencies
support efforts to hold forums focused on improving salmonid
populations. The co-lead agencies expect that this EIS will provide a
useful foundation of information as the region works together on a
shared vision for abundant fish runs and a clean, reliable, and
affordable energy future for the Northwest.
4.2.2 Tribal Views Shared Prior to the Joint Record of Decision
The agencies engaged with regional tribes after the release of the
Final CRSO EIS and had additional discussions with five tribes.\114\
These were not typical consultations as they were held remotely using
video conferencing due to the coronavirus pandemic. Nearly all tribes
reiterated the dramatic impacts to their culture and way of life
resulting from the construction, operations and maintenance of the CRS
and the importance of salmon and other fish to their people. Some
tribes were complimentary and supportive of the CRSO EIS process,
citing the considerable effort put into regional coordination,
soliciting input from tribes, and the comprehensive analysis resulting
in a quality report. Some expressed concerns about the expedited
schedule of the EIS and a perceived lack of tribal consideration and
contribution to the EIS process and content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ These tribes included the Confederated Tribes of the
Colville Reservation, the Coeur d'Alene Tribe, the Confederated
Salish and Kootenai Tribes, the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the
Yakama Nation, and the Nez Perce Tribe. Several informal meetings
were also conducted with various tribes from the region, including
an invitation to all regional tribes for a large virtual video
conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was uniform interest in next steps following the CRSO EIS and
how the tribes would be included in regional forums, implementation of
the CRSO EIS, and notably mitigation actions. All tribes inquired about
how regional forums would be conducted, who the lead entities would be,
goals of the forums, and what the agency roles would be. Frustration
was expressed about the decision to not include fish reintroduction
into blocked areas as part of the CRSO EIS alternatives. A strong
interest was expressed for having fish reintroduction into blocked
areas be the primary focus of upcoming forums. Many expressed a desire
to collaborate on mitigation planning efforts (e.g., fish habitat
studies) to contribute technical expertise and tribal perspectives.
The pre-ROD tribal consultations were informative and provided
helpful suggestions, some of which were included in this joint ROD.
Tribal perspectives have and will always continue to improve our agency
understanding of the CRS. Discussions about the future of managing the
CRS does not end with this EIS and associated Tribal consultations.
This EIS is part of the ongoing effort to manage the CRS.
4.2.3 Common Publicly-Held Views
Many members of the public through public comments, cooperating
agencies throughout their participation in developing the EIS and in
comments on the EIS, and tribes expressed a preference for the agencies
to select an alternative that included the dam breaching measures in
MO3, sometimes in combination with juvenile spill operations in MO4.
Although MO3 potentially had the greatest benefits for some species of
ESA-listed fish, it would achieve those benefits at the expense of not
meeting the other components of the agencies' Purpose and Need
Statement or certain EIS objectives. The agencies also received
numerous comments expressing opposition to MO3.
The measure to breach the four lower Snake River dams in MO3 (a
main component of this alternative) has been the topic of a large
amount of public discourse for decades. Many environmental
organizations and some tribes have been strong proponents of breaching
the dams. They assert breaching the dams will result in large
improvements to certain salmonid populations, and this in turn would
have beneficial effects to the overall function of the Northwest
ecosystem and for tribal ways of life. At the same time, many
stakeholders within the navigation industry, and agricultural producers
within the region that depend on the navigation industry to export
grains to overseas markets, have expressed high concern with the
potential regional socioeconomic effects from breaching the dams. This
alternative would eliminate approximately 48,000 irrigated acres,
hydropower generation flexibility and navigation on the lower Snake
River which affects the ability of this alternative to meet the Purpose
and Need Statement.
Section 5. Environmental Compliance Summary
5.1 Section 7 of the Federal ESA
Pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended, NMFS and USFWS issued biological opinions, both dated July 24,
2020, that determined that the Selected Alternative will not jeopardize
the continued existence of the following federally listed species or
adversely modify designated critical habitat: Snake River (SR) spring/
summer Chinook salmon, SR Basin steelhead, SR sockeye salmon, SR fall
Chinook salmon, Upper Columbia River (UCR) spring-run Chinook salmon,
UCR steelhead, Middle Columbia River steelhead, Columbia River chum
salmon, Lower Columbia River (LCR) Chinook salmon, LCR steelhead, LCR
coho salmon, Upper Willamette River (UWR) Chinook Salmon, UWR
steelhead, the southern Distinct Population Segment of eulachon, bull
trout, and KRWS. The agencies will implement the Selected Alternative
reviewed in the consultations, as well as the Services' terms and
conditions to both minimize take of ESA-listed species and avoid
jeopardizing the continued existence of ESA-listed species or
destroying or adversely modifying designated critical habitat.
Pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended, the co-lead agencies determined that the recommended plan may
affect but is not likely to adversely affect the following federally
listed species or their designated critical habitat: Southern Resident
killer whales, southern Distinct Population Segment of green sturgeon,
streaked
[[Page 63858]]
horned lark, Columbian white-tailed deer, grizzly bear, Ute ladies
tresses, and the western yellow-billed cuckoo. NMFS and USFWS concurred
with the co-lead agencies' determination on July 24, 2020.
In order to inform ongoing implementation of the Selected
Alternative (with adaptive management principles), the co-lead agencies
would continue to rely upon annual species status monitoring results to
ascertain the need for contingency actions. The co-lead agencies do not
propose to use specific abundance or trend triggers as previously set
forth in the 2009 Adaptive Management Implementation Plan \115\ because
they have become outdated (e.g., they were based on adult returns
through 2007 or 2008), because many identified contingency actions are
already being implemented (e.g., substantially higher spill levels due
to the proposed flexible spill operation, refined transportation
operations, hatchery reform, etc.), and because several contingency
actions (e.g., reducing harvest, some elements of predator control,
etc.) are outside their authority to implement. Instead, the co-lead
agencies would work with NMFS, USFWS, Federal, state and tribal
sovereigns and other appropriate parties in any region-wide diagnostic
efforts to determine the causes of declines in the abundance of
naturally produced salmon and steelhead and to identify potential
contingency actions should the need arise. The co-lead agencies
proposed three specific actions in the proposed action: modification of
the fish transportation program, reprogramming of safety-net hatchery
programs, and kelt reconditioning in years of low steelhead
returns.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ FCRPS Adaptive Management Implementation Plan. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of Interior, and U.S. Department
of Energy, September 11, 2009, available athttps://
www.salmonrecovery.gov/Files/BiologicalOpinions/AMIP/AMIP_09%2010%2009.pdf.
\116\ 2020 CRS Biological Assessment at 2-120.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The co-lead agencies complete appropriate environmental analysis
prior to implementing fish and wildlife protection, mitigation and
enhancement actions, whether that analysis is programmatic or site-
specific. These analyses include review under all applicable laws and
regulations. During the course of the implementation of future actions
associated with operations from the CRS projects and the other actions
addressed in the 2020 CRS BiOps, actions would continue to undergo
site-specific environmental analysis prior to implementation.
The current consultation in the 2020 CRS BiOps encompasses
operations and maintenance of the CRS for a fifteen-year period. This
decision to implement the 2020 CRS BiOps is therefore a decision to
implement the action as described therein until the end of that
fifteen-year period, subject to adaptive management. If the next
consultation commences before the 2020 CRS BiOps are fully implemented,
the co-lead agencies and the Services will consider adjustments in the
timing and content of remaining implementation plans and reporting
called for in the 2020 CRS BiOps.
5.2 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
Under Section 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (MSA), the agencies consulted with NMFS as part of the
consultation that resulted in the 2020 NMFS CRS BiOp. NMFS considered
essential fish habitat (EFH) designated by the Pacific Fisheries
Management Council for Pacific Coast groundfish and salmon and coastal
pelagic species. NMFS concluded that further consultation under the MSA
was not required for these habitats because the operation and
maintenance of the CRS as described in the 2020 NMFS CRS BiOp would not
adversely affect EFH for these species. NMFS made four conservation
recommendations to mitigate adverse effects on EFH of species. In
accordance with MSA Section 305(b)(4)(B), the agencies confirmed to
NMFS that the agencies will adopt and follow these conservation
recommendations, which were consistent with the measures in the
proposed action and Terms and Conditions in the 2020 NMFS CRS BiOp.
5.3 Cultural Resources
Cultural resources affected by the implementation of the Selected
Alternative will be addressed under the ongoing FCRPS Cultural Resource
Program. The FCRPS Cultural Resource Program implements the terms of
the existing Systemwide Programmatic Agreement for the Management of
Historic Properties Affected by the Multipurpose Operations of Fourteen
Projects of the Federal Columbia River Power System for Compliance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
5.3.1 National Historic Preservation Act
After reviewing the changes in operations, maintenance, and
configuration proposed as a part of the Selected Alternative, the co-
lead agencies have determined that the existing Systemwide Programmatic
Agreement would address the co-lead agencies' responsibilities under
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for all proposed
operations. If it is determined at a later date that any proposed
structural measures are not covered by the Systemwide Programmatic
Agreement, then separate Section 106 compliance would be completed
prior to construction, when sufficient site-specific information on the
undertaking becomes available.
5.3.2 Archaeological Resources Protection Act
Unlike the National Historic Preservation Act, consultation under
the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) is only applicable
to issuance of a permit to conduct archaeological investigations.
Therefore, there is nothing specifically that the co-lead agencies
would need to do as a part of considering these changes in operations,
maintenance, or configuration. Under the Selected Alternative, the land
managing co-lead agencies (Reclamation and Corps) will continue to
issue ARPA-related permits to external project proponents for
archaeological investigations occurring on their respectively managed
Federal land. The co-lead agencies will also continue efforts related
to documenting destruction or alteration of archaeological resources in
violation of ARPA.
5.3.3 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
There is not a general consultation requirement triggered under
this act by changes in operations, maintenance, or configuration under
the Selected Alternative. The existing FCRPS Cultural Resource Program
maintained by the co-lead agencies addresses inadvertent discoveries of
human remains that could result from system operations (43 CFR 10.4).
5.3.4 American Indian Religious Freedom Act
The co-lead agencies do not anticipate taking any actions under the
Selected Alternative that would infringe upon the rights afforded under
the American Indian Religious Freedom Act to Native American tribes.
The co-lead agencies will continue to consult and work with area tribes
to protect and provide access to sacred sites on CRS Federal lands,
when possible and practicable to do so.
[[Page 63859]]
5.3.5 Curation of Federally Owned and Administered Collections
Under the Selected Alternative, the co-lead agencies will continue
to implement the existing FCRPS Cultural Resource Program which ensures
the ongoing responsibility of managing Federal archaeological
collections generated from Federal lands as a result of construction,
operations, and maintenance.
5.4 Clean Water Act
Pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as amended, commonly referred to as the Clean
Water Act (CWA). Section 401 water quality certifications would be
obtained for project-specific structural measures, as appropriate,
prior to construction. Section 402 of the CWA established the national
pollutant discharge elimination system for permitting point source
discharges to waters of the U.S. The Corps and Reclamation have filed
applications for CWA Section 402 permits for discharges of pollutants
at the CRS mainstem dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers. These
permits have not yet been issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) or Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
For Section 404, the Corps prepared a Section 404(b)(1) evaluation
to determine whether a project has unacceptable adverse impacts either
individually or in combination with known or probable impacts of other
activities that affect the aquatic resources in the project area. This
evaluation can be found in Appendix W of the Final CRSO EIS.
Under the CWA, each state must develop a Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) for the waters identified on their Section 303(d) list of
impaired waters, according to their priority ranking on that list. In
May of 2020, EPA issued for public review and comment the TMDL for
temperature on the Columbia and lower Snake Rivers to address portions
of the rivers that Washington and Oregon have identified as impaired
from temperatures that exceed the states' water quality standards.
The co-lead agencies will continue to operate certain measures to
improve water temperature, where practicable, to minimize or offset
potential effects from the dams and reservoirs, as described in the Key
Considerations for the Decision, Water Quality, Section 3.9.
In terms of impacts from TDG, measures under the Selected
Alternative will be implemented consistently with state water quality
standards to manage TDG exposure to fish in the Clearwater River below
Dworshak Dam as well as manage TDG at Ice Harbor, John Day and McNary
dams. Juvenile fish passage spill operations will be implemented at the
lower Snake River projects and the lower Columbia River projects. These
measures are described above in Key Considerations for the Decision,
Water Quality, Section 3.9.
The Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Rule (40 CFR part
112) includes requirements to prevent discharges of oil and oil-related
materials from reaching the navigable waters of the United States and
adjoining shorelines, among others. It applies to facilities with total
aboveground oil storage capacity (not actual gallons onsite) of greater
than 1,320 gallons and facilities with belowground storage capacity of
42,000 gallons. Construction activities associated with the structural
measures would comply with this rule in implementing the Selected
Alternative, if needed.
5.5 Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act
Under the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and
Conservation Act (Northwest Power Act), 16 U.S.C. 839 et. seq., the co-
lead agencies have certain responsibilities with respect to the
operation, maintenance, and configuration of the 14 dams and reservoirs
comprising the Columbia River System. In particular, the co-lead
agencies share a mandate to exercise their responsibilities for
management and operation of the CRS, consistent with the purposes of
the Northwest Power Act and other applicable laws, to adequately
protect, mitigate, and enhance affected fish and wildlife in a manner
that provides such fish and wildlife equitable treatment with the other
purposes for which the CRS is managed and operated.\117\ Further, the
co-lead agencies are to take into account, at the relevant stages of
their decision-making and to the fullest extent practicable, the
Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program adopted by the Northwest
Power and Conservation Council (Council).\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ 16 U.S.C. 839b(h)(11)(A)(i).
\118\ Id. 16 U.S.C. 839b(h)(11)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, Bonneville has separate duties under the Northwest
Power Act that the Corps and Reclamation do not share, as explained in
Section 7.3 below. Specifically, Bonneville must use its authorities
under the Northwest Power Act and other laws to ``protect, mitigate,
and enhance fish and wildlife to the extent affected by the development
and operation'' of the FCRPS, including the CRS.\119\ Bonneville must
fulfill this mandate ``in a manner consistent with'' the purposes of
the Northwest Power Act and the Council's Power Plan and Columbia River
Basin Fish and Wildlife Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ Id. 16 U.S.C. 839b(h)(10)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.5.1 Equitable Treatment
The co-lead agencies must exercise their responsibilities for CRS
projects, consistent with the purposes of the Northwest Power Act and
other applicable laws, to adequately protect, mitigate, and enhance
affected fish and wildlife in a manner that provides such fish and
wildlife equitable treatment with the other purposes for which the CRS
is managed and operated.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ Id. 16 U.S.C. 839b(h)(11)(A)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The equitable treatment provision of the Act specifically applies
to the co-lead agencies' responsibilities for (1) ``managing [and]
operating'' (2) the federal dam and reservoir projects themselves,
including the CRS.\121\ The co-lead agencies may consider equitable
treatment of fish and wildlife, in relation to the other purposes for
which the CRS is managed and operated, on a system-wide basis, meaning
that they may, for example, make certain decisions that place power
above fish, so long as on the whole, they treat fish on par with
power.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ Id. 16 U.S.C. 839b(h)(11)(A). The Northwest Power Act's
equitable treatment provision pertains to ``managing [and]
operating,'' which in the context of the CRSO EIS includes the
system operation, maintenance, and configuration actions analyzed by
the co-lead agencies.
\122\ See Nw. Envtl. Defense Ctr v. Bonneville Power Admin., 117
F.3d 1520, 1533-34 (th Cir. 1997); see also Confederated Tribes of
the Umatilla Indian Reservation, et al. v. Bonneville Power Admin.,
342 F.3d 924 (9th Cir. 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the purposes of the Northwest Power Act also factor into
the agencies' consideration of equitable treatment. In addition to
protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife affected
by the FCRPS, such statutory purposes include encouraging development
of renewable generation resources and assuring the Pacific Northwest an
adequate, efficient, economical, and reliable power supply.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ See 16 U.S.C. 839(1)-(2), (6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CRSO EIS process and the Preferred Alternative identified in
the Final CRSO EIS demonstrate the co-lead agencies' continued
equitable treatment of fish and wildlife in their operation and
management of the CRS. Under the No Action Alternative, the co-lead
agencies had provided equitable treatment for fish in part through
annual
[[Page 63860]]
fish operations planning and preparation of an annual Water Management
Plan for biological opinion purposes.\124\ New alternatives considered
in the CRSO EIS included further operational and structural measures
with a range of anticipated benefits and effects to fish in relation to
other authorized system purposes. As a starting point, the Purpose and
Need Statement and four of the eight CRSO EIS objectives pertain to
improvements for fish through system operation, maintenance, and
configuration actions. Some alternatives favored, for example,
hydropower generation while others would maximize certain fish benefits
to the detriment of other purposes--e.g., MO3, which the CSS model
predicts would create the greatest benefits for anadromous fish, but
that would curtail or, in specific portions of the Basin, effectively
eliminate other system purposes such as navigation, hydropower
generation and irrigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ See generally CRSO EIS, Sections 1.9.4-1.9.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimately, the operational and structural measures of the Selected
Alternative strike a new equitable balance by expanding on the actions
of the No Action Alternative that benefit fish while also accommodating
continuation of all authorized system purposes.\125\ The combination of
new and existing actions that benefit fish in the Preferred Alternative
incorporates consideration of the Northwest Power Act's statutory
purposes. In particular, the purposes of (1) assuring an adequate,
economic, and reliable power supply, when balancing the system's
treatment of fish with other authorized purposes, and (2) protecting,
mitigating, and enhancing fish and wildlife--``particularly anadromous
fish''--including related spawning grounds and habitat, by providing
suitable environmental conditions substantially obtainable from
management and operation of the CRS and other power generating
facilities on the Columbia River and its tributaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ See generally id., Sections 7.6.1-7.6.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to wildlife, the existing effects associated with the
majority of the CRS projects relate to the reservoirs' inundation of
wildlife habitat; that is, the effects are the result of the dams'
construction, not their operation, maintenance, or configuration.
Bonneville's historic wildlife mitigation for construction and
inundation effects have focused on offsetting effects up to the full-
pool inundation level, which covers operational impacts that might
occur between full-pool and minimum operations.\126\ Nevertheless,
where appropriate Bonneville will continue to support CRS operations
that benefit wildlife, such as operations that may support
establishment of wetland vegetation and soil conditions or increase the
overall quantity and quality of wetlands in the John Day pool
area.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ See also Bonneville Power Admin., Comments on
Recommendations to Amend the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program
(Feb. 8, 2019), available at https://app.nwcouncil.org/uploads/2018amend/comments/1221/Bonneville%20Comments%20on%20Recommendations%20to%20Amend%20the%20Council%20Fish%20and%20Wildlife%20Program%202.8.2019.pdf (regarding
scope of Bonneville's wildlife mitigation responsibilities under the
Northwest Power Act).
\127\ See CRSO EIS, Section 7.7.7.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, for the most part, the Northwest Power Act's equitable
treatment provision tends to be more relevant in its application to
fish rather than wildlife, particularly in light of the Act's stated
emphasis on anadromous fish ``which are dependent on suitable
environmental conditions substantially obtainable from the management
and operation of [the FCRPS].'' \128\ Even for storage projects, where
operations can result in greater reservoir fluctuations and effects to
wildlife can be more pronounced, the Final CRSO EIS generally found
effects were minor, negligible, or not measurable for wildlife and
vegetation.\129\ Particular to wildlife, operations can lead to
shoreline erosion and loss of terrestrial habitat. These effects are
difficult to mitigate solely through operations because of the need to
provide multipurpose operations for fish flows, power generation, and
flood risk management among other purposes. When the nature of wildlife
effects is impractical to address through management of operations
themselves, wildlife managers have generally favored habitat
enhancement actions as appropriate mitigation to address operational
effects to wildlife.\130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ 16 U.S.C. 839(6).
\129\ See CRSO EIS, Section 7.7.7; see also CRSO EIS, tbl. 7-55.
\130\ See, e.g., Northern Idaho Memorandum of Agreement between
Bonneville Power Administration and the State of Idaho for Wildlife
Habitat Stewardship and Restoration (2018) (providing in-place/in-
kind habitat improvement funding to offset habitat losses from power
operations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CRS operations, maintenance, and configuration actions
reflected in the Preferred Alternative and selected in this ROD,
demonstrate the extent to which equitable treatment of fish and
wildlife will continue in the co-lead agencies' management and
operation of the CRS.
5.5.2 Consideration of Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
Under the Northwest Power Act, in their management and operation of
the CRS, the co-lead agencies are to take into account, at the relevant
stages of their decision-making and to the fullest extent practicable,
the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program (``Program'')
adopted by the Council.\131\ An understanding of the statutory
foundation, components, and requirements for the Council's Program
itself is critical to inform and understand the co-lead agencies'
responsibility to take this program into account during their decision-
making.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ 16 U.S.C. 839b(h)(11)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Act, the content of the Council's Program is to
consist of ``measures''--i.e., actions that can be taken--``to protect,
mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife affected by development,
operation, and management of [hydroelectric] facilities while assuring
the Pacific Northwest an adequate, efficient, economical, and reliable
power supply,'' \132\ including off-site ``enhancement'' measures as
appropriate in certain circumstances,\133\ as well as ``objectives for
development and operation of such projects . . . in a manner designed
to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife.'' \134\ With
respect to anadromous fish, the Council Program's measures are to
``provide for improved survival of such fish at hydroelectric
facilities,'' and ``provide flows of sufficient quality and quantity
between such facilities to improve production, migration, and survival
of such fish . . . .'' \135\ The Council must review its Program at
least once every five years, pursuant to specified statutory
processes.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ Id. 16 U.S.C. 839b(h)(5).
\133\ See id., 16 U.S.C. 839b(h)(8)(A).
\134\ Id. 16 U.S.C. 839b(h)(2)(B).
\135\ Id. 16 U.S.C. 839b(h)(6)(E).
\136\ Id. 16 U.S.C. 839b(d)(1); see generally id. 16 U.S.C.
839b(h)(2)-16 U.S.C. 839b(h)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In practice, the Council's Program has grown to include a
substantial aggregate of content addressing general policy, a regional
vision for the Columbia River Basin, fisheries management goals,
perspectives and advice on federal agency implementation practices, and
other additional components to those prescribed by the statute--that
is, the mitigation measures themselves. To the extent that these
supplemental Program components are extraneous to content mandated by
the Northwest Power Act, such components still prove useful context for
the co-lead agencies to consider, but they do not carry the same weight
as, for instance, the Program
[[Page 63861]]
provisions that adhere to the statutory criteria for ``measures.''
Moreover, the Council's inclusion of such additional content as
regional vision and implementation provisions does not make the co-lead
agencies responsible for adhering to the proffered processes or
ensuring the particular outcome of a Council goal, especially when it
depends on factors beyond the co-lead agencies' influence such as the
effects of hundreds of non-federal dams, not just the 14 CRS
projects.\137\ Therefore, when taking the Council's Program into
account during decision-making, the co-lead agencies look primarily to
statutory-based content in the Program--such as actionable measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ See generally Letter from S. Armentrout, Bonneville Exec.
Vice President Environment, Fish and Wildlife, to R. Devlin, Council
Chair, (June 20, 2020); see also Letter from S. Armentrout,
Bonneville Exec. Vice President Environment, Fish and Wildlife, to
J. Anders, Council Chair, at 4-8 (Oct. 19, 2018). Both letters are
available at: https://app.nwcouncil.org/uploads/2018amend/comments/1392/Final%20Council%20Addendum%20Pt%201%20Cover%20Ltr%20and%20Comments%202020.06.22.pdf. Many of the Program's broad regional goals are also
challenging for the co-lead agencies to consider or apply given that
the goals are affected by many factors outside of the co-lead
agencies' control or responsibility while the Program's mitigation
measures are narrowly focused almost exclusively on the FCRPS and
mitigation funded or implemented by Bonneville, the Corps and
Reclamation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Council's Program is, in large part, an off-site mitigation (or
``enhancement'') program that primarily recommends continued
implementation of fish and wildlife projects such as habitat protection
and improvements, artificial production (i.e. hatchery production), and
research, monitoring, and evaluation. However, Program content directly
relevant to the actions under consideration in the CRSO EIS--operation,
maintenance, and configuration of the CRS--is limited.
In the various Program iterations since 2003--when it last provided
comprehensive guidance on system operations in its ``Mainstem
Amendments''--the Council has for the most part amended its Program to
follow or endorse the system management actions included in the current
NMFS and USFWS biological opinions, Fish Accord agreements, and more
recently the 2019-2021 Spill Operation Agreement.\138\ Furthermore, the
findings associated with the Council's recent Program amendment process
do not indicate any substantive review of the 2003 Mainstem Amendments
by the Council, which leaves considerable question as to the extent to
which such amendments still apply, given the Council's statutory duty
to review the Program at least once every five years and the fact that
the Council has supported further changes to operations since the 2003
Mainstem Amendments were adopted. Therefore, few current Program
provisions directly address system operations in a way that would
provide meaningful additional guidance to consider. The co-lead
agencies have nonetheless taken appropriate Council guidance into
account. For example, the majority of the Libby and Hungry Horse
operations discussed in part two of the Council's 2020 Addendum to its
Program were considered in the CRSO EIS alternatives and were either
incorporated or modified in the Preferred Alternative.\139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ See, e.g., Council, Findings on Recommendation and
Response to Comments for the 2020 Addendum [Part II] to the 2014
Fish and Wildlife Program, at 48-50 (recognizing and incorporating
the 2019 NMFS CRS BiOp, 2018 Fish Accord Extensions, and 2019-2021
Spill Operation Agreement); 57 (supporting ongoing estuary
restoration work); and 69 (recognizing 2018 Accord Extension
agreements) (March 2020).
\139\ See Northwest Power & Conservation Council, 2020 Addendum,
Part II, Columbia River Basin Fish & Wildlife Program, at 7 (Jan.
14, 2020, pre-publication version).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, another operational matter included in both the CRSO
EIS and past Council Program guidance relates to the timing of Lake
Roosevelt's refill to a particular elevation level in the fall. Under
the Preferred Alternative, the date for the elevation refill target may
be shifted to later in the fall than the date initially proposed as
guidance in the Council's 2003 Mainstem Amendments. However, in
considering this operational measure in the CRSO EIS, the co-lead
agencies took into account the fish protection purpose associated with
the Council's 2003 guidance (protecting access to kokanee spawning
habitat) as well as subsequent mitigation work that was implemented to
address the underlying concern.\140\ And further, through the
Mitigation Action Plan in Attachment 1, the co-lead agencies have
agreed to additional mitigation for the potential effects of this
operation after evaluation by supplementing spawning habitat at
locations along the reservoir and tributaries, if appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ See also Categorical Exclusion Determination, Bonneville
Power Admin., Dept. of Energy, Grand Coulee Dam/Lake Roosevelt Fall
2019 Operations (Sep. 27, 2019), available at https://www.bpa.gov/efw/Analysis/CategoricalExclusions/cx/20190927_Grand_Coulee_Lake_Roosevelt_Fall_2019_Operations_CX_FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another topic raised in both the CRSO EIS process and the Council's
Program is passage and reintroduction of anadromous fish above Chief
Joseph and Grand Coulee dams. The Council's 2020 Program amendments
recommended ``Bonneville and others are to continue to make progress on
the program's phased approach to evaluating the possibility of
reintroducing anadromous fish above Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph
dams.'' It further said, ``many others have a role to play--making
progress on this effort is not the sole province of the program,'' and
therefore not the sole effort of the co-lead agencies, the primary
implementers of the program. The co-lead agencies took reintroduction
into account during the preparation of the CRSO EIS, but decided not to
analyze it in detail for the reasons discussed in Section 2.5.10 of the
Final CRSO EIS.
Finally, certain other Council Program provisions relating to
general policy, regional vision, or fisheries management goals, rather
than actionable statutory measures per se, have nonetheless been taken
into account. For example, the Council's Program has continually
included a 5 million fish goal and 2-6% SAR objective. This goal and
objective apply to the entire Columbia River Basin and all federal and
non-federal hydroelectric dams, not simply the FCRPS or the CRS. This
goal and objective is also influenced greatly by fisheries management,
climate, and ocean conditions, as well as farming, logging, mining, and
development practices--all of which are beyond the co-lead agencies'
control or sole responsibility to manage. The CRSO EIS nonetheless,
examined the alternatives in terms of the likely effect each would have
on SARs, and CSS analysis of the Preferred Alternative selected in this
ROD estimates the potential for SARs greater than 2% for both Snake
River spring Chinook and Snake River steelhead,\141\ thus falling
within the range recommended by the Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\ See CRSO EIS, at 7-109, tbl. 7-28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described previously, relevant provisions of Council's Program
were taken into account by the co-lead agencies in their consideration
of the CRSO EIS alternatives and adoption of the Preferred Alternative.
And as discussed in greater detail in Attachment 1, the Mitigation
Action Plan included with this ROD likewise reflects Bonneville's
consideration of the Council's Program with respect to relevant off-
site mitigation aspects of the Program.
5.6 National Environmental Policy Act
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969, the co-lead agencies published a Notice of Intent to prepare an
EIS in the Federal Register on September 30, 2016 (81 FR 67382), and
held 16 public scoping meetings and two webinars. The 45-day public
review period for the
[[Page 63862]]
Draft EIS started February 28, 2020, and ended April 13, 2020. Six
virtual public comment meetings and five virtual tribal meetings were
held during the public review period. Appendix T of the CRSO EIS
includes comments received during this EIS review and corresponding
responses to substantive comments. Following the 30-day public review
of the final EIS, the signing of this Record of Decision by co-lead
agency decision makers, outlining the rationale for their decision,
completes the NEPA process for the CRSO EIS.
The Selected Alternative provides flexibility to adjust to changing
conditions by relying on adaptive management. However, the agencies
may, if in the future they propose a new or altered measure, determine
that it is appropriate to prepare a supplemental NEPA analysis or, if a
site-specific analysis is needed, a tiered NEPA document. This
situation may arise if there are substantial changes in the Selected
Alternative that are relevant to environmental concerns or if there are
significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental
concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts,\142\
including, but not limited to, changes in natural conditions or actions
outside of the control of the co-lead agencies. In such circumstances,
the agencies may continue to rely on the CRSO EIS analysis and only
focus on the new action, seeking public input on that action and
notification of a final assessment and any changes to the agencies'
decision outlined in the Record of Decision. A tiered document may look
at multiple alternatives for that site-specific analysis, relying on
the broader EIS for the impact analysis. If an action is being
considered under a supplemental or tiered NEPA process, the subsequent
NEPA analysis is only required to summarize the issues discussed in the
broader statement and incorporate discussions from the broader
statement by reference and will concentrate on the issues specific to
the subsequent action,\143\ not reconsider the action in its entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ 40 CFR 1502.9(d) (since potential tiering or supplemental
NEPA analysis may occur after CEQ updated its NEPA implementing
regulations on July 15, 2020, this citation is to the revised NEPA
regulations).
\143\ 40 CFR 1501.11(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.7 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, as
amended, the co-lead agencies received the final Coordination Act
Report (CAR) on May 28, 2020. The co-lead agencies considered the
findings and recommendations while finalizing the EIS. Eighty-four
recommendations are included in the final CAR and, of those, the
majority are either part of the Selected Alternative or existing
programs. A few recommendations are outside the scope of the action and
were not adopted. Two recommendations are being considered as part of
monitoring and adaptive management plans. The co-lead agencies'
response to the USFWS' recommendations can be found in Appendix U of
the CRSO EIS.
5.8 Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice
In accordance with provisions of Executive Order 12898
Environmental Justice, dated February 11, 1994, the Selected
Alternative will not cause disproportionately high and adverse effects
on any environmental justice populations.
5.9 Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites
In compliance with this order, the co-lead agencies contacted 19
tribes to request their assistance in identifying sacred sites within
the study area. Kettle Falls and Bear Paw Rock have been identified as
sacred sites. The effects to these sacred sites under the Selected
Alternative are negligible, as described in Section 7.7.18 of the CRSO
EIS.
5.10 Secretarial Order 3175, U.S. Department of the Interior
Responsibilities for Indian Trust Assets
In compliance with Secretarial Order 3175, this EIS has analyzed
potential effects to Indian Trust Assets in Sections 3.17 and 7.7.19 of
the CRSO EIS.
Section 6. Final Agency Findings
6.1 Corps' Decision
As summarized in Section 1.1.1, after reviewing the benefits,
environmental effects, and unavoidable adverse impacts of the
alternatives, as detailed in the Final EIS and this ROD, and thorough
considerations of the views of Tribes, federal, state, and local
agencies, and public comments, the Preferred Alternative described in
the Final EIS is the Selected Alternative to be implemented for the
ongoing operations, maintenance, and configuration of the Columbia
River System. All applicable laws, regulations, executive orders, and
local government plans were considered in evaluation of alternatives.
Further, the Corps has determined, and the NMFS and USFWS Biological
Opinions demonstrate, based on the best available commercial and
scientific information that the Corps' implementation of the Selected
Alternative will not jeopardize listed species or adversely modify or
destroy critical habitat. This Record of Decision completes the
National Environmental Policy Act process.
Date: September 28, 2020.
D. Peter Helmlinger, P.E.
Brigadier General, U.S. Army Division Commander.
Section 6.2 Reclamation's Decision
After reviewing the Purpose and Need Statement, EIS objectives and
effects analysis for the alternatives, as detailed in the Final EIS,
biological assessment, 2020 biological opinions, and this ROD, as well
as input from the Tribes, federal, state, and local agencies, and
public comments, Reclamation selects the Preferred Alternative
described in the Final EIS as the Selected Alternative for the ongoing
operations, maintenance, and configuration of the Columbia River
System. All applicable laws, regulations, executive orders, and local
government plans were considered in evaluation of alternatives. This
Record of Decision completes the National Environmental Policy Act
process.
Date: September 28, 2020.
Lorri J. Gray,
Regional Director, Bureau of Reclamation, Columbia-Pacific Northwest
Region.
Section 6.3 Bonneville's Decision
Bonneville decided to implement its part of the Preferred
Alternative identified in the Columbia River System Operations Final
Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0529, July 2020) and analyzed
in the 2020 CRS BiOps, including the applicable terms and conditions
set forth in these BiOps. This decision, as well as the evaluation of
the alternatives is consistent with the authorities granted to it under
existing statutes and complies with all applicable environmental laws
and regulations and other applicable federal statutory and regulatory
requirements. This Record of Decision completes the National
Environmental Policy Act process. The Selected Alternative would have
negligible to minor effects to floodplains and minor effects to
wetlands. This decision continues to support an adequate, efficient,
economical and reliable power supply that supports the integrated
Columbia River Power system while providing for the conservation of
fish and wildlife and protection and preservation of cultural resources
affected by System operation. This decision helps protect and preserve
Native American treaty and executive order rights and meet trust
obligations. This decision also considers and plans for climate change
effects on affected
[[Page 63863]]
resources and on the management of the System. Bonneville, with the
Corps and Reclamation, will continue to use the collaborative Regional
Forum framework and continue to collaborate with the region in other
forums to allow for flexibility and adaptive management of the Columbia
River System.
All mitigation measures described in the Draft CRSO EIS and updated
in the Final CRSO EIS have been adopted with the signing of this Record
of Decision. A complete list of the mitigation measures Bonneville is
adopting from the Draft and Final EISs can be found in the Mitigation
Action Plan in Attachment 1. Additional mitigation measures are being
adopted by the Corps and Reclamation as discussed previously and noted
in their decision sections of this Record of Decision. The mitigation
measures include additional commitments Bonneville agreed to as part of
implementation of the proposed action analyzed in the 2020 CRS BiOps
and Incidental Take Statements and the Final CRSO EIS (see Section 7.6
of the Final CRSO EIS; Attachment 1, Mitigation Action Plan).
Consistent with the factors considered in Section 3, Bonneville
considered the Purpose and Need Statement, CRSO EIS Objectives, as well
as the effects analysis, including direct, indirect and cumulative
effects as well as the effects from climate and mitigation. As
described below, Bonneville considered the ESA, NEPA and Northwest
Power Act in making its decision.
6.3.1 ESA Compliance
Pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended, Bonneville consulted with the Services on the operation and
maintenance of the CRS for a fifteen-year period. The proposed action
\144\ consulted upon was consistent with the Preferred Alternative
analyzed in the Final CRSO EIS.\145\ NMFS issued a biological opinion
(2020 NMFS CRS BiOp), dated July 24, 2020, and determined that the
proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
the federally listed species as listed in Section 6.1 of this ROD or
destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. In addition,
NMFS concurred with Bonneville's determination that the proposed action
may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the following
federally listed species or their designated or proposed critical
habitat: Southern Resident killer whales and the southern Distinct
Population Segment of green sturgeon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ For purposes of Bonneville's Rationale for Decision, the
term ``proposed action'' is utilized to refer to the Selected
Alternative. Proposed action is the appropriate term for an action
consulted upon with the Services under Section 7 of the ESA.
\145\ The co-lead agencies worked closely with the Services
throughout the development of the CRSO EIS as the range of
alternatives were developed and analyzed. The proposed action that
underwent consultation with the Services was described in the draft
and final CRSO EIS (February 2020 and July 2020); the Biological
Assessment of Effects of the Operations and Maintenance of the
Federal Columbia River System (January 2020) (2020 CRS Biological
Assessment); Clarification and Additional Information to the
Biological Assessment of Effects of the Operations and Maintenance
of the Columbia River System on ESA-listed Species Transmitted to
the Services on January 23, 2020 (April 1, 2020) (2020 BA
Clarification Letter); and additional discussions throughout the
formal consultation process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USFWS issued a biological opinion (2020 USFWS CRS BiOp), dated July
24, 2020, and determined that the proposed action is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the following federally listed
species or destroy adversely modify designated critical habitat:
Kootenai River white sturgeon and bull trout. In addition, USFWS
concurred with the agencies' determination that the recommended plan
may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the federally listed
species as listed in Section 6.1of this ROD or their designated
critical habitat.
As described in further detail above and in Sections 3 and 5 of
this ROD, and informed by the analysis in the 2020 Biological
Assessment and the determinations in the Services' 2020 CRS BiOps,
Bonneville has concluded that implementation of the proposed action and
the actions described in the Incidental Take Statements are not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of ESA-listed species or destroy
or adversely modify their designated critical habitat. Bonneville's
analysis of the proposed action has led to the conclusion that the
benefits to ESA-listed species' survival and recovery offset the
adverse effects resulting from the proposed action in a manner that
will not reduce appreciably the likelihood of survival and recovery or
appreciably diminish the value of critical habitat as a whole.
Bonneville also concludes that it has the authority and discretion to
implement the proposed action and the actions described in the
Incidental Take Statements in cooperation with the other co-lead
agencies. Given these findings regarding the action proposed by
Bonneville, this document records Bonneville's determination to operate
and maintain the Columbia River System, in collaboration with the Corps
and Reclamation, consistent with the action as described in the 2020
Biological Assessment, the 2020 Clarification Letter, and the
Incidental Take Statements, including all terms and conditions and
reasonable. This fulfills the regulatory requirements for ESA
consultations, which provide that ``[f]ollowing issuance of a
biological opinion, the Federal agency shall determine whether and in
what manner to proceed with the action in light of its [ESA] Section 7
obligations and [NMFS'] biological opinion.'' \146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ See 50 CFR 402.15(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.3.1.1 Discussion of Actions Pertinent to the 2020 NMFS CRS BiOp
The following actions were proposed by Bonneville and analyzed by
NMFS in its 2020 CRS BiOp. Bonneville believes that these actions are
key to its finding under Section 7 of the ESA, either because of the
associated benefits for ESA-listed salmonids or the lack of adverse
effects from actions that benefit hydropower generation.
6.3.1.1.1 Spill Operations for ESA-Listed Salmon and Steelhead Juvenile
Fish Passage Spill Operations
As described in more detail in Chapter 7 of the Final CRSO EIS and
the 2020 Biological Assessment, the proposed action includes Flexible
Spill that incorporates juvenile fish passage spill to levels that are
much higher than the operations that have been implemented as part of a
discretionary action \147\ prior to 2020. Flexible Spill is an
operation that will be implemented during the spring juvenile salmonid
migration season at the lower Snake River and Columbia River projects.
Flexible Spill is variable over a 24-hour period and takes advantage of
peak and off-peak load hours for hydropower generation in order to
provide flexibility. Flexible Spill is envisioned to incorporate a
range of spring spill levels up to a 125% TDG spill cap during
designated hours each day, consistent with the concepts tested as part
of the 2019-2021 Spill Operations Agreement.\148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\ Prior to 2020, spill levels at or above the 125% TDG only
occurred during periods of high runoff that exceeded available
turbine capacity.
\148\ 2019-2021 Spill Operation Agreement, Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n
v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., No. 3:01-cv-00640-SI (D. Or. Dec.
18, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The implementation of Flexible Spill is intended to increase
overall survival of fish passing through the system and returning as
adults by providing additional spill during periods of time when spill
is expected to be most important. The increased spill is expected to
decrease the number of juvenile fish that bypass the dams through non-
spillway routes, improve fish travel through the forebays, gain
scientific information on latent (delayed) mortality, and provide
[[Page 63864]]
flexibility for hydropower generation. Under some conditions, and at
some projects, high spill has been demonstrated to impede adult
passage. Any potential delay for adult migration caused by high spill
or impacts from elevated levels of TDG resulting from high spill are
addressed through periods of reduced spill or adaptive management
measures. These Flexible Spill spring operations will be implemented
April 3-June 20 at the lower Snake River projects, and April 10-June 15
at the lower Columbia projects.\149\ When Flexible Spill spring
operations cease, the projects will transition to summer spill
operations. Summer spill operations have been modified from past
operations to include a reduction in spill in mid-August when few
juveniles are migrating in the lower Snake and Columbia Rivers to
offset CRS impacts to power.\150\ Both spring and summer operations are
subject to adaptive management.\151\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\149\ See 2020 NMFS CRS BiOp Table 1.3-1 for initial spring
spill levels.
\150\ See 2020 NMFS CRS BiOp Table 1.3-2 for initial summer
spill levels.
\151\ See CRSO EIS, Appendix R, Part 2 Process for Adaptive
Implementation of the Flexible Spill Operational Component of the
Columbia River System Operations Environmental Impact Statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in Section 3.3.3, the CSS and NMFS Lifecycle modeling
produced different results. In addition to differences in how latent
mortality is addressed, the differences are also a result of a
reduction in transportation rates as higher levels of spill resulting
in fewer fish accessing the juvenile bypass systems where fish are
collected for transportation. NMFS also qualitatively assessed
potential improvements in adult abundance if reductions in latent
mortality similar to those predicted by the CSS model were realized.
Bonneville has included a robust monitoring plan for salmon and
steelhead to help narrow the uncertainty between the biological models
and help determine how effective increased spill can be in increasing
salmon and steelhead returns to the Columbia Basin.\152\ Despite the
differences in the predictions from these models, Bonneville has
determined that the monitoring and resulting data, as well as in-season
management flexibility will reduce any risk of adverse consequences of
higher levels of spill. Combined, this action is expected to materially
benefit juvenile salmonids by increasing life-stage survival, thereby
reducing risks to the species' survival and recovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\152\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.3.1.1.2 Surface Spill To Reduce Adverse Effects To Overshooting Adult
Steelhead
Adult steelhead can sometimes overshoot their natal streams,
swimming above additional dams and then volitionally migrating back
downstream past the dams to reach their natal streams in the fall, late
winter, and early spring. In the CRS, substantial percentages of
steelhead from some populations in the Middle Columbia River and Snake
River Distinct Population Segments can exhibit this behavior. In order
to reduce the adverse effects to overshooting adult Middle Columbia
River and Snake River steelhead, in the fall of 2020, the Action
Agencies will implement offseason surface spill as a means of providing
safe and effective downstream passage for adult steelhead that
overshoot and then migrate back downstream through McNary Dam and the
lower Snake River dams during months when there is no scheduled spill
for juvenile passage. The Action Agencies will implement this measure
within the October 1 to November 15 and March 1 to March 30 timeframes,
for a minimum of four hours per day, 3 times per week. The Action
Agencies will utilize the information associated with these operations
to investigate whether to refine the time period of spill based on
benefits to steelhead through adaptive management.
6.3.1.1.3 John Day Reservoir Spring Operations for Caspian Tern Nesting
Dissuasion
From April 10 to June 1 (or as feasible based on river flows), the
John Day reservoir elevation will be held between 264.5 feet and 266.5
feet to deter Caspian terns from nesting in the Blalock Islands
Complex. The Action Agencies intend to begin increasing the forebay
elevation prior to initiation of nesting by Caspian terns to avoid take
of tern eggs; operations may begin earlier than April 10 (when the
reservoir is typically operated between 262.0 to 266.5 feet). The
operation may be adaptively managed due to changing run timing;
however, the intent of the operation is to begin returning to reservoir
elevations of 262.5-264.5 feet on June 1, but no later than June 15,
which generally captures 95% of the annual juvenile steelhead
migration. The results of this action will be monitored and
communicated with the Services. During the operation, safety-related
restrictions will continue, including but not limited to maintaining
ramp rates for minimizing project erosion and maintaining power grid
reliability.
6.3.1.1.4 Operation of Turbines Above 1%
Operations of turbines within the 1% peak efficiency of
the turbine range is generally considered to be beneficial for juvenile
fish passage. Based on an analysis of historic system operations,
conditions that necessitate or call for consideration of operations
above 1% from peak efficiency are relatively rare and are typically
short in duration \153\ and therefore the limited expansion of
operations in the proposed action is not expected to affect ESA-listed
species in a way that will appreciably reduce the likelihood of
survival and recovery. The agencies will operate turbines as specified
below during juvenile fish passage season in order to provide increased
power generation flexibility and reliability or to assist with TDG
management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\ See 2020 BA Clarification Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Contingency Reserves--Bonneville deploys contingency reserves
to meet energy demands caused by unexpected events such as transmission
interruption or failure of a generator. These events are unpredictable
in timing, magnitude, and location of the necessary deployment of
contingency reserves, but occur approximately once per month and
average 35 minutes. Bonneville will strive to cover contingencies
without temporarily operating above 1% from peak efficiency and the use
of contingency reserves is limited to no more than 90 minutes under
reliability regulations;
(b) Balancing reserves--Bonneville is responsible for transmission
system reliability, which requires the use of balancing reserves to
respond to power demand and supply fluctuations (including the
integration of renewable power sources). Operations will be set within
1% of peak efficiency, but may exceed the upper end of this
range for short durations of time; and,
(c) TDG management--during periods of high spring run-off, TDG
levels can exceed 125% saturation. The Action Agencies may operate
above 1% from peak efficiency to mitigate TDG production when flexible
spill targets are met, all available turbines are operating, and
additional power demand and market exists.
Operations above 1% from peak efficiency are likely to improve
attraction to the adult fish ladders and have beneficial impacts on
water quality by reducing TDG exposure for juveniles and adults
migrating through the tailrace. NMFS did find that increasing
[[Page 63865]]
powerhouse flows can have the effect of increasing juveniles that pass
downstream through turbines or the bypass systems and adults may fall
back over the dam.\154\ The Action Agencies will monitor the magnitude
and frequency of this operation; if the expected frequencies and
magnitudes of this operation are exceeded, the Action Agencies will
notify NMFS.\155\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ 2020 NMFS CRS BiOp, Section 2.2.5.2, at 292.
\155\ Id., Section 2.17, at 1398.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.3.1.1.5 Zero Generation
Generating hydropower to meet demand in the winter in the Pacific
Northwest can be a challenge when demand can increase dramatically and
there is little additional electricity available due to adjustments in
power generation in order to integrate variable renewable resources.
Therefore, Bonneville has and will continue to use the capacity of the
CRS to support the flexibility necessary for this integration and has
proposed an expansion of that capacity under limited circumstances.
Between October 15 and February 28, power generation may cease at the
four lower Snake River projects and water may be stored during
nighttime hours (2300 to 0500) when adult fish are typically not
passing. This operation will end no later than 2 hours before dawn to
facilitate adult upstream passage, which generally resumes as the sun
rises. Between December 15 and February 28, a period of time when water
temperatures are low and very few adult fish are still migrating in the
river, daytime hours will no longer be excluded from this operation,
and up to 3 hours of daytime cessation may occur. NMFS found that
Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT)-tag data indicated that some adult
Middle Columbia River steelhead will migrate through and overwinter in
the lower Snake River during this operation (as will bull trout), but
past zero generation operations have not produced observably negative
impacts for Middle Columbia River steelhead.\156\ It is expected that
this operation will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival
and recovery for these fish.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\156\ Id., Section 2.8.3.1.4, at 944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.3.1.1.2 Non-Operational Conservation Measures for ESA-Listed
Salmonids
The conclusion that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of ESA-listed species or destroy or adversely
modify designated critical habitat is further supported by the
inclusion of non-operational conservation measures to assist in
addressing any residual adverse effects of operation and maintenance of
the CRS and uncertainties related to the impacts of climate change.
These measures are further discussed.
6.3.1.1.2.1 Structural Modifications
The Action Agencies have constructed and operated many structural
modifications to the dams and to fish passage facilities associated
with the dams over the past couple of decades that have had marked
improvements in fish survival including juvenile bypass systems,
improved turbine technology, spillway weirs, and modifications to ice
and trash sluiceways and other surface routes. The Action Agencies are
continuing to construct structural modifications that will benefit ESA-
listed fish.
(1) Improved Fish Passage Turbines
The first of these structural modifications is an ongoing effort to
improve fish passage through the turbines by designing and constructing
turbines (Improved Fish Passage or IFP Turbines) that will then be
installed and tested for optimal configuration and to assess impacts to
fish passage. The proposed action includes the completion of the
efforts to design and install IFP turbines at Ice Harbor, McNary and
John Day dams. Installation of the IFP turbines has the potential to
improve fish passage conditions, improve hydropower efficiency and
capacity, minimize greenhouse gas emissions, and indirectly improve
water quality by reducing TDG. The proposed action also includes
biological testing of the IFP turbines to determine whether the
operation of the IFP turbines without fish screens would show a neutral
or beneficial effect on ESA-listed fish survival metrics at each dam.
The agencies will collaborate with the Services to develop a Turbine
Intake Bypass Screen Management and Future Strategy process to monitor
success of the IFP turbines and determine if and when it would be best
to remove fish screens at these projects.
(2) Adult Fish Ladder Differentials
At Lower Granite and Little Goose dams, warm river surface
temperatures in the forebay during late summer can create a temperature
difference between the adult ladder exit and the entrance that can
contribute to delays in adult passage. The Action Agencies have
modified the juvenile bypass system to route excess water to the adult
trap for cooling and installed intake chimneys that draw cooler water
from deep in the forebay that is then released or sprayed in the fish
ladder. These improvements were completed and installed during the
winter of 2015-2016 and successfully tested to show that they
effectively reduced near-surface water temperatures near the ladder
exit.\157\ The Action Agencies will continue operating these
structures, while also monitoring and reporting all mainstem fish
ladder temperatures, and identify ladders that have substantial
temperature differentials (>1.0 [deg]C). At fish ladders at mainstem
lower Snake and Columbia River dams that are shown to have substantial
temperature differentials, the Action Agencies will develop and
implement operational or structural solutions to address these issues
where beneficial and feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\157\ 2020 CRS Biological Assessment at E-57 (citing Anchor QEA.
2017. Lower Granite Adult Passage and Post-passage Evaluation Final
Adult Passage and Post-passage Behavior Report. Prepared for Army
Corps of Engineers. Project 161163-0201).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.3.1.1.2.2 Additional Improvements to Fish Migration and Survival
The proposed action includes several other measures that will
provide additional improvements to fish migration and survival. The
Action Agencies will complete follow-on modifications to a new adult
separator integrated into the Lower Granite Dam Juvenile Bypass System
to reduce delay, injury, and stress to salmon and steelhead, bull
trout, and non-target species. The Action Agencies will also design and
implement structural modifications to the Lower Granite Dam adult fish
trap gate to reduce delay and stress for adult salmonids and non-target
species such as Pacific Lamprey. The Action Agencies will also design
and implement cost-effective solutions designed to minimize and reduce
ESA-listed salmonid injury and mortality associated with debris
accumulation at lower Snake River dams and McNary Dam.
6.3.1.1.2.3 Tributary and Estuary Habitat Actions
For over a decade, the agencies have implemented hundreds of
projects to improve the quantity and quality of salmon habitat in the
estuary \158\ and tributaries \159\ as non-operational conservation
measures to address the residual adverse effects of operation and
maintenance of the CRS and the uncertainties of the effects of climate
change on migrating salmon and steelhead. These actions typically
address impacts to fish not caused by the Columbia River System, but
are things the agencies can do to improve the overall conditions for
fish to help
[[Page 63866]]
address uncertainty related to any residual adverse effects of the CRS
on ESA-listed salmon and steelhead. Best available science indicates
that these tributary spawning and rearing habitat improvements will
result in benefits to distribution, abundance, and survival of these
fish. The tributary habitat improvements implemented by Bonneville
under previous CRS BiOps, as well as habitat improvement actions
implemented by other federal agencies, form part of the environmental
baseline. These completed actions will provide ongoing benefits into
the future, which are expected to increase over time as natural
processes are improved and fully realized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\158\ See 2020 CRS Biological Assessment at 2-104.
\159\ See 2020 BA Clarification Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bonneville proposes to implement targeted tributary and estuary
improvements during the term of this BiOp to provide meaningful
biological benefits for ESA-listed species. Bonneville and Reclamation
will implement tributary habitat actions in collaboration with local
experts utilizing the best scientific and commercial data available to
develop strategies, priorities, and specific actions. Bonneville, the
Corps and NMFS will also continue to coordinate and implement the
Columbia Estuary Ecosystem Restoration Program (CEERP). With an
institutionalized adaptive management framework, CEERP will continue to
provide forums to revisit the habitat improvement actions and pair them
with action-effectiveness monitoring results. The agencies will
continue to implement habitat actions that were identified by NMFS as
priority actions \160\ for restoring salmon habitat and for their
ability to ameliorate climate change effects. Barrier removals,
floodplain reconnection, incised channel restoration and improving
stream flow regimes are the types of activities most effective at
addressing increased temperatures, reduced base flow, increased peak
flow and increasing salmon resilience. Through these efforts, the
agencies will strategically evaluate the effectiveness of habitat
improvement actions and inform any necessary adjustments to the current
habitat improvement and monitoring strategies. The agencies have
sufficient systems to track and assure progress on habitat improvement
projects, which are designed to take future climate change effects into
account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\160\ Beechie, T., Imaki, H., Greene, J., Wade, A., Wu, H.,
Pess, G., Roni, P., Kimball, J., Stanford, J., Kiffney, P., Mantua,
N. 2012. Restoring salmon habitat for a changing climate. River
Research and Applications 29: 939-960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.3.1.1.2.4 Conservation and Safety-Net Hatcheries
To support ESA-listed salmon and steelhead species affected by CRS
operations and maintenance, the Action Agencies will continue to fund
the operations and maintenance of safety-net and conservation hatchery
programs that preserve and rebuild the genetic resources of ESA-listed
salmon and steelhead in the Columbia and Snake River Basins. These
programs are helping to rebuild and enhance the naturally reproducing
ESA-listed fish in their native habitats using locally adapted
broodstocks, while maintaining genetic and ecologic integrity, and
supporting harvest where and when consistent with conservation
objectives. Safety-net programs are focused on preventing extinction
and preserving the unique genetics of a population using captive
broodstocks to increase the abundance of the species at risk. These
programs have undergone separate, program-specific ESA consultations
with NMFS, which have identified operations, best practices and
associated monitoring to meet both production goals as well as reduce
detrimental genetic and ecological effects on ESA-listed species. The
programs will be operated in accordance with those BiOps. RM&E relevant
to each hatchery program has been incorporated into the relevant
hatchery program BiOp(s).\161\ As discussed in Section 3.3.4, these
programs were an important consideration for the conclusion that the
proposed action is not likely to adversely affect SRKW.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\161\ The Action Agencies note the continued existence of their
respective independent congressionally authorized hatchery
mitigation responsibilities, including, but not limited to, Grand
Coulee Dam mitigation, John Day Dam mitigation, and programs funded
and administered by other entities, such as the Lower Snake River
Compensation Plan, which is administered by USFWS. Similar to the
conservation and safety-net programs, and where appropriate, the
Action Agencies will conduct or have conducted separate
consultations addressing effects to ESA-listed species from CRS
operations and maintenance, as well as associated monitoring and
evaluation (including tagging) for these programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.3.1.1.2.5 Predation Management
The proposed action includes a suite of predation measures to
reduce the impacts from avian, pinniped, and piscivorous predators.
Maintaining avian wires in the tailrace of lower Columbia and Snake
River dams, active hazing of gulls at the dams, and the pattern of
operating the spillway gates all mitigate for predation at the dams by
birds and fish. The Predator Disruption Operations measure at the John
Day Reservoir will mitigate Caspian Tern predation on juvenile salmon
and steelhead in the lower Columbia River. Management efforts are
ongoing to reduce salmonid consumption by terns in the lower Columbia
River, and similar efforts are in progress to reduce the nesting
population of Double-crested cormorants in the estuary. The Action
Agencies currently implement a Northern Pikeminnow Management Program
which includes an ongoing base program and general increase in northern
pikeminnow sport-reward fishery reward structure to reduce predation by
these fish. The Action Agencies also will continue to implement
measures to reduce pinniped predation in the tailraces of Bonneville
and The Dalles dams. The agencies expect that these actions will reduce
or maintain the levels of predation within the juvenile and adult
migration corridors that were achieved in recent years.
6.3.1.1.2.6 Fish Status Monitoring Actions
The Action Agencies propose to continue monitoring and evaluation
activities in coordination with other regional monitoring efforts that
collectively track survival of ESA-listed species affected by the
continued operation and maintenance of the CRS, including select PIT-
tag marking, natural abundance monitoring, and selected fish status and
trend monitoring in the Columbia and Snake River basins. The monitoring
and evaluation efforts of the Action Agencies' tributary and estuary
habitat programs have standardized and hierarchically organized the
intensity of monitoring across sites. Collectively, these actions
ensure a statistically sound sampling plan to inform adaptive
management at the site and landscape levels.
These non-operational conservation measures, along with the
continued operation and maintenance of the CRS, provide the basis for
Bonneville to conclude that the action as described in the 2020
Biological Assessment and the Incidental Take Statement in the 2020
NMFS CRS BiOp is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
ESA-listed species and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify
designated critical habitat.
6.3.1.2 Discussion of Actions Pertinent to the 2020 USFWS CRS BiOp
The following actions were proposed by Bonneville and analyzed by
USFWS in its 2020 CRS BiOp. Bonneville believes that these actions are
key to its finding under Section 7 of the ESA. These actions offset the
adverse effects
[[Page 63867]]
of the proposed action such that the effects of the action as a whole
will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery for
KRWS or bull trout.
6.3.1.2.1 Actions for Kootenai River White Sturgeon
6.3.1.2.1.1 Operational Measures for Kootenai River White Sturgeon
The Action Agencies have proposed a suite of actions that have been
designed to benefit KRWS and its designated critical habitat. As
described in the proposed action, the Action Agencies will manage river
flow and water temperature from Libby Dam in a manner that is likely to
create improved river depth and water velocities in areas important for
sturgeon migration, spawning and rearing, as well as to provide stable
water temperatures during sturgeon migration and spawning periods. The
sturgeon flow operation is a combination of three approaches: (1)
Releases from Libby Dam during the Kootenai sturgeon spawning season
and in coordination with the Flow Plan Implementation Protocol (FPIP)
process; (2) use of the selective withdrawal facilities to achieve
appropriate downstream river temperatures; and (3) a tiered volume
approach that varies the volume of water available for sturgeon
conservation each year depending on the May 1 forecast of total volume
into Koocanusa Reservoir expected during the April through August
period. Based on this approach, there is no flow augmentation during
low water years. These measures are specifically designed to improve
the co-occurrence of the Primary Constituent Elements of designated
critical habitat for KRWS during critical periods of sturgeon breeding
(appropriate water depths, water temperature, flow velocities, rocky
substrate, and inter-gravel spaces).
In addition, Libby Dam will be operated consistent with variable
discharge (VARQ) and flood risk management (FRM) procedures, which
provide greater assurance that Koocanusa Reservoir will refill in
medium runoff years. The proposed action modifies the VARQ FRM
procedure to incorporate local conditions in the draft rate and account
for planned releases during refill, such as the Sturgeon Volume, in
order to respond to local FRM conditions and increase the chances of
refill.
6.3.1.2.1.2 Non-Operational Conservation Measures for Kootenai River
White Sturgeon
(1) Conservation Aquaculture
The proposed action includes continued implementation of the
conservation aquaculture program for KRWS. Over 300,000 hatchery-origin
KRWS have been released into the Kootenai basin since 1990. Monitoring
data indicate that these hatchery-origin sturgeon are surviving at high
rates. The program has successfully captured between 70 and 80 percent
of the genetic diversity in the wild population, which has and will
continue to help reduce effects to KRWS from CRS operations.
(2) Habitat Restoration Actions
The proposed action includes implementation of a habitat
restoration program, which is likely to increase spawning sturgeon
access to river reaches that have sufficient amounts of rocky
substrate, and is likely to address other habitat-related threats to
Kootenai sturgeon. From 2011 to 2019, 12 habitat restoration projects
have been successfully implemented in the Braided, Straight, and
Meander reaches of the Kootenai River. Under the proposed action, the
Action Agencies have committed to funding and implementing a minimum of
one major habitat restoration project per year through at least 2025
(after 2025 additional projects may continue to be implemented, pending
the results of an assessment of implemented restoration projects).
Together, these projects have produced, and are expected to continue to
produce, increased river depth and complexity, reduced bank erosion,
increased available sturgeon spawning and rearing habitat, and enhanced
fundamental ecosystem processes, which have and will continue to reduce
effects to KRWS from CRS operations.
(3) Nutrient Enhancement
The proposed action includes nutrient additions in the Kootenai
River and Kootenay Lake. Monitoring of these projects has shown
increased beneficial algal production, increased abundance, biomass and
diversity of invertebrate food items for fish, and improved overall
biological productivity in the Kootenai River, which has and will
continue to reduce effects to Kootenai sturgeon from CRS operations.
6.3.1.2.2 Actions for Bull Trout
6.3.1.2.2.1 Operational Measures for Bull Trout
The Action Agencies have proposed a suite of actions that have been
designed to benefit bull trout and its designated critical habitat. As
described in the proposed action, Hungry Horse Dam is operated to meet
minimum flows all year both below the dam on the South Fork Flathead
River and at Columbia Falls, Montana on the mainstem Flathead River to
benefit bull trout when not operating for FRM or releasing water for
flow augmentation to benefit anadromous fish. Ramping rate limits were
established below Hungry Horse Dam to reduce the likelihood of fish
becoming stranded. Libby Dam is operated to provide minimum flows for
bull trout and KRWS, including in September for bull trout habitat
inundation. This action provides benefits that maintain water levels
suitable for foraging and migrating throughout the Kootenai River.
Libby's reservoir summer elevation is kept above 2,450 feet to improve
primary production and zooplankton production. Providing surface spill
to reduce adverse effects to overshooting adult steelhead at McNary and
the lower Snake River dams is also expected to benefit bull trout
during migration past the dams.
6.3.1.2.2.2 Non-Operational Conservation Measures for Bull Trout
The Action Agencies' proposed action includes three non-operational
conservation measures: tributary restoration actions, particularly on
the Kootenai River, funding of the operations and maintenance of
conservation and safety-net hatcheries, and monitoring of impacts to
bull trout that are expected to minimize the long-term impact to
survival and recovery of all affected Core Areas of bull trout during
the timeframe of this consultation. In addition, the nutrient additions
proposed for the Kootenai River will benefit bull trout at this
location. Further, once construction of upstream passage occurs at
Albeni Falls Dam, substantial benefits to bull trout in this Core Area
are anticipated to occur, and have been included in this analysis as
part of the environmental baseline as it is subject to a separate
planning and environmental compliance process. Many of the proposed
structural improvements discussed above in the discussion of the 2020
NMFS CRS BiOp for salmon and steelhead are expected to benefit bull
trout, including the new IFP turbines at Ice Harbor, McNary, and John
Day dams.
(1) Restoration Actions for Bull Trout
Proposed habitat restoration projects will benefit bull trout both
in tributaries and in mainstem river habitats. The proposed action
includes an evaluation
[[Page 63868]]
of delta formations at the mouths (confluences) of important bull trout
spawning tributaries of the Kootenai River downstream of Libby Dam that
may be causing upstream fish passage barriers to bull trout seeking
spawning grounds in tributaries during summer months. In 2021, the
Action Agencies will contribute funding for an initial assessment of
blocked passage to bull trout key spawning tributaries identified by
the USFWS. The assessment may cover a range of water year types but
must include a dry water year to adequately understand the problem.
Upon completion of the initial assessment, the Action Agencies, in
collaboration with local stakeholders and USFWS, will develop an action
plan and prioritization process for tributaries identified as having
blocked passage. The Action Agencies will work with the USFWS and
stakeholders to identify and initiate a process to address two
restoration or improvement projects (or a combination of both)
benefitting upstream passage over the period from 2021 to 2026. Any
additional improvement opportunities to benefit bull trout passage in
Kootenai River tributaries will be evaluated based on biological
priorities and available funding.
Additionally, habitat enhancement actions on and adjacent to the
Kootenai River may improve juvenile to adult survival of kokanee salmon
that are an important prey species for both KRWS and bull trout.
Further, the Action Agencies will work with USFWS to leverage benefits
for bull trout where feasible when developing tributary habitat
projects for ESA-listed salmon and steelhead.
(2) Monitoring for Bull Trout in the Lower Columbia and Lower Snake
River
The Action Agencies will continue to monitor for bull trout at the
lower Columbia and lower Snake River dams. The primary means of
monitoring bull trout will be through the Corps' adult fish counts
program, PIT detection arrays in fish ladders and juvenile bypass
systems, and through the Smolt Monitoring Program (SMP). Monitoring
objectives will be refined as priorities evolve and the state of
knowledge advances. The Action Agencies will continue to emphasize
monitoring that informs management needs.
In consideration of this suite of proposed actions for KRWS and
bull trout, Bonneville concludes that the action as described in the
2020 Biological Assessment and the Incidental Take Statement in the
2020 USFWS CRS BiOp is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of ESA-listed species and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify
designated critical habitat.
6.3.1.3 Climate Change Analysis
In the 2020 NMFS CRS BiOp, NMFS found that climate change poses a
substantial threat to anadromous fish species over the next twenty
years. While climate change will affect anadromous fish in all stages
of life, the impacts are largely driven by changes in ocean conditions
that are projected to reduce survival during the marine life history
stage. NMFS concluded that ``these conditions are not caused by, nor
will they be exacerbated by, the continued operation and maintenance of
the CRS as proposed in the biological assessment.'' USFWS concluded in
the 2020 USFWS CRS BiOp that the proposed action, in combination with
other Federal and non-Federal actions, is likely to exacerbate the
effects of climate change on resident fish, but recognized the
contributions that adaptive management and habitat improvement actions
will have in supporting habitat and flexibility to respond to climate
change.\162\ Despite these impacts, Bonneville has concluded that the
proposed action, particularly operational measures and non-operational
conservation measures, is expected to offset adverse effects that may
impact the survival and recovery of ESA-listed species such that the
action will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and
recovery and will positively contribute to the overall resiliency of
the ESA-listed species in light of climate change. The measure to use
local water supply conditions in order to implement sliding scale
operations for summer flow augmentation are staged to better balance
anadromous and resident fish needs. The agencies have committed to
continuing the tributary and estuary habitat improvement program for
salmon and steelhead (with considerations for benefits to bull trout,
where appropriate) and to evaluate and improve tributary habitat access
for bull trout which will give spawning fish access to additional
habitat. The continued use of cool water stored behind Dworshak Dam and
structures to address ladder temperature differentials help to reduce
water temperatures as fish approach and pass Lower Granite and Little
Goose dams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\162\ See 2020 USFWS CRS BiOp at 34 and 37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.3.1.4 Adaptive Management and RM&E
6.3.1.4.1 Regional Forum and Kootenai River Regional Coordination
The agencies will continue to utilize adaptive management
principles in implementing the proposed action based on results of
biological studies and monitoring information.\163\ These results will
be discussed, and operations modified in collaboration with federal,
state and tribal sovereigns through the Regional Forum, to ensure
expected benefits to salmon and steelhead are being met based on the
best available scientific information. The Kootenai River Regional
Coordination workgroups will continue to be utilized to provide
recommendations regarding operations and address technical issues
related to KRWS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ 2020 CRS Biological Assessment at 2-1 to 2-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.3.1.4.2 RM&E
Biological performance for system operations will be tracked
through ongoing juvenile and adult fish monitoring at the lower
Columbia and lower Snake River dams. Annual and in-season monitoring
results are used to inform in-season operations decisions and through
the Regional Forum, identify potential research or evaluation needs,
and inform longer-term management decisions regarding system
operations. Bonneville will assess a number of the proposed operations
and structural modifications through action-effectiveness evaluations,
including the deployment of IFP turbines, spill for steelhead
overshoots, and Flexible Spill. The agencies will implement planning
and progress reporting to the Services to inform and signal appropriate
adaptations to changing circumstances.
6.3.2 NEPA Compliance
Bonneville will use the CRSO EIS for operational changes associated
with CRS power marketing activities. These operations will be
coordinated with other operational, maintenance or configuration
actions for flood risk management, irrigation, fish and wildlife
conservation, water quality, navigation and other congressionally
authorized purposes. For mitigation actions, Bonneville will use a
combination of existing programmatic NEPA documents as well as site-
specific NEPA documents to implement certain mitigation measures
described in Section 7.6 of the Final CRSO EIS and the Mitigation
Action Plan. Since these actions mitigate for impacts from the CRS
projects, these actions will be
[[Page 63869]]
conducted as part of Bonneville's Northwest Power Act commitments.
Generally, if new or existing projects change the status quo or
directly impact the human environment in a manner not considered in an
existing NEPA document, commensurate NEPA analysis will be conducted.
More specifically, Bonneville could either supplement or develop new
NEPA documents consistent with 40 CFR 1502.9 and 10 CFR 1021.314.
Moreover, consistent with its existing practice for new projects,
Bonneville will determine the appropriate level of NEPA compliance once
projects are proposed for implementation and integrate compliance with
other applicable environmental laws, including but not limited to the
Northwest Power Act, ESA and the National Historic Preservation Act.
For habitat restoration actions in tributaries in the Columbia
River Basin, Bonneville will continue to conduct site-specific NEPA
compliance for these actions (e.g., Bird Track Springs Fish Habitat
Enhancement Project (DOE/EA-2032)). Bonneville also plans to use
programmatic NEPA documents analyzing habitat restoration actions,
including the Aquatic Restoration Activities in and near Umatilla
National Forest Environmental Assessment (DOE/EA-2119) and the Columbia
River Basin Tributary Habitat Restoration Environmental Assessment
(DOE/EA-2126), pending completion of that NEPA process, where
appropriate.
For habitat restoration actions in the estuary, Bonneville will
continue to determine whether the project fits under the Columbia
Estuary Ecosystem Restoration Program Environmental Assessment (DOE/EA-
2006) or if site-specific NEPA compliance is needed.
For hatchery projects, Bonneville will continue to rely on existing
hatchery NEPA documents, where appropriate (e.g., Springfield Sockeye
Hatchery Project (DOE/EA-1913); Kootenai River White Sturgeon and
Burbot Hatcheries Project (DOE/EA-1901)), and will continue to conduct
site-specific NEPA compliance for changes to existing hatchery
programs.
Finally, for research, monitoring and evaluation actions,
Bonneville will either integrate these actions into applicable NEPA
documents for other actions (e.g., with habitat or hatchery actions),
as appropriate, or conduct site-specific NEPA actions if the projects
are not tied to other actions.
Thus, by completing the CRSO EIS, the agencies are ensuring the
Preferred Alternative analysis and associated ESA consultations take
into account updated information and analysis on operational,
structural and mitigation measures. Additionally, using the flexibility
afforded by NEPA, Bonneville will use existing NEPA documents, where
appropriate or complete new or supplemental environmental evaluation,
if necessary.
Table 2--Mitigation Measures and Existing or Planned NEPA Compliance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing or planned NEPA
Mitigation measure compliance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implement tributary habitat Site-specific or other
improvements for both Chinook salmon programmatic NEPA compliance
and steelhead as well as other species or Columbia River Basin
through implementation of specified Tributary Habitat Restoration
construction projects, research, Environmental Assessment (DOE/
monitoring and evaluation actions, and EA-2126), pending completion
species status and trend data of that NEPA process.
collection on habitat and survival
improvement.
Implement Kootenai white sturgeon Site-specific NEPA compliance,
habitat restoration as included in the other programmatic NEPA
CRS Biological Assessment. documents or Columbia River
Basin Tributary Habitat
Restoration Environmental
Assessment (DOE/EA-2126),
pending completion of that
NEPA process.
Implement estuary habitat improvements Site-specific NEPA compliance
through implementation of specified or Columbia Estuary Ecosystem
construction projects; research, Restoration Program
monitoring and evaluation actions; and Environmental Assessment (DOE/
species status and trend data EA-2006), if needed.
collection on habitat and survival
improvement.
Continue support of the Kootenai River Kootenai River Ecosystem
white sturgeon nutrient enhancement Environmental Assessment (DOE/
through FY 2025. EA-1518) and Supplement
Analysis or site-specific NEPA
Compliance, if necessary.
Continue to fund operations and Site-specific NEPA Compliance.
maintenance of ongoing safety-net and
conservation hatchery programs to
provide benefits to ESA-listed stocks
at high risk of extinction.
Continue Northern Pikeminnow Management Northern Pike Suppression
Program. Project Categorical Exclusion.
Ongoing monitoring of East Sand Island Site-specific NEPA Compliance.
Caspian tern and Double-crested
cormorant colonies during nesting
season through 2021 breeding season.
Sea Lion Non-Lethal Hazing and Site-specific NEPA Compliance.
Monitoring.
Bull trout access to perched Site-specific NEPA compliance
tributaries in Kootenai River: or Columbia River Basin
Contribute funding for an initial Tributary Habitat Restoration
assessment of blocked passage to bull Environmental Assessment (DOE/
trout key spawning tributaries EA-2126), pending completion
identified by the USFWS. Initiate two of that NEPA process.
restoration or improvement projects
benefitting upstream passage
opportunities over the period of 2021-
2026.
Supplement spawning habitat at Lake Site-specific NEPA compliance
Roosevelt at locations along the or Columbia River Basin
reservoir and tributaries (up to 100 Tributary Habitat Restoration
acres). Environmental Assessment (DOE/
EA-2126), pending completion
of that NEPA process.
Plant cottonwood trees (up to 100 Site-specific NEPA compliance
acres) near Bonners Ferry to improve or Columbia River Basin
habitat and floodplain connectivity. Tributary Habitat Restoration
Environmental Assessment (DOE/
EA-2126), pending completion
of that NEPA process.
Plant native wetland and riparian Site-specific NEPA compliance
vegetation (up to 100 acres) on the or Columbia River Basin
Kootenai River downstream of Libby. Tributary Habitat Restoration
Environmental Assessment (DOE/
EA-2126), pending completion
of that NEPA process.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63870]]
6.3.3 Bonneville's Duty Under the Northwest Power Act To Protect,
Mitigate, and Enhance Fish and Wildlife
Apart from the co-lead agencies' shared Northwest Power Act duties
discussed above, Bonneville's Administrator has a separate
responsibility to use the Bonneville fund to ``protect, mitigate, and
enhance fish and wildlife to the extent affected by the development and
operation'' of the Federal Columbia River Power System, including the
CRS.\164\ Bonneville must fulfill this mandate ``in a manner consistent
with'' the purposes of the Northwest Power Act and the Council's Power
Plan and Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program.\165\ The Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals has original jurisdiction over suits to
challenge final actions and decisions taken pursuant to the Northwest
Power Act by the Bonneville Administrator, or the implementation of
such final actions.\166\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\164\ 16 U.S.C. 839b(h)(10)(A).
\165\ Id.
\166\ Id. 16 U.S.C. 839f(e)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the context of the CRSO EIS, this responsibility applies to
Bonneville's ongoing programs described in Chapters 2, 5 and 7 as well
as the additional mitigation measures Bonneville is adopting in the
Mitigation Action Plan. One of the ongoing programs described in
Chapters 2, 5, and 7 is Bonneville's existing Fish and Wildlife
Program. Mitigation actions and projects funded through Bonneville's
Fish and Wildlife Program are the means by which Bonneville addresses
its responsibility to ``protect, mitigate, and enhance'' fish and
wildlife under 16 U.S.C. 839b(h)(10)(A).\167\ Continuation of the
actions and projects under Bonneville's existing Fish and Wildlife
Program is consistent with the Council's Program because the existing
Bonneville actions and projects have been subject to past Council
review and have either been recommended for funding and implementation
by the Council or have been incorporated into the Council's Program.
Further, the Independent Scientific Review Panel periodically reviews
the mitigation projects under certain statutory criteria--such as
benefits to fish and wildlife.\168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\167\ Bonneville's use of its Northwest Power Act authority and
Fish and Wildlife Program as the tools for implementing actions from
the Mitigation Action Plan should not be conflated with Bonneville's
overall compliance with its Northwest Power Act mitigation
responsibility under 16 U.S.C. 839b(h)(10)(A), which is fulfilled
through a broader set of mitigation actions in addition to those
described in the Mitigation Action Plan in this ROD.
\168\ 16 U.S.C. 839b(h)(10)(D)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the extent that the Mitigation Action Plan includes any new or
expanded actions, those will likely be incorporated into existing fish
and wildlife mitigation projects that are already funded consistent
with the Council's Program, and can be designed for implementation in
such a way that is consistent with appropriate Program measures or
guidance. In addition, Bonneville's funding of these mitigation actions
through its Fish and Wildlife Program projects will follow other
applicable provisions of the Northwest Power Act, such as the in-lieu
funding prohibition \169\ and the congressional authorization
requirement for construction of capital facilities.\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\169\ Id. 16 U.S.C. 839b(h)(10)(A).
\170\ Id. 16 U.S.C. 839b(h)(10)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.3.4 Summary
The Selected Alternative and associated ESA consultations take into
account updated information and analysis on operational and non-
operational conservation and mitigation measures. This alternative also
provides for the conservation of fish and wildlife resources, including
threatened, endangered, and sensitive species throughout the
environment affected by CRS operations consistent with the NEPA, ESA
and Northwest Power Act analysis. Thus, Bonneville is acting within its
existing authorities and complying with applicable environmental laws
and regulations and all other applicable federal statutory and
regulatory requirements in making this decision.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on September
28, 2020, by John L. Hairston, Acting Administrator and Chief Executive
Officer, Bonneville Power Administration, pursuant to delegated
authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original
signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes
only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this
document upon publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on October 2, 2020.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2020-22147 Filed 10-7-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P