[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 [email protected].

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