# Record of Decision; Columbia River System Operations Environmental Impact Statement > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2020-22147 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Notice - **Published:** October 8, 2020 - **Citation:** 85 FR 63834 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Bonneville Power Administration Record of Decision; Columbia River System Operations Environmental Impact Statement AGENCY: Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Department of Energy (DOE). ACTION: Record of decision (ROD). SUMMARY: Section 1. Introduction The Columbia River System Operations Environmental Impact Statement (CRSO EIS) dated July 2020 addresses the ongoing operations, maintenance, and configuration of the 14 federal Columbia River System (CRS) projects on the Columbia and Snake rivers. The 14 projects are Libby, Hungry Horse, Albeni Falls, Grand Coulee, Chief Joseph, Dworshak, Lower Granite, Little Goose, Lower Monumental, Ice Harbor, McNary, John Day, The Dalles, and Bonneville. The co-lead agencies (the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [Corps], Bureau of Reclamation [Reclamation], and Bonneville Power Administration [Bonneville]) share responsibility and legal authority for managing the Federal elements of the CRS. These three co-lead agencies coordinate the operation of the CRS and have worked together to develop this EIS. ADDRESSES: This Record of Decision will be available to all interested parties and affected persons and agencies and is being sent to all stakeholders who requested a copy. Copies of the Draft and Final CRSO EISs, and additional copies of this document can be obtained from Bonneville's Public Information Center, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, Oregon 97208-3621. Copies of these documents may also be obtained by calling Bonneville's nationwide toll-free request line at 1-800-622-4520, or by accessing the CRSO EIS project website at https://www.bpa.gov/efw/Analysis/NEPADocuments/Pages/Columbia-River-System-Operations-Project.aspx . Additional information is also available at www.crso.info . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Kennedy, Environmental Planning and Analysis, Bonneville Power Administration—EC-4, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, Oregon, 97208-3621; or toll-free telephone number 1-800-622-4519; or email ECAdmin@bpa.gov . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 1. Introduction, Continued The Corps and Reclamation develop operating requirements for their projects. These are the limits within which a reservoir or dam must be operated. Some requirements are established by Congress when a project is authorized, while others are established by the agencies based on operating experience. Within these operating limits, Bonneville schedules and dispatches power. This process requires continuous communication and coordination among the three agencies. The co-lead agencies have identified the Preferred Alternative, as described in detail in Chapter 7 of the Final EIS, as the Selected Alternative in this Record of Decision (ROD). This CRSO EIS and ROD represent the detailed work, evaluation, and decision-making of the three co-lead agencies. The CRSO EIS was completed considering the input and assistance of the multiple cooperating agencies with special expertise and authority over the resources evaluated. The co-lead agencies provided for robust public and stakeholder review beginning with scoping and continuing throughout the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. As part of the CRSO EIS, the agencies considered six alternatives to Columbia River System operations, maintenance, and configuration. The agencies analyzed the effects of these alternatives on the human environment, including environmental, economic, and social impacts. On February 28, 2020, the co-lead agencies released for public comment the Draft CRSO EIS describing the effects of these alternatives and identifying the agencies' Preferred Alternative. The 45-day public comment period ended on April 13, 2020, and the agencies reviewed and responded to these comments in the Final CRSO EIS. The co-lead agencies released the Final EIS on July 28, 2020, and the agencies issued this joint Record of Decision on September 28, 2020. All three co-lead agencies recognize selecting an alternative is a complex decision, and have identified the Preferred Alternative as the Selected Alternative to implement. The agencies' expertise, developed over decades of experience operating the projects, allowed for careful, comprehensive consideration of current, high quality technical and scientific information, as well as expert analysis for thorough evaluation of each alternative. The agencies conferred with tribes, public interest groups, the Northwest's Congressional delegation and governors, as well as stakeholder groups, and Federal, state and local public service agencies. The co-lead agencies also closely read, considered, and responded to the public comments which represented diverse voices with numerous perspectives. The agencies considered the effects of making this decision, and sought to provide a balanced approach and the flexibility needed to continue operations and maintenance of the CRS in this dynamic environment. On March 20, 2018, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued an OMB/CEQ Memorandum to Heads of Federal Departments and Agencies titled “One Federal Decision Framework for the Environmental Review and Authorization Process for Major Infrastructure Projects under Executive Order 13807” (OFD Framework), in accordance with Executive Order 13807 (82 FR 40,463 (Aug. 24, 2017)). This “One Federal Decision” policy has increased federal coordination on environmental processes and review, shortened previous timelines, and resulted in the utilization of a joint ROD for federal agencies. This CRSO EIS ROD is consistent with the One Federal Decision policy. 1.1 Decision Summary 1.1.1 Corps' Decision Summary The information presented in this joint ROD is the Corps' determination of the Selected Alternative for implementation, the agencies' compliance with the NEPA policy and procedures, environmental regulations, and public and agency review. The NEPA process has produced sufficient and accurate assessments of the resources, needs, concerns, and other issues that relate to the evaluated alternatives and has undergone public and agency review as required by 33 CFR part 230 and 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508. The conclusions additionally have been reviewed and evaluated by an independent review panel and found to be appropriate. Consultation on the Selected Alternative has been completed per Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and incorporated into the Selected Alternative. The Corps has determined, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) CRS Biological Opinions demonstrate, based on the best available commercial and scientific information, that the Corps' implementation of the Selected Alternative will not jeopardize listed 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 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 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 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 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 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 EN08OC20.000 EN08OC20.001 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2020-22147. Public record. Not legal advice.