DECISION DOCUMENT

Regarding

RESPONSIBILITIES under the ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT, CLEAN WATER ACT, and
ADDITIONAL LAWS

Following the

DECEMBER 2000 NATIONAL MARINE SERVICE

BIOLOGICAL OPINION

and

DECEMBER 2000 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

BIOLOGICAL OPINION

on

OPERATION of MAJOR PROJECTS

of the

FEDERAL COLUMBIA RIVER POWER SYSTEM

in

2001 and FUTURE YEARS

CONTENTS

I. SUMMARY [1](#i.-summary)

II\. INTRODUCTION [1](#ii.-introduction)

A. Actions Reviewed by the NMFS and FWS Biological Opinions (BOs):
Operation of Major Projects of the Federal Columbia River Power System
and Irrigation Projects
[1](#a-actions-reviewed-by-the-nmfs-and-fws-biological-opinions-bos-operation-of-major-projects-of-the-federal-columbia-river-power-system-and-irrigation-projects)

B. Responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act
[2](#b.-responsibilities-under-the-endangered-species-act)

C. Responsibilities under Treaties with Indian Tribes, the Clean Water
Act, Northwest Power Act, and Additional Laws.
[3](#c.-responsibilities-under-treaties-with-indian-tribes-the-clean-water-act-northwest-power-act-and-additional-laws.)

D. Process Leading to New NMFS and FWS BOs
[4](#d.-process-leading-to-new-nmfs-and-fws-bos)

1\. Submission of Multi-Species Biological Assessment and Reinitiation
of Formal Consultation
[4](#submission-of-multi-species-biological-assessment-and-reinitiation-of-formal-consultation)

2\. Formal Consultation [5](#formal-consultation)

E. Relationship of 2000 NMFS BO to the Basinwide Salmon Recovery
Strategy and Standard for Avoidance of Jeopardy
[5](#e.-relationship-of-2000-nmfs-bo-to-the-basinwide-salmon-recovery-strategy-and-standard-for-avoidance-of-jeopardy)

1\. Basinwide Recovery Strategy [5](#basinwide-recovery-strategy)

2\. Avoidance of Jeopardy [6](#avoidance-of-jeopardy)

F. Consideration of Views of States, Tribes, and the Public
[7](#consideration-of-views-of-states-tribes-and-the-public)

III\. MEETING ESA RESPONSIBILITIES: THE NMFS BO's RECOMMENDED REASONABLE
AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVE (RPA) FOR AVOIDING JEOPARDY
[8](#iii.-meeting-esa-responsibilities-the-nmfs-bos-recommended-reasonable-and-prudent-alternative-rpa-for-avoiding-jeopardy)

A. Performance Standards [9](#a.-performance-standards)

B. One- and Five-Year Implementation Plans
[9](#b.-one--and-five-year-implementation-plans)

C. Particular Measures and Actions
[10](#c.-particular-measures-and-actions)

D. Mid-Point Reviews [11](#d.-mid-point-reviews)

E. Allowance for Emergencies, and Declarations of Power System
Emergencies in 2001
[11](#e.-allowance-for-emergencies-and-declarations-of-power-system-emergencies-in-2001)

1\. Measures to Avoid or Mitigate the Occurrence of Emergencies
[13](#measures-to-avoid-or-mitigate-the-occurrence-of-emergencies)

2\. Alternative Measures to Offset Adverse Impacts of Emergencies
[14](#alternative-measures-to-offset-adverse-impacts-of-emergencies)

F. Scientific Review [14](#f.-scientific-review)

IV\. MEETING ESA RESPONSIBILITIES: THE FWS BO's APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED
ACTION AS IT AFFECTS BULL TROUT AND RECOMMENDED REASONABLE AND PRUDENT
ALTERNATIVE (RPA) FOR AVOIDING JEOPARDY TO STURGEON
[15](#iv.-meeting-esa-responsibilities-the-fws-bos-approval-of-the-proposed-action-as-it-affects-bull-trout-and-recommended-reasonable-and-prudent-alternative-rpa-for-avoiding-jeopardy-to-sturgeon)

A. FWS Conclusions [15](#a.-fws-conclusions)

B. Scientific Review [16](#b.-scientific-review)

V. MEETING RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT: ESSENTIAL
FISH HABITAT (EFH)
[16](#v.-meeting-responsibilities-under-the-magnuson-stevens-act-essential-fish-habitat-efh)

A. EFH Conservation Recommendations
[16](#a.-efh-conservation-recommendations)

B. The Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy Provisions for Estuarine
Improvements Are Comparable to the EFH Conservation Recommendations.
[17](#b.-the-basinwide-salmon-recovery-strategy-provisions-for-estuarine-improvements-are-comparable-to-the-efh-conservation-recommendations.)

C. The NMFS BO RPA Provisions for Estuarine Improvements Are Comparable
to the EFH Conservation Recommendations
[19](#c.-the-nmfs-bo-rpa-provisions-for-estuarine-improvements-are-comparable-to-the-efh-conservation-recommendations)

VI\. MEETING CLEAN WATER ACT RESPONSIBILITIES: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY
[21](#vi.-meeting-clean-water-act-responsibilities-improving-water-quality)

A. Achievements Improving Water Quality
[22](#a.-achievements-improving-water-quality)

1\. Temperature [22](#temperature)

2\. Dissolved Gas [22](#dissolved-gas)

3\. Monitoring and Evaluation [24](#monitoring-and-evaluation)

4\. Input from States and Tribes and Canada
[25](#input-from-states-and-tribes-and-canada)

5\. Development of a Long-Term Water Quality Plan
[25](#development-of-a-long-term-water-quality-plan)

B. Additional Commitments to Improve Water Quality Expressed in the 2000
NMFS BO
[25](#b.-additional-commitments-to-improve-water-quality-expressed-in-the-2000-nmfs-bo)

1\. Long-term Basinwide Goals to Meet State and Tribal Water Quality
Standards
[25](#long-term-basinwide-goals-to-meet-state-and-tribal-water-quality-standards)

2\. Schedule for Implementation of Water Quality Measures
[26](#schedule-for-implementation-of-water-quality-measures)

3\. Particular Water Quality Measures to Implement
[27](#particular-water-quality-measures-to-implement)

a\. Dissolved Gas Measures [27](#a.-dissolved-gas-measures)

b\. Temperature Measures [28](#b.-temperature-measures)

c\. Additional Measures [28](#c.-additional-measures)

4\. Progress Toward Water Quality Goals Requires Resolution of
Uncertainties and Conflicts.
[29](#progress-toward-water-quality-goals-requires-resolution-of-uncertainties-and-conflicts.)

a\. Transition to Temperature Water Quality Goals Requires Resolution of
Uncertainties
[30](#a.-transition-to-temperature-water-quality-goals-requires-resolution-of-uncertainties)

b\. Transition to Total Dissolved Gas Water Quality Goals Requires
Resolution of Uncertainties and Conflicts
[32](#b.-transition-to-total-dissolved-gas-water-quality-goals-requires-resolution-of-uncertainties-and-conflicts)

5\. Integration of Water Quality Measures with Other Responsibilities
[34](#integration-of-water-quality-measures-with-other-responsibilities)

VII\. Meeting Responsibilities to Tribes: Consideration of Tribal Views
and Impacts of FCRPS Operations upon Culturally Important Resources
[35](#vii.-meeting-responsibilities-to-tribes-consideration-of-tribal-views-and-impacts-of-fcrps-operations-upon-culturally-important-resources)

A. Discussions with Tribes during Development of the Basinwide Recovery
Strategy and 2000 NMFS BO
[35](#a.-discussions-with-tribes-during-development-of-the-basinwide-recovery-strategy-and-2000-nmfs-bo)

B. Discussions with Tribes After Issuance of the 2000 NMFS BO
[36](#b.-discussions-with-tribes-after-issuance-of-the-2000-nmfs-bo)

C. Revisions to Planning and Decisions in 2001 that Address Tribal
Concerns
[37](#c.-revisions-to-planning-and-decisions-in-2001-that-address-tribal-concerns)

VIII\. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
[39](#viii.-environmental-impact-analysis)

IX\. DECISIONS [40](#ix.-decisions)

A. Biological Opinions [40](#a.-biological-opinions)

B. Basinwide Recovery Strategy [41](#b.-basinwide-recovery-strategy)

C. Essential Fish Habitat [41](#c.-essential-fish-habitat)

D. Water Quality [41](#d.-water-quality)

E. 2001 Operations [41](#e.-2001-operations)

F. Coordination with States and Tribes
[42](#f.-coordination-with-states-and-tribes)

G. NEPA [42](#g.-nepa)

APPENDIX A. EXAMPLE OF METHODS FOR REDUCING INVOLUNTARY SPILL
A-[1](#example-of-methods-for-reducing-involuntary-spill)

APPENDIX B. CLEAN WATER ACT ACTIONS B-[1](#clean-water-act-actions)

# I. SUMMARY

On December 21, 2000, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
issued a final Biological Opinion after Reinitiation of Consultation on
Operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System, Including the
Juvenile Fish Transportation Program, and 19 Bureau of Reclamation
Projects in the Columbia Basin (2000 NMFS BO). On December 20, 2000, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued a final Biological Opinion
regarding effects of FCRPS operations upon Kootenai River white sturgeon
and bull trout (2000 FWS BO).

This document records the Bonneville Power Administration's (BPA)
decision to implement the reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA)
described in the NMFS BO, as expressed in 1- and 5-year implementation
plans and possibly subsequent consultations.[^1] This document also
responds to the essential fish habitat conservation recommendations by
NMFS pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act. 2000 NMFS BO at Part 12. In addition, this document
records BPA's plan to meet Clean Water Act responsibilities. BPA intends
to implement the RPA consistent with treaties, executive orders, and
other Federal laws recognizing Indian Tribes and trust responsibilities
to Native American Indian Tribes. BPA will also implement the RPA
consistent with its responsibilities to take the Northwest Power
Council's Fish and Wildlife Program into account and to give equitable
treatment to fish and wildlife.

This document also records BPA's decision to coordinate operation of the
FCRPS consistent with FWS' determination of no-jeopardy for bull trout
and to implement the FWS BO's RPA for Kootenai River white sturgeon,
consistent with applicable law.^1^

# II. INTRODUCTION

## A Actions Reviewed by the NMFS and FWS Biological Opinions (BOs): Operation of Major Projects of the Federal Columbia River Power System and Irrigation Projects

The BPA, the Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and the Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR) coordinate operation of major projects of the Federal
Columbia River Power System (FCRPS). These projects are Dworshak, Lower
Granite, Little Goose, Lower Monumental, and Ice Harbor dams,
powerplants, and reservoirs in the Snake River basin; Albeni Falls,
Hungry Horse, Libby, Grand Coulee, Banks Lake (features of the Columbia
Basin Project), and Chief Joseph projects in the middle and upper
Columbia River basin; and McNary, John Day, The Dalles, and Bonneville
dams, powerplants, and reservoirs in the lower Columbia River Basin.
2000 NMFS BO at § 1.0, p. 1-3. In addition, these agencies, primarily
BPA, undertake significant offsite enhancement of habitat for fish and
wildlife adversely affected by these projects.

The FCRPS operates to serve an array of individual project and system
purposes. Individual project purposes vary widely but include power
generation, flood control, navigation, irrigation, recreation, and fish
and wildlife enhancement and protection. Operation of the FCRPS entails
coordinated operation of the individual projects, including development
and implementation of inter-agency agreements among COE, BOR, and BPA to
plan operation and actually operate the FCRPS, and agreements for
coordination of operations with Canada and utilities in the Pacific
Northwest.

BOR also consulted on the continued operation and maintenance of 17
additional projects that are not part of the FCRPS. While several of
these projects include power plants and/or provide flood control
benefits, they are all authorized to provide water for irrigated
agriculture. 2000 NMFS BO at § 1.0.

## B. Responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act

Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), NMFS has listed twelve
species of salmonids in the Columbia Basin. NMFS BO at 1-6. The recently
concluded ESA consultations with NMFS addressed all twelve of these
species.

Pursuant to the ESA, FWS has listed several species of animals and
plants in the Columbia River Basin. FWS has concurred in writing that
FCRPS operations are not likely to adversely affect gray wolf, grizzly
bear, peregrine falcon, or any listed plants. 2000 FWS BO at 1. FWS
continues to rely on its March 1, 1995, BO finding that FCRPS operations
avoid jeopardy to bald eagles. [Id]{.underline}. at 2. With respect to
BOR projects upriver of Lower Granite Dam, FWS continues to rely on a
separate BO issued on October 15, 1999. [Id]{.underline}. at 2.
Therefore, because potential changes in FCRPS operations affected two
fish species - Kootenai River sturgeon and bull trout - the recently
concluded ESA consultations with FWS focused on these species.

The ESA requires Federal agencies, in consultation with NMFS and FWS, to
insure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of listed species, that their actions are not likely to result
in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, and that
they utilize their authorities to further the purposes of the ESA by
carrying out programs for the conservation, or recovery, of listed
species.[^2] The ESA also proscribes take of listed species, unless such
take is consistent with an incidental take statement or permit issued by
NMFS or FWS, or is otherwise exempt from take.[^3]

## C. Responsibilities under Treaties with Indian Tribes, the Clean Water Act, Northwest Power Act, and Additional Laws.

The Federal agencies must integrate treaties and other applicable laws
into their decisionmaking, including the following.

-   The statutes authorizing construction and operation of Federal dams
    in the Columbia River Basin, and the Columbia River Treaty between
    the United States and Canada, call for operation of the FCRPS to
    serve multiple uses, including flood control, navigation, the
    generation of power and irrigation.

-   Treaties with Indian Tribes, executive and departmental orders,
    fishing and hunting rights, and the concept of
    government-to-government relations, lead Federal agencies to consult
    and discuss with Tribes how their actions affect Native Americans.

-   The Clean Water Act calls for the restoration and maintenance of the
    chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.

-   The Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act
    (NW Power Act) provides that BPA should make expenditures to
    protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife consistent with the
    Pacific Northwest Power and Conservation Planning Council's Fish and
    Wildlife Program and also provide an economic and reliable power
    supply. The NW Power Act also requires Federal agencies responsible
    for managing, operating, or regulating Federal or non-Federal
    hydroelectric facilities to provide equitable treatment for fish and
    wildlife and to take the NW Power Council's Fish and Wildlife
    Program into account to the fullest extent practicable.

-   The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act directs
    Federal agencies to consider recommendations for reducing effects on
    essential fish habitat.

-   The National Environmental Policy Act directs Federal agencies to
    analyze and consider environmental impacts prior to making
    decisions.

-   The National Historic Preservation Act requires Federal agencies to
    consider potential impacts to cultural resources.

-   Under the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act,
    Federal agencies must protect the rights of lineal descendants and
    Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations to the repatriation
    and disposal of certain Native American human remains, funerary
    objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony.

-   Consistent with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Federal
    agencies must give equal consideration to wildlife conservation and,
    with respect to certain projects impounding a body of water, consult
    with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine
    Fisheries Service and make adequate provision, consistent with the
    primary purposes of such impoundment, for the consideration of
    wildlife resources and its habitat.

Particular sections of the 2000 NMFS BO address not only
responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act, but also
responsibilities under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act, under the Clean Water Act, and with Tribes.
Consequently, this decision document addresses each of these
responsibilities in separate sections.

## D. Process Leading to New NMFS and FWS BOs

### 1. Submission of Multi-Species Biological Assessment and Reinitiation of Formal Consultation

On March 2, 1995, after extensive consultations, NMFS issued a
comprehensive biological opinion on the FCRPS (1995 NMFS BO) to COE,
BOR, and BPA, (collectively, the FCRPS Action Agencies). After
additional consultations, NMFS issued supplemental biological opinions
to address impacts of the FCRPS on additional listed species. NMFS' May
14, 1998, supplemental BO addressed effects of the FCRPS on newly listed
steelhead in the Upper Columbia River, Snake River, and Lower Columbia
River. NMFS' December 9, 1999, supplemental BO evaluated BOR's planned
operation to deliver 427 thousand acre-feet of upper Snake River water
for flow augmentation and BOR projects in the Snake River system above
Lower Granite Dam. NMFS\' February 4, 2000, BO considered the effects of
FCRPS operations on six additional species that NMFS had listed as
threatened or endangered in March 1999.[^4] The FCRPS Action Agencies
have operated and configured the FCRPS consistent with these BOs.

The 1995 NMFS BO called for extensive review of long-term options over a
5-year period. The supplemental BOs continued this approach toward
longer-term decisionmaking. To complete this process at the end of the
5-year period, the FCRPS action agencies chose to reinitiate formal
consultation. To do so, they completed and submitted to NMFS a
biological assessment on December 21, 1999, entitled, "Multi-Species
Biological Assessment of the Federal Columbia River Power System" and
reinitiated formal consultation.

The FCRPS action agencies also submitted to FWS their December 21, 1999,
biological assessment entitled, "Multi-Species Biological Assessment of
the Federal Columbia River Power System" and reinitiated formal
consultation.

### 2. Formal Consultation

After reinitiation of formal consultation, the FCRPS action agencies met
almost weekly with NMFS to prepare, exchange, and discuss information
relevant to FCRPS operations and preparation of a biological opinion to
insure the agencies use the best science and commercial data available
and to determine the reasonableness and prudence of action alternatives.
After considering comments from the Action Agencies, NMFS issued a draft
biological opinion, dated July 27, 2000, for review by states and Tribes
and other interested persons. After a series of meetings with states and
Tribes and other interested persons, and, again, almost weekly meetings
with the FCRPS action agencies, NMFS issued a final BO on December 21,
2000.[^5]

After reinitiation of formal consultation, the FCRPS action agencies
also met regularly with FWS to prepare, exchange, and discuss
information relevant to preparation of a biological opinion. After
considering comments from the Action Agencies, FWS issued a draft
biological opinion, dated July 27, 2000, for review by states and Tribes
and other interested persons. After meetings with states and Tribes and
other interested persons, and, again, meetings with the FCRPS action
agencies, FWS issued a final BO on December 20, 2000.

## E. Relationship of 2000 NMFS BO to the Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy and Standard for Avoidance of Jeopardy

### 1. Basinwide Recovery Strategy

Beginning in 1999 and continuing through 2000, the Federal Caucus
developed a Basinwide Recovery Strategy for salmonid species in the
Columbia River Basin. The Federal Caucus consists of representatives
from Pacific Northwest regional offices of nine Federal agencies who
have met regularly to address ESA and other environmental issues. It
includes NMFS, the Corps, BOR, BPA, Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), FWS, and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS).

In December 1999 the Federal Caucus released a draft Conceptual Recovery
Plan that outlined difficult choices that the Pacific Northwest must
make to recover listed salmon, resident fish, and other aquatic species.
After discussions and consultations with states and Tribes, and
extensive public comment period, the Federal Caucus updated the
scientific information, considered the comments from Tribes, states, and
the public about options and alternatives, and prepared the Basinwide
Recovery Strategy. Recovery Strategy at Vol. I, p. 11.

The Recovery Strategy describes a range of potential Federal activities
that could meet ESA obligations and rebuild Columbia basin stocks
(Basinwide Recovery Strategy). Non-Federal (Tribal, state, local, and
private) activities are also considered in the Recovery Strategy to the
extent that they can contribute to the recovery of ESA-listed species in
the Columbia River Basin. Recovery options are considered and analyzed
across each life stage of ESA-listed fish: habitat, hatcheries, harvest,
and the hydropower system (the four "Hs" of the salmon's life cycle,
which leads some to call the Recovery Strategy the "All-H Paper.").

The Recovery Strategy "outlines the expected improvements in hydro,
habitat, hatcheries, and harvest needed to meet the goals of the ESA."
2000 NMFS BO at 9-1, n. 1. NMFS will use the Strategy as a guideline for
evaluating actions that affect the listed species. [Id]{.underline}.
Consistency with the Strategy "ensures that actions are both avoiding
jeopardy and enabling the recovery of listed species." [Id]{.underline}.
The success of the Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy "hinges on active
and effective leadership and significantly improved coordination among
Federal, state, Tribal, and local agencies." Recovery Strategy at Vol.
I, p. 8.

The Recovery Strategy establishes a context for new biological opinions.
Within this context, NMFS and the FCRPS action agencies engaged in and
completed consultations, and NMFS completed the 2000 NMFS BO. The BO's
RPA is a major component of the Basinwide Recovery Strategy. 2000 NMFS
BO at § 9.2, p. 9-7.

### 2. Avoidance of Jeopardy

NMFS concludes that the RPA for the FCRPS avoids jeopardy because,
"\[t\]he increased reliability of implementing the Basinwide Recovery
Strategy measures, together with other ongoing Federal measures for
survival and recovery specific to other life stages and the improved
survival that will result from the hydropower measures of this RPA,
ensure that each of the eight ESUs will have a high likelihood of
survival and a moderate-to-high likelihood of recovery." 2000 NMFS BO at
§ 9.7.4.1,pp. 9-281 [et]{.underline} [seq]{.underline}. (quotation on p.
9-282 -- 9-283); 2000 NMFS BO at § 1.3.1.1, p. 1-12. Improvements
achieved by the RPA, in combination with improvements from other ongoing
Federal actions, and the cumulative effects of state or private
activities that are reasonably certain to occur, "should be sufficient
to allow the FCRPS and BOR operations \[and implicitly other actions as
well\] to meet the jeopardy standard." 2000 NMFS BO at § 9.3, p. 9-21.
The RPA, "together with the measures identified in the Basinwide
Recovery Strategy," is "sufficient to achieve the biological
requirements of the listed ESUs and, thus, sufficient to avoid jeopardy
and adverse modification of critical habitat." 2000 NMFS BO at 9-15.
Similarly, the RPA "includes a better-defined commitment by the Action
Agencies to fund offsite mitigation activities than did the biological
assessment. The RPA also calls for performance standards, a schedule,
and a process for ensuring that the offsite mitigation activities of the
Action Agencies combined with the activities expected of other Federal
and non-Federal entities will achieve necessary survival improvements."
[Id]{.underline}. at § 9.7.2.12, p. 9-240.

The coordinated effort described by the RPA is the Basinwide Recovery
Strategy. Federal actions should complement and encourage state, Tribal,
and community efforts, not hinder them. Recovery Strategy at Vol. I, p.
9.

Consistent with the concept that the jeopardy standard requires
improvements in all actions, improvements by the FCRPS action agencies
should complement and encourage, but not displace or substitute for,
efforts by other Federal agencies, states, Tribes, and regional or local
entities, and vice versa. 2000 NMFS BO at 9-3,[^6] 21, 135-136, 212;
Recovery Strategy at Vol. I, p. 9. Non-Federal actions, such as
non-Federal dams on the mainstem Columbia, must also meet the jeopardy
standard, taking into account actions in the other Hs. Recovery Strategy
at Vol. I, pp.19, 63-64. In this sense, all actions are relevant to
salmon survival and recovery.

## Consideration of Views of States, Tribes, and the Public

The Federal agencies have had several meetings and discussions with
Tribes to consider Tribal views and impacts of FCRPS operations upon
Tribal interests. For a description of these meetings, please see the
section of this document entitled, "Meeting Responsibilities to Tribes."

The Federal agencies have also had several meetings and discussions with
state representatives and with representatives of the Northwest Power
Planning Council. States have also participated in the Federal agency
executive meetings with states and Tribes on March 16, March 30, April 6
(telephone conference), April 13, April 27, May 11, May 25 (telephone
conference), June 1 (telephone conference), June 15 (telephone
conference), and June 29, discussed elsewhere in this document.

A comprehensive public involvement process paralleled these Tribal and
State discussions. Between March and December 1999, the Federal Caucus
initiated a public information process to assist understanding of the
complex issues and to participate effectively during the formal public
comment period. Federal Caucus representatives participated in numerous
stakeholder briefings and public meetings in conjunction with the NW
Power Council's Multi-Species Framework Project, which developed broad,
longer-term ecosystem goals for all species, not only species listed
under the ESA. Between February and March 2000, the formal comment
period included fifteen public meetings in five states. Interested
citizens had many options for participation, including verbal testimony
and tape-recorded testimony during the public meetings, and written or
e-mailed comments. The Federal Caucus reviewed and considered over
60,000 written comments, which are summarized, along with responses, in
Volume 3 of the Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy. See 2000 NMFS BO at
§ 2.7, pp. 2-9 -- 2‑12. The Federal Caucus also shared information
through a series of "Citizen Guide" newsletters, a new website, and a
formal public information meetings.

# III. MEETING ESA RESPONSIBILITIES: THE NMFS BO's RECOMMENDED REASONABLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVE (RPA) FOR AVOIDING JEOPARDY

In their Multi-Species Biological Assessment, the FCRPS action agencies
proposed continued FCRPS operations consistent with the 1995 NMFS BO, as
they may be revised by the reinitiation of consultation. In its 2000 BO,
NMFS concluded that continued operations as described in the 1995 NMFS
BO, without sufficient revisions for the long term, was not adequate to
avoid jeopardy. NMFS recommended a new reasonable and prudent
alternative (RPA) for avoiding jeopardy to listed species and adverse
destruction or modification of their critical habitat.

The 2000 NMFS BO presents a long-term RPA for avoiding jeopardy. To
avoid jeopardy, the RPA requires satisfaction of [performance
standards]{.underline}. To satisfy the performance standards, the RPA
requires development of [1- and 5-year implementation plans]{.underline}
to define and revise particular measures for implementation. The RPA
then presents an [initial set of particular measures and
actions]{.underline} designed to meet the performance standards, subject
to revision through the 1- and 5-year planning process. To ensure
progress toward the performance standards, the RPA provides for
[midpoint reviews]{.underline} in 2003, 2005, and 2008. 2000 NMFS BO at
§ 9.1.5, p. 9-3; § 9.5, pp. 9-37 [et seq]{.underline}.

The RPA calls for improvements in fish passage at and between dams and
in offsite mitigation for habitat, hatcheries, and harvest in addition
to improvements in habitat, hatcheries, and harvest by other Federal and
non-Federal parties. 2000 NMFS BO at §9.1.3, pp. 9-2 -- 9-3. All these
improvements are needed to meet NMFS' jeopardy standard.
[Id]{.underline}.

## A. Performance Standards

The RPA centers on performance standards that will meet NMFS' jeopardy
standard as the RPA is implemented through 2010. 2000 NMFS BO at
§ 9.1.1, p. 9-1. Performance standards are "measures of success" needed
for establishing the levels of improvement necessary for survival and
recovery. Recovery Strategy at p. 38. First tier performance standards
are life-cycle, population-level performance standards required to
achieve an adequate likelihood of survival and recovery for that
population. Second tier life-stage performance standards allocate the
performance expectations needed across each stage of the life-cycle to
achieve the population level performance standards. Finally, third tier
standards guide the determination of performance standards for
particular categories of actions in habitat, harvest, hatcheries and
hydro, and are intended to achieve the life-stage performance standards.
They allocate expectations needed for each life stage among the types of
activities affecting that life stage. Third tier standards can be
specific to a group of similar activities such as hydroelectric
projects, or even more specific to a particular activity, such as
operation of the FCRPS. 2000 NMFS BO at § 9.1.1, pp. 9-1 -- 9‑2;
Recovery Strategy at pp. 38-40.

The standards "depend on clear objectives, measurable results, and
accountability." 2000 BO at 9-7. NMFS "will apply the performance
standards when determining whether implementation of the RPA continues
to satisfy ESA standards." 2000 NMFS BO at 9-7.

The BO recognizes that applicable performance measures may not be met in
all years. For example, the fifty-year historical record of water years
shows a wide range of water conditions. Consequently, the NMFS BO
recognizes that meeting flow objectives and refilling reservoirs "may
not be possible every year, especially in low water years." 2000 NMFS BO
at p. 9-62. The percentage of water years in which flows at Snake and
Columbia River dams will meet or exceed flow objectives is materially
below 100%. 2000 NMFS BO at § 9.7.1.3.1, p. 9-190.

## B. One- and Five-Year Implementation Plans

To achieve the standards, the RPA calls for rolling 1- and 5-year plans
for implementation of measures to achieve these performance standards.
The planning process "is critical to achieving the FCRPS hydro and
offsite performance standards." 2000 NMFS BO at 9-3, § 9.4, pp. 9-23 [et
seq]{.underline}. The plans "will cover all operations, configuration,
research, monitoring, and evaluation actions," as well as offsite
habitat, hatchery and harvest actions implemented by the FCRPS action
agencies. [Id]{.underline}. at 9-3. They must prioritize possible
actions, integrate all FCRPS operations and configuration, and specify
specific actions to be carried out as offsite mitigation.
[Id]{.underline}. at 9-23. Prioritization will be a function of the
feasibility of a measure, its probable contribution to meeting
performance standards, and consideration of the best available science
and input from states and Tribes. [Id]{.underline}. at 9-25.

The FCRPS action agencies are developing these implementation plans. In
2001, the FCRPS action agencies will issue drafts of their first
five-year plan, for the years 2002-2006, and their first annual plan,
for the year 2002, for public review and comment. The action agencies
intend to consider comments on these drafts and to issue final plans
later in 2001.

## C. Particular Measures and Actions

The RPA describes an extensive set of hydro, habitat, harvest,
artificial propagation, and research, monitoring, and evaluation
measures designed to achieve applicable performance standards. 2000 NMFS
BO at §9.6, pp. 9-53 -- 9-180. Hydro measures consist of operational
(e.g., flow augmentation and spill) and structural improvements (e.g.,
extended screens, new outfalls, surface bypass technology, improved
turbine designs) to improve juvenile survival in reservoirs and as they
pass dams, improving adult survival as they return to spawn,
improvements in water quality, and active investigation to reduce or
resolve scientific uncertainties. [Id]{.underline}. at § 9.6.1.1, pp.
9-53 -- 9-55. Habitat measures identify the Action Agencies'
contribution to the Basinwide Recovery Strategy and will improve
tributary, estuarine, and mainstem habitats. [Id]{.underline}. at
§ 9.6.2, p. 9-133. Harvest measures describe how the action agencies can
contribute to development of selective fisheries potentially reducing
impacts of harvest on listed fish. [Id]{.underline}. at 9-143.
Artificial propagation measures describe how the action agencies can
assist reform of hatcheries and artificial propagation programs and
create an Artificial Propagation Safety-net Program. [Id]{.underline}.
at § 9.6.4. The research, monitoring, and evaluation plan provides a
basis for assessing the effectiveness of the RPA's measures and
identifying opportunities for changes. [Id]{.underline}. at § 9.6.5, p.
9-161.

However, given uncertainties, changing conditions, and additional
information from research, monitoring, and evaluation, these measures
are subject to change. As determined through the implementation planning
process, the action agencies may revise and change combinations of
measures sufficient to meet the performance standards. 2000 NMFS BO at
§ 9.1.2, p. 9-2. "The RPA allows for revision of the specific measures
throughout its term, as long as the Action Agencies make steady progress
toward meeting performance standards and remain on track for full
attainment of the hydro standards by 2010." [Id]{.underline}. at
§ 9.1.4, p. 9-3. The action agencies will monitor and evaluate their
actions under the RPA, "as amended by annual and 5-year plans."
[Id]{.underline}. at § 9.6.5, p. 9-163. The action agencies may also
propose additional measures to substitute for initial measures not
implemented. [Id]{.underline}. at § 9.4.2.13, p. 9-35.

## D. Mid-Point Reviews

To ensure progress toward meeting performance standards, the RPA
provides for mid-point evaluations in years 3, 5, and 8 of the BO. 2000
NMFS BO at § 9.5.1, p. 9-37. The evaluation process overlays the 1- and
5-year planning process. [Id]{.underline}. In year 3, NMFS will evaluate
the Action Agencies' success in developing 1- and 5-year plans and the
implementation of actions identified in those plans. [Id]{.underline}.
at § 9.5.2.3, p. 9-43. In years 5 and 8, in addition to reviewing status
of listed stocks, NMFS will ask whether the Action Agencies have
implemented the habitat, hatchery, and hydro projects specified in the
1- and 5‑year plans. [Id]{.underline}. at § 9.5.3.3, p. 9-46; § 9.5.4.3,
p. 9-48. For each review, if NMFS determines that implementation is on
track, then implementation can proceed. If NMFS instead determines that
implementation is not meeting expectations, then NMFS will recommend how
the Action Agencies can implement changes through revised 1- and 5-year
plans. [Id]{.underline}. at 9- 39 (Figure 9.5.2 "Evaluation Flow
Chart"), 43 (3-year review), 47 (5-year review), 49 (5-year review). If
the status of listed fish does not improve consistent with the estimated
level of improvement needed to achieve survival and recovery indicator
criteria, and NMFS reasons that solutions cannot be remedied through
changes to the 1‑ and 5-year plans, then NMFS and the action agencies
will consider additional efforts, including seeking additional authority
from Congress and reinitiation of formal consultation. [Id]{.underline}.
at 9-47 (3-yr. review), 49 (5-yr. review); for elaboration of the level
of improvement needed to achieve the survival and recovery indicator
criteria, see § 9.2.2.1 of the BO, pp. 9-8 -- 9-11.

## E. Allowance for Emergencies, and Declarations of Power System Emergencies in 2001

The NMFS BO allows for adjustments in case of unforeseeable power
system, flood control, and other emergencies. 2000 NMFS BO at
§ 9.6.1.2.3, p. 9-62. However, the action agencies should view emergency
actions as a last resort and should not use emergencies in place of
long-term investments that could allow fish operations while maintaining
other purposes, such as an adequate and reliable power system.
[Id]{.underline}. Discussion of emergencies of exceptional magnitude or
duration should include involvement of regional executives.
[Id]{.underline}.

The BO's allowance for emergencies is not hypothetical. This year, BPA's
load is in excess of resource capability after full implementation of BO
measures. Due to poor precipitation during the winter of 2000-2001, the
power crisis in California, and unprecedented increases in the market
price for power, BPA lacks resources to continually purchase the power
needed to meet this deficit. Consequently, BPA has periodically declared
power system emergencies, initially on January 18 and most recently on
April 2, to draft reservoirs and reduce spill further than otherwise
recommended by the BO to meet firm load. For the same reasons, BPA may
have to declare emergencies in the future months. For an explanation of
the bases on which BPA has declared power system emergencies and may
declare additional emergencies in 2001, see "Power Emergencies --
Memorandum for the Record" from Gregory K. Delwiche, Vice President,
Generation Supply, to the File, dated February 26, 2001.

To enhance policy-level consideration of the emergencies as well as the
low water year, regional executives of the Federal agencies have met
almost weekly since December 2000. They have also given presentations to
and discussed relevant issues with the Pacific Northwest Electric Power
Planning and Conservation Council, states, and Tribes. The Federal
agencies also decided to open some of their executive meetings to Tribal
and state and other representatives. Federal executive meetings or
telephone conferences with Tribal and state representatives have
occurred on March 16, March 30, April 6 (telephone conference), April
13, April 27, May 11, May 25 (telephone conference), June 1 (telephone
conference), June 15 (telephone conference), and June 29.

To plan operational decisions in a difficult year, the Federal agencies
recently developed operating principles for 2001. BPA shared proposed
principles with Federal agencies and others for comment on or about
February 20, issued a revised version of the principles on or about
March 2, and, after receiving comments from states and Tribes, developed
a further revised version entitled, "Federal Agencies' Criteria and
Priorities for 2001 FCRPS Operations" (March 30, 2001). The Operating
Criteria and Priorities present (1) reliability criteria that, if not
met, could trigger declarations of emergencies, (2) actions taken and to
be taken by BPA to avoid power system emergencies, and (3) fishery
operations priorities for 2001.

After development of the 2001 Criteria and Priorities, BPA and the
Federal agencies drafted a "Federal Agencies' 2001 FCRPS Operations Plan
Proposal," which they presented at the April 13 executive meeting with
states and Tribes for comment. The objective of the Operations Plan is
to meet the reliability criteria in the Federal Agencies Criteria and
Priorities (March 30, 2001) while making best efforts to minimize
adverse impacts to fish. The Operations Plan also provides a framework
for development of the 2001 Water Management Plan for operation of the
FCRPS in consideration of the NMFS and FWS biological opinions.

The Plan (1) reviews conditions leading to the extremely low water year,
unprecedented increases in power prices, and the causes of power system
emergencies, (2) summarizes reliability criteria that, if not met, could
trigger declarations of emergencies, (3) identifies measures undertaken
by BPA to avoid declarations of emergencies, (4) describes spring and
summer operations, including transportation of some juvenile fish and
available water for spill for juvenile fish remaining in river.

BPA received comments from states and Tribes and considered them as it
revised the Plan. On May 25, 2001, after taking these comments into
consideration, BPA adopted a 2001 Operations Plan. The document may be
revised and supplemented as the Federal agencies receive updated
information about the power as well as fish conditions.

### 1. Measures to Avoid or Mitigate the Occurrence of Emergencies

BPA does not lightly declare emergencies. To mitigate the occurrence and
consequent impact of emergencies, BPA engages in prodigious efforts to
reduce load and acquire resources to meet load. A summary of actions to
reduce load and increase energy sources follows.

-   Energy Exchanges with California---2 for 1 exchanges provided BPA
    with additional 500 mw-months of energy;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Acquisition of Power from Industries---BPA has secured over 2600
    mw-months of load reduction at a cost of more than \$310 million;

-   Achievement of approximately 600 mw-months of load reduction through
    irrigation buy-down at a cost of approximately \$25 million;

-   Acquisition of Market Energy---From December through April, secured
    1100 mw-months of market energy at a cost of \$200 million;

-   Conservation of Energy---expedited the implementation of
    conservation credits;

-   Oregon and Washington Calls for Conservation---assisted governors in
    their call for 10% reduction in consumption;

-   Solicitation for proposals for generation from wind power with a
    capacity of 1000 MW;

-   To avoid increases in BPA's rates that the Pacific Northwest economy
    may not be able to tolerate, BPA's Administrator has called for
    BPA's industrial customers to suspend operations for two years and
    for BPA's public and investor-owned utility customers to reduce
    their loads by 5-10 percent.

-   BPA has encouraged the Pacific Northwest to consider, especially
    during trying times such as 2001, how to meet both power system
    reliability and fish and wildlife needs in a fiscally responsible
    manner.

With efforts by BPA and others in the region to conserve energy and to
develop additional resources, the risk of a power system emergency due
to the current tenuous nature of load-resource balance of BPA and in the
Pacific Northwest will decline. Many new projects currently under
various stages of planning and construction will be completed within
approximately three years. Consequently, the heightened risk of a power
system emergency could exist for up to a three-year period. However, the
duration of a particular emergency, if it is declared, will depend upon
the particular circumstances applicable to that emergency. Improvements
in many factors, including warmer winter weather conditions, increased
precipitation, increased generation from other sources, reductions in
load, and reasonable market prices for power, can rapidly end an
emergency. If BPA declares an emergency, BPA will terminate the
emergency as soon as resources become sufficient to meet load.

For additional description of these efforts to avoid and reduce the
occurrence and duration of emergency operations, please see "Power
Emergencies -- Memorandum for the Record," [supra]{.underline}, and the
Federal Agencies' 2001 FCRPS Operations Plan, [supra]{.underline}.

As result of these efforts, during the power system emergency declared
on April 2, instead of providing no spill to benefit migration of
juvenile anadromous fish during the Spring, BPA reduced the extent of
emergency operations by providing in May and June a moderate level of
spill -- 600 MW-months -- consistent with the power system reliability
criteria.

### 2. Alternative Measures to Offset Adverse Impacts of Emergencies

In addition to efforts to moderate the adverse impacts of emergency
operations by avoiding or reducing the extent of emergencies, BPA is
attentive to offsetting adverse impacts on fish from emergency
operations that do occur. For example, reductions in spill may reduce
survival due to a higher mortality associated with in-river migration of
juvenile fish. Therefore, BPA is soliciting proposals and selecting
measures to provide additional survival benefits to fish.

## F. Scientific Review

NMFS conducted extensive analyses to determine stock status, current
population growth trends, and improvements needs across the full life
cycle of these species to avoid jeopardy. NMFS' analysis also reflects
the anticipated benefit of aggressive hydrosystem improvements that are
considered achievable, and the remaining improvements necessary by the
Action Agencies, other Federal agencies, states, Tribes, and public.
These analyses are complex and based on empirical data and professional
judgment. Where views differ or uncertainty exists, NMFS, after
conducting sensitivity analyses to capture the broader range of views,
has responsibly chosen appropriate assumptions and parameters.

To reduce uncertainties, the FCRPS Action Agencies, as part of the RPA,
will use research, monitoring, and evaluation (RM&E) to reduce or
resolve these uncertainties. Through the implementation planning
process, the Federal agencies anticipate revising the RPA, as
appropriate, consistent with the RM&E.

Consequently, BPA believes that the RPA responsibly projects, based upon
the best available scientific evidence, avoidance of jeopardy and the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. As additional
information becomes available, BPA anticipates revisions to the RPA to
improve the RPA's effectiveness in satisfying ESA responsibilities.

# IV. MEETING ESA RESPONSIBILITIES: THE FWS BO's APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AS IT AFFECTS BULL TROUT AND RECOMMENDED REASONABLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVE (RPA) FOR AVOIDING JEOPARDY TO STURGEON

## A. FWS Conclusions

After formal consultation, FWS concluded that FCRPS operations avoided
jeopardy to bull trout. 2000 FWS BO at 62-63. Consequently, BPA will
work with the other FCRPS action agencies to operate the FCRPS
consistent with the operations reviewed by FWS.

Because FWS needed additional commitments to flow augmentation and
restrictions on variations in flows, FWS concluded that proposed
operations failed to avoid jeopardy to Kootenai River white sturgeon.
2000 FWS BO at 70. FWS then recommended an RPA for avoiding jeopardy.
Principal recommendations in the RPA follow.

-   The RPA modifies operations of Libby Dam to assure storage of water
    for augmentation of Kootenai River flows during sturgeon spawning
    and development during early life stages. 2000 BO at 71. The
    recommended flows vary, depending upon the ampleness of the water
    year. [Id]{.underline}. at 71 [et]{.underline} [seq]{.underline}.

-   The RPA also recommends increases in the release capacity at Libby
    Dam. Id. at 74 et seq.

-   The action agencies should seek ways to avoid public safety and
    other concerns from flooding and leakage from levees. Id. at 77 et
    seq.

-   

-   The action agencies should maintain a preservation stocking program
    operated by the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho and monitor all stages of
    natural recruitment and the preservation stocking program. Id. at
    79.

The FWS BO also allows for adjustments to operations during emergencies.
2000 FWS BO at 8 & 9 (regarding Hungry Horse Dam), 14 &16 (regarding
Libby Dam).

## B. Scientific Review

After reviewing the current status of the bull trout, the environmental
baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed action, and
cumulative effects, FWS concluded that continued operation of the FCRPS
was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of bull trout. 2000
FWS BO at 62-63. After reviewing the current status of the Kootenai
River sturgeon, the environmental baseline for the action area, the
effects of the proposed action, and cumulative effects, FWS developed an
RPA that avoids jeopardy to sturgeon. 2000 FWS BO at 71.

BPA biologists have reviewed the scientific information supporting FWS'
conclusions and recommendations and believe that operations consistent
with these conclusions will amply avoid jeopardy to bull trout and
sturgeon. These analyses are complex and based on empirical data and
professional judgment. Consequently, BPA believes that the RPA
responsibly projects, based upon the best available scientific evidence,
avoidance of jeopardy and the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat.

# 

# V. MEETING RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT: ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT (EFH)

Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, the FCRPS
action agencies have consulted with NMFS on actions affecting essential
fish habitat (EFH), and NMFS has provided recommendations for conserving
EFH. 2000 NMFS BO at Part 12. "Essential fish habitat" means "those
waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding,
or growth to maturity." Magnuson Stevens Act, § 3, 16 U.S.C. § 1802(10).
Species of fish with designated or recommended EFH include more than
those species listed under the Endangered Species Act. 2000 NMFS BO at
§ 12.1, p. 12-2 --12-3.

After receiving these conservation recommendations, the FCRPS action
agencies must provide a detailed response that explains the extent to
which the agencies intend to follow or not follow the recommendations.
16 U.S.C. § 1855(b)(4)(B). This part of BPA's decision document provides
BPA's response to the EFH conservation recommendations.

## A. EFH Conservation Recommendations

NMFS' EFH conservation recommendations consist of proposals for
improvements in the estuary.

> ***Action 15*8:** During 2001, the Corps and BPA shall seek funding
> and develop an action plan to rapidly inventory estuarine habitat,
> model physical and biological features of the historical lower river
> and estuary, identify limiting biological and physical factors in the
> estuary, identify impacts of the FCRPS on habitat and listed salmon in
> the estuary relative to other factors, and develop criteria for
> estuarine habitat restoration.
>
> ***Action 15*9:** BPA and the Corps, working with LCREP and NMFS,
> shall develop a plan addressing the habitat needs of salmon and
> steelhead in the estuary.
>
> ***Action 160***: The Corps and BPA, working with LCREP, shall develop
> and implement an estuary restoration program with a goal of protecting
> and enhancing 10,000 acres of tidal wetlands and other key habitats
> over 10 years, beginning in 2001, to rebuild productivity for listed
> populations in the lower 46 river miles of the Columbia River.
>
> ***Action 16*1:** Between 2001 and 2010, the Corps and BPA shall fund
> a monitoring and research program acceptable to NMFS and closely
> coordinated with the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
> monitoring and research efforts (Management Plan Action 28) to address
> the estuary objectives of this biological opinion.
>
> ***Action 16*2:** During 2000, BPA, working with NMFS, shall continue
> to develop a conceptual model of the relationship between estuarine
> conditions and salmon population structure and resilience.
>
> ***Action 16*3:** The Action Agencies and NMFS, in conjunction with
> the Habitat Coordination Team, will develop a compliance monitoring
> program for inclusion in the first 1- and 5-year plans.

2000 NMFS BO at § 12.5, pp. 12-10 -- 12-13.

## B. The Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy Provisions for Estuarine Improvements Are Comparable to the EFH Conservation Recommendations.

These recommendations are consistent with the Basinwide Salmon Recovery
Strategy. BPA intends to respond to take the EFH recommendations into
consideration as it implements its share of the Recovery Strategy.
Pertinent excerpts from the Recovery Strategy follow.

-   Recovery may hinge upon efforts to restore health to the estuary as
    well as tributaries. Recovery Strategy, Vol. 1, p. 1.

-   The estuary is an important habitat used by all salmon and steelhead
    in the Columbia River Basin. Strategy, Vol. 1, p. 2.

-   The Recovery Strategy's Habitat Plan provides for the protection and
    improvement of estuary habitat. Id. at 5.

-   "Survival improvements are likely to have the biggest effect in the
    first year of life (when most of the fish are in the tributaries)
    and during the transition to salt water (when the fish are in the
    estuary). Id. at 5.

-   Using the Lower Columbia River Estuary Program as a foundation,
    Federal agencies will work with state, local, Tribal, and private
    partners to acquire or restore thousands of acres of estuary habitat
    over the next 5-10 years. Id. at 6, 47-48.

-   Performance standards include those for estuary and early ocean
    survival. Id. at 9.

-   Improvements in the estuary benefit all 12 ESUs to varying degrees.
    Id. at 24.

-   Survival improvements in spawning and rearing habitat in the
    tributaries and in estuary habitat are a centerpiece of this
    Strategy because the science indicates that the greatest opportunity
    for achieving significant survival improvements is in these habitat
    types. Id. at 26.

-   One of the ecological objectives is to prevent further degradation
    of estuary habitat conditions. Id. at 33.

-   The Recovery Strategy enumerates Federal actions to restore estuary
    habitat. Id. at 50.

-   In the estuary, silted channels, dikes, and high culverts prevent
    access to spawning, rearing, feeding, and refugia habitats. Id. at
    53.

-   Capital improvements at dams have the potential to improve estuarine
    habitat. Id. at 60.

-   Additional water to augment flows could also enhance estuarine
    conditions. Id. at 62.

-   Improvement in estuary habitat "must play a vital role in rebuilding
    the productivity of salmon runs throughout the Columbia Basin."
    Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy, Vol. 2, p. 26.

-   Biological analyses "suggest that significant opportunities exist
    for securing additional improvements in overall population trends by
    reducing the substantial mortality in the estuarine and early ocean
    life stages." Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy, Vol. 2, p. 36;
    Vol. 1, p. 27, 39.

-   The recovery strategy provides for assessments of estuary habitat,
    developing a plan for salmon conservation in the estuary, habitat
    acquisition and restoration, floodplain restoration, predator
    control, information management, monitoring and research, and
    inter-agency and inter-jurisdictional coordination. Recovery
    Strategy, Vol. 2, pp. 26‑31.

## C. The NMFS BO RPA Provisions for Estuarine Improvements Are Comparable to the EFH Conservation Recommendations

The 2000 NMFS BO's RPA for avoiding jeopardy to listed species includes
measures that are similar, if not identical, to the recommended EFH
conservation measures. One of the objectives of the RPA's habitat
actions is estuary improvement. 2000 NMFS BO at 9-133. With respect to
operation of the FCRPS, "The potential for delayed, pre-spawning
mortality of adults and for survival effects related to estuary or plume
conditions created through water management practices are also highly
critical uncertainties." 2000 NMFS BO at § 9.1.6, p. 9-4.

The 2000 NMFS BO's RPA, therefore, provides many measures relating to
study of effects on and improvements to estuarine habitat. Measures
specifically addressing estuarine habitat include:

> ***Action 102:*** The Action Agencies, in coordination with the
> Caspian Tern Working Group, shall continue to conduct studies
> (including migrational behavior) to evaluate avian predation of
> juvenile salmonids in the FCRPS reservoirs above Bonneville Dam. If
> warranted and after consultation with NMFS and USFWS, the Action
> Agencies shall develop and implement methods of control that may
> include reducing the populations of these predators. ... This effort
> must be coordinated with ongoing avian control activities in the
> Columbia River estuary and with the USDA Wildlife Services and USFWS.
>
> ***Action 105:*** The Action Agencies shall develop a pilot study to
> assess the feasibility of enhancing the function of ecological
> communities to reduce predation losses and increase survival in
> reservoirs and the estuary.
>
> ***Action 106:*** The Action Agencies, in coordination with NMFS,
> shall investigate marine mammal predation in the tailrace of
> Bonneville Dam. A study plan shall be submitted to NMFS by June 30,
> 2001, detailing the study objectives, methods, and schedule.
>
> ***Action 158:*** During 2001, the Corps and BPA shall seek funding
> and develop an action plan to rapidly inventory estuarine habitat,
> model physical and biological features of the historical lower river
> and estuary, identify limiting biological and physical factors in the
> estuary, identify impacts of the FCRPS system on habitat and listed
> salmon in the estuary relative to other factors, and develop criteria
> for estuarine habitat restoration.
>
> ***Action 159:*** BPA and the Corps, working with LCREP and NMFS,
> shall develop a plan addressing the habitat needs of salmon and
> steelhead in the estuary.
>
> ***Action 160:*** The Corps and BPA, working with LCREP, shall develop
> and implement an estuary restoration program with a goal of protecting
> and enhancing 10,000 acres of tidal wetlands and other key habitats
> over 10 years, beginning in 2001, to rebuild productivity for listed
> populations in the lower 46 river miles of the Columbia River.[^7]
>
> ***Action 161:*** Between 2001 and 2010, the Corps and BPA shall fund
> a monitoring and research program acceptable to NMFS and closely
> coordinated with the LCREP monitoring and research efforts (Management
> Plan Action 28) to address the estuary objectives of this biological
> opinion.
>
> ***Action 162:*** During 2000, BPA, working with NMFS, shall continue
> to develop a conceptual model of the relationship between estuarine
> conditions and salmon population structure and resilience.
>
> ***Action 163:*** The Action Agencies and NMFS, in conjunction with
> the Habitat Coordination Team, will develop a compliance monitoring
> program for inclusion in the first 1- and 5-year plans.

These and other habitat measures in the RPA should complement but not
displace other programs, including Oregon's Lower Columbia River Estuary
Program (LCREP). 2000 NMFS BO at 9-136.

Technically, the estuarine measures in the RPA and the EFH conservation
measures are not identical. The RPA measures are arguably narrower than
EFH recommendations because the RPA measures focus on improvements to
estuarine habitat for listed salmon while the EFH conservation
recommendations apply to all species with designated EFH habitat, a
broader spectrum of species than those listed under the ESA. For a
reference to species with designated EFH, see 2000 NMFS BO at § 12.1.
However, the potential improvements from the RPA measures are broad and
will benefit more than listed salmonid species.

Given the prodigious task of improving conditions for salmonid species
-- the estuarine-residing species most significantly affected by dams -
BPA will concentrate its resources on implementing the 2000 NMFS BO's
RPA. Although these estuarine measures in the RPA exist for the purpose
of benefiting salmon, BPA expects these improvements will benefit all
estuarine species, not only listed salmonid species. In addition, when
BPA is considering alternatives providing comparable benefits at
comparable cost to listed salmonid species, BPA will prefer those
alternatives that also benefit EFH of additional species.

# VI. MEETING CLEAN WATER ACT RESPONSIBILITIES: IMPROVING WATER QUALITY

This Part VI of the Decision Document describes the action agencies'
plan to meet CWA responsibilities. NMFS, EPA, and the Action Agencies
have considered the respective biological objectives of the ESA and the
Clean Water Act (CWA). 2000 NFMS BO at § 9.6.1.7, p. 9-119. They
recognize the substantial overlap of statutory purpose: to protect
listed species (ESA) and to restore and maintain the chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of the Nation's waters (CWA). More
specifically, while the ESA requires Federal agencies to ensure that
their actions do not jeopardize listed species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, the CWA
generally requires Federal agencies to avoid the discharge or runoff of
unpermitted pollutants and meet state water quality standards. 16 U.S.C.
§ 1536; 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311, 1323. These agencies also recognize the need
to resolve potential conflicts in objectives. Consequently, they have
endeavored to coordinate ESA and CWA decisionmaking. 2000 NMFS BO at
§9.6.1.7, p. 9-119. They have done so by defining an RPA in the 2000
NMFS BO that includes measures for improving water quality, 2000 NMFS BO
at §§ 9.4.2.4, p. 9-29; 9.6.1.7, pp. 9-119 [et seq]{.underline}.;
§ 9.6.2.1, Action 152, pp. 9-135 -- 9-136. They will also develop a
basin-wide water quality plan to progress toward meeting state water
quality standards. 2000 NMFS BO at Appendix B.

In [National Wildlife Federation v. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers]{.underline}, Civ. No. 99-442-FR (D.Or. filed Feb. 16, 2001),
a recent order by Federal District Court of Oregon Judge Frye directed
the Army Corps of Engineers, with respect to the Lower Snake dams, to
replace its record of decision following the 1998 NMFS Supplemental BO
with a new decision that "addresses its compliance with its legal
obligations under the Clean Water Act within sixty days of the order of
summary judgment." Not a party, BPA defers to COE to respond to the
still active lawsuit. However, BPA intends that its decision document
complement that developed by COE.

The commitments expressed in the 2000 NMFS BO continue substantive
actions by the FCRPS Action Agencies to improve water quality and to
make further improvements and progress toward meeting applicable water
quality standards. The principal water quality standards affecting dams
are those for total dissolved gas, which increase after water spills
over a dam, and water temperature. NMFS, EPA, and the FCRPS action
agencies have focused on these water standards.

## A. Achievements Improving Water Quality 

### 1. Temperature

The FCRPS action agencies have made substantial improvements to water
quality over the past several years. The Corps of Engineers has been
designing, building, modifying, and operating dams with consideration
for water quality issues, and making operational and structural changes
to storage dams to improve water quality, over the past three decades.
The Corps has had active water quality programs in the Northwestern
Division office and in the Portland, Seattle, and Walla Walla district
offices since the 1970s. In the late 1990s, the water quality program
for the Northwestern Division and three Districts represented a 31
staff-year effort.

Corps design and construction activities at storage projects included
the completion of Libby Dam and Dworshak Dam (both completed in the
early 1970s) with selective withdrawal structures to release water from
different levels within the reservoir to control downstream water
temperatures. During the past 10 years, the Corps has been providing
cool water from Dworshak Dam to reduce the water temperature of the
lower Snake River during the summer. Currently, a retrofitted selective
withdrawal structure at Cougar Dam, in the Willamette River Basin, is in
the advanced planning stages. The Willamette System Temperature Control
Study of the 1980s identified several feasible alternative temperature
control modifications that could be retrofitted to the Cougar and Blue
River dams.

Concerning temperature, the Corps' Waterway Experiment Station (Corps
national science center) has already provided a cost estimate for a plan
to model temperature effects of alternative Snake River Operations, and
discussions between BPA, the Corps and EPA regarding how this should be
accomplished have been initiated. The action agencies will continue to
manage storage reservoirs (particularly Dworshak) to retain and release
cooler water for the benefit of listed fish throughout the in-season.

### 2. Dissolved Gas

The Corps began spilling water over the Corps dams on the lower Columbia
and Snake rivers in 1977 as a way of improving juvenile fish survival.
However, spill has associated risks because spilled water entrains air
when the water plunges into the spillway basins, causing raised levels
of total dissolved gas (TDG), sometimes in excess of state water quality
standards. As a result, there have been conflicts between ESA needs for
spill and CWA goals of water quality attainment. In past years, this has
been addressed through standard modifications or waivers under the BO.

Spillway deflectors help reduce TDG by producing more horizontal spill
flow patterns, and limiting the plunge depth of water over dam
spillways. Spillway flow deflectors (also called flip lips) were placed
at seven of eight Corps dams on the lower Columbia and Snake rivers.
Flow deflectors at the eighth dam, The Dalles Dam, were not installed
because its shallow stilling basin allowed higher spill levels with
lower gas production. A more comprehensive spill program was initiated
at the request of the Northwest region in 1989 when a long-term spill
agreement was signed by the Bonneville Power Administration. Spilling
water and juvenile fish over dam spillways is considered one of the safe
methods to get fish past dams to meet ESA requirements. Under the
National Marine Fisheries Service 1995 Biological, spill at the dams was
increased substantially during juvenile fish migrations. The Corps\'
Dissolved Gas Abatement Study (DGAS) was started in 1994, in
anticipation of the 1995 Biological Opinion calling to for evaluation
methods to reduce TDG at the Corps dams on the lower Columbia and Snake
rivers. The Phase I study report released in April 1996 provided for
installing new deflectors at Ice Harbor and John Day. Phase II is to be
completed in FY 2001. The short-term structural measures include
improvements already made at several projects such as modifying existing
spillway deflectors or adding deflectors. Operational alternatives
include spill pattern adjustments or combinations of spill patterns.

The 1998 Supplemental Biological Opinion requested the Corps and the
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) to coordinate efforts in a joint study of
dissolved gas abatement for Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams. The
Seattle District of the Corps published a Final Environmental Assessment
and Finding of No Significant Impact in June 2000, recommending combined
alternatives of flow deflectors and operational modifications to include
joint operation of Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams.

The Bureau of Reclamation conducted a study at Grand Coulee Dam to
determine the impact of various types of releases of water from the dam.
The study determined the most efficient way to release water (other than
through turbines) which created the least amount of dissolved gas. When
the study was completed, operational procedures were implemented in
accordance with the findings of the study. Also, monitoring of dissolved
gas has been improved by the installation of a monitoring site in the
Grand Coulee forebay. Recently, an appraisal level study was completed
evaluating 42 options of modifying Grand Coulee Dam for dissolved gas
abatement. Three alternatives were carried forward into a detailed
study. The two-year study was completed and the report was posted on the
Internet on October 30, 2000.

To minimize high TDG conditions throughout the system, a spill priority
list process was developed and implemented by the Corps. Spill at each
Corps forebay or tailwater is updated as needed, often daily, during the
juvenile fish migration season. Changing spill patterns based on river
flow criteria, avoiding the use of spillways without deflectors, and
allowing the hydroelectric power units to operate outside their 1% peak
efficiency flow range are other reservoir management tools to reduce TDG
production. Adjusting hydropower unit maintenance schedules to avoid
times of fish passage, identifying additional energy loads to service,
and displacing available thermal projects serving the same loads also
help relieve the need for involuntary spill, discussed in more detail
below.

Upstream storage dams also hold backwater for flood control and other
uses, interrupting the seasonal flow patterns. Water retention allows
flow augmentation, and it can reduce TDG in the Columbia - Snake system.
The Corps, BOR, and the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)
participate in the Technical Management Team process with the salmon
managers of the region to distribute the seasonal flow to aid salmon
migration and to regulate the TDG levels in the Columbia-Snake system.

The DGAS study will be published for review and comment by the end of
April 2001, and is expected to be finalized by the end of September
2001. The final report may contain additional TDG reduction projects.
TDG monitoring is already being implemented throughout the mainstem, and
a systematic review to improve reliability and accuracy of the fixed
monitoring stations is already occurring in the Water Quality Team
subcommittee. The Corps has also made recommendations to the Water
Quality Team concerning a system-wide TDG model (Mass I and Mass 2).

### 3. Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation have made possible selection and execution of
the improvements described in the preceding section. The Corps has been
maintaining a TDG and water temperature-monitoring program on the
Columbia and Snake rivers since 1984 to provide water quality data
needed to schedule spill for fish passage and to monitor project
performances in relation to water quality standards to identify remedial
actions. The program has been an integral part of the Corps water
management program. The TDG and water temperature monitoring expanded in
1994 in response to a National Marine Fisheries request to spill every
year at the lower eight lower Columbia and Snake Dams and became an
annual requirement. Cooperation of monitoring efforts from the BOR and
the mid-Columbia PUDs has been excellent. The Corps made TDG and water
temperature data available on the worldwide web for its own projects and
other dam operators in the system. In 1996, the Portland, Seattle, and
Walla Walla districts assumed the responsibility for operation and
maintenance of the monitoring sites. By 1999, a total of 41 sites
measuring TDG and water temperature at the forebay and tailwater
locations at 27 Corps sites, for 4 BOR sites, and 10 mid-Columbia PUDs
were established. An annual report on the Corps monitoring is prepared.

In its support efforts, the Corps Reservoir Control Center also uses
numerical models such as COLTEMP and neural network analysis to relate
forebay and tailwater TDG levels to spill and total project releases.
There have been regional modeling tools developed by the DGAS study that
will be used for water quality management. MASS1, MASS2, and MASSHYBRID
have been developed for the Columbia-Snake system. A spreadsheet model
called SYSTDG has also been developed to show how to generate
system-wide power subject to water quality restraints. The Corps also
maintains scroll-case water temperatures for use in reservoir operation
scheduling. It also monitors water temperatures in some fish ladders and
conducts studies related to water temperature and fish passage at those
facilities.

### 4. Input from States and Tribes and Canada

The Corps, BPA and BOR (Action Agencies) participate in regional forum
activities related to water temperature and TDG as members of the
regional Water Quality Team. TDG data are posted at real-time basis on
the Technical Management Team homepage for weekly reservoir control
operations interagency decision-making. Another regional forum in which
the Action Agencies participate is the international Transboundary Gas
Group, made up of Columbia Basin stakeholders from Canada and the United
States.

### 5. Development of a Long-Term Water Quality Plan

The action agencies are developing a basin-wide water quality plan for
the Columbia River mainstem to progress toward meeting state water
quality standards, as described in the 2000 NMFS BO at Appendix B. The
development of the Plan will include preparation of an environmental
impact statement that will allow for participation by the public.

## B. Additional Commitments to Improve Water Quality Expressed in the 2000 NMFS BO

### 1. Long-term Basinwide Goals to Meet State and Tribal Water Quality Standards

NMFS, EPA, and the FCRPS action agencies commit to progress toward
meeting state water quality standards.

> The water quality plan in Appendix B includes the following basinwide
> goals for TDG and temperature. NMFS, EPA, and the Action Agencies
> commit to work toward these goals. They recognize, however, that
> reaching the goals may take more time than the duration of this
> biological opinion and that exceedances may, nevertheless, occur.
>
> Total Dissolved Gas Goal. The long-term TDG goal (10 to 15 years) is
> to reach the 110% TDG standard in all critical habitat in the Columbia
> and Snake River basins while taking actions to recover listed species
> in the basins. For anadromous fish, achieving the goal would mean fish
> passage survival levels are consistent with the performance standards
> for the mainstem projects.[^8]
>
> \* \* \*
>
> Water Temperature Goal. The long-term goal for water temperature is
> standard attainment in all critical habitat in the Columbia and Snake
> River basins.

2000 NMFS BO at § 9.6.1.7, pp.9-121 - 9-122.

The FCRPS action agencies will use the dissolved gas goal to "guide
operating and capital improvement decisions relating to TDG created
during periods of spill." 2000 NMFS BO at § 9.6.1.7, p. 9-121; Appendix
B, p. B-7. They will also take actions to move toward the temperature
standard. 2000 NMFS BO at § 9.6.1.7, p. 9-122; Appendix B, p. B-11.

### 2. Schedule for Implementation of Water Quality Measures

The Action Agencies' particular measures to improve water quality are of
two categories. First is a set of dissolved gas and temperature measures
essential for the survival and recovery of the species. BO at 9-119.
These measures are part of the RPA. BO at §§ 9.4.2.4, 9.6.1.4.5,
9.6.1.2.6, 9.6.1.2.7, 9.6.1.6.2, 9.6.1.7.2, 9.6.2.1. As part of their
annual 1- and 5-year implementation plans, the Action Agencies will also
develop 1-and 5-year water quality plans. Consequently, each year, the
Action Agencies' 1-and 5-year plans will define the measures that they
will implement for the upcoming years. The Action Agencies will
implement these measures within the period addressed by the RPA, which
is 10 years.

The second category is a set of additional measures that are not part of
the RPA but that the Action Agencies will consider as they develop a
water quality plan. [Id]{.underline}. at 9-119. The Action Agencies
describe their commitment to develop a water quality plan in Appendix B
to the NMFS BO, entitled "Development of a Water Quality Plan for the
Columbia River Mainstem: A Federal Agency Proposal." The additional
measures appear as ESA conservation recommendations for the recovery of
listed species. Id. at § 11. During implementation of the 2000 NMFS BO
RPA, the action agencies will also consider implementation of these or
different additional measures.

### 3. Particular Water Quality Measures to Implement

#### 

Concise lists of particular measures to improve water quality appear at
the end of the 2000 NMFS BO, Appendix B. Table B-2, pp. B-20 -- B-21,
summarizes measures that are part of the RPA. Table B-3, p. B-22,
summarizes conservation recommendations. They are also attached to the
end of this decision document as Appendix B.

#### a. Dissolved Gas Measures

Dissolved gas measures include monitoring and studies of levels of
dissolved gas, effects on fish, and how to reduce these levels. The
Corps of Engineers is on schedule to complete its comprehensive
dissolved gas study (DGAS) later in 2001, which the action agencies will
use to guide future studies and decisions about implementation of
long-term structural measures to reduce TDG (Action 130). The action
agencies will monitor the effects of TDG, improve measurements at TDG
monitoring stations, and develop a TDG model (Actions 131-133).

Dissolved gas measures contain on-the-ground improvements, including
continuation of the spillway deflector optimization program at each
project (Action 134), spillway deflectors at Chief Joseph Dam by 2004
(Action 136), construction of gas abatement improvements at Libby Dam
(Action 137), and design and implementation of a spillway deflector at
John Day Dam, (Action 140), and prototype surface spillway bypass at
Lower Granite and John Day dams (Action 72, 80, 81, 138). The spillway
deflector optimization program (Action 134) schedules installation of
additional deflectors at the following dams: 4 deflectors at McNary dam
by Spring 2002, 6 deflectors at Bonneville by Spring 2002, 2 deflectors
at Lower Monumental by Spring 2003, and 2 deflectors at Little Goose by
2004 and 19 deflectors at Chief Joseph by 2004. An evaluation of a full
complement of deflectors at The Dalles is scheduled to be completed by
2005. The Corps is also attempting to expedite construction projects for
a removable spillway weir at Lower Granite and a stilling basin repair
project at Lower Monumental. All of these projects are expected to lower
TDG levels within the mainstem. The action agencies will also evaluate
and install, as warranted, divider walls as part of a spillway deflector
optimization program (Action 135) and TDG abatement options at Dworshak
Dam (Action 139).

BPA will also undertake additional measures to reduce or avoid the risk
of involuntary spill, which can occur in water years with high levels of
flow. There are two types of involuntary spill: lack-of-turbine spill
and lack-of-load ("overgeneration") spill. Lack-of-turbine spill occurs
when total river flows exceed powerhouse hydraulic capacity.
Overgeneration spill is an amount of spill that could have passed
through turbines had there been load for the resulting energy generated.
Overgeneration spill generally occurs in periods of low energy
consumption, such as the middle of the night and on weekends.

The additional measures to moderate effects of involuntary spill will be
comparable to those used in 1997, when projected spring runoff was near
the largest on record for the Snake River and in the top ten percent of
the historical record for the Columbia River at The Dalles, and BPA
delineated many measures to avoid these types of spill. To reduce or
avoid occasions of lack-of-turbine spill, BPA and the action agencies
will try to maximize the number of turbines in service during spring
runoff and maximize the storage of water in headwater storage
reservoirs. To reduce or avoid occasions of lack-of-load spill, they
will seek to increase load served by turbines at the dams by shutting
down or displacing non-hydro generating units such as the Columbia
Generating Station, by pricing hydroelectric power to encourage demand
for it, especially during light load hours, and serving load outside the
Pacific Northwest. For a more detailed description of these possible
measures, see "Bonneville Power Administration Plans for Minimizing
Spill March 1997," attached to this Decision Document as Appendix A.

#### b. Temperature Measures

Temperature measures include evaluation of effects of temperature on
fish (Action 140 and 141), examination of juvenile mortality,
temperatures, and operations at McNary Dam (Action 142), and a plan to
model water temperature effects of alternative Snake River operations
(Action 143).

Temperature measures also include on-the-ground improvements. The action
agencies will, to the extent feasible, use cool water from Dworshak Dam
to reduce downstream water temperatures. Action 140; § 9.6.1.2.3, Action
19, p. 9‑65 ("The Action Agencies shall manage Dworshak discharge to
attempt to maintain water temperatures at the Lower granite Reservoir
forebay dissolved gas monitoring station at or below 68˚F (20˚C).")

In addition, as part of the RPA, the FCRPS action agencies will
undertake substantial efforts to improve tributary habitat. 2000 NMFS BO
at § 9.6.2.1, pp. 9-133 [et seq]{.underline}. Improvements to habitat
will improve tributary water quality, including temperature. See Action
152, pp. 9-135 -- 9-136.

#### c. Additional Measures

The studies included in the RPA and in Appendix B anticipate additional
on‑the‑ground measures after completion of the studies. Proposed
criteria for evaluating additional actions include:

-   How does the proposal meet the tenets of the 2000 FCRPS Biological
    Opinion and the water quality plan (i.e., how does the proposal
    complement the two activities)?

-   How does the proposal demonstrate substantial progress toward
    meeting the 110% TDG and temperature standards by the 2005 check-in
    point?

-   

-   If the proposal is a study, how will it increase the existing
    knowledge base to meet the temperature and/or dissolved gas
    standard?

-   

-   How does the proposal build on existing science to achieve project
    goals?

-   

-   How does the proposal go beyond mitigation for FCRPS impacts to
    enhance anadromous fish recovery?

-   

-   Is the proposal cost-effective?

-   

-   Is there consensus among Federal, state, and Tribal representatives
    to implement the proposal?

2000 NMFS BO at Appendix B, § B.6.4, p. B-24. BPA will use these and
additional criteria as it considers additional measures.

### 4. Progress Toward Water Quality Goals Requires Resolution of Uncertainties and Conflicts.

Meeting these goals does not admit to easily or rapidly completed
solutions. As the term *basinwide* goals indicates, solutions require
improvements by multiple parties and activities, not only FCRPS
activities. With regard to TDG, the BO states:

> A systemwide approach is needed to address gas generated at mainstem
> projects where fish are present and at upstream facilities (i.e.,
> outside the current range of listed salmon) in both the U.S. and
> Canada, the five PUD dams on the Columbia River between the Snake
> River and Chief Joseph Dam, and the Hells Canyon Complex on the Snake
> River. Some exceptions are noted in the ability to meet the state and
> Tribal TDG standard.

2000 NMFS BO at 9-121. Progress toward the water quality goals will take
time. "\[T\]he water quality plan is likely to require lengthy study and
implementation exceeding the duration of this \[10-year\] biological
opinion." 2000 NMFS BO at Appendix B, p. B-19. The long term TDG and
water temperature goals may entail 10-15 years. 2000 NMFS BO at Appendix
B, p. B-7.

#### a. Transition to Temperature Water Quality Goals Requires Resolution of Uncertainties

Temperature solutions require resolution of considerable uncertainties
and complex interrelationships. With regard to temperature, the BO
recognizes that improvements in temperature conditions will require
study of these multiple factors and evaluation of options for altering
temperature.

> In the mainstem Columbia and Snake rivers, attainment of the
> temperature standard is very complex, due to a number of interrelated
> factors that affect water temperatures at certain times of the year
> and to the limited ability to alter water temperature in the mainstem.
> In the tributaries, attainment of the temperature standard is also
> complex, due to many of these same factors and the long time needed to
> realize the temperature benefits of remedial actions (such as growth
> of trees for shading riparian areas). Therefore, in the near term,
> working with the state and/or Tribe with relevant regulatory
> authority, the interim goal is to move toward attaining the standard.
> Establishing TMDLs is expected to significantly promote progress
> toward the interim goal.

2000 NMFS BO at 9-122.

Improving water temperature within the FCRPS is a complicated
enterprise. First, water temperature in the Columbia and Snake rivers is
the combined effect of elevated temperature of incoming tributary waters
coupled with any additional heat transfer that may occur as a result of
the FCRPS. Generally, when water temperature is a concern within the
FCRPS (e.g., during mid-summer to late fall), water temperature is
typically elevated throughout the basin. However, although natural
conditions such as high air temperatures are an important factor, the
relative contribution of various factors to increased water temperature
is largely unknown. Second, structural and operational alternatives to
modify water temperatures are limited. Third, regardless of actions
taken under any configuration, water temperature will often exceed the
standard during mid-summer to late fall. Water temperatures in the Lower
Snake River exceeded standards even prior to construction of the Lower
Snake Dams. Draft Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration
Feasibility Study (December 1999)**,** § 5.3.2.2. In summary, efforts to
improve water temperature in the mainstem Columbia and Snake necessarily
include actions in watersheds throughout the Columbia Basin.

BPA has three specific concerns regarding water temperature within the
FCRPS project area:

1.  Investigation and remedies to site-specific conditions where water
    temperatures exceed those of surrounding waters. An example would be
    the McNary juvenile fish facility. The goal in these site-specific
    cases would be to reduce elevated temperatures to that of
    surrounding waters.

2.  Determination of how much the existence and operation of the FCRPS
    projects contributes to increased temperature of water compared to
    its temperature as it enters the FCRPS, and how alternative
    operations or configuration would affect this "heat transfer." This
    can be accomplished through a well-designed temperature monitoring
    program and computer modeling.

3.  Consideration of how Upper Snake River water management may create a
    mismatch between water temperature conditions and fall chinook life
    stage requirements (spawning/rearing/migration timing) in the Lower
    Snake, and how alternative operations in the Upper Snake could
    contribute to improved conditions across all life stages.

Progress toward the long-term temperature goal will require considerable
resolution of uncertainties and identification of additional measures
that can reduce temperature. To progress toward the long-term
temperature goal, the FCRPS action agencies will, to the extent
feasible, work with NMFS, USFWS, EPA, and states and Tribes through an
adaptive management process to:

-   Make operational and capital investment decisions at the FCRPS
    projects to move toward attainment of thermal water quality
    standards.

-   Seek consensus on offsite mitigation measures that would contribute
    to attainment of water temperature standards.

-   Fund, implement, and report on adequate physical and biological
    temperature monitoring to assess compliance with state and Tribal
    water quality standards and other special conditions that may apply.

-   Cooperate with others to fund implementation and modeling to better
    assess and act on thermal water quality problems and opportunities.

-   Develop emergency measures that may be needed to address immediate
    and acute water temperature problems affecting listed salmon.

2000 NMFS BO at appendix B, p. B-11. In addition, the feasibility of
meeting the long-term goal will be revisited annually during the water
quality improvement planning process. [Id]{.underline}.

#### b. Transition to Total Dissolved Gas Water Quality Goals Requires Resolution of Uncertainties and Conflicts

Meeting these standards also requires resolution of conflicts. NMFS'
preferred method of passing fish by dams in the Columbia River mainstem,
at least in the short term, is voluntary spill. NMFS also calls for
releases of water for flow augmentation from Dworshak in a manner that
causes spill. In NMFS' view, no current structural modification has been
identified that would reduce TDG levels to meet state or Tribal water
quality standards without threat of adverse effects to passing fish.
2000 NMFS BO at § 9.6.1.7.1, p. 9-120. Although spill increases the
level of dissolved gas above state water standards, the NMFS BO's RPA
calls for spill to aid passage of fish.

> Without physical modifications to the dams beyond those that are
> presently under way, the long-term TDG goal cannot be attained between
> April and August at and between the eight mainstem FCRPS dams. This is
> a result of the need to rely on spill to safely pass juvenile salmon
> around those dams. A similar issue exists with Dworshak Dam, where, in
> some circumstances, spill is necessary to contribute to the attainment
> of spring and summer flow objectives for salmon migration and water
> temperature standards in the Clearwater and lower Snake Rivers. In the
> near term, therefore, it will be necessary to conduct spill operations
> that cause exceedances of the 110% TDG gas standard. The Corps will
> take the actions necessary to implement the spill operation called for
> in this biological opinion, including spill in accordance with the
> special TDG conditions set forth below.[^9] NMFS will provide
> technical assistance, as necessary, to support the Corps' actions.
>
> \* \* \*
>
> *Special TDG Conditions for Juvenile Fish Passag*e. At the eight
> Columbia and Snake river mainstem hydro projects, and consistent with
> state and Tribal water quality variances, spill will be reduced as
> necessary when the average TDG concentration of the 12 highest hourly
> measurements per calendar day exceeds 115% of saturation at the
> forebay monitor of any Snake or lower Columbia river dam or at the
> Camas/Washougal station below Bonneville Dam. Spill will also be
> reduced when the 12-hour average TDG levels exceed 120% of saturation
> at the tailrace monitor at any Snake River or lower Columbia River
> dams or Dworshak Dam. Spill will also be reduced when instantaneous
> TDG levels exceed 125% of saturation for any 2 hours during the 12
> highest hourly measurements per calendar day at any Snake, Clearwater,
> or lower Columbia River monitor.

2000 NMFS BO at § 9.6.1.7.1, p. 9-121, Appendix B at B-7.

However, spill for fish passage is a short-term strategy:

\[S\]pill for fish passage that results in exceedances of the 110% gas
standard is considered an interim strategy in the sense that the
long-term goal is to keep TDG levels within water quality standards.

2000 NMFS BO at 9-120.

In the longer term, the Federal agencies will consider and implement
structural and operational changes to progress toward dissolved gas
standards while still meeting survival objectives of listed salmon.

> To assess the feasibility of reducing TDG to the 110% standard while
> still meeting the survival objectives of listed salmon, EPA, NMFS,
> USFWS, and the Federal Action Agencies commit to continued efforts to
> identify water quality improvement actions (see Appendix B). These
> efforts will lead to decisions on whether structural or operational
> changes exist that will allow FCRPS projects to achieve both fish
> passage and water quality objectives, and encourage changes in
> non-Federal Columbia River basin projects that have a cumulative
> effect of reducing TDG levels systemwide. Information developed from
> these studies may also provide a basis for future decisions concerning
> beneficial use and water quality criteria revisions. Such decisions
> will result from a coordinated effort between EPA and NMFS and
> discussions with states, Tribes, and other interested parties. The
> EPA, NMFS, USFWS, and the Federal Action Agencies will continue to
> work toward implementing a combination of actions that benefit both
> fish survival and water quality.

2000 NMFS BO at 9-120. Measures for both improving juvenile passage
survival and water quality include development of alternative fish
passage measures, such as surface bypass. 2000 NMFS BO at § 9.6.1.2, pp.
9-54, 55. Surface bypass efforts potentially reduce dissolved gas
supersaturation levels. 2000 NMFS BO at § 9.7.1.1.3, p. 9-184.

Consequently, the FCRPS action agencies intend to "make operational and
capital investment decisions at the Federal projects to reduce levels of
gas generated by spill and to reduce the reliance on spill as a primary
means of juvenile fish passage." 2000 NMFS BO at Appendix B, p. B-7. As
an alternative way to pass fish, NMFS advises the FCRPS action agencies
to continue to investigate prototype surface spillway bypass systems.
2000 NMFS BO at §§ 9.6.1.4.5, pp. 9-94 [et seq]{.underline}.; 9.6.1.7.2,
pp. 9-122 [et seq]{.underline}. However, transition to the long-term
standard depends upon development of and reliance on these alternative
systems. Until the Federal agencies have confidence in an alternative
bypass system, NMFS is not likely to support reducing spill. If NMFS
continues reliance on spill, then a modification of applicable water
quality standards may be warranted.

The transition to the longer-term dissolved gas goal also affects how
the FCRPS action agencies install spill deflectors, a concrete structure
installed at the bottom of a bay in dam's spillway to reduce TDG.
Installation of a deflector can be optimized in terms of depth and shape
for *voluntary* spill used to pass fish, or for *involuntary* spill in
excess of that desired for fish passage, which periodically occurs when
the flow of water exceeds a dam's capacity to store it or pass it
through turbines. (For a description of involuntary spill, see the
following subsection.) A deflector consists of poured concrete and
cannot be changed after installation. BPA intends to support only
installation of additional deflectors optimized for involuntary spill
and the goal of meeting dissolved gas standards.

### 5. Integration of Water Quality Measures with Other Responsibilities

The Federal agencies will integrate decisions to improve water quality
into their planning processes. As expressed in Appendix B to the 2000
NMFS BO:

The water quality plan will include possible measures for implementation
to improve water quality. These measures, such as ESA and fish and
wildlife measures, will be coordinated with established processes. These
include planning and review processes of the NWPPC, including the
Independent Scientific Review Panel, the Columbia Basin Fish and
Wildlife Authority, the NMFS' Regional Forum, and, if appropriate, the
Columbia River Basin Forum. Some measures may also require congressional
approval. NMFS, EPA, USFWS, and the Federal Action Agencies intend to
support implementation of those measures that successfully garner
approval through these processes. A common approach for selecting water
quality, ESA, and fish and wildlife measures to implement should foster
coordination among NMFS, EPA, USFWS, and the Federal Action Agencies,
and increase effective use of available but finite resources. The
outcome of these processes is a collection of measures undertaken by the
Action Agencies to serve the agencies' various statutory purposes within
budgetary parameters. Recommendations approved by applicable processes
could be identified in the water quality plan for implementation.

2000 NMFS BO at Appendix B, p. B-25.

As stated above, the action agencies have already agreed to initiate a
basin-wide water quality plan very similar to the planning process
described in Appendix B.

# VII. Meeting Responsibilities to Tribes: Consideration of Tribal Views and Impacts of FCRPS Operations upon Culturally Important Resources

As expressed in the Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy, there is a
unique and long-standing relationship between the U.S. government and
Federally recognized Indian Tribes (hereafter referred to as "Tribes").
The U.S. government has a trust responsibility to protect those Tribes'
trust resources and treaty rights, to respect the sovereignty of Tribal
governments, and to act consistently with the statutes and the missions
of respective agencies. Recovery Strategy at Vol. 1, p. 17.

To consider impacts upon Tribes associated with operation of the FCRPS,
BPA and other Federal agencies have engaged in and will continue to
engage in consultations and discussions with Federally recognized Tribes
in the Columbia River Basin. Some of these meetings included
participation by states and the public. The Action Agencies will take
into consideration the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the
Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act, Archaeological
resources Protection Act, American Indian Religious Freedom Act, and
guidance provided in Executive Order 13007 "Indian Sacred Sites." BPA
has and will consider impacts on culturally important resources,
including anadromous and resident fish, even if these resources fall
outside the scope of the narrower definitions of historic properties,
such as "cultural resources," defined in the NHPA or other statutes.
Recovery Strategy at Vol. 1, p. 18.

## A. Discussions with Tribes during Development of the Basinwide Recovery Strategy and 2000 NMFS BO

During development of the Recovery Strategy and the 2000 NMFS BO,
Federal Agencies met with Federally recognized Tribes of the Columbia
Basin. [Id]{.underline}. at 17; See Volume 3, "Regional Coordination and
Public Involvement," for a summary of these discussions; 2000 NMFS BO at
§ 2.5, pp. 2-3. BPA intends to continue these consultations and
discussions as it participates in the development of the 2000 NMFS BO
implementation plans. One goal of such meetings is to identify potential
effects on culturally important resources early in the planning process
before selecting a preferred action. Recovery Strategy at Vol. 1, p. 18.

During ESA consultation, the Federal agencies met with and considered
views of states, Tribes, and others. NMFS held a series of meetings with
state and Tribal fish and wildlife managers that began on February 2,
2000. NMFS also briefed the Northwest Power Planning Council and engaged
in subsequent discussions with NWPPC members.

NMFS also issued a draft biological opinion, dated July 27, 2000, for
review by states and Tribes and other interested parties. During the
comment period following this draft BO, NMFS conducted a series of
technical-level planning and policy-level meetings with Tribes. In
addition, after the draft Basinwide Recovery Strategy was released in
July 2000, the Federal Caucus engaged in government-to-government
consultations with 13 Native American Tribes in the Columbia River
Basin.

During the comment period following publication of the draft NMFS BO and
the draft Recovery Strategy, NMFS also discussed the draft BO at
meetings with the Northwest Power Council and the offices of the
governors of Pacific Northwest states. The FCRPS Action Agencies
participated in these meetings.

For more detailed information respecting Federal agency consultations
and discussions with Tribes, states and the public during consultation
leading to the 2000 NMFS BO, see 2000 NMFS BO § 2.5, pp. 2-3 [et
seq]{.underline}.; Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish, Final Basinwide
Salmon Recovery Strategy, Volume I, pp. 17-19, and 2000 NMFS BO at 2-9.

## B. Discussions with Tribes After Issuance of the 2000 NMFS BO

Subsequent to issuance of the biological opinion, the Action Agencies
have engaged in discussions and consultations with Tribes as the
agencies have deliberated on operational decisions in 2001. The prime
matter of importance to all parties has been the extremely low water
year and unprecedented climb in market prices for electrical power,
which have compelled BPA to periodically declare power system
emergencies. To make better decisions during this difficult year, the
regional executives of Federal agencies, including the Action Agencies,
have met almost weekly since December 2000. They have also given
presentations and engaged in discussions with states and Tribes. To
enhance this dialogue, the Federal agencies have invited representatives
of states and Tribes to participate in some of their executive meetings.
Executive meetings and telephone conferences have occurred on March 16,
March 30, April 6 (telephone conference), April 13, and April 27, May
11, May 25 (telephone conference), June 1 (telephone conference), June
15 (telephone conference), and June 29. The Federal agencies will
schedule additional meetings as the year progresses.

In addition, the Corps of Engineers consulted with the Columbia River
Inter-Tribal Fish Commission on April 12 and 27. To the extent
practicable, the Federal agencies also have consulted and will consult
with an individual Tribe on matters of particular interest to that
Tribe.

The 2000 NMFS BO provides additional opportunities for Tribal
involvement during its annual implementation planning process, which
identifies and selects particular measures for implementation. On a more
technical level, the Federal agencies look to the Technical Management
Team (TMT), which is open to participation by state and Tribal
representatives, for in-season management of available water. The
Federal agencies have promptly notified TMT of declarations of
emergencies and discussed possible responses.

More generally, as expressed in the BO,

The Action Agencies and NMFS encourage participation by the Tribes and
Tribal organizations in all of the Technical Management Team, System
Configuration Team \[structural improvements\], Water Quality Team, and
Implementation Team processes, and in regional planning activities such
as the CBFWA/NWPPC process where much of the planing for offsite
mitigation activities will occur. Such participation will provide
abundant opportunities at the technical level to collect, synthesize,
and exchange information to seek consensus on implementing the hydro and
offsite mitigation actions identified in the biological opinion.
Decisions at the policy level are also important and may occur through
direct communications with Tribes or through policy level forums such as
the Columbia River Basin Forum.

> The Action Agencies, in keeping with their Federal trust
> responsibilities, will coordinate with and seek the input of
> appropriate Tribes during their development of the 1- and 5-year
> plans.

2000 NMFS BO at § 9.4.2.9, p. 9-32. As indicated by the BO, additional
meetings and consultations will occur as the year progresses.

## C. Revisions to Planning and Decisions in 2001 that Address Tribal Concerns

In consideration of comments from Tribes, as well as others, the Federal
agencies have made and will make adjustments to planning and operations
in 2001 that directly address Tribal concerns. Examples to date follow.

-   The Federal Agencies' "Criteria and Priorities for 2001 FCRPS
    Operations" (March 30, 2001), expressly recognizes that the Federal
    agencies will operate the FCRPS projects consistent with treaties
    and executive orders with Pacific Northwest Indian Tribes and the
    Federal Government's trust responsibilities, as well as cultural
    resource laws such as the National Historic Preservation Act and the
    Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act.

-   The 2001 FCRPS Operations Plan designates a targeted elevation at
    the Grand Coulee project.

-   The Federal Agencies provided spill to aid the migration of Spring
    Creek Hatchery fish, a fish not listed under the ESA but important
    to Tribal fisheries.

-   The Federal agencies have maintained flows to cover redds at Vernita
    Bar and the Hanford Reach, which support healthy runs of
    non-ESA-listed fish important to Tribal fisheries.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The Federal agencies give high priority to refilling Dworshak and
    using releases of Dworshak water to reduce temperature.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   BPA has engaged in prodigious efforts to avoid or moderate power
    system emergency operations by buying back and thereby reducing
    industrial and irrigation load, by buying power on the market,
    calling for conservation, and soliciting proposals for additional
    wind generation.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Notwithstanding emergency operations, BPA continues undiminished its
    expenditures to support fish and wildlife measures, principally
    those in the Northwest Power Planning Council's Fish and Wildlife
    Program, which support non-ESA-listed as well as ESA-listed fish and
    wildlife of importance to Tribes.

-   In addition to its usual fish and wildlife measures, BPA is
    developing measures to offset any adverse impacts to listed fish
    resulting from emergency power operations. Many of the offset
    measures will benefit unlisted as well as listed fish.

-   By its efforts to avoid emergency operations and otherwise offset
    the unavoidable adverse impacts of emergency operations, and through
    its ongoing efforts under the Council\'s program to implement the
    multi-species, long-term Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy, BPA is
    giving equitable treatment to fish and wildlife consistent with the
    purposes of the Northwest Power Act.

BPA recognizes that its decisions, especially in 2001, a year with
extremely low runoff and power system emergencies, will not adopt all
recommendations by Tribes or fully meet Tribal interests. However, the
effort to engage in discussions with Tribes, and to solicit comments and
participation in regional and other meetings, shows that the Federal
agencies seek a constructive working relationship within Tribes, solicit
and take Tribal views into consideration, and attempt to respond within
their multiple statutory responsibilities. On a longer term basis, the
Federal agencies, Tribes, and states all share a common goal, as
expressed in different but similar ways in the Basinwide Salmon Recovery
Strategy, the 2000 NMFS BO, the NW Power Council's Fish and Wildlife
Program, and planning documents by Tribes: healthy populations of
non‑ESA‑listed as well as ESA-listed anadromous fish that permit Tribal
as well as non-Tribal harvest.

# VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

BPA's environmental impact analysis of the effects of implementing the
NMFS and FWS biological opinions is in three parts. The System Operation
Review (1995) and its record of decision (1997), along with analyses
tiered to them, cover operation of the FCRPS. The Programmatic Wildlife
Mitigation (1997) and Programmatic Watershed Management (1997) EISs
provide coverage for off-site mitigation under both the biological
opinions and the Council's program. BPA's Draft Regional Fish and
Wildlife Implementation Plan EIS was issued this spring with a final due
this fall. It will cover the over-arching policy alternatives available
to BPA.

In the 1997 SOR ROD, BPA adopted the environmentally preferred
alternative---implementation of the reasonable and prudent alternative
actions in the1995 NMFS and FWS biological opinions. This strategy
supported the recovery of ESA-listed fish by operating the dams and
reservoirs covered by the SOR EIS to benefit those species. BPA's
adoption of NMFS' biological opinions in1998 for steelhead and in 2000
for chum built upon this foundation by adding system operational
measures to help recover those species as well. BPA will continue to use
the SOR as the base for its NEPA compliance for operational actions
under the 2000 FCRPS biological opinions. Where actions are not
currently covered by the SOR, BPA will complete additional NEPA
compliance documents before implementing those portions of the RPA. Such
actions may include VARQ and fall flows for chum. Depending upon the
content of the COE's final VARQ and Lower Snake River Feasibility EISs,
BPA may adopt or incorporate part of their analyses by reference as part
of its own NEPA compliance.

BPA has used its programmatic Watershed Management and Wildlife
Mitigation EISs to expedite off-site mitigation pursuant to the
Northwest Power Act. The NMFS biological opinion expressly includes
extensive off-site mitigation actions within its RPA. BPA will tier
site-specific analyses to these programmatic EISs where appropriate;
otherwise, BPA will conduct stand-alone NEPA analyses as appropriate
until it completes its forthcoming Regional Fish and Wildlife
Implementation Plan EIS.

Upon issuance of this ESA decision document, BPA will use existing NEPA
documentation to implement many hydrosystem and off-site actions under
the RPA. Where necessary, this may include supplementing analyses,
preparing environmental assessments, or the use of categorical
exclusions. The actions that remain will be scheduled in the 1- and
5-year implementation plans so any additional NEPA documentation
necessary can be completed to allow their timely execution. BPA expects
the Final Regional Fish and Wildlife Implementation Plan EIS will cover
the majority of these remaining actions.

As a matter of physics, the Columbia River will flow, necessitating
operation of the FCRPS at all times. BPA must simultaneously comply with
the ESA and other mandates. Therefore, BPA will begin implementing
certain actions under the biological opinions now. With the recent
release of the Draft Fish and Wildlife Implementation Plan EIS, the
policy discussions stimulated by the EIS will inform the initial
implementation plans. This decision reflects some policy-level
commitments. It does not, however, reflect a final determination on an
over-arching policy direction for how to fulfill all of BPA's fish and
wildlife obligations for the next 10 years. Instead, this decision is
but one of many decisions that BPA must make to adopt and implement an
overall policy direction to guide our fish and wildlife planning,
mitigation, and recovery efforts. Because the 1- and 5‑year planning
process allows for annual opportunities to exercise our discretion in
how to adaptively implement the biological opinions, we believe we will
meet all of our environmental mandates with these coordinated policy
development and implementation planning processes.

# IX. DECISIONS

Avoiding jeopardy to species listed under the Endangered Species Act and
destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat, improving
water quality consistent with applicable state and Tribal water quality
standards under the Clean Water Act, addressing impacts upon Indian
Tribes, providing an economical and reliable power supply under the
Northwest Power Act, and meeting the responsibilities of additional laws
is a challenging task. This document records BPA's decision to work with
the COE and BOR and other Federal agencies to undertake the following
commitments, consistent with BPA's NEPA analyses and as described more
fully in this decision document.

## A. Biological Opinions

-   Implement the 2000 NMFS BO RPA for listed anadromous fish, as
    developed and supplemented pursuant to the RPA's implementation
    planning process, consultations, and midpoint reviews, in order to
    avoid jeopardy to listed species and avoid destruction or adverse
    modification of their critical habitat.

-   Implement the 2000 FWS BO RPA for sturgeon, and operate the FCRPS
    consistent with the FWS conclusions that operations avoid jeopardy
    to other listed species reviewed by FWS.

-   Implement RPA measures in a manner consistent with the Basinwide
    Salmon Recovery Strategy, to enable recovery of listed salmonid
    species.

-   Comply with the terms and conditions of the 2000 NMFS BO's
    incidental take statement, consistent with the regulations for
    measures, terms and conditions in an incidental take statement,[^10]
    to avoid illegal take of listed salmonid species.

-   Comply with the terms and conditions of the 2000 FWS BO's incidental
    take statement, consistent with the regulations for measures, terms
    and conditions in an incidental take statement,^10^ to avoid illegal
    take of listed salmonid species.

## B. Basinwide Recovery Strategy

-   Implement measures supporting the Basinwide Salmon Recovery
    Strategy, in order to foster recovery of listed anadromous species,
    an objective sought by all Federal agencies, states, and Tribes.

## C. Essential Fish Habitat

-   Implement appropriate provisions in the 2000 NMFS BO RPA and
    Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy for improvements to the Columbia
    River estuary, in order to improve EFH.

## D. Water Quality

-   Implement the water quality provisions of the 2000 NMFS BO RPA,
    develop a water quality plan, and implement additional measures
    consistent with Appendix B to the 2000 NMFS BO, to improve water
    quality, progress toward meeting state and Tribal water quality
    standards, and meet Clean Water Act responsibilities.

## E. 2001 Operations

-   In light of the extremely low water year and unprecedented increases
    in power prices in 2001, meet ESA and power responsibilities in 2001
    by working with NMFS, FWS, other Federal agencies, states, and
    Tribes to:

> **-** Use the "Federal Agencies' Criteria and Priorities for 2001
> FCRPS Operations" (March 30, 2001), and the Federal Agencies' 2001
> FCRPS Operations Plan (May 25, 2001), as they may be supplemented or
> revised, to guide decisions in 2001.
>
> **-** Offset adverse impacts resulting from power system emergency
> operations.

## F. Coordination with States and Tribes

-   As practicable within timelines needed to make decisions, coordinate
    these efforts with states and Tribes and the Northwest Power
    Council.

-   Continue to meet with states and Tribes to consider their advice and
    recommendations about how to improve conditions for fish and
    wildlife.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Continue to meet and consult with Tribes to consider and respond to
    impacts of implementation of the BOs upon Tribes and Tribal
    interests.

## G. NEPA

-   Make decisions consistent with its NEPA analyses.

Dated this \_\_\_\_\_ day of July 2001

> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> Stephen J. Wright
>
> Acting Administrator
>
> Bonneville Power Administration

# APPENDIX A

# 

# EXAMPLE OF METHODS FOR REDUCING INVOLUNTARY SPILL

Bonneville Power Administration

Plans for Minimizing Spill

March 1997

> [Background]{.underline}
>
> Spill at hydroelectric projects can occur for several reasons. The
> 1995 Biological Opinion issued by the National Marine Fisheries
> Service (NMFS) mandates that spill occur at mainstream projects to aid
> in fish passage. The amount of this spill, \"fish spill,\" to be
> provided is a percentage of total project outflow, but limited so as
> to not produce TDG levels exceeding 120 percent. The state-established
> water quality standard for TDG is 11O percent but the State agencies
> that have responsibility for the standard have waived their standard
> on an annual basis to allow the Biological Opinion spill program to be
> implemented.
>
> There are two other types of spill in addition to fish spill. These
> are lack-of-turbine spill and lack-of-load (\"overgeneration") spill.
> Lack-of-turbine spill occurs when total river flows exceed powerhouse
> hydraulic capacity. Overgeneration spill is an amount of spill that
> could have been passed through turbines had there been load for the
> resulting energy generated. Overgeneration spill generally occurs in
> periods of low energy consumption ("light load hours\"), such as the
> middle of the Might and on weekends.
>
> The 1997 spring runoff is projected to be near the largest on record
> for the Snake River, and in the top 1 0 percent of the historical
> record for the Columbia River at The Dalles. Consequently, we expect
> Snake River springtime flows to be in the 150-250 thousand cubic feet
> per second (kcfs) range during the majority of the spring/summer
> Chinook juvenile outmigration. Lower Columbia River flows are
> projected to be in the 400-500 kcfs range. As a result of these high
> flows, TDG levels are expected to exceed saturation amounts in the
> late-April to mid-July period. These high TDG levels (perhaps as high
> as 135 percent) will be reached because of lack-of ­turbine spill. The
> volume of water this spring will completely overwhelm the hydraulic
> capacity of the generating system, even when all turbines are on-line
> and running flat-out. Overgeneration spill will also elevate gas
> levels, but by fewer than five percentage points. Our efforts to
> minimize both types of spill are described below.
>
> To reduce lack-of-turbine spill we have primarily focused on working
> with the Corps of Engineers to maximize turbine availability this
> spring. All but five units at the lower Snake/Columbia River dams are
> expected to be available for service; which compares to about 10 units
> generally being out of service during the 1996 spring outmigration.
> Three units will be out of service for ongoing generator rewinds, a
> fourth is having generator exciter and turbine rehabilitation work
> performed. Bonneville is finding the immediate repair and
> return-to-service of the fifth unit, Ice Harbor Unit 5, on an
> emergency basis; however, it will not be available this season.
>
> Our other primary strategy for reducing lack-of-turbine spill is to
> maximize the storage of water into headwater storage reservoirs during
> the spring runoff. This year, virtually every storage reservoir on the
> system will be drawn down as much as possible prior to the spring
> freshet for flood control, allowing as much spring runoff to be stored
> as possible. This deep drawdown is controversial, especially at Grand
> Coulee, as it conflicts with other reservoir uses.
>
> It should be noted that various research efforts are planned on the
> river this year, primarily to investigate surface bypass technologies.
> This effort may force unplanned outages of certain units from
> time-to-time. Similarly, routine maintenance and inspections of fish
> bypass screens will require periodic outages lasting a few hours. It
> is uncertain whether conditions will be found during these inspections
> that require longer outages. All, unplanned outages will be carefully
> scrutinized to maximize unit availability during the high flow period.
>
> [Actions for Reducing]{.underline}
>
> With respect to reducing overgeneration spill, we have a multi-faceted
> strategy for this spring.
>
> Our first action will be to shut down Washington Nuclear Plant #2
> (NWP2) prior to the migration season and not restart the reactor until
> TDG levels are below 120 percent and energy from the plant can be
> marketed.
>
> Second, we are aggressively marketing our expected surplus energy
> inventory. We currently have about 5000-6000 average megawatts (aMW)
> of uncommitted light load hour energy in the April - June period. Our
> uncommitted heavy load hour inventory is much less, and we are able to
> market virtually all of it either on an advance contract basis or
> through the daily spot energy market. Because of the magnitude of the
> light load hour surplus, we are focusing sales on flat and light load
> hour products. Flat sales such as thermal plant displacement increase
> our light load hour demand thus reducing overgeneration spill.
> However, there is a limit to the amount of flat load we can pursue
> because these deals also increase our heavy load hour demand.

Our spring marketing strategy includes the following attributes:

-   Discount pricing for flat and light load hour products to encourage
    purchasing of light load hours.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Aggressive pursuance of flat thermal displacement sales both in the
    Northwest and outside the region (see Enclosure 2).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Negotiation of a \"Gas Abatement/Energy Exchange\" agreement with
    Alberta\'s Transalta Utility Corporation under which Bonneville
    delivers light load hour energy in March -- June (Up to 400
    megawatts {MW}), and receives return of 20 percent of this delivery
    in July.

-   Sale of a unique light load hour product that allows the market to
    distinguish (and purchase) higher valued light load hours, thus
    increasing load in light load hours, and decreasing overgeneration
    spill. We have sold 350 MW of this product to date.

> A review of the attached plant-by-plant breakdown of our thermal
> displacement efforts shows that while we have had some success in
> displacing several facilities, many plants are expected to continue
> operating through the spring. There are several reasons why we have
> been unable to come to terms with the owners of these resources:

-   · During the spring months, Northwest thermal resources that remain
    on-line (such as Colstrip, Centralia, and Bridger) are generally
    operated at high energy output during the on-peak or heavy load
    hours and at a minimum level during off-peak or light load hours.
    Therefore, the owners want to purchase displacement power that is
    shaped in a manner similar to how these units would otherwise
    operate. Selling power to mirror this type of operation is not
    helpful in mitigating overgeneration spill because the hydrosystem
    is most vulnerable to spill during the off-peak or light load hours.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Maintenance is often scheduled during the spring, with some plants
    being taken off-line even without displacement purchases (due to
    loads generally being lighter).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   · Owners are declining to commit to resource displacements at
    currently offered prices in the hopes of getting even lower prices
    later in the daily spot market. The resource owners are willing to
    wait to see if the price in the daily market is lower that what they
    have been offered in the monthly market. This result leaves us
    uncertain as to the amount of displacement that will actually occur
    as these owners attempt to secure further economic gains through
    waiting.

> Displacement opportunities with resource owners in California or in
> the Inland Southwest are also difficult due to the lack of
> transmission availability in southern California. Both Southern
> California Edison and Los Angeles Department of Water and Power are
> reserving a large part of the transmission availability for their own
> use. For example, last year we displaced Salt River Project\'s (an
> Inland Southwest utility) share of the Palo Verde nuclear plant but
> this year, due to transmission constraints, we are unable to reach
> this plant. Further, the owners of many resources are interested in
> on-peak or heavy load hour purchases only, yet the overgeneration
> spill usually occurs in off-peak or light load hours.

Our third measure for managing overgeneration spill is to use the
pump-generators at Grand Coulee in the generation mode during the
daytime as much as the system will allow. This action increases heavy
load hour generation but consumes energy during the nighttime when water
is pumped from Lake Roosevelt to Banks Lake.

> Fourth, there are a variety of other realistic but marginal actions we
> are \'investigating. They reflect our strong interest in reducing
> overgeneration spill as much as possible. They include:

-   · Recharging the Snake River aquifer - this removes some water from
    the river in the springtime when it would be spilled and instead
    puts it in the ground. It appears the State of Idaho is pursuing
    this action.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   · Opening transmission access outside the region for the purpose of
    delivering immediate spill energy to dams that would not already be
    spilling at this time. There is a possibility that access to
    Colorado or Missouri River systems could be obtained.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   · Pumping water into the Columbia Basin Project and allowing it to
    pass through waste canals. We are working with the Bureau of
    Reclamation on developing methods for spilling through the
    irrigation waste canals. This action consumes excess energy during
    pumping as was noted above and allows some water to bypass several
    generating projects downstream.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   · Verifying that regional irrigation pumping is occur-ring in light
    load hours to the maximum extent possible.

Fifth, we are attempting, through the Western Systems Coordinating
Council (WSCC), to have the Northwest/Southwest Intertie rating upgraded
closer to its full capability. Following the power outage of August I0
last year, the Intertie to the Southwest was restricted to less than
full capability in order to conservatively protect reliability.
Bonneville has agreed that WSCC concurrence is appropriate before
raising Intertie levels because outages in the Pacific Northwest do have
a ripple effect throughout the integrated western system. The WSCC is in
the final stages of review to allow the combined AC/DC wintertime rating
to be upgraded from 5200 to 6250 MW. All indications are that this
upgrade will occur. Bonneville is currently conducting studies to be
used by WSCC to decide at what level the spring rating should be set.
Our analysis will be reviewed by a Blue Ribbon panel set up after last
year\'s outage and by the WSCC. A springtime rating of 6250 MW should be
sufficient for meeting the maximum Southwest demand for Northwest power.
However, if WSCC were to decide not to increase the springtime rating
above 5200 MW, we would, in this kind of water year, have insufficient
transmission capability to satisfy Southwest market demand and
additional spill would occur. Furthermore, if the Intertie is not
restored to near its full 7900 MW capability for the summer, we may have
periods, in early July, in which energy may be spilled instead of
marketed. A near-full Intertie rating is more important in the summer
because Southwest loads are greater in the late-June to September
\'period, as compared to the spring. Also, during the springtime
Southwest utilities will have an abundance of their own hydro-generated
energy, due to a deep snowpack in California.[^11]

The sixth and seventh measures for managing overgeneration spill are
interrelated and are refer-red to as distribution of overgeneration
spill through a \"spill priority list\" and delivery of \"immediate
spill energy." When the first five actions described above are
insufficient for dissipating excess energy, overgeneration spill energy
is spread throughout the region by distributing spill to as many
hydroelectric projects as possible. The spill is allocated through a
spill priority list developed by the interagency Technical Management
Team (TMT). Last year, the TMT monitored spill on a real-time basis and
modified the list as needed to minimize the impacts to fish. This year,
more projects have been added to the list to distribute spill further
outside the primary fish migration corridor. When spill is spread to
non-Federal hydro projects on this list, Bonneville delivers \"free\"
energy to the owners of these projects to replace the energy that
otherwise would have been generated, hence the term \"immediate spill
energy."

The objective of the spill priority list is to systematically raise TDG
levels throughout the system by increasing spill amounts at projects
according to an established order. Generally, that order is to first
increase spill at mainstream non-collector projects (i.e., those not
used to collect fish for transportation). Next, spill is increased at
the mid-Columbia projects (through immediate spill energy deliveries).
If more energy must be dissipated, spill is increased at Grand Coulee
and Chief Joseph, further up the Columbia, then at out-of-corridor
projects, such as Hungry Horse and the Willamette projects, and then at
mainstream collector projects (i.e., McNary, Lower Monumental, Little
Goose, Lower Granite). As more spill is required, it is placed at
projects in this order up to a maximum amount. With this approach, TDG
levels rise equivalently throughout the system. It should be noted that
this spill priority list also attempts to shift spill away from projects
known to be significant gas producers (such as John Day and Ice Harbor)
to the maximum extent possible, so that remaining spill at these
projects will be lack of turbine spill. As part of this spill priority
list, the mid-Columbia utilities, Seattle City Light, Washington Water
Power, West Kootenay Power and Light, and B.C. Hydro also accept
immediate spill energy in exchange for spilling at their dams. In total
and depending on runoff, these non-Federal parties accepted from 200 to
1500 aMW of energy in spill last year. We are attempting to further
broaden the list of available utilities and hydro plants to be used in
this manner. In particular, Libby, Mica, Revelstoke, Kerr, Minidoka,
American Falls, and the Hells Canyon projects are some of the projects
not on the priority list. At some of these projects, there are
significant concerns of high TDG levels immediately downstream of the
project.

We have recently approached Portland General Electric and the City of
Portland to spill water at Bull Run Reservoir and some projects in the
Clackamas River in exchange for immediate spill energy. They have
indicated a willingness to do this if the details can be worked out. We
are in contact with Seattle City light to see if they can spill at their
Summer Falls project. We have also contacted B.C. Hydro to see if they
can accept any additional immediate spill, however they are unsure at
this time how much additional spill they can take.

Eighth, we may be able to reduce overgeneration spill under some
conditions during the spring runoff by holding back water during light
load hours and \"shaping\" it into daytime energy generation. During
periods of extremely high flows, the hydrosystem has very little ability
to shape generation into daytime hours because mainstream run-of-river
reservoirs (1) do not have sufficient storage capability to hold back
water at night, and/or (2) are already generating at full powerhouse
capacity during the daytime. However, there may still be periods during
the springtime when flows are low enough to allow shaping into the
daytime. During such periods, operating outside the Biological
Opinion-mandated I percent peak efficiency requirements during the
daytime and/or operating outside the minimum pool requirements on the
lower Snake River and John Day could enhance night-to-daytime shifting
or light load hour to heavy load hour shaping. On the Snake River, for
example, when flows are in the 80-115 kcfs range, operating over the
full forebay range could help to reduce overgeneration spill. When and
if such conditions arise, and if operating outside the I percent
efficiency or the minimum pool elevation criteria could reduce
overgeneration spill at a time when such spill is causing TDG levels to
be above 120 percent, then we plan to propose a temporary relaxation of
these requirements in the weekly Technical Management Team meetings.

Despite all of the above measures, we anticipate that during this
spring\'s high runoff period, there will still be overgeneration spill
although it will be a much lesser TDG contributor compared to
lack-of-turbine spill. As noted above, we estimate that during the
highest flow periods this year, overgeneration spill will add fewer than
five percentage points to total TDG levels and lack of turbine spill
will add IO to 15 percent or more. Overgeneration spill cannot be
completely eliminated under high river flow conditions because, as a
whole, daytime energy consumption is much greater than nighttime, and
hydro generation cannot be shaped. As flows recede to levels that allow
generation to be shaped consistent with energy consumption patterns,
overgeneration spill can be eliminated.

# APPENDIX B

# 

# 

# CLEAN WATER ACT ACTIONS

(TABLES B-2 AND B-3 OF THE 2000 NMFS BO)

[^1]: This decision document refers to and highlights particular
    portions of the 2000 NMFS and FWS BOs. The document\'s description
    of portions of the BOs should not be construed to conflict or be
    inconsistent with the language of the BOs themselves, which BPA
    intends to implement.

[^2]: 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a).

[^3]: 16 U.S.C. §§ 1536(o), 1538, 1539.

[^4]: For an additional summary of these BOs, see 2000 NMFS BO, § 2.2,
    pp. 2-1 -- 2-2. A complete list of threatened or endangered species
    under the ESA appears at 2000 NMFS BO § 1.0, pp. 1‑6 -- 1-7.

[^5]: BPA is aware of possible litigation to challenge the 2000 NMFS BO
    and to seek a court order to reinitiate formal consultation. If a
    court order or other circumstances actually lead to reconsideration
    of the 2000 NMFS BO and to reinitiation of formal consultation,
    then, during the re-consultation, BPA anticipates that NMFS and the
    FCRPS action agencies will conduct again or supplement the extensive
    review of long-term options called for by the 1995 NMFS BO. BPA
    anticipates that, during this time, the Federal agencies will
    operate the FCRPS consistent with the 2000 NMFS BO, to the extent it
    still applies, and the 1995 NMFS BO.

[^6]: "Offsite mitigation provided by the Action Agencies will not
    preclude the need for improvements in habitat, hatcheries, and
    harvest by other Federal or Non-Federal parties, nor will it
    diminish the obligation of these other parties to seek improvements
    in furtherance of Section 7(a)(1) or Section 7(a)(2). Offsite
    mitigation is intended to complement, not displace, actions by other
    entities to address habitat, hatcheries, and harvest. Where there
    are overlaps between offsite mitigation activities of the Action
    Agencies and the responsibilities of other Federal and non-Federal
    entities, costs and implementation responsibilities will be shared
    and coordinated as appropriate." 2000 NFMS BO at 9-3

[^7]: This measure adds, as does the almost identical EFH conservation
    recommendation appearing in action 160, "The Corps shall seek funds
    for the Federal share of the program, and BPA shall provide funding
    for the non-Federal share." Whether funds from BPA, a Federal
    agency, would constitute a non-Federal share is questionable.

[^8]: Appendix B to the 2000 NMFS BO, "Development of a Water Quality
    Plan for the Columbia River Mainstem," p. B-7, elaborates:

    > The long-term (10 to 15 years) dissolved gas goal is to reach the
    > state and Tribal TDG standard, which is currently 110% for river
    > discharges up to the 7-day, 10-year flow in all critical habitat
    > in the Columbia River and Snake River basins while taking actions
    > to recover listed species in the basin.

[^9]: In 2001, to maintain power system reliability consistent with the
    emergency provisions of the NMFS BO, BPA has had to declare power
    system emergencies, which has reduced the levels of spill that would
    otherwise be provided. However, as expressed in section III.C of
    this document, BPA is undertaking prodigious efforts to avoid and
    moderate the occurrence and adverse effects of emergency operations
    and to develop measures to offset adverse effects on listed fish
    that do occur.

[^10]: As provided by the regulations jointly issued by NMFS and FWS,
    the measures and terms and conditions of the incidental take
    statement will be implemented so that they are minor and do not
    alter the basic design, scope, timing or duration of the action
    agencies' activity determined to avoid jeopardy. 50 C.F.R.
    402.14(i)(2).

[^11]: The contents of this document, including the facts discussed in
    the above paragraph pertaining to the combined AC/DC rating, were
    written in 1997. Subsequently, the WSCC-approved combined AC/DC
    ratings for winter 2000-2001, spring 2001, and summer 2001 are 7160
    MW, 7900 MW and 7575 MW, respectively.