Willamette Basin Reservoir Lookot Point and Hills Creek Dams

Environmental Assessment Draft

Willamette Basin Dams Reservoir Restrictions Lookout Point and Hills Creek Dams Lane County, Oregon

January 2020

This page has been intentionally left blank.

Introduction

Table of Contents Table of Contents ...... i 1. Introduction ...... 3 2. Proposed Action ...... 5 2.1 Purpose and Need ...... 5 2.2 Authority and Funding ...... 5 2.3 Location of the Proposed Action ...... 5 2.4 Vicinity Map ...... 7 3. Alternatives ...... 8 No Action Alternative ...... 8 Action Alternative: Pool Restrictions; Lookout Point Dam and Hills Creek Dam ...... 8 4. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...... 13 4.1 Aesthetics ...... 13 4.2 Air quality ...... 13 4.3 Aquatic resources/wetlands ...... 13 4.4 Invasive species ...... 14 4.5 Fish and wildlife habitat ...... 14 4.6 Threatened/Endangered Species/Critical Habitat ...... 16 4.7 Historic properties ...... 18 4.8 Other cultural resources...... 19 4.9 Floodplains ...... 19 4.10 Hazardous, toxic & radioactive waste ...... 19 4.11 Hydrology ...... 19 4.12 Land use ...... 21 4.13 Navigation ...... 22 4.14 Noise levels ...... 22 4.15 Public Infrastructure/Recreation ...... 23 4.16 Socio-economics ...... 23 4.17 Environmental justice ...... 26 4.18 Soils ...... 26 4.19 Tribal trust resources ...... 26 4.20 Climate Change ...... 27 5 Cumulative Impacts ...... 28 6 Agency Consulted and Interested Parties ...... 31 7 Other Applicable Laws & Executive Orders ...... 32 7.1 Compliance with Applicable Environmental Laws ...... 32 7.1.1 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act Of 1940, 16 U.S.C. § 668 et seq...... 32 7.1.2 Clean Air Act (CAA) Of 1970, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq...... 32 7.1.3 Clean Water Act (CWA) Of 1972, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq...... 32 7.1.4 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Of 1972, 16 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq...... 32 7.1.5 Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act Of 1986 (CRGNSAA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 544–544 ...... 32 7.1.6 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act – Superfund (CERCLA) Of 1980, 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq...... 32 7.1.7 Endangered Species Act (ESA) Of 1973, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq...... 33 i

WVP Reservoir restrictions - Environmental Assessment

7.1.8 Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) Of 1994, 7 U.S.C. § 4201 et seq...... 33 7.1.9 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) Of 1958, 16 U.S.C. § 661 et seq. .... 33 7.1.10 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) Of 1976, 16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq...... 33 7.1.11 Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) Of 1972, 16 U.S.C. § 1361 et seq. . 33 7.1.12 Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) Of 1972, 16 U.S.C. § 1431 et seq...... 33 7.1.13 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) Of 1918, 16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq...... 33 7.1.14 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Of 1966, 54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq. 33 7.1.15 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) Of 1990, 25 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq...... 33 7.1.16 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 6912 et seq. 34 7.1.18 Safe Drinking Water Act Of 1996, 42 U.S.C. § 300f et seq...... 34 7.1.19 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) Of 1968, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1271-1287 ...... 34 7.2 Compliance with Applicable Executive Orders ...... 34 7.2.1 Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, 13 May 1971 ...... 34 7.2.2 Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, 24 May 1977 ...... 34 7.2.3 Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, 24 May 1977...... 34 7.2.4 Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice, 11 February 1994 ...... 34 7.2.5 Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 6 November 2000 ...... 34 7.2.6 Executive Order 13186, Migratory Birds, 10 January 2001 ...... 35 7.2.7 Executive Order 13834, Efficient Federal Operations, 17 May 2018 ...... 35 8 References ...... 36

WVP Reservoir restrictions - Environmental Assessment

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ACHP Advisory Council on Historic NHPA National Historic Preservation Preservation Act ARPA Archaeological Resources NMFS National Marine Fisheries Protection Act Service BA Biological Assessment O&M Operation(s) and BiOp Biological Opinion Maintenance BMP Best Management Practice ODFW Oregon Department of Fish CAA Clean Air Act and Wildlife Corps U.S. Army Corps of OHW ordinary high water Engineers OARRA Oregon Archaeological CWA Clean Water Act Records Remote Access DAHP Department of Archaeology RCRA Resource Conservation and and Historic Preservation (Washington) Recovery Act DEIS Draft Environmental Impact RHA Rivers and Harbors Act Statement RM river mile DEQ Oregon Department of SEIS Supplemental Environmental Environmental Quality Impact Statement DLCD Oregon Department of Land SHPO State Historic Preservation and Conservation Office (Oregon) DSL Oregon Department of State USACE U.S. Army Corps of Lands Engineers EA Environmental Assessment USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife EFH Essential Fish Habitat Service EPA U. S. Environmental WQC Water Quality Certification Protection Agency WRDA Water Resources ER Engineering Regulation Development Act ESA Endangered Species Act WVB Willamette Valley Basin FEIS Final Environmental Impact WVP Willamette Valley Project Statement WFPOM Willamette Fish Passage FNC Federal Navigation Channel Operation and Maintenance FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FWCA Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act IRRM Interim Risk Reduction Measure kcfs thousand cubic feet per second MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act NCP National Contingency Plan NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

WVP Reservoir restrictions - Environmental Assessment

Lead Agency Department of the Army U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Portland District PO Box 2946 / 333 SW 1st Ave. Portland, OR 97208-2946 Project Location Lane County, Oregon

For further information, contact: Jess Jones Department of the Army U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Portland District PO Box 2946 / 333 SW 1st Ave. Portland, OR 97208-2946 [email protected] 503.808.4631

Introduction

1. Introduction

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) operates 13 dams in the Willamette River Basin, referred to as the Willamette Valley Project (WVP). The dams were constructed with flood risk management as one of its authorized purposes. Additional authorized purposes and benefits include water quality, hydropower, navigation, irrigation, recreation, fish and wildlife, and municipal and industrial water supply. The dams are operated as a system to manage flood risk during major flood season (December to January). In spring, the pools are allowed to fill capturing a portion of rainfall and snowmelt for conservation season (May to September). During conservation season, stored water is used to add additional flow to the downstream rivers to meet the downstream water needs. The dams are operated to meet minimum releases at the individual dams and as a system to meet flow targets at downstream river control points. In total, the WVP dams manage flows on six major tributaries affecting approximately 24% of the watershed area upstream of Portland, Oregon. The USACE dam safety program includes inspections, performance monitoring, emergency action planning, and risk assessments to ensure life safety risk is understood. The program ensures that all dams and appurtenant structures are designed, constructed, regulated, operated and maintained as safely and effectively as is reasonably practicable. USACE is conducting advanced risk assessments called Issue Evaluation Studies (IES) at several WVP dams including Hills Creek (HCR) and Lookout Point (LOP) dams. The risk assessments evaluate the life safety risks associated with the dams to determine if risk reduction actions are needed and if so, what actions should be taken. Results of these studies for the two dams identified the life-safety risk to be moderate and high, respectively. The risk for both projects is driven by the potential for extreme seismic (earthquake) loadings that might occur at the same time summer conservation pool elevations are the highest. Despite the unlikely nature of these loading conditions, there is potential for large life-safety consequences associated with dam failure, therefore immediate action is warranted to reduce risk to tolerable levels. Interim risk reduction measures (IRRMs) have been proposed to reduce life-safety risk while issues are studied further and permanent measures are being pursued. USACE performed an assessment of the current technical information and identified the appropriate level of pool reduction to reduce risk to acceptable levels. These measures involve reducing the maximum conservation pool (summer storage) of HCR and LOP reservoirs by 10 feet and 5 feet, respectively, starting in the spring of 2020. The pool restriction elevations of 1531 feet at Hills Creek (10 foot reduction) and 921 feet (5 feet reduction) at Lookout Point were selected based on the recommendation of the risk assessment teams and additional analysis performed by USACE to reduce life-safety risk to tolerable levels. These interim pool restrictions are presented as the Action Alternative. To evaluate the impacts of implementing these interim measures, the USACE team used a Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) reservoir simulation model (HEC-ResSim) to determine the potential project and system-wide impacts of pool restrictions at each reservoir. USACE has developed this Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the environmental impacts of these summer conservation pool restrictions at Hills Creek and Lookout Point dams. The project requires review under applicable laws and regulations, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

WVP Reservoir restrictions - Environmental Assessment

The proposed pool restrictions (Action Alternative) would begin in May 2020, after USACE has received all required environmental clearances- and completed the NEPA process. USACE is the lead federal agency for this EA. This draft EA will be made available for a 15 day public review period. At the end of the public comment period, USACE will consider all comments received or post marked by the expiration date of the public notice and make a determination of whether there are significant impacts resulting from the Proposed Action. All comments received during the public comment period will be summarized and considered in the EA.

Proposed Action

2. Proposed Action

USACE proposes to implement simultaneous pool restrictions at two of the WVP dams: reduce maximum conservation pool elevation to 1531 feet at Hills Creek and to 921 feet at Lookout Point. Currently, the pools operate to a maximum conservation pool elevation of 1541 feet at Hills Creek and 926 feet at Lookout Point. USACE has performed ResSim simulations to analyze impacts to water management goals and to identify how the restrictions can be implemented with the least amount of impacts while also providing the seismic risk reduction needed as identified by IRRM. The HEC ResSim program was used to analyze the proposed pool restrictions in comparison to the Baseline (No Action Alternative) where no pool restrictions are in place. Impacts to Willamette Valley Project (WVP) missions including Water Supply, Water Quality, Fish and Wildlife, Flood Risk Management, Hydropower, and Recreation were analyzed and it was found that there would be minimal effects to these missions with the proposed pool restrictions. USACE proposes to restrict the maximum conservation pool levels at Hills Creek and Lookout Point dams to reduce life safety risk associated with seismic events.

2.1 Purpose and Need The WVP dams were constructed, in part, for the purpose of reducing flood risk for downstream populations in winter and spring seasons. The dams also provide conservation storage benefits in the summer and fall seasons. Though the project helps reduce the risk from flooding, it does not eliminate all risk. Dam failure is very unlikely, but it could be a potentially catastrophic event. To better understand and manage risk associated with the dams, USACE is studying performance in very extreme scenarios. The risk assessments, referred to as Issue Evaluation Studies (IES), are being performed to better understand how they will perform in extreme events such as large earthquakes and floods. The need for this action is because the IES at Lookout Point and Hills Creek dams have identified potential seismic failure modes associated with extreme earthquakes. The purpose of this action is to implement IRRMs while permanent solutions are pursued. Additional work targeted at better understanding the dam safety risks is being continued under the IES at Hills Creek Dam. Permanent modifications are being evaluated under a Dam Safety Modification Study (DSMS) at Lookout Point dam.

2.2 Authority and Funding Congress authorized construction and maintenance of the two dams that are the subject of this EA.

• Lookout Point Dam was authorized by Flood Control Acts of 1938 and 1950 • Hills Creek Dam was authorized by Flood Control Acts of 1950

Congress provides annual funding to perform maintenance and operations at these dams, most recently in the 2020 fiscal year appropriations.

2.3 Location of the Proposed Action The WVP covers approximately 11,500 square miles in northwest Oregon and is part of the

WVP Reservoir restrictions - Environmental Assessment lower Columbia River watershed. The basin begins south of Cottage Grove, Oregon and extends north to the Columbia River. The basin is bounded by the Cascade Mountains on the east and by the Coast Ranger Mountains on the west. The proposed action is located near the cities of Lowell and Oakridge, Lane County, Oregon. Lookout Point Dam and Hills Creek Dam are located on the Willamette River above River Mile 202. Lookout Point Dam is located in Section 13 of Township 19 South, Range 1 West, and Hills Creek Dam is located in Section 35 of Township 21 South, Range 3 East. Middle Fork Willamette HUC17090001 Hills Creek HUC1709000102 Hills Creek Reservoir-Middle Fork Willamette River HUC1709000105 Lookout Point Reservoir-Middle Fork Willamette River HUC1709000107

Proposed Action

2.4 Vicinity Map

Figure 1. Locations of Lookout Point Dam and Hills Creek Dam Projects.

WVP Reservoir restrictions - Environmental Assessment

3. Alternatives

Two alternatives are analyzed in this EA, the Action Alternative (a maximum reservoir restriction at both Hills Creek and Lookout Point) and the No-Action Alternative (baseline, which would allow for the reservoirs to reach their authorized maximum conservation pool elevations). Additional alternatives were analyzed, in advance of the final recommended pool restrictions. These are not discussed in this EA because the preferred Action Alternative measure will minimize negative impacts to project purposes and achieve risk reduction goals while the other options negatively impacted project purposes.

No Action Alternative The WVP dams are typically operated at or below elevations specified in their water control diagrams (commonly referred to as Rule Curves) that provide guidance to reservoir regulators on how to manage the storage in the reservoir to meet the multi-purpose needs. The dams are drawn down in the fall to provide space to store high runoff from winter rain events. The reservoirs fill during the winter rain events to reduce the flows and flood risk at downstream control points. This stored water is gradually evacuated once the unregulated tributary flows have receded. Under the No Action Alternative, no changes to the current operations, for Hills Creek and Lookout Point dams would occur. This alternative would not reduce the risk of a dam failure associated with a seismic event. The IES concluded that risk reduction measures are warranted.

Action Alternative: Pool Restrictions; Lookout Point Dam and Hills Creek Dam At Hills Creek, this alternative imposes restriction on the maximum conservation pool elevation to 1531 feet (from 1541) and provides 20 feet of freeboard below the top of the dam (the vertical distance of the dam crest above the maximum reservoir water level). This action will reduce the risk associated with settlement of the dam crest that may result from a large seismic event. The additional vertical distance between the top of the dam and the water surface reduces the probability of initiating an overtopping scenario from the possible settlement during a large seismic event. Similarly, at Lookout Point dam, the pool restriction to elevation 926 (from 931) reduces the likelihood of overstressing the spillway gates during a large earthquake leading to a release of stored water behind the gates. These pool restrictions reduce the potential risks substantially to within tolerable levels at both projects. Utilizing USACE’s Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) ResSim model, effects of the Action Alternative were evaluated using 73 years of historical water data (1935 – 2008). Those water years were utilized to compare the effects with the Action Alternative and without (No Action Alternative). Table 1 summarizes the resource impacts of the pool restrictions. Discussion on evaluation of impacts of pool restrictions on flood risk, fish and wildlife, water quality, water supply and recreation is provided in section 4.

Alternatives

Table 1. Resource Impact Summary Matrix for pool restriction alternatives. Results are compared to the current (Baseline) operations in the Willamette Basin. The analysis indicated that the Action Alternative will result in an overall 3% reduction in water storage for the WVP system (Table 2).

Table 2. System Conservation Storage Reduction from Pool Restrictions at Hills Creek (HCR) and Lookout Point (LOP). Under the Action Alternative, modeled outflows for both Hills Creek and Lookout Point dams were higher in May because flows that would typically be stored in the reservoir will be released to maintain the restricted elevations. Outflows were typically lower in September, when there is less stored water to evacuate during the drawdown to the winter flood pool. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the impacts of the Action Alternative compared to the No Action Alternative by comparing the median of the calculated water surfaced from the ResSim models. The ResSim model indicates that in deficit water years (17 of 73 years), when the reservoir typically would not fill to maximum conservation pool, there is no change in operations or flows as a result of the Action Alternative because the reservoir surface level would not reach maximum conservation pool under either alternative. Changes due to the proposed action are more pronounced in adequate and abundant water years (56 of 73 years), when the water that would be stored under the No Action Alternative is passed downstream in the spring, but not available during the conservation season. This change results in higher flows in the spring and lower

WVP Reservoir restrictions - Environmental Assessment flows in the fall. In abundant water years, this change in outflow compared to the No Action Alternative was up to 260 cfs (17.5%) more in April - May, and up to 260 cfs (29%) less in September – October at Hills Creek Dam. In abundant water years at Lookout Point, the change in outflow compared to the No Action Alternative was 660 cfs higher, and in September it was 550 cfs lower.

Alternatives

1560 Hills Creek Forebay Elevation 1540

1520

1500

Elevation, ft. Baseline Median 1480 Baseline Rule Curve 1460 Alternative Action Median Alternative Action Rule Curve 1440 J F M A M J J A S O N D

Figure 2. Hills Creek forebay elevation.

940 Lookout Point Forebay Elevation

920

900

880 Elevation, ft. Baseline Median 860 Baseline Rule Curve Alternative 840 Action Rule Curve Alternative Action Median 820 J F M A M J J A S O N D

Figure 3. Lookout Point forebay elevation.

WVP Reservoir restrictions - Environmental Assessment

The ResSim results were also utilized to determine the impacts of the Action Alternative to hydropower. The Action Alternative reduces hydropower generation between August and November (Table 1) at both Hills Creek and Lookout Point. It was estimated that an average energy equivalent of 280 households would be impacted. This lost power production would require increased generation at other power producing projects to mitigate this impact.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

4. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Affected Environment The study area is defined as the Hills Creek reservoir and Lookout Point reservoir in the WVP as well as the river below both projects. The reservoirs at these locations play a role in the environment connected to that watershed. Hills Creek maximum reservoir is approximately 4000 acres and Lookout Point maximum reservoir is approximately 5000 acres. Additionally, the WVB drains into the Columbia River near Portland, OR.

4.1 Aesthetics The WVB is home to forested mountain slopes, dense valley floors, streams, wetlands, and urban areas.

No Action Alternative Aesthetics would not be altered for the No Action Alternative as there would be no change to the reservoir levels.

Action Alternative: Pool Restrictions; Lookout Point Dam and Hills Creek Dam At this restriction the reservoirs behind Lookout Point would be 5 feet below the max conservation pool and 10 feet below the max conservation pool for Hills Creek. Together these restrictions would cause lower reservoirs, but it would be minor and thus aesthetic impacts are expected to be negligible because the pool levels proposed are levels that the pool has seen at other times of the year. Effects from the preferred alternative to Aesthetics: Insignifcant effects

4.2 Air quality The overall air quality in the WVB is affected by the mountain range as well as local and remote seasonal fires. Reservoir elevation would have no effect on air quality, therefore USACE has determined that the No Action and the Action Alternative would have no effect on air quality. Effects from the preferred alternative to Air quality: Resource unaffected by action

4.3 Aquatic resources/wetlands The WVP supports a wide variety of aquatic resources, according to information obtained from USFW, NMFS, and ODFW. Aquatic resources and wetland areas can be found within the action area of the reservoirs as well as downstream of the Action Area. No Action Alternative Aquatic resources/wetlands would not be altered for the baseline alternative as there would be no change to the pool levels. Action Alternative: Pool Restrictions; Lookout Point Dam and Hills Creek Dam At this restriction the pools behind Lookout Point would be 5 feet below the max conservation 13

WVP Reservoir restrictions - Environmental Assessment pool and 10 feet below the max conservation pool for Hills Creek, levels that are seen at the pools at different times throughout a typical year and thus would have no new impact on aquatic resources/wetlands. Effects from the preferred alternative to Aquatic resources: Insignifcant effects

4.4 Invasive species The current action area is host to multiple invasive species, both flora and fauna. Invasive aquatic species include the ringed crayfish and American bullfrog. Additional non-native species such as walleye and largemouth bass also exist in the Willamette River. Plant species such as garlic mustard, thistle, scotch broom, foxglove as well as many others occur within the action area. The spread of invasive and non-native species has the potential for environmental and financial impacts. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, no changes from the baseline would occur, therefore no changes to the prevalence or intensity of invasive species would occur.

Action Alternative: Pool Restriction; Lookout Point Dam and Hills Creek Dam Invasive species occurring in Lookout Point and Hills Creek reservoirs include invasive fish species such as walleye and largemouth bass. There is a potential for some of these fish to get flushed downstream during high flow events (such as when snow melts in the spring), but this potential is not expected to significantly increase the movement of invasive fish species as this occurs naturally during the spring. There would be no anticipated impacts to terrestrial invasive species as a result of the Action Alternative as the pool levels would not alter habits of land based species. Effects from the preferred alternative to Invasive species: Insignifcant effects

4.5 Fish and wildlife habitat The affected environment for fish and wildlife includes the Willamette River starting from Hills Creek reservoir downstream to Albany, Oregon (the furthest downstream location that effects of the Action Alternative can be measured). Hills Creek and Lookout Point dams are operated to meet flow and temperature targets for the benefit of fish and wildlife habitat, as prescribed by the 2008 NMFS Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008). The main impacts of the Action Alternative on fish and wildlife habitat are anticipated to be flow, temperature (which is related to flow), and total dissolved gas (TDG).

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has identified the Willamette River as water quality limited due to elevated stream temperatures, which adversely affect aquatic ecosystems. To protect these resources, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality provides criteria for maximum temperature targets throughout the basin. In the Willamette River at Albany, the seven-day average maximum temperature criteria for salmon and trout rearing and migration is 18.0 oCelsius (C) (ODEQ 2018). However, water temperatures on the main stem are often higher than ideal in the summer even during current reservoir operations.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

USACE conducted modeling to determine the effects of the Action Alternative on temperature downstream of Lookout Point and Hills Creek dams, at Albany, Oregon (Table 3).

Table 3. Temperature Impact Summary for the Willamette River at Albany Resulting from Pool Restrictions at Hills Creek and Lookout Point. Per Oregon Administrative Rules 340-041-0031 the concentration of TDG may not exceed 110% of saturation, except during high-flow events (ODEQ 2003). Simulation results were used to analyze impacts to fish and wildlife related to the 2008 BiOp minimum flow targets at tributary and main-stem locations throughout the basin. Flows at Salem and Albany are very nearly identical to the Baseline as the Action Alternative.

No Action Alternative Fish and wildlife habitat would not be altered for the baseline alternative as there would be no change to WVP operations. No changes in flow, temperature, or TDG would occur as no operational changes would be enacted. Action Alternative: Pool Restriction; Lookout Point Dam and Hills Creek Dam Effects of the Action Alternative on temperature and TDG were modeled using the most recent 15

WVP Reservoir restrictions - Environmental Assessment

years when reliable temperature data was available (2001 – 2018). Temperature changes under the Action Alternative relative to a baseline ‘normal’ water year (2018) were analyzed. Results show that weekly average water temperature at Albany, Oregon is expected to increase between 0.1 C and 0.2 C between September and October under the Action Alternative. No increases in the average number of weeks that water temperatures are above 18 C was observed in the Action Alternative (Table 3). There were also no changes to the number of days that flow targets as prescribed in the 2008 NMFS Biological Opinion were met. The ResSim model was utilized to determine the number of days that TDG was above the 110% standard for the Action Alternative relative to the No Action Alternative. It indicated that the only impact was in water abundant years when there may be higher outflows in the spring to maintain the pool restriction. According to the model, the number of days the standard was exceeded went up by one day in April and three days in May, measured at Dexter Dam. Effects from the preferred alternative to Fish and Wildlife Habitat: Insignifcant effects

4.6 Threatened/Endangered Species/Critical Habitat The WVP maintains flow and water quality targets as identified in the NMFS 2008 Biological Opinion for the WVP (see Section 4.5). Threatened and Endangered fish species rely on consistent flow and water quality for survival. Endangered species potentially affected by the Action Alternative are provided in Table 4, below.

Group Name Status

Mammals Fisher, Pekania pennant Proposed Threatened Birds Northern Spotted Owl, Strix Threatened occidentalis caurina

Fishes Bull Trout, Salvelinus Threatened confluentus

Fishes Upper Willamette River Threatened Chinook, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha

Fishes Upper Willamette River Threatened Steelhead, Oncorhynchus mykiss

Insects Fender’s Blue Butterfly, Endangered Icaricia icarioides fenderi

Flowering Plants Bradshaw’s Desert-parsley, Endangered Lomatium bradshawii Flowering Plants Kincaid’s Lupine, Lupinis Threatened sulphureus ssp. kincaidii

Flowering Plants Nelson’s Checker-mallow, Threatened

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Sidalcea nelsoniana

Flowering Plants Willamette Daisy, Erigeron Endangered decumbens Table 4. List of Threatened and Endangered Species for the Action Area.

Evaluation of Alternatives

Simulation results were used to analyze impacts to fish and wildlife related to the 2008 BiOp minimum flow targets at tributary and main stem locations throughout the basin. The analyses described are applied for each alternative. Additionally, USACE coordinated these findings with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during the January 2020 Willamette Fish Passage Operation and Maintenance meeting (see agencies consulted). No Action Alternative Threatened and Endangered Species Impacts would not be altered for the baseline alternative as there would be no change to the pool levels.

Action Alternative: Pool Restriction; Lookout Point 921’ and Hills Creek 1531’ Flows at Salem and Albany (downstream of the action area) are lower than in the No Action Alternative in October, but do not result in significant changes to the frequency at which BiOp flow targets can be met at these locations. This is due to the fact that in low (deficit) water years (17 of 73 years), the maximum conservation pool is not met due to the low inflows under both the No Action and proposed Action Alternatives, and therefore the Action Alternative results in no change from the current operations. The biggest difference between flows is therefore in adequate and abundant water years. However, in these moderate to high water years (56 of 73 years) there is no issue in meeting prescribed flow targets, and the expected decrease in flow in September – October as a result of the Action Alternative does not affect the ability to meet the downstream flow targets (Figure 4).

WVP Reservoir restrictions - Environmental Assessment

Figure 4. Median number of days per water year where BiOp flow targets are missed where the black line represents the No-Action Alternative and the blue represents the Action Alternative. Down-stream of Salem, Albany, and Dexter for the pool restriction alternative at Hills Creek and Lookout Point.

Due to the negligible effects to TDG (as discussed in Section 4.5), the ability to maintain BiOp flow targets, and the relatively small change in temperature as a result of the Action Alternative (see Section 3), impacts to threatened and endangered species and their critical habitats are anticipated to be minimal. Effects from the preferred alternative to Threatened/Endangered Species and Critical Habitat: Insignifcant effects

4.7 Historic properties No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, USACE would not impose pool restrictions at the Lookout Point or Hills Creek Projects. Reservoir filling and evacuation would adhere to the existing maximum/minimum pool elevation baseline authorized for both reservoir basins, resulting in no change to the established maximum and minimum pool levels. No additional hydraulic or ebb/flow forces would impact any known historic properties within either reservoir basin, nor would any known historic property be inadvertently or unexpectedly exposed. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would have no potential to cause effects on any identified historic properties and cultural resources within either reservoir.

Action Alternative: Pool Restrictions; Lookout Point 921’ and Hills Creek 1531’

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Under the Action Alternative pool restrictions, reservoir levels behind Lookout Point would be 5 feet below the maximum conservation pool and 10 feet below the maximum conservation pool for Hills Creek, within ordinary fluctuating levels seen at both pools throughout a typical year. No hydraulic or ebb/flow forces would impact any known historic properties within either reservoir basin, nor would any known historic property be inadvertently or unexpectedly exposed. Therefore, in accordance with 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1), USACE finds the proposed pool restrictions do not have potential to cause effects on any identified historic properties and cultural resources within either reservoir, and no further NHPA considerations are required for this undertaking.

4.8 Other cultural resources As noted for identified historic properties and cultural resources located within the Lookout Point and Hills Creek reservoir basins, no additional hydraulic or ebb/flow forces, nor inadvertent or unexpected exposures, would result within either reservoir basin under the No Action Alternative and proposed Action Alternative. Therefore, USACE has determined that the No Action Alternative and proposed Action Alternative both have no potential to cause effects on any other cultural resources that may be located within either reservoir basin.

4.9 Floodplains The Willamette Valley Project operates for flood risk management throughout the year. The proposed pool restriction, would not compromise system or local flood risk as all flood risk related operations including maintaining flood space and managing outflows are not impacted. No Action Alternative Floodplains are not altered for the No Action Alternative as there would be no change to the pool levels for current operations, though the risk of damage from a seismic event is greater with the No Action Alternative.

Action Alternative: Pool Restriction; Lookout Point Dam and Hills Creek Dam Changes to the floodplain would be insignificant, but provide a reduction in seismic hazard risk that the IRRM plan identified as necessary. Effects from the preferred alternative to Floodplains: Insignifcant effects

4.10 Hazardous, toxic and radioactive waste USACE has determined that the No Action and the Action Alternative would have no effect on Hazardous, toxic and radioactive waste. Effects from the preferred alternative to Hazardous, toxic and radioactive waste: Resource unaffected by action

4.11 Hydrology USACE operates the Willamette Valley Project in a manner such that every effort is made to meet or exceed minimum main stem flow objectives that have been set by the 2008 Biological Opinion. The Middle Fork Willamette sub basin drains about 1,370 square miles.

WVP Reservoir restrictions - Environmental Assessment

The flow objectives combine the statutorily authorized minimum flows (House Document 531) as measured at Albany and Salem for the June through October period, which guided historical operations, with new main stem “fish flow” objectives for April through June. The “insufficient” threshold volume is based on results of water management actions implemented in previous years to carefully balance risks associated with the multiple uses for Willamette Basin flow and storage, including the needs of ESA-listed fish species.

The total conservation storage in the Willamette Valley Project is ~1.59 million acre-feet (Maf) from eleven storage reservoirs. Each reservoir operates on a seasonal rule curve where all conservation storage is released by winter to have space available for flood risk management, with refill each spring for summer and fall water supply use. There is no carry-over storage, so every year the refill of the 1.59 Maf conservation storage depends on the inflow conditions at each reservoir from rain and snow melt. The Willamette Basin Review (WBR) recommendation for reallocation of the 1,590,000 acre-feet was: F&W Conservation Storage Allocation: 1,102,600 acre-feet M&I Conservation Storage Allocation: 159,750 acre-feet AI Conservation Storage Allocation: 327,650 acre-feet Evaluation of Alternatives The Hills Creek and Lookout Point small pool restrictions were modeled in ResSim by lowering the maximum target pool elevation during the conservation season (May-Sept) as shown in Table 5 and 6. The change in conservation storage is a 13% and 7% reduction from the No-Action Alternative. The overall WVP system storage is reduced by 3%.

Conservation Storage Reduction Maximum Pool Elevation (ft) Elevation acre-ft % Base 1,541 194,600 0 Action 1,531 169,500 13% Alternative Table 5. Hills Creek Conservation Storage Reduction Maximum Pool Conservation Reduction % Elevation (ft) Elevation Storage acre-ft Base 926 324,600 0 Action Alternative 921 303,500 6.5% Table 6. Lookout Point Conservation Storage Reduction

Winter flood risk management operations are not impacted by the proposed pool restriction and the dams will be allowed to store flood waters to the full flood control pool elevations. The storage volume available for flood storage is reduced as the pools are allowed to rise in the spring (February to May). Refill continues until the pool elevation reaches the restriction level, while managing flood waters to reduce downstream flooding. The proposed IRRMs will reduce the elevation at which refill period ends and will cap the amount of conservation storage. When 20

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

compared to the Baseline condition, the Action Alternative will result in higher project outflows in spring months. This is due to releasing flows that would typically be stored in the reservoir being released to maintain the restricted elevation. Outflows are likely to be reduced in fall months when there is less water to evacuate during the drawdown to the winter flood pool.

No Action Alternative The USACE reservoirs currently adequately meet AI, M&I, and F&W demands. Under the No Action Alternative operations would continue to adhere to baseline pool management practices. Therefore, no impact to the hydrologic conditions at or downstream of the project are expected under this alternative

Action Alternative: Pool Restriction; Lookout Point Dam and Hills Creek Dam The USACE reservoirs are able to meet demand at about the same frequency as the No Action Alternative when the Action Alternative is implemented. The ability to meet AI, M&I and F&W demands is not impacted. Effects from the preferred alternative to Hydrology: Insignifcant effects

4.12 Land use The Middle Fork Willamette River sub basin covers an area of approximately 1,360 square miles (865,920 acres) on the western slope of the Cascade Mountains and the floor of the Willamette Valley. Commercial forestry is the primary land use along the Middle Fork Willamette River. Much of the land in the upper Middle Fork Willamette River sub basin is in public ownership with the vast majority under jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service. The lower reaches of the sub basin are dominated by agricultural and urban land uses that constrain the river’s ability to meander, and these uses have resulted in the removal of much of the riparian gallery forest. Table 7 below compares the land use distribution between historic (1850s post- European settlement) and current conditions.

Land Use Historic Current Acre Acres Acres Change

Agriculture 0 14,288 +14,288

Montane mixed conifer forest 6,305 16,552 +10,247

Open water – lakes, rivers, streams 1,991 6,066 +4,075

Ponderosa pine/interior white oak forest and 0 26 +26 woodlands

Urban or residential 0 5,248 +5,348

Westside grasslands 19,032 142 -18,890 Westside lowland conifer-hardwood forest 368,764 378,662 +9,898

21 WVP Reservoir restrictions - Environmental Assessment

Westside oak/dry Douglas-fir forest and 14,234 546 -13,688 woodlands

Westside riparian wetlands 12,075 958 -11,117

Table 7. Estimated historical and current land cover types in the Middle Fork Willamette River Sub-basin (data from USACE 2013). No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, USACE would not impose pool restrictions at Lookout Point or Hill Creek Projects. Filling and evacuation protocol would adhere to the status quo, and the reservoir, its related tributaries, and adjacent lands would be continue to be utilized in the same manner as in years past. There would be no change to current land use in the project vicinity if no action is taken. Action Alternative: Pool Restriction; Lookout Point Dam and Hills Creek Dam The Action Alternative limits the conservation season pool to having twenty feet of freeboard (twenty feet lower than the top of the dam) for a seismic event and makes breach due to seismic deformation of the embankment or internal erosion (IE) less likely. In the event of a seismic event, this pool restriction will reduce consequences significantly therein protecting the current land uses. Effects from the preferred alternative to Land use: Resource has positive reaction as result of action.

4.13 Navigation The Willamette River is only navigable from its confluence with the Columbia River to Oregon City, Oregon (as Willamette Falls Lock has been changed to “non-operational status”) though because the Willamette is a Section 10 water it is navigable by portage around the Willamette River Lock and navigation ends at River Mile 183, near Eugene. Navigation of the river would not be impacted by either alternative. Maintaining the Action Alternative freeboard would not significantly alter typical seasonal stream bank inundation. Under this operation, there would be no change to current land use in the vicinity of either project.

Effects from the preferred alternative to Navigation: Resource unaffected by action

4.14 Noise levels According to the U.S. Department of Transportation the main source of noise in the WRB is caused by road traffic and ranges from 35-55 decibels near major roadways. No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would not lead to increased traffic, necessitate the prolonged use of heavy equipment, or increase the number of personnel needed to operate the project on a daily bases. Under the Action Alternative access to the reservoirs behind either project would not change. 22

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Therefore any seasonal increase in noise associated with the recreational use of the reservoir – boating, fishing, utilization of adjacent campground – would not contribute or detract from expected noise conditions. Action Alternative: Pool Restriction; Lookout Point Dam and Hills Creek Dam Under the small pool restriction at Hills Creek and Lookout Point access to the reservoirs behind either project would not change. Therefore any seasonal increase in noise associated with the recreational use of the reservoir – boating, fishing, utilization of adjacent campground – would not contribute or detract from expected noise conditions. There would be no effect from the small pool restriction at Hills Creek and Lookout Point Effects from the preferred alternative to Noise levels: Resource unaffected by action.

4.15 Public Infrastructure/Recreation Lookout Point (4 boat ramps) and Hills Creek (3 boat ramps) offer public boat ramps for recreational use seven in total. Boat ramp availability by month was analyzed and the reduction in boat ramps available resulting from pool restrictions is show in Table 8 below.

Table 8. Reduction in the number of boat ramps available compared to existing conditions. No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would not implement any pool restriction and would not affect the amount of boat ramps available. Action Alternative: Pool Restriction; Lookout Point Dam and Hills Creek Dam Under the Action Alternative at Lookout Point and Hills Creek Dam there would be no change in the available boat ramps because the elevation of the restriction will not go below the elevation the boat ramps are at. The Action Alternative restriction would have no effect on public infrastructure. Effects from the preferred alternative to Public Infrastructure/Recreation: Resource unaffected by action.

4.16 Socio-economics Many power producing projects in the Willamette Valley, such as Detroit, Green Peter, and Lookout Point dams have turbine units that are designed to operate fully loaded to meet peak

WVP Reservoir restrictions - Environmental Assessment energy demands, but they do not generate continuously. These projects have a re-regulation dam (Big Cliff, Foster and Dexter dams) downstream that provides a steady source of water to the downstream river. Other power producing projects such as Cougar and Hills Creek have units that stay on all the time and provide a continuous source of power and water to the downstream river When the reservoir is high, it takes less water to produce the same amount of power than when the reservoir is low. Therefore, the hydraulic capacity of the turbine units varies depending on the height of the reservoir. Any changes to reservoir storage, or release through the turbine units, would reduce total hydropower generation and revenue. The annual power generated by WVP is 176.3 average megawatt (aMW) and is valued at approximately $34.9 million. This represents a single year’s expected production, valued at 2017 energy price forecasts. Lookout Point power production constitutes 36.4% of all the power production in the Valley; Hills Creek produces around 17%, illustrating the significant contribution these projects make to the overall power generation capacity of the WVP. Short term generation losses at WVP are generally assessed by BPA to determine their economic losses. Maintaining adequate power generation in the WVP is essential for maintaining access to affordable, low impact power for the region. If access were to be diminished for an extended period of time, alternate power sources would be introduced to the region such as coal or gas fired power plants which could be detrimental to the environment in the long term. To give context to the hydropower energy losses associated with each alternative, the number of homes that would have to rely on an alternative energy source if the pool restrictions were in place are shown in Table 9.

Pool restriction alternative Equivalent Household Impacted by Action Alternative Hills Creek Restriction 120 Lookout Point Pool Restriction 160 TOTAL 280 Table 9. Lost Generation Capability, given in number of households that would have to rely on alternative energy sources.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 5. Monthly Energy Generation for Lookout Point and Hills Creek pool reduction alternatives. No Action Alternative Current USACE pool management practices at the project meet the hydropower demands of the region. Under the No Action Alternative operations would continue to adhere to baseline pool management practices. Therefore, no impact to current socioeconomic conditions is anticipated under this alternative. Action Alternative: Pool Restriction; Lookout Point Dam and Hills Creek Dam There is a small reduction in power production between the No Action Alternative and the Action Alternative in September and October (Figure 5). This would impact the power supply of up to 120 homes from the restriction at Hills Creek and 160 homes for the restriction at Lookout Point. Other power producing dams in the region would easily be able to compensate for production loss, it is unlikely that coal or gas powered turbines are needed to augment power production for the region. Reduction of power production would result in some economic losses at these projects however, said losses would not be significant as a result of mitigation in the form of producing more power at other hydroelectric dams. Economic losses related to diminished power production at the project under this alternative are not expected to significantly impact the local or regional economy as other hydro producing dams would mitigate power generation loss.

WVP Reservoir restrictions - Environmental Assessment

Effects from the preferred alternative to Socio-economics: Insignificant effects as a result of mitigation.

4.17 Environmental justice Hills Creek and Lookout Point Dams are located in Lane County which had a population of 351,715 during the 2010 census and a median income of $47,710 (US Census Bureau). The No-Action and the Proposed Action would not have any adverse impacts related to environmental justice as the action would not disproportionally impact any individuals of a particular social or economic status. Effects from the preferred alternative to Environmental justice: Resource unaffected by action

4.18 Soils The location of the proposed project varies in geological makeup. Eocene through Lower Miocene sedimentary and volcanic rock of the western Cascades. This includes the marine Eugene Fm type and the non-marine Fisher Fm type of the southern Willamette Valley as well as Upper Miocene and some Pliocene basalt.

No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would have no effect on geology or soils. Action Alternative: Pool Restrictions; Lookout Point Dam and Hills Creek Dam The Action Alternative potentially result in larger water releases and higher flows in the river during Conservation season to implement the Action Alternative. The proposed alternative may have a minor effect on soils. Effects from the preferred alternative to Soils: Insignifcant effects.

4.19 Tribal trust resources No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, USACE would not impose pool restrictions at the Lookout Point or Hills Creek Projects. Reservoir filling and evacuation would adhere to the existing maximum/minimum pool baseline authorized for both reservoir basins, resulting in no change to the established maximum and minimum pool levels. No additional hydraulic or ebb/flow forces would impact any known Tribal trust resources within either reservoir basin, nor would any be inadvertently or unexpectedly exposed. Therefore, USACE has determined the No Action Alternative would have no potential to cause effects on any Tribal trust resources that may be located within either reservoir. Action Alternative: Pool Restrictions; Lookout Point Dam and Hills Creek Dam Under the Action Alternative pool restrictions, reservoir levels behind Lookout Point would be 5 feet below the maximum conservation pool and 10 feet below the maximum conservation pool for Hills Creek, within ordinary fluctuating levels seen at both pools throughout a typical year. No additional hydraulic or ebb/flow forces would impact any known Tribal trust resources within 26

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences either reservoir basin, nor would any be inadvertently or unexpectedly exposed. Therefore, USACE has determined that the proposed pool restrictions do not have potential to cause effects on any Tribal trust resources that may be located within either reservoir.

4.20 Climate Change Topography, proximity to the Pacific Ocean, and exposure to middle latitude westerly winds are the principal climate controls for the WRB. The basin climate ranges from warm dry summers and cool wet winters in the center of the basin to extreme alpine conditions in the highest Cascade Mountain reaches. Rainfall ranges from 40 inches per year in most of the basin to over 200 inches per year in the highest Cascade Mountain reaches; for the entire basin, annual precipitation totals approximately 63 inches. The most comprehensive study of climate change in the Pacific Northwest is the Pacific Northwest (PNW) Hydroclimate Scenarios Project (2860) (Climate Impacts Group, 2010). Datasets from the Climate Impacts Group study were used by the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute (OCCRI) to write a report for the Corps, titled Historical Trends and Future Projections of Climate and Streamflow in the Willamette River and Rogue River basins (OCCRI, 2015). The OCCRI report describes general climate projections for 2030-2059 as having higher regional minimum and maximum temperatures, meaning that both winters and summers will be warmer, with a greater increase in summer temperatures than winter temperatures. The predicted amount of precipitation varied among the models by both season and whether the model predicted a decrease or increase in precipitation (OCCRI, 2015). No Action Alternative Maintaining the status quo refill operations at the dam site would not add to or detract from the dam/reservoir operation’s current contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. Action Alternative: Pool Restriction; Lookout Point Dam and Hills Creek Dam Implementing the Action Alternative restrictions at Lookout Point and / Hills Creek dam(s) would have a negligible impact on the local climate and would not significantly contribute to or detract from global climate change. Methane releases that may occur due to a longer air exposure time of decaying organic matter (DOM) around the perimeter of the reservoir compared to normal operations may be slightly elevated under this test operation. However, any increase in methane production caused by prolonged DOM exposure is not expected to be significant. A small reduction of power production is expected at Hills Creek – which consists of lowering the maximum pool to 10 feet below its no action or baseline height - under the Action Alternative restriction alternative in September and October. At Lookout Point the pool restriction – which consists of lowering the maximum pool to 5 feet below its no action or baseline height – would have negligible impact on power production in all months. No coal or gas powered turbines are needed to augment power production for the region. Other power producing dams in the region would easily be able to compensate for the production loss. Effects from the preferred alternative to Climate Change: Insignifcant effects.

WVP Reservoir restrictions - Environmental Assessment

5 Cumulative Impacts

Based on the models and analysis done it was found that the adverse impacts of the Action Alternative reservoir reduction at Hills Creek and Lookout Point would be minor, temporary and insignificant to the WVP. Impacts to flood risk, water supply, fish and wildlife, water quality, and recreation are minimal and will not cause significant affects. Pool restriction operations would slightly reduce hydropower generation between September and October, but these impacts are insignificant and would be mitigated by generating power at other locations. Additionally, USACE is proposing a refill rate restriction for dam maintenance. This pool refill restriction will have minor cumulative effects as it will be implemented at the same time as the Action Alternative reservoir restriction. Details on how the two will impact one another are addressed below. A refilling rate restriction at Hills Creek starting March 1, 2020 is currently proposed to allow for dam maintenance activities to occur in the Hills Creek spillway. Modeling was completed to show how this refilling rate restriction will affect project purposes while being implemented at the same time as the Action Alternative. This was then compared to the Action Alternative and the baseline. Modeling showed that refill to the Action Alternative elevation of 1531 feet at Hills Creek was achieved during the summer in 35 of the 73 years with the Action Alternative only and in 35 years with both the refilling rate restriction and Action Alternative in place. Hence, there is no difference in refill rates between the two. Temperatures in late spring and summer are higher when flows are lower, and so the refilling rate restriction results in slightly higher late conservation season temperatures at Salem (Table 10). Temperature increases are minimal and approaching the margin of error for the modeling. Temperature can be seen as changing as little as .1 to .4. Seasonal flow targets set by the 2008 NMFS Biological Opinion are more likely to be missed later in the conservation season (August – September) due to potential for less available water. Therefore, the flow targets at Albany are modeled to be missed more often as a result of operations associated with the refilling rate restriction (Figure 6). The cumulative impacts from resulting from implementing the two dam safety measures are overall minimal and temporary (approximately 2-3 years) at this time.

Cumulative Impacts

March 1st to May 2018 Baseline 15th refill restriction Week Temperature - Max conservation elevation of 1531'

1-7 June 15.7 15.7

8-14 June 16.4 16.4

15-21 June 20.2 20.2

22-30 June 20.3 20.3

1-7 July 20.4 20.4

8-14 July 21.3 21.3

15-21 July 21.9 21.9

22-31 July 22.9 22.9

1-7 August 22 22.0

8-14 August 22 22.1

15-21 August 21 21.1

22-31 August 20 20.0

1-7 September 19.9 20.5

8-14 September 19.8 20.3

15-21 September 18.1 18.3

22-30 September 17.4 17.6

1-7 October 17.2 17.3

8-14 October 16 16.0

15-21 October 14.7 14.8

22-31 October 13.5 13.5

Average Number of 13.0 13.0 Weeks above 18C

Average Number of 1.0 2.2 Weeks above 22C

Table 10. Willamette temperature as measured at Albany.

WVP Reservoir restrictions - Environmental Assessment

days per year per days 4

0 Hills Creek Albany Salem

No IRRM - Max conservation elevation of 1541' Alt 2: March 1st to May 15th refill restriction - Max conservation elevation of 1531'

Figure 6. BiOp missed days as measured at Albany and Salem compared to the baseline.

Agencies Consulted and Interested Parties

6 Agencies Consulted and Interested Parties

In accordance with the 2008 Biological Opinion, USACE coordinated this proposal with NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through the FPOM (Fish Passage and Maintenance) process the January 2020 FPOM meeting.

WVP Reservoir restrictions - Environmental Assessment

7 Other Applicable Laws and Executive Orders

The following discussions demonstrate compliance with all applicable laws and executive orders for the proposed action.

7.1 Compliance with Applicable Environmental Laws 7.1.1 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act Of 1940, 16 U.S.C. § 668 et seq. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (May 2007) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers eGIS Information Portal were aids in evaluating project impacts to bald eagles and known nest locations. The proposed action would have no impact to preferred nesting, rearing, or foraging habitat, and no ‘take’ of bald or golden eagles because the reduction in pool would not alter or remove nesting habitat for Bald and Golden Eagles. Therefore, the proposed action is in compliance with the Act

7.1.2 Clean Air Act (CAA) Of 1970, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq. The proposed action would not create or result in any exceedances of State or Federal emission standards. Therefore, the proposed action is in compliance with this Act.

7.1.3 Clean Water Act (CWA) Of 1972, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. The proposed action would not involve activities resulting in the discharge of pollutants, dredged or fill material subject to Section 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act. No Section 404(b)(1) evaluation or Section 401 water quality certification is required. The proposed action also would not involve point source discharges of pollutants requiring a permit under Section 402 of the Act. Therefore, the proposed action is in compliance with the Act.

7.1.4 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Of 1972, 16 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq. The proposed action is not located within the coastal zone for the State of Oregon, nor would it result in effects to coastal resources under the scope of the CZMA. Therefore, this Act is not applicable to the proposed action. 7.1.5 Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act Of 1986 (CRGNSAA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 544–544 The proposed action is located outside of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (CRGNSA) and would have no potential to impact the CRGNSA. Therefore, the Act is not applicable to the proposed action.

7.1.6 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act – Superfund (CERCLA) Of 1980, 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq. The proposed action is not located within the boundaries of a designated Superfund site as identified by the EPA, the State of Oregon, and is not part of the National Priority List. Therefore, the Act is not applicable to the proposed action.

Other Applicable Laws and Executive Orders

7.1.7 Endangered Species Act (ESA) Of 1973, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. Per the 2008 Biological Opinion the Corps coordinated with NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through the FPOM process during the January 22, 2020 WFPOM meeting. 7.1.8 Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) Of 1994, 7 U.S.C. § 4201 et seq. The purpose of this Act is to assure that the actions of the Federal Government do not cause United States farmland to be irreversibly converted to nonagricultural uses in cases in which other national interests do not override the importance of the protection of farmland nor otherwise outweigh the benefits of maintaining farmland resources. The proposed action is located near farmland but because it will not alter water availability or farm land, it is not expected to irreversibly convert farmland to nonagricultural uses. Per discussions in this document it was found that farmland is not likely to be adversely effected by the proposed action and therefore in compliance with this Act. 7.1.9 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) Of 1958, 16 U.S.C. § 661 et seq. Coordination under the FWCA was completed and mitigation was established in connection with the original action that modified the stream channel by impounding it behind Lookout Point and Hills Creek dams. The proposed action will not further modify the stream course. The proposed temporary changes to operations are within the Corps’ current authorities to operate these structures. Thus, further coordination is not required under the act. 7.1.10 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) Of 1976, 16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq. The analysis of the proposed action is within the scope of the effects in the 2008 Biological Opinion. Therefore, the proposed action is in compliance with this Act. 7.1.11 Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) Of 1972, 16 U.S.C. § 1361 et seq. The proposed action would not be located in an area where marine mammals are found. Therefore, this Act is not applicable to the proposed action.

7.1.12 Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) Of 1972, 16 U.S.C. § 1431 et seq. The proposed action does not involve in-water disposal of materials into the ocean. Therefore, this Act is not applicable to the proposed action.

7.1.13 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) Of 1918, 16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq. The proposed action would not result in the taking of any migratory birds. Therefore, the proposed action is in compliance with this Act. 7.1.14 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Of 1966, 54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq. The proposed action does not have potential to cause effects on any identified historic properties or cultural resources. Therefore, the proposed action is in compliance with the Act. 7.1.15 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) Of 1990, 25 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq. The proposed action is not expected to have any impact on any NAGPRA items, locations or 33

WVP Reservoir restrictions - Environmental Assessment

resources. Therefore, the proposed action is in compliance with the Act. 7.1.16 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 6912 et seq. The project has no potential RCRA concerns because it does not involve solid or hazardous waste. Therefore, the Act is not applicable to the proposed action. 7.1.17 Safe Drinking Water Act Of 1996, 42 U.S.C. § 300f et seq. The proposed action would not endanger underground aquifers and would not result in any effects on the public drinking water supply. Therefore the proposed action is in compliance with this Act. 7.1.18 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) Of 1968, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1271-1287 The proposed action has no potential to impact a designated Wild and Scenic River because it is not located within or near a designated Wild and Scenic River, therefore, the Act is not applicable to the proposed action.

7.2 Compliance with Applicable Executive Orders 7.2.1 Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, 13 May 1971 The proposed action does not have potential to cause effects on any identified historic properties or cultural resources. Therefore, the proposed action is in compliance with the Act.

7.2.2 Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, 24 May 1977 The proposed action would not result in a modification to the current floodplain conditions, nor would it encourage further development of the floodplain. Therefore, the proposed action is in compliance with the Order. 7.2.3 Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, 24 May 1977 The proposed action would have no effect on wetlands in the vicinity of the project area. Therefore, the Order is not applicable to the proposed action. 7.2.4 Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice, 11 February 1994 The proposed action would not affect subsistence, low-income or minority communities. There would be no changes in population, economics, or other indicators of social well-being within the short- or long-term future due to the proposed action. Therefore, the proposed action is in compliance with the Order.

7.2.5 Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 6 November 2000 It is not anticipated that this action will have substantial direct effects on any tribes; however, the Corps will ensure tribes have an opportunity to review this draft EA. Therefore, the proposed action is in compliance with the Order.

Other Applicable Laws and Executive Orders

7.2.6 Executive Order 13186, Migratory Birds, 10 January 2001 The proposed action does not involve activities where there would be take of migratory birds or disturbance of their habitat. Therefore, the Order is not applicable to the proposed action. 7.2.7 Executive Order 13834, Efficient Federal Operations, 17 May 2018 The proposed action would meet statutory requirements in a manner that increases efficiency, optimizes performance, eliminates unnecessary use of resources, and protects the environment. The project would implement this policy in a manner that would reduce waste, cut costs, enhance the resilience of Federal infrastructure and operations, and enable more effective accomplishment of the Corps’ mission. Therefore, this proposed action would be in compliance with the Order

WVP Reservoir restrictions - Environmental Assessment

8 References

Bureau, U.S Census (2020). Census.gov. [online] Census.gov. Available at: https://www.census.gov/ [Accessed 3 Dec. 2019].

Climate Impacts Group. 2010. Final Report for the Columbia Basin Climate Change Scenarios Project. University of Washington. Online at: http://warm.atmos.washington.edu/2860/report/

Dalton, M.M., K.D. Dello, L. Hawkins, P.W. Mote, and D.E. Rupp. 2017. The Third Oregon Climate Assessment Report. Oregon Climate Change Research Institute, College of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008. Endangered Species Act Section 7 (a)(2) Consultation Biological Opinion & Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation & Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation – Consultation on the Willamette River Basin Flood Control Project. National Marine Fisheries Service, Portland, Oregon. July 11, 2008.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2003. Water Quality Standards: Beneficial Uses, Policies, and Criteria for Oregon – Total Dissolved Gas. OAR. 340-041- 0031.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2018. Water Quality Standards: Beneficial Uses, Policies, and Criteria for Oregon – Temperature. OAR. 340-041-0028.