A.07_SOL_Att1_2021_BON_O&M_TrashRacks_REC.pdf

Record of Environmental Consideration: Bonneville PH1 Trash Rack Replacement

CENWP-PME

STATEMENT OF FINDINGS

SUBJECT: Record of Environmental Consideration for Bonneville Powerhouse 1 Trash Rack Replacement Project, Multnomah County, Oregon

Date Prepared: 16 June 2021

1 Description of the Proposed Action

Action type: Operations

The Bonneville Powerhouse 1(PH1) has three trash racks slots per unit, six trash racks per slot, totaling 180 trash racks. The existing PH1 trash racks were installed in 1937.

These will be removed and replaced using the method described below. The trash racks prevent large debris and trash from entering inside the turbine units. The racks are over 80 years old and are experiencing corrosion and breakage. Replacement or rehabilitation will take place in/over water.

This document serves as documentation of the Corpse review of the potential effects to the natural and human environment and determinations of those effects under the relevant laws and executive orders.

The proposed project involves the removal of 18 existing trash racks from a single Main Unit on the upstream side of the dam with the use of diver(s) and use diver(s) to assist with the installation of 18 new trash racks. This also involves the removal and installation of 6 Station Service Unit trash racks.

The project also involved the fabrication of 30 new individual trash racks which will be completed off site by a contractor. 24 trash racks for the Main Units, including the 6 new spare trash racks and 6 new trash racks for the Station Service Unit. The spare 6 trash racks will be stored on-site.

All changes to the racks will still be within the dimensional requirements for fitting into the existing slots and will use existing cranes and hardware. The trash rack crane is used for standard maintenance racking activities but is also used for the removal and replacement.

Installation will happen throughout 2022. This phase is expected to last approximately two weeks for the on-site work.

Minimal sediment has been observed on the bars of the racks and the concrete sill they rest upon when installed.

The contractor will be assigned a small staging area for their construction trailer or other equipment onsite. No other storage or staging areas will be provided. The contractor is responsible for storing trash racks and only delivering as many as can be installed at one time. The old trash racks become the property of the contract to dispose of properly.

1.1 Location of the Proposed Action

The proposed action is located in Bonneville Lock and Dam Powerhouse 1, Cascade Locks, Multnomah County, Oregon

Columbia River, River Mile 145

Latitude: 45.640596 Longitude: -121.946372

1.2 Proposed Action Maps & Drawings

Figure 1-1 Vicinity Map

1.3 Timing of proposed action construction activities

• Main Unit (MU) outages will be coordinated with the Fish Passage Operations

Figure 1-2 Plan View Map of the Proposed Action and Maintenance team (FPOM) to reduce impacts to fish species as much as possible

• Work windows will be scheduled between October through February of 2022 (if needed)

1.4 Measures and management practices included in the proposed action to avoid and minimize effects

The following measures and management practices are included as part of the proposed action. Plans and specifications for the proposed action shall include the measures and management practices identified in Table 1-1 Avoidance and Minimization Measures.

Table 1-1 Avoidance and Minimization Measures and Management Practices

Resource Category

Avoidance and Minimization Measures

Biological Resources

• Work is scheduled to be completed during the in-water work window to avoid and minimize effects to ESA-listed fish species.

Cultural Resources

• All structural repairs and replacements will take place on the dam structure and will not cause any significant or obvious physical or operational changes. Furthermore, in accordance with 36 CFR 800.4[d](1), it has been determined that use of the two established parking areas on and adjacent to Bonneville Dam for temporary staging of equipment and construction vehicles during the trash rack replacement work will have no effect on any historic properties and/or other cultural resources.

2 Categorical Exclusion Evaluation

2.1 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.

Finding: The proposed action qualifies for a categorical exclusion as described by the Corps’ regulations for implementing NEPA, 33 CFR §230.9, (b) Activities at completed Corps projects which carry out the authorized project purposes.

This determination is based upon the fact that the Bonneville Powerhouse 1 Trash Rack replacement project is required to carry out the Project purposes of routine operation and maintenance actions to maintain the life of the dam.

Examples include routine operations and maintenance actions, general administration, equipment purchases, custodial actions, erosion control, painting, repair, rehabilitation, replacement of existing structures and facilities such as buildings, roads, levees, groins and utilities, and installation of new buildings utilities, or roadways in developed areas. The proposed action is in accordance with the categorical exclusion 33 CFR §230.9(b) because it is necessary to carry out the authorized project purposes as a routine operation and/or maintenance activity.

Furthermore, the proposed action is not an action that would be require an environmental assessment as required in 33 CFR §230.7 Actions normally requiring an Environmental Assessment (EA) but not necessarily an EIS. The proposed action involves Constuction and Operations and Maintenance.

2.2 Extraordinary circumstances evaluation

In accordance with 33 CFR §230.9 and 40 CFR §§1501.3-1501.4, the proposed action would have no extraordinary circumstances from:

a. Short- and long-term effects

b. Beneficial and adverse effects

c. Effects on public health and safety

d. Effects that would violate Federal, State, Tribal, or local law protecting the environment.

Preparation of an EA or an EIS due to extraordinary circumstances is not required.

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/NWP/PPPMD/ERB/SitePages/National%20Environmental%20Policy%20Act%20(NEPA).aspx https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/NWP/PPPMD/ERB/SitePages/National%20Environmental%20Policy%20Act%20(NEPA).aspx

3 Compliance with Other Environmental and Cultural Resources Laws, Executive Orders

The following sections demonstrate compliance with all relevant environmental and cultural laws for the proposed action outside of the NEPA compliance.

3.1 Compliance with Environmental & Cultural Resource Laws

3.1.1 Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, 16 U.S.C. 470aa-470mm

Finding: The proposed action does not require a permit for the removal or excavation of a known archaeological site. Therefore, this Act is not applicable to this action.

3.1.2 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, 16 U.S.C. §668 et seq.

Finding: 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 there are no eagle nests in the vicinity and the proposed will not alter habitat.

Therefore, the proposed action is in compliance with the Act.

3.1.3 Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970, 42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq.

Finding: The proposed action would not create or result in any exceedances of State and Federal emission standards. Therefore, the proposed action is in compliance with this Act.

3.1.4 Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972, 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.

The following sections of the CWA apply to the action: Not applicable

Finding: 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.

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/NWP/PPPMD/ERB/SitePages/Archaeological%20Resources%20Protection%20Act%20(ARPA).aspx https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/NWP/PPPMD/ERB/SitePages/Bald%20and%20Golden%20Eagle%20Protection%20Act%20(BGEPA).aspx http://egis.nwp.usace.army.mil/ http://egis.nwp.usace.army.mil/ https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/NWP/PPPMD/ERB/SitePages/Clean%20Water%20Act%20(CWA).aspx https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/NWP/PPPMD/ERB/SitePages/Clean%20Water%20Act%20(CWA).aspx

3.1.5 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972, 6 U.S.C. §1451 et seq.

Finding: The proposed action is not located within the coastal zone for the state of Oregon or Washington, nor will it result in effects to coastal resources under the scope of the CZMA. Therefore, this Act is not applicable to the proposed action.

3.1.6 Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act of 1986, 16 U.S.C. §§ 544– 544p

Finding: The proposed action would occur in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, but would not alter the natural landscape and would not result in a new land use. Therefore, the proposed action is in compliance with the Act.

3.1.7 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

– Superfund (CERCLA) of 1980, 42 U.S.C. §9601 et seq.

Finding: The proposed action is not located within the boundaries of a designated Superfund site as identified by the EPA, the State of Oregon or the State of Washington, and is not part of the National Priority List. Therefore, the Act is not applicable to the proposed action.

3.1.8 Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, 16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq.

The current ESA USFWS Species List and NMFS Species List were reviewed for Multnomah County, Oregon.

Finding: Based upon review of the ESA species lists, designated critical habitat and the proposed action, consultation with USFWS and NMFS pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA is not necessary. Although the action area is in close proximity to where endangered species could be located within the Columbia River, it will have no effect on any USFWS listed species. There is no ground disturbance proposed and work in water is minimal and would occur from existing roads and dam structures, no impacts to vegetation or other terrestrial habitat would occur. All in-water work will take place within the approved FPP outage schedule. The Corps has made a no effect determination for all USFWS ESA-listed species and their designated critical habitat.

Consultation with NMFS pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA has been addressed through the non-routine maintenance provisions in the Columbia River System Operations (CRSO) 2020 Biological Opinion (BiOp) for the following ESA listed anadromous fish:

Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/NWP/PPPMD/ERB/SitePages/Coastal%20Zone%20Management%20Act%20(CZMA).aspx https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/NWP/PPPMD/ERB/SitePages/Columbia%20River%20Gorge%20National%20Scenic%20Area%20Act%20(CRGNSAA).aspx https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/NWP/PPPMD/ERB/SitePages/Columbia%20River%20Gorge%20National%20Scenic%20Area%20Act%20(CRGNSAA).aspx https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/NWP/PPPMD/ERB/SitePages/Comprehensive%20Environmental%20Response,%20Compensation%20and%20Liability%20Act%20(CERCLA).aspx https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/NWP/PPPMD/ERB/SitePages/Comprehensive%20Environmental%20Response,%20Compensation%20and%20Liability%20Act%20(CERCLA).aspx http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/index.htm https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/NWP/PPPMD/ERB/SitePages/Endangered%20Species%20Act%20(ESA).aspx http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/ http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected_species/species_list/species_lists.html

Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon Upper Columbia River Spring Chinook Salmon Columbia River Chum Salmon Snake River Sockeye Salmon Snake River Basin Steelhead Trout Lower Columbia River Steelhead Trout Middle Columbia River Steelhead Trout Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon

To address any concerns with in-water work or changes in dam operations affecting ESA-listed fish species this project has been coordinated and scheduled though the Fish Passage Operations and Maintenance group (FPOM) as part of the Biological Opinion (BiOp) consultation process.

3.1.9 Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1994, 7 U.S.C. §4201 et seq.

Finding: The proposed action does not involve farmland. Therefore, this Act is not applicable to the proposed action.

3.1.10 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) of 1958, 16 U.S.C. §661 et seq.

Finding: The proposed action is not a water-resource development project, nor would it impound, divert, deepen, control, or modify a body of water. Therefore, this Act is not applicable to the proposed action.

3.1.11 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) of 1976, 16 U.S.C. §1801 et seq.

Finding: The proposed action would have no effect to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) because the proposed will utilize best management practices while in-water work takes place. Therefore, the proposed action is in compliance with this Act.

3.1.12 Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972, 16 U.S.C. §1361 et seq.

Finding: The proposed action would be located in the vicinity of the Bonneville Lock and Dam, where marine mammals may be located. However, activities associated with the proposed action would occur on the upstream side on PH1, where no marine mammals have been observed, therefore would not affect https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/NWP/PPPMD/ERB/SitePages/Farmland%20Protection%20Policy%20Act%20(FPPA).aspx marine mammals or marine mammal habitats. Therefore, the proposed action is in compliance with this Act.

3.1.13 Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972, 16 U.S.C. §1431 et seq.

Finding: The proposed action does not involve in-water disposal of materials into the ocean. Therefore, this Act is not applicable to the proposed action

3.1.14 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918, 16 U.S.C. §703 et seq.

Finding: The proposed action will not result in the taking of any migratory birds.

Therefore, this Act is not applicable to the proposed action.

3.1.15 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, 54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq.

Finding: Bonneville Dam and its associated structural components were completed in 1938 as a Public Works Administration project designed to improve navigation on the Columbia River and provide hydropower to the Pacific Northwest. A second powerhouse (B2) was completed in 1981, and a larger navigation lock was completed in 1993. The Bonneville Dam Historic District (BDHD) was listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in 1986 (i.e. National Register No. 86000727) and subsequently declared a National Historic Landmark (NHL) in 1987. BDHD’s principal elements consist of Bonneville Dam, Bonneville Powerhouse 1, Navigation Lock #1, Administration Building, Auditorium Building, Bonneville’s fishways, fish hatchery and the surrounding landscape. In addition, a Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement entitled Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement for Construction of the New Navigation Lock and for the Operation and Maintenance of the Bonneville Dam Historic District between the Corps of Engineers, the State Historic Preservation Officers of Washington and Oregon, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation was executed in 1987.

In accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA, the Corps has determined that proposed structural repair and replacement work associated with the Bonneville Powerhouse 1 Trash Rack Replacement Project meets the definition of an undertaking as defined by 36 CFR 800.16(y). Per 36 CFR Part 800.5[b], the Corps has determined that proposed structural repair and replacement work associated with the Bonneville Powerhouse 1 Trash Rack Replacement Project meets the definition of an undertaking as defined by 36 CFR 800.16(y). Per 36 CFR Part 800.5[b], the Corps has also determined that the proposed undertaking will have no adverse effect on Bonneville Dam, its NRHP eligibility and NHL https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/NWP/PPPMD/ERB/SitePages/Migratory%20Bird%20Treaty%20Act%20(MBTA).aspx https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/NWP/PPPMD/ERB/SitePages/National%20Historic%20Preservation%20Act%20(NHPA).aspx https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/NWP/PPPMD/ERB/SitePages/National%20Historic%20Preservation%20Act%20(NHPA).aspx status. The design, functionality and appearance of the replacement trash racks will mimic the original and existing trash racks as much as possible. Although minor physical modifications will be made to the new trash racks, primarily to improve connection details, assure feasibility of fabrication and to make the replacements more “fish friendly”, the fundamental and key dimensions of the new structures will match those of the existing units to effectively correspond with the dam’s existing trash rack slots and lifting beam. All structural repairs and replacements will take place on the dam structure and will not cause any significant or obvious physical and operational changes. Furthermore, in accordance with 36 CFR 800.4[d](1), the Corps has determined that use of the two established parking areas on and adjacent to Bonneville Dam for temporary staging of equipment and construction vehicles during the trash rack replacement work will have no effect on any historic properties and/or other cultural resources.

Similarly, temporary use of both proposed staging locations will have no effect on Bonneville Dam’s NRHP eligibility and NHL status.

The Corps has coordinated, in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA and 36 CFR 800.3(b) and (c), as well as within provisions of the Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement (PMOA) for Construction of the New Navigation Lock and for the Operation and Maintenance of the Bonneville Dam Historic District, Between the Corps of Engineers, the State Historic Preservation Officers of Washington and Oregon, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (as executed on February 28, 1987), the no adverse effect and no effect determinations via official letter notifications (dated June 17, 2019) with Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), Washington Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation (DAHP), the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon (CTWSRO), Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation and Nez Perce Tribe (NHPA Appendix 1).

Official SHPO and DAHP concurrence letters (dated July 16, 2019 and July 18, 2019, respectively) were received by the Corps in response to the no adverse effect to historic properties determination regarding potential impacts to Bonneville Dam’s contributing components, NRHP eligibility and NHL status, specifically for above-ground historic resources (NHPA Appendix 2 and 3, respectively). SHPO and DAHP both offered no comments within the 30-day review/comment period regarding the Corps’ concurrent no effect determination regarding potential impacts to archaeological resources that may be present in the proposed off-dam staging areas. The CTWSRO was the only Tribe to reply with comments regarding the undertaking and determinations of effect during the 30-day review/comment period, offering an email concurrence (dated July 12, 2019) with the Corps’ no adverse effect and no effect determinations as well as agreeing that no additional studies are necessary (NHPA Appendix 4). The Corps has completed NHPA obligations and requirements in regard to this project, and no further Section 106 of the NHPA considerations are required.

In the unlikely event that cultural resources and/or human remains are uncovered during the trash rack replacements and associated construction activities, all work shall halt at the scene of the discovery until assessed by a Portland District archaeologist and procedures outlined in 36 CFC 800.13 and the current version of the Portland District Inadvertent Discovery Plan are complied with.

3.1.16 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990, 25 U.S.C. §3001 et seq.

Finding: The proposed action is in compliance with this Act because it does not involve Native American human remains or objects of cultural patrimony. In the unlikely event that human remains, archaeological deposits or cultural items are discovered during work activities associated with the proposed action, all work must cease in the immediate area of the discovery and a Portland District archaeologist must be notified immediately. The Corps will comply with procedures outlined in 36 CFR 800.13, the current version of the Portland District Inadvertent Discovery Plan and provisions of NAGPRA regulations as applicable.

3.1.17 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA of 1976, 42 U.S.C. §6912 et seq.

Finding: The proposed action would involve activities where lead paint would be disturbed. Any lead paint removed during construction will be abated using recovery standards or best management practices (BMPs) to prevent the release of toxic materials into the environment. Any paint removal must be completed with a chemical paint stripping compound and contained for proper disposal.

Care must be taken to minimize the amount of hazardous waste generated. Only local areas subject to drilling, cutting, or other disturbance must have the lead based paint removed. Paint strippers are not allowed to be used below the water surface or come in contact with water. Rags used to remove paint may be disposed with the Project's hazardous waste system. Place generated waste into approved Department of Transportation (DOT) drums (1A1/1A2). Notify the Project Environmental Compliance Coordinator when drums are full and ready for disposal. The Corps will follow all Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and EM 385-1-1 standards, as well as 29 CFR §1926.62, all state, and local ordinances pertaining to the proper removal, handling, and disposal of hazardous waste. Chemical https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/NWP/PPPMD/ERB/SitePages/Rivers%20and%20Harbors%20Act%20(RHA).aspx https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/NWP/PPPMD/ERB/SitePages/Rivers%20and%20Harbors%20Act%20(RHA).aspx paint strippers must not contain methylene chloride. Therefore, based upon the implementation of BMPs, the proposed action is in compliance with the Act.

3.1.18 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act (RHA) of 1899, 33 U.S.C. §401-418

The following sections of the RHA apply to the action: Not Applicable

Finding: The proposed action would occur at Bonneville Lock and Dam. The Columbia River is under the jurisdiction of Section 10 of the RHA. The proposed action would not involve activities that would affect the navigability of the river because the proposed is a maintenance activity that will take place on dam structures away from the navigation channel. Therefore, the proposed action is in compliance with this Act.

3.1.19 Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996 (SDWA), 42 U.S.C. §300(f) et seq.

Finding: The proposed action will not endanger underground aquifers and will not result in any effects on the public drinking water supply. Therefore the proposed action is in compliance with this Act.

3.1.20 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) of 1968, 16 U.S.C. §§1271-1287

Finding: 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 nor will it result in effects to the outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar values.

Therefore, the Act is not applicable to the proposed action.

3.2 Compliance with Environmental and Cultural Resource Executive Orders

3.2.1 Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, 13 May 1971

Finding: The proposed action will not result in the degradation of any federally owned or non-federally owned historic or cultural environment. No sites, structures or objects of historical, architectural or archaeological significance will be adversely affected by the proposed action. Therefore, the proposed action is in compliance with this order.

3.2.2 Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, 24 May 1977

Finding: 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.

https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/NWP/PPPMD/ERB/SitePages/Wild%20and%20Scenic%20Rivers%20Act%20(WSRA).aspx https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/NWP/PPPMD/ERB/SitePages/EO%2011593,%20Protection%20and%20Enhancement%20of%20the%20Cultural%20Environment.aspx https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/NWP/PPPMD/ERB/SitePages/EO%2011593,%20Protection%20and%20Enhancement%20of%20the%20Cultural%20Environment.aspx https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/NWP/PPPMD/ERB/SitePages/EO%2011988,%20Floodplain%20Management.aspx

3.2.3 Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, 24 May 1977

Finding: The entirety of the proposed action work will take place on and within existing infrastructure and building facilities. The proposed action will have no effect on wetlands in the vicinity of the project area. Therefore, the Order is not applicable to the proposed action.

3.2.4 Executive Order 12114, Environmental effects abroad of major Federal actions, 04 January 1979

Finding: Refer to 4.2 Foreign Nations below for finding.

3.2.5 Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice, 11 February 1994

Finding: 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.

3.2.6 Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 6 November 2000

Finding: The proposed action is in compliance with this Order. Also refer to 4.1 Tribal Trust and Treaty Responsibilities below for explanation of finding.

3.2.7 Executive Order 13186, Migratory Birds, 10 January 2001

Finding: 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.

3.2.8 Executive Order 13287, Preserve America, 3 March 2003

Finding: The proposed action will not result in any significant changes or adverse effects to eligible or potentially eligible historic structures, cultural resources or historic properties located within the area of potential effect. Therefore, the proposed action is in compliance with the Order.

3.2.9 Executive Order 13751, Safeguarding the Nation From the Impacts of Invasive Species, 5 December 2016

Finding: The proposed action would have no potential to introduce, establish, or spread invasive species because associated activities would utilize best https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/NWP/PPPMD/ERB/SitePages/EO%2012898,%20Environmental%20Justice.aspx https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/NWP/PPPMD/ERB/SitePages/EO%2012114,%20Environmental%20effects%20abroad%20of%20major%20Federal%20actions.aspx https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/NWP/PPPMD/ERB/SitePages/EO%2012114,%20Environmental%20effects%20abroad%20of%20major%20Federal%20actions.aspx https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/NWP/PPPMD/ERB/SitePages/EO%2012898,%20Environmental%20Justice.aspx https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/NWP/PPPMD/ERB/SitePages/EO%2013186,%20Migratory%20Birds.aspx https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/NWP/PPPMD/ERB/SitePages/EO%2013287,%20Preserve%20America.aspx https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/NWP/PPPMD/ERB/SitePages/EO%2013751,%20Safeguarding%20the%20Nation%20from%20the%20Impacts%20of%20Invasive%20Species.aspx https://team.usace.army.mil/sites/NWP/PPPMD/ERB/SitePages/EO%2013751,%20Safeguarding%20the%20Nation%20from%20the%20Impacts%20of%20Invasive%20Species.aspx management practices such as equipment cleaning. Therefore, the proposed action would be in compliance with the Order.

4 Treaty Responsibilities

4.1 Tribal Trust and Treaty Responsibilities

Government-to-government consultation was not conducted with Federally recognized Tribes.

Finding: This project does not require government-to-government consultation and coordination under Executive Order 13175. It is not anticipated that the proposed action will have any substantial direct effects on any Tribes, nor will the activities have the potential to negatively affect protected Tribal resources and Tribal rights, including treaty rights, traditional or cultural properties and/or Tribal lands. Therefore, the proposed action is in compliance with the Order.

4.2 Foreign Nations

Finding: The proposed action will not impact foreign nations because the proposed activities associated with the undertaking will take place on U.S.

Government property and will not affect interests of any foreign nations.

5 Special conditions

Describe any special conditions required to ensure compliance of the Federal action with any of the laws above or explain why no special conditions are required.

5.1 Special condition No. 1

Special condition: Work will be completed within the approved in-water work window for Bonneville Dam

5.2 Special condition No. 2

Special condition: Project fish biologist will update FPOM group monthly until the project is complete.

5.3 Special condition No. 2

Special condition: Best management practices will be followed to avoid the spread of invasive species. Any equipment that enters the water will be cleaned prior to its use in water.

6 Compliance Determination

The proposed action is categorically excluded from NEPA per 33 CFR §230,(b) Activities at completed Corps projects which carry out the authorized project purposes.

Based upon the review of the action, the action complies with all applicable Federal cultural and environmental laws, regulations and executive orders , provided the permittee complies with the special conditions identified above. No extraordinary circumstances have been identified and no further NEPA analysis is required.

Prepared by:

Jess Jones Environmental Resource Specialist

Prepared by:

Daniel Mulligan District Archaeologist

Authorized By:

Christopher Page Environmental Resources Branch Chief

6 Compliance Determination