167 



jurisdiction and expertise with regard to some aspect of the SOR, are cooperating 

 agencies contributing analysis, information, and reconunendations where appropriate. 



How is the SOR Being Conducted? 



A three-stage process-scoping, screening, and full-scale aiuilysis-was developed to 

 address the many issues relevant to the SOR. At the core of the ai\alysis process are 10 

 work groups comprised of members of the lead and cooperating agencies, state and 

 local government agencies, representatives of Indicm tribes, and members of the public. 

 Each of these work groups had a single river use (resource) to consider. Several other 

 work groups were subsequently formed to provide projectwide functions, such as 

 economic analysis. These resource work groups could choose to develop (1) an 

 alternative for project and system operations that would provide the greatest benefit to 

 its river use, and (2) one or more alternatives that, while not ideal, would provide an 

 acceptable envirorunent for its river use. Additional alternatives came from scoping for 

 the SOR and from other institutional sources within the region. A total of 90 system 

 operation alternatives were studied in the initial analysis. Preliminary ar\alysis and 

 review ultimately eliminated many of these alternatives from further coi\sideration. 

 The entire process started with scoping, and moved through screening and full-scale 

 analysis as briefly described below. 



Scoping/Pilot Study-Following public meetings in 14 cities around the region, and 

 coordination with local, state, and Federal agencies and Indian tribes, the lead 

 agencies established the geographic and jurisdictional scope of the study and defined 

 the issues that would drive the EIS. The geographic area for the study is the 

 Columbia River Basin (Figure P-1 The jurisdictional scope of the SOR encompasses 

 the 14 Federal projects on the Columbia and lower Snake rivers that are operated by 

 the Corps and Reclamation and coordinated for hydropower under the PNCA. BPA 

 markets the power produced at these facilities. A pilot study examining three 

 alternatives in four resource areas was completed to test the proposed analytical 

 method. 



Screening-Work groups, involving regional experts and Federal agency staff, were 

 created for 10 resource areas and several support functions. The work groups then 

 developed computer screening models and applied them to the 90 alternatives that 

 were identified during this phase. They compared the impacts to a baseline 

 operating year-1992-and ranked each alternative according to its impact on their 

 resource or river use. Results were reviewed with the public in a series of regional 

 meetings in September 1992. 



Full-scale Analysis-From the results of screening and public comment, the 

 alternatives were sorted, categorized, and blended into six basic operating strategies. 

 These alternative strategies, which have multiple component options, were then 

 subjected to detailed impact analysis. The results and tradeoffs for each resource 

 area are contained in a technical appendix and summarized in the draft EIS. 



Final Draff - September 15, 1993 



