Bpa

MEMORANDUM

1. It’s generally sufficient for an environmental assessment (EA) to consider only a no-action and preferred alternative. Earth Island Inst. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 697 F.3d 1010, 1021-22 (9th Cir. 2012). But see W. Watersheds Project v. Abbey, 719 F.3d 1035, 1051-53 (9th Cir. 2013) (finding deficient an EA that considered one no-aetion alternative and three action alternatives). The EA at issue considers no-action and preferred alternatives at length. It also explains that two other alternatives did not merit extended consideration because they weren’t feasible. See Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Salazar, 695 F.3d 893, 916 (9th Cir. 2012). And the preferred alternative contains various measures aimed at “[minimizing impacts [of flexible winter power operations] by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.20 (b) (defining mitigation). Finally, the EA explains that the agencies rejected proposed monitoring and mitigation strategies because BPA already engages in monitoring and mitigation for existing operations at the Dam. Accordingly, BPA’s failure to discuss a monitoring and mitigation alternative in the EA was not arbitrary and capricious.…