5 Fish Assessment

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

5 Fish Assessment 5 Fish Assessment 5.1 Introduction The subbasin assessment is a technical analysis to determine the biological potential of the subbasin and the opportunities for restoration. It describes the existing and historic resources, conditions, and characteristics within the subbasin with the emphasis on designated focal fish and wildlife species and focal habitat types. The bulk of the assessment work was was done by the Yakama Indian Nation and WDFW with support and involvement of Klickitat County and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 5.1.1 Fish Focal Species and Species of Interest Four fish species were selected as primary focal species for this planning effort: white sturgeon (LMM) and steelhead, fall chinook, and coho. Lamprey were selected as species of interest. Table 18 Fish focal species and their distribution within the Lower Mid-Columbia Mainstem subbasin Focal Species Distribution White Sturgeon Lower Mid-Columbia River Mainstem Summer Steelhead Lower Mid-Columbia River Mainstem, Rock Creek, Spanish Hollow, Fulton Canyon Fall Chinook Lower Mid-Columbia River Mainstem, Rock Creek Coho Lower Mid-Columbia River Mainstem, Rock Creek 5.1.2 Rationale for Selection of Focal Fish Species Focal species and species of interest were chosen with the following considerations: 1) status under the Endangered Species Act; 2) ecological significance; 3) cultural significance; 4) US v. Oregon guidance. The determinations made by the aquatic technical committee to identify a species as a ‘Focal Species’ or ‘Species of Interest’ were made in consideration of the above factors as well as the amounts and types of information available. In addition, the committee limited the scope of focal species selection to a number of species that could be assessed within the limited time available. Table 19 Focal Species and Criteria Used For Selection in LMM subbasin Fall Focal Species Criteria Steelhead/Rainbow Coho White Sturgeon Chinook ESA Status Threatened None None None US v Oregon Significance Yes Yes Yes Yes Has Ecological Significance Yes Yes Yes Yes Has Cultural Significance Yes Yes Yes Yes Anadromous and/or Resident A and R A A A The following species were chosen as species of interest: 150 Table 20 Species of Interest and Criteria Used for Selection Focal Species Criteria Pacific Lamprey ESA Status None US v Oregon Significance No Has Ecological Significance Yes Has Cultural Significance Yes Anadromous and/or Resident A 151 Figure 19 General location map for Lower Mid-Columbia Mainstem Subbasin 152 5.2 White Sturgeon Rationale for Selection White sturgeon (Acipenser transmontnus) are the largest of the North American sturgeon and the largest freshwater fish found in North America. Historically, a majority of these fish in the Columbia were anadromous, inhabiting the Columbia River from the mouth upstream into Canada, the Snake River upstream to Shoshone Falls and the Kootenai River upstream to Kootenai Falls (Miller et al, 2004, Scott and Crossman 1973). White sturgeon are found in the lower Mid-Columbia mainstem of the Columbia River, they are a culturally and economically significant species, and there is limited information regarding this species in the lower mid- Columbia mainstem of the Columbia River. For these reasons, white sturgeon were selected as a focal species for subbasin planning in the Lower Mid-Columbia Mainstem Subbasin Plan. Key Life History Strategies, Relationship to Habitat Historically, it is believed that a majority of white sturgeon in the Columbia River were anadromous. However, the construction of hydropower dams throughout the Columbia River Basin has resulted in fragmented populations of white sturgeon throughout the Basin. Miller et. al, (USGS Website 2004) identify three distinct populations of white sturgeon in the Columbia River, those below the lowest dam (Bonneville) with access to the ocean, fish isolated between dams (as in the Lower Mid-Columbia Mainstem), and fish in several large tributaries. Although research is limited, existing studies indicate that the dams have not only blocked upstream access for spawning and feeding, but have also impacted the amount and location of spawning habitat and may have altered food availability, natural flow patterns, and water temperatures. Sturgeon spawn in the Columbia River from May to July in water temperatures of between 48 and 63 degrees F (Wydoski and Whitney, 1979). In an aquaculture setting, maturation seems to be determined more by size than by age (PSMFC 1992). However, maturation in an aquaculture setting may not relate directly to maturation in the wild. Quoted from PSMFC (1992): In the wild, the size or age of first maturity is extremely variable. Wild males begin to mature at about 49 in (125 cm) and 26 lb (12 kg) as 12-year-old fish. In the Snake River, some males may mature at 28 in (71 cm) and about 2.4 lb (1 kg; Cochnauer 1981). Females require a longer period to mature, generally 15-32 years. A few fish mature as younger, smaller fish, but an increasing proportion of the population matures as size and age increase (Beamesderfer et al. 1989, 1990a). In the lower Columbia River 95% of female white sturgeon mature between 124 and 196 cm, corresponding to an age of 16 to 35 years (Welsh and Beamsesderfer 1993; DeVore et al. 1995). Welch and Beamesderfer (1993) estimated median length-at-maturity of 165 cm for female sturgeon in the Bonneville and The Dalles reservoirs, and 193 cm for female sturgeon in the John Day Reservoir. Fecundity of white sturgeon varies with size, Wydoski and Whitney report that a 95.5 lb sturgeon contained 1.7 million eggs but that total fecundity could be as high as 3 million eggs. In 153 a summary of the Columbia River sturgeon, Worldstar.com states that “spawning sturgeon generally avoid slack water for spawning preferring to deposit their eggs in rocky areas with fast flowing water”. Parsley et al (1993) state that spawning and egg incubation occurred in water velocities that ranged from .8 – 2.8 m/s over substrates that were generally cobble, boulder or bedrock. Parlsey and Beckman (1994) report that there is suitable spawning habitat in the tailraces of four lower Columbia River Dams (McNary, John Day, The Dalles, and Bonneville) and that the amount of suitable spawning habitat tends to increase with increased river flow. The relationship between river flow and young of the year indexes of recruitment (and therefore spawning success), is depicted in Figure 20. The incubation period of sturgeon eggs is 7-14 days, depending on water temperature (Bajkov 1951; Conte et al. 1988). Cultured broods tend to hatch synchronously (Conte et al. 1988). Hatching is complete within 20-48 hours (ODFW 2004a). Most hatching occurs in darkness in the laboratory and may represent adaptive avoidance of visual predators (Brannon et al. 1986). The optimum incubation temperature for subsequent larval viability in a culture situation is 52- 63o F (11-17o C). Higher temperatures of 17-20o C result in higher mortality and hatching at earlier developmental stages (ODFW 2004a). A recent hypothesis proposed by Coutant and cited in ODFW (2004a) suggests that riparian areas may provide important habitat for newly spawned eggs and emerging larvae. If substantiated, this theory could identify a limiting factor in white sturgeon spawning success. Riparian flooding is directly related to hydrograph operation and reservoir level. Parsley et al (1993) report that young of the year white sturgeon were found at depths of 9-57 m., at water velocities of 0.6 m/s or less, and over substrates of hard clay, mud, silt, sand, gravel and cobble. Fish passage upstream is very limited for white sturgeon. McCabe and Tracy report that young-of-the-year white sturgeon have been captured less than two months after spawning was estimated to have begun. Young sturgeon grow rapidly during their first summer, reaching a minimum mean total length of 176 mm and weight of 30 g by the end of September (McCabe and Tracy 1993). Juvenile (those over 1 year old) sturgeon were found by Parsley et al (1993) in water depths of 2-58 m., at water velocities of 1.2 m/s or less, and over substrates that consisted of hard clay, mud, silt, sand, gravel, cobble, bounder and bedrock. 154 1.0 Recomended minimum flow Bonn to provide spawning habitat The D in all three reservoirs John Flow 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 No Data Ep (proportion of positive YOY tows/sets) of positive Ep (proportion 0.0 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 YEAR 1.0 1996 0.8 1991 199 1998 0.6 1999 1995 1993 Ep=0.0037*Flow-0.44 2 0.4 1990 R =0.5814 nneville Reservoir only Reservoir nneville ortion of positive YOY tows) of positive ortion o p Figure 20 Recruitment index for white sturgeon (proportion of sets capturing one or more young-of-year fish) in Bonneville, The Dalles, and John Day reservoirs, and average daily flow at McNary Dam (April-July) Note: The Bonneville index is based on standardized trawl efforts 1989-2003. The Dalles and John Day indexes are based on standardized gill-net effort initiated in 1997. All information is preliminary. Relationship with Other Species Adult sturgeon in the Columbia River have been reported to feed on clams, crayfish, smelt, suckers, northern pikeminnows, sockeye salmon, and Pacific lamprey, one stomach was reported to contain a house cat (Wydoski and Whitney, 1979). Sturgeon also ingest plant material but researchers believe that they ingest this plant material incidentally (Semakula and Larkin 1968; Cochnauer 1983). Juvenile white sturgeon feed primarily on algae and aquatic insects (PSMFC.Org, 2004).
Recommended publications
  • Chapter 2 Below and the Shoreline Analysis Report];
    C U M U L A T I V E I M P A C T S A NALYSIS Klickitat County’s Shoreline Master Plan Prepared for: Klickitat County 228 W Main Street Goldendale, WA 98620 Prepared by: April 2019 The Watershed Company Reference Number: 121201 Cite this document as: The Watershed Company. April 2019. Cumulative Impacts Analysis of Klickitat County’s Shoreline Master Plan. Prepared for Klickitat County, WA. The Watershed Company April 2019 T A B L E O F C ONTENTS Page # 1 Introduction ......................................................... 1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Document Approach and Overview ................................................................. 3 2 Summary of Existing Conditions ...................... 4 2.1 White Salmon (WRIA 29b) ................................................................................ 5 2.1.1 Environment .......................................................................................................... 5 2.1.2 Land Use ............................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Klickitat (WRIA 30) ............................................................................................ 6 2.2.1 Environment .......................................................................................................... 6 2.2.2 Land Use ............................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Rock
    [Show full text]
  • Final Umatilla Basin Water Supply Study for the Confederated Tribes
    FINAL UMATILLA BASIN WATER SUPPLY STUDY for the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Prepared by: U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region Boise, Idaho January 2012 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Protecting America's Great Outdoors and Powering Our Future The U.S. Department of the Interior protects America's natural resources and heritage, honors our cultures and tribal communities, and supplies the energy to power our future. MISSION OF THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. General location map. CONTENTS Introduction.............................................................................................................. 1 Study Background ..................................................................................................... 1 Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................. 2 History ................................................................................................................... 3 Appraisal-Level Water Supply Alternatives .................................................................. 4 Hydrology Baseline .................................................................................................... 5 WID Full Exchange ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Morrow County Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan
    MORROW COUNTY PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN This Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan was developed through a regional partnership funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Pre-Disaster Mitigation Competitive Grant Program. The Mid-Columbia Region grant was awarded in the fall of 2005 to support the development of natural hazard mitigation plans for communities in the region. The County utilized a planning process, plan framework, and plan development support provided by the Oregon Natural Hazards Workgroup (ONHW) at the University of Oregon’s Community Service Center. u.s. Department of Homeland Security Region X 130 228th Street, SW Bothell, WA 98021-9796 FEMA December 15,2006 Honorable Terry Tallman, Chair Honorable John Wenholz Honorable Ray Grace Morrow County Board ofCommissioners P.O. Box 788 Heppner, Oregon 97836 Dear Commissioners Tallman, Wenholz, and Grace: The U.S. Department ofHomeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has approved the Morrow County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan as a multi-jurisdictional local plan as outlined in 44 CFR Part 201. With approval ofthis plan, the following entities are now eligible to apply for the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Reliefand Emergency Assistance Act's hazard mitigation project grants through December 15,2011: Morrow County City oflone City of Boardman City of Irrigon City ofHeppner City ofLexington The plan's approval provides eligibility to apply for hazard mitigation projects through your state. Grant applications will be evaluated individually according to the specific eligibility and other requirements ofthe particular hazard mitigation grant program. For example, a mitigation project identified in the approved plan mayor may not meet the eligibility requirements for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funding.
    [Show full text]
  • Mcnary-John Day Transmission Line Project
    McNary-John Day Transmission Line Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement Bonneville Power Administration February 2002 McNary-John Day Transmission Line Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0332) Responsible Agency: Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Department of Interior: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Bureau of Indian Affairs. Department of Army: Corps of Engineers. States Involved: Oregon and Washington Abstract: Bonneville is proposing to construct, operate, and maintain a 79-mile-long 500-kilovolt- transmission line in Benton and Klickitat Counties, Washington, and Umatilla and Sherman counties, Oregon. The new line would start at Bonneville’s McNary Substation in Oregon and would cross the Columbia River just north of the substation into Washington. The line would then proceed west for about 70 miles along the Columbia River. At the John Day Dam, the line would again cross the Columbia River into Oregon and terminate at Bonneville’s John Day Substation. The new line would parallel existing transmission lines for the entire length; mostly within existing available right-of-way. Presently, the existing transmission lines in the area are operating at capacity. These lines help move power from the east side of the Cascades to the west side, where there is a high need for electricity (cities along the I-5 corridor). Because the Northwest has only recently recovered from a shortfall in electric energy supply and a volatile wholesale power market in which prices reached record highs, there are many new proposals for facilities to generate new power.
    [Show full text]
  • State Waterway Navigability Determination
    BODY OF WATER & LOCATION NAV CG NON-NAV CG REMARKS yellow highlight = apply to USCG for permit up to RM stipulated Alsea Bay, OR X Estuary of Pacific Ocean. Alsea River, OR X Flows into Alsea Bay, Waldport, OR. Navigable to mile 13. Ash Creek, OR X Tributary of Willamette River at Independence, OR. Barrett Slough, OR X Tributary of Lewis and Clark River. Bayou St. John, OR X Court decision, 1935 AMC 594, 10 Mile Lake, Coos County, OR. Bear Creek (Coos County), OR X Tributary of Coquille River (tidal at mile 0.5) Beaver Creek, OR X Tributary of Nestucca River. Beaver Slough, OR X See Clatskanie River. Big Creek (Lane County), OR X At U.S. 101 bridge (tidal). Big Creek (Lincoln County), OR X Flows into Pacific Ocean. Big Creek Slough, OR X Upstream end at Knappa, OR (tidal). At site of Birch Creek (Sparks) Bridge on Canyon Road near Birch Creek, OR X Pendleton, OR. Side channel of Yaquina River. 3 mi. downstream from Toledo, Blind Slough, OR X OR (tidal). Tributary of Knappa Slough. 10 mi. upstream from Astoria, OR Blind Slough/ Gnat Creek, OR X (tidal at mile 2.0). Boone Slough, OR X Tributary of Yaquina River between Newport and Toledo, OR. Side channel of Willamette River. 3 miles upstream from Booneville Channel, OR X Corvallis, OR. Boulder Creek, OR X 7 miles N of Lake Quinalt. Side channel of Columbia River. 5 miles N of Clatskanie, OR Bradbury Slough, OR X (tidal). Brownlee Reservoir, ID /OR X See Snake River. Also known as South Channel.
    [Show full text]
  • Planning for Tomorrow Sherman County, Oregon
    Planning for Tomorrow Sherman County, Oregon 1967 Long Range Planning Conference Contents Page MARKETING AND Introduction 3 TRANSPORTATION Sherman County, Oregon 4 Page Roads 26 PUBLIC AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS State Highways 26 Recreation 5 County Roads 27 Irrigation 5 Grain Grades and Quality 28 Industry 5 Market Information 29 Legislation 6 Marketing Service Organizations29 Public Relations 6 Local Business 6 WATER RESOURCE Industrial Development 6 DEVELOPMENT Chart on Sherman County Population Data and Trend 7 Irrigation 32 County Government 8 Ground Water Survey 33 County Planning Commission 8 Soil Conservation Projects 33 Pumping Sites 33 COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT State and Federal Projects 34 Libraries 9 Long-Range Forecast 34 Museum 9 The Community 10 LIVESTOCK AND RANGE Housing 10 Beef Cattle 35 Summary 10 Hogs 36 Horses 36 RECREATION AND SPORTS Range 36 Park and Recreation Planning 11 Summary 37 Park Development 11 Chart on Sherman Counnty LAND USE AND CROPS Waterfront Development 12 Tennis Courts 13 Crop Production 38 Swimming Pool 13 Insect Problems 38 Summary 14 Plant Disease Control 38 Fertilizer Programs 39 YOUTH AND FAMILY LIFE Variety Testing 39 Youth Center 15 Barley and Spring Wheat 39 Swimming Pool 15 Seed Quality 40 New Families 15 Irrigated Crops 40 Summer Program for Youngsters16Soil Conservation 40 3uvenile Court 16 Dryland Farming 40 Emotional Problems of Youth 16 Conservation Practice Adoption40 Culture 17 Research and Demonstration Senior Citizens 17 Needs 41 Home Extension 17 Conservation Coordination, Tech- HEALTH AND
    [Show full text]
  • FY2014 FCRPS Annual Report-3-4-15
    Bonneville Power Administration Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Army Corps of Engineers FISCAL YEAR 2014 ANNUAL REPORT Under the Systemwide Programmatic Agreement for Management of Historic Properties Affected by Multipurpose Operations of Fourteen Projects of the Federal Columbia River Power System for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act March 31, 2015 Lake Roosevelt - 2014 FY2014 Annual Report Under the FCRPS Systemwide Programmatic Agreement for the Management of Historic Properties – March 31, 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................................... v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... ES-1 1.0 PURPOSE AND INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1 2.0 FCRPS CULTURAL RESOURCE PROGRAM COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 106 NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT ......................... 1 2.1 Section 106 NHPA Compliance – Archaeological and Historic Sites, and Standing Historic Structures....................................................................................... 2 2.2 Determination of the Project-Specific Portion of the Area of Potential Effects ........ 2 2.3 Identification of Historic Properties (Inventory) ........................................................ 4 2.4 Evaluation of Historic Significance ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Gi Lliam County
    GI LLIAM COUNTY Gilliam County Cecil Children Cecil Children Janice M Healy (2000) Janice M. Healy (2000) Oregon Burial Site Guide Gilliam County Area: 1,223 square miles Population ( I 998): 2,023 County seat: Condon, Population: 790 County established: 25 February 1885 The earliest established public cemetery in Gilliam County was apparently Blalock in 1880. This was during the construction of the trans-continental railway to Portland. Gilliam County then began to be populated by settlers who engaged in wheat and livestock ranching. There was some lumbering in the far south of the county. The 1880's saw the establishment of most of the public cemeteries. Cecil Children Janice M Healy (2000) 317 Oregon Burial Site Guide Gilliam County 318 Oregon Burial Site Guide Gilliam County 319 Oregon Burial Site Guide Gilliam County Cecil Children Janice M. Healy (2oco) 320 Oregon Burial Site Guide Gilliam County Name of Cemetery and also known . I Number of burials Arra Coniston pate started or earriest known burial I Township I Range I Section ARLINGTON D 3.38 1 1882 T3N R21E S28 AKA: 1. MASONIC Leave the 1-84 Freeway and turn onto OR. Hwy. 19 (Locust Street) into town. Turn right off of Locust Street onto Main Street, go about 0.6 of a mile up the hill to the cemetery below the water tower. You will pass the Elementary and High Schools. (Arlington 1971 USGS Quad. map.) BLALOCK 8.75 8 1880-1895 T3N R19E S36 Now underwater in Lake Umatilla. In 1960 all known graves (16) were moved to the Arlington Cemetery as the John Day Dam was being constructed.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia Improvement District Winter Pump Station Biological Opinion
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE West Coast Region 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100 Portland, Oregon 97232-1274 https://doi.org/10.25923/d18z-wn92 Refer to NMFS No: WCRO-2020-01767 October 20, 2020 William D. Abadie Chief, Regulatory Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District P.O. Box 2946 Portland, OR 97208-2946 Re: Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion and Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Response for the Columbia Improvement District Winter Pump Station Project, Lake Umatilla (HUC #170701010601), Columbia River, Morrow County, Oregon. Dear Mr. Abadie: Thank you for your letter of June 30, 2020 requesting initiation of consultation with NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) for the Columbia Improvement District (CID) Winter Pump Station Project. This consultation was conducted in accordance with the 2019 revised regulations that implement section 7 of the ESA (50 CFR 402, 84 FR 45016). Thank you, also, for your request for consultation pursuant to the essential fish habitat (EFH) provisions in Section 305(b) of the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act [16 U.S.C. 1855(b)] for this action. NMFS also reviewed the likely effects of the proposed action on EFH, pursuant to section 305(b) of the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act [16 U.S.C. 1855(b)], and concluded that the action would adversely affect the EFH of Pacific Coast salmon.
    [Show full text]
  • Mcnary and Umatilla National Wildlife Refuges
    McNary and Umatilla National Wildlife Refuges Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment Prepared by: Mid-Columbia River National Wildlife Refuge Complex 3250 Port of Benton Boulevard Richland, Washington 99354 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Northwest Planning Team 911 NE 11th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97232 December 2006 Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction and Background 1.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Proposed Action.............................................................................................................1-1 1.3 Purpose and Need for Action.........................................................................................1-2 1.4 Content and Scope of Plan.............................................................................................1-3 1.5 Refuge System Laws and Directives .............................................................................1-3 1.6 Establishment and Purposes of McNary and Umatilla Refuges....................................1-7 1.7 Relationship to Previous and Future Refuge Plans......................................................1-13 1.8 Relationship to Other Ecosystem Planning Efforts .....................................................1-15 1.9 Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities............................................................................1-18 1.10 Refuge Vision ............................................................................................................1-19
    [Show full text]
  • Petition for Rulemaking
    BEFORE THE OREGON WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION PETITION FOR RULE AMENDMENT I. INTRODUCTION The undersigned conservation, family farm, public health, rural advocacy, animal welfare, and wildlife protection organizations (Petitioners)—on behalf of themselves and their thousands of members and supporters in the State of Oregon—file this Petition for Rule Amendment (Petition) pursuant to ORS 183.390(1), OAR 137-001-0070, and OAR 690-001-0005, to request that the Oregon Water Resources Commission (Commission) amend its 1976 Findings, Conclusions, and Order on the Question of Determination of a Critical Ground Water Area in the Ordnance Area, Morrow and Umatilla Counties, Oregon (Order) to prohibit, as of the date of this Petition, new or expanded use of groundwater in excess of 5,000 gallons per day under the stockwatering exemption1 in the Ordnance Basalt Critical Groundwater Area (Basalt CGWA) and the Ordnance Gravel Critical Groundwater Area (Gravel CGWA) (collectively, Ordnance CGWAs).2 II. PETITIONERS Stand Up to Factory Farms is an Oregon-based coalition of local, state, and national organizations concerned about the harmful impacts of mega-dairies3 on Oregon’s family farms, communities, environment, and animal welfare. Among our concerns about new and expanding mega-dairies are significant new uses of groundwater that the Order currently allows under the stockwatering exemption to state permitting requirements, which allows new groundwater permits in groundwater-restricted areas otherwise closed to new groundwater permits, and prevents the new uses from being reviewed for impacts to public welfare, safety, and health.4 Stand Up to Factory Farms comprises the following organizations: Columbia Riverkeeper, Food & Water Watch, WaterWatch of Oregon, Friends of Family 1 ORS 537.545(1)(a).
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia Gorge Renewable Energy Balancing Project, FERC No
    DOCKETED Docket 15-MISC-05 Number: Project Title: 2015 Bulk Storage Workshop TN #: 206775 Document Nate Sandvig Comments: Bulk Storage Follow Up - Columbia Gorge Title: Renewable Energy Balancing Project, FERC No. P-14729 Description: N/A Filer: System Organization: Nate Sandvig Submitter Public Role: Submission 11/25/2015 8:53:32 AM Date: Docketed 11/25/2015 Date: Comment Received From: Nate Sandvig Submitted On: 11/25/2015 Docket Number: 15-MISC-05 Bulk Storage Follow Up - Columbia Gorge Renewable Energy Balancing Project, FERC No. P-14729 Additional submitted attachment is included below. 20151103-5267 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/2/2015 6:50:17 PM Clean Power Development, LLC PO Box 5734 Portland, OR 97228 Electronic Filing November 2, 2015 Honorable Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20426 RE: Clean Power Development, LLC’s Application for Preliminary Permit for the proposed Columbia Gorge Renewable Energy Balancing Project Dear Secretary Bose: Pursuant to 18 CFR §§ 4.32 and 4.81 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (“FERC” or “Commission”) regulations, enclosed for filing is the Application for Preliminary Permit for the proposed Columbia Gorge Renewable Energy Balancing Project (“Project”) from Clean Power Development, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company (“Applicant”). As explained in this Application, Applicant proposes to develop a “closed-loop” pumped storage hydroelectric generating facility located primarily on private and a small portion of federal land in Klickitat County, Washington. Applicant is dedicated to the need for reliability of an affordable clean power supply in decarbonizing the power system, and Applicant is submitting this Application for Preliminary Permit in order to secure and maintain priority in the FERC licensing process, while undertaking activities and working with key stakeholders to determine the economic viability and feasibility of the proposed energy storage project to support an application for a license.
    [Show full text]