DOCSLIB.ORG

Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan UMATILLA COUNTY NNAATTUURRAALL HHAAZZAARRDD MMIITTIIGGAATTIIOONN PPLLAANN 2009, Amended Revision Date: April 17, 2014 Department of Land Use Planning 216 SE 4th ST | Pendleton, OR 97801 Voice: (541) 278-6252 | Fax: (541) 278-5480 www.co.umatilla.or.us Umatilla County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Report for: Jack Remillard, Umatilla County Umatilla County, Oregon Emergency Management *Ray Denny, CTUIR Emergency Update Prepared by: Services Tamra Mabbott, Planning Director *Larry Givens, Umatilla County Richard Jennings, Senior Planner Commissioner Jack Remillard, Emergency Manager Other Special Thanks: Adopted by Board of Commissioners on Josh Bruce, University of Oregon, April 17, 2014 via Board Order, BCC- Oregon Partnership for Disaster 2014-031. Resilience Will Clark, University of Oregon, Resource Assistance to Rural Environments Special Thanks & Acknowledgements: Update 2013 Steering Committee: Pat Hart, Fire Chief, Hermiston Fire and 2009 Plan Prepared by: Emergency Services JR Cook, Assistant Planning Director John Buckman, Oregon Department of Forestry Ray Denny – Emergency Manager Les Miller, U.S. Army Corps. Of Engineers Adopted by Board of Commissioners on Dennis Hull, National Oceanic & June 30, 2009 via Board Order, Atmospheric Administration BCC2009-042. Brian Goff, Umatilla National Forest, Fire Staff Officer Tom Straughan, Oregon Department of Agriculture, UCSWCD Craig Williams, NORPAC/Hermiston Foods/LEPC Brian Wolcott, Walla Walla Watershed Council Doug Paine, Good Shepherd Health Systems/LEPC Gary Woodson, Pendleton Fire Chief Darrin Umbarger, Clear View Mediation and Disability Res Center Linda Hall, City of Milton Freewater Rivers ...................................................... 32 Climate .................................................... 34 Hazard Severity ....................................... 36 Table of Contents Summary ................................................. 36 3.03 SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CAPACITY .... 37 Population............................................... 37 CHAPTER 1. PLANNING PROCESS ........... 1 Education ................................................ 48 Income..................................................... 49 1.01 PLANNING PARTICIPATION ................. 1 Health and Safety .................................... 53 Mitigation Plan Steering Committee ......... 1 Summary ................................................. 55 1.02 MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL PLANNING 3.04 REGIONAL ECONOMIC CAPACITY .... 56 EFFORT 2 Regional Affordability ............................. 56 1.03 PLANNING PROCESS ........................... 3 Economic Diversity ................................. 57 1.04 MISSION ............................................. 3 Employment and Wages .......................... 60 1.05 MITIGATION PLAN GOALS .................. 3 Industry ................................................... 63 1.06 MITIGATION PLAN FACILITATION ....... 4 Labor and Commute Shed ....................... 68 Coordinating Body .................................... 4 Summary ................................................. 69 Convener .................................................... 4 3.05 BUILT CAPACITY ............................. 71 1.07 MITIGATION PLAN ADOPTION AND Housing Building Stock .......................... 71 IMPLEMENTATION ........................................... 4 Physical Infrastructure ........................... 73 Mitigation Plan Adoption .......................... 4 Gas Service ............................................. 79 1.08 MONITORING, EVALUATING AND Telecommunications ............................... 79 UPDATING THE MITIGATION PLAN .................. 6 Sewer, Land Fill and Industrial Waste ... 79 Formal Review Process ............................. 6 Summary ................................................. 82 City Addenda ............................................. 6 3.06 COMMUNITY CONNECTIVITY Semi-Annual Meeting................................. 6 CAPACITY .................................................... 83 Five-Year Review of Plan .......................... 7 Social Organizations ............................... 83 Continued Public Involvement ................... 7 Cultural Resources.................................. 85 1.09 MITIGATION STRATEGIES ................... 8 3.07 COMMUNITY STABILITY .................. 88 Mitigation Plan Action Items ..................... 8 Residential Geographic Stability ............ 88 Action Item Prioritization .......................... 8 Summary ................................................. 89 Economic Analysis of Mitigation Projects . 9 3.08 POLITICAL CAPITAL ......................... 90 Seeking Grant Funding ............................ 10 Government Structure ............................. 90 CHAPTER 2. UMATILLA COUNTY Existing Plan & Policies ......................... 92 ACTION PLAN .............................................. 12 Summary ................................................. 93 2.01 MULTI-HAZARD ACTION ITEM 13 CHAPTER 4. RISK ASSESSMENT ............ 94 2.02 WILDFIRE ACTION ITEMS ......... 15 4.01 DEFINITION OF A RISK ASSESSMENT 94 2.03 FLOOD ACTION ITEMS ............... 17 4.02 FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR A RISK 2.04 SEVERE SUMMER STORM ASSESSMENT ................................................ 94 ACTION ITEMS .......................................... 19 4.03 COMPONENTS OF THE RISK 2.05 SEVERE WINTER STORM ASSESSMENT ................................................ 95 ACTION ITEMS .......................................... 20 4.04 RISK ASSESSMENT ANALYSIS.......... 96 2.06 EARTHQUAKE ACTION ITEMS . 21 4.05 COMMUNITY HAZARD RISK 2.07 VOLCANO ACTION ITEMS ......... 22 ASSESSMENT SUMMARY .............................. 99 2.08 LANDSLIDE/DEBRIS FLOW Hazard Definitions .................................. 99 ACTION ITEMS .......................................... 23 Identified Hazards ................................. 103 2.09 DROUGHT ACTION ITEMS ........ 24 CHAPTER 5. NATURAL HAZARDS CHAPTER 3. COMMUNITY PROFILE ..... 25 PROFILE ..................................................... 106 3.01 WHY PLAN FOR NATURAL HAZARDS 5.01 MULTI-HAZARD ....................... 108 IN UMATILLA COUNTY? ................................ 26 Existing Multi-Hazard Programs, Response 3.02 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT CAPACITY26 and Mitigation Activities ....................... 110 Geography ............................................... 26 Multi-Hazard (MH) Action Items .......... 113 Level Four Eco-regions ........................... 30 5.02 WILDFIRE ................................... 117 Existing Wildfire Protection and Mitigation CWPP, MILL CREEK CWPP AND WEST Activities ................................................ 121 COUNTY CWPP ......................................... 230 Wildfire (WF) Action Items .................... 125 APPENDIX C: UMATILLA COUNTY FLOOD 5.03 FLOOD ......................................... 130 MITIGATION PLAN 2006 ............................. 231 Flood History ......................................... 132 APPENDIX D: FLOOD FIGHT REPORT AND Existing Flood Protection and Mitigation 2003 REVISIONS ......................................... 232 Activities ................................................ 138 APPENDIX E: STAKEHOLDER SURVEYS – Flood (FL) Action Items ........................ 140 COLLECTED IN 2009 ................................... 233 5.04 SEVERE SUMMER STORM ....... 144 (SE ............................................................. 233 Dust Storms ............................................ 144 APPENDIX F: NATURAL HAZARD Severe Summer Storm History ............... 144 MITILIGGATION PLAN – PLANNING Existing Summer Storm Protection and CHORNOLOGY ............................................ 234 Mitigation Activities ............................... 147 APPENDIX G: OPDR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Severe Summer Storm (SS) Action Items 151 OF NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PROJECTS 5.05 SEVERE WINTER STORM ......... 153 IN 2009....................................................... 235 Severe Winter Storm History ................. 153 CHAPTER 10. CITY ADDENDUMS ........ 236 Existing Winter Storm Response and Mitigation Activities ............................... 157 ADDENDUM 1: CITY OF ADAMS, ADOPTED Severe Winter Storm (WS) Action Items . 161 APRIL 14, 2009 .......................................... 237 5.06 EARTHQUAKE ........................... 163 ADDENDUM 2: CITY OF PILOT ROCK, Earthquake History ................................ 165 ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 1, 2009 .................... 238 Existing Earthquake Response and 5.10 ............................................................ 238 Mitigation Activities ............................... 167 ADDENDUM 3: CITY OF UMATILLA, Earthquake Vulnerability Assessment .... 167 ADOPTED JULY 2, 2009 .............................. 239 Earthquake (EQ) Action Items ............... 172 5.07 VOLCANO ................................... 173 Existing Volcano Response and Mitigation Activities ................................................ 175 Volcano (VC) Action Items .................... 175 5.08 LANDSLIDE/DEBRIS FLOW ..... 176 Landslide History ................................... 176 Existing Landslide Response and Mitigation Activities ............................... 178 Landslide (LS) Action Items ................... 179 5.09 DROUGHT ................................... 180 Drought History ..................................... 182 Existing Drought Response end Mitigation Activities ................................................ 186 Drought (DR) Action Items ...................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hay Creek WSC Assessment.Pdf
    Gilliam County Hay Creek/Scott Canyon Watershed Assessment • i Hay Creek / Scott Canyon Watershed Assessment Prepared by the Gilliam County Natural Resources Department for the Hay Creek/Scott Canyon Working Group Principal Author: Sue Greer, Contract Watershed Assessment Staff with assistance from: Susie Anderson, Watershed Coordinator, Gilliam-East John Day Watershed Council George Meyers, SWCD Watershed Technical Specialist June, 2003 Gilliam County Hay Creek/Scott Canyon Watershed Assessment • ii Hay Creek & Scott Canyon Watershed Gilliam County, Oregon Scott Canyon Highway 19 N Highway 206 Hay Creek Watershed Scott Canyon Watershed Stream Flow County Roads State Highways Condon Gilliam County Hay Creek/Scott Canyon Watershed Assessment • iii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION Goals and Objectives of Hay Creek / Scott Canyon Working Group. 1 Agencies & Jurisdictions. 2 Legislation and Management Plans . 4 CHAPTER 2 – WATERSHED OVERVIEW Watershed Description. 5 Ecoregions . 6 Land Ownership . 7 Land Use . 7 Noxious & Invasive Weeds . 8 Fish & Wildlife . 9 Population . 9 Climate & Precipitation . 9 Vegetation Zones . 11 Soils . 12 CHAPTER 3 – HISTORICAL CONDITIONS Historical Timeline. 16 Introduction . 17 Geology. 17 Climate . 18 Vegetation. 18 Native American Use. 19 Presence of Fish & Wildlife. 20 Natural Disturbance Patterns . 20 Settlement . 21 Livestock & Farming . 22 Roads & Rails. 23 City Water Supply. 23 CHAPTER 4 – CHANNEL HABITAT TYPES & CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY Introduction . 25 Methods . 25 Potential of Restoration basis CHTs. 26 CHT Description & Analysis . 27 Fish Barriers. 29 CHAPTER 5 – HYDROLOGY & WATER USE Introduction . 31 History . 31 Peak Stream Flows . 32 Water Rights . 32 Ground Water. 33 Road Density . 34 Gilliam County Hay Creek/Scott Canyon Watershed Assessment • iv CHAPTER 6 – SEDIMENT SOURCES Introduction .
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Basalts and Glacier Floods—Roadside Geology
    u 0 by Robert J. Carson and Kevin R. Pogue WASHINGTON DIVISION OF GEOLOGY AND EARTH RESOURCES Information Circular 90 January 1996 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTOF Natural Resources Jennifer M. Belcher - Commissioner of Public Lands Kaleen Cottingham - Supervisor FLOOD BASALTS AND GLACIER FLOODS: Roadside Geology of Parts of Walla Walla, Franklin, and Columbia Counties, Washington by Robert J. Carson and Kevin R. Pogue WASHINGTON DIVISION OF GEOLOGY AND EARTH RESOURCES Information Circular 90 January 1996 Kaleen Cottingham - Supervisor Division of Geology and Earth Resources WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Jennifer M. Belcher-Commissio11er of Public Lands Kaleeo Cottingham-Supervisor DMSION OF GEOLOGY AND EARTH RESOURCES Raymond Lasmanis-State Geologist J. Eric Schuster-Assistant State Geologist William S. Lingley, Jr.-Assistant State Geologist This report is available from: Publications Washington Department of Natural Resources Division of Geology and Earth Resources P.O. Box 47007 Olympia, WA 98504-7007 Price $ 3.24 Tax (WA residents only) ~ Total $ 3.50 Mail orders must be prepaid: please add $1.00 to each order for postage and handling. Make checks payable to the Department of Natural Resources. Front Cover: Palouse Falls (56 m high) in the canyon of the Palouse River. Printed oo recycled paper Printed io the United States of America Contents 1 General geology of southeastern Washington 1 Magnetic polarity 2 Geologic time 2 Columbia River Basalt Group 2 Tectonic features 5 Quaternary sedimentation 6 Road log 7 Further reading 7 Acknowledgments 8 Part 1 - Walla Walla to Palouse Falls (69.0 miles) 21 Part 2 - Palouse Falls to Lower Monumental Dam (27.0 miles) 26 Part 3 - Lower Monumental Dam to Ice Harbor Dam (38.7 miles) 33 Part 4 - Ice Harbor Dam to Wallula Gap (26.7 mi les) 38 Part 5 - Wallula Gap to Walla Walla (42.0 miles) 44 References cited ILLUSTRATIONS I Figure 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Interior Columbia Basin Mollusk Species of Special Concern
    Deixis l-4 consultants INTERIOR COLUMl3lA BASIN MOLLUSK SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN cryptomasfix magnidenfata (Pilsbly, 1940), x7.5 FINAL REPORT Contract #43-OEOO-4-9112 Prepared for: INTERIOR COLUMBIA BASIN ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROJECT 112 East Poplar Street Walla Walla, WA 99362 TERRENCE J. FREST EDWARD J. JOHANNES January 15, 1995 2517 NE 65th Street Seattle, WA 98115-7125 ‘(206) 527-6764 INTERIOR COLUMBIA BASIN MOLLUSK SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN Terrence J. Frest & Edward J. Johannes Deixis Consultants 2517 NE 65th Street Seattle, WA 98115-7125 (206) 527-6764 January 15,1995 i Each shell, each crawling insect holds a rank important in the plan of Him who framed This scale of beings; holds a rank, which lost Would break the chain and leave behind a gap Which Nature’s self wcuid rue. -Stiiiingfieet, quoted in Tryon (1882) The fast word in ignorance is the man who says of an animal or plant: “what good is it?” If the land mechanism as a whole is good, then every part is good, whether we understand it or not. if the biota in the course of eons has built something we like but do not understand, then who but a fool would discard seemingly useless parts? To keep every cog and wheel is the first rule of intelligent tinkering. -Aido Leopold Put the information you have uncovered to beneficial use. -Anonymous: fortune cookie from China Garden restaurant, Seattle, WA in this “business first” society that we have developed (and that we maintain), the promulgators and pragmatic apologists who favor a “single crop” approach, to enable a continuous “harvest” from the natural system that we have decimated in the name of profits, jobs, etc., are fairfy easy to find.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington Geology Released Since [Project Chief: W
    ·- July 1983 Volume 11 Number 3 Washington Geologic Newsletter · . Lovitt mine, near Wenatchee, Chelan County, Washington, 1977. Photo by Jack Jansons BRIAN J . BOYLE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS ART STEARNS, Supervisor RAYMOND LASMANIS, State Geologist DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF GEOLOGY AND EARTH RESOURCES Marlin Woy - To Porllond n Exit IOs·• [" GEOLOGY ANO /. t Roctl)11onl•t ... Solllh EARTH ~CES i..-<-....<....<c.L..'-'-! !! 0 I u Sound .. C 'Entrance- Moll Elf!H~~• · 0Poulsot\S. Mortin\ s,. : ••••• ,Porklno .....~ :....... ----. ........... .................... • • • • •• • • • • Coll•o• Z ·········o····· ... 4224 6th Ave. S.E., Lacey, Washington in Albortson• MAILING ADDRESS: Department of Natural Resources Division of Geology and Earth Resources Olympia, WA 98504 (206) 459-6372 Field office address: Department of Natural Resources Division of Geology and Earth Resources Spokane County Agricultural Center N. 222 Havana Spokane, WA 99202 ( 509) 458-2038 Lauta Btay, Editor The Washington Geologic Newsletter, a quarterly report of geologlc articles, Ts published by the Division of Geology and Earth Resources, Department of Natural Resources. The newsletter is free upon request. The division also publishes bulletins, information circulars, and geologic maps. A list of these publicatiOflS will be sent upon request. .. THE WENATCHEE GOLD RUSH by Bonnie Bunning* INTRODUCTION from the D ''reef" between 1949 and 1967. For a long time the ore was shipped directly to the Tacoma smelter On March 4, 19831 when Breakwater Resources LLd. where a substantial credit for the siliceous ores (used as and Asamera Minerals, Inc., made their exciting gold find flux in the smelter) helped make t he mine profitable. In public, companies and individuals from Canada and the 1961, Day Mines, Inc., and Lovitt Mining Co.
    [Show full text]
  • Gilliam County Emergency Management
    Gilliam County Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Prepared for: Gilliam County, Arlington, Condon, and Lonerock © 2013, University of Oregon’s Community Service Center Photos: Oregon State Archives Gilliam County Multi-jurisdictional Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Report for: Gilliam County City of Arlington City of Condon City of Lonerock 221 South Oregon Street Condon, Oregon 97823 Prepared by: University of Oregon’s Community Service Center: Resource Assistance to Rural Environments & Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience 1209 University of Oregon Eugene, Oregon 97403-1209 January 2013 (This page intentionally left blank) Special Thanks & Acknowledgements GilliAm County developed this NaturAl HazArds MitigAtion PlAn through A regionAl pArtnership funded by the Federal Emergency MAnAgement Agency’s Pre-DisAster MitigAtion Competitive GrAnt ProgrAm. FEMA AwArded the Mid-ColumbiA Gorge Region grAnt to support the update of naturAl hazArd mitigAtion plAns for eight counties in the region. The region’s plAnning process utilized A four-phased plAnning process, plAn templAtes And plAn development support provided by Resource AssistAnce for RurAl Environments (RARE) and the Oregon PArtnership for DisAster Resilience (OPDR) At the University of Oregon’s Community Service Center. This project would not have been possible without technicAl And financiAl support provided by the Mid-ColumbiA Council of Governments. Regional partners include: • Mid-ColumbiA Council of Governments • Oregon MilitAry DepArtment – Office of Emergency
    [Show full text]
  • The Missoula Flood
    THE MISSOULA FLOOD Dry Falls in Grand Coulee, Washington, was the largest waterfall in the world during the Missoula Flood. Height of falls is 385 ft [117 m]. Flood waters were actually about 260 ft deep [80 m] above the top of the falls, so a more appropriate name might be Dry Cataract. KEENAN LEE DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY AND GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES GOLDEN COLORADO 80401 2009 The Missoula Flood 2 CONTENTS Page OVERVIEW 2 THE GLACIAL DAM 3 LAKE MISSOULA 5 THE DAM FAILURE 6 THE MISSOULA FLOOD ABOVE THE ICE DAM 6 Catastrophic Flood Features in Eddy Narrows 6 Catastrophic Flood Features in Perma Narrows 7 Catastrophic Flood Features at Camas Prairie 9 THE MISSOULA FLOOD BELOW THE ICE DAM 13 Rathdrum Prairie and Spokane 13 Cheny – Palouse Scablands 14 Grand Coulee 15 Wallula Gap and Columbia River Gorge 15 Portland to the Pacific Ocean 16 MULTIPLE MISSOULA FLOODS 17 AGE OF MISSOULA FLOODS 18 SOME REFERENCES 19 OVERVIEW About 15 000 years ago in latest Pleistocene time, glaciers from the Cordilleran ice sheet in Canada advanced southward and dammed two rivers, the Columbia River and one of its major tributaries, the Clark Fork River [Fig. 1]. One lobe of the ice sheet dammed the Columbia River, creating Lake Columbia and diverting the Columbia River into the Grand Coulee. Another lobe of the ice sheet advanced southward down the Purcell Trench to the present Lake Pend Oreille in Idaho and dammed the Clark Fork River. This created an enormous Lake Missoula, with a volume of water greater than that of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario combined [530 mi3 or 2200 km3].
    [Show full text]
  • Walla Walla Subbasin Assessment
    Walla Walla Subbasin Assessment General Overview Components Prepared by: Walla Walla Basin Watershed Council Version 2: April 2004 Note: This document was not reviewed or approved by the Subbasin Planning Team, subbasin plan leads, co-managers, or subbasin technical staff. 1 Introduction History and Description of Planning Entity The organization for developing the Walla Walla River Subbasin Plan was comprised of the lead agencies, subcontractors, the Planning Team, the Technical Team, and other governmental and non-governmental organizations that will provide local input. The role of each member group is described below. Lead Agencies and Co-Lead Agency The lead agency for the Oregon portion of the Walla Walla subbasin was the Walla Walla Basin Watershed Council, with the Walla Walla Watershed Foundation serving as its fiscal agent. The co-lead entity for the Washington portion of the subbasin was Walla Walla County. The responsibility of co-leads was to oversee and initiate the planning process and ensure that it was an open and inclusive and there was proper outreach to and input from subbasin stakeholders. Subcontractors The Co-lead entities subcontracted with consultant(s) to perform the following functions: (1) facilitation assistance, (2) public involvement assistance, and (3) report preparation including technical assistance. The consultants’ roles were to facilitate and assist with the coordination of Technical and Planning Team and Working Group meetings. The consultants worked closely with the Technical and Planning Teams and the Working Group, and compiled, edited, and wrote (as appropriate) various sections of all draft and final versions of the assessment, inventory, and management plan components of the subbasin plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 7. Parks and Recreation Element
    1 Chapter 7. Parks and Recreation Element 2 7.1. Introduction 3 Parks, recreational facilities, and open space are generally considered beneficial resources and 4 essential contributors to a community’s quality of life. Located within the County are a number 5 of different types of parks and recreational facilities. 6 The County has not traditionally served as a provider of park and recreation facilities. Local 7 cities, private agencies, federal agencies, and schools have an established history of furnishing 8 these services. 9 The purpose of this element is to evaluate parks and recreation facilities in the County and to 10 develop goals and policies that guide management and coordination of them. 11 7.1.1. Applicable Growth Management Act Goals 12 GMA planning goals that are applicable to the Parks and Recreation Element include the 13 following: 14 . Open space and recreation. Retain open space, enhance recreational opportunities, conserve 15 fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop 16 parks and recreation facilities (Revised Code of Washington [RCW] 36.70A.020(9)). 17 . Public facilities and services. Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to 18 support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development 19 is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally 20 established minimum standards (RCW 36.70A.020(12)). 21 . Historic preservation. Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and structures 22 that have historical or archaeological significance (RCW 36.70A.020(13)). 23 Goals described in the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) also support the Parks and Recreation 24 Element.
    [Show full text]
  • This File Was Created by Scanning the Printed Publication
    This file was created by scanning the printed publication. Text errors identified by the software have been corrected; however, some errors may remain. Editors SHARON E. CLARKE is a geographer and GIS analyst, Department of Forest Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331; and SANDRA A. BRYCE is a biogeographer, Dynamac Corporation, Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Western Ecology Division, Corvallis, OR 97333. This document is a product of cooperative research between the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; the Forest Science De- partment, Oregon State University; and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cover Artwork Cover artwork was designed and produced by John Ivie. Abstract Clarke, Sharon E.; Bryce, Sandra A., eds. 1997. Hierarchical subdivisions of the Columbia Plateau and Blue Mountains ecoregions, Oregon and Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-395. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 114 p. This document presents two spatial scales of a hierarchical, ecoregional framework and provides a connection to both larger and smaller scale ecological classifications. The two spatial scales are subregions (1:250,000) and landscape-level ecoregions (1:100,000), or Level IV and Level V ecoregions. Level IV ecoregions were developed by the Environmental Protection Agency because the resolution of national-scale ecoregions provided insufficient detail to meet the needs of state agencies for estab- lishing biocriteria, reference sites, and attainability goals for water-quality regulation. For this project, two ecoregions—the Columbia Plateau and the Blue Mountains— were subdivided into more detailed Level IV ecoregions.
    [Show full text]
  • INTERIOR/GEOLOGICAL SURVEY USGS· INF -72- 2 !R I) - Electric City-Grand Coulee, Washington the CHANNELED SCABLANDS of EASTERN WASHINGTON
    9 INTERIOR/GEOLOGICAL SURVEY USGS· INF -72- 2 !R I) - Electric City-Grand Coulee, Washington THE CHANNELED SCABLANDS OF EASTERN WASHINGTON - The Geologic Story of the Spokane Flood- '(( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE , 1976 0 -208-172 F'or sale by the uperint.endent. of Documents, .S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.. 20402- Pric~ 70 cents Lock No. 024 - 001-02507- I nL nlog o. I 19.2: W27/6/974 There is n minimum charge of $1.00 for each mail order A trave ler enterin g th e tal f W as hington fro m th e Eas t crosses a flat-to-rolling country­ sid o f deep, fertil so il commonly sown with w heat. ontinuing wes twa rd , he abruptly nters a d eply scar red land o f bare bl a k ro k ut by labyrin thine ca nyons and chann el , plunge pools and ro k bas in s, ca ca de and ca tara t ledges, and di playi ng ragged buttes and li ffs, alcoves, im­ men e gravel bars, and giant ripple marks. Th e traveler has reached the starkly sceni " Chan­ neled cab lands," and this d ramatic hange in th e landscape may well ca use him to w onder " w hat happ n d here? " Th e answ er- th e grea te t fl ood documented by man. This publica tion, summari zin g th e equence of geologic events that culminated in th e so-call ed ''Spokan Fl ood," w as prepar d in res ponse to a ge neral int re t in geology and a particul ar interes t in th e o ri gin of th e Scab land o ften ex pre sed by th ose ross in g th e State of W as hington.
    [Show full text]
  • THE SPOKANE AQUIFER, WASHINGTON: Its Geologic Origin
    THE SPOKANE AQUIFER, WASHINGTON: Its Geologic Origin and Water-Bearing and Water-Quality Characteristics Cover: Aerial view of the Spokane Flood sweep­ ing southwesterly across the study area (outlined in red) and vicinity. THE SPOKANE AQUIFER, WASHINGTON: Its Geologic Origin and Water-Bearing and Water-Quality Characteristics By Dee Molenaar U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 2265 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAULHODEL, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1988 For sale by the Books and Open-File Reports Section, U.S. Geological Survey, Federal Center, Box 25425, Denver, CO 80225 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Molenaar, Dee. The Spokane aquifer, Washington. (U.S. Geological Survey water-supply paper; 2265) Bibliography: p. Supt.ofDocs.no. : 119.13:2265 1. Aquifers Washington (State) Spokane Region. I. Title. II. Series. GB1199.3.W2M651987 553.7'9'0979737 84-600259 PREFACE: WHY THIS REPORT WAS WRITTEN This report was prepared to provide a non­ The description of the Spokane aquifer technical description and understanding of the includes the geologic story behind its origin Spokane aquifer, one of the world's most pro­ and its part in the Spokane Valley's hydrologic ductive water-bearing formations. Because the setting. Discussed are the relation among pre­ aquifer also has a most fascinating geologic ori­ cipitation over the area (mostly in the head­ gin, a discussion of the geologic story of the waters of the Spokane River basin), the flow of Spokane area is presented. This should enhance the Spokane River, and the movement of the reader's appreciation of the natural proces­ water to, through, and from the aquifer.
    [Show full text]
  • Mcnary National Wildlife Refuge U.S
    McNary National Wildlife Refuge U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service McNary National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan / Comprehensive Conservation Plan Management Direction Management Direction Mid-Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Complex 64 Maple Street Burbank, WA 99323 Phone 509/546 8300 Refuge Information 1 800/344 WILD December 2008 The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. All photos ©C and G Bartlett Photography Dec. 2008 Vision for the McNary National Wildlife Refuge Stretching along the bend in the middle Columbia River where the waters of the Snake and Walla Walla Rivers join the Columbia, the McNary National Wildlife Refuge links a network of diverse habitats stretching dozens of miles from Richland, Washington, to the Wallula Gap and beyond. The Refuge’s shrub-steppe, basalt cliff, riparian, river islands and aquatic habitats will be managed to fulfill the needs of native fish, wildlife, and plants. By actively restoring habitat, controlling exotic species, and enhancing existing habitats and resources, the Refuge will serve as an anchor for biodiversity and a model for habitat restoration and land management. Just as the Columbia River is an important corridor for the transportation of people and goods, it is also an important natural corridor for migratory birds and fish, including endangered salmon and steelhead stocks. Food, rest and sanctuary will be provided for large concentrations of migratory and wintering waterfowl and shorebirds using the Refuges each year. Extensive corridors of riparian and floodplain habitat will be restored and enhanced for nesting and migrating neo-tropical songbirds.
    [Show full text]