DOCSLIB.ORG

Planning for Tomorrow Sherman County, Oregon

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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 SAFETY nicalAssistanceand Educa- tion 42 Areas of Health Concern: 42 Sewage Treatment 19 Irrigated Lands Garbage Collection 19 Weed Control 43 Mental Health Services 20 Weed Council 43 Visiting Nurse 20 Weed District 43 Areas of Safety Concern: Weed Control on Public Fire 20 Property 43 Farm and Home Safety 20 Noxious Weeds 44 Highways and Recreation 20 Rye as a Weed 44 21 Cheatgrass Problem 44 Civil Dfense Weed Awareness 44 EDUCATION Farm Management 45 Recommendations 22 Farm Size 45 Chart on Sherman County's Posi- Landlord-Tenant Relations 45 tion as to Net Effective Buying Farm Management Tools 46 Income and Property Value 24 Enterprise Data Studies 46 Summary 25 Equipment Costs 47 INTRODUCTION This 1967 Sherman County Long-Range Planning Conference was spon- sored by the Sherman Rural Advisory Council. In November of 1966, plans were laid and committees formed. Chairmen were selected for the 10 study committees, and instruction meetings were held to orient the chairmen. In January of 1967, the study committees started work on the problems that may affect Sherman County in the next 10 years.The purpose of each committee wasP to take a good look at Sherman county and try to figure a way to make Sherman County a better place to live, work and play in the next 10 years. On April 21, 1967, the public forum was held to report the findings of the 10 committees.Each committee chairman reported by using visual aids, pic- tures, etc., to illustrate the recommendations of the committees. To finish this report, it depends on the people of Sherman County to fur- ther study and work toward implemenation of these recommendations. Ted Thompson, Chairman Sherman Rural Advisory Council This is the fifth time Sherman County has embarked on a Long-Range Planning Conference. The conferences span nearly one-half century of com- munity planning for progress. The first such conference was held in 1924. Sim- ilar conferences were held in 1938, 1948, and 1958. During the past 10 years, the Sherman Rural Advisory Council has pro- vided leadership in continued planning to improve the economic and social condition of the county. Various subcommitteessuch as the Water Resource Development, Land Use and Crops, and Rural Road Advisory Committee along with the Sherman County Planning Commission have spelled out some of the needs and work toward their accomplishment. This conference besides look- ing into some new fields of interest in the county, also brings up to date activ- ities of various on-going planning and development groups. lV]embcrship of the Sherman Rural Advisory Council that help guide ac- tivities of this conference and groups they represent were: Ted Thompson, Chairman, Grain Co-op representative; Irving Hart, Vice-Chairman, Sherman Planning Commission; Charles Burnet, Wheat Growers Association; Henry Jaeger, 4-H Leaders Assn.; Delta Johnson, Extension Unit Council; Rolland Johnson, Weed Council; Larry Kaseberg, Water Resource Development Com- mittee; Bob Martin, Cattlemen's Association and Chairman of the Livestock and Range Planning Committee; Owietus McDermid, Health Council; Rev. Leo Tautfest, Ministeral Association; Vernon Miller, County Judge; Bob Montgomery, School Superintendent; David Moore, Sherman County Club; David Richelderfer, ASCS Committee; Vernon Root. 4-H Leaders Association; John Shipley, Soil Conservation District Board of Supervisors; Don Thompson, Sherman County Granges and Chairman of the Land Use and Crops Planning Committee; F. L. Watkins, Rural Road Advisory Council; Alice Riëhmond, County Extension Agent, 4-H and Home Economics, and myself. For more than 40 years, the OSU Cooperative Extension Service, through their County Extension Agent staff and specialists, have cooperated with the citizens of Sherman County in doing long-range planning,if Sherman County is to realize its greatest potential, continual planning to meet changing condi- tions will be necessary. Results of the latest planning effort are contained in this publication made possible by the Sherman County Court and the Cooperative Extension sion Service of Oregon State University. Thomas W. Thompson, Chairman Sherman County Extension Agent SHERMAN COUNTY, OREGON Sherman County was established February 25, 1889, with an area of 827 square miles.Moro, the county seat, is near the center of the county and is 120 miles by highway from Portland.The trend in population is shown by chart form on page. 7. Sherman County lies in the heart of the Columbia Basin dryland grain area.Most citizens breathe, eat and talk wheat. The county is strictly rural with agriculture the major industry. During recent years, mass scale construction of the John Day Dam has brought in new people, payroll and problems.Industrial production is in the planning stage and tourist trade on the upswing. The county is the only forestless Oregon county. There were more businesses in Sherman County in 1900 than there are to- day. At the beginning of the century one could buy nearly everything in the county he could purchase elsewhere. Decline in farm numbers and work force, improved transportation facil- ities and change in modern business practices have reduced local business estab- lishments. 1V1uch of the needs of Sherman Countians are purchased in The Dalles; for southern Sherman Countians, at Madras, or in many cases in Port- land. Surrounding on three and a half sides by water, the county sets high and dry.Rainfall averages are close over the countyWasco (elevation 1,222 feet) has 11.72 inches, Moro (elevation 1,858) has 11.83 inches, and Kent (elevation 2,707) has 10.83 inches.With this low rainfall, farming is under a summer- fallow-grain rotation. Irrigation is minor with less than 2,000 acres of pasture and hay under intensive production. High lift irrigation from the Columbia and/or John Day Dam pool is under investigation. Winter wheat is the most important crop.For 40 years, dryland grain hay was second, but in recent years, due to government farm programs, barley has moved into second in importance. Fifty-seven percent (299,882) out of 529,280 acres is cultivatedthe high- est percentage in the state.Only two counties exceed Sherman in total tillable acres.The soil is silt loam, productive, rolling and low in organic matter, making it highly erosive. Around 1,200 acres of cultivated land is the average farm size.Farm units number near 250, but are declining due to unfavorable farm prices. Farm tenancy is high with about 70% of the land farmed by non-owner operatives. Beef cattle provide an important supplementary source- of income. They utilize native spring, early summer ranges and crop aftermath.Most cattle are sold as weaners but some trend in feedlot production is underway, utiliz- ing wheat and barley as feed grains.Sherman County has no dairies, a good number of horses, and sheep and hogs are of minor importance. A variety of statistical material is available about the county's people, economy and resources.Various statistical information was used by the study committees but is limited in this publication.Such information is available from county, state, and federal agencies and private institutions. Public and Economic Affairs Charles Burnet, Chairman Thomas M. Thompson, Secretary In any attempt to forecast futureRecreation development of an area, a prime con- With development of parks and sideration should be past history androads along the rivers bordering the present conditions. county we are becoming more at- Agriculture has been the basic in-tractive to tourists and to residents dustry in Sherman County since theofwesternOregon,and Portland county was first settled by the whitemetropolitan areas.The freeway to man.The principle crop has beenPortland provides easy access to our grain, mainly wheat with some bar-area, and there will be an influx of ley, oats, and hay.The major kindpeople seeking our fresh air and sun of livestock is cattle, with some sheepshine. and hogs.Milk cows and chickens have declinedas farming becameIrrigation
Load more

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]
  • 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]
  • Crow Butte Slough Crossing
    - DOE/EIS'0077'FS Final Supplement Final Environmental Impact Statement BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION Crow Butte Slough Crossing Supplement to Final EIS, Ashe-Slatt (Pebble Springs) 500-kV Transmission Line u.s. Department of Energy " March 1982 ,1 • DOE/EIS·0077·FS Final Supplement Final Environmental Impact Statement BONN EVI LLE POWER ADMINISTRATION Crow Butte Slough Crossing Supplement to Final EIS, Ashe-Slatt (Pebble Springs) 500-kV Transmission Line Responsible Official: u.s. Department of Energy D.C. 20585 WILLIAM A. VAUGHAN Washington, • Assistant Secretary for . Environmental Protection, Safety, and Emergency Preparedness March 1982 NOTICE Since only minor revisions have been made to the Crow Butte Slough Crossing Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Supplement, BPA is circulating only the revisions to the DEIS Supplement and public and agency comments along with BPA's response, in accordance with CEQ regulations 40 CFR 1500.4(m) and 1503.4(c). The summary is also being circulated. Changes to the DEIS Supplement and Study Documentation Report (SDR) have been made on the following pages: DEIS 2-3, 5-1, 8-1 SDR 3-8 9, 3-90, 3-141, 3-143, 7-9 Copies of the DEIS Supplement, SDR and the revisions are available from: Anthony R. Morrell Acting Environmental Manager Bonneville Power Administration P.O. Box 3621 - SJ Portland, Oregon 97208 EIS FINAL SUPPLEMENT Responsible Age"ncy: U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration. Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Title of Proposed Action: Ashe-Slatt Transmission Line Crossing at Crow Butte Slough � States and Counties Involved: State of Washington, Benton County.
    [Show full text]