DOCSLIB.ORG

20140320-3029 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 03/20/2014

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
20140320-3029 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 03/20/2014 20140320-3029 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 03/20/2014 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Portland General Electric Company Project No. 2195-088 NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (March 20, 2014) In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 F.R. 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed an application submitted by Portland General Electric Company (licensee) to construct, operate and maintain minimum flow turbines at its 136.6-MW Clackamas River Hydroelectric Project. The new minimum flow turbines would increase the capacity of the project by 3.89 MW. The project is located on the Oak Grove Fork of the Clackamas River and the mainstem of the Clackamas River in Clackamas County, Oregon. The project occupies federal lands within the Mt. Hood National Forest, under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service, and a reservation of the U.S. Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management. An environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared as part of staff’s review of the proposal. In the application the licensee proposes to construct, operate and maintain: 1) a powerhouse at the base of Timothy Lake Dam housing two 0.95-MW turbines, 2) a powerhouse at Crack-in-the-Ground located downstream of Lake Harriet housing a 1 MW turbine, 3) a powerhouse housing a 135-kW turbine utilizing return flows from the juvenile downstream migrant collection systems and the North Fork fishway adult fish trap, and 4) a turbine and an 850-kW turbine and induction generator utilizing North Fork fishway attraction flows. The EA contains Commission staff’s analysis of the probable environmental impacts of the proposed action and concludes that approval of the proposal would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The EA is available for review and reproduction at the Commission’s Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission’s website at http://www.ferc.gov using 20140320-3029 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 03/20/2014 the “elibrary” link. Enter the docket number (P-2195) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll-free at 1-866-208-3372, or for TTY, (202) 502- 865. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. 20140320-3029 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 03/20/2014 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR NON-CAPACITY AMENDMENT TO LICENSE Clackamas River Hydroelectric Project—FERC Project No. 2195-088 Oregon Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance 888 First Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20426 March 2014 20140320-3029 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 03/20/2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES..............................................................................................................iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1 1.1 APPLICATION............................................................................................. 1 1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER.................................. 1 1.2.1 Purpose of Action ............................................................................ 1 1.2.2 Need for Power................................................................................ 2 1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ......................... 3 1.3.1 Federal Power Act ........................................................................... 3 1.3.1.1 Section 4(e) Conditions .................................................. 3 1.3.1.2 Section 10(j) Recommendations..................................... 4 1.3.2 Clean Water Act .............................................................................. 5 1.3.3 Endangered Species Act.................................................................. 6 1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act ....................................................... 7 1.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act.................................................. 7 1.4 PRE-FILING PUBLIC REVIEW AND CONSULTATION........................ 8 1.4.1 Consultation..................................................................................... 8 1.4.2 Comments on the License Amendment Application and Interventions .................................................................................... 8 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVES ............................. 9 2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE.................................................................... 9 2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities................................................................ 9 2.1.2 Existing Project Operation ............................................................ 10 2.2 LICENSEE’S PROPOSAL ......................................................................... 14 2.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities and Construction Activities ............... 14 2.2.1.1 Proposed Project Facilities............................................ 14 2.2.1.2 Proposed Construction Activities ................................. 15 2.2.2 Proposed Operational Modifications............................................. 15 2.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures ............................................... 16 2.2.4 Construction Schedule................................................................... 19 2.3 STAFF ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................ 19 2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 19 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS......................................................................... 20 3.1 GENERAL SETTING................................................................................. 20 3.2 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS ................................ 26 3.3 PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................................ 26 3.3.1 Geology and Soils.......................................................................... 26 i 20140320-3029 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 03/20/2014 3.3.1.1 Affected Environment................................................... 26 3.3.1.2 Environmental Effects .................................................. 27 3.3.2 Water Resources............................................................................ 28 3.3.2.1 Affected Environment................................................... 28 3.3.2.2 Environmental Effects .................................................. 36 3.3.3 Aquatic Resources ......................................................................... 39 3.3.3.1 Affected Environment................................................... 39 3.3.3.2 Environmental Effects .................................................. 43 3.3.4 Wetland, Wildlife, and Botanical Resources ................................... 48 3.3.4.1 Affected Environment................................................... 48 3.3.4.2 Environmental Effects .................................................. 52 3.3.5 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species ........................... 54 3.3.5.1 Affected Environment................................................... 54 3.3.5.2 Environmental Effects .................................................. 57 3.3.6 Recreation and Land Use............................................................... 60 3.3.6.1 Affected Environment................................................... 60 3.3.6.2 Environmental Effects .................................................. 61 3.3.7 Aesthetic Resources....................................................................... 62 3.3.7.1 Affected Environment................................................... 62 3.3.7.2 Environmental Effects .................................................. 63 3.3.8 Cultural Resources......................................................................... 65 3.3.8.1 Affected Environment................................................... 65 3.3.8.2 Environmental Effects .................................................. 65 3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE.................................................................. 66 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................. 67 4.1 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND STAFF RECOMMENDED MEASURES................................................................................................ 67 4.2 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS................................................... 69 4.3 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS.............................. 70 5.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ........................................................ 71 6.0 LITERATURE CITED........................................................................................... 72 7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS .......................................................................................... 73 ii 20140320-3029 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 03/20/2014 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Proposed turbine locations - Oak Grove Fork. (Source: Portland General Electric) .....................................................................................................................12
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Evaluation and Findings Report on the Application for Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act
    Evaluation and Findings Report on the Application for Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act Submitted by Portland General Electric Company for the Clackamas Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2195) Pursuant to Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 340, Division 48 Prepared by: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality Division 2020 SW 4th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97201 May 2009 This page intentionally left blank Findings and Evaluation Report 2 FERC Project 2195 June 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................... 6 2. REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATION ............................................................................................... 6 2.1 Applicable Federal and State Law ...................................................................................................... 6 2.2 General Application of State Water Quality Standards ...................................................................... 7 2.2.1 Beneficial Uses ............................................................................................................................ 7 2.2.2 Narrative and Numeric Criteria .................................................................................................... 8 2.2.3 Antidegradation Policy ................................................................................................................. 8 2.2.4 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
    [Show full text]
  • Clackamas County
    EXHIBIT A - Invisible Walls: Housing Discrimination in Clackamas County 94 Table of Contents A Note About This Project ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1 Class Bios ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2 Project Introduction and Methods Statement …………………………………………………………………………. 3 Timeline ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8 Historic Property Deed Research …………………………………………………………………………………………… 13 Metropolitan Setting of the Suburban Zone ………………………………………………………………………….. 21 Community Highlights: - Lake Oswego ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 24 - Milwaukie ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 28 - Oregon City ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 34 Land and Conflict: The Genesis of Housing Discrimination in Clackamas County ……………………. 38 Migrant Labor in Oregon: 1958 Snapshot ………………………………………………………………………………. 41 Migrant Labor in Oregon: Valley Migrant League …………………………………………………………………… 43 Chinese in Clackamas County ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 48 Japanese in Clackamas County ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 51 Direct Violence: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 54 - Richardson Family ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 55 - Perry Ellis …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 56 Resistance in Lane County …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 57 John Livingston ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 58 Political Structure: - Zoning in Clackamas County ………………………………………………………………………………………. 59 - Urban Growth Boundary …………………………………………………………………………………………….
    [Show full text]
  • Current Issue
    PRESORTED STANDARD MAIL U.S. POSTAGE PAID PORTLAND, OR PERMIT NO. 700 College naming Welcome Center after Grand Ronde Chief Wacheno — pg. 6 february 1, 2021 Tribes receive good COVID-19 funding news Deadline to spend monies extended until end of 2021 By Dean Rhodes Smoke Signals editor ative American Tribes na- tionwide received two good Npieces of news in December and January regarding COVID-19 relief funding as the federal govern- ment transitioned to the new Biden administration. Tribes received news on Dec. 12 that their deadline for spend- ing Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act funding approved in March 2020 has been extended by a year to Dec. 31, 2021, as part of the Consolidated Appro- priations 2021 Act that was signed into law. The Grand Ronde Tribe received a combined $44 million from the Photo by Timothy J. Gonzalez Treasury Department in three LightWerks Communication Systems Inc. Lead AV installer Beau Krebsbach left and AV Installer Corey Nelson payments and $1.56 million from , , the Department of the Interior in work on installing the second of two 85-inch televisions in the Tribal Council Chambers on Tuesday, Jan. 12. The CARES Act funding. new TVs are part of a major technological upgrade within the Governance Center. The Tribe used approximately 42 percent of that emergency funding – $19.3 million – to fund a COVID-19 Relief Payment program that sent a Council Chambers 2.0 total of $4,400 to each adult Tribal member in eight monthly payments from April through November. Technology upgrades allow full remote participation The relief payments approved in March were designed to help Tribal By Danielle Harrison in meetings.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Assessment Slinky
    United States Preliminary Department of Agriculture Forest Assessment Service 2003 Slinky (2003) Clackamas River Ranger District, Mt. Hood National Forest Clackamas County, Oregon The project is located in T.6 S., R.7 E.; Willamette Meridian. For Information Contact: James Rice 595 NW Industrial Way, Estacada, OR 97023 503.630.8710 http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/mthood The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Table of Contents Summary .........................................................................................................................1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1 Document Structure................................................................................................................. 1 Background
    [Show full text]
  • 2011 Aquatic Weed Surveys in Timothy Lake, Lake Harriet and North Fork Reservoir : Final Eporr T
    Portland State University PDXScholar Center for Lakes and Reservoirs Publications and Presentations Center for Lakes and Reservoirs 11-2011 2011 Aquatic Weed Surveys in Timothy Lake, Lake Harriet and North Fork Reservoir : final eporr t Mark D. Sytsma Portland State University, [email protected] Vanessa Howard Morgan Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/centerforlakes_pub Part of the Fresh Water Studies Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Citation Details Sytsma, Mark D. and Morgan, Vanessa Howard, "2011 Aquatic Weed Surveys in Timothy Lake, Lake Harriet and North Fork Reservoir : final eporr t" (2011). Center for Lakes and Reservoirs Publications and Presentations. 8. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/centerforlakes_pub/8 This Report is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Center for Lakes and Reservoirs Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. 2011 AQUATIC WEED SURVEYS IN TIMOTHY LAKE, LAKE HARRIET & NORTH FORK RESERVOIR - FINAL REPORT Prepared for: Portland General Electric, Clackamas River Hydroelectric Project By: Vanessa Morgan and Mark Sytsma Center for Lakes and Reservoirs Portland State University November 2011 Table of Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ i List of Tables
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeological Resources Technical Report I-5 Rose Quarter Improvement Project
    FINAL Archaeological Resources Technical Report I-5 Rose Quarter Improvement Project Oregon Department of Transportation January 8, 2019 Archaeological Resources Technical Report Oregon Department of Transportation Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................ v Ex ec utive Summary .............................................................................................................. ES-1 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Location.........................................................................................................1 1.2 Project Purpose .........................................................................................................1 1.3 Project Need .............................................................................................................1 1.4 Project Goals and Objectives .......................................................................................5 2 Project Alternatives.............................................................................................................6 2.1 No-Build Alternative....................................................................................................6 2.2 Build Alternative.........................................................................................................8 2.2.1 I-5 Mainline Improvements ...............................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Arts, Culture and Heritage Strategy (ACHS)
    City of Wilsonville Draft Arts, Culture and Heritage Strategy (ACHS) October 8, 2020 Bill Flood Consultant Community Development and Cultural Planning billflood.org Mark Ottenad ACHS Project Manager Public/Government Affairs Director City of Wilsonville — 1 — City of Wilsonville Arts, Culture and Heritage Strategy (ACHS) City Council Tim Knapp, Mayor Councilor Charlotte Lehan Council President Kristin Akervall Councilor Joann Linville Councilor Ben West Arts, Culture and Heritage Strategy Task Force Donna Atkinson Mike McCarty Toni Avery Benjamin Mefford Jasleen Bhushan Padmanabhan (PK) Melethil Paul Bunn Regan Molatore Rebecca (Becky) Burkeen Isela Morales Rose Case Brady Mordhorst Mary Closson Edwardo Navarro-Santana Maggi Decker Mallory Nelson David DeHart David Niklas John Dillin Susan Reep Pat Duke Susan Schenk Angennette Escobar Rohit Sharma Jenny Evers Christopher Shotola-Hardt Jerry Greenfield Richard (Dick) Spence David Harrelson Elaine Swyt Eric Hoem Laurie Tarter Eleanor Gale Karrick Shelly Tracy Greg Leo Steven Van Wechel Sydney Leveque Kit Whittaker Anne MacCracken Aaron Woods City Council Liaisons Councilor Charlotte Lehan Councilor Joann Linville City Appointed Management Bryan Cosgrove Barbara Jacobson City Manager City Attorney — 2 — City of Wilsonville Arts, Culture and Heritage Strategy (ACHS) Table of Contents SECTION A: Introduction A Cultural Strategy for Wilsonville .................................................................................................. 11 Why a Cultural Strategy? ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Before the Board of County Commissioners of Clackamas County, State of Oregon
    BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CLACKAMAS COUNTY, STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of Affirming Resolution No. __________ Clackamas County’s Commitment Page 1 of 1 to History and Culture WHEREAS, Clackamas County recognizes that history and culture reflect and shape values, beliefs, and aspirations, defining a people’s identity; and WHEREAS, Clackamas County affirms that in an era of globalization, history helps us to remember our cultural diversity as well as the experiences and contributions of previous generations, and its understanding develops mutual respect and renewed dialogue; and WHEREAS, Clackamas County is named for the Clackamas people who lived here, and is also the homeland of the Chinook, Tualatin, Kalapuya, Molalla and other tribes and bands who lived and visited here from time immemorial; and WHEREAS, Clackamas County was formed as one of the original four districts of the Oregon Country in 1843, and WHEREAS, Clackamas County is home to Oregon City, the original and main terminus of the Oregon Trail, the route of the greatest voluntary mass migration, which was platted by Hudson Bay Company’s Chief Factor, Dr. John McLoughlin, in 1842; and WHEREAS, Oregon City is the first American city west of the Rocky Mountains, incorporated in 1844, and was Oregon’s territorial and then first state Capital; and WHEREAS, Clackamas County is home to Willamette Falls on the Willamette River which is the ancestral homeland as well as a key fishing and trading center for the indigenous peoples and tribes who were displaced by
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Chinookan Disease and Demography
    Portland State University PDXScholar Anthropology Faculty Publications and Presentations Anthropology 6-2013 Lower Chinookan Disease and Demography Robert T. Boyd Portland State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/anth_fac Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons, and the Social and Cultural Anthropology Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Citation Details Boyd, Robert T., "Lower Chinookan Disease and Demography," in Chinookan Peoples of the Lower Columbia River, pages 229-249. University of Washington Press (June 2013) This Book Chapter is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Anthropology Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. ELEVEN lOWER CHINOOKAN DISEASE AND DEMOGRAPHY Robert T. Boyd N the first century of contact, the Lower Columbia Chinookans suffered more from the effects of introduced diseases and depopulation than I almost any other Native peoples in the Northwest. Yet they survived, and their numbers are increasing. This chapter is a history of Lower Chinookan disease and population, from the aboriginal state, through the disruptive early contact years, up to the rebound and revitalization of the last century. ABORIGINAL HEALTH AND DISEASE Like other Northwest Coast peoples contacted by whites in the late 1700s and in common with early contact hunting-gathering peoples around the world, Lower Columbia Chinookans were relatively healthy. The explorers and traders who first met them said as much. On November 1, 1805, after spend­ ing nearly a year in lower-river Chinookan territory, William Clark wrote: "The nativs of the waters of the Columbia appear helthy" (Lewis and Clark 1988:373).
    [Show full text]
  • Chinuk Wawa (Chinook Jargon) Etymologies
    Chinuk Wawa (Chinook Jargon) etymologies Henry Zenk, Tony Johnson, Sarah Braun Hamilton Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, Oregon The purpose of this contribution is to make available our research to date on sources of Chinuk Wawa (Chinook Jargon, hereafter CW) lexical items. The reference lexicon consists of simplex items drawn from the CW dictionary database of the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, Oregon. Most of these items are from word lists, sentences, and texts representing speakers of that community; a smaller subset is from sources documenting other CW varieties of the lower Columbia River region. We have identified probable sources for 680 of the 737 total items collated, divided between Chinookan (282), local Salishan (58), Chinookan and/or Salishan (15), Nootka Jargon (22), other indigenous sources (26), English (137), French (125), and multiple sources (15). The only comprehensive collations of CW etymologies published to date are Hale (1846) and Gibbs (1863), both of which document CW primarily in its lower Columbia “cradle.” Gibbs incorporated Hale and other earlier compilations, using his own mid-nineteenth century experience of CW to single out words in use during his own time; rare or unusual words were labeled by him as such. It is striking how much of this mid-nineteenth century lexicon may also be seen in the CW lexicon independently compiled by us from speakers of the Grand Ronde Reservation Community of northwestern Oregon, circa 1877-1950 (Jacobs 1928, 1928-29, 1932, 1936; Mercier 1941; Hajda 1977; Zenk 1980-83; Johnson 1998). Additional matches are presented by a smaller supplementary vocabulary we have compiled to collate CW words unfamiliar to us from Grand Ronde, but which can reliably be ascribed to Native usage elsewhere on the lower Columbia (Demers, Blanchet, St.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
    NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 (Expires 05/31/2030) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in National Register Bulletin, How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional certification comments, entries, and narrative items on continuation sheets if needed (NPS Form 10-900a). 1. Name of Property historic name South Park Blocks other names/site number N/A Name of Multiple Property Listing N/A (Enter "N/A" if property is not part of a multiple property listing) 2. Location street & number 1003 SW Park Avenue not for publication city or town Portland vicinity state Oregon code OR county Multnomah code 051 zip code 97205 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this X nomination request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property meets does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant at the following level(s) of significance: national statewide X local Applicable National Register Criteria: X A B X C D Signature of certifying official/Title: Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Date Oregon State Historic Preservation Office State or Federal agency/bureau or Tribal Government In my opinion, the property meets does not meet the National Register criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydropower Project Summary CLACKAMAS RIVER, OREGON This Summary Was Produced by the Hydropower Reform Coalition and River Manag
    Hydropower Project Summary CLACKAMAS RIVER, OREGON CLACKAMAS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (P-2195) Photo: Water Watch of Oregon, courtesy of Hydropower Reform Coalition This summary was produced by the Hydropower Reform Coalition and River Management Society Clackamas River, Oregon CLACKAMAS RIVER, OREGON CLACKAMAS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (P-2195) Description: The Clackamas River Project is located within the Clackamas River Basin which drains more than 940 square miles. It flows west from the Cascade Mountain Range for 83 miles to its confluence with the Willamette River at Oregon City, Oregon. Most of the headwaters are located within the Mt. Hood National Forest, and approximately 47 miles of the Clackamas River are designated as a federal Wild and Scenic River. The Clackamas River provides significant recreational opportunities for fishing, whitewater boating, and camping in relatively close proximity to the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area. The river supports regionally important fish populations, including Endangered Species fall- and spring-run Chinook salmon, Coho salmon, and steelhead trout. The project is situated on the lower 16 miles of the Oak Grove Fork and on the mainstem of the Clackamas River between river miles 46.8 and 22.3. The Clackamas River Project consists of four developments in the following sequence, from upstream to downstream: • Oak Grove: facilities are located on the Clackamas River and its tributary, Oak Grove Fork • North Fork, Faraday, and River Mill: three developments and their facilities are located on the Clackamas River, and were constructed between 1902 and 1958 with prior licenses. The new Clackamas River Project combines the four developments under a single license, which authorizes 173 MW of renewable energy, and requires a number of measures to protect and enhance fish, wildlife, recreation, cultural, and aesthetic resources at the project.
    [Show full text]