DOCSLIB.ORG

Mid-Columbia River Fish Toxics Assessment: EPA Region 10 Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mid-Columbia River Fish Toxics Assessment: EPA Region 10 Report EPA-910-R-17-002 March 2017 Mid-Columbia River Fish Toxics Assessment EPA Region 10 Report Authors: Lillian Herger, Lorraine Edmond, and Gretchen Hayslip U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 www.epa.gov Mid-Columbia River Fish Toxics Assessment EPA Region 10 Report Authors: Lillian Herger, Lorraine Edmond, and Gretchen Hayslip March 2017 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, Washington 98101 Publication Number: EPA-910-R-17-002 Suggested Citation: Herger, L.G., L. Edmond, and G. Hayslip. 2016. Mid-Columbia River fish toxics assessment: EPA Region 10 Report. EPA-910-R-17-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington. This document is available at: www.epa.gov/columbiariver/mid-columbia-river-fish­ toxics-assessment Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment i Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment List of Abbreviations Abbreviation Definition BZ# Congener numbers assigned by Ballschmiter and Zell CDF Cumulative Distribution Function CM Channel marker CR Columbia River DDD Dichloro-diphenyl-dichloroethane DDE Dichloro-diphenyl-dichloroethylene DDT Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane DO Dissolved Oxygen ECO Ecological EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency GIS Geographic Information System HH Human Health HCB Hexachlorobenzene HRGC/HRMS High Resolution Gas Chromatography / High Resolution Mass Spectrometry ICPMS Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry IDEQ Idaho Department of Environmental Quality LCR Lower Columbia River MCR Mid-Columbia River MDL Minimum detection limit NA Not Applicable ND Non-detected ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality ORP Oxidation-Reduction Potential PBDE Polybrominated diphenyl ether PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan QC Quality Control RARE Regional Applied Research Effort REMAP Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program S.E. Standard error SOP Standard Operating Procedure SPMD Semi-Permeable Membrane Device Std. Dev. Standard Deviation SV Screening Value TSS Total Suspended Solids USGS United States Geological Survey ii Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment List of Units Abbreviation Definition C centigrade cm centimeter DD decimal degrees g gram g/day grams per day L liter M meter mg/Kg milligrams per Kilogram mg/L milligrams per Liter ml milliliter mm millimeter ng/g nanograms per gram ng/Kg nanograms per kilogram NTU nephelometric turbidity units km kilometer ppb part per billion ppm part per million ppt part per trillion RM river mile rkm River kilometer sq. km Square kilometer μg/g micrograms per gram μg/L micrograms per Liter ww wet weight iii Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment Table of Contents List of Abbreviations .........................................................................................................ii List of Units ..................................................................................................................... iii I. Abstract ........................................................................................................................ 1 Human Health Findings ................................................................................................. 1 Ecological Findings ........................................................................................................ 2 II. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 3 A. Background ............................................................................................................... 3 1. EPA’s Environmental Monitoring Program ........................................................... 3 2. Columbia Geography ............................................................................................ 4 3. Human Uses in the Basin ..................................................................................... 6 4. Past Studies of Toxic Contaminants in the Basin ................................................. 7 5. Concerns for Toxics in Fish Tissue ....................................................................... 8 B. Purpose and Objectives .......................................................................................... 14 III. Study Overview ........................................................................................................ 15 A. Survey Design ......................................................................................................... 15 B. Site Selection........................................................................................................... 15 C. Assessment Indicators ............................................................................................ 16 1. Fish Tissue ......................................................................................................... 16 2. Other Supporting Data ........................................................................................ 18 IV. Methods ................................................................................................................... 20 A. Quality Assurance ................................................................................................... 20 B. Field Sample Collection ........................................................................................... 20 1. Fish Tissue Sampling ......................................................................................... 20 2. Water Quality, Physical Habitat, and Invasive Species Sampling ....................... 21 C. Fish Tissue Laboratory Methods ............................................................................. 22 D. Data Analysis Methods ............................................................................................ 23 1. Application of Weighting Factors and Use of CDFs ............................................ 23 2. Screening for Levels of Concern ........................................................................ 24 V. Results ...................................................................................................................... 29 A. Extent of Resource Represented by the Sampling .................................................. 29 B. Extent of Fish Species Sampled .............................................................................. 29 1. HH-fish ............................................................................................................... 29 2. Eco-fish............................................................................................................... 30 C. Fish Tissue Results – Human Health Endpoints ..................................................... 31 1. Mercury............................................................................................................... 34 2. DDT and Related Compounds ............................................................................ 35 3. Chlorinated Pesticides ........................................................................................ 36 4. Dioxins and Furans ............................................................................................. 37 5. PCBs .................................................................................................................. 38 6. PBDEs ................................................................................................................ 38 D. Fish Tissue Results– Ecological Endpoints ............................................................. 39 1. Inorganics-- Mercury and Trace Metals/metalloids ............................................. 41 2. DDTs .................................................................................................................. 42 3. Chlorinated Pesticides ........................................................................................ 43 iv Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment 4. PCBs .................................................................................................................. 44 5. PBDEs ................................................................................................................ 45 VI. Discussion ............................................................................................................... 46 A. Relative Extent of Contaminants of Concern (COCs) .............................................. 46 B. Comparisons to Other Mainstem Columbia Results ................................................ 49 1. Lower Columbia River: reach-wide Eco-fish study (Hayslip et al. 2007) ............. 49 2. Lower Columbia River: select sites HH fish study (Nilsen et al. 2014) ............... 51 3. Mid-Columbia River: select sites HH fish study (Washington Department of Ecology) ........................................................................................................ 51 4. Mid-Columbia River: select sites HH and Eco fish study Hanford Reach ........... 53 5. Upper Columbia River: select sites HH and Eco-fish tissue risk assessment ..... 54 C. Comparisons to Other Regions ............................................................................... 55 1. Mid-continent Large Rivers: reach-wide HH and Eco fish study ......................... 55 2. National Rivers and Streams Assessment (NRSA): nation-wide HH fish study .. 56 VII. Conclusions and Recommendations ....................................................................... 58 VIII. Acknowledgements ...............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Ideal Commercial Development Site in The
    IDEAL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT SITE IN THE TRI-CITIES RICHLAND, WASHINGTON EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Location Maps .......................................................................................................4 • Executive Summary..............................................................................................6 • Aerial........................................................................................................................7 MARKET ANALYSIS • Retail Market Description.....................................................................................8 • Retail Void Analysis...............................................................................................9 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION • Development Plan.................................................................................................10 • Roadways...............................................................................................................13 • Regional Map..........................................................................................................14 AREA OVERVIEW • Tri-Cities Facts.......................................................................................................15 • Quality of Life..........................................................................................................16 • Economy...................................................................................................................18 OF CONTENTS TABLE • Housing.....................................................................................................................19
    [Show full text]
  • Operation and Maintenance of the Umatilla Project and Umatilla Basin Project, Umatilla County
    UNITED STA1ES OEPARlMENTOF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE West Coast Region 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard , Su~e 1100 Portland, Oregon 97232-1274 July 2, 2019 Refer to NMFS No: WCR-2018-10032 Dawn Wiedmeier Area Manager Columbia-Cascades Area Office U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 1917 Marsh Road Yakima, Washington 98901 Re: Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation on Operation and Maintenance of the Umatilla Project and Umatilla Basin Project, Umatilla County. Oregon, HUC 17070103 (Umatilla), HUC 17070101 (Columbia-Lake Wallula). Enclosed is a biological opinion (opinion) prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on the effects of operating the Umatilla Project and the Umatilla Basin Project in Umatilla County, Oregon. NMFS concludes in this opinion that the operation of the Umatilla and Umatilla Basin Projects is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the following ESA-listed species: Middle Columbia River steelhead Upper Columbia River steelhead Snake River Basin steelhead Snake River sockeye salmon Upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook salmon Snake River spring/summer-run Chinook salmon Snake River fall-run Chinook salmon NMFS also concludes that the proposed action is not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. As required by section 7 of the ESA, NMFS included reasonable and prudent measures with nondiscretionary terms and conditions that NMFS believes are necessary to avoid or minimize the effect of incidental take caused by this action.
    [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]
  • A Lasting Legacy: the Lewis And
    WashingtonHistory.org A LASTING LEGACY The Lewis and Clark Place Names of the Pacific Northwest—Part II By Allen "Doc" Wesselius COLUMBIA The Magazine of Northwest History, Summer 2001: Vol. 15, No. 2 This is the second in a four-part series discussing the history of the Lewis and Clark expedition and the explorers' efforts to identify, for posterity, elements of the Northwest landscape that they encountered on their journey. Columbia River "The Great River of the West" was on the maps that Lewis and Clark brought with them but the cartographic lore of its upper reach influenced William Clark when he identified the supposed upper fork as "Tarcouche Tesse." British explorer Alexander Mackenzie had called the northern reach of the river "Tacoutche Tesse" in his 1793 journals and map. When the explorers realized they had reached the Columbia River on October 16, 1805, they also discerned that they would not discover the source of the drainage, important as that was for establishing the future sovereignty of the region. After Lewis & Clark determined that there was no short portage route between the Missouri and Columbia rivers, the myth of a Northwest Passage evaporated. The priority for the expedition now was to achieve the primary goal of its mission by reaching the mouth of the Columbia River. American rights of discovery to the Columbia were based on Robert Gray's crossing of the bar in 1792 at the river's discharge into the Pacific. He explored the waterway's western bay and named it "Columbia's River" after his ship, Columbia Rediviva.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.7-1 3.7 Visual Quality and Noise 3.7.1 Affected Environment 3.7.1.1
    3.7 Visual Quality and Noise 3.7.1 Affected Environment 3.7.1.1 Visual Quality The project site is located in a rural area on a relatively flat bluff about 150 feet above the Columbia River. The site is characterized by basalt outcrops, shrub-steppe habitat, and wetlands, with some scattered trees. The views to the north are of the wide Columbia River (Lake Wallula) and croplands, rangeland, shrub-steppe habitat, and scattered agricultural residences and buildings on the Washington State side of the river. The views to the east also are of the Columbia River and shrub-steppe habitat on the Oregon side of the river. To the south, high brush and smaller trees diversify the view of the surrounding landscape. To the west lies similar shrub-steppe habitat but the view is dominated by the TRCI, a large medium custody facility located about 1.5 miles west of the project site. The facility is an industrial-looking 650,000-square-foot concrete facility surrounded by tall fences with a guardhouse at the entrance. This facility is well-lit and visible at night. The existing and proposed electrical transmission line and natural gas supply/wastewater discharge pipeline route is comprised of rural residences, irrigated croplands, non-irrigated croplands, grazing land, and low-growing shrub-steppe land. 3.7.1.2 Noise The existing sound levels in the project area are characterized by rural, ambient/background noises. The closest potential noise source or receptor is the TRCI, located about 1.5 miles west of the project site. Although the background noise levels were not measured, it was estimated that they were in the 35- to 40-decibel range during a site visit.
    [Show full text]
  • BPA-2013-01584-FOIA Response
    Department of Energy Bonneville Power Administration P.O. Box 3621 Portland, Oregon 97208-3621 SECURITY AND CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS October 8, 2013 In reply refer to: NN-1 Richard Till Friends of the Columbia Gorge 522 SW 5th Ave, Ste 720 Portland, OR 97204 FOIA BPA-2013-01584-F Dear Mr. Till: This is a partial response to your request for records that you made to the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552. You requested the following: “Two documents; the determination of eligibility and effect, and the determination of eligibility that was provided to the keeper of the National Register.” Response: Enclosed are two letters responsive to your request. BPA is releasing them without redaction. The enclosures to each document are still undergoing review and will be released to you when that process is complete. We hope to be finished before October 31, 2013. Please contact Kim Winn, FOIA Specialist, at 503-230-5273 with any questions about this letter. Sincerely, /s/Christina J. Munro Christina J. Munro Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Officer Enclosures: November 13, 2012 letter to the Department of Archeology & Historic Preservation, Olympia, WA August 5, 2013 letter to the National Park Service, Washington, DC Department of Energy Official File Bonneville Power Administration P.O. Box 3621 Portland, Oregon 97208-3621 ENVIRONMENT, FISH AND WILDLIFE August 5, 2013 In reply refer to: KEC-4 Ms. Carol Shull, Interim Keeper National Park Service National Register of Historic Places 1849 C Street, NW (2280) Washington, DC 20240 Subject: Eligibility of a Cultural Landscape at Celilo Falls for its association with Lewis & Clark and the Corps of Discovery and the Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail.
    [Show full text]
  • The Towns and Lake Wallula
    Railroads WALLULA In 1871, construction of the first Pacific Northwest railroad of any length began at Wallula. The Walla Walla and Columbia River Railroad was completed in 1875 connecting the town of HISTORY SITE Walla Walla with the steamship dock at Wallula. The only prior tracks in the region were the short portage lines at the Cascades and between the Dalles and Celilo Falls. In 1880, the Oregon Railroad and Navigation Company began a line from Wallula to Portland, which by 1883 was linked at Wallula to the Northern Pacific’s transcontinental railroad. In 1888, five railroads brought as many as 15 to 30 trains a day to Wallula. Despite a town having been established around the ruins of Old Fort Walla Walla where the steamship dock and the WW&CR railroad depots were located, the OR&N built its track and depot a mile inland because its freight business no longer relied on river traffic. A new town of Wallula was then built around these tracks to capitalize on the railroad and its workers and customers, after which the first town was abandoned. The Wallula History Site There has long been recognition by individuals, Fort Walla Walla, John Mix Stanley, 1853 agencies and organizations of the need to create an interpretive site to honor Wallula’s significant Including early geology, tribal history. history, Lewis & Clark, fur traders, The citizens group Walla Walla 2020 has recently steamships, railroads, towns, and obtained permission from the Washington State Department of Transportation to construct an the McNary flood interpretive shelter at the eastern entrance to the Though Wallula aspired to be “The Railroad Center of the Wallula Gap at a turnout on US 730 just west of Northwest,” in 1884 the NP built the new town of Pasco, and Milepost 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Narratives of Celilo Falls, 1805-2021
    Bates College SCARAB Honors Theses Capstone Projects 5-2021 Stories from the Flood: Narratives of Celilo Falls, 1805-2021 Maximilian LeGrand Friedenwald-Fishman Bates College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scarab.bates.edu/honorstheses Recommended Citation Friedenwald-Fishman, Maximilian LeGrand, "Stories from the Flood: Narratives of Celilo Falls, 1805-2021" (2021). Honors Theses. 366. https://scarab.bates.edu/honorstheses/366 This Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Capstone Projects at SCARAB. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of SCARAB. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Stories from the Flood: Narratives of Celilo Falls, 1805-2021 An Honors Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of History Bates College In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts By Maximilian Friedenwald-Fishman Lewiston, Maine May 5, 2021 1 Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to thank Professor Andrew Baker, the advisor for this thesis, for all of his invaluable input and support throughout this process. I am beyond grateful for his close readings, detailed feedback, thoughtful insight, and words of encouragement. I would also like to thank the Bates Department of History as a whole for providing me the foundation to be able to research and write this project. Specifically, I want to thank Professor Patrick Otim, for inspiring me to become a history major and Professor Joseph Hall, for providing me with key sources and whose class, “Native American History,” made me ask the questions that eventually led me to my topic.
    [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]
  • Juniper Canyon, Wallula Gap: an “Oasis in the Desert”
    Juniper Canyon, Wallula Gap: An “Oasis in the Desert” Marin Axtell, Chelsea Cordell, Heidi Dobson, Bob Carson Whitman College, Walla Walla, Washington Mike Denny Walla Walla Community College, Walla Walla, Washington here the Great River bends” is where the mighty plants, lichens, and other animals. Juniper Canyon is a patchwork of Columbia turns west toward the Pacifi c Ocean public and private land; the US Fish and Wildlife Service manages “Wto form the boundary between Washington the bottom of the canyon for most of the lower six miles of Juniper and Oregon. Th is locality, known as Wallula Gap, is unusually Creek. Th e fl anks of the canyon are privately owned and used for rich in natural and human history. On the southeast side is grazing. Th e current rancher allows public access across his land for Juniper Canyon, where a creek enters the Columbia River hiking. Upstream, easements for a power line and a pipeline cross the in Umatilla County, just south of the Washington border. A canyon approximately 2.5 and 5 miles east of US Highway 730. popular destination for spring wildfl ower hikes for members of the Washington Native Plant Society, Juniper Canyon is not (yet) well known by Oregon botanists. Carson (2008) described Wallula Gap as an “oasis in the desert” because the vegetation adjacent to Juniper Creek diff ers completely from the upland vegetation: “Wallula Gap is part of a desert, yet there are beavers. Wallula Gap has no mountains, yet there are bighorn sheep. Th e bedrock is all basalt, yet there are granitic boulders” (Carson 2008).
    [Show full text]
  • FY2013 FCRPS Annual Report
    Bonneville Power Administration Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Army Corps of Engineers FISCAL YEAR 2013 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, 2014 Hungry Horse Reservoir - 2013 FY2013 Annual Report Under the FCRPS Systemwide Programmatic Agreement for the Management of Historic Properties – March 31, 2014 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 – Archeological 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) ........................................................ 3 2.4 Evaluation of Historic Significance ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]