Mcnary National Wildlife Refuge Cold Springs National Wildlife Refuge

McNary National Wildlife Refuge Cold Springs National Wildlife Refuge

Land Protection Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Proposed East Improvement District Land Exchange

Prepared by: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mid-Columbia River National Wildlife Refuge Complex 64 Maple Street Burbank, Washington 99232 August 2020

Estimated Lead Agency Total Cost for Developing and Producing this Environmental Assessment: $8,000 Abbreviations Abbreviation Full Phrase BMP Best Management Practice BOR Bureau of Reclamation CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended CFR Code of Federal Regulations CTUIR Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation dBA Decibels Adjusted DM Departmental Manual DOA Department of the Army DOI Department of the Interior EA Environmental Assessment EID East Improvement District EO Executive Order EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act of 1969, as amended FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact GHG Greenhouse Gas HID Hermiston Irrigation District IPM Integrated Pest Management LPP Land Protection Plan MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended MCRNWRC Mid-Columbia River National Wildlife Refuge Complex NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended NWR National Wildlife Refuge NWRC National Wildlife Refuge Complex NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality RLR Reiss-Landreau Research ROW Right-of-Way Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SO Secretarial Order TRI Toxic Release Inventory UEC Umatilla Electric Cooperative U.S.C. United States Code

Abbreviation Full Phrase USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...... 5 1.1 Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System ...... 5 1.2 Mid-Columbia River National Wildlife Refuge Complex ...... 6 1.3 McNary National Wildlife Refuge ...... 6 1.4 Cold Springs National Wildlife Refuge ...... 8 1.5 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 8 1.6 Acquisition Authorities ...... 8 1.7 Proposed Action ...... 9 1.8 Scope of the Environmental Assessment ...... 9 1.9 Decisions to be Made...... 9 2. Proposed Alternatives...... 12 2.1 Alternative 1: No Action ...... 12 2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Land Exchange ...... 12 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Planning ...... 12 3. Conceptual Management Plan ...... 12 4. Affected Environment ...... 14 4.1 Exchange Area at McNary National Wildlife Refuge ...... 14 4.2 Despain Gulch Parcel ...... 21 5. Environmental Effects ...... 24 5.1 Introduction ...... 24 5.2 Effects at McNary National Wildlife Refuge ...... 24 5.2.1 Cultural Resources ...... 26 5.3 Effects at Despain Gulch Parcel ...... 26 6. Summary of Analysis ...... 35 6.1 Alternative 1: No Action ...... 35 6.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Land Exchange ...... 35 7. Coordination and Consultation ...... 35 8. Environmental Review and Compliance ...... 36 9. Literature Cited...... 38

Figure 1. Vicinity Map ...... 7 Figure 2. Proposed Exchange Area of McNary National Wildlife Refuge Showing Approved Pipeline Project ...... 10 Figure 3. Despain Gulch Property Adjacent to Cold Springs National Wildlife Refuge ...... 11 Figure 4. National Wildlife Refuge Hydrology and Wetlands ...... 17

Photograph 1: Memorial Marsh: How the added parcel may be managed. Source USFWS ...... 13 Photograph 2: McNary Exchange Parcel. Source USFWS ...... 14 Photograph 3: McNary Exchange Parcel (below blue line). Source USFWS...... 16 Photograph 4: Despain Gulch Exchange Parcel view 1. Source USFWS ...... 21 Photograph 5: Despain Gulch view 2. Source USFWS...... 22 Photograph 6: Despain Gulch Property view 3. Source USFWS ...... 29

Table 1. Resources Not More Than Negligibly Affected at McNary National Wildlife Refuge ...... 25 Table 2. More Than Negligibly Affected Resources at McNary National Wildlife Refuge ...... 25 Table 3. Resources Not More Than Negligibly Affected at Despain Gulch Property ...... 27 Table 4. Resources at Despain Gulch Property More Than Negligibly Impacted ...... 27

Appendix A. Corps of Engineers Environmental Green Sheet...... 40 Appendix B. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation...... 50

1. Introduction

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the primary federal agency responsible for conserving and enhancing the nation’s fish, wildlife, and plant populations and their habitats. Although the Service shares this responsibility with other federal, state, tribal, local, and private entities, the Service has specific trust responsibilities for migratory birds, federally listed threatened and endangered species, and certain anadromous fish and marine mammals. Service efforts over the last 100 years to protect wildlife and their habitats have resulted in a network of protected areas that form the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, Refuge System). This network of protected areas is the largest and most diverse in the world. Refuge System lands provide essential habitat for numerous wildlife and plant species, wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities for the public, and a variety of benefits to local communities. This Land Protection Plan/Environmental Assessment (LPP/EA) analyzes the reasonably foreseeable effects to the human environment related to a proposed land exchange between the Service and the East Improvement District (EID). This LPP/EA also provides the public with a description of how the land from EID, which would be incorporated into the Refuge System, may initially be managed. The proposed action would exchange 19.28 acres of the Stateline Unit on McNary National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge) for 14.6 acres of privately owned riparian and wetland habitat along Despain Gulch, adjacent to Cold Springs NWR (Figure 1). Both national wildlife refuges are part of the Mid- Columbia River National Wildlife Refuge Complex (NWRC). The land at McNary NWR proposed for exchange is impacted by existing infrastructure, and additional infrastructure development will occur in that area. The Despain Gulch property, once restored, would offer much more valuable habitat to wildlife, helping the Refuge System meet its mission and the purposes for which Cold Springs NWR was established. This LPP/EA supplements the Service’s March 18, 2018, EA, which is incorporated herein by reference. While that EA was developed for this proposed action, it was also used to assist the Service in its decision to grant EID a right-of-way (ROW) permit on March 30, 2018, to allow construction of two irrigation water delivery pipelines across the 19.28-acre proposed exchange area. The ROW permit allows construction of the pipelines and provides adequate access for construction equipment and service vehicles across the proposed exchange area. The ROW permit was granted following the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) decision to permit construction of the entire pipeline project on March 29, 2018. The Service deferred a final decision to pursue the proposed exchange until consultation with the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) on potential impacts to a Historic Property of Religious and Cultural Significance to an Indian Tribe (HPRCSIT) was completed.

1.1 Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.

1.2 Mid-Columbia River National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Mid-Columbia River NWRC provides management and support for four national wildlife refuges. The refuges include McNary, Umatilla, Cold Springs, and McKay Creek NWRs.

1.3 McNary National Wildlife Refuge

In 1946, the 79th U.S. Congress authorized construction of the McNary Dam at Columbia River Mile 292, primarily for navigation, power development, and irrigation, and included the “conservation of wildlife” as part of the project’s purposes. McNary Dam flooded 39,000 acres of river bottomlands along 61 miles upstream of the dam. In 1953, as part of carrying out responsibilities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e (Coordination Act)), the Secretary of the Army, Secretary of the Interior, and the Directors of the Fish and Game Departments for the States of Oregon and Washington signed a General Plan which set aside various lands for wildlife (US DOA et al. 1953). Beginning in 1955, through a series of administrative actions, USACE transferred management authority of the set-aside lands to the Service, which included portions of the original McNary NWR. In 2000, the Service and USACE signed a cooperative agreement (DOA and DOI 2000) providing the Service with management authority over an additional 14,739 acres that included the Stateline Unit, where the land proposed for exchange is located. At the time the Service assumed management control, the land was already heavily impacted by infrastructure, serving as a pipeline corridor with three large pipelines delivering irrigation water pumped out of the Columbia River from the St. Hilaire Brothers pump station to farmlands to the south. Additional infrastructure present on the land included access roads and power transmission poles and lines. Purposes of McNary NWR include “the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and habitat thereon. . .” (Coordination Act) and “development, conservation and management of wildlife resources. . .” (1953 General Plan).

Figure 1. Vicinity Map

1.4 Cold Springs National Wildlife Refuge

Cold Springs NWR, located in north-central Oregon approximately six miles northeast of Hermiston, was one of the first national wildlife refuges established in the west, created by President Theodore Roosevelt by Executive Order (EO) on February 25, 1909. The EO reserved Cold Springs Reservoir (and other reservoir sites) “as preserves and breeding grounds for native birds. . .” While it was established primarily to benefit waterfowl and other native birds, the 3,117-acre Refuge provides open water and managed wetland, riparian, grassland, and shrub-steppe habitats that support an abundance of wildlife species. Cold Springs NWR overlays the Bureau of Reclamation’s (BOR) Cold Springs Reservoir, which is managed for irrigation by BOR through the Hermiston Irrigation District (HID). The reservoir’s primary source of water is the Umatilla River. The reservoir receives additional minor inputs from Cold Springs Creek and Despain Gulch, and from the Columbia-Cold Springs Canal system, which pumps water from the Columbia River to the reservoir. The Columbia-Cold Springs Canal system is used infrequently—only during periods of low water in the Umatilla River. The U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (the precursor of the Service), HID, and BOR signed an agreement in 1957 providing the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife with primary management authority over fish and wildlife resources (including habitat management to benefit those resources) and public recreation on Cold Springs NWR. BOR has primary jurisdiction over Cold Springs Dam, and BOR and HID have “the sole administration as to the water levels [of the reservoir] maintained through operation of the dam.” The agreement is in effect indefinitely, but may be amended at any time by mutual consent of the Service, BOR, and HID.

1.5 Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose of the proposed action is to exchange land that is impacted by existing infrastructure and will be further compromised by a new irrigation pipeline project and associated infrastructure for land that is not similarly impacted and has superior existing or restorable wildlife values that will improve the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of lands in the Mid-Columbia River NWRC. The project is needed because the land proposed for exchange from McNary NWR, managed by the Service under the 2000 Cooperative Agreement, is poor wildlife habitat that is impacted by three existing pipelines, power transmission poles and lines, and dirt access roads. Construction of two new pipelines and associated infrastructure will further compromise wildlife habitat and make the area even less suitable as a refuge for wildlife.

1.6 Acquisition Authorities

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. 742a-742), and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) provide the authorities for the proposed land exchange.

1.7 Proposed Action

The Service proposes to exchange with EID 19.28 acres of land at McNary NWR that is impacted by existing infrastructure (Figure 2) for 14.6 acres of private land along Despain Gulch adjacent to Cold Springs NWR (Figure 3). Once restored, Despain Gulch would provide far greater wildlife values than the exchanged land on McNary NWR. The approved acquisition boundary of Cold Springs NWR would be modified to accommodate the exchange.

1.8 Scope of the Environmental Assessment

The document was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). This supplemental LPP/EA describes the purpose and need for the proposed land exchange and the reasonably foreseeable impacts to the human environment associated with the exchange. While the LPP/EA does not cover the details of future management of the expansion area, conceptual management actions are described to indicate the Service’s initial management direction.

1.9 Decisions to be Made

The purpose of this EA is to provide sufficient information to allow the Regional Director of the Service’s Pacific Region to make an informed decision about whether or not to proceed with the proposed land exchange. If the decision is made to proceed, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) may be prepared, which would describe the alternative selected and the rationale behind it. If FONSI criteria cannot be met, an Environmental Impact Statement would be prepared.

Figure 2. Proposed Exchange Area of McNary National Wildlife Refuge Showing

Approved Pipeline Project

Figure 3. Despain Gulch Property Adjacent to Cold Springs National Wildlife Refuge

2. Proposed Alternatives

Two alternatives are analyzed in this supplemental EA: Alternative 1, the No Exchange alternative (No Action) and Alternative 2, the Proposed Land Exchange alternative, which is the Service’s preferred alternative.

2.1 Alternative 1: No Action

Under Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, the Service would not exchange land with EID and would retain and continue to manage lands at McNary NWR that are impacted by existing infrastructure and will be further impacted by an approved pipeline construction project. The land proposed for exchange requires little active management and the Service has no additional projects planned for the area.

2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Land Exchange

Under Alternative 2, the Proposed Land Exchange alternative, the Service would exchange with EID 19.28 acres of the Stateline Unit of McNary NWR for 14.6 acres of private land located along Despain Gulch. The private land would be added to Cold Springs NWR. The Despain Gulch parcel adjoins Cold Springs NWR Memorial Marsh managed wetland complex. The parcel is approximately 5.8 miles southwesterly from the exchange area on McNary NWR. The Cold Springs NWR approved acquisition boundary would be modified to accommodate the land exchange. The Despain Gulch property would be provided to the Service at no cost. The net land value to the Service would be an equal value exchange or better. Revenue sharing payments may be available to the county for any net increase in the value of refuge land subject to Congressional appropriations. Following construction of the pipeline project, EID anticipates no need to reenter the proposed exchange area for the foreseeable future, unless there is a need for an emergency repair. The existing three pipelines were installed in the early 1970s and the only maintenance work completed was to cement-mortar line the pipelines in the 1990s. The pipelines to be installed will not require this type of maintenance. EID has no plans to fence the area or close public access (Eric Campbell pers. comm. April 3, 2018).

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Planning

No alternative land exchanges were considered but eliminated from detailed planning. 3. Conceptual Management Plan

The purpose of this conceptual management plan is to provide a general description for how the land proposed to be added to Cold Springs NWR would be managed until a comprehensive management plan is adopted. As an addition to Cold Springs NWR, the land would be administered by Mid- Columbia River NWRC, headquartered in Burbank, Washington. Because the addition is small, no additional administrative capacity would be required. Upon acquisition of the Despain Gulch property, the Service would evaluate the lands for the conservation, restoration, and enhancement of its wildlife habitat values as well as appropriateness of

12 providing wildlife-dependent public uses prioritized by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (Improvement Act): hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. Cold Springs NWR was established to provide migration and wintering habitat, including wetlands, for waterfowl. Providing a diversity of wetlands is vital to the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of Cold Springs NWR. Despain Gulch parcel could be best used as an actively managed, seasonal wetland for the benefit of migratory waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, and other wetland-dependent wildlife species, functionally expanding the Memorial Marsh managed wetlands, benefiting targeted species, and better meeting Refuge purposes. Initial management actions would include a boundary survey and installation of a boundary fence and signs. A topographic survey and water elevation modeling would be conducted to determine the suitability of the parcel to be managed as a seasonal wetland, as well as to understand the amount of grading required and the need for water control structures. A cultural resource survey would be conducted in areas where ground-disturbing activities may be required. Estimated initial development costs are $5,200 for fencing and signage and $3,000 for Refuge staff to conduct topographic and cultural resource surveys. Until the topographic survey and water elevation modeling is complete, there is no cost estimate available for developing a managed wetland, as the extent of required site work is not known. Annual operation and maintenance costs for managed wetlands at Cold Springs NWR are estimated at $110 per acre. If invasive species control is necessary, we would employ an integrated pest management (IPM) approach. Non-native species, especially invasive species, and other pest plants and animals can disrupt native ecosystems and management of conservation lands. Invasive plants can displace native plants and create monotypic habitats of little value to native wildlife. Invasive animals can prey upon native species, transmit diseases to other species, including humans, and damage facilities used to manage habitats and provide public use opportunities.

Photograph 1: Memorial Marsh: How the added parcel may be managed. Source USFWS

Department of the Interior (DOI) and Service policy (517 DM 1 and 569 FW 1) require that pest control programs on national wildlife refuges be undertaken consistent with the principles of IPM. The IPM approach involves using methods based upon effectiveness, cost, and minimal ecological disruption, including minimum potential effects to non-target species and the environment. Pesticides may be used where mechanical/physical, cultural, and biological methods or combinations thereof, are impractical or incapable of providing adequate control, eradication, or containment. If a pesticide is needed, the most specific (selective) chemical available for the target species would be used, unless considerations of persistence or other environmental and/or biotic hazards preclude it. Only pesticides registered with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in full compliance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and as provided in regulations, orders, or permits issued by the EPA may be applied on lands and waters under Service jurisdiction. 4. Affected Environment

In passing NEPA, Congress mandated federal agencies to evaluate and disclose the effects of their actions significantly affecting the human environment. This section describes aspects of the human environment at the proposed exchange area of McNary NWR and the Despain Gulch property.

4.1 Exchange Area at McNary National Wildlife Refuge

The 19.28 acres at McNary NWR proposed for exchange are impacted by existing infrastructure that includes overhead transmission lines and poles, three irrigation pipelines, and segments of dirt access roads. The pipelines and transmission lines are within three easements that generally run east to west through McNary NWR. The pipelines were originally buried but are now exposed in places due to wind erosion of the soil that once covered them. The pipelines are leaking in places and in need of repair.

4.1.1 Topography and Soils

The land to be exchanged contains two soil types: Quincy loamy fine sand, 5 to 25 percent slopes (mapping unit 75E), which underlies both the northern and southern sections of the exchange area, and Quincy-Rock outcrop complex, 1 to 20 percent slopes (mapping unit 78B), which is mapped in the central Photograph 2: McNary Exchange Parcel. area of sloping bluffs and rock outcroppings. Both soil Source USFWS types are excessively drained with the depth to the water table exceeding 80 inches. Neither soil type is subject to flooding or ponding. Neither soil is considered a prime farmland soil or a hydric (wetland) soil.

4.1.2 Vegetation

Vegetation within the proposed exchange area is dominated by species typical of the sagebrush- steppe communities in eastern Oregon. This includes an overstory of Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa), snow buckwheat (Eriogonum niveum), and antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata). The understory comprises a mix of forbs and non- native species such as cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). The Service conducted a vegetation survey in early May 2018 to identify CTUIR first food plants. One small 20-square-foot patch of a Lomatium, comprising 8 to 10 small plants, was observed, although the species could not be identified. The same species was found more commonly nearby, but outside the proposed exchange area. Wild celery (Lomatium nudicaule), blue camas (Camassia quamash), and bitterroot (Lewisia rediviva) were not observed.

4.1.3 Wildlife

Representative wildlife species that use sagebrush-steppe and may use the area of McNary NWR proposed for exchange include various raptors and songbirds, bats, rabbits and other small mammals, mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and coyote (Canis latrans). Western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), horned lark (Eremophila alpestris), and western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalus) typically occur in both native and non-native dominated shrub-steppe habitat. Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus), a priority species in both Oregon and Washington, may nest in the area, but that has not been documented by Refuge staff. Upland game birds that typically occur in sagebrush-steppe include mourning doves (Zenaida macroura), California quail (Callipepla californica), and ring- necked pheasants (Phasianus colchicus). Other small mammals that may be present include American badger (Taxidea taxus), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), cottontail (Sylvilagus nuttalli), and black-tailed jackrabbits (Lepus californicus), though none of these have been documented occurring in the exchange area. Washington ground squirrels (Urocitellus washingtoni) have never been observed in the proposed exchange area.

4.1.4 Threatened and Endangered Species

No Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed wildlife or plant species, or species that are proposed for listing, are known to occur on or use the proposed exchange area. Previous vegetation surveys conducted by Pacific Power within the southern portions of the exchange area (Pacific Power 2015) found no federally or state-listed plants. The proposed exchange area contains no designated or proposed critical habitat.

4.1.5 Aquatic Resources

There are no aquatic resources (rivers, streams, wetlands, seeps, floodplains) present within the portion of McNary NWR proposed for exchange. The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map (Figure 4) identifies no wetlands within the exchange area. The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) indicates that the proposed exchange area is in Zone D. Zone D designates areas where no analysis of flood hazards has been conducted.

4.1.6 Fire

Wildfires are often ignited by natural sources such as lightning, but may also Photograph 3: McNary Exchange Parcel (below blue line). Source USFWS be ignited by human causes such as downed transmission lines or idling equipment. Vegetation within the proposed land exchange area is dominated by typical sagebrush-steppe species, including native and non-native grasses and shrubs. This plant community is prone to wildfires during the dry summer months (Pacific Power 2015). This type of vegetation provides fuel for wildfires and burns rapidly. Following a fire, grasses re-establish quickly, but shrubs take longer to grow back to maturity (typically 15 to 20 years). During summer 2018, the entire exchange parcel burned. The burn appeared to be relatively spotty, resulting in a mosaic of areas that appeared to burn hot and other areas much less so. While the hot spot areas will likely take some time to recover, much of the area showed signs of native shrub and forb regeneration by early fall 2018. The Service anticipates additional native shrub, forb, and grass regeneration in spring 2019, although there will likely be a flush of non-native species as well.

Figure 4. National Wildlife Refuge Hydrology and Wetlands

4.1.7 Aesthetics and Scenic Resources

The Umatilla County Comprehensive Plan (Umatilla County 2017) does not identify any county- designated scenic resources or scenic waterways in the vicinity of McNary NWR. The proposed exchange area is located in an arid sagebrush-steppe region near the Lake Wallula reservoir on the middle Columbia River, approximately 9.5 miles upstream of McNary Dam. The general topography ranges from relatively level uplands to steep sloping bluffs and rock outcroppings. As discussed, the area has been impacted by infrastructure (aerial electric transmission lines, exposed water pipelines, and dirt roads) which detracts from the rugged, natural aesthetic quality of the area. The surrounding open and agricultural landscapes are predominantly rural in character. Lake Wallula provides a nearby aesthetic resource.

4.1.8 Air Quality

Pursuant to the Clean Air Act of 1963, EPA developed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six common “criteria” pollutants: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide (ODEQ 2017). In Oregon, EPA has delegated authority to enforce air quality standards to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. An area that meets the NAAQS for a given criteria pollutant is classified as an “attainment” area. Any area that does not meet the NAAQS for a given criteria pollutant is classified as a “nonattainment area.” Most areas of Oregon, including Umatilla County, meet all NAAQS (ODEQ 2017). The criteria pollutant of main concern in these rural counties is fine particulate matter, which is generated mostly from windblown dust, vehicle exhaust, and burning.

4.1.9 Hazardous Materials

There are no known hazardous materials on or near the proposed exchange site. The EPA’s NEPAssist is a web-based application that draws environmental data dynamically from EPA’s Geographic Information System databases and web services and provides screening of known hazardous materials or sites. The website was accessed on December 11, 2017. NEPAssist reports that this portion of McNary NWR is at least 0.5 miles from the nearest known brownfield site, superfund site, Toxic Release Inventory site, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act hazardous waste site, or Toxic Substance Control Act site.

4.1.10 Cultural Resources

Within the vicinity of the Lake Wallula shoreline is an area of rich cultural heritage, where people have lived for more than 10,000 years (USACE 2011a). Recorded archaeological sites of the prehistoric and historic eras are numerous around the shoreline. Types of prehistoric and historic cultural sites include rockshelters, pithouses, fishing stations, fort/trading post remains, town sites, roadways/trails, homesteads, and other remains of the long history of human use of the area (USACE 2011a). In August 2017, Reiss-Landreau Research (RLR) completed an archaeological review and visual reconnaissance survey for a separate undertaking sponsored by USACE, which included the footprint of the proposed exchange area at McNary NWR (Township 05 North, Range 30 East, Section 8 (SW

¼, NW ¼)). The 2017 RLR review of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) records determined that eight archaeological surveys had been completed within two miles of the proposed exchange area. Nine archaeological resources were documented within two miles of the exchange area in 1947, but all were inundated and have not been relocated during subsequent investigations, thus remaining unevaluated for their potential eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). RLR also completed a pedestrian survey of the proposed exchange area at approximately 20-meter intervals in a switchback transect style to compensate for the steep slope of the hillside. As a result of the field investigation, RLR identified one historic resource within the area of potential effect (APE)—the Union Pacific Railroad (RLR 2017). The area to be exchanged out of federal ownership is within the large area identified by CTUIR as HPRCSIT 2, a Historic Property of Religious and Cultural Significance to an Indian Tribe (HPRCSIT). While the Service has no publically available information of the specific characteristics that make the area significant in relation to the HPRCSIT, the Service assumes that access to usual and accustomed hunting and gathering areas for first foods is most likely a contributing element to the HPRCSIT. First foods are a central aspect of the traditions of the CTUIR and are considered cultural resources. Mule deer, a CTUIR first food, are known to occur on the Stateline Unit, which includes the parcel proposed for exchange. The entire Stateline Unit, along with the Wallula and Juniper Canyon Units, are open for big game hunting during the state hunting season. No access permits are required. There are no facilities for hunters on these units. While hunting statistics for the proposed exchange parcel are not available, its remote location, lack of access, and proximity to infrastructure such as the Bonneville Power Administration substation result in low numbers of hunters using the area. The Potential Distribution of Selected First Foods map provided in the Umatilla River Vision (Jones et al. 2008: Figure 2) indicates that the proposed exchange parcel is well outside of the potential distribution of cous and huckleberry. The map does not provide the potential distribution of ecologically related plants such as wild celery, blue camas, or bitterroot. A small 20-square-foot patch of a Lomatium, comprising 8 to 10 small plants, occurs within the exchange area. The same species was found more commonly nearby outside the proposed exchange area. Wild celery, blue camas, and bitterroot were not observed and are not known to occur within the exchange area. The Service is unaware of hunting or gathering of first foods by members of the CTUIR on the proposed exchange property, although it may happen. Typically, gathering is permitted under a Special Use Permit (SUP). Securing an SUP allows the Service to coordinate its management actions to avoid conflicts with gatherers. An SUP has never been issued or proposed for gathering activities on the land proposed for exchange.

4.1.11 Wildlife-Dependent Public Uses

Wildlife-dependent public uses of national wildlife refuges prioritized by the Improvement Act are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. The area proposed for exchange at McNary NWR is open to the public for all wildlife- dependent public uses, but public use of the proposed exchange area is very low due to its isolated location, onsite and neighboring infrastructure, and difficulty of access.

4.1.12 Noise

The project site is located within a rural area with relatively few noise sources. Sources include traffic on McNary Highway (Highway 730), boat operations on Lake Wallula, and vehicle use within the proposed exchange area. McNary Highway has an average daily trip count of 16,400 (Pacific Power 2015) and is the largest noise generator in the immediate vicinity. Because the area is sparsely populated, background noise levels at locations distant from boat traffic and traveled roadways are likely to be between 30 and 40 decibels adjusted (dBA) under calm wind conditions (USACE 2011b). There are no sensitive noise receptors such as hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, or elderly housing and convalescent facilities near the proposed exchange area.

4.1.13 Socioeconomic Environment

The area surrounding the proposed exchange site is rural. Irrigated farm fields are located to the south. The St. Hilaire Brothers own and operate an existing irrigation pumping station located along the banks of the Columbia River at river mile 301.7, immediately north of McNary NWR. The pumping station provides irrigation water to around 4,200 acres of farmland throughout Umatilla County. A Bonneville Power Administration substation abuts the proposed exchange area immediately to the west. No other commercial operations are known within the immediate vicinity. The towns of Umatilla and Hermiston are located approximately 10 miles to the west and southwest, respectively.

4.1.14 Environmental Justice

Federal agencies must consider the environmental justice effects of their actions. Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of any negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or policies. The portion of McNary NWR proposed for exchange and the immediate surrounding vicinity are unoccupied. There are no permanent or temporary, minority or low-income individuals or populations residing on or near the exchange area.

4.2 Despain Gulch Parcel

The 14.6-acre Despain Gulch parcel abuts the southeast boundary of Cold Springs NWR. It is bounded to the north and west by Cold Springs NWR, to the east by Kosmos Road, and to the south by pastures.

4.2.1 Topography and Soils

Three soils series are mapped on the Despain Gulch parcel: Xerofluvents 0 to 3 percent slope (mapping unit 126A), Adkins fine sandy loam 5 to 25 percent slopes (mapping unit 1C), and Sagehill fine sandy loam 2 to 5 percent slopes (mapping unit 87B). Xerofluvents are mapped along Despain Gulch. They are somewhat poorly drained soils subject to Photograph 4: Despain Gulch Exchange Parcel view 1. frequent flooding and are classified Source USFWS as a hydric (wetland) soil. Depth to the water table is from 12 to 36 inches. Xerofluvents are not prime farmland soils. Adkins fine sandy loam is mapped along the slope to the east of Despain Gulch. Sagehill fine sandy loam is mapped in the higher area in the northeast corner of the parcel. Both soils are well drained and not subject to flooding or ponding. The depth to the water table is greater than 80 inches. They are both soils of statewide farmland importance and neither is classified as a hydric (wetland) soil.

4.2.2 Vegetation

Vegetation within the Despain Gulch parcel is dominated by planted pasture grasses such as common ryegrass (Lolium perenne), Oahe intermediate wheatgrass (Thinopyrum intermedium ‘Oahe’), Vavilov siberian wheatgrass (Agropyron fragile ‘Vavilov’), Lincoln smooth brome (Bromus inermis ‘Lincoln’), Sherman big bluegrass (Poa secunda ‘Sherman’), and red clover (Trifolium pretense). Lambsquarters (Chenopodium album), Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium) and bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) are patchily distributed throughout the parcel. Non-native Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) trees are present along the property boundaries. Vegetation within the wet meadow and along the stream includes wild carrot (Daucus carota), bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamara), and stinging nettle (Urtica dioica). Vegetation within the gulch includes duckweed (family Lemnoideae) and watercress (Nasturtium officinale).

4.2.3 Wildlife

Large mammals known to occur on Cold Springs NWR that may use the Despain Gulch parcel include Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni), mule deer, American badger, coyote, and beaver (Castor canadensis). Rocky Mountain elk are represented by a substantial resident herd that is

known to graze and pass through the parcel. The occupancy or use by the other large mammals is unknown. Small mammals that may use the parcel include striped skunk, western spotted skunk (Spilogale gracilis), porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum), raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), black-tailed jackrabbit, pocket gopher (Thomomys talpoides), moles (family Talpidae), various types of gophers and mice (families Geomyidae and Cricetidae), and shrews (family Soricidae). Bats (family Vespertilionidae) likely forage over the field. Cold Springs NWR is known to support over 200 species of birds. Birds flying along the Pacific Flyway use the Refuge as a stopover during their annual migrations. In spring, most of the waterfowl and songbirds migrate north, but some ducks and many Photograph 5: Despain Gulch view 2. Source USFWS songbirds stay to nest. Grassland-nesting species such as various species of sparrows (Spizella spp., Pooecetes spp., Zonotrichia spp., etc.), horned lark, and western meadowlark may nest on the parcel, but nesting by these species has not been documented.

4.2.4 Threatened and Endangered Species

There are no ESA-listed wildlife or plant species known to occur or use the Despain Gulch parcel. The parcel contains no designated or proposed critical habitat.

4.2.5 Aquatic Resources

Despain Gulch is a small stream that traverses the parcel, draining northwesterly toward the Cold Springs reservoir. The surrounding pasture is primarily a wetland meadow, though the NWI map (Figure 4) does not identify any wetlands on the parcel. The FIRM notes that the area around Cold Spring Reservoir is mapped FEMA Zone D. Zone D designates areas where no flood hazard analysis has been conducted.

4.2.6 Fire

The wildfire history of Despain Gulch is not known, but is expected to be infrequent due to the presence of the gulch and seasonally high water tables, which keep vegetation hydrated late into the growing season, making it much less fire-prone than drier areas such as sagebrush-steppe habitats. There is no recorded history of fire in similar habitat types at Cold Springs NWR.

4.2.7 Aesthetics and Scenic Resources

The Umatilla County Comprehensive Plan (Umatilla County 2017) does not identify any county- designated scenic resources or scenic waterways in the vicinity of Cold Springs NWR. The parcel is a grazed pasture and as such creates an aesthetically stark contrast to the Refuge’s forested and scrub-shrub wetland habitats to the west and Memorial Marsh managed wetlands to the north. Grazing prevents the establishment and growth of trees and shrubs. The surrounding open and agricultural landscape is rural. Neighboring land uses are dominated by irrigated agriculture (primarily wheat) with crop circles dominating the landscape outside the Refuge.

4.2.8 Air Quality

As described under the Air Quality discussion for McNary NWR, Umatilla County is in attainment with NAAQS for all air pollutants (ODEQ 2017).

4.2.9 Hazardous Materials

There are no known hazardous materials on or near the Despain Gulch parcel. EPA’s NEPAssist reports that the parcel is at least 0.5 miles from the nearest known brownfield site, superfund site, toxic release inventory site, Resource Conservation Recovery Act hazardous waste site, and Toxic Substance Control Act site.

4.2.10 Cultural Resources

Onsite cultural resource surveys have not been conducted and it is unknown if there are any cultural resources on the Despain Gulch parcel.

4.2.11 Wildlife-Dependent Public Uses

There are no existing wildlife-dependent public uses on the Despain Gulch parcel as it is private property without public access.

4.2.12 Noise

The Despain Gulch parcel is located within a rural area of Umatilla County with relatively few noise sources. Outside Cold Springs NWR, the area is primarily in agricultural production with single- family residences. Noise sources include farm machinery and residential areas. Because the area is sparsely populated, background noise levels are likely to be between 30 and 40 dBA, under calm wind conditions (USACE 2011b). There are no sensitive noise receptors such as hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, or elderly housing and convalescent facilities near the parcel.

4.2.13 Socioeconomic Environment

The Despain Gulch parcel is currently a grazed pasture. The pasture’s contribution to the value of the cattle is unknown. No other socioeconomic activity takes place on the parcel. As noted, the surrounding area is heavily invested in irrigated agricultural production of wheat, potatoes, mint, and other crops. Rural residential land uses occur about one mile west of the parcel.

4.2.14 Environmental Justice

The Despain Gulch parcel and immediate surrounding vicinity are unoccupied. There are no permanent or temporary, minority or low-income populations residing on or adjacent to the parcel. 5. Environmental Effects

5.1 Introduction

This section analyzes the environmental effects of the proposed action on each affected resource, including direct and indirect effects. This EA includes the written analysis of the environmental effects on a resource only when the impacts to that resource could be more than negligible and are therefore considered an “affected resource,” or are otherwise considered important as related to the proposed action. Any resources that would not be more than negligibly affected by the action and have been identified as not otherwise important to the proposed action and decision-making process have been dismissed from further analysis. A negligible effect is when the anticipated change to resource conditions is so slight there would not be any measurable or perceptible consequence to wildlife or plant communities or other aspects of the human environment. Determination of significance requires consideration of context and intensity. Context refers to the spatial and temporal setting of the action; intensity refers to the severity of the impact based on consideration of ten factors (40 CFR § 1508.27). These factors include effects to public safety, unique characteristics of the area (e.g., an ecologically critical area), resources on the NRHP, and ESA-listed species or critical habitat. Effects that are highly controversial or highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks or which set a precedent for future actions may also be significant. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment.

5.2 Effects at McNary National Wildlife Refuge

At McNary NWR, EID has a contractual obligation under the ROW permit to follow and implement all stipulations included in the permit. If EID fails to perform, they could face liability for breach of contract. EID is also obligated to implement additional environmental stipulations/commitments, best management practices, permit conditions, and mitigation and/or monitoring requirements necessary to ensure the pipeline project is implemented in compliance with pertinent laws, regulations, and Executive Orders, which are itemized on the Corps of Engineers Environmental Green Sheet (Appendix A). EID must document compliance with each requirement and USACE will maintain a record of completion in the USACE District environmental compliance records. Environmental effects of the EID pipeline project were discussed in the March 18, 2018, EA and are not further discussed here. Upon completion of all site restoration requirements related to the irrigation pipeline project, the Service has no projects planned for the area that would affect the human environment. EID anticipates no need to re-enter the area for the foreseeable future, unless there is a need for an emergency repair. Given that the area is surrounded by private land to the west and south and there is minimal public use, there is no plan by EID to fence the area or formally close it to the public (Eric Campbell pers. comm. April 3, 2018).

Thus, there are no proposals for actions, other than the proposed exchange, that are reasonably certain to occur by either the Service or EID that would affect the human environment that can be meaningfully analyzed. As a result, effects to the human environment at McNary NWR are neutral or negligible to most resources (Table 1). These resources are not discussed further in this EA. Table 1. Resources Not More Than Negligibly Affected at McNary National Wildlife Refuge Resource No Land Exchange (Alternative 1) and Proposed Land Exchange (Alternative 2) Topography and Soils No direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to topography and soils as no ground- disturbing activities are proposed. Vegetation No direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to vegetation as no vegetation-impacting activities are proposed. Wildlife No direct, indirect, or cumulative effects anticipated to wildlife as no wildlife- disturbing activities are proposed. Threatened and No direct, indirect, or cumulative effects anticipated because there are no ESA-listed Endangered Species species that occur in the area. ESA Section 7 consultation determined that there would be no effects to ESA-listed species (Appendix B). Aquatic Resources No direct, indirect, or cumulative effects because no aquatic resources occur in the proposed exchange area. Aesthetics and Scenic No direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to aesthetics and scenic resources as no Resources visually intrusive activities are proposed. Fire Alternative 1: Current fire management activities would be maintained, resulting in no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects. Alternative 2: Land no longer covered by the McNary NWR Fire Plan. Fire protection responsibilities lie with EID and Umatilla County, a negligible effect. Air Quality Infrequent operation and maintenance activities would generally be limited to site visits using vehicles operating along existing unimproved roads, resulting in negligible increases in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and dust. Public Uses The proposed exchange area would remain open to the public, resulting in no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects. Noise Infrequent operation and maintenance site visits using vehicles operating along existing unimproved roads would result in negligible direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to ambient noise conditions. Socioeconomics No actions are planned with socioeconomic effects, resulting in no direct, indirect, or cumulative socioeconomic effects. Environmental Justice As the proposed exchange area and the area surrounding it are unoccupied, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative environmental justice effects.

Table 2 identifies those resources at McNary NWR where impacts are expected to be greater than negligible. These resources are discussed in greater detail below. Table 2. More Than Negligibly Affected Resources at McNary National Wildlife Refuge Resource No Land Exchange Proposed Land Exchange (Alternative 1) (Alternative 2) Cultural Resources No direct, indirect, or cumulative No adverse effect to the Liickawpa effects as current conditions are HPRCSIT as access to the exchange parcel maintained. would be maintained.

5.2.1 Cultural Resources

Alternative 1: No Land Exchange Under Alternative 1, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to cultural resources as the Service would maintain ownership of the land and current cultural resource protections would be maintained. Alternative 2: Proposed Land Exchange Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings (actions) on historic properties. Removing lands from the Refuge System (as would take place at McNary NWR) is an undertaking that is considered to be of the type of activity that has the potential to cause effects to cultural resources because land is being removed from the protection of federal cultural resource preservation laws. The area proposed for exchange out of federal ownership is within the area identified as HPRCSIT 2. The Service corresponded with the CTUIR on June 19, 2019, August 12, 2019, and October 7, 2019, to determine how the Service should further identify the HPRCSIT 2 and whether the undertaking would have an effect on it. The correspondence included emails and letters describing the undertaking, mapping the APE, sharing the survey report, and discussing the potential for the presence of the HPRCSIT 2 and requesting consultation. As recommended by CTUIR, the Service submitted a formal request for sensitive information on October 10, 2019. The CTUIR shared a confidential copy of their documentation and analysis of the HPCRSIT 2 on October 31, 2019. The Service sent additional email and memo correspondence on November 1, 2019, December 30, 2019, and May 1, 2020, with CTUIR responses dated February 10 and June 18, 2020. While it is clear that the APE occurs within the HPRCSIT 2, and the undertaking will have an effect on it, the CTUIR concluded that a finding of no adverse effect is appropriate (personal communication, Raymond and Dickson, June 18, 2020). The APE occurs within HPRCSIT 2, a historic property which is eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under all criteria and which maintains integrity. However, the APE has sustained significant alteration and disturbance by industrial and agricultural development. The APE does not contribute to the significance or integrity of HPRCSIT 2. The transfer of the 19.28-acre APE from Service ownership to the private party that currently owns and has developed the neighboring land will not diminish the character of HPRCSIT 2. Furthermore, in exchange, the Service will receive 14.6 acres of relatively undisturbed and productive wildlife habitat in Despain Gulch directly adjacent to nearby Cold Springs NWR. This land protects and enhances culturally important plants, animals, including first foods important to the CTUIR, and contributes to the overall health of the natural and cultural environment. The Despain Gulch acquisition adequately compensates for the loss of the APE from Service control and protection. Given the foregoing, the Service has determined that the undertaking is a no adverse effect outcome under 36CFR800.5.b of the implementing regulations of NHPA Section 106. 5.3 Effects at Despain Gulch Parcel

As discussed, at this time, the best use of the parcel appears to be as an actively managed, seasonal wetland for the benefit of migratory waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, and other wetland-

dependent wildlife species. Converting the pasture into an actively managed wetland would require manipulations to the site, such as re-vegetating and altering site hydrology.

5.3.1 Summary of Effects at Despain Gulch Parcel

Table 3 identifies those resources at the Despain Gulch parcel that would either not be affected or where effects are expected to be no greater than negligible. These resources are not discussed further in this EA. Table 3. Resources Not More Than Negligibly Affected at Despain Gulch Property Resource No Land Exchange (Alternative 1) and Proposed Land Exchange (Alternative 2) Threatened and No direct, indirect, or cumulative effects since no ESA-listed species are known to use the Endangered Despain Gulch property or occur in the area. ESA Section 7 consultation determined that there Species would be no effects to ESA-listed species (Appendix B). Socio- Alternative 1: No direct, indirect, or cumulative effects. economics Alternative 2: Negligible direct effect as grazing would be terminated. Negligible indirect and cumulative effects related to increased public uses if the area is opened in the future to wildlife-dependent public uses. Environmental Because the Despain Gulch property and the immediate surrounding area are unoccupied there Justice would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative environmental justice effects.

Table 4 identifies those resources at the Despain Gulch parcel where impacts are expected to be greater than negligible. These resources are discussed below. Table 4. Resources at Despain Gulch Property More Than Negligibly Impacted Resource No Land Exchange Proposed Land Exchange (Alternative 1) (Alternative 2) Topography and Minor direct, indirect, and Minor, short-term (direct) effects related to grading and Soils cumulative effects related to water control devices. Minor long-term (indirect) effects grazing and farm machinery on due to occasional maintenance activities (discing). wet soils. Vegetation Negligible direct, indirect, and Moderate, short-term (direct) effects related to changing the cumulative effects related to plant community from pasture grass dominated to native maintaining commercially wetland plant dominated. Minor long-term (indirect) effects available, non-native pasture related to IPM vegetation management actions. grasses. Wildlife Negligible direct, indirect, or Moderate, short-term (direct), long-term (indirect), and cumulative effects as current cumulative effects related to changes in wildlife species grazing practices are supported (e.g., wading birds, shorebirds). maintained. Aquatic Minor direct, indirect, and Moderate direct, indirect, and cumulative effects related to Resources cumulative effects related to changing site hydrology to support a managed wetland. grazing along Despain Gulch. Fire No direct, indirect, or Minor direct (short-term), indirect (long-term) and cumulative effects. cumulative effects by creating wetland conditions which would deter wildfire. Fire management would conform to guidelines set forth in Service policy and the approved Fire Management Plan for Mid-Columbia River NWRC.

Resource No Land Exchange Proposed Land Exchange (Alternative 1) (Alternative 2) Aesthetics and Negligible direct, indirect, or Negligible direct effects related to short-term construction Scenic Resources cumulative effects. activities. Minor long-term and cumulative effects related to blending onsite plant communities with communities on the Refuge. Air Quality Negligible direct, indirect, and Minor direct effects related to short-term construction cumulative effects related to activities. Negligible indirect and cumulative effects related the occasional use of farm to the occasional use of farm machinery to maintain the machinery. wetland. Cultural No direct, indirect, or Minor direct, indirect, and cumulative effects related to Resources cumulative effects. bringing cultural resources that may be present under the protection of federal cultural resource protection laws. Public Uses No direct, indirect, or No direct effects because the site is closed to public uses. cumulative effects. Minor effect to public uses if area is open to wildlife- dependent public uses in the future. Noise Negligible direct, indirect, and Minor direct, construction-related effects. Negligible cumulative effects related to indirect and cumulative effects related to infrequent but the occasional use of farm long-term maintenance activities. machinery.

5.3.2 Topography and Soils

Alternative 1: No Land Exchange Under Alternative 1, the proposed land exchange would not occur and there would be no change to current management practices. Soils at Despain Gulch would remain subject to impacts related to grazing (e.g., trampling-induced changes in soil structure, compaction, and infiltration rates) and farming activities, resulting in minor, long-term effects to topography and soils. Alternative 2: Proposed Land Exchange Under Alternative 2, the subject parcel would likely be managed as a seasonal wetland for migratory waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, and other wetland-dependent wildlife. In order to create the wetland, the site may require grading and the installation of water control structures such as dikes. The extent of site-grading and the need for water control structures is dependent on water elevations and site topography, which would be determined by topographic surveys and water elevation modeling. While the amount of grading that may be required is not yet known, site-grading would likely result in minor effects to topography and soils as effects would be detectable, but localized and of little consequence beyond the immediate area of impact. To prevent fugitive dust and erosion, typical erosion control best management practices would be employed, as necessary, including the use of silt fences, mulching, and covering stockpiled soils, if any.

Photograph 6: Despain Gulch Property view 3. Source USFWS

Over the long-term, mechanical scarification techniques (such as discing) may be required on occasion to set back succession of emergent vegetation (e.g., cattails, bulrushes), to promote moist soil and native plant production, and to control invasive and undesirable plants. This would result in minor long-term effects to topography and soils. Other methods are available to achieve these results such as through mowing or the use of herbicides, so discing may be only occasionally employed.

5.3.3 Vegetation

Alternative 1: No Land Exchange Under Alternative 1, the land would continue to be managed according to the owner. This includes occasionally sowing commercially available non-native pasture grasses such as Oahe intermediate wheatgrass, Vavilov Siberian wheatgrass, Lincoln smooth brome, and Sherman big bluegrass. Maintaining the current vegetation composition, structure, and cover would result in negligible direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to vegetation. Alternative 2: Proposed Land Exchange Under Alternative 2, the plant community would change from one that is currently dominated by non-native pasture grasses to one that is dominated by native wetland plants, including moist-soil annuals such as smartweeds (Polygonum spp.), wild millet (Panicum miliaceum), and water plantain (Alisma spp.), and perennial species such as sedges (Carex spp.) and nutsedges (Cyperus spp.). Native emergent species that grow up to 5 feet tall, such as cattail (Typha spp.) and hardstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus), would be managed to maintain no more than about 20 percent cover. Native seeds and/or plants derived from the area would be used as a priority for all planting/restoration projects on Cold Springs NWR. Providers of native seed or native plants would be required to provide documentation identifying the origin of seed or plants and would also, in the case of seed, provide certification that the seed is free of noxious weed contamination. Plant materials may be refused if they do not meet these requirements.

Over the long-term, IPM would be utilized to eradicate, control, or contain non-native invasive plant species. The IPM approach is described in the Conceptual Management Plan (Section 3). Using IPM would result in minor long-term and cumulative effects to vegetation because the results of taking an action would be detectable, but localized and of little consequence beyond the targeted species and area directly affected.

5.3.4 Wildlife

Alternative 1: No Land Exchange Under the No Land Exchange alternative, current land use, which includes cattle grazing, would continue. Rocky Mountain elk would continue to graze and pass through the pasture as they do today. Ground-nesting grassland birds may continue to nest in the pasture, but the species involved and the amount of nesting is unknown, as are the effects of grazing such as maintaining favorable grass heights or trampling and livestock-induced nest abandonment. As current conditions would not change, there would be negligible direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to wildlife.

Alternative 2: Proposed Land Exchange Wildlife supported by the current pasture management would change because the area would be managed to provide optimal conditions for moist soil production of waterfowl foods. To avoid construction-related impacts to ground-nesting birds, vegetation clearing would take place only outside the migratory bird-nesting season (April 1 through August 15). Cold Springs NWR was established to provide migration and wintering habitat, including wetlands, for waterfowl and other migratory avian species. Providing a diversity of wetlands is vital to achieving Refuge purposes. Currently, about 40 acres are managed to provide moist soil crops. By increasing the number of acres of open shallow marsh, the Refuge would have additional areas providing a diversity of early successional vegetation stages to support more waterfowl, wading birds, rails, shorebirds, and muskrats resulting in moderate, long-term beneficial effects to wildlife as the effects would be readily detectable and localized with measurable consequences to wildlife, but those effects would not be readily detectable or measurable beyond Cold Springs NWR.

5.3.5 Aquatic Resources

Alternative 1: No Land Exchange Despain Gulch and the surrounding wet meadow are the prominent aquatic resources on the parcel. The pasture is grazed and cattle are not excluded from the Gulch, so the banks are eroding in places. Trampling may also affect soil structure and water infiltration rates. Water quality may be affected through nutrient enrichment from cattle excrement (dung and urine). However, these impacts are unquantified at this site. Maintaining current management of the parcel would likely result in minor effects to the parcel’s aquatic resources as the effects are likely detectable, but localized, small, and of little consequence beyond the parcel itself. Alternative 2: Proposed Land Exchange Creating managed wetlands on the parcel may require the installation of water control devices in order to allow the incremental flood-up and drawdown of water levels to promote the growth of

moist soil food crops for foraging winter waterfowl and to provide shorebird foraging areas. Active water management would likely extend the period of ponding that the site currently experiences. Assuming that 10 of the 14 acres become managed wetlands, that would represent a 15 percent increase in this habitat type on Cold Springs NWR. This would result in a moderate, long-term effect to site hydrology in that the effects would be readily detectable and localized with measurable consequences to aquatic resources but not readily detectable or measurable beyond the immediate area.

5.3.6 Fire

Alternative 1: No Land Exchange Maintaining current management would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effect on the occurrence interval or severity of wildfires on the subject parcel and surrounding area. Alternative 2: Proposed Land Exchange Once the parcel is a part of Cold Springs NWR, fire management activities would conform to guidelines set forth in Service policy and the approved Fire Management Plan for the Mid-Columbia River NWRC. Wildland fire would be suppressed when possible. Fire control policies would be implemented to reduce the risk of human-caused wildland fire. Fire suppression techniques would be employed that minimize disturbance in the vicinity of sensitive resources. Establishing a managed wetland on the parcel would greatly reduce the chance of wildfire due to the maintenance of open water and a high water table, which would keep vegetation from desiccating as the growing season progresses. This would be a minor deterrence effect on wildfire as the effect may be detectable, but it would be localized to the site.

5.3.7 Aesthetics and Scenic Resources

County-designated scenic resources would be unaffected by either alternative as none occur in the vicinity of Cold Springs NWR. Alternative 1: No Land Exchange Under Alternative 1, the Despain Gulch property would continue to be managed as grazed pasture and the site would continue to provide a visually stark contrast to Cold Springs NWR forested and scrub-shrub habitats to the west and the managed wetlands to the north. As current conditions would be maintained, this represents negligible direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to aesthetics. Alternative 2: Proposed Land Exchange Under Alternative 2, the Service would likely establish a managed wetland on the new Refuge land. This habitat type would aesthetically blend in with the Memorial Marsh managed wetlands immediately north of the subject parcel. Native cottonwoods and willows may establish along the periphery of the parcel, blending with the forested wetland habitats to the west. A stark aesthetic contrast would remain with the grazed pastures to the south. Long-term and cumulative effects to aesthetics would be minor. Effects would be detectable, but localized, small, and of little consequence beyond the immediate area affected.

Construction activities related to site-grading and installation of water control devices (if needed) may result in minor, short-term direct impacts to aesthetics due to the presence of heavy equipment and materials during construction. However, given the existing conditions and no public uses, aesthetic impacts during project construction would be negligible.

5.3.8 Hazardous Materials

Alternative 1: No Land Exchange Under Alternative 1, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects relative to hazardous materials because current conditions would be maintained. Alternative 2: Proposed Land Exchange Under Alternative 2, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects relative to hazardous materials because none are known to occur on or near the Despain Gulch property. Prior to acquiring the parcel, the Service would comply with the requirements of the DOI Manual, Part 341, Chapter 3 and conduct a pre-acquisition environmental site assessment. If hazardous materials are found, a Level II site assessment would be conducted to determine the extent of the contamination. The Service would then require EID to clean up the identified hazardous material before accepting title to the property.

5.3.9 Cultural Resources

Alternative 1: No Land Exchange Under Alternative 1, the proposed land exchange would not occur and current management practices would continue. Any cultural resources that occur onsite would not gain the protection of applicable federal cultural resource preservation laws. There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to cultural resources. Alternative 2: Proposed Land Exchange Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. Under the terms of Section 106, the proposed action is an undertaking that is considered to be of the type of activity that has no potential to cause effects to cultural resources because land is being brought under the protection of federal cultural resource preservation laws. Actions that involve ground-disturbing activities or other actions with the potential to affect cultural resources would undergo review in compliance with the requirements of local, state, and federal cultural resource protection laws, including Section 106 of the NHPA, before being implemented. Such review may entail a literature review and records search, field investigations, and consultation with the SHPO, CTUIR, and other interested parties. If cultural resources are present, appropriate procedures under federal laws and Service policies and guidelines would be implemented to protect them. Whenever possible, cultural resources would be avoided or mitigated. Mitigation options, in addition to site avoidance by relocating or redesigning facilities, would include data recovery and using either collection techniques or in situ site stabilization. Should cultural resources be discovered during construction, activities in the area of the resource would be stopped and the SHPO and

CTUIR would be contacted to determine how to proceed. Adhering to Service policy requirements regarding cultural resource protection means that direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to cultural resources would be neutral or negligible.

5.3.10 Public Uses

Alternative 1: No Land Exchange The Despain Gulch parcel is private property that is not open to the public and provides no public uses. Under Alternative 1, current management of the parcel by the owner would continue and the parcel would remain closed to public uses. There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to public uses. Alternative 2: Proposed Land Exchange Since there are no existing public uses of the site, pre-acquisition compatibility determinations of existing public uses are not necessary. As management plans for the site become clearer, the Service would first complete compatibility determinations for the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses as defined by the Improvement Act: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation, as these activities have been administratively determined to be appropriate uses of a national wildlife refuge (603 FW 1). There would be a minor effect to public use if any of the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses were found to be compatible because the area is small and could not support a high degree of public uses. Otherwise, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects since the parcel is currently closed to public uses and would remain so.

5.3.11 Air Quality

Alternative 1: No Land Exchange Under Alternative 1, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to the ambient air quality as current conditions would be maintained. Intermittent use of farm machinery would result in negligible emissions of GHGs and other pollutants, which would have negligible long-term and cumulative effects to ambient air quality conditions. Alternative 2: Proposed Land Exchange Construction activities associated with developing a managed wetland may result in short-term air quality impairment through the temporary, negligible production of dust and heavy-equipment emissions. GHG emissions would include nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and fine particulate matter (PM10). The total duration of construction would be approximately one month. The small number of heavy equipment that would be used and the relatively short duration of the construction period would limit such emissions, resulting in a minor and temporary increase in GHG emissions. Intermittent use of heavy farm equipment to maintain the site would result in negligible long-term and cumulative effects.

5.3.12 Noise

Alternative 1: No Land Exchange Under the No Land Exchange alternative, there would be negligible direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to ambient noise levels as current management activities would continue. Intermittent use of farm machinery on the pasture would result in negligible noise outputs given the lack of sensitive noise receptors in the immediate vicinity of the Despain Gulch property. Alternative 2: Proposed Land Exchange Establishing a managed wetland would slightly increase short-term, localized ambient noise levels through the use of heavy machinery during site-grading and water control structure construction activities. These would be negligible to minor effects given the short-term duration of construction activities and the lack of sensitive noise receptors in the immediate vicinity. Once established, maintenance activities would have similar noise impacts to what currently occurs onsite, resulting in negligible, long-term and cumulative noise effects.

5.3.13 Socioeconomics

Alternative 1: No Land Exchange Maintaining current management activities on the Despain Gulch property would result in no direct, indirect, or cumulative socioeconomic effects. Economic outputs related to the current grazing program would be unaffected. Alternative 2: Proposed Land Exchange Once the property is included in Cold Springs NWR, grazing would be terminated. The latest USDA Census of Agriculture for Umatilla County is from 2012 (USDA 2012). At that time, there were over 1.3 million acres of farmland in the county, of which a little more than 30 percent (about 390,000 acres) was pastureland. The loss of 14.6 acres of grazed pastureland amounts to far less than 1/100th of 1 percent of the county’s pastureland, a negligible direct effect to the socioeconomic environment of Umatilla County. Over the long-term, the Service would evaluate the compatibility of opening the property to wildlife- dependent public uses. If the area is opened to any of these uses, there may be a negligible increase in visitation related to this new wetland area, resulting in negligible, long-term, and cumulative socioeconomic effects to Umatilla County.

5.3.14 Environmental Justice

Because the Despain Gulch property and the immediate surrounding area are unoccupied, under both the No Land Exchange and the Proposed Land Exchange alternatives, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative environmental justice effects. Maintaining current management (Alternative 1) or adding the parcel to Cold Springs NWR (Alternative 2) would not result in displacements and would not result in disproportionate human health or environmental effects to minority or low- income populations, or anyone else.

6. Summary of Analysis

The purpose of this EA is to briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement or a Finding of No Significant Impact.

6.1 Alternative 1: No Action

Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, does not satisfy the purpose and need for action as described above. The Service would continue to own and manage land at McNary NWR that is impacted by infrastructure and, as a result, has diminished wildlife habitat. Under Alternative 1, the Service would lose the opportunity to improve the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of lands in the Mid-Columbia River NWRC. As Alternative 1 maintains present conditions, there would be no significant effects to the human environment.

6.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Land Exchange

Alternative 2, the Proposed Land Exchange alternative, is the Service’s preferred alternative. Alternative 2 satisfies the purpose and need for action as described above. The Service would exchange land at McNary NWR that is impacted by infrastructure and, as a result, has diminished wildlife habitat. The Service would gain land adjacent to Cold Springs NWR that appears to be suitable for a managed wetland. By divesting land of limited wildlife habitat and gaining land that could be managed as a wetland for a variety of species in an otherwise semi-arid environment, the Service would be improving the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of lands in the Mid-Columbia River NWRC and better meeting the purpose for which Cold Springs NWR was established. Implementing Alternative 2 would not result in significant effects to the human environment as described in 40 CFR § 1508.27. Implementing Alternative 1 would not affect public health or safety nor would it affect ESA-listed species or critical habitat. Implementing Alternative 2 would not result in effects that are highly controversial or highly uncertain, and would not involve unique or unknown risks or set a precedent for future actions, because land exchanges and developing managed wetlands are commonly done on national wildlife refuges. The CTUIR concluded that a finding of no adverse effect to cultural resources was appropriate for the proposed exchange (personal communication, Raymond and Dickson, 18 June 18, 2020). 7. Coordination and Consultation

In developing this EA, the Service consulted with Dennis Griffin, Oregon’s State Historic Preservation Officer, and Catherine Dickson and Teara Farrow Ferman from the CTUIR. As part of the public review process, the original LPP/EA that included the EID pipeline project was made available for a 15-day review from March 15 to March 30, 2019. No public comments were received. This supplemental EA is available for public comment from September 7, 2020 to October 7, 2020. Comments or requests for additional information may be submitted through any of the following methods: Email: [email protected]. Include “EID Exchange” in the subject line of the message.

Fax: Attn: EID Exchange (509) 546-8318. U.S. Mail: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Attn: Keely Lopez, Refuge Manager, 64 Maple Street, Burbank, Washington 99323. All comments received from individuals become part of the official public record. We will handle all requests for such comments in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act and the CEQ’s NEPA regulations in 40 CFR 1506.6(f). The Service’s practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. 8. Environmental Review and Compliance

The following executive orders and legislative acts have been reviewed as they apply to the proposed action: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.) As a federal agency, the Service must comply with the provisions of NEPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347). An analysis is required to evaluate alternatives that would meet stated objectives and to assess the reasonably foreseeable effects to the human environment. This EA meets NEPA requirements by examining and disclosing the reasonably foreseeable effects to the human environment resulting from the Service entering into a land exchange with EID and by providing the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed action. Executive Order 11593: Protection of Historical, Archaeological, and Scientific Properties and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470-470x) Executive Order (EO) 11593 established the policy that the federal government provide leadership in preserving, restoring, and maintaining the historic and cultural environment of the United States. Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. This includes complying with the NHPA and other cultural resource preservation laws, and consulting with the SHPO and affected tribes over future management actions which may have the potential to affect cultural resources. Pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA and promulgated regulations, the Service has determined that adding the Despain Gulch parcel to Cold Springs NWR is an undertaking that is considered to be of the type of activity that has no potential to cause effects to cultural resources because land is being brought under the protection of applicable federal cultural resource preservation laws. The Service would complete cultural resource surveys prior to initiating any ground-disturbing activities. Should any resources be found, the Service would coordinate with the SHPO and CTUIR to ensure compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. Conversely, removing land from McNary NWR is considered an undertaking that has the potential to adversely impact cultural resources subject to consultation with the SHPO and potentially affected tribes. Following a series of consultations, the CTUIR concluded that a finding of no adverse effect is appropriate for the proposed exchange (personal communication, Raymond and Dickson, June 18,

2020). The Despain Gulch acquisition adequately compensates for the loss of the APE from Service control and protection. Given the foregoing, the Service has determined that the undertaking is a no adverse effect outcome under 36CFR800.5.b, the implementing regulations of NHPA Section 106. Executive Order 12996: Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) A guiding principle of EO 12996 and the Improvement Act is that the Refuge System is maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans and to provide opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational activities. The proposed land exchange is consistent with EO 12996 because the Service would exchange lands impacted by infrastructure with limited wildlife habitat value for valuable wetland habitat that has the potential to provide high quality, wintering habitat for waterfowl and other migratory birds, thus better meeting the purpose of the Mid-Columbia River NWRC and the Refuge System mission. Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management EO 11988 requires federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, long- and short-term adverse effects associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains wherever there is a practicable alternative. While floodplains are not mapped at either location, any floodplain associated with Despain Gulch would be permanently protected and enhanced. Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands EO 11990 requires federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, long- and short-term adverse effects associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative. The National Wetlands Inventory does not map any wetlands within the proposed exchange area at McNary NWR, which has been confirmed by a site reconnaissance. The exchange would be consistent with EO 11990 because wetlands at the Despain Gulch parcel would be protected and enhanced. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, and Secretarial Order 3127 Secretarial Order (SO) 3127 and CERCLA require federal agencies to evaluate the environmental condition of property and to take remedial actions as necessary to protect human health and the environment before acquiring property. The proposed action is consistent with SO 3127 and CERCLA because hazardous materials are not known to exist at either exchange parcel. The Service would complete a pre-acquisition environmental site assessment on the Despain Gulch parcel prior to completing the proposed land exchange. If hazardous materials were found onsite, the exchange would not be completed until those materials were removed and any required site remediation actions completed. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations All federal actions require the federal government to address and identify, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations, low-income populations, and Indian Tribes in the United States.

The proposed action would comply with EO 12898 because the proposed land exchange and the proposed pipeline construction project would not result in displacements, nor would they have adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations, or anyone else. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.) The ESA directs all federal agencies to work to conserve endangered and threatened species and to use their authorities to further the purposes of the ESA. Section 7 of the ESA is the mechanism by which federal agencies ensure their actions do not jeopardize the existence of any listed species. Under Section 7, federal agencies consult with the Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service when any action they carry out, fund, or authorize may affect a listed species. Section 7 consultation resulted in a determination that the exchange project would have no effect to listed species (Appendix B). Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds Migratory bird conventions and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended, impose substantive obligations on the United States for the conservation of migratory birds and their habitats. EO 13186 directs executive branch departments and agencies to take certain actions to further implement the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, including supporting the conservation intent of the migratory bird conventions, restoring and enhancing the habitat of migratory birds, and preventing or abating detrimental alteration of the environment for the benefit of migratory birds. The proposed action would comply with EO 13186 because the Despain Gulch parcel would be an actively managed, seasonal wetland to benefit migratory waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, and other wetland-dependent wildlife species. Executive Order 13112: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies Pertaining to Invasive Species EO 13112 requires federal agencies to prevent the introduction of invasive species and provide for their control and to minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause. In order to prevent the invasion of noxious weeds, construction contractors would be required to use certified weed-free seed, topsoil, and mulches. 9. Literature Cited

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2017. DEQ Air Quality Maintenance and Nonattainment Areas: http://www.oregon.gov/deq/aq/Pages/Nonattainment-Areas.aspx. Accessed December 28, 2017. Pacific Power. 2015. Environmental Assessment for the Wallula to McNary 23-kilovolt Transmission Line Project. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Reiss-Landreau Research. 2017. A Section 106 Archaeological Review and Inventory of a Proposed East Improvement District Irrigation Pumping Station Facility, Umatilla County, OR. RLR Report 2017-396-22. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2011a. McNary Shoreline Management Plan Revised Programmatic Environmental Assessment. Walla Walla District, Environmental Compliance Section.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2011b. Environmental Assessment for the Skookum Habitat Management Unit Woody Riparian Initiative, Lower Snake River Fish and Wildlife Compensation Plan. Walla Walla District, Environmental Compliance Section. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2012. Census of Agriculture: County Profile for Umatilla County, OR. https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/County_Profiles/Oregon/cp410 59.pdf. Accessed 12/6/17. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of the Interior, State of Oregon, and State of Washington. 1953. Memorandum of Joint Agreement and Understanding Between the Department of the Army and Department of the Interior and the State of Oregon and the State of Washington for the General Plan of Development, Conservation and Management of Wildlife Resources within the Reservoir Area of McNary Lock and Dam Project. U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of the Interior. 2000. Cooperative Agreement between the Department of the Army and the Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No. DACW68-4-00-13. Umatilla County. 2017. Umatilla County Comprehensive Plan: 2017 Revision. Umatilla County Planning Department. http://www.co.umatilla.or.us/planning/pdf/Umatilla_County_Ccomp_Plan.pdf

APPENDIX A CORPS OF ENGINEERS ENVIRONMENTAL GREEN SHEET

CORPS OF ENGINEERS ENVIRONMENTAL GREEN SHEET POST AT CONSTRUCTION SITE

Project Name: St. Hilaire Columbia River Pump Station Expansion and East Improvement District New Pump Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Real Estate Amendment and New Easement, REMIS No. 325455

Environmental Compliance File Number: PM-EC-2018-0043

Responsible Corps of Engineers Environmental Points of Contact (POC)/Contact Information:

Anneli Colter – Environmental POC 509-527-7245 [email protected]

John Hook – Biologist POC 509-527-7239 [email protected]

Chris Wernick – Archaeologist POC 509-527-7297 [email protected]

Environmental Requirements: The table below lists all environmental stipulations/commitments, best management practices, permit conditions, mitigation and/or monitoring requirements necessary to ensure the proposed action is implemented in compliance with the pertinent laws, regulations and Executive Orders. A record of completion of these items must be maintained in the District environmental compliance records.

Reporting: Status of Part A, Federal Environmental Requirements, must be provided to the Corps within 2 weeks of completion and with status updates provided once every two months as mobilization, development, and other onsite activities take place. All action specific reporting must be to the Corps, who will report directly to any regulating agencies associated with Part A requirements.

PART A – Federal Environmental Requirements Status as of 1. All disposal of materials will be done in a legal manner.

2. All vegetation clearing activities (removal, trimming, grading of vegetated areas) for construction will take place outside migratory bird nesting season (April 1 through August 15) to avoid “take” of migratory birds.

3. A professional archaeological monitor must be present for all ground disturbing activities. Ground disturbing activities to include, but not limited to, vegetation clearing for access and staging areas, and excavation/trenching activities. The archaeological monitor/contractor is required to submit a monitoring report and updated site forms after construction is complete.

4. Vegetation must be reestablished using only native plants, preferably those species listed as “First Foods”. The contractor will submit a planting plan to the Corps’ archaeologist and biologist 90 days before planting activities begin.

5. (ESA: Assessment proposed measure) All heavy equipment (i.e., crane and excavator, etc.) will access the project site via existing roadways, parking areas, disturbed upland areas, and/or floating barges.

6. (ESA: Assessment proposed measure; NMFS Opinion 2018-8908) All piles will be installed with a vibratory hammer.

7. The contractor will initiate daily “soft-start” procedures to provide a warning and/or give animals near piling installation and removal activities a chance to leave the area prior to a vibratory hammer operating at full capacity; thereby, exposing fewer animals to loud underwater and airborne sounds.

8. The contractor will initiate noise from vibratory hammers for 15 seconds at reduced energy followed by a 30-second waiting period. The procedure shall be repeated two additional times. This soft start will be employed every time there has been a delay in the use of the vibratory hammer.

9. All excavated/dredged materials will be suitable and approved for in- water disposal based on the Sediment Evaluation Framework.

10. A Pollution Control Plan (PCP) will be prepared by the Contractor and submitted to the Corps’ Environmental POC for review and approval. The approved PCP will be carried out commensurate with the scope of the project that includes the following: • BMPs to confine, remove, and dispose of construction waste. • Procedures to contain and control a spill of any hazardous material. • Steps to cease work under high flow conditions.

11. Only enough supplies and equipment to complete the project will be stored on site.

12. All equipment will be inspected daily for fluid leaks, any leaks detected will be repaired before operation is resumed.

PART A – Federal Environmental Requirements Status as of 13. Before operations begin, and as often as necessary during operation, all equipment that will be used below the Ordinary High Water Mark will be steam cleaned until all visible oil, grease, mud, and other visible contaminates are removed.

14. Stationary power equipment operated within 150 feet of the Columbia River will be diapered to prevent leaks.

15. New pump station intake screens will be equipped with a self-monitoring system that will measure hydraulic head and reduce intake velocities as necessary to maintain an approach velocity of 0.2 feet per second (fps), in compliance with NMFS criteria.

16. New pump station intake screens will be placed more than 20 feet below the OHWM.

17. Approximately 0.037 acre (64 percent) of the new overwater station decks will be grated to allow for 60 percent light penetration.

18. Waterproof lighting equipped with a daylight sensor will be installed under the overwater portions of the new concrete deck (0.046 acre) at the new EID pumping station to provide under deck lighting during the daytime to detract salmonid predators.

19. (ESA: USFWS Opinion 01EOFW00-2018-F-0234) To the extent possible, monitor any detectable adverse effects to bull trout. (All construction staff will be briefed at the project kickoff to be watchful for dead, injured, sick, or otherwise affected fish and include the results in updates. During pile driving a qualified environmental monitor, such as a fishery biologist, must be on site to assist with monitoring fish impacts.)

20. (ESA: USFWS Opinion 01EOFW00-2018-F-0234) During the project implementation, any observed adverse effects to bull trout that may occur from these activities will be documented and reported to the Corps Biology POC immediately.

21. (ESA: USFWS Opinion 01EOFW00-2018-F-0234) All documented project inspection records, reports, and plans must be made available for review by the Corps upon request.

22. (ESA: Corps and USFWS coordination) Only a qualified biologist will handle sick, injured or dead fish and will do so according to the USFWS Law Enforcement procedures. The Corps will contact the USFWS and convey procedural requirements.

23. (ESA: USFWS Opinion 01EOFW00-2018-F-0234) A final project report must be submitted 60 days after completion of the proposed action documenting any project-related effects to the bull trout and/or bull trout critical habitat. Send the report to the Corps Biologist POC.

PART A – Federal Environmental Requirements Status as of 24. (ESA: NMFS Opinion 2018-8908) The applicant will conduct all work below the OHWM within as short a period as possible between December 1 and February 28.

25. All state and federal permits are to be followed during the project implementation and after project is completed.

26. (ESA: NMFS Opinion 2018-8908) The applicant will ensure that the overwater structures are 60 percent light penetrating and include waterproof lighting equipment under portions of the new concrete deck.

27. (ESA: NMFS Opinion 2018-8908) A sediment turbidity curtain will be installed to minimize downstream increase turbidity and fine sediments.

28. (ESA: NMFS Opinion 2018-8908) A Pollution Control Plan will be developed prior to the commencement of the project.

29. (ESA: NMFS Opinion 2018-8908) The applicant will track and monitor construction activities to ensure that these conservation measures (federal environmental requirements related to ESA compliance) are meeting the objective of minimizing take. Monitoring shall be conducted by the permittee (via a qualified fishery biologist or similarly qualified biologist or ecologist) and shall include daily visual survey for fish in the nearshore area inside the in- water work area.

(ESA: NMFS Opinion 2018-8908) The applicant will submit a completion of project report to the Corps Biologist POC 60 days after project completion. The applicant shall report all monitoring items to include, at a minimum, the following: i. Size and maximum surface area that is covered by structures. ii. Piling: number, size and type of piles installed. a. Piling installation: Provide a log of the dates, start and stop time, and total duration of all vibratory pile installations.

30. If a sick, injured or dead specimen of a threatened or endangered species is found in the action area, the finder must notify the Corps Biology POC immediately.

PART B - Compliance with other requirements (This section is provided as a courtesy to assist the applicant with tracking total environmental requirements, but may not identify all applicable requirements. Applicant should refer to the applicable permit to ensure all requirements are met.) 1. Comply with the Construction Specific Conditions and Conditions for In-Stream Work from Oregon DEQ Section 401 Water Quality Certification, 2017-00414.

2. Comply with the requirements of Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act permitting. (Clean Water Act Section 404, Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10)

3. The applicant must comply with the requirements of Department of State Lands permitting, as they relate to the environment.

4. (CWA: Oregon DEQ Section 401 Water Quality Certification, 2017-00414) Erosion Control: During construction, erosion control measures must be implemented to prevent or control movement of soil into waters of the state. The Applicant is required to develop and implement an effective erosion and sediment control plan. Any project that disturbs more than one acre is required to obtain an NPDES 1200-C construction stormwater general permit from DEQ. In addition, the Applicant must do the following, unless otherwise authorized by DEQ in writing: a. Maintain an adequate supply of materials necessary to control erosion at the project construction site. b. Deploy compost berms, impervious materials, or other effective methods during rain events or when stockpiles are not moved or reshaped for more than 48 hours. Erosion of stockpiles is prohibited. c. Inspect erosion control measures daily and maintain erosion control measures as often as necessary to ensure the continued effectiveness of measures. Erosion control measures must remain in place until all exposed soil is stabilized. i. If monitoring or inspection shows that the erosion and sediment controls are ineffective, the Applicant must mobilize immediately to make repairs, install replacements, or install additional controls as necessary. ii. If sediment has reached 1/3 of the exposed height of a sediment or erosion control, the Applicant must remove the sediment to its original contour. d. Use removable pads or mats to prevent soil compaction at all construction access points through, and staging areas in, riparian or wetland areas to prevent soil compaction, unless otherwise authorized by DEQ. e. Flag or fence off wetlands not specifically authorized to be impacted to protect from disturbance and/or erosion. f. Place dredged or other excavated material on upland areas with stable slopes to prevent materials from eroding back into waterways or wetlands. g. Place clean aggregate at all construction entrances, and utilize other BMPs, including, but not limited to truck or wheel washes, when earth moving equipment is leaving the site and traveling on paved surfaces. The tracking of sediment off site by vehicles is prohibited. h. This certification does not authorize the placement of BMPs into waters of the state unless specifically outlined in the application and authorized by DEQ.

5. (CWA: Oregon DEQ Section 401 Water Quality Certification, 2017-00414) Spill Prevention: The Applicant must fuel, operate, maintain and store vehicles and equipment, and must store

construction materials, in areas that will not disturb habitat either directly or result in potential discharges. In addition, the following specific requirements apply: a. Vehicle staging, cleaning, maintenance, refueling, and fuel storage must take place in a vehicle staging area placed 150 feet or more from any waters of the state. An exception to this distance may be authorized upon written approval by DEQ if all practicable prevention measures are employed and this distance is not possible because of any of the following site conditions: i. Physical constraints that make this distance not feasible (e.g., steep slopes, rock outcroppings); ii. Natural resource features would be degraded as a result of this setback; iii. Or Equal or greater spill containment and effect avoidance is provided even if staging area is less than 150 feet of any waters of the state.

b. If staging areas are within 150 feet of any waters of the state, as allowed under subsection (a)(iii) of this condition, full containment of potential contaminants must be provided to prevent soil and water contamination, as appropriate. c. All vehicles operated within 150 feet of any waters of the state must be inspected daily for fluid leaks before leaving the vehicle staging area. Any leaks detected in the vehicle staging area must be repaired before the vehicle resumes operation. d. Before operations begin and as often as necessary during operation, equipment must be steam cleaned (or undergo an approved equivalent cleaning) until all visible external oil, grease, mud, and other visible contaminants are removed if the equipment will be used below the bank of a waterbody. e. All stationary power equipment (e.g., generators, cranes, stationary drilling equipment) operated within 150 feet of any waters of the state must be covered by an absorbent mat to prevent leaks, unless other suitable containment is provided to prevent potential spills from entering any waters of the state. f. An adequate supply of materials (such as straw matting/bales, geotextiles, booms, diapers, and other absorbent materials) needed to contain spills must be maintained at the project construction site and deployed as necessary. g. All equipment operated in state waters must use bio-degradable hydraulic fluid. h. A maintenance log documenting equipment maintenance inspections and actions must be kept on-site and available upon request.

6. (CWA: Oregon DEQ Section 401 Water Quality Certification, 2017-00414) Spill & Incident Reporting: a. In the event that petroleum products, chemicals, or any other deleterious materials are discharged into state waters, or onto land with a potential to enter state waters, the Applicant must promptly report the discharge to the Oregon Emergency Response System (OERS, 1-800-452-0311). The Applicant must immediately begin containment and complete cleanup as soon as possible. b. b. If the project operations cause a water quality problem which results in distressed or dying fish, the Applicant must immediately do the following: cease operations; take appropriate corrective measures to prevent further environmental damage; collect fish specimens and water samples; and notify DEQ, ODFW and other appropriate regulatory agencies.

7. (CWA: Oregon DEQ Section 401 Water Quality Certification, 2017-00414) Vegetation Protection and Restoration:

a. The Applicant must protect riparian, wetland, and shoreline vegetation in the authorized project area (as defined in the permit application materials) from disturbance through one or more of the following: i. Minimization of project and impact footprint; ii. Designation of staging areas and access points in open, upland areas; iii. Fencing and other barriers demarcating construction areas; and iv. Use of alternative equipment (e.g., spider hoe or crane). b. If authorized work results in vegetative disturbance and the disturbance has not been accounted for in planned mitigation actions, the Applicant must successfully reestablish vegetation to a degree of function equivalent to or better than before the disturbance. The standard for success is 80% cover for native plant species. The vegetation must be reestablished by the completion of authorized work and include the following: i. Restoring damaged streambanks to a natural slope, pattern, and profile suitable for establishment of permanent woody vegetation, unless precluded by pre- project conditions (e.g., a natural rock wall). ii. Replanting or reseeding each area requiring revegetation before the end of the first planting season following construction. iii. Planting disturbed areas with native plants and trees in all cases except where the use of non-native plant materials may be essential for erosion control. iv. Using invasive species to reestablish vegetation is prohibited. v. Herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers must be applied per manufacturer's instructions, and only if necessary for vegetation establishment. If chemical treatment is necessary, the Applicant is responsible for ensuring that pesticide application laws, including with the 2300-A pesticide NP DES general permit are met. Please review the information on the following website for more information: www.deq.state.or.us/wq/wqpermit/pesticides.htm.

Additionally: 1. Unless otherwise approved in writing by DEQ, applying surface fertilizer within stormwater treatment facilities or within 50 feet of any stream channel is prohibited; 2. Other than spot application to cut stems, no herbicides are allowed within stormwater treatment facilities or within 150 feet of waters of the state. Mechanical, hand, or other methods may be used to control weeds and unwanted vegetation within stormwater treatment facilities or within 150 feet of waters of the state; and 3. No pesticides may be used within stormwater treatment facilities or within 150 feet of waters of the state. vi. Install wildlife-friendly fencing as necessary to prevent access to revegetated sites by livestock or unauthorized persons. vii. vii. Minimize soil compaction, especially in areas that are designated to be replanted. If soils are compacted, decompact staging areas and work construction areas prior to replanting. Leave topsoil when possible. Chip materials from clear and grub operation and spread on soil surface, unless cleared areas contained invasive species.

8. (CWA: Oregon DEQ Section 401 Water Quality Certification, 2017-00414) Solid Waste: The applicant or its contractors must obtain a DEQ clean fill determination or Solid Waste Letter of Authorization or other DEQ solid waste approval for any manner of upland disposal.

9. (CWA: Oregon DEQ Section 401 Water Quality Certification, 2017-00414) Notification to DEQ: The Applicant must provide pre-construction notification to DEQ one week prior to the start of construction. Contact information can be found at the end of the certification.

10. (CWA: Oregon DEQ Section 401 Water Quality Certification, 2017-00414) Fish protection/ Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife timing: The Applicant must perform in-water work only within the ODFW preferred time window as specified in the Oregon Guidelines for Timing of In-Water Work to Protect Fish and Wildlife Resources, or as authorized otherwise under a Department of State Lands removal/fill permit. Exceptions to the timing window must be recommended by ODFW and/or the NMFS as appropriate.

11. (CWA: Oregon DEQ Section 401 Water Quality Certification, 2017-00414)Aquatic life movements: Any activity that may disrupt the movement of aquatic life living in the water body, including those species that normally migrate through the area, is prohibited. The Applicant must provide unobstructed fish passage at all times during any authorized activity. Exceptions must be reviewed and recommended by Oregon Department of Fish Wildlife and/or NMFS as appropriate.

12. (CWA: Oregon DEQ Section 401 Water Quality Certification, 2017-00414)Isolation of in-water work areas: The Applicant must isolate in-water work areas from the active flowing stream, unless otherwise authorized as part of the approved application, or authorized by DEQ. The Applicant is referred to DE Q's Oregon Sediment and Erosion Control Manual, April 2005, for isolation techniques (see http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/stormwater/docs/escmanual/appxd.pdf).

13. (CWA: Oregon DEQ Section 401 Water Quality Certification, 2017-00414) Cessation of Work: The Applicant must cease project operations under high flow conditions that will result in inundation of the project area. Only efforts to avoid or minimize turbidity or other resource damage as a· result of inundation of the exposed project area are allowed during high flow conditions.

14. (CWA: Oregon DEQ Section 401 Water Quality Certification, 2017-00414) Turbidity: The Applicant must implement best management practices (BMPs) to minimize turbidity during in- water work. Any activity that causes turbidity to exceed 10% above natural stream turbidities is prohibited except as specifically provided below: a. Monitoring: Turbidity monitoring must be conducted and recorded as described below. Monitoring must occur at two hour intervals each day during daylight hours when in- water work is being conducted. A properly calibrated turbidimeter is required. i. Representative Background Point: The Applicant must take and record a turbidity measurement every two hours during in-water work at an undisturbed area 100 feet upcurrent from the in-water disturbance, in order to establish background turbidity levels. The background turbidity, location, date, and time must be recorded immediately prior to monitoring at the compliance point. ii. Compliance Point: The Applicant must monitor every two hours, 300 feet downcurrent from the disturbance, at approximately mid-depth of the waterbody

and within any visible plume. The turbidity, location, date, and time must be recorded for each measurement.

b. Compliance: The Applicant must compare turbidity monitoring results from the compliance points to the representative background levels taken during each two- hour monitoring interval. Pursuant to OAR 340-041-0036, short term exceedances are allowed as follows:

MONITORING WITH A TURBIDIMETER EVERY 2 HOURS

TURBIDITY LEVEL Restrictions to Duration of Activity

0 to 5 NTU above background No Restrictions

5 to 29 NTU above background Work may continue for a maximum of 4 Hours. If turbidity remains 5-29 NTU above background, stop work and modify BMPs. Work may resume when NTU is 0-5 above background. 30 to 49 NTU above background Work may continue for a maximum of 2 Hours. If turbidity remains 30-49 NTU above background, stop work and modify BMPs. Work may resume when NTU is 0-5 above background. 50 NTU or more above background Stop work immediately and inform DEQ

c. Reporting: The Applicant must record all turbidity monitoring required by subsections (a) and (b) above in daily logs. The daily logs must include calibration documentation; background NTUs; compliance point NTUs; comparison of the points in NTUs; location; date; and time for each reading. Additionally, a narrative must be prepared discussing all exceedances with subsequent monitoring, actions taken, and the effectiveness of the actions. The Applicant must make available copies of daily logs for turbidity monitoring to DEQ, USAGE, NMFS, USFWS, and ODFW upon request. An example turbidity log is attached to this certification. d. BMPs to Minimize In-stream Turbidity: The Applicants must implement the following BMPs, unless accepted in writing by DEQ: i. Sequence/Phasing of work - The Applicant must schedule work activities so as to minimize in-water disturbance and duration of in-water disturbances; ii. Bucket control - All in-stream digging passes by excavation machinery and placement of fill in-stream using a bucket must be completed so as to minimize turbidity. All practicable techniques such as employing an experienced equipment operator, not dumping partial or full buckets of material back into the wetted stream, adjusting the volume, speed, or both of the load, or using a closed-lipped environmental bucket must be implemented; iii. Machinery may not be driven into the flowing channel, unless authorized in writing by DEQ; iv. Containment measures such as silt curtains, geotextile fabric, and silt fences must be implemented and properly maintained in order to minimize in-stream sediment suspension and resulting turbidity.

APPENDIX B ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SECTION 7 CONSULTATION