DOCSLIB.ORG

Columbia Estuary Ecosystem Restoration Program

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Columbia Estuary Ecosystem Restoration Program BONNEVILLEPOWERADMINISTRATION In cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Columbia Estuary Ecosystem Restoration Program Final Environmental Assessment July 2016 DOE/EA-2006 BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION DOE/BP-2006 • July 2016 Table of Contents Chapter 1 Purpose of and Need for Action ................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Need .................................................................................................................................................................. 3 1.3 Purposes.......................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Background .................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.4.1 Federal Columbia River Power System ................................................................................... 4 1.4.2 Status of the Columbia River Estuary ...................................................................................... 4 1.4.3 Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion ............................................ 5 1.4.4 Columbia Estuary Ecosystem Restoration Program .......................................................... 7 1.4.5 ERTG and SBUs.................................................................................................................................. 8 1.4.6 Columbia Estuary Ecosystem Restoration Program Management Actions .............. 9 1.4.7 The Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program ............................................................................... 9 1.5 Lead and Cooperating Agencies ......................................................................................................... 10 1.5.1 Bonneville Power Administration (Lead Agency) ........................................................... 10 1.5.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Cooperating Agency) ..................................................... 10 1.6 Public Involvement .................................................................................................................................. 12 1.6.1 Scoping .............................................................................................................................................. 12 1.6.2 Responses to Scoping .................................................................................................................. 12 1.6.3 Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment ........................................ 13 1.6.4 Changes to the Environmental Assessment ....................................................................... 13 Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives ........................................................................................ 15 2.1 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................................ 15 2.1.1 Tiering under NEPA ..................................................................................................................... 15 2.1.2 Tiering Future Projects to this NEPA Document .............................................................. 16 2.2 No Action Alternative (status quo) ................................................................................................... 17 2.3 Estuary Management Actions and Activities Common in Both Alternatives ................... 17 2.4 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................................ 21 2.5 Summary of Environmental Effects .................................................................................................. 25 2.6 Comparison of Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative ........................................... 27 Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ......................................... 29 3.1 Common Effects of Restoration Planning and Construction Activities .............................. 29 3.1.1 Resource Inventory and Surveying ........................................................................................ 30 Columbia Estuary Ecosystem Restoration Program i 3.1.2 Site Preparation and Construction ......................................................................................... 31 3.1.3 Post-Construction Activities and Restoration Benefits ................................................. 32 3.2 Fish ................................................................................................................................................................. 33 3.2.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................. 33 3.2.2 Types of Impacts from Restoration Activities ................................................................... 37 3.2.3 Effects of Restoration Activities .............................................................................................. 37 3.2.4 Conclusion for effects to fish from the Restoration Activities..................................... 42 3.3 Hydrology and Hydraulics .................................................................................................................... 43 3.3.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................. 43 3.3.2 Types of Effects from Restoration Activities ...................................................................... 45 3.3.3 Effects of Restoration Activities .............................................................................................. 45 3.4 Water Quality ............................................................................................................................................. 48 3.4.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................. 48 3.4.2 Types of Impacts from Restoration Activities ................................................................... 51 3.4.3 Effects of Restoration Activities .............................................................................................. 52 3.5 Geomorphology, Soils, and Topography ......................................................................................... 54 3.5.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................. 54 3.5.2 Types of Impacts from Restoration Activities ................................................................... 56 3.5.3 Effects of Restoration Activities .............................................................................................. 56 3.6 Sediment Quality ...................................................................................................................................... 58 3.6.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................. 58 3.6.2 Types of Impacts from Restoration Activities ................................................................... 60 3.6.3 Effects of Restoration Activities .............................................................................................. 61 3.7 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................... 63 3.7.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................. 63 3.7.2 Types of Impacts from Restoration Activities ................................................................... 64 3.7.3 Effects of the Restoration Activities ...................................................................................... 65 3.8 Wildlife ......................................................................................................................................................... 65 3.8.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................. 65 3.8.2 Types of Impacts from Restoration Activities ................................................................... 68 3.8.3 Effects of Restoration Activities .............................................................................................. 69 3.9 Wetlands, Floodplains, and Vegetation ........................................................................................... 70 3.9.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................. 70 Columbia Estuary Ecosystem Restoration Program ii 3.9.2 Types of Impacts from Restoration Activities ................................................................... 76 3.9.3 Effects of Restoration Activities .............................................................................................. 76 3.10 Land Use and Recreation ......................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Modeling Dynamic Processes of Mondego Estuary and Óbidos Lagoon Using Delft3d
    Journal of Marine Science and Engineering Article Modeling Dynamic Processes of Mondego Estuary and Óbidos Lagoon Using Delft3D Joana Mendes , Rui Ruela, Ana Picado, João Pedro Pinheiro, Américo Soares Ribeiro , Humberto Pereira and João Miguel Dias * Physics Department, CESAM–Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal; [email protected] (J.M.); [email protected] (R.R.); [email protected] (A.P.); [email protected] (J.P.P.); [email protected] (A.S.R.); [email protected] (H.P.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Estuarine systems currently face increasing pressure due to population growth, rapid economic development, and the effect of climate change, which threatens the deterioration of their water quality. This study uses an open-source model of high transferability (Delft3D), to investigate the physics and water quality dynamics, spatial variability, and interrelation of two estuarine systems of the Portuguese west coast: Mondego Estuary and Óbidos Lagoon. In this context, the Delft3D was successfully implemented and validated for both systems through model-observation comparisons and further explored using realistically forced and process-oriented experiments. Model results show (1) high accuracy to predict the local hydrodynamics and fair accuracy to predict the transport and water quality of both systems; (2) the importance of the local geomorphology and estuary dimensions in the tidal propagation and asymmetry; (3) Mondego Estuary (except for the south arm) has a higher water volume exchange with the adjacent ocean when compared to Óbidos Lagoon, resulting from the highest fluvial discharge that contributes to a better water renewal; (4) the dissolved oxygen (DO) varies with water temperature and salinity differently for both systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Role of the Estuary in the Recovery of Columbia River Basin Salmon and Steelhead: an Evaluation of the Effects of Selected Factors on Salmonid Population Viability
    NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-69 Role of the Estuary in the Recovery of Columbia River Basin Salmon and Steelhead: An Evaluation of the Effects of Selected Factors on Salmonid Population Viability September 2005 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS Series The Northwest Fisheries Science Center of the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, uses the NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS series to issue infor- mal scientific and technical publications when com- plete formal review and editorial processing are not appropriate or feasible due to time constraints. Docu- ments published in this series may be referenced in the scientific and technical literature. The NMFS-NWFSC Technical Memorandum series of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center continues the NMFS-F/NWC series established in 1970 by the Northwest & Alaska Fisheries Science Center, which has since been split into the Northwest Fisheries Science Center and the Alaska Fisheries Science Center. The NMFS-AFSC Technical Memorandum series is now being used by the Alaska Fisheries Science Center. Reference throughout this document to trade names does not imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. This document should be cited as follows: Fresh, K.L., E. Casillas, L.L. Johnson, and D.L. Bottom. 2005. Role of the estuary in the recovery of Columbia River basin salmon and steelhead: an evaluation of the effects of selected factors on salmo- nid population viability. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-69, 105 p. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-69 Role of the Estuary in the Recovery of Columbia River Basin Salmon and Steelhead: An Evaluation of the Effects of Selected Factors on Salmonid Population Viability Kurt L.
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Resources Inventory Scoping Summary Lewis and Clark National and State Historical Parks
    Geologic Resources Inventory Scoping Summary Lewis and Clark National and State Historical Parks, Oregon and Washington Geologic Resources Division Prepared by John Graham National Park Service January 2010 US Department of the Interior The Geologic Resources Inventory (GRI) provides each of 270 identified natural area National Park System units with a geologic scoping meeting and summary (this document), a digital geologic map, and a Geologic Resources Inventory report. The purpose of scoping is to identify geologic mapping coverage and needs, distinctive geologic processes and features, resource management issues, and monitoring and research needs. Geologic scoping meetings generate an evaluation of the adequacy of existing geologic maps for resource management, provide an opportunity to discuss park-specific geologic management issues, and if possible include a site visit with local experts. The National Park Service held a GRI scoping meeting for Lewis and Clark National and State Historical Parks (LEWI) on October 14, 2009 at Fort Clatsop Visitors Center, Oregon. Meeting Facilitator Bruce Heise of the Geologic Resources Division (NPS GRD) introduced the Geologic Resources Inventory program and led the discussion regarding geologic processes, features, and issues at Lewis and Clark National and State Historical Parks. GIS Facilitator Greg Mack from the Pacific West Regional Office (NPS PWRO) facilitated the discussion of map coverage. Ian Madin, Chief Scientist with the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI), presented an overview of the region’s geology. On Thursday, October 15, 2009, Tom Horning (Horning Geosciences) and Ian Madin (DOGAMI) led a field trip to several units within Lewis and Clark National and State Historical Parks.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of Tidal Prism Evolution and Characteristics of the Lingdingyang
    MATEC Web of Conferences 25, 001 0 6 (2015) DOI: 10.1051/matecconf/201525001 0 6 C Owned by the authors, published by EDP Sciences, 2015 Analysis of Tidal Prism Evolution and Characteristics of the Lingdingyang Bay at Pearl River Estuary Shenguang Fang, Yufeng Xie & Liqin Cui Key laboratory of the Pearl River Estuarine Dynamics and Associated Process Regulation, Ministry of Water Resources, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China ABSTRACT: Tidal prism is a rather sensitive factor of the estuarine ecological environment. The historical evolution of the Lingdingyang water area and its shoreline were analyzed. By using remote sensing data, the evolution of the water area of the bay was also calculated in the past 30 years. Due to reclamation, the water area was greatly decreased during that period, and the most serious decrease occurred between 1988 and 1995. Through establishing the two-dimensional mathematical model of the Pearl River estuary, the tidal prism of the Lingdingyang bay has been calculated and analyzed. The hybrid finite analytic method of fully implicit scheme was adopted in the mathematical model’s dispersion and calculation. The results were verified though the method of combining the field hydrographic data and empirical formula calculation. The results showed that the main tidal entrance of the bay is the Lingdingyang entrance, which accounts for about 87.7% of the total tidal prism, while Hong Kong’s Anshidun waterway accounts for only 12.3% or so. Combining the numerical simulations and the historical evolution analysis of the water area and tidal prism, and compared with that in 1978, it showed that the tidal prism of the bay was greatly decreased, and the reduced area was mainly the inner Lingdingyang bay, which accounted for 88.4% of the whole shrunken areas.
    [Show full text]
  • CLATSOP COUNTY Scale in Mlles
    CLATSOP COUNTY Scale In Mlles 81 8 I A 0,6 O 6 Secmide 0 10 6 7 WASV INGTON T I L LAMOOK COUNTY CO Clatsop County Knappa Prairie U. S. Army Fort Stevens, Ruth C. Bishop Dean H. Byrd (1992) Janice M. Healy (1952) Oregon Burial Site Guide Clatsop County Area: 873 square miles Population (1998): 35,424 County seat: Astoria, Population: 10,130 County established: 22 June 1844 Located on the south bank of the lower Columbia River where it enters the Pacific Ocean. Clatsop County was the site of the first white trading post in Oregon and therefore the earliest established cemetery. This was Fort Astoria founded in the spring of 1811 for the fur trade. It was occupied by the British in the fall of I 813 during the War of 1812 and was renamed Fort George. Returned to the Americans in 1818 and once again called Fort Astoria, the name was gradually transferred to a small civilian settlement as Astoria. The earliest burials after 1811 and those dating from the 1850's to about 1878 are now built over. Eventually most of Astoria's known burials were transferred to Ocean View which was established in 1872. The Clatsop Plains Pioneer Cemetery was begun in 1846 and is the earliest organized cemetery outside of Astoria. By the 1870's there were at least four other organized cemeteries. There were many family burial sites and still some Indian burials sites and a United States Military cemetery begun as early as 1868 at Fort Stevens. The most prominent ethnic nationalities from Europe were Finns and Swedes who are scattered through many cemeteries and family burial sites.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Estuary Program
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Estuary Program Story Map Text-only File 1) Introduction Welcome to the National Estuary Program story map. Since 1987, the EPA National Estuary Program (NEP) has made a unique and lasting contribution to protecting and restoring our nation's estuaries, delivering environmental and public health benefits to the American people. This story map describes the 28 National Estuary Programs, the issues they face, and how place-based partnerships coordinate local actions. To use this tool, click through the four tabs at the top and scroll around to learn about our National Estuary Programs. Want to learn more about a specific NEP? 1. Click on the "Get to Know the NEPs" tab. 2. Click on the map or scroll through the list to find the NEP you are interested in. 3. Click the link in the NEP description to explore a story map created just for that NEP. Program Overview Our 28 NEPs are located along the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific coasts and in Puerto Rico. The NEPs employ a watershed approach, extensive public participation, and collaborative science-based problem- solving to address watershed challenges. To address these challenges, the NEPs develop and implement long-term plans (called Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (link opens in new tab)) to coordinate local actions. The NEPs and their partners have protected and restored approximately 2 million acres of habitat. On average, NEPs leverage $19 for every $1 provided by the EPA, demonstrating the value of federal government support for locally-driven efforts. View the NEPmap. What is an estuary? An estuary is a partially-enclosed, coastal water body where freshwater from rivers and streams mixes with salt water from the ocean.
    [Show full text]
  • Source Water Assessment Report
    Source Water Assessment Report Youngs River-Lewis & Clarl( Water District, Oregon PWS #4100062 December 11, 2000 Prepared for Youngs River-Lewis & Clark Water District Prepared by � rt: I •1 =<•1 Stale of Oregon Departmentof Environmental Quality Water Quality Division Drinking Water Protection Program Department of Human Services Oregon Health Division Drinking Water Program Department of Environmental Quality regon 811 SW Sixth Avenue Portland, OR 97204-1390 John A. Kitzhaber, ivf.D.,Governor (503) 229-5696 TDD (503) 229-6993 December 11, 2000 Mr. Ric Saavedra - Superintendent Youngs River-Lewis & Clark Water District 810 US Highway IOI Astoria, OR 97013 RE: Source Water Assessment Report Youngs River-Lewis & Clark Water District PWS # 4100062 Dear Mr. Saavedra: Enclosed is Youngs River-Lewis & Clark Water District's Water Assessment Report. The assessment was prepared under the requirements and guidance of the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act and the US Environmental Protection Agency, as well as a detailed Source Water Assessment Plan developed by a statewide citizen's advisory committee here in Oregon over the past two years. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Oregon Health Division (OHD) are conducting the assessments for all public water systems in Oregon. The purpose is to provide information so that the public water system staff/operator, consumers, and community citizens can begin developing strategies to protect your source of drinking water. As you know, the 1996 Amendments to the SafeDrinking Water Act requires Consumer ConfidenceReports (CCR) by community water systems. CCRs include information about the quality of the drinking water, the source of the drinking water, and a summary of the source water assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Squeeze Evidence and Monitoring Requirement Review
    Coastal Squeeze Evidence and Monitoring Requirement Review Oaten, J., Brooks, A. and Frost, N. ABPmer NRW Evidence Report No. 307 Date www.naturalresourceswales.gov.uk About Natural Resources Wales Natural Resources Wales’ purpose is to pursue sustainable management of natural resources. This means looking after air, land, water, wildlife, plants and soil to improve Wales’ well-being, and provide a better future for everyone. Evidence at Natural Resources Wales Natural Resources Wales is an evidence based organisation. We seek to ensure that our strategy, decisions, operations and advice to Welsh Government and others are underpinned by sound and quality-assured evidence. We recognise that it is critically important to have a good understanding of our changing environment. We will realise this vision by: Maintaining and developing the technical specialist skills of our staff; Securing our data and information; Having a well resourced proactive programme of evidence work; Continuing to review and add to our evidence to ensure it is fit for the challenges facing us; and Communicating our evidence in an open and transparent way. This Evidence Report series serves as a record of work carried out or commissioned by Natural Resources Wales. It also helps us to share and promote use of our evidence by others and develop future collaborations. However, the views and recommendations presented in this report are not necessarily those of NRW and should, therefore, not be attributed to NRW. www.naturalresourceswales.gov.uk Page 1 Report series: NRW Evidence Report Report number: 307 Publication date: November 2018 Contract number: WAO000E/000A/1174A - CE0529 Contractor: ABPmer Contract Manager: Park, R.
    [Show full text]
  • Do Sturgeon Limit Burrowing Shrimp Populations in Pacific Northwest Estuaries?
    Environ Biol Fish (2008) 83:283–296 DOI 10.1007/s10641-008-9333-y Do sturgeon limit burrowing shrimp populations in Pacific Northwest Estuaries? Brett R. Dumbauld & David L. Holden & Olaf P. Langness Received: 22 January 2007 /Accepted: 28 January 2008 /Published online: 4 March 2008 # Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008 Abstract Green sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris, and we present evidence from exclusion studies and field white sturgeon, Acipenser transmontanus, are fre- observation that the predator making the pits can have quent inhabitants of coastal estuaries from northern a significant cumulative negative effect on burrowing California, USA to British Columbia, Canada. An shrimp density. These burrowing shrimp present a analysis of stomach contents from 95 green stur- threat to the aquaculture industry in Washington State geon and six white sturgeon commercially landed in due to their ability to de-stabilize the substrate on Willapa Bay, Grays Harbor, and the Columbia River which shellfish are grown. Despite an active burrowing estuary during 2000–2005 revealed that 17–97% had shrimp control program in these estuaries, it seems empty stomachs, but those fish with items in their unlikely that current burrowing shrimp abundance and guts fed predominantly on benthic prey items and availability as food is a limiting factor for threatened fish. Burrowing thalassinid shrimp (mostly Neo- green sturgeon stocks. However, these large predators trypaea californiensis) were important food items for may have performed an important top down control both white and especially for green sturgeon taken in function on shrimp populations in the past when they Willapa Bay, Washington during summer 2003, where were more abundant.
    [Show full text]
  • 5 Analysis of Ecological Characteristics
    Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report 5 ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS 5.1 Methods A GIS-based semi-quantitative method was developed to characterize the relative performance of relevant ecological processes and functions by shoreline reach, within the County, as outlined in WAC 173-26-201(3)(d)(i). The assessment used the available information gathered as part of the shoreline inventory and applied ranking criteria to provide a consistent methodological treatment among reaches. These semi-quantitative results will help provide a consistent treatment of all reaches in approximating existing ecological conditions, yet allow for a qualitative evaluation of functions for data that are not easily summarized by GIS data alone. The results are intended to complement the mapped inventory information (Appendix B) and numerical data (Table 4-3) and provide a comparison of watershed functions relative to other reaches in the County. The analysis of the ecological characteristics of the Coastal Ocean AU is different than the analysis for the other AUs. The main distinguishers for the Coastal Ocean AU are that 1) the Coastal Ocean AU does not contain distinct shoreline segments, and 2) there is a paucity of data on the dynamic, biophysical characteristics in the AU, so they are supplemented with human use data as proxies for nodes of ecological function. Reach Delineation In order to assess shoreline functions at a local scale, the ten AUs with upland areas within the County were broken into discrete reaches based on a review of maps and aerial photography. The Coastal Ocean AU is considered as a singular section (i.e., no distinct reaches) for this assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume II, Chapter 2 Columbia River Estuary and Lower Mainstem Subbasins
    Volume II, Chapter 2 Columbia River Estuary and Lower Mainstem Subbasins TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.0 COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY AND LOWER MAINSTEM ................................ 2-1 2.1 Subbasin Description.................................................................................................. 2-5 2.1.1 Purpose................................................................................................................. 2-5 2.1.2 History ................................................................................................................. 2-5 2.1.3 Physical Setting.................................................................................................... 2-7 2.1.4 Fish and Wildlife Resources ................................................................................ 2-8 2.1.5 Habitat Classification......................................................................................... 2-20 2.1.6 Estuary and Lower Mainstem Zones ................................................................. 2-27 2.1.7 Major Land Uses................................................................................................ 2-29 2.1.8 Areas of Biological Significance ....................................................................... 2-29 2.2 Focal Species............................................................................................................. 2-31 2.2.1 Selection Process............................................................................................... 2-31 2.2.2 Ocean-type Salmonids
    [Show full text]
  • ASTORIA PARKS & RECREATION Comprehensive Master Plan 2016
    ASTORIA PARKS & RECREATION Comprehensive Master Plan 2016 - 2026 Adopted July 18, 2016 by Ordinance 16-04 Acknowledgments Parks & Recreation Staff City Council Angela Cosby.......... Director Arline LaMear.......... Mayor Jonah Dart-Mclean... Maintenance Supervisor Zetty Nemlowill....... Ward 1 Randy Bohrer........... Grounds Coordinator Drew Herzig............ Ward 2 Mark Montgomery... Facilities Coordinator Cindy Price............. Ward 3 Terra Patterson........ Recreation Coordinator Russ Warr................ Ward 4 Erin Reding............. Recreation Coordinator Parks Advisory Board City Staff Norma Hernandez... Chair Brett Estes............... City Manager Tammy Loughran..... Vice Chair Kevin Cronin........... Community Josey Ballenger Development Director Aaron Crockett Rosemary Johnson... Special Projects Planner Andrew Fick John Goodenberger Historic Buildings Eric Halverson Consultant Jim Holen Howard Rub Citizen Advisory Committee Jessica Schleif Michelle Bisek......... Astoria Parks, Recreation, and Community Foundation Community Members Melissa Gardner...... Clatsop Community Kenny Hageman...... Lower Columbia Youth College Drafting and Baseball Historic Preservation Jim Holen................. Parks Advisory Board Program Craig Hoppes.......... Astoria School District Workshop attendees, survey respondents, Zetty Nemlowill....... Astoria City Council focus group participants, and volunteers. Jan Nybakke............ Volunteer Kassia Nye............... MOMS Club RARE AmeriCorps Ed Overbay............. Former Parks Advisory Ian
    [Show full text]