DOCSLIB.ORG

Operation and Maintenance of the Umatilla Project and Umatilla Basin Project, Umatilla County

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Operation and Maintenance of the Umatilla Project and Umatilla Basin Project, Umatilla County UNITED STA1ES OEPARlMENTOF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE West Coast Region 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard , Su~e 1100 Portland, Oregon 97232-1274 July 2, 2019 Refer to NMFS No: WCR-2018-10032 Dawn Wiedmeier Area Manager Columbia-Cascades Area Office U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 1917 Marsh Road Yakima, Washington 98901 Re: Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation on Operation and Maintenance of the Umatilla Project and Umatilla Basin Project, Umatilla County. Oregon, HUC 17070103 (Umatilla), HUC 17070101 (Columbia-Lake Wallula). Enclosed is a biological opinion (opinion) prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on the effects of operating the Umatilla Project and the Umatilla Basin Project in Umatilla County, Oregon. NMFS concludes in this opinion that the operation of the Umatilla and Umatilla Basin Projects is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the following ESA-listed species: Middle Columbia River steelhead Upper Columbia River steelhead Snake River Basin steelhead Snake River sockeye salmon Upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook salmon Snake River spring/summer-run Chinook salmon Snake River fall-run Chinook salmon NMFS also concludes that the proposed action is not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. As required by section 7 of the ESA, NMFS included reasonable and prudent measures with nondiscretionary terms and conditions that NMFS believes are necessary to avoid or minimize the effect of incidental take caused by this action. 2 This document aJso serves as consultation on essentiaJ fish habitat (EFH) pursuant to section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Act) and implementing regulations at 50 CFR Part 600. The Umatilla River basin has been designated as EFH for Chinook and coho salmon. NMFS concludes that the proposed action may adversely affect designated EFH for these species. As required by section 305(b)(4)(A) of the MSA, included are conservation recommendations that NOAA Fisheries believes will avoid, minimize, mitigate, or otherwise offset adverse effects on EFH resulting from the proposed action. As described in the enclosed consultation, 305(b)(4)(B) of the Act requires that a federaJ action agency must provide a detailed response in writing within 30 days of receiving an EFH conservation recommendation. If you have any questions, please contact Scott Carlon in the Columbia Basin Branch at (503) 231-2379 or email [email protected]. Sincerely, Michael P. Tehan Assistant Regional Administrator Interior CoJumbia Basin Office NOAA Fisheries, West Coast Region Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Operation and Maintenance of the Umatilla Project and Umatilla Basin Project Umatilla County, Oregon HUC 17070103 (Umatilla), HUC 17070101 (Columbia-Lake Wallula) NMFS Consultation No.: WCRO-2018-00272 Action Agency: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation AffitdSec e ipec1es andDt e ermma . t'ions: Is Action Likely Is Action Likely Is oction Likely to to Destroy or to Adversely ESA-Listed Species Status Jeopardize the Adversely Affect Species or Species Modify Critical Critical Habitat Habitat Upper Columhia River spring Chinook salmon Endanicred Yes No No (011corlzrnc/111s tshmntsdia) Upper Columbia River Thmatcned Yes No No stcclhead (0. mvkiss) Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon Threatened Yes No No (0. tshmi1·tsclza) Snake River fall Chinook salmon Thrcallrned Yes No No (0. tshaw}'lscha) Snake River sockcyc salmon Endangered Yes No No (0. nerka) Snake River st!.!clhcad Thrcatl.!ned Yes No No (0. mvkiss) Middle Columbia River stcclhead Threatened Yes No No (0. mrkiss) Fishery Management Plan that Does Action have an Adverse Are EFH Conservation Describes EFH in the Project Effedon EFH Recommendations Provided Area Pacific Coast salmon Yes Yes Consultation Conducted By: National Marine Fisheries Service West Coast. Region Issued By: . · f~ Micl1aclP.'fhan - Assistant Regional Administrator Date: July 2, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Consultation History ........................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Proposed Action .................................................................................................................. 1 1.3.1 Phase I and II Exchange Operations ............................................................................. 2 1.3.2 Cold Springs Reservoir ................................................................................................. 4 1.3.3 McKay Dam and Reservoir .......................................................................................... 5 1.3.4 McKay Creek Fish Barrier ............................................................................................ 6 1.3.5 Fish Passage Facilities .................................................................................................. 7 1.3.6 Irrigation Operations ..................................................................................................... 7 1.3.7 Monitoring .................................................................................................................. 10 2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT .......................................................................................................................... 12 2.1 Analytical Approach ......................................................................................................... 12 2.2 Rangewide Status of the Species and Critical Habitat ...................................................... 13 2.2.1 Status of the Species ................................................................................................... 15 2.2.2 Status of Critical Habitat ............................................................................................. 27 2.3 Action Area ....................................................................................................................... 31 2.4 Environmental Baseline .................................................................................................... 31 2.4.1 Umatilla Basin ............................................................................................................ 31 2.4.2 Columbia River ........................................................................................................... 35 2.5 Effects of the Action ......................................................................................................... 35 2.5.1 Direct Effects on MCR Steelhead in the Umatilla Basin ............................................ 35 2.5.2 Effects of Ongoing Irrigation Diversion Operations .................................................. 39 2.5.3 Fish Entrainment ......................................................................................................... 42 2.5.4 Effects on Critical Habitat .......................................................................................... 43 2.6 Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................ 43 2.7 Integration and Synthesis .................................................................................................. 44 2.7.1 Umatilla River ............................................................................................................. 44 2.7.2 Columbia River ........................................................................................................... 45 2.8 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 46 2.9 Incidental Take Statement................................................................................................. 46 2.9.1 Amount or Extent of Take .......................................................................................... 46 2.9.2 Effect of Take ............................................................................................................. 47 2.9.3 Reasonable and Prudent Measures .............................................................................. 47 2.9.4 Terms and Conditions ................................................................................................. 47 2.10Conservation Recommendations ...................................................................................... 48 2.11 Reinitiation of Consultation .............................................................................................. 49 3. MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT RESPONSE ........................................................................... 49 3.1 Essential Fish Habitat Affected by the Project ................................................................. 49 3.2 Adverse Effects on Essential Fish Habitat .......................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Flood Basalts and Glacier Floods—Roadside Geology
    u 0 by Robert J. Carson and Kevin R. Pogue WASHINGTON DIVISION OF GEOLOGY AND EARTH RESOURCES Information Circular 90 January 1996 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTOF Natural Resources Jennifer M. Belcher - Commissioner of Public Lands Kaleen Cottingham - Supervisor FLOOD BASALTS AND GLACIER FLOODS: Roadside Geology of Parts of Walla Walla, Franklin, and Columbia Counties, Washington by Robert J. Carson and Kevin R. Pogue WASHINGTON DIVISION OF GEOLOGY AND EARTH RESOURCES Information Circular 90 January 1996 Kaleen Cottingham - Supervisor Division of Geology and Earth Resources WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Jennifer M. Belcher-Commissio11er of Public Lands Kaleeo Cottingham-Supervisor DMSION OF GEOLOGY AND EARTH RESOURCES Raymond Lasmanis-State Geologist J. Eric Schuster-Assistant State Geologist William S. Lingley, Jr.-Assistant State Geologist This report is available from: Publications Washington Department of Natural Resources Division of Geology and Earth Resources P.O. Box 47007 Olympia, WA 98504-7007 Price $ 3.24 Tax (WA residents only) ~ Total $ 3.50 Mail orders must be prepaid: please add $1.00 to each order for postage and handling. Make checks payable to the Department of Natural Resources. Front Cover: Palouse Falls (56 m high) in the canyon of the Palouse River. Printed oo recycled paper Printed io the United States of America Contents 1 General geology of southeastern Washington 1 Magnetic polarity 2 Geologic time 2 Columbia River Basalt Group 2 Tectonic features 5 Quaternary sedimentation 6 Road log 7 Further reading 7 Acknowledgments 8 Part 1 - Walla Walla to Palouse Falls (69.0 miles) 21 Part 2 - Palouse Falls to Lower Monumental Dam (27.0 miles) 26 Part 3 - Lower Monumental Dam to Ice Harbor Dam (38.7 miles) 33 Part 4 - Ice Harbor Dam to Wallula Gap (26.7 mi les) 38 Part 5 - Wallula Gap to Walla Walla (42.0 miles) 44 References cited ILLUSTRATIONS I Figure 1.
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief History of the Umatilla National Forest
    A BRIEFHISTORYOFTHE UMATILLA NATIONAL FOREST1 Compiled By David C. Powell June 2008 1804-1806 The Lewis and Clark Expedition ventured close to the north and west sides of the Umatilla National Forest as they traveled along the Snake and Columbia rivers. As the Lewis & Clark party drew closer to the Walla Walla River on their return trip in 1806, their journal entries note the absence of firewood, Indian use of shrubs for fuel, abundant roots for human consumption, and good availability of grass for horses. Writing some dis- tance up the Walla Walla River, William Clark noted that “great portions of these bottoms has been latterly burnt which has entirely destroyed the timbered growth” (Robbins 1997). 1810-1840 This 3-decade period was a period of exploration and use by trappers, missionaries, natu- ralists, and government scientists or explorers. William Price Hunt (fur trader), John Kirk Townsend (naturalist), Peter Skene Ogden (trap- per and guide), Thomas Nuttall (botanist), Reverend Samuel Parker (missionary), Marcus and Narcissa Whitman (missionaries), Henry and Eliza Spaulding (missionaries), Captain Benjamin Bonneville (military explorer), Captain John Charles Fremont (military scientist), Nathaniel J. Wyeth (fur trader), and Jason Lee (missionary) are just a few of the people who visited and described the Blue Mountains during this era. 1840-1859 During the 1840s and 1850s – the Oregon Trail era – much overland migration occurred as settlers passed through the Blue Mountains on their way to the Willamette Valley (the Oregon Trail continued to receive fairly heavy use until well into the late 1870s). The Ore- gon Trail traversed the Umatilla National Forest.
    [Show full text]
  • Mid-Columbia River Fish Toxics Assessment: EPA Region 10 Report
    EPA-910-R-17-002 March 2017 Mid-Columbia River Fish Toxics Assessment EPA Region 10 Report Authors: Lillian Herger, Lorraine Edmond, and Gretchen Hayslip U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 www.epa.gov Mid-Columbia River Fish Toxics Assessment EPA Region 10 Report Authors: Lillian Herger, Lorraine Edmond, and Gretchen Hayslip March 2017 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, Washington 98101 Publication Number: EPA-910-R-17-002 Suggested Citation: Herger, L.G., L. Edmond, and G. Hayslip. 2016. Mid-Columbia River fish toxics assessment: EPA Region 10 Report. EPA-910-R-17-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington. This document is available at: www.epa.gov/columbiariver/mid-columbia-river-fish­ toxics-assessment Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment i Mid-Columbia Toxics Assessment List of Abbreviations Abbreviation Definition BZ# Congener numbers assigned by Ballschmiter and Zell CDF Cumulative Distribution Function CM Channel marker CR Columbia River DDD Dichloro-diphenyl-dichloroethane DDE Dichloro-diphenyl-dichloroethylene DDT Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane DO Dissolved Oxygen ECO Ecological EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency GIS Geographic Information System HH Human Health HCB Hexachlorobenzene HRGC/HRMS High Resolution Gas Chromatography / High Resolution Mass Spectrometry ICPMS Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry IDEQ Idaho Department of Environmental Quality LCR Lower Columbia River MCR Mid-Columbia River MDL Minimum detection limit NA Not Applicable ND Non-detected ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality ORP Oxidation-Reduction Potential PBDE Polybrominated diphenyl ether PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan QC Quality Control RARE Regional Applied Research Effort REMAP Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program S.E.
    [Show full text]
  • Ideal Commercial Development Site in The
    IDEAL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT SITE IN THE TRI-CITIES RICHLAND, WASHINGTON EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Location Maps .......................................................................................................4 • Executive Summary..............................................................................................6 • Aerial........................................................................................................................7 MARKET ANALYSIS • Retail Market Description.....................................................................................8 • Retail Void Analysis...............................................................................................9 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION • Development Plan.................................................................................................10 • Roadways...............................................................................................................13 • Regional Map..........................................................................................................14 AREA OVERVIEW • Tri-Cities Facts.......................................................................................................15 • Quality of Life..........................................................................................................16 • Economy...................................................................................................................18 OF CONTENTS TABLE • Housing.....................................................................................................................19
    [Show full text]
  • Umatilla River Vision
    Umatilla River Vision Hydrology Connectivity Aquatic Biota Aquatic Geomorphology Riparian Vegetation By: Krista L. Jones, Geoffrey C. Poole, Eric J. Quaempts, Scott O’Daniel, Tim Beechie October 1, 2008 Umatilla River Vision Preface In January of 2007, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) Department of Natural Resources (DNR) adopted the following mission: To protect, restore, and enhance the First Foods - water, salmon, deer, cous, and huckleberry - for the perpetual cultural, economic, and sovereign benefit of the CTUIR. We will accomplish this utilizing traditional ecological and cultural knowledge and science to inform: 1) population and habitat management goals and actions; and 2) natural resource policies and regulatory mechanisms. The First Foods are considered by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to constitute the minimum ecological products necessary to sustain CTUIR culture. The CTUIR DNR has a mission to protect First Foods and a long-term goal of restoring related foods in the order to provide a diverse table setting of native foods for the Tribal community. The mission was developed in response to long-standing and continuing community expressions of First Foods traditions, and community member requests that all First Foods be protected and restored for their respectful use now and in the future. This document will assist Tribal and non-Tribal managers in moving the First Foods mission from concept to application. It identifies processes and conditions needed to sustain aquatic First Foods, information needed to inform their management, and potential management implications. It is my expectation that in applying the First Foods approach and the river vision, managers can focus on appropriate ecological processes that provide and sustain First Foods, and plan management actions accordingly.
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Indian Fishing Regulations Umatilla Indian Reservation
    Angler Surveys: Angler survey boxes Contact Us: with catch information forms will be Confederated Tribes 2020 posted at Lake Hiyúumtipin (Indian of the Lake), and on the Umatilla River and its Umatilla Indian Reservation Non-Indian tributaries. Please report your catch Fishing Regulations (and comments, suggestions, etc.) CTUIR Department of Natural Resources for the harvest monitors, enforcement and Lake Fish & Wildlife Programs Umatilla Indian Reservation Hiyúumtipin caretaker may also ask anglers for harvest information. 46411 Timine Way Pendleton, OR 97801 Cooperation from anglers is appreciated. (541) 429-7000 Information gathered will be used to manage the fishery. Arrowhead Permit Locations: Travel Plaza, Mission Market, and Indian Lake (during season). Permit Fees FISHING Regular Annual Fishing $30.00 TO TURN IN POACHERS CALL: Regular Daily Fishing $12.00 Juvenile (12-17 Years) Annual Fishing $10.00 CTUIR Fish & Wildlife Enforcement Sr. Citizen (60+ Years) Annual Fishing $10.00 Veteran Annual Fishing $10.00 Two-Day Fishing (consecutive days) $22.00 (541) 278-0550 COMBINATION All fish that are released Regular Combination Fishing/ Upland Game and must be unharmed and Waterfowl Annual Hunting $54.00 should not be removed ** See CTUIR Hunting Regulations ** from the water. INTRODUCTION REMINDER: Other Fish: No bag or length limit. Does not Ask first before fishing on lands within include Pacific Lamprey. The following is a summary of regulations the Umatilla Indian Reservation! that apply to persons who are not members SPECIAL FISHING RESTRICTIONS of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla All anglers and hunters are required to obey Indian Reservation and who wish to fish the laws and respect the rights and property Lake Hiyúumtipin (Indian Lake): Only within the boundaries of the Umatilla Indian of others.
    [Show full text]
  • Bingham Springs History
    Just thirty-one miles east of Pendleton, one can step back in time! Bar-M Ranch, owned by the same family over 60 years, is the site of what was known as Bingham Springs--among other names. Now known as Bar-M Ranch, the springs has a long history first with the local Indian Tribe who considered the natural springs to be sacred and used the springs for sacred rites, and then as a place that whites found to be peaceful and healing in their own way. Thanks to Jerry Baker, former family operator of the Bar M-Ranch , much of the history of Bingham Springs, now Bar-M Ranch, can be provided here. If you have stories or information about Bingham Springs and/or Bar-M Ranch that you would like to share, please contact the Umatilla County Coordinator. All stories, information and photographs will be used here and then forwarded to Jerry Baker for his scrapbooks of the Bar-M Ranch history. Check back for more history and photographs! Bingham Springs History by Patricia A. Neal The Indians called it "Warm Springs" Bingham Springs has a long history associated with medicinal cures. The local Indians treasured and respected the springs as having powerful spirits. They would not pass by the area without stopping to pay a show of respect to the spirits that lived within. The natural hot springs was considered sacred and they called it "Warm Springs." As more and more whites begain traveling through the area, Warm Springs became a favored stop of even more travelers.
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT Mckay Creek National Wildlife Refuge Turkey, Dove, Deer, and Elk Hunt Plan
    DRAFT McKay Creek National Wildlife Refuge Turkey, Dove, Deer, and Elk Hunt Plan June 2019 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service McKay Creek National Wildlife Refuge Mid-Columbia River NWR Complex 64 Maple Street Burbank, WA 99323 Submitted By: Project Leader ______________________________________________ ____________ Signature Date Concurrence: Refuge Supervisor ______________________________________________ ____________ Signature Date Approved: Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System ______________________________________________ ____________ Signature Date Table of Contents I. Introduction……………………………...…………………………………………4 II. Statement of Objectives…………………..………………………………………..6 III. Description of Hunting Program……………………………………………….....7 A. Areas to be Opened to Hunting…………………………………...7 B. Species to be Taken, Hunting Periods, Hunting Access………….9 C. Hunter Permit Requirements (if applicable)……………………..10 D. Consultation and Coordination with the State…………………...10 E. Law Enforcement………………………………………………...11 F. Funding and Staffing Requirements …………………………….11 IV. Conduct of the Hunt Program….…………………………………………………11 A. Hunter Permit Application, Selection, and/or Registration Procedures (if applicable).………………………………………...11 B. Refuge-Specific Regulations ……………………………………..12 C. Relevant State Regulations ……………………………………….13 D. Other Rules and Regulations for Hunters…………………………14 V. Public Engagement A. Outreach Plan for Announcing and Publicizing the Hunt………...15 B. Anticipated Public Reaction to the Hunting Program ……………15 C. How the Public Will
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 7. Parks and Recreation Element
    1 Chapter 7. Parks and Recreation Element 2 7.1. Introduction 3 Parks, recreational facilities, and open space are generally considered beneficial resources and 4 essential contributors to a community’s quality of life. Located within the County are a number 5 of different types of parks and recreational facilities. 6 The County has not traditionally served as a provider of park and recreation facilities. Local 7 cities, private agencies, federal agencies, and schools have an established history of furnishing 8 these services. 9 The purpose of this element is to evaluate parks and recreation facilities in the County and to 10 develop goals and policies that guide management and coordination of them. 11 7.1.1. Applicable Growth Management Act Goals 12 GMA planning goals that are applicable to the Parks and Recreation Element include the 13 following: 14 . Open space and recreation. Retain open space, enhance recreational opportunities, conserve 15 fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop 16 parks and recreation facilities (Revised Code of Washington [RCW] 36.70A.020(9)). 17 . Public facilities and services. Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to 18 support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development 19 is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally 20 established minimum standards (RCW 36.70A.020(12)). 21 . Historic preservation. Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and structures 22 that have historical or archaeological significance (RCW 36.70A.020(13)). 23 Goals described in the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) also support the Parks and Recreation 24 Element.
    [Show full text]
  • CTUIR Traditional Use Study of Willamette Falls and Lower
    Traditional Use Study of Willamette Falls and the Lower Columbia River by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Jennifer Karson Engum, Ph.D. Cultural Resources Protection Program Report prepared for CTUIR Board of Trustees Fish and Wildlife Commission Cultural Resources Committee CAYUSE, UMATILLAANDWALLA WALLA TRIBES November 16, 2020 CONFEDERATED TRIBES of the Umatilla Indian Reservation 46411 Timíne Way PENDLETON, OREGON TREATY JUNE 9, 1855 REDACTED FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION Traditional Use Study of Willamette Falls and the Lower Columbia River by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Prepared by Jennifer Karson Engum, Ph.D. Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Department of Natural Resources Cultural Resources Protection Program 46411 Timíne Way Pendleton, Oregon 97801 Prepared for CTUIR Board of Trustees Fish and Wildlife Commission Cultural Resources Committee November 16, 2020 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Umatilla (Imatalamłáma), Cayuse (Weyíiletpu), and Walla Walla (Walúulapam) peoples, who comprise the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR), have traveled throughout the west, including to the lower Columbia and Willamette Rivers and to Willamette Falls, to exercise their reserved treaty rights to hunt, fish, and gather the traditional subsistence resources known as the First Foods. They have been doing so since time immemorial, an important indigenous concept which describes a time continuum that spans from ancient times to present day. In post- contact years, interactions expanded to include explorers, traders and missionaries, who brought with them new opportunities for trade and intermarriage as well as the devastating circumstances brought by disease, warfare, and the reservation era. Through cultural adaptation and uninterrupted treaty rights, the CTUIR never ceased to continue to travel to the lower Columbia and Willamette River and falls for seasonal traditional practice and for other purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Umatilla River Floodplain and Wetlands: a Quantitative Characterization, Classification, and Restoration Concept
    Umatilla River Floodplain and Wetlands: A Quantitative Characterization, Classification, and Restoration Concept by Paul R. Adamus, Ph.D., Principal Investigator Adamus Resource Assessment, Inc.1 with James Webster, Cheryl Shippentower, Scott O’Daniel, Donald Eagle Williams, Scott Minthorn Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation P.O. Box 638 Pendleton, OR 97801 October 2002 1 and College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University Table of Contents 1. Introduction................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 The Study Area ................................................................................................................. 1 1.4 Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 3 1.5 Study Importance.............................................................................................................. 3 1.6 Limitations of This Study ................................................................................................. 4 2. Methods...................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Study Site Selection.........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 3.7-1 3.7 Visual Quality and Noise 3.7.1 Affected Environment 3.7.1.1
    3.7 Visual Quality and Noise 3.7.1 Affected Environment 3.7.1.1 Visual Quality The project site is located in a rural area on a relatively flat bluff about 150 feet above the Columbia River. The site is characterized by basalt outcrops, shrub-steppe habitat, and wetlands, with some scattered trees. The views to the north are of the wide Columbia River (Lake Wallula) and croplands, rangeland, shrub-steppe habitat, and scattered agricultural residences and buildings on the Washington State side of the river. The views to the east also are of the Columbia River and shrub-steppe habitat on the Oregon side of the river. To the south, high brush and smaller trees diversify the view of the surrounding landscape. To the west lies similar shrub-steppe habitat but the view is dominated by the TRCI, a large medium custody facility located about 1.5 miles west of the project site. The facility is an industrial-looking 650,000-square-foot concrete facility surrounded by tall fences with a guardhouse at the entrance. This facility is well-lit and visible at night. The existing and proposed electrical transmission line and natural gas supply/wastewater discharge pipeline route is comprised of rural residences, irrigated croplands, non-irrigated croplands, grazing land, and low-growing shrub-steppe land. 3.7.1.2 Noise The existing sound levels in the project area are characterized by rural, ambient/background noises. The closest potential noise source or receptor is the TRCI, located about 1.5 miles west of the project site. Although the background noise levels were not measured, it was estimated that they were in the 35- to 40-decibel range during a site visit.
    [Show full text]