Birch Creek

Floodplain 

Restoration Project

Draft Environmental Assessment 

DOE/EA-2135

August 2020
This page left blank intentionally
Birch Creek Floodplain Restoration Project Draft Environmental Assessment

August 2020 Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acronyms vi

Chapter 1 Introduction 1-1

Background ................................................................................................................. 1-1

Purpose and Need ....................................................................................................... 1-3

Public Scoping and Key Issues ................................................................................... 1-3

Chapter 2 Alternatives 2-1

Proposed Action.......................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.1 Main-Channel Realignment and Restoration ............................................................. 2-1

2.1.2 Improve Secondary Channel and Floodplain Interactions......................................... 2-2

2.1.2.1 Install Habitat-Forming In-Stream Large-Wood Structures...................................... 2-2

2.1.3 Wetland Creation ........................................................................................................ 2-3

2.1.4 Riparian and Upland Vegetation Planting ................................................................. 2-3

2.1.5 Temporary Staging Areas, Access Roads, and Water Crossings................................ 2-4

2.1.6 New Groundwater Well and Removal of Existing Infrastructure ............................... 2-5

Construction Sequencing and Timing ......................................................................... 2-5

2.2.1 Construction Activities................................................................................................ 2-5

2.2.2 Anticipated Construction Schedule and Phasing........................................................ 2-6

No-Action Alternative.................................................................................................. 2-7

Comparison of the Alternatives................................................................................... 2-7

Mitigation Measures................................................................................................. 2-10

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3-1

Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................... 3-2

3.1.1 Affected Environment.................................................................................................. 3-2

3.1.1.1 Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................... 3-2
Birch Creek Floodplain Restoration Project Draft Environmental Assessment

August 2020 Page ii

3.1.2 Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action ...................................................... 3-2

3.1.3 Environmental Consequences – No Action................................................................. 3-3

Vegetation ................................................................................................................... 3-3

3.2.1 Affected Environment.................................................................................................. 3-3

3.2.1.1 Vegetation ................................................................................................................... 3-3

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action ...................................................... 3-8

3.2.3 Environmental Consequences – No Action................................................................. 3-9

Water Resources.......................................................................................................... 3-9

3.3.1 Affected Environment.................................................................................................. 3-9

3.3.1.1 Water Quality.............................................................................................................. 3-9

3.3.1.2 Groundwater............................................................................................................. 3-10

3.3.1.3 Wetlands and Floodplains ........................................................................................ 3-10

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action .................................................... 3-11

3.3.2.1 Water Resources........................................................................................................ 3-11

3.3.2.2 Wetlands and Floodplains ........................................................................................ 3-14

3.3.3 Environmental Consequences – No Action............................................................... 3-15

3.3.3.1 Water Quality............................................................................................................ 3-15

3.3.3.2 Groundwater............................................................................................................. 3-15

3.3.3.3 Wetlands and Floodplains ........................................................................................ 3-15

Fish and Aquatic Species.......................................................................................... 3-16

3.4.1 Affected Environment................................................................................................ 3-16

3.4.1.1 General Fish and Aquatic Species............................................................................ 3-16

3.4.1.2 Anadromous Species ................................................................................................. 3-16

3.4.1.3 Special Status Fish and Designated Critical Habitat within Affected Area ............. 3-17

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action .................................................... 3-17
Birch Creek Floodplain Restoration Project Draft Environmental Assessment

August 2020 Page iii

3.4.3 Environmental Consequences – No Action............................................................... 3-18

Wildlife ...................................................................................................................... 3-19

3.5.1 Affected Environment................................................................................................ 3-19

3.5.1.1 General Wildlife ........................................................................................................ 3-19

3.5.1.2 Introduced Upland Vegetation.................................................................................. 3-19

3.5.1.3 Riparian Vegetation .................................................................................................. 3-19

3.5.1.4 Cliffs, Caves, and Talus ............................................................................................ 3-20

3.5.1.5 Perennial Grassland ................................................................................................. 3-20

3.5.1.6 Introduced Wetlands ................................................................................................. 3-20

3.5.2 Special Status Wildlife............................................................................................... 3-20

3.5.3 Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action .................................................... 3-21

3.5.4 Environmental Consequences – No Action............................................................... 3-22

Cultural Resources.................................................................................................... 3-22

3.6.1 Affected Environment................................................................................................ 3-23

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action .................................................... 3-24

3.6.3 Environmental Consequences – No Action............................................................... 3-25

Land Use ................................................................................................................... 3-25

3.7.1 Affected Environment................................................................................................ 3-25

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action .................................................... 3-25

3.7.3 Environmental Consequences – No Action............................................................... 3-25

Air Quality and Climate Change............................................................................... 3-26

3.8.1 Affected Environment................................................................................................ 3-26

3.8.1.1 Air Quality................................................................................................................. 3-26

3.8.1.2 Climate Change......................................................................................................... 3-26

3.8.2 Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action .................................................... 3-27
Birch Creek Floodplain Restoration Project Draft Environmental Assessment

August 2020 Page iv

3.8.2.1 Air Quality................................................................................................................. 3-27

3.8.2.2 Climate Change......................................................................................................... 3-27

3.8.3 Environmental Consequences – No Action............................................................... 3-28

3.8.3.1 Air Quality................................................................................................................. 3-28

3.8.3.2 Climate Change......................................................................................................... 3-28

Noise.......................................................................................................................... 3-28

3.9.1 Affected Environment................................................................................................ 3-28

3.9.2 Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action .................................................... 3-30

3.9.3 Environmental Consequences – No Action............................................................... 3-30

Public Health and Safety........................................................................................... 3-30

3.10.1 Affected Environment................................................................................................ 3-30

3.10.2 Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action .................................................... 3-31

3.10.3 Environmental Consequences – No Action............................................................... 3-31

Socioeconomics......................................................................................................... 3-31

3.11.1 Affected Environment................................................................................................ 3-31

3.11.2 Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action .................................................... 3-33

3.11.3 Environmental Consequences – No Action............................................................... 3-34

Cumulative Impacts................................................................................................... 3-35

Chapter 4 Environmental Consultation, Review, and Permit Requirements 4-1

Chapter 5 Tribes, Agencies, and Persons Receiving the EA 5-1

Federal ........................................................................................................................ 5-1

State............................................................................................................................. 5-1

Tribes .......................................................................................................................... 5-1

Local Governments ..................................................................................................... 5-1

Other ........................................................................................................................... 5-1
Birch Creek Floodplain Restoration Project Draft Environmental Assessment

August 2020 Page v

Chapter 6 References 6-1

Chapter 7 Appendix 7-1

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1. Project Vicinity Map

Figure 3-1. Plant Communities in the Project Area

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1: Proposed Action Restoration Elements 

Table 2-2: Native Grass Seed Mix Composition

Table 2-3: Anticipated Construction Schedule and Phasing

Table 2-4: Summary and Comparison of Potential Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives

Table 2-5: Mitigation Measures

Table 3-1: Resources Initially Considered for Impact Analysis

Table 3-2: Noxious Weeds Known or Potentially Occurring in the Project Area

Table 3-3: Historic Archeological Resources Identified within the Project APE

Table 3-4: Example Noise Levels

Table 3-5: Demographic Characteristics

Table 3-6: Employment by Industry for Study-Area Residents

Table 4-1. Potential Applicable Statutory, Regulatory, and Other Requirements
Birch Creek Floodplain Restoration Project Draft Environmental Assessment

August 2020 Page vi

ACRONYMS

ACS American Community Survey

APE area of potential effect

BMP best management practice

°C degrees Celsius

CAA Clean Air Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cfs cubic feet per second

CH4 Methane

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent

Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

CWA Clean Water Act

dB Decibels

dBA A-weighted decibels

DPS distinct population segment

EA environmental assessment

EFH Essential Fish Habitat

EIS environmental impact statement

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESU evolutionarily significant unit

°F degrees Fahrenheit

FCRPS Federal Columbia River Power System

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FONSI finding of no significant impact

FR Federal Register 

ft. Feet

FWCA Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act

GHG greenhouse gas

GIS Geographic Information Systems

Leq equivalent sound level

Lmax maximum sound level
Birch Creek Floodplain Restoration Project Draft Environmental Assessment

August 2020 Page vii

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Northwest Power Act Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act

NPCC Northwest Power and Conservation Council 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NWP Nationwide Permit 

ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

PM particulate matter

PM10 particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter, or fugitive dust

PM2.5 particulate matter 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter

RM River Mile

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

TMDL total maximum daily load

USC United States Code

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Birch Creek Floodplain Restoration Project Draft Environmental Assessment

August 2020 Page 1-1

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Background

The Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville) is deciding whether to fund the Birch Creek 

Floodplain Restoration Project sponsored by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

(CTUIR). This project is located on Birch Creek a few miles south of Rieth, Oregon (Figure 1-1). The 

project is designed to improve habitat conditions for Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed mid-Columbia 

steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and other native fish species. 

Proposed restoration activities would include main-channel realignment and restoration; improving 

secondary channel and floodplain interactions; installing habitat-forming in-stream structures made from 

large pieces of wood; wetland creation; and riparian and upland vegetation plantings. 

Bonneville is the lead agency preparing this draft environmental assessment (EA) under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 United States Code [USC] 4321 et seq.) and its

implementing regulations. NEPA requires federal agencies to assess the impacts of proposed actions on 

the environment.

Bonneville prepared this EA to determine if the Proposed Action would significantly affect the 

environment, and thus, warrant the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS), or whether it 

is appropriate to prepare a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). 

This chapter describes Bonneville’s need to act on the purposes that the agency seeks to achieve. The 

chapter also includes project background and summarizes the public-scoping process and comments 

received.
Birch Creek Floodplain Restoration Project Draft Environmental Assessment

August 2020 Page 1-2

Figure 1-1. Project Vicinity Map.
Birch Creek Floodplain Restoration Project Draft Environmental Assessment

August 2020 Page 1-3

Purpose and Need

Bonneville is a federal power-marketing agency that is part of the U.S. Department of Energy. Several 

statutes govern Bonneville’s operations, including the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and 

Conservation Act of 1980 (Northwest Power Act) (16 U.S.C. 839 et seq.), which directs Bonneville to 

protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife affected by the development and operation of the Federal 

Columbia River Power System (FCRPS). To assist in accomplishing this, the Northwest Power Act 

requires Bonneville to fund fish and wildlife protection, mitigation, and enhancement actions consistent 

with the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s (NPCC) Fish and Wildlife Program and other 

purposes of the act. Under this program, the NPCC makes recommendations to Bonneville concerning 

which fish and wildlife mitigation measures to implement.

Bonneville needs to respond to the CTUIR’s requests for funding the Birch Creek Floodplain Restoration 

Project. In meeting the need for action, Bonneville seeks to achieve the following purposes:

 Support efforts to mitigate for the effects of development and operation of the FCRPS on fish and 

wildlife in the mainstem Columbia River and its tributaries pursuant to the Northwest Power Act.

 Help Bonneville meet its obligations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by fulfilling 

commitments begun under the 2008 NOAA Fisheries Federal Columbia River Power System 

Biological Opinion (as supplemented in 2010 and 2014) (2008 BiOp) and ongoing commitments 

under the 2019 NOAA Fisheries Columbia River System BiOp (2019 CRS BiOp). The 2008 

BiOp called for identifying tributary habitat restoration projects, and the 2019 CRS BiOp largely 

continues the tributary habitat restoration program.

 Fulfill Bonneville’s commitments to the CTUIR under the 2018 Columbia River Fish Accord 

Extension agreement.

 Minimize adverse impacts to the human environment, avoid jeopardizing the continued existence 

of ESA-listed species, and avoid adverse modification or destruction of designated critical 

habitat.

Public Scoping and Key Issues

To help determine the issues addressed in this EA, Bonneville conducted public scoping outreach that 

initiated on February 13, 2020. Bonneville mailed letters to potentially interested and affected persons, 

agencies, Tribes, and organizations. Bonneville accepted public comments on the project until March 14,

2020. The letter provided information about the project and EA scoping period, requested comments on 

issues to be addressed in the EA, and described how to comment (i.e., through mail, fax, telephone, and 

Bonneville’s project website). Bonneville posted this on the project website to provide information about 

the Proposed Action and the EA process: www.bpa.gov/goto/BirchCreek.

As the project sponsor, CTUIR received a request from Bonneville for comments on the Proposed Action, 

as well as on potential cultural resources. 

Bonneville received one written comment, posted at the project website above, and two comments by 

telephone during the scoping period. These comments focused on the following: 

 Project purpose and need in relation to the Northwest Power Act and Columbia River Fish 

Accords. 

 Existing noise levels of the groundwater well and pumping station in the project area. 

These scoping comments are addressed in the appropriate sections of the EA. 
Birch Creek Floodplain Restoration Project Draft Environmental Assessment

August 2020 Page 2-1

CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES

This chapter describes the alternatives analyzed in detail in this EA: The Proposed Action and the No 

Action alternatives. It compares the alternatives by potential environmental consequences and also 

identifies potential mitigation measures

Proposed Action

Under the Proposed Action, Bonneville would fund the Birch Creek Floodplain Restoration Project. It 

would involve actions between RMs 1.8 and 2.7 on Birch Creek as measured from its confluence with the 

Umatilla River. The ultimate goal of the project is to restore fish and wildlife habitat along Birch Creek 

and to address the primary limiting factors identified in the NPCC’s Umatilla Subbasin Plan, 2008 

Columbia River Fish Accords and the Birch Creek Watershed Assessment and Action Plan (CTUIR 

2015) for steelhead in the Umatilla River and Birch Creek.

The project objectives are to improve habitat conditions for foraging, rearing, spawning, and migrating 

resident and ESA-listed fish. The Proposed Action would involve utilizing a River Vision (Jones et al.

2008) based approach to construct project elements that initiate recovery of in-stream and floodplain 

processes through the addition of structural features, off-channel habitat creation, wetland creation, and 

riparian vegetation enhancement. These activities are described in greater detail below.

In addition, Bonneville would fund a conservation easement or the acquisition of fee title to facilitate the 

implementation of the project and ensure that it provides a long-term restoration benefit. 

The primary proposed restoration elements associated with the Proposed Action, as shown in Table 2-1,

would include:

Table 2-1: Proposed Action Restoration Elements

Restoration Element Quantity/Metric (in applicable unit) 

Main-Channel Realignment and Restoration About 1.2 miles (6,250 feet) of primary channel 

realignment

Improve Secondary Channel and Floodplain 

Interactions

About 0.6 mile (3,400 feet) of secondary channel 

excavation

Install Habitat-Forming Instream Structures About 830 pieces of wood per mile

Wetland Creation 9.9 acres of created wetland

Riparian and Upland Vegetation Plantings 29.7 acres of riparian habitat enhanced

Overall Disturbance Area 35.9 acres

2.1.1 Main-Channel Realignment and Restoration

Measured from its confluence with the Umatilla River, about a one-mile section of Birch Creek (between 

RMs 1.8 to 2.7) would be realigned and restored. New channel excavation would begin at the downstream 

end of the project area. It is anticipated that the new channel would be excavated to an average depth of 

about 4 feet, which would increase the main channel by approximately 6,250 feet. These activities would 

seek to increase aquatic and riparian habitat diversity and complexity, reconnect stream channels to 

floodplains, improve long-term nutrient storage, provide substrate for macroinvertebrates, moderate flow 

disturbance, increase retention of organic materials, and provide refuge for fish and other aquatic species. 

Earthen plugs would be left in place at each end of the excavated length of the main channel before 

connecting to the main channel during the in-water work window.
Birch Creek Floodplain Restoration Project Draft Environmental Assessment

August 2020 Page 2-2

One objective of the project is to reconnect primary and secondary channels to reactivate the floodplain at 

various flows, improving floodplain connectivity and aquatic habitat through a range of flows. The goal is 

to restore stream form and function to begin to restore ecological processes that once supported 

unimpeded fish passage, temporary storage of water, more natural sediment transport processes, all life 

history stages of all aquatic organisms and the accumulation of organic material. 

Channel reconstruction would focus on improving channel process and function by reconnecting the 

primary active channel of Birch Creek to its floodplain, increasing instream structural complexity, 

installing structural elements, restoring the streambank, and enhancing “roughness.” Material selection 

(e.g., large wood) for the structural elements would include native species. These activities would result 

in enhancing natural stream processes by increasing the range of stream velocities, improving sediment 

routing, increasing hyporheic exchange to improve floodplain water storage and capacity, improving flow 

timing and duration, and reducing buffering water temperatures throughout the year.

2.1.2 Improve Secondary Channel and Floodplain Interactions

These activities would focus on re-establishing stream channel functions within the floodplains. One side

channel would be created along the former alignment of Birch Creek to increase floodplain connectivity, 

provide off-channel habitat features (e.g., alcoves and backwater refugia), promote hyporheic exchange

(the mixing of surface and shallow subsurface water through a streambed’s porous sediment), and reduce 

water temperatures. In addition, fill would be placed along the existing channel alternating between the 

left bank and right bank to narrow the channel to a side channel width. Typical sections of these side 

channels would be designed and constructed to accommodate about 20 percent of the average two-year 

flow volumes. The downstream end of these side channels would be constructed to form alcoves and 

backwater habitat features at all flow levels to maximize the creation of these habitat types.

Another project objective is to promote channel migration, which would also encourage natural side 

channel formation over time. Although this cannot be measured at the onset of the project, it is anticipated 

that this would create a number of new side channels into the future by promoting these processes.

2.1.2.1 Install Habitat-Forming In-Stream Large-Wood Structures

A total of about 90 large-wood structures would be installed within the existing and the proposed new 

main channel. These structures would resemble log jams placed throughout the project length within the 

ordinary high water (OHW) boundary. Placing structures made from natural habitat-forming large-wood 

materials would provide complexity that encourages the initiation of processes that support spawning, 

rearing, and resting habitat for salmonids and other aquatic species. Structures would be built from locally 

sourced large wood and boulders. The boulders would be used as ballast within some of the log-jam 

structures and as individually placed rocks. The randomly placed individual rocks would be located in 

riffle habitat types to help create additional microsite complexity and increase juvenile rearing and adult 

resting cover.

Actions utilizing these structures would be designed to increase instream structural complexity and 

diversity, mimicking the processes and functions of natural input of large wood (e.g., whole conifer and 

hardwood trees, logs, root wads, etc.). Design criteria would be focused on balancing biological benefit, 

structural resiliency, and enhancing or complementing stream and floodplain processes.

Large wood placement would use size classes for wood that include at least three different categories. 

Typically, these size categories include 12–18 inches, 18–24 inches and 24 inches plus at diameter breast 

height (DBH) (i.e., 4.5 feet above the ground with bark intact) and 30 feet or greater in length as the 

primary pieces within the placement or structure. Materials with dimensions smaller than this (e.g.,

shrubs, branches, smaller trees, etc.) may be incorporated (woven) into the structures for racking.
Birch Creek Floodplain Restoration Project Draft Environmental Assessment

August 2020 Page 2-3

Techniques for wood placement would involve hauling trees from an area outside of the riparian zone and 

placing them individually or in aggregate in specified locations in the project area. Locations for wood 

placement would be driven by the objectives to increase coarse sediment storage, increase habitat 

diversity and complexity, retain gravel for spawning habitat, improve flow, provide long-term nutrient 

storage, increase retention of organic inputs, and provide refugia for fish during high flows. 

Boulders sized about 2 and 4 feet in diameter from a nearby quarry or from treated onsite riprap would be

installed to stabilize large-wood structures and create resting habitat for fish. 

2.1.3 Wetland Creation

About 10 acres of wetlands and seasonally disconnected aquatic habitats would be constructed within the 

floodplain through excavations in over 20 discrete areas throughout the floodplain. These wetlands would

be variable depth to allow for some interaction under a variety of flow regimes. An objective of the 

project is to excavate some of these larger wetland areas to become perennial, open-water wetlands, 

which are connected to the channel. Each excavated area would advance the goal of restoring wetland 

habitats that provide high-velocity refuge, cover, and important food source for salmon and steelhead in 

addition to other species of fish and wildlife. Wetland excavation work would begin on the downstream 

end of the project area to prevent seepage flow from upstream excavated areas. 

2.1.4 Riparian and Upland Vegetation Planting

Riparian and upland vegetation planting efforts would have three objectives. The first objective would be 

to re-establish locally collected, native vegetation that would outcompete non-native and invasive plant 

species. The second objective would be to initiate natural processes while minimizing negative impacts—

some areas would allow for re-adjusting to natural processes while other areas would focus on preventing 

short-term soil erosion. These plantings may also provide shade, nutrient conversion, and woody material 

recruitment. The third objective would be to establish plants for tribal members’ use as First Foods.1

During construction, willow (Salix spp.), black cottonwood (Poplus trichocarpa) and red-osier dogwood 

(Cornus sericea) cuttings would be utilized to plant within log jams. These stakes would be locally 

collected 7 to 10 days prior to use and would be placed in water to soak until placed in the jams, while the 

log jams are being constructed.

During the first fall after construction activities begin, the project would begin planting in all of the 

disturbed areas. Some of these areas would only be sown with grass seed, while some would be planted 

with rooted shrub species, depending on the objective of each specific area. It has been demonstrated to 

be most effective to plant the grass seed in this region after October 15, annually. This allows the seed to 

overwinter and germinate when conditions are suitable the following spring. This date is used to ensure 

the seed does not germinate and then dry out in the earlier fall, thus dying. This native seed also has a 

higher germination rate when it is frozen. Some of these planting areas are discussed below.

Newly constructed channels and side channels would be grass seeded the first fall. The project would not 

plant any rooted stock in these types of habitats until the channel has experienced at least one higher flow 

event. This allows that channel to adjust and begin to more clearly define its boundaries. Project staff

would then re-evaluate the situation and develop a planting plan for these areas within the first 2 to 3 

years after construction.

Other areas, such as staging areas and access routes would be decompacted and grass seeded the first fall. 

Planting would not be initiated here for 2 to 3 years to allow the soil to settle prior to planting rooted 

 

1 First Foods are defined as the minimum ecological products necessary to sustain CTUIR culture (Jones 2008). 
Birch Creek Floodplain Restoration Project Draft Environmental Assessment

August 2020 Page 2-4

stock. This equates to higher survival rates, as the plants’ roots aren’t exposed to potential air pockets in 

newly disturbed soils. 

Once the site has settled, depending on survival rates, approximately 5,000 to 8,000 plants would be 

planted per year for a decade. Plants would be spaced 7 by 7 feet per plant, which equates to 849 plants 

per acre. If the survival rate falls below 70 percent, that area would be replanted the following season. In 

the spring, annual noxious weed treatment of planted areas would be conducted through both mechanical 

and chemical means to reduce competition. 

A substantial amount of the project area would be relatively undisturbed. These areas would be planted 

with rooted stock the first fall, post-construction.

Table 2-2 delineates the native grass seed mix that would be planted during the fall following 

construction. The seed source for all of these species would be locally collected within the region. Some 

would be collected for the project and sent to a commercial grass seed producer.

Table 2-2: Native Grass Seed Mix Composition

Riparian Sites

Common Name Scientific Name Percent 

Composition

Blue Wildrye Elymus glaucus 40%

Idaho Fescue Festuca idahoensis 40%

Mountain Brome Bromus marginatus 15%

Tufted Hairgrass Deschampsia cespitosa 5%

Mesic/Upland Sites

Basin wildrye Leymus cinereus 30%

Idaho Fescue Festuca idahoensis 20%

Sandberg Bluegrass Poa secunda 15%

Prairie Junegrass Koeleria macrantha 15%

Bluebunch Wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria 

spicata

15%

Mountain Brome Bromus marginatus 5%

Some of the primary First Foods species that would be used in planting efforts include: elderberry 

(Sambucas nigra), chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), serviceberry (Amelanchier arborea), willow (Salix 

spp.), currant (Ribes spp.), rose (Rosa spp), spirea (Spirea douglasii), black hawthorn (Crataegus 

douglasii), oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor), red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea) and snowberry 

(Symphoricarpos albus). These native plants typically show higher survival rates in restoration areas. 

Trees and shrubs would be planted in the floodplain to re-establish natural processes in restoration areas.

2.1.5 Temporary Staging Areas, Access Roads, and Water Crossings

Riparian vegetation would be cut to the ground level for temporary access roads. A staging area up to 

about 5 acres near the existing access road to Birch Creek Road would be cut to grass level. The

temporary main access road would be used along the entire length of the existing channel, running 

parallel to Birch Creek with a width up to about 20 feet. This would allow for two-way traffic for large 

construction equipment. At least one temporary bridge would be installed to allow for large construction 

equipment access to either side of wetted channels. This bridge would likely be moved at least two times 

during construction. Temporary water crossings would be made at locations that minimize the impacts to 

existing vegetation. 
Birch Creek Floodplain Restoration Project Draft Environmental Assessment

August 2020 Page 2-5

2.1.6 New Groundwater Well and Removal of Existing Infrastructure

An existing groundwater pumping station and existing irrigation pipe would be removed to implement the 

restoration. To replace it, a new well would be drilled on the east side of Birch Creek. The current 

location of the well and a pipe crossing Birch Creek conflicts with the proposed main channel 

realignment. Above-ground sections of existing irrigation pipe and associated electric-utility line conduit

crossing Birch Creek near RM 2.25 at the lower end of the project area would be removed in all locations

within the floodplain of this project. Most of the buried sections of pipe from the floodplain to the Point 

of Use (POU) would be left in place. 

The new groundwater well would be drilled across Birch Creek and uphill from where restoration project 

elements occur. The well would be located at the irrigators’ point of use. The new well would be drilled 

to a depth of approximately 750 to 1,000 feet. Concrete would be poured in a 5-foot radius around the 

well and for the approximate 20-foot by 20-foot footprint where a new pumping station would be built. 

Any materials generated by the drilling (e.g. drilling mud) would be safely disposed of in the immediate 

area of the drilling, or completely removed from the project site and safely disposed by the well drilling 

company.

Construction vehicles would access the new well site using existing roads currently used for access to 

irrigated fields. Construction of this new well, in addition to plugging and abandonment procedures for 

the existing well, would be approved by the Oregon Department of Water Resources (ODWR) as needed 

and comply with ODWR administrative rules.

Construction Sequencing and Timing

2.2.1 Construction Activities

The restoration elements in the Proposed Action would be conducted within stream channels, riparian 

areas, floodplains, and uplands. They would be accomplished using manual labor, hand tools (chainsaws, 

tree planting tools, augers, shovels, and more), all-terrain vehicles, flat-bed trucks, and heavy equipment 

(backhoes, excavators, bulldozers, front-end loaders, dump trucks, winch machinery, cable yarding, etc.). 

Specifically, implementing the Proposed Action would require operating about 4 excavators, 1 bulldozer, 

2 front-end loaders/scrapers, a large water truck, as well as about 4 off-road dump trucks. Materials would

be hauled using an additional 2 or 3 end- or side-dump dump trucks, and between 2 and 4 logging trucks. 

This equipment and vehicles would repeatedly make trips to the site and likely operate on site at the same 

time. Utilizing erosion control best management practices, mass excavation of channels and wetland 

features, transport and placement of soil and the existing channel be performed using a variety of 

industry-standard earthmoving equipment such as tracked excavators and bulldozers. Dust abatement 

would be completed by keeping the roads and work areas watered down. This would also help alleviate 

fire concerns.

Crews would carry out construction of the large wood structures in the following sequence: First, during 

in-water work season, the area immediately surrounding each structure would be isolated with nets to 

prevent fish from entering the area. Then, qualified fish biologists would perform fish salvage to 

physically remove any remaining fish. Prior to construction, a temporary cofferdam comprised of nonerodible materials would isolate each work area located within the nets previously installed. Next, 

construction crews would excavate trenches to a minimum depth of 6 feet to install each large wood 

structure. The area upstream of each structure would be excavated to facilitate development of side 

channels. Boulders would be installed along with spoils from excavation to backfill each structure, which 

would be compacted with an excavator bucket. 
Birch Creek Floodplain Restoration Project Draft Environmental Assessment

August 2020 Page 2-6

Wetland creation would be carried out with mechanical excavation using tracked excavators. Preparation 

of areas for plantings and maintenance would be performed by visiting the site with trucks and initially 

operating mechanical equipment to decompact soil after heavy equipment leaves the site. 

The new groundwater well would be drilled using a standard well-drilling rig using an augerbit drill. 

Casing would be installed in the drill shaft in 20-foot sections, which would be welded together. A 

concrete-mixing truck would pour concrete for the well pad and a foundation for the pumping house. 

2.2.2 Anticipated Construction Schedule and Phasing

The Proposed Action would be carried out during two calendar years. Work would be planned depending 

on whether it would occur in water, which would require it to occur during the summer in-water work 

window for Birch Creek (July 1-October 31) specified by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(ODFW) to protect salmonids. New channel construction and wetland excavation in areas above the 

OHW mark would occur during fall and winter of the first calendar year. In addition, during the first 

calendar year’s in-water work window, to improve secondary channel and floodplain interaction, fill

would be placed to narrow the existing channel. The rest of the in-channel work, such as installing instream structures, would occur during the in-water work window in the second calendar year. The 

irrigation pipe and pump station removal would occur during the first calendar year with construction of 

the new well completed before the following summer when irrigation water would be needed by water 

rights holders. 

Table 2-3: Anticipated Construction Schedule and Phasing

Before in-water work window (November 1 to June 30)

 Complete pre-construction activities:

o Construction staking and flagging sensitive areas;

o Mobilize to site and prepare it for construction;

o Install temporary erosion and sediment controls.

 Acquisition, hauling, and staging of large wood structures.

 Clear vegetation to the ground level for temporary access roads. 

 Begin main channel and wetland excavations above OHW, including initial construction of terrace 

fill and roughness, leaving a small earthen plug at the upstream end of the project to leave the area 

dry. 

 Remove existing groundwater well and pump station, drill new groundwater well, and;

 Complete construction of the pump station before summer irrigation season. 

During in-water work window (July 1 to October 31)

 Install cofferdam, remove downstream earthen plug, and salvage fish.

 Remove upstream earthen plug and slowly introduce flow from Birch Creek into the new main 

channel and monitor for turbidity. 

 Isolate existing Birch Creek and conduct fish salvage, if needed, to remove stranded fish.

 Dewater existing Birch Creek and construct roughness.

 Install in-stream habitat-forming features such as large-woody structures.

After in-water work window (after October 31)

 Seed and mulch all disturbed areas. 

 Site clean-up and demobilization. 

 Decompact soil and initiate first series of riparian and wetland vegetation plantings.
Birch Creek Floodplain Restoration Project Draft Environmental Assessment

August 2020 Page 2-7

No-Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, Bonneville would not fund the Birch Creek Floodplain Restoration 

Project and CTUIR would not construct the project. The area would remain in its current state, including 

the current Birch Creek channel alignment and water well. 

Comparison of the Alternatives

Table 2-4 compares the Proposed Action to the No Action Alternative, and provides a summary and 

comparison of the potential environmental consequences of each alternative. Detailed analysis of 

environmental consequences is provided in Chapter 3. 

Table 2-4: Summary and Comparison of Potential Environmental Impacts of the 

Alternatives

Resource Category Proposed Action No Action

Geology and Soils  Low-to-moderate impact. Short-term 

low-level impacts to soil would occur 

from construction activities for the 

new groundwater well and pump 

station in addition to soil impacts from 

implementing restoration actions. 

Low-level long-term effects of these 

restoration actions would ultimately 

improve soil quality and productivity. 

 No impact. There would be 

no effect to geology (including 

subsurface geology from a new 

well) and soils.

Vegetation  Moderate-to-high impact. Shortterm moderate adverse impacts to 

vegetation from construction and the 

resulting changes to plant 

communities. Long-term high 

beneficial impacts from restored 

floodplain function and revegetation 

of native plant communities. 

 No impact. There would be no 

impact to vegetation.

Water Resources  Moderate-to-high impact. Though 

restoration activities would have 

short-term, moderate, adverse impacts 

on water quality and stream 

temperature, the Proposed Action is 

expected to improve stream sediment 

and turbidity conditions overall. In 

addition, over the long term, a high 

beneficial impact from the increased

return volume and decrease in water 

temperatures for groundwater 

recharge.

 No impact. There would be no 

improvements in stream 

structure and groundwater. 

Additionally, no impacts to 

groundwater from drilling a 

new groundwater well.
Birch Creek Floodplain Restoration Project Draft Environmental Assessment

August 2020 Page 2-8

Resource Category Proposed Action No Action

Wetlands and 

Floodplains

 Moderate impact. For wetlands and 

floodplains, there would be high longterm beneficial impacts from 

reconnecting the floodplain and 

wetland creation.

 No impact. There would be no 

wetland and floodplain creation

nor improvements in

connectivity to the floodplain.

Fish and Aquatic 

Species

 Moderate impact. After the 

implementation of the design features 

and mitigation measures defined in 

Bonneville’s Habitat Improvement 

Program (HIP) conservation measures,

there would be a short-term adverse 

impact to fish and aquatic species 

from sedimentation from construction, 

with a moderate long-term beneficial 

impact from improved flow and 

habitat conditions.

 No impact. There would be 

no impact to fish and aquatic 

species without 

implementation of the 

Proposed Action.

Wildlife  Low-to-moderate impact. 

Restoration activities would have 

short-term adverse impacts due to 

construction disturbance and 

associated conversion of existing 

habitat with long-term beneficial 

impacts with improved habitat 

conditions. 

 No impact. There would be no 

impact from constructionrelated disturbances to wildlife 

individuals and habitat. 

Cultural Resources  No-to-low impact. The Proposed 

Action would result in minimal to no 

impact on archeological resources

depending on the level and amount of 

disturbance. 

 No impact. There would be no 

ground disturbance with the 

No Action Alternative, and 

there would therefore be no 

potential to affect cultural 

resources.

Land Use  Low-to-moderate impact. 

Restoration actions would change land 

use because land previously used for 

agricultural activities would be 

dedicated to floodplain habitat and a 

new hydrologic regime. 

 No impact. Current land uses 

would remain the same.

Air Quality  Low impact. Impacts would 

primarily occur from short-term 

emissions of criteria pollutants and 

dust from construction vehicles, 

which would be temporary and 

localized in nature. 

 No impact. No emissions of 

criteria pollutants associated 

with construction would occur.
Birch Creek Floodplain Restoration Project Draft Environmental Assessment

August 2020 Page 2-9

Resource Category Proposed Action No Action

Climate Change  Low impact. Greenhouse-gas 

emissions would result from shortduration construction activities. Longterm contribution to the amelioration 

of climate change could result from 

restoring functional riparian, wetland, 

and floodplain habitats that store 

carbon. Increased water table inputs 

that could ameliorate effects of 

climate change on aquatic species by 

lowering water temperatures.

 No impact. No contributions 

from construction-vehicle 

emissions of greenhouse gases. 

There also would not be any 

amelioration of climate change 

through creation of wetland 

soils or its impacts through 

water table inputs that lower 

water temperatures.

Noise  Low-to-moderate impact. Shortterm low impacts from noise 

generated by the Proposed Action 

would be minimal due to the 

relatively short duration of 

construction, and a long-term 

moderate impact from reducing noise 

levels by relocating a groundwater 

well pump. In addition, a low-level 

long-term beneficial impact from 

increasing natural sounds.

 No impact. There would not 

be noise generated from 

construction. The groundwater 

well pump would continue to 

elevate noise levels for 

extended durations. 

Public Health and 

Safety

 Low impact. The potential health and 

safety risks to workers and the public 

during construction would have low

short-term effects during construction. 

 No impact. There would be no 

change in public health or 

safety risks without 

implementation of the 

Proposed Action. 

Socioeconomics  Low-to-moderate impact. Shortterm beneficial economic impacts to 

local communities from an estimated 

$2 million in direct project spending 

and temporary employment for about 

10-15 construction workers. 

 No impact. There would be no 

change in socioeconomic 

conditions without 

implementation of the 

Proposed Action.

Environmental 

Justice

 Low impact. The Proposed Action 

would not generate any health or 

environmental impact that might 

disadvantage any population. The 

long-term impact would likely be 

beneficial to Indian Tribes (the most 

likely environmental justice 

population to be affected) in 

contributing to the restoration of fish 

resources sufficient to support 

ceremonial, subsistence and 

commercial fishing. 

 No impact. The Proposed 

Action would not induce any 

environmental or economic 

change to a community or an 

environmental justice 

population.
Birch Creek Floodplain Restoration Project Draft Environmental Assessment

August 2020 Page 2-10

Mitigation Measures 

To minimize impacts to resources from the Proposed Action, the best management practices (BMPs) and 

mitigation measures described in Table 2-5 would be implemented during the design and construction of 

the project.

In addition to the mitigation measures described below, conservation measures from Bonneville’s 

programmatic Habitat Improvement Program (HIP) Endangered Species Act (ESA) programmatic 

Section 7 consultation would be implemented to reduce impacts to ESA-listed fish species. Conservation 

measures from Bonneville’s HIP consultation applicable to this project are listed in Appendix A. 
August 2020 Page 2-11

Table 2-5: Mitigation Measures

Resource Category Mitigation Measures

Geology and Soils  Follow the general standards for well abandonment, new well construction and 

maintenance under Oregon Department of Water Resources administrative rules to 

protect subsurface geology. 

 Create a Sediment Control Plan, and include daily monitoring during in-water 

construction, regular inspection, and recording control measures.

 Use sediment barriers, such as silt fences, ballast berms, and straw wattles. 

 Minimize the area of disturbance. 

 Use water trucks to apply water to control dust, as needed. 

 Apply mulch or straw, or reseed exposed soil areas to reduce erosion and dust and 

completing work within a given area. 

 Sequence construction to minimize soil exposure and erosion potential. 

 Decompact staging areas and decommissioned access roads through subsoiling to a 

minimum of 18 inches and replanting. 

 Continue monitoring channel formation, particularly to ensure that functioning 

channels are experiencing sustainable levels of aggradation and erosion.

Vegetation  Wash construction equipment before it is mobilized to the project area to control the 

spread of non-native species. 

 Minimize disturbance to native vegetation.

 Employ zero swing excavators to decrease disturbance areas. 

 Replant with native seed mix as rapidly as possible following the completion of 

construction. 

 Develop a plan to monitor and maintain native-plant communities and control nonnative and invasive plants. 

 Include mechanical and chemical treatment methods for non-native species.

Water Resources, 

Wetlands and 

Floodplains

 Obtain Clean Water Act permits and apply permit-specific protection measures. 

 Follow Oregon groundwater law and all standards and procedures required under 

Oregon Water Resources Department administrative rules to minimize impacts to 

groundwater from contamination, waste, and loss of pressure. 

 Monitor turbidity during construction by taking a baseline measurement 100 feet 

upstream and a second downstream measurement (approximately 50 feet 

downstream from construction activities) to ensure turbidity does not exceed levels 

established under the ESA consultation with NMFS. If this monitoring indicates that 

turbidity controls are ineffective, immediately mobilize work crews to repair, 

replace, or reinforce controls as necessary.

 Obtain on-site materials for restoration activities to the degree possible. 

 Develop a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan prior to 

project initiation. 

 Identify and locate staging areas, storage sites (fuel, chemical, equipment, and 

materials) potentially polluting activities, and secure them using methods identified 

in the SPCC 150 feet or more from any natural water body or on an adjacent, 
August 2020 Page 2-12

Resource Category Mitigation Measures

established road area in a location and manner that would preclude erosion into, or 

contamination of, the stream or floodplain. 

 Use only hydraulic fluids approved for work in aquatic environments that are 

biodegradable. 

 Wash heavy equipment before delivery to project site to remove oils, fluids, grease, 

weed seed, etc. 

 Inspect and clean heavy equipment regularly. Repair any leaks immediately upon 

discovery.

 Identify pollution and control measures that would be implemented in the SPCC. 

 Have a spill containment kit on site at all times during construction.

 Operate all small engines within a non-permeable container when operating near 

water. 

 Perform all non-emergency maintenance of equipment off site. 

 Dispose all waste (solid waste, hazardous materials, etc.) off site, as regulated by the 

state. 

 Remove all equipment, materials, supplies, and waste from project site when 

complete. 

 Schedule activities and manage water flows and levels to provide dry working 

conditions as much as possible. 

 Stockpiled soils would be covered if they would be inactive for more than a few 

days.

 Machinery for in-water work would be operated in out-of-stream areas as much as 

possible. 

Fish and Aquatic 

Species

 Construct only during in-water work windows (July 1 to October 31) specified by 

ODFW and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 

 A qualified fish biologist would be on-site to conduct fish salvage after isolating 

work areas according to NMFS protocols for handling ESA-listed fish. 

 Limit the amount of stream that is dewatered to the minimum practicable to 

accomplish the project objectives. This includes not filling the entire current channel 

to reduce the mortality of all aquatic organisms.

 Preserve riparian vegetation to the extent possible during construction. 

 Implement all conservation measures relevant to listed anadromous fish and bull 

trout from HIP Biological Opinions (see Appendix A). 

Wildlife  Schedule tree removal between September 15 and March 1 to protect migratory 

birds. If tree removal is necessary during this window, a qualified biologist would 

conduct a preconstruction survey to determine whether nesting birds are present. 

 If temporary construction areas provide suitable nesting habitat, implement actions 

that render that potential habitat unattractive to birds.

Cultural Resources  Maintain construction limits 30 feet away from the historic properties boundaries. 

 An archaeological monitor shall be present during ground disturbing activities 

occurring within 100 feet of the south and east banks of Birch Creek and areas where 
August 2020 Page 2-13

Resource Category Mitigation Measures

work will reach depths below the plow zone and existing utilities such as the buried 

irrigation pipe

 Explain cultural resource-related mitigation measures to construction contractors and 

inspectors, including field marking for avoidance, during preconstruction meetings. 

Depict cultural sites as sensitive areas to avoid in construction documents and on 

construction maps.

 Implement an Inadvertent Discovery Plan for cultural material (e.g., structural 

remains, Euro-American artifacts, or Native American artifacts) that details 

construction crew member responsibilities for reporting in the event of a discovery 

of cultural material during construction; require work to stop immediately and 

notification of local law enforcement officials (as required), appropriate BPA 

personnel, SHPOs, land managers, and affected tribes if cultural resources or human 

remains are discovered during construction activities.

 Implement an Inadvertent Discovery Plan for human remains, suspected human 

remains, or any items suspected to be related to a human burial (i.e., funerary items, 

sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony). This will include the following 

procedures:

o Halt of activities. All survey, excavation, and construction activities shall 

cease. The human remains shall not be disturbed any further.

o Notification. Local law enforcement official, the local government, and the 

Indian tribal governments shall be contacted immediately.

o Inspection. The county coroner, or appropriate official, shall inspect the 

remains at the project site and determine if they are prehistoric/historic or 

modern. Representatives from the Indian tribal governments shall have an 

opportunity to monitor the inspection.

o Jurisdiction. If the remains are modern, the appropriate law enforcement 

officials shall assume jurisdiction and the cultural resource protection 

process may conclude.

o Treatment. In Oregon, prehistoric/historic remains of Native Americans 

shall generally be treated in accordance with the in accordance with the 

procedures set forth in ORS 97.740 to 97.760. 

Land Use None identified.

Air Quality  Apply water from water trucks to excavation areas and set a low speed limit to 

reduce dust. 

 Limit idling for construction vehicles and machinery.

Climate Change  Limit idling for construction vehicles and machinery.

Noise  Limit construction to daylight hours (typically the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 

p.m.)

 Fit equipment with best available sound muffling devices to the extent practicable, 

and check mufflers on a regular basis to ensure they function properly.

 Review construction phasing to minimize the duration of particularly noisy activities 

and the overall duration of construction near residences.
August 2020 Page 2-14

Resource Category Mitigation Measures

Public Health and 

Safety

 Conduct construction safety meetings to start each workday to review potential safety 

issues and concerns.

 Use adequate signage and other routine safeguards for worker and public safety, and 

especially when utilizing ingress and egress to ensure safe crossings over railroad 

tracks for vehicle traffic.

 Require workers to wear all necessary personal protective equipment when working 

with potentially hazardous materials.

 Temporarily store any waste liquids generated at the staging areas under an 

impervious cover until they could be properly transported to and disposed of at a 

facility that is approved for receipt of hazardous materials.

Socioeconomics None identified.

Environmental Justice None identified.
August 2020 Page 3-1

CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES

This chapter describes the environmental conditions in and around the project area that could be affected 

by the Proposed Action or the No Action Alternative, and evaluates the potential impacts that could arise 

from implementing either alternative. The impact levels are characterized as high, moderate, low, or no 

impact. These impact levels are based on the analysis provided, incorporating the considerations of 

context and intensity defined in the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the 

Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1508.27). For each resource 

category, Table 2-5 in Chapter 2 identifies minimization and mitigation measures that would help reduce 

or avoid impacts. 

Table 3-1 identifies resources initially considered for impact analysis. Not all the resources present in the 

project area would experience impacts that require further analysis in this EA because alternatives would 

result in either no impact or a negligible impact on the resource. 

Table 3-1: Resources Initially Considered for Impact Analysis

Resource Resource Status Resource Evaluation

Geology and Soils Present, Affected Impacts are further disclosed under Environmental 

Consequences.

Vegetation Present, Affected Impacts are further disclosed under Environmental 

Consequences.

Water Resources, 

Wetlands and 

Floodplains

Present, Affected Impacts are further disclosed under Environmental 

Consequences.

Fish and Aquatic 

Species

Present, Affected Impacts are further disclosed under Environmental 

Consequences.

Wildlife Present, Affected Impacts are further disclosed under Environmental 

Consequences.

Cultural 

Resources

Present, Affected Impacts are further disclosed under Environmental 

Consequences.

Land Use Present, Affected Impacts are further disclosed under Environmental 

Consequences.

Recreation Present, 

Not Affected

Because the alternatives would not be expected to change the

existing or future recreational use on Birch Creek, there 

would be no effect to recreation under the alternatives. 

Transportation and 

Infrastructure

Present,

Not Affected

Use of and access to private, county, or state roads would not 

change in or near the project corridor. Temporary traffic 

delays would occur during construction along Birch Creek 

Road, but these delays would be negligible. Residents would 

be notified of upcoming construction activities and potential 

disruptions. 

Visual Quality Present, 

Negligible 

Impact

Existing views of the project area would not change because 

the overall degree of visual change in the existing viewshed 

along Birch Creek would be limited under the alternatives.
August 2020 Page 3-2

Table 3-1: Resources Initially Considered for Impact Analysis

Resource Resource Status Resource Evaluation

Views of construction areas would be temporary with all 

equipment and materials removed after construction, resulting 

in a short-term low visual impact, and a long-term negligible 

impact. 

Air Quality Present, Affected Impacts are further disclosed under Environmental 

Consequences.

Greenhouse Gases Present, Affected Impacts are further disclosed under Environmental 

Consequences. 

Noise Present, Affected Impacts are further disclosed under Environmental 

Consequences.

Public Health and 

Safety

Present, Affected Impacts are further disclosed under Environmental 

Consequences.

Socioeconomics Present, Affected Impacts are further disclosed under Environmental 

Consequences. 

Environmental 

Justice

Present, Affected Impacts are further disclosed under Environmental 

Consequences. 

Geology and Soils

3.1.1 Affected Environment

3.1.1.1 Geology and Soils

The project area is located within the plains and terraces of the Umatilla Plain geologic province, which 

generally consists of sedimentary deposits (CTUIR 2016). Project-area soils are primarily silt loams of 

the Hermiston silt loam series typically found on stream bottomlands and low terraces (NRCS 2002). 

These are moderately deep soils that are somewhat excessively drained (CTUIR 2016; NRCS 2013). 

They generally support land uses such as small grain-fallow cropping and rangeland. Slopes are 0 to 3 

percent throughout the project area. These soils are moderately susceptible to erosion from wind and 

water (NRCS 2013). These soils also have a medium level of susceptibility to compaction, which 

suggests that compaction could occur when construction equipment first passes, but would then be able to 

support equipment passing through with minimal increases in soil density (NRCS 2013).

Based on soil associations, the Natural Resources Conservation Service identifies farmlands as either 

prime farmland, unique farmland, or land of statewide importance. The farmland classification for soils 

described above for the project area is “prime farmland only if irrigated” (NRCS 2015). Because these 

project-area soils are not currently irrigated, there is no prime farmland in the project area.

Bonneville completed a phase one site assessment finding no landowner disclosures regarding potential 

sources of contamination and past and present land uses indicating that there are no contaminated soils. 

3.1.2 Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action

With the use of heavy machinery for wetland creation, channel reconstruction, the Proposed Action would 

compact and expose soils in the project area. The total area of disturbance would be 35.9 acres. In 

addition to disturbing soils during drilling and construction activities, drilling the groundwater well would 
August 2020 Page 3-3

penetrate water-bearing basaltic subsurface rock layers. To minimize the impact of these activities, 

relevant design criteria, mitigation measures, and BMPs (see Table 2-5) would apply to minimize impacts

to soils and subsurface geology, maintain long-term productivity of soils in riparian ecosystems, and 

facilitate long-term recovery of soil properties and function where needed.

The use of heavy construction equipment would directly impact soils. Heavy equipment use would 

compact, displace (move it from one place to another), mix horizons, and cause puddling.2 These impacts 

can be expected throughout the construction site but would be limited to the construction footprint. Soil 

productivity and function would be impaired in the short term, but would likely recover within 15 years 

(Fleming et al. 2006; Lloyd et al. 2013; Page-Dumroese et al. 2006).

As discussed throughout this EA, restoration actions are intended for long-term improvement of the 

ecological function of Birch Creek, riparian areas, wetlands, and floodplains. Though short-term impacts 

to soil would be experienced, the long-term impacts of these restoration actions would ultimately improve 

soil quality and productivity from improved floodplain interactions and re-establishing native plant 

communities. 

The Proposed Action is designed to restore natural flooding and sediment deposition regimes. In that 

natural or restored environment, seasonal flooding contributes to fine sediment deposits, which promote 

riparian growth of vegetation with propagules,3seeds, and organic matter. The deposited sediment also 

amends the soil’s physical function by increasing water-holding capacity and providing a substrate for 

seedlings to establish. Reestablishing these processes in riparian areas and floodplains allows soil 

hydrologic, biologic, and nutrient-cycling functions to be restored and maintained (Stromberg et al. 2007; 

Tabacchi et al. 1998).

In summary, there would be short-term low-level impacts to soil would occur from construction, which 

would result in a low impact to soil. Low-level long-term effects of these restoration actions would 

ultimately improve soil quality and productivity, which would result in a moderate beneficial impact. 

3.1.3 Environmental Consequences – No Action 

There would be no construction activity associated with the No Action Alternative and therefore soils 

would not be affected from construction, however, there would not be an improvement in soil quality and 

productivity from the restoration actions. In addition, there would be no impact to subsurface geology 

from drilling a new groundwater well. Therefore, there would be no impact to geology and soils. 

Vegetation 

3.2.1 Affected Environment

3.2.1.1 Vegetation 

3.2.1.1.1 Introduced Upland Vegetation Communities 

Introduced (non-native) upland vegetation covers the majority (about 80 percent) of the project area. 

These communities cover about 60 acres of the project area. The area for the new groundwater well is 

 

2 Soil puddling is the effect of operating heavy machinery in soils with a high moisture content to produce uniformly 

soft structure-less mud. 

3 Propagules are vegetative structures that can become detached from a plant and give rise to a new plant (e.g., a 

bud, sucker, or spore).
August 2020 Page 3-4

agricultural land that consists of similar non-native upland vegetation. This vegetation community 

primarily consists of non-native grass and forb species such as cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), tall 

tumblemustard (Sisymbrium altissimum), black mustard (Brassica nigra), and several state and/or countylisted noxious weeds, including cereal rye (Secale cereale), Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium), 

yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens), and kochia (Bassia 

[Kochia] scoparia). Native vegetation species, such as Great Basin wildrye (Leymus cinereus), yarrow 

(Achillea millefolium), fiddleneck (Amsinckia spp.) are sporadically present. Scattered shrubs, primarily 

elderberry (Sambucus nigra subsp. caerulea) and big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), are also 

occasionally present in this vegetation community.

Introduced upland vegetation in the northern corner of the project area supports large stands of wetland 

plant species such as common teasel (Dipsacus fullonum) and poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), 

interspersed with upland species such as Scotch thistle, Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), black mustard, 

common mullein (Verbascum thapsus), common houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale), catnip (Nepeta 

cataria), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), and sterile brome (Bromus sterilis). As discussed below, bull 

thistle, Canada thistle, common houndstongue, and poison hemlock, are state-listed noxious weeds. 

3.2.1.1.2 Riparian Vegetation Communities

Riparian vegetation occurs along Birch Creek and covers about 10 acres (about 13 percent) of the project 

area. Canopy cover in riparian vegetation ranges from sparse cover in the southern and central portion of 

the project area to greater than 80 percent cover in the northern portion of the project area. Tree species 

observed in riparian areas include alder (Alnus spp.), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), box elder 

(Acer negundo), coyote willow (Salix exigua), Mackenzie’s willow (Salix prolixa), and non-native tree 

species such as Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). Shrubs 

observed in riparian areas included chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), blue elderberry, golden currant 

(Ribes aureum), and redosier dogwood (Cornus sericea). Herbaceous forbs and graminoids common in 

riparian areas include reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), common teasel, western Canada 

goldenrod (Solidaga lepida var. lepida), western goldenrod (Euthamia occidentalis), stinging nettle 

(Urtica dioica), common bedstraw (Galium aparine), catnip, and western clematis (Clematis

ligusticifolia). 

As discussed below, eight state-listed noxious weeds, Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens), common 

houndstongue, poison hemlock, field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), common St. John’s-wort 

(Hypericum perforatum), Canada thistle, Scotch thistle, and yellow starthistle, were also observed in 

riparian vegetation communities. 

3.2.1.1.3 Cliffs, Caves, and Talus

Due to its rocky nature, vegetative cover is low in this habitat and vegetation community type. It covers 

3.05 acres (about 4 percent) of the project area. Vegetation that does occur in these areas includes weedy 

species such as cheatgrass and tall tumblemustard, as well as three state- or county-listed noxious weeds: 

Scotch thistle, yellow starthistle, and cereal rye. Native species within the cliffs, caves, and talus 

community include western clematis and rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa). 

 

3.2.1.1.4 Perennial Grassland

A small, 1.9-acre portion (about 3 percent of the total) in the southeastern corner of the project area on the 

north side of Birch Creek consists of perennial grassland. The dominant plant species is the native grass 

Great Basin wildrye. However, non-native invasive plant species, including cheatgrass, clasping 

pepperweed (Lepedium perfoliatum), and rattail fescue (Vulpia myuros), are also abundant in this area. 
August 2020 Page 3-5

Other species include bulbous bluegrass, black mustard, and common teasel. As discussed below, this 

area has three state-listed noxious weeds: scotch thistle, kochia, and yellow starthistle. 

3.2.1.1.5 Introduced Wetland Vegetation

Introduced (non-native) wetland vegetation covers a very small portion of the project area. This 

community covers 0.38 acre (less than 1 percent) of the total project area. Dominant vegetation in this 

area consists primarily of reed canarygrass, common teasel, rough cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), and 

common horsetail (Equisetum arvense). As discussed below, the state-listed noxious weed Canada thistle 

also occurs in this area.
August 2020 Page 3-6

Figure 3-1: Plant Communities in the Project Area.
August 2020 Page 3-7

3.2.1.1.6 Special-Status Plant Species

Information on special-status (state and federally listed, including candidate species) plant species was 

obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for federal ESA-listed species, and from the 

Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) and Oregon Biodiversity Center for Oregon state-listed plants.

Based on a review of species information and the results of field surveys, there are no federal ESA-listed 

species with potential to occur in the project area. Two state-listed plants would have a low potential to 

occur in the project area: the endangered northern wormwood (Artemisia campestris var. wormskioldii) 

and threatened lawrence’s milkvetch (Astragalus collinus var. laurentii). In addition, five Oregon listingcandidate species could potentially occur: Oregon bolandra (Bolandra oregana), Dwarf evening-primrose 

(Eremothera (Camissonia) pygmaea), Liverwort monkeyflower (Erythranthe (Mimulus) 

jungermannioides), Sessile mousetail (Myosurus sessilis), Columbia yellowcress (Rorippa columbiae)

(ORBIC 2018). 

Field surveys conducted within the project area did not document individuals of any of these seven 

species (Tetra Tech 2019a). Because these field surveys did not observe or document individuals or 

suitable habitat in project area, special-status (including federally and state-listed species and candidate 

species for listing) are unlikely to occur. 

3.2.1.1.7 Noxious Weeds

Noxious weeds are non-native plants designated by the Oregon State Weed Board as those that pose the 

greatest public menace due their rapid spread on private, state, county and federally owned lands that they 

are a top priority for action by weed-control programs (ODA 2018). 

ODA classifies weeds based on economic and environmental significance and lays out recommendations 

for eradication and control of the species within each classification: A-Listed weeds occur in smallenough infestations to make eradication or containment possible; or if not known to occur, their presence 

in neighboring states make future occurrence in Oregon seem imminent. Infestations are subject to 

eradication or intensive control where found. B-Listed weeds are regionally abundant, but may have 

limited distribution in some counties. Recommended actions include intensive control at the state, county, 

or regional level, as determined on a site-specific, or case-by-case basis. T-Designated weeds, which are 

species selected from the “A” or “B” list, receive priority attention for prevention and control, including 

the development and implementation of a statewide management plan for each T-designated species. 

A 2018 survey of the project area notes that noxious species in the project area include Scotch thistle 

(Onopordum acanthium), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus 

armeniacus), Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens), spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe), yellow 

starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) (CTUIR 2018). In addition, bull 

thistle (Cirsium vulgare), common St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum), field bindweed (Convolvulus 

arvensis), and perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium) also occur within the project area (Tetra Tech 

2019a). Of these noxious plant species, the most abundant observed in the project area include Canada 

thistle, field bindweed, poison hemlock, Scotch thistle, and yellow starthistle (Tetra Tech 2019a). In 

general, the highest densities of weed occurrences are in riparian areas along Birch Creek and in 

introduced upland vegetation. 
August 2020 Page 3-8

Table 3-2: Noxious Weeds Known or Potentially Occurring in the Project Area* 

Noxious Weed Common 

Name

Noxious Weed Scientific 

Name

Oregon State Weed 

Board Classification

Umatilla County

Classification

bull thistle Cirsium vulgare B -

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense B B

common St. John’s-wort Hypericum perforatum B B

field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis B -

Kochia Bassia (Kochia) scoparia B B

perennial pepperweed Lepidium latifolium B/T -

poison hemlock Conium maculatum B B

Russian knapweed Acroptilon repens B B

Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium B B

yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitialis B B

Cereal rye Secale cereale - B

Himalayan Blackberry Rubus armeniacus B -

Spotted Knapweed Centaurea stoebe B/T A

* Noxious weed inventory based on Tetra Tech and CTUIR survey information (Tetra Tech 2019a; CTUIR 2018).

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action

The restoration of healthy riparian and upland vegetative communities as well as seeding and planting 

native species would involve ground-disturbing activity. Controlling invasive plants is also a component 

of the Proposed Action. Over the long term, therefore, the impacts to vegetation would be the restoration, 

improvement, or maintenance of native plant communities. 

In the short term, however, the construction activity, due to heavy construction equipment, could affect 

plant communities rather dramatically. When heavy equipment is put to use, soil is turned and plants are 

uprooted, buried, and torn apart. About 29 acres of vegetation would be affected in this manner.

Planting native vegetation would stabilize the banks and minimize long-term sediment contributions to 

the channel. Any bare soil would be seeded or planted with vegetation in the fall following significant 

precipitation. Native grasses would be seeded for short-term erosion protection, in conjunction with 

mulching of native materials where available, or using weed-free straw, to ensure coverage of exposed 

soils and protection of seed and seedlings.

While the short-term mechanical damage to plants and plant communities is an obvious impact of 

construction activities, a more serious impact could be the creation of bare soil sites suitable for 

colonization by invasive plants. The project area would be visually inspected for noxious and invasive 

species prior to the commencement of construction. Any weeds that are identified would be treated prior 

to the construction. Any ground disturbed by the project activities would be seeded with an appropriate 

native erosion control seed mix to reduce the risk of erosion and invasion by noxious weeds. All materials 

that are imported to the project site would be inspected for weed and weed seeds prior to work beginning. 

Certified weed-free mulch may be applied as a short-term protection for disturbed soils. Noxious weed

inventory or treatment would occur annually for a minimum of 5 years post construction. This would be 

completed by CTUIR personnel.
August 2020 Page 3-9

Another impact to vegetation is introducing flows into a floodplain that has not experienced consistent 

flowing water for many decades. In the absence of frequent watering, the majority of this area has 

converted to upland plant communities. Applying flows to plants not suited to saturated soils for long 

periods of time would cause them to die out, and would be replaced by plants capable of handling wetter 

conditions. Plant communities would thereby change to riparian or wetland communities. These changes 

could be dramatic, such as the conversion of upland communities throughout the project site to riparian 

plant communities. 

In addition, the installation of a new groundwater well would disturb approximately 0.1 acres of 

vegetation for well-drilling activities and construction of a new pumping station.

In summary, there would be short-term adverse impacts to vegetation from construction and the resulting 

changes to plant communities. Long-term high beneficial impacts from restored floodplain function and 

revegetation of native plant communities. Overall, short- and long-term impacts would be moderate. 

3.2.3 Environmental Consequences – No Action 

Under the No Action Alternative, no construction impacts would occur. There would be no improvement 

in riparian vegetation. Vegetation communities would remain dominated by non-native species with 

continued likely decline in the diversity of native plants. Overall, there would be no impact. 

Water Resources

3.3.1 Affected Environment

Birch Creek, a tributary of the Umatilla River, flows southeast to northwest. The main channel is pinned 

against the valley wall on its northern bank with eroded banks and minimal access to the floodplain. It 

primarily flows within a single main channel roughly between river miles 1.8 to 2.5 and 2.6 to 2.7. 

Between river miles 2.5 and 2.6, Birch Creek’s flow has eroded the southern banks to form an ephemeral,

braided secondary channel pattern. Estimated pooling along Birch Creek is about 4 pools per mile.

Birch Creek typically has low flows, which can be exacerbated by upstream water withdrawals and result 

in little to no flow in late summer months. Historically, dry (zero-flow) conditions have been documented

in its lower reaches in the mid-nineteenth century before agricultural settlement of the area (GLO 1860), 

which suggests that Birch Creek in the project area does not naturally have perennial flow conditions. 

3.3.1.1 Water Quality

Designated beneficial uses refer to the benefits that may be derived from a water body. They provide for 

the protection of public-water supplies, fish, shellfish, wildlife, as well as recreational, agricultural, 

navigation, and aesthetic purposes. The designated beneficial uses in the Umatilla Basin and Subbasin are 

administratively designated by ODEQ. 

The beneficial uses designated for the Umatilla Subbasin are public/private domestic and industrial water 

supply, irrigation, livestock watering, fish and aquatic life, wildlife and hunting, fishing, boating, water 

contact recreation, aesthetic quality, and hydropower (OAR 340-041-0310, Table 310A). Under the 

beneficial use designated for fish and aquatic life, the administrative rules specifically make fish-use 

designations along Birch Creek, which include salmon and trout rearing and migration and salmon and 

steelhead spawning use from October 15 to May 15 (OAR 340-041-0310, Figures 310 A–B).

Under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, ODEQ must regularly assess the quality of the state’s 

waters and report conditions to the EPA. For reporting and approval by EPA, ODEQ identifies and 
August 2020 Page 3-10

maintains the Section 303(d) list of waterbodies considered impaired and thus not meeting state waterquality standards. A Section 303(d) listing requires development of a total maximum daily load 

(TMDL)—the numerical value that represents the highest amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can 

receive while still meeting state and national water-quality standards.

Birch Creek, from the Umatilla River to the confluence of East Birch Creek and Pearson Creek, a point

approximately 25 river miles upstream of the project area, is listed on ODEQ’s 303(d) list for iron. This 

indicates that the presence of iron in Birch Creek impairs beneficial uses for fishing, drinking water,

aquatic life, and human health, and therefore needs a TMDL for iron, although one has not been 

developed. Iron levels found in project-area reaches of Birch Creek likely originate from lumber 

operations near Pilot Rock because elevated iron concentrations are commonly found in waterbodies 

adjacent to chip piles and log yards (ODEQ 2020b). Additionally, while not listed as 303(d) waters, some 

reaches of Birch Creek do not meet ODEQ water quality standards for flow modification, which indicates 

impaired beneficial uses for salmonid rearing and spawning. In addition, ODEQ identifies Birch Creek as 

not meeting water quality standards for temperature and pH, which both have TMDLs.

The average August water temperature in Birch Creek is about 60 degrees Fahrenheit. Water temperatures 

that promote salmon and steelhead survival range from 52 to 59 degrees Fahrenheit (NMFS 2009). Higher

water temperatures adversely affect salmonid metabolism, growth rate, and disease resistance, as well as 

the timing of adult migrations, fry emergence, and smoltification (Bonneville 2012).

3.3.1.2 Groundwater

The project area sits within a region generally underlain by Columbia Plateau basaltic rock aquifers, 

which are thick, permeable aquifers at or near the surface. They are not vertically permeable due to their 

thickness, which slows the rate and movement of groundwater flow and recharge (UCCGTF 2008). In 

general, these aquifers typically flow at relatively shallow depths anywhere from 100 to 700 feet below 

the surface and have declining water levels (USGS 1994). 

The existing groundwater well runs 469 feet deep. The well log estimates water-bearing zones between 

200 and 387 feet where black basalt constitutes the rock layers. Combined with a separate off-project-site

groundwater well fulfilling the same water right (certificate 91811), the groundwater well on the project 

site is limited to a diversion not to exceed 3 acre feet per acre (1 acre foot covers one acre to a depth of 

one foot or 325,851 gallons) for each irrigated acre during irrigation season (OWRD 2018). Both wells

under this water right supply irrigation water to 450 acres of crops located uphill from the project area. 

The project area does not sit within the designated critical groundwater-restricted areas in Umatilla 

County (ODEQ 2020a). There are no sole-source aquifers in the project area.

3.3.1.3 Wetlands and Floodplains 

3.3.1.3.1 Wetlands

Wetlands were not identified during a wetland delineation conducted in the project area (Tetra Tech 

2019c). The deep topographic incision that separates Birch Creek from its floodplain has reduced surface 

and groundwater flow from the creek to any areas that might have supported wetlands.
August 2020 Page 3-11

3.3.1.3.2 Floodplains

Historically, Birch Creek had a wide main channel and tributary streams4 developed through seasonal 

flooding, beaver activity, and sediment enrichment or mobilization. It was a lower-gradient, anastomosed

stream,

5 with a tendency to migrate across the floodplain when flows exceeded its banks. Birch Creek is 

now deeply incised and disconnected from its floodplain from construction of the Union Pacific railroad, 

roads, bridges, and berms and agriculture practices. These activities have caused channel confinement, 

straightening, and relocation against the valley wall limiting access to the floodplain. As a result, the 100-

year flood inundates only about 40 percent of the historic floodplain. The 10-year and 2-year floods 

inundate about 8 to 5 percent of the historic floodplain, respectively. Decreased floodplain connection has 

considerably lowered the water table (Tetra Tech 2019b). Abandoned side channels are likely 

disconnected from ground/surface water (except during the highest of flood events) and no longer migrate 

across the floodplain. 

A portion of the project area on the south side and within about 400 to 500 feet of Birch Creek is Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated floodplains. FEMA considers these floodplains

subject to inundation by a 1-percent-annual-chance flood event. 

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action

3.3.2.1 Water Resources

3.3.2.1.1 Water Quality

Construction activities would be the primary driver for short-term impacts to water quality, with 

sedimentation, turbidity, and temperature the primary variables of concern. Another concern would be the 

potential fuel and fluid leaks from heavy equipment, but the probability of such an event is low, and the 

extent of the problem would likely be small given the mitigation in place for these actions (see Table 2-5). 

Long term, the Proposed Action would be expected to improve water quality.

Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Listed Waterbodies 

The Proposed Action would not contribute iron to stream reaches listed for iron because the restoration 

activities would not contribute iron to Birch Creek or remobilize iron from ground disturbance. For this 

reason, there would no impact to impaired waterbodies in the project area.

Sedimentation and Turbidity

While the Proposed Action would restore the production, transport, and deposition of sediment 

throughout the watershed. Construction activities would cause short-term impacts on water quality.

Operation of heavy equipment in the stream channel during instream structure placement, opening of side 

channels, and stream reconstruction would increase turbidity. Channel reconstruction and side-channel 

restoration would expose about a mile of channel to flow for the first time in decades. Removing fill plugs

on the side channels would mobilize sediment and increase turbidity either during initial water flows or 

during the first high flows. Sediment transport and turbidity in side channels would depend on a channel’s 

proximity to the project area, size, and stream gradient. 

 

4 A “connected” floodplain is one where high stream flows have the capability at varying flood levels to flow onto 

and across adjacent floodplains where its transported sediment can be deposited as the flows spread out, slow down, 

and lose energy.

5 Stream anastomosis refers to the branching and interconnecting structure, or network, of main channels, side 

channels, and seasonal overflow channels that divide then reconnect, with the main stream flow migrating from one 

to another over time across a floodplain.
August 2020 Page 3-12

Sediment plumes would be most concentrated within, and downstream of, the project area during and 

immediately following construction activities. Implementation of mitigation and monitoring measures 

(see Table 2-5) would restrict the plume to no more than a few hundred feet, which would gradually 

decline in the hours and days after construction. Sediment plumes also could occur during future highwater events until vegetation is reestablished and the stream adjusts to newly established site 

characteristics. Reactivating existing, vegetated side channels would generate less sediment than allowing 

flow into recently constructed side channels before revegetation occurs.

Sediment delivery with increased turbidity would also occur during instream log and boulder placement

as excavators travel across stream banks between material staging areas and the channel. Excavator tracks

and dragging and pushing logs and boulders would disturb soil and may allow it to enter the channel. 

Additionally, streamside trees could be uprooted causing sediment to enter the channel. Limiting soil and 

stream bank disturbance would be accomplished by placing more than one instream structure per access 

route between the staging area and channel, if possible. Scarifying (i.e., shallow ripping of the soil surface 

with excavator bucket tines), seeding, and mulching access routes prior to the wet season would minimize 

overland sediment movement to streams from this potential source. Re-contouring stream banks adjacent 

to log and boulder placement sites would further minimize sediment production and turbidity.

Instream log placements would increase the sediment storage capability of the stream reaches. Instream 

structures reduce flow velocity resulting in the sorting and deposition of sediment and the creation of 

gravel spawning beds and gravel/sand/silt/clay bars and floodplains. While the Proposed Action’s design 

includes placement of log and boulder structures in a series along the stream reaches, it can take years for 

downstream structures to capture sediment if the stream has limited existing sediments available. In the 

case of a debris flow entering the Proposed Action’s stream reaches, one or more structures could capture 

tens to hundreds of cubic yards of sediment and wood that would otherwise be lost because of the current 

absence of structures in the reaches. 

To address sedimentation concerns, activities would be scheduled to limit the amount of time that areas 

would be susceptible to disturbance. A sediment control plan would in place prior to commencing 

construction. Flows would be completely or partially diverted around the work site through a 

combination of pumping and/or pre-approved methods and returned to the channel below the project area. 

Water would be slowly (reaching full streamflow over a period of at least one hour) released back into the 

channel to minimize sediment movement in the channel. 

Turbidity monitoring would occur downstream of the project during all instream work activities. Onsite 

turbidity measurements would be taken in two locations: a baseline measurement 100 feet upstream of 

construction activities and a second measurement 50 feet downstream of the activity. If turbidity exceeds 

the standards established in the ESA consultation with NMFS, activities would be paused to mobilize 

work crews to repair, replace, and reinforce controls with additional HIP conservation measures to bring 

the turbidity levels back in compliance.

In the short term, adverse impacts on water quality from increased sedimentation and turbidity would be 

moderate. However in the long term, the Proposed Action would improve stream functions by increasing 

stream sediment movement and retention while also decreasing turbidity during most flow events. 

Increased sinuosity, reduced gradient, and lower water velocity would improve sediment sorting and 

storage and enhance habitat within the project area stream reaches. Beneficial impacts on water quality 

would be moderate. 
August 2020 Page 3-13

Temperature

The Proposed Action could cause short-term increases in stream temperature due to construction-related 

disturbance of riparian vegetation and stream channels and increased stream length.

The Proposed Action, combined with natural recovery and passive riparian restoration, would be expected 

to have long-term beneficial effects by lowering stream temperatures. Activities would improve 

streamside shade through revegetation of riparian areas; restore stream channel morphology in channels 

that are currently unnaturally wide and shallow or lack pools; and improve surface water-groundwater 

interactions that lower water temperatures.

Stream channel relocation would expose more stream surface area to sunlight, leading to short-term 

temperature increases, until stream bank revegetation occurs. Planting fast-growing willows (Salix spp.)

and other riparian species along the new channel would reduce stream surface exposure over time.

Reconnecting historic side-channels with floodplains, and constructing new side channels and alcoves, 

would increase temperature heterogeneity (alternating patterns of water temperatures); create diverse 

habitat by increasing channel length and stream-floodplain interaction; and supply large amounts of 

subsurface flow to the main channel (IMST 2004). 

The use of heavy equipment in the stream would damage or remove stream-shading vegetation. 

Placement of logs and boulders by heavy equipment would require access routes and staging areas for 

storage of trees, logs, and rocks for instream placement. The removal of shade-producing trees and 

shrubs, if necessary to facilitate movement, storage, and placement of large wood and boulders would 

have the potential to cause localized temperature increases for one or more years, or until vegetation is 

reestablished. Construction would avoid trees and existing shade-producing riparian vegetation during instream project implementation. The loss of scattered individual trees within densely vegetated riparian 

areas, however, would likely not produce a measurable increase in stream temperature.

Minimizing impacts to vegetation during project implementation and replanting the project area 

immediately after construction could reduce or eliminate potential impacts to stream temperature 

increases, and lessen the time to recovery should minor temperature increases occur. The impact of log 

and boulder structures would likely offset impacts associated with the development of in-stream habitat 

features that decrease water temperatures (e.g., pools). Logs placed over the channel would also provide 

shade. Restored sediment-deposition processes, and the action of narrowing and deepening channels, 

would increase flows and decrease the surface area of the stream exposed to direct sunlight. 

In the short term, impacts on water quality (temperature) from removal of riparian vegetation in the 

immediate vicinity of the stream reconstruction area would have a moderate impact. However, longterm impacts would be positive as riparian vegetation matures and temperatures decrease to below

preconstruction levels. Long term, these beneficial impacts on water quality would be moderate to high.

3.3.2.1.2 Groundwater

In the short term, restoration activities under the Proposed Action would not affect groundwater from 

construction activities because they would generally occur at and near surface level and not penetrate 

deep enough to affect the current groundwater level.

Over the long term, groundwater would increase connectivity and recharge rates within the project area 

due to increased channel complexity, expanded floodplain, and constant connection to wetlands. Because 

the current simplified channel in Birch Creek prevents flows from connecting with their floodplains, those 

floodplains lack a connection and the capacity absorb water because at present, when Birch Creek 

overtops its banks, water returns to the main channel relatively quickly. Through main channel 

realignment and secondary channel and wetland creation, the Proposed Action would make floodplains 

more accessible and facilitate widespread recharge of groundwater throughout flooded areas. Therefore, 
August 2020 Page 3-14

floodwater returned to the channel via groundwater would increase, as would the time it takes for that 

return to occur. Both conditions—greater return volume and greater return time—would also favor lower 

stream temperatures. Because the Proposed Action would improve channel complexity, expand 

floodplains, and add wetlands, long-term moderate beneficial groundwater impacts would result.

The new groundwater well would no longer withdraw water from the groundwater from its current 

location in the project area, however, the new groundwater well would drill into similar water-bearing 

basaltic rock layers to access groundwater at its new location where it is used to irrigate crops. To 

minimize potential groundwater impacts from contamination, waste, and loss of pressure, the new well 

would be constructed to the standards required under Oregon Water Resources Department administrative 

rules. After construction, the volume of groundwater withdrawn under the Proposed Action would fulfill 

the same level specified under existing water rights and not increase in volume. 

Overall, there would be a moderate to high impact to groundwater from the project, primarily from the 

long-term beneficial impacts from restoration activities that improve connection to groundwater. 

3.3.2.2 Wetlands and Floodplains 

3.3.2.2.1 Wetlands

The Proposed Action would create a total of about 10 acres of wetland within the project area that would 

support an abundance of wetland habitats. Reconstruction of Birch Creek’s incised stream channel would 

elevate ground water levels in adjacent wet areas that may have been wetland in the past. Following 

construction, Birch Creek would be redirected (at its upstream end) to its former floodplain’s surface 

elevation via a newly constructed channel. The surrounding excavated area becomes sub-irrigated at the 

elevation of the wet meadow and floodplain. Though the short-term impacts from stream bank 

excavations, plug construction, and channel relocation would be dramatic, these systems would ultimately 

have a long-term beneficial impact on wet meadows by recreating wetland conditions lost due to Birch 

Creek’s incision. 

Over the long term, creation of the wetlands and reconstruction of the stream would reduce stream-bank 

erosion and improve riparian and wet-meadow vegetation conditions in the floodplain. By raising the 

stream base level to the historic-floodplain elevation, the groundwater table would be restored. This rewatering of the wet meadow would result in the re-establishment of riparian herbs and woody vegetation 

within a couple of years, though the constructed features may take longer. By raising the stream base 

level to floodplain elevation, the meadow’s historic function of acting as a “sponge” and reservoir for 

runoff would be restored.

Overall, there would be a long-term moderate impact from wetland creation under the Proposed Action.

3.3.2.2.2 Floodplains

Construction of secondary channels, side channels, alcoves, roughness6treatments on the historic 

floodplain would have short-term impacts on the floodplain but would also improve long-term floodplain 

functions. Disturbance within the floodplain also would occur from placement staging areas and access 

roads during construction. Because Birch Creek has little connection to its floodplain, these activities 

would have a limited impact to preexisting surface water connections. Work within the historic floodplain 

 

6 Floodplain roughness treatments includes the scarification or low level reshaping of soil surfaces, the planting of 

vegetation, and the placement of woody debris with the intent that these actions would slow the flow of water across 

the floodplain surface thereby increasing the potential for sediment to be deposited.
August 2020 Page 3-15

would be completed in phases so that as each segment of floodplain is improved, it becomes capable of 

improving long-term function before the next high flows. 

The Proposed Action would be constructed to encourage the restoration of certain floodplain and stream 

channel features that have been lost or have degraded over time. The current objective is on proper 

floodplain function and resilience rather than control. 

By restoring stream-flow connection to the floodplain, either through raising the stream base level to 

floodplain elevation, or by increasing anastomosed conditions, the floodplain’s function as a “sponge” 

and reservoir for runoff would be restored. An increase in hyporheic exchange would occur as a result of 

this newly established reconnection. When floodplain function is restored, a portion of winter and spring 

runoff is stored in floodplain soils where it is available for release later in the spring and summer. This 

restored function would result in some degree of improved flow timing and temperature, including 

augmentation of some seasonal flows, potentially resulting in benefits for aquatic species and downstream 

irrigators. The primary flow augmentation effect would typically occur in late spring as stored 

groundwater from winter and spring runoff flows out of floodplain soils to the stream channel. This 

augmentation of channel flow would often extend into summer months, but the degree of this impact 

would vary.

The Proposed Action would increase inundation from the 2-year flood from 5 percent to 18 percent of the 

floodplain, 10-year flood from 8 percent to 33 percent of the floodplain, and 100-year flood from 40 

percent to 50 percent of the floodplain. 

Overall, there would be short-term impacts to the floodplain from construction activities and a long-term 

beneficial impact to floodplains from the improved floodplain function resulting from the Proposed 

Action. Overall, there would be a short- and long-term moderate impact to floodplains. 

3.3.3 Environmental Consequences – No Action

3.3.3.1 Water Quality

There would be no improvements to stream structure, no increased connectivity to floodplains, streamshading riparian vegetation would not be improved, road drainage conditions would remain unchanged,

thus the sediment-controlling and water-cooling impacts of these actions would not be realized.

Therefore, there would be no impact to water quality under the No Action Alternative. 

3.3.3.2 Groundwater

There would be no groundwater impacts from restoration activities nor from a new groundwater well 

because it would not be drilled. The groundwater benefits from the channel complexity and increased 

wetland and floodplain connectivity would not be realized. Therefore, there would be no impact to 

groundwater under the No Action Alternative. 

3.3.3.3 Wetlands and Floodplains

Under the No Action Alternative, many areas of floodplain would remain disconnected from Birch Creek, 

and Birch Creek’s ability to provide flood attenuation, water storage, sediment transport and deposition, 

and floodplain and wetland habitat would be limited and remain unimproved. There would be no longterm beneficial impact resulting from creating wetlands where they currently do not exist. Therefore, 

there would be no impact to wetlands and floodplains under the No Action Alternative. 
August 2020 Page 3-16

Fish and Aquatic Species

3.4.1 Affected Environment

3.4.1.1 General Fish and Aquatic Species

Birch Creek has non-anadromous fish species such as redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri)) 

and some mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni). In addition, Birch Creek has native suckers such 

as bridgelip (Catostomus columbianus) and largescale sucker (Catostomus macrocheilus), which is most 

common. It also has native minnow species such as redside shiners (Richardsonius balteatus), speckled 

dace (Rhinichthys osculus), and northern pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis) (ODFW 2020). 

Although survey information suggests their absence in Birch Creek, thus their presence is highly unlikely,

freshwater mussels such as Anodonta could have beds in areas protected from higher flows in pools and 

eddies and behind boulders (USFWS 2009; Bonneville 2004). 

Birch Creek also supports aquatic invertebrate biota such as numerous species of insects (dragonflies, 

mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies, butterflies, and beetles) in addition to in-stream macroinvertebrates that 

support nutrient cycling and provide an important food source for fish. 

3.4.1.2 Anadromous Species

3.4.1.2.1 Pacific Lamprey 

Pacific lampreys (Entosphenus tridentatus) are anadromous, using both fresh water and marine habitats to 

complete their life cycle. They are a culturally important species to Tribes including the CTUIR, a Federal 

Species of Concern, and Oregon State sensitive species. They have recently increased in number in the 

Umatilla River and, therefore, could migrate to Birch Creek (USFWS 2019c); however, recent monitoring 

data from the first mile of Birch Creek has not revealed the presence of Pacific lamprey (ODFW 2020). 

This could be due in part to a lack of suitable habitat in Birch Creek to support lamprey. For these 

reasons, Pacific lampreys are unlikely to be found in Birch Creek. 

3.4.1.2.2 Spring- and Fall-run Chinook Salmon

Birch Creek provides spawning and rearing habitat for spring- and fall-run Chinook salmon (O. 

tshawytscha). For fall runs, adults return in fall, spawn in winter, and juveniles out-migrate to the ocean in 

May. For spring runs, adults return in the spring, spawn in the late summer or early fall, and juveniles outmigrate in March, sometimes spending a full year in freshwater and out-migrating as yearlings.

Spring- and Fall-run Chinook populations historically inhabited the lower three river miles of Birch Creek 

until populations declined as a result of habitat degradation and impeded passage associated with

diversion dams. While Birch Creek was not targeted for the effort, CTUIR collaborated with ODFW to 

reintroduce them to nearby watersheds in the 1980s after their extirpation early in the 20th century 

(CTUIR 2016; ODFW 2020). The current population occupies in the lower 1.5 miles of Birch Creek 

immediately downstream of the project area, which could extend to project-area reaches. While no 

spawning is currently believed to occur in Birch Creek, juveniles and spring-run yearlings use Birch 

Creek as refugia (ODFW 2020). 

3.4.1.2.3 Coho Salmon

Birch Creek provides spawning habitat for coho salmon (O. kisutch). Not known to be historically present

in the Birch Creek watershed, they were reintroduced to surrounding watersheds in the middle of the 20th 
August 2020 Page 3-17

century and now occur in the lower 15 miles of Birch Creek, which includes the project area. Spawning 

and juvenile out-migration from Birch Creek occurs in low numbers, and not every year, but did occur 

with some numbers in the spring of 2020 (ODFW 2020). 

3.4.1.3 Special Status Fish and Designated Critical Habitat within Affected Area

Steelhead and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) are the only potential state-listed or federally listed 

species present in or near the project area. 

3.4.1.3.1 Steelhead 

Steelhead in the Umatilla River and tributaries such as Birch Creek belong to the Umatilla-Walla Walla 

major population group (MPG), part of the Middle Columbia River (MCR) Steelhead Distinct Population 

Segment (DPS) listed as a threatened species (57 Fed.Reg.14517) under the ESA. Birch Creek is 

Designated Critical Habitat (70 Fed.Reg. 52685). 

According to the 2016 Birch Creek Action Plan, the Birch Creek watershed serves as a priority summer 

steelhead habitat where the species occurs throughout its entire historic range (CTUIR 2016). The 

recovery plan for the Middle Columbia Steelhead DPS identifies the Umatilla MPG as highly viable, with 

more than half that production from Birch Creek (CTUIR 2016; Carmichael and Taylor 2010). 

Steelhead spend spawning and rearing life stages in project-area reaches of Birch Creek. They spawn 

from February to late June. Rearing occurs for an average of two years. Outmigration occurs in small 

numbers from late November through June, with the largest numbers leaving the Birch Creek system in 

April and May (CTUIR 2016). 

3.4.1.3.2 Bull Trout 

The initial review of special-status species information indicated that ESA-listed bull trout (Salvelinus 

confluentus) could be present during specific life stages a couple miles downstream in the mainstem 

Umatilla River, therefore bull trout is a species that could potentially occur in Birch Creek during winter 

rearing or migration life stages. However, bull trout have not been observed in Birch Creek during recent 

data collection efforts (ODFW 2020). In addition, because bull trout require cold, clean, complex, and 

connected habitat, Birch Creek’s current water temperature is likely too warm and habitat conditions too 

degraded for bull trout to be present. 

There is no designated critical habitat for bull trout in Birch Creek. 

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action

Short-term adverse impacts to fish may result from project construction. The largest potential impacts 

associated with the Proposed Action are the impacts from injury or mortality to all fish species at the time of 

project activities and impacts to fish species from increases in fine sediment during and immediately postconstruction. Other impacts relate to the potential for invasive species colonization. 

Construction activities could disturb, kill, and injure fish and aquatic species through sedimentation pulses

and inadvertent crushing from operating heavy equipment during in-stream, main-channel, side-channel, or 

floodplain excavations. Noise and vibrations from heavy equipment may temporarily disturb fish and aquatic 

species residing in the immediate project area. Equipment operations and resulting pulses of turbidity may 

temporarily displace fish and aquatic organisms upstream or downstream. In addition, accidental spills of 

lubricants and fuels that could occur from heavy equipment operation in riparian areas can be lethal to fish 

and aquatic species when exposed. 
August 2020 Page 3-18

Fish and aquatic species could also be harmed by the isolation and dewatering of in-water work areas in a 

stream segment. Though most actions would provide downstream passage in a bypass channel, dewatering a 

segment of the river would displace native fish from their home ranges and limit their movement during 

implementation. Aquatic species salvage would occur, but it would be focused on fish, and other aquatic 

species such as macroinvertebrates may experience mortality. 

The most lethal effects to fish from the Proposed Action would result from their handling and removal from 

the dewatered work areas. All aspects of fish handling, such as electrofishing, dip netting, and time out of 

water are stressful and can lead to immediate or delayed mortality (Murphy and Willis 1996). Electrofishing 

causes physiological stress that may exceed a fish’s physiological tolerance limits and cause physical injury 

or death, including cardiac or respiratory failure (Snyder 2003), or impairment of reproductive success, 

growth, resistance to infectious diseases, and survival (Wedemeyer et al. 1990). Primary contributing factors 

to these effects are differences in water temperature (between river and wherever fish are held), dissolved 

oxygen conditions, the amount of time that fish are held out of the water, and physical trauma.

Design features and mitigation measures (see Table 2-5) would be used during implementation to reduce 

potential impacts to all species, including ESA-listed steelhead. 

The Proposed Action would result in long-term beneficial impacts to fish and aquatic species. These longterm impacts of the Proposed Action would aid in re-establishing the hydrologic regimes, increase the 

area available for rearing habitat for fish, improve access to higher quality rearing habitat, increase the 

hydrologic capacity of side channels, increase channel and water velocity diversity and complexity, 

provide resting areas for fish at various levels of inundation, increase floodplain nutrient and sediment 

storage, promote wood retention, and establish and augment native plant communities. Increased 

vegetation and habitat complexity would improve thermal regulation, hydrologic and nutrient cycling, 

channel formation and sediment storage, floodplain development and energy dissipation, which would 

benefit fish and aquatic species.

The effects to ESA-listed steelhead would be the same as those described above. Bonneville consulted 

with NMFS for the Proposed Action under Section 7 of the ESA for Bonneville’s Habitat Improvement 

Program (HIP). As described in Chapter 2, the Proposed Action would adhere to the HIP conservation 

measures and terms and conditions. Due to the lack of bull trout or designated critical habitat in the 

project area, the Proposed Action would have no effect on bull trout or designated critical habitat. 

Overall, with the implementation of the design features and mitigation measures defined in HIP

conservation measures, there would be a low short-term adverse impact to fish and aquatic species from 

sedimentation and electrofishing. This short-term impact would be balanced out with a moderate longterm beneficial impact from improved flow and habitat conditions. On balance, because the project would 

substantially improve habitat conditions for fish and aquatic species, there would be moderate beneficial 

impact on fish.

3.4.3 Environmental Consequences – No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, potential short-term adverse impacts, such as disturbance from fish 

salvage and temporary habitat modification to fish and aquatic species would not occur, but the long-term 

beneficial impacts to anadromous and resident fish would not be realized. There would be no impact. 
August 2020 Page 3-19

Wildlife

3.5.1 Affected Environment

3.5.1.1 General Wildlife

Based on the plant communities described in section 3.2.1.1 above, wildlife habitat in the project area is 

generally low quality from past disturbances likely the result of grazing, agricultural practices, and other 

development along Birch Creek, which has affected the vegetation communities that are present. 

Vegetation largely determines wildlife site usage and results in some habitats hosting higher wildlife 

densities at certain times of the year. 

The available habitat types in the project area along Birch Creek and the site of the new groundwater well

include low-quality habitat in introduced upland vegetation, and perennial grassland, and introduced 

wetland vegetation, low- to moderate-quality habitat within riparian habitat, and moderate-quality habitat 

along cliffs, caves, and talus. The sections below describe specific habitat types in their order of 

prevalence in the project area.

3.5.1.2 Introduced Upland Vegetation 

This habitat and vegetation community consists of areas heavily degraded by land-use activities such as 

past agricultural practices. These areas also include potentially fallow agricultural areas not cultivated 

recently. Habitat and vegetation quality in introduced upland vegetation in the project area is generally 

very low due to the high predominance of non-native species, including state- and county-listed noxious 

weeds, and high levels of disturbance. 

Wildlife either observed during the survey effort or likely to use this habitat type include a variety of 

common wildlife species such as American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), American kestrel (Falco 

sparverius), Eurasian-collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), gopher 

snake (Pituophis catenifer), horned lark (Eremophila alpestris), killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), 

mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), northern harrier (Circus 

cyaneus), prairie rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), turkey vulture 

(Cathartes aura), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), and wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) (Tetra 

Tech 2019a). Other species not observed during the survey effort but could occur in this vegetation and 

habitat community include turtle dove (Streptopelia turtur), Brewer’s blackbird (Euphagus 

cyanocephalus), red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), yellow-headed blackbird (Xanthocephalus 

xanthocephalus), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), cinnamon teal (A.

cyanoptera), merganser (Mergus merganser), introduced ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) and 

quail (Callipepla californica), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus),

3.5.1.3 Riparian Vegetation

Riparian vegetation within the project area ranges from areas with sparse canopy cover and an abundance 

of non-native, invasive species, such as reed canarygrass, to areas of relatively dense canopy cover, with 

greater cover of native species in the understory. Although canopy cover in riparian habitat within the 

project area is predominantly native tree and shrub species that provide important wildlife habitat, much 

of the understory in these areas consists of non-native, invasive species. 
August 2020 Page 3-20

Wildlife observed during the survey effort or that would likely occur in riparian habitat within the project 

area include American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), American robin (Turdus migratorius), American 

white pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos), bald eagle, bank swallow (Riparia riparia), black-capped 

chickadee (Poecile atricapillus), Bullock’s oriole (Icterus bullockii), downy woodpecker (Picoides 

pubescens), eastern kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), house wren 

(Troglodytes aedon), MacGillivray’s warbler (Oporornis tolmiei), mule deer, osprey (Pandion haliaetus), 

red-winged blackbird, western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), western wood-pewee (Contopus 

sordidulus), and yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia). In addition, although the survey effort did not 

detect their presence, beaver (Castor canadensis) likely use this habitat for feeding and passage.

3.5.1.4 Cliffs, Caves, and Talus

Habitat in and among the cliffs, caves, and talus provide important perching, roosting, and nesting habitat 

for many wildlife species, including raptors and bat species. There is an active bank swallow (Riparia 

riparia) colony nesting along Birch Creek. Wildlife observed during the survey effort were and red-tailed 

hawk. Bank swallow nests were observed both within and outside the project area. In addition to wildlife 

species observed during surveys, American crow; American kestrel; cliff swallow (Petrochelidon 

pyrrhonota); golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos); prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus); turkey vulture; western 

fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis); western pipistrelle bat (Pipistrellus hesperus); and California 

myotis bats (Myotis californicus), fringed myotis bats (Myotis thysanodes), and yuma myotis bats (Myotis 

yumanensis) are likely to occur in this habitat type. 

3.5.1.5 Perennial Grassland

The small portion of habitat provided by perennial grassland in the project area provide habitat for 

American crow, Eurasian collared dove, European starling, and horned lark, all of which were observed 

during the survey effort. In addition, wildlife likely to occur in this habitat type are the same species 

described in the introduced upland vegetation section above.

3.5.1.6 Introduced Wetlands

Wildlife species observed during the survey in the wetland vegetation included the common toad (Bufo 

bufo) and Pacific chorus frog (Pseudacris regilla). In addition, red-winged blackbird and Pacific chorus 

frog are likely to occur in this habitat type. 

3.5.2 Special Status Wildlife 

Information on special-status (state and federally listed species) obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service for ESA-listed species and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) for state-listed 

wildlife indicates low potential for ESA-listed species, and moderate potential for other special status 

wildlife species in the project area. 

Although two ESA-listed species, the endangered gray wolf (canus lupus) and threatened yellow-billed 

cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), were identified as potentially occurring in the project area, based on a 

review of information on special-status species, the survey effort did not find either of these species nor 

any sign of them. In addition, based on the record of known occurrences, both ESA-listed species are 

unlikely to occur near the project site: gray wolf individuals are unlikely to be present except for transient 

individuals because no known wolf areas are near the project site (ODFW 2018b); and the yellow-billed 

cuckoo has not actively bred in Oregon since the 1940s. 
August 2020 Page 3-21

The Washington ground squirrel (Urocitellus washingtoni), which is endangered under the Oregon list, 

was also identified as having a low potential to occur based on the review of special-status species 

information. This survey effort did not observe the species or suitable habitat. For this reason, the 

Washington ground squirrel is unlikely to occur in the project area. 

Although no nests were identified in the project area, bald and golden eagles have moderate to high 

potential of occurring in the project site. Bald eagles have a moderate likelihood of occurrence in the 

project area based on field observations and due to a few factors such as the presence of water. While 

unlikely to nest in the project area due to lack of large deciduous trees along Birch Creek, they have been 

observed by project staff using the area for hunting or perching within their territory. During the survey 

effort, one bald eagle was observed outside the project area occupying a tree near the Umatilla River, 

approximately two miles north of the project. By contrast, golden eagles have a high likelihood of using 

the project as they tend to favor areas of partially or fully open country around mountains, hills or cliffs. 

The project supports potential nesting along the small cliffs on the north side of Birch Creek, however, 

the preferred hunting habitat is in cliff areas outside the project area. A known golden eagle nest is north 

of the Umatilla River, about 2.5 miles outside the project area. 

3.5.3 Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action

In general, restoration activities would have short-term adverse impacts with long-term positive impacts 

on most wildlife species and their habitats. The goal of the proposed restoration actions is to restore the 

ecological function of native habitat, primarily aquatic habitats, riparian corridors, and floodplains. 

Improvement of impaired aquatic and riparian habitat function and condition is expected to increase and 

improve wildlife habitat resiliency, carrying capacity, and connectivity within and between watersheds. 

This would increase wildlife’s reproductive potential both at the individual level (from improved site 

conditions within a home range) and at the population level (by improving dispersal capabilities between 

disjunct subpopulations).

During implementation of restoration activities, however, there would be some level of disturbance to 

wildlife individuals and their habitats. Though project design criteria (such as avoidance of known nest 

or den sites) and mitigation measures (such as timing restrictions and retention of large trees, logs, and 

snags; see Table 2-5) are routinely applied to minimize such disturbance, some measure of disturbance 

impact would likely remain. 

The degree of disturbance mostly determines the degree of impact. Some proposed actions may disturb 

wildlife by the simple presence (sound, movement, shadows) of human beings, although no vegetation is 

destroyed. For these, the larger, more mobile, species such as birds and small mammals may be 

temporarily displaced from their home territories. Such displacement forces individuals into nearby 

territories likely occupied by others of their kind where there would now be increased competition for 

space and resources. This intra-species competition would be sustainable for the short term if individuals 

could return to their former habitats once the human disturbance had passed. For non-mobile species (e.g.

invertebrates and amphibians), the presence of humans would be a source of stress (disrupted feeding, 

breeding, hiding, etc.) that they could not escape for the duration of the activity. Such stress or 

disturbance can make the animal more vulnerable to predation or impact its physical condition perhaps 

affecting its future survival. 

Other types of disturbance can affect wildlife apart from the restoration site. These include noise,

turbidity, smells, etc. While these actions do not modify habitats, they can temporarily disrupt wildlife 

behavior and displace their use of habitats. Birds, for example, would be directly affected and some 

amount of nest abandonment could most likely occur due to noise disturbance. 
August 2020 Page 3-22

The Proposed Action would remove the vegetation (the wildlife habitat). Mobile species would be 

permanently displaced (at least as far as their individually short lifespans are concerned) as it may take 

three to ten growing seasons for desired habitat conditions to be restored. Intra-species competition 

because of increased densities from displaced individuals in habitats adjacent to action sites would not be 

sustainable over multiple seasons. This is especially the case in aquatic and riparian habitats where 

available habitat is usually limited, and the ability of wildlife species that are closely associated with 

those habitats to relocate is limited. 

The adverse impacts described above would be short-term (one to ten years) and would occur on habitats 

likely in need of improvement. In nearly all cases, however, the resulting condition would be restored, 

improved, or expanded habitat over what had been there previously, with vegetation affording a higher 

carrying capacity for both dependent and generalist wildlife than that of the existing condition. Though 

these restored conditions would likely not benefit the individuals affected by the original action, the local 

population of their species is anticipated to benefit for the long term.

In summary, there would be a short-term low impact to wildlife from construction disturbances 

construction and habitat removal. Long term, there would be a beneficial moderate impact from 

improved conditions that result from habitat restoration. 

3.5.4 Environmental Consequences – No Action

There would be no short-term impact to wildlife such as disturbance or temporary habitat reduction from 

the No Action Alternative. However, there would also be no improvement to wildlife or habitat 

disturbance from the No Action Alternative. There would also be no improvement in riparian areas or 

with floodplain and wetland creation, providing no opportunity for increase in wildlife numbers or 

productivity. Overall, there would be no impact to wildlife under the No Action Alternative. 

Cultural Resources

Cultural resources are those physical remains, objects, places, historic records, and traditional cultural 

practices or beliefs that connect people to their past. Historic properties, as defined by 36 CFR 800, the 

implementing regulations of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (54 USC 

300108), are a subset of cultural resources that includes any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, 

structure, or object that meets defined eligibility criteria for the National Register of Historic Places 

(National Register). Historic properties can include artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and 

located within sites and properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or 

Native Hawaiian organization (also known as Traditional Cultural Properties). No Traditional Cultural 

Properties were identified within the project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE) and are not discussed 

further.

The NHPA requires that cultural resources be inventoried and evaluated for eligibility for listing in the 

National Register and that federal agencies evaluate and consider effects of their actions on such 

resources. Cultural resources are evaluated for eligibility of listing in the National Register using four 

criteria commonly known as Criteria of Eligibility A, B, C, or D, as identified in 36 CFR Part 60.4 (a-d). 

These criteria include an examination of the cultural resource’s age, integrity (of location, design, setting, 

materials, workmanship, feeling and association), and significance in American culture, among other 

things. A cultural resource must meet at least one criterion to be eligible for listing in the National 

Register and to be considered a historic property.
August 2020 Page 3-23

3.6.1 Affected Environment

Ethnographic

The project lies within the cultural area of several groups including the Sahaptin-speaking groups: the 

Cayuse (Weyiiletpuu) and Umatilla (Imatalamlama) (Stern 1998; Walker 1998), the Yakima and 

neighboring groups. The Walla Walla primarily used lands closer to the confluence of the Columbia and 

Walla Walla rivers, while the Cayuse primarily occupied lands southeast of the Touchet River (Ray 

1936). The Yakama occupied lands to the west. Neighboring the Sahaptin-speakers were the Nez Perce to 

the east. Intermarriage was common between the Cayuse, Walla Walla, and Umatilla cultures and the Nez 

Perce. The peoples of the Columbia Plateau shared a similar lifeway organized around summer fishing 

camps on the Columbia River or a major tributary followed by winter villages located away from the 

river. Walker (1998) identified eight distinguishing features of cultural organization on the Plateau. 

Settlement patterns tend to be linear, within a riverine, resources gathered are diverse (anadromous fish, 

game, roots), complex fishing technology, transmission of goods between groups, intermarriage between 

groups, extension of trade links through institutionalized trading partnerships, limited political 

integration, and a relatively uniform mythology and religious beliefs. Settlement and movement through 

the landscape follow a seasonal annual round subsistence cycle. Though a single well-placed site may 

double as a winter and summer village, these situations are rare. Summertime movement was directed by 

dispersed resources, smaller groups were tasked with collected there resources to store for the leaner 

winter months. Labor was divided into task groups included fishing, hunting, and gathering. Within these 

groups, labor was further divided based on sex. Women, children and elderly gathered, butchered, and 

tended to the domicile, while men focused their attention on hunting and fishing. The archaeological 

record suggests that these patterns persisted throughout aboriginal history. Over time as populations grew 

people became more settled, and sociocultural complexity increased. 

Historic

John Jacob Astor established a trading base at the mouth of the Columbia and set up posts between Fort 

Astoria and St. Louis from 1810 to 1812 (Toepel 1980). Astor then sold his Oregon interests to the North 

West Company in 1814, who built Fort Walla Walla in 1818. The North West Company entered into a 

coalition with the Hudson’s Bay Company in 1821, and the post became a powerful center of trade for 

horses and other goods (Stern 1998). The Hudson’s Bay Company was a dominate force in the fur trade 

in Oregon for the next twenty years. 

Large-scale Euroamerican immigration into northeastern Oregon began in the early 1840s, after the 

Spalding Mission at Lapwai and the Whitman Mission at Waiilatpu were established in 1836 (Dodd 

1982). The mission failed to convert the Weyíiletpu to Christianity and agriculture. Large scale migration 

of emigrants over the Oregon Trail began around 1843 when people traveled over the Blue Mountains and 

into the Umatilla River Valley near the town of Cayuse, Oregon (National Historic Oregon Trail 

Interpretive Center n.d.a). The expansion of Euroamerican settlement upon traditional aboriginal 

subsistence lands in the region led to repeated conflicts with Native Americans. This led to the 

negotiation and signing of the Treaty of 1855 between Imatalamłáma, Weyíiletpu, and Walúulapam and 

the United States government. The outcome of the treaty negotiations was that the Walúulapam, 

Imatalamłáma, and Weyíiletpu retained a reservation in the Weyíiletpu homeland (Miller 2019). The 

tribes ceded 6.4 million acres to the United States, reserved rights for fishing, hunting, gathering foods 

and medicines, and pasturing livestock, and reserved 510,000 acres on which to live. The treaty was 

signed on June 9, 1855.
August 2020 Page 3-24

Archaeological Resources

In compliance with the NHPA, BPA is identifying and documenting archaeological resources in the APE 

and evaluating them for eligibility for listing in the NRHP. BPA conducted a literature review of known 

sites within one mile of the proposed project. This literature review (Ashley 2020) identified a total of 5 

archaeological resources (sites and isolates) within a 1-mile search radius of the APE. No previously 

recorded cultural resources were identified within the APE. 

BPA conducted cultural resource field surveys within the APE to locate previously unrecorded 

archaeological sites, as well as to revisit previously recorded sites to further evaluate their location 

relative to the project components. Surveys were conducted for the entire APE. 

The cultural resource survey identified five new archaeological resources—four sites and one isolate—

within the APE (Table 3-3). Two historic sites, one multicomponent, one prehistoric site, and one 

prehistoric isolate were identified during field surveys. Of the four new sites identified during the survey, 

two were determined eligible for listing in the National Register. The remaining two sites and one isolated 

find were determined not eligible for listing on the National Register. The sites were not determined 

eligible because they do not meet the minimum requirements for the Criteria of Eligibility found in 

National Register regulations (36 CFR 60.4). 

Table 3-3: Historic Archeological Resources Identified within the Project APE*

Site Date 

Recorded

Type Site Description National Register 

Eligibility Determination

4100113B 2020 Site Basalt rock wall Not Eligible

R040713A 2020 Site Precontact lithic and thermal 

feature Eligible

4100110A 2020 Site Multi-component site Eligible

4020611A 2020 Site Historic canal Not Eligible 

4100111A 2020 Isolate Granite Pestle Not Eligible

* Cultural resources listed on, or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places are referred to as 

historic properties. Unevaluated sites are considered in the same manner as eligible resources until an eligibility 

recommendation has been determined.

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action

All proposed work and access areas were surveyed to determine if cultural resources are present and, if 

so, to avoid them, where possible. As shown in Table 3.3, two eligible sites (R040713A and 4100110A) 

were identified within the project area, but project construction would avoid the identified historic 

properties. With avoidance of known resources, the project is not expected to affect known cultural 

resources. Through BPA’s Section 106 consultation process, BPA provided its eligibility determinations 

and its finding of no effect to the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, which provided concurrence 

through its letter dated July 16, 2020.

While BPA conducted a thorough inventory of cultural resources in the project areas, construction 

activities may have the potential to affect cultural resources, including human remains, though not 

currently known to exist in the APE. Should an unanticipated cultural resource be encountered during 

project activities, implementation of the mitigation measures described in Table 2-5 would ensure that 

previously undiscovered resources would be managed properly under applicable laws and regulations, 

and would minimize both direct and indirect impacts from the project.
August 2020 Page 3-25

Therefore, the project would result in no-to-low impact on archeological resources. 

3.6.3 Environmental Consequences – No Action

There would be no ground disturbance with the No Action Alternative, and there would therefore be no 

potential to affect cultural resources.

Land Use 

3.7.1 Affected Environment

The general setting of the project is an agricultural landscape with pockets of rangeland. The dominant 

past and present land use in the project area is agriculture. 

The project area is located on privately owned lands in Umatilla County near the small town of Rieth. It 

sits several miles from downtown Pendleton, which has an estimated population of 16,810 people (PSU 

2019). The project area is zoned for exclusive farm use, a designation adopted under state law to preserve 

and maintain agricultural lands for farming (UCDLUP 2018). 

The project area is also used to pump groundwater to satisfy water rights utilized for off-site agriculture. 

Located at its northern end, a groundwater well and pumping station connects to an irrigation pipe that 

carries water across Birch Creek to an intake several hundred yards away. 

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action

Restoration actions would change land use at the site because lands previously farmed would become 

dedicated to floodplain habitat and therefore would no longer be farmed. While the Umatilla County 

exclusive farm use land use designation would not change, future agricultural activities would no longer 

be allowed on the site. This would not result in a substantial reduction to overall agricultural lands 

available in the county or within the project site. New channels may change how lands are accessed. A 

new hydrologic regime with seasonal flooding might become the norm when previously those high waters 

were contained within a channelized river. 

The removal/relocation of the groundwater pump station would not change the amount of water pumped, 

which would always remain within the water rights held by the land owner, unless those rights were sold 

or donated for conservation purposes by a willing rights-holder.

In summary, because there would be limited change to current land use under the Proposed Action, there 

would be a low-to-moderate impact to land use. 

3.7.3 Environmental Consequences – No Action

There would be no short- or long-term impacts to land use under the No Action Alternative. The proposed 

restoration project would not be implemented, therefore current land uses would remain the same. 
August 2020 Page 3-26

Air Quality and Climate Change

3.8.1 Affected Environment 

3.8.1.1 Air Quality

Ambient (outdoor) air-quality standards prevent air pollution from reaching levels that are harmful to 

public health and the environment. Ambient air-quality standards are generally set at state and federal 

levels. 

Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 USC §§ 7401 et seq., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) establishes National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect air quality and prevent 

air pollutants from reaching levels harmful to public health and the environment. These standards identify 

six criteria pollutants that raise particular concern for human health and the environment, including 

particulate matter (PM),7carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), ozone, 

and lead. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) maintains a monitoring network 

measuring the levels of these pollutants. Monitoring results that consistently exceed NAAQS result in 

EPA identifying a non-attainment area. 

The project area and Umatilla County are in attainment for all six criteria pollutants (ODEQ 2019a). The 

closest ODEQ monitoring station is the Pendleton McKay Creek station a little over two miles from the 

project site, which monitors PM2.5 annually and ozone during spring and summer months (ODEQ 2019b). 

While current readings for air-pollutant levels are below NAAQS, the primary air pollutant of concern in 

the project vicinity is elevated particulate matter, PM2.5 or PM10, which comes from all types of 

combustion, including motor vehicles, power plants, residential wood burning, forest fires, agricultural 

burning, and some industrial processes. In the area near the project site, particulate matter is generally 

highest during winter months from local wood-burning stoves (AQC 2012). 

3.8.1.2 Climate Change

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are chemical compounds in the earth’s atmosphere that absorb and trap 

infrared radiation (heat) that is reflected or emitted from the surface of the earth. The trapping and 

subsequent buildup of heat in the atmosphere creates a greenhouse-like effect that maintains a global 

temperature warm enough to sustain life. Some forms of GHGs can be produced either by natural 

processes or as a result of human activities. However, the current scientific consensus is that human-made 

sources are increasing atmospheric GHG concentrations to levels that would raise the earth’s average 

temperature. The United States Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP) found that since the 1970s, 

average U.S. temperatures and sea levels have risen and precipitation patterns have changed (USGCRP 

2009). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found similar patterns on a global climate scale 

(IPCC 2007). 

Ongoing global climate change has implications for the current and likely future status of salmon, but 

particularly for the Pacific Northwest, where snow melt into the Columbia River Basin (Basin) has 

substantial influence on regional hydrology. Recent studies, particularly by the Independent Scientific 

Advisory Board, describe the potential impacts of climate change in the Basin. These impacts may 

decrease snowfall, increase early year runoff, decrease summer and fall flow, and generally increase 

 

7 PM2.5 and PM10 refers to fine particulate matter (i.e., less than 2.5 or 10 microns in diameter), that reduce visibility,

cause the air to appear hazy, and lodge deep in human lungs when levels are elevated.
August 2020 Page 3-27

water temperatures. Specifically for the Birch Creek watershed, mean August stream temperatures are 

expected to increase by around 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit by the 2040s (USFS 2014).

3.8.2 Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action

3.8.2.1 Air Quality

Project impacts to air quality are expected to be low both in concentration and duration. Construction 

equipment would emit some carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, unburned hydrocarbons, and particulate 

matter (primarily soot) from tailpipe emissions and cause dust during ground disturbance. These could 

affect air quality locally for short durations. The Proposed Action is not expected to generate long-term or 

short-term violations of state air quality standards. Impacts would primarily occur from construction and 

would be temporary and localized in nature, and thus would not have long-term impacts on air quality.

Overall, with the implementation of the mitigation measures in Table 2-5, short-term and localized 

emissions from construction would result in a low impact to air quality. 

3.8.2.2 Climate Change

Greenhouse gas emissions associated with the Proposed Action (primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and 

nitrous oxide) would be localized and temporary. They would be generated by the short-term emissions 

from construction equipment, off-road vehicles, and on-road vehicles (including worker commuting and 

material delivery). Given the short construction duration, low number of vehicles and equipment, and 

estimate of emissions well below the EPA’s reporting threshold,8the impact from greenhouse gas 

emissions would be low and therefore the potential for the Proposed Action to accelerate climate change 

would be low.

The Proposed Action would, however, contribute to the amelioration of global climate change and its 

adverse warming impacts. The restoration of functional riparian, wetland, and floodplain habitats would 

expand the amount of wetland soils in which atmospheric carbon would be sequestered (Nahlik and 

Fennessy 2016). Wetlands can accumulate large carbon stores, making them an important sink for 

atmospheric carbon dioxide and holding up to, or in some cases, even more than 40 percent soil carbon 

(Vepraskas and Craft 2016), which is substantially greater than the 0.5–2 percent carbon commonly found 

in agricultural soils (Lal et al 1995). By increasing stored carbon through the increase of wetland soils, 

the Proposed Action would help mitigate for the release of greenhouse gases.

The Proposed Action would also provide for an increase of long-term water table inputs through restoring 

floodplain function and increasing connectivity of Birch Creek to its floodplain. It would also increase

riparian shading of Birch Creek. Both of these results from the Proposed Action would help lower water 

temperatures, thereby ameliorating the impacts of climate change on aquatic species.

In summary, the Proposed Action would result in short- term and long-term low impacts by contributing 

low levels of global greenhouse gas emissions from construction and the low levels of climate-change

impact amelioration by restoring wetland and floodplain habitats and lowering water temperatures.

 

8 On October 30, 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published a rule (40 CFR Part 98) for the 

mandatory reporting of 25,000 metric tons or more of carbon dioxide equivalent per year of greenhouse gases from 

large GHG emissions sources in the United States. 
August 2020 Page 3-28

3.8.3 Environmental Consequences – No Action

3.8.3.1 Air Quality 

Because construction would not occur, no emissions would occur and no dust would be generated that 

could result in an air-quality impact. Therefore, there would be no impact under the No Action 

Alternative.

3.8.3.2 Climate Change

The No Action Alternative would neither contribute to the accumulation of GHGs (because there would 

be no use of fossil-fuel powered vehicles) nor contribute to the amelioration of such GHG accumulation 

by increasing wetland soils that could otherwise sequester those gasses. In addition, long-term water table 

inputs from increased connectivity between Birch Creek and its floodplain would not occur. For these 

reasons, the No Action Alternative would have no impact on climate change.

Noise

3.9.1 Affected Environment

The definition of noise is an unwanted sound that disrupts normal human activities or that diminishes the 

quality of the environment. It is usually caused by human activity that adds to the natural acoustic setting 

of a locale. For this assessment, the A-weighted decibel scale,9abbreviated as dBA, is used to describe 

sound and noise levels. 

Natural sounds such as flowing water, wind moving through trees and vegetation, and wildlife generally 

characterize the soundscape in the absence of human-generated sounds. Several specific sources of 

human-generated sounds frequently elevate noise levels in the project area. Railroad tracks run adjacent 

to project site in parallel with Birch Creek Road, frequently elevating sound levels from passing trains. In 

addition, the existing groundwater well pump substantially elevates noise levels in the project area when 

it operates, which increases in frequency and duration during the summer irrigation season. Other sounds 

contributing to noise levels come primarily from low-level vehicle traffic on Birch Creek Road. Typical 

day-night-average sound levels for agricultural crop land similar to the project area is around 45 dB (EPA 

1974); however, those sound levels increase to 80 dB or higher with passing trains and for extended 

durations when the groundwater well pump operates. Table 3-3 displays different levels of noise, typical 

sources of specific noise levels, and the likely noise level created by different restoration actions.

 

9 This is a logarithmic scale that ranges from 0 dBA to about 160 dBA and approximates the range of human 

hearing. The threshold of human hearing is about 0 dBA; less than 30 dBA is very quiet; 30 -60 dBA is quiet; 60-90 

dBA is moderately loud; 90-110 dBA is very loud; and 110-130 is uncomfortably loud. A 10-decibel increase in 

sound levels is perceived as a doubling of the loudness. Ldn is also a noise level measurement used to indicate the 

average noise level over a 24-hour (day/night) period.
August 2020 Page 3-29

Table 3-4: Example Noise Levels*

Source(s) Sound Levels** (dBA) Relevance of sound at this level

Shotgun, Rifle, Handgun 

Fireworks (at three ft.) >160 Sounds created by a shock wave

Jet engine (taking off) 150

Harmfully loud 

Airplane (taking off) 140

Stock car races 

Jet takeoff (at 100-200 ft.) 130 Threshold of pain 

Heavy machinery/Chainsaw 120 Threshold of sensation or feeling 

Car horn 

Baby crying / Maximum vocal 

effort.

110

Regular exposure of more than one minute risks 

permanent hearing loss. 

Physical discomfort. 

Snowmobile 

Garbage truck 

Jet takeoff (at 2000 ft.) 

100

> 95 dBA- no more than 15 minutes/day 

unprotected exposure recommended; 

One hour per day risks hearing loss. 

Heavy truck (at 50 ft.) 

Motorcycle (operator) 

Power lawnmower

Jet ski

Shouted conversation 

90 Very annoying

Heavy traffic

Many industrial workplaces

Electric razor

85 Level at which hearing damage begins with eight 

hour exposure 

Average city noise

Freight train (at 50 ft.) 80 Annoying; interferes with conversation

Freeway traffic (at 50 ft.)

Urban housing on major avenue 

(Ldn)

Inside a car

TV audio

70

Interferes with telephone conversation. 

EPA Ldn sound level for lifetime exposure 

without hearing loss. 

Normal conversation

Sewing machine 60 Intrusive; Interference with human speech begins 

at about 60 dBA

Rainfall

Refrigerator

Wooded residential (Ldn)

Light auto traffic (at 100 ft.)

50

Quiet

Comfortable

Sleep disturbance may occur at less than 50 dBA.

Soft whisper (at 15 ft.) 30 Very quiet

Normal breathing 10 Just audible

0 Threshold of human hearing

*Adapted from multiple sources, including EPA 1974, League for the Hard of Hearing, www.lhh.org; and The Canadian Hearing 

Society, www.chs.ca

**These are typical levels near the noise source and some may be approximate averages of ranges; actual sound levels 

experienced by the public may depend on several factors, most importantly, distance from the sound source.
August 2020 Page 3-30

The project area is on private land at least five miles from the nearest schools or hospitals in nearby 

Pendleton, so there would no impact on such sensitive receptor sites. Several residences sit on private 

property across from the project site near the existing railroad tracks and on a bluff across Birch Creek, 

which are within range to hear project-area noise levels. 

3.9.2 Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action

Implementing the Proposed Action would require use of heavy equipment for short periods during the 

construction timeline. This would increase ambient noise levels in the short term. On a short-term basis, 

construction activities would elevate existing noise level to between 80-100 dBA at the construction site. 

Such noise would come from construction, transportation, and site rehabilitation activities and the 

associated equipment (heavy machinery, heavy equipment, vehicles, generators, compressors, etc.). 

Many of these noises are loud, but they would vary in duration and timing. High noise levels would not 

be constant. 

Construction-related noise could impact nearby residents and wildlife during construction. The project, 

therefore, would limit construction activities to normal daytime working hours. Short-term impacts from 

noise are expected to be minimal due to the relatively short duration of construction. 

Long term, the relocation option for the groundwater well would move it away from residences that 

experience elevated noise levels during the irrigation season. Typical sound levels would not exceed 80 

dBA for extended durations due to groundwater pumping, and would return to a quieter level of 40 dBA.

Once implemented, the floodplain restoration project would not make noise, except for that from limited 

vehicle access to the site to monitor and maintain it. Follow-up maintenance actions would likely be 

limited to infrequent use of equipment for vegetation replantings. The noise from these actions, however, 

is expected to be similar to or less than that generated near the project area prior to restoration actions, 

and from those in surrounding areas. 

For these reasons, the Proposed Action would result in a low impact to noise levels. There would be a 

moderate, long-term beneficial impact to noise levels by relocating the existing groundwater pumping 

station and well. 

3.9.3 Environmental Consequences – No Action 

There would be no noise impacts associated with construction under the No Action Alternative. The 

stationary source of human-generated noise within the project site, a groundwater well pump, would 

remain in place and continue to elevate sound levels to 80 dBA and higher for extended durations.

Public Health and Safety

3.10.1 Affected Environment

There are few existing risks to public health and safety on the project site. Local ingress and egress to the 

project requires crossing over the Union Pacific railroad crossing over the tracks traversing the project 

site. Umatilla County Sherriff’s Office, City of Pendleton Police, and Pendleton Fire & Ambulance 

Department provide law enforcement and emergency services a short distance from the site. 

As discussed in section 3.3.1.3.2 above, FEMA-designated floodplains are found within a portion of the 

project area, which indicates the existing potential for health and safety hazards to occur during a 1-

percent-annual-chance flood event. In general, FEMA-designated floodplains are also found along Birch 

Creek upstream and downstream of the project area, indicating the same existing potential for health and 

safety hazards during a similar flood event. 
August 2020 Page 3-31

Bonneville conducted a phase-one environmental site assessment of the project area and did not find any 

recognized environmental conditions that would indicate evidence of contamination that would pose a 

hazard to public health. Therefore, the project site contains no known existing water and soil 

contaminants that would pose a risk to public health and safety under normal conditions. 

3.10.2 Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action

The primary impact of the Proposed Action on public health and safety would be the potential to hinder 

traffic flow and response time of emergency vehicles or by the presence of construction equipment or 

supply vehicles on Birch Creek Road. The short-term construction and restoration activities would not be 

expected to overburden the existing health and safety infrastructure. The potential health and safety risks 

to workers and the public during construction would not be greater than a standard construction project, 

and therefore the short-term impacts of the project to health and safety would be low. Adequate signage 

and other routine safeguards for worker and public safety would minimize these impacts.

The Proposed Action would maintain or improve flood protection for existing public and private 

infrastructure outside the project area during the 100-year flood event. Increased floodplain connection 

within the project area would temporarily store flood water and may slightly decrease downstream flows 

and stages in short-duration flood events. 

Restored flow regimes and seasonal flooding at restoration sites is an intended result from many 

restoration projects. The restored site could create low-lying or poorly drained areas which could 

seasonally pond water long enough to provide breeding habitat for mosquitoes, which are a nuisance and 

a public-health threat, since they can serve as vectors for disease. This impact is anticipated to be 

negligible given the minimal incremental increase in such habitat the project area would create along 

Birch Creek when it experiences high flows. 

For these reasons, the Proposed Action would result in a low impact on public health and safety.

3.10.3 Environmental Consequences – No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, the project would not be implemented and therefore constructionrelated impacts would not occur. Conditions that may affect public health and safety would remain 

unchanged, so there would be no impact. 

Socioeconomics

3.11.1 Affected Environment

This section primarily relies on the best-available demographic data obtained through the U.S. Census 

Bureau based on the American Community Survey (ACS) program updated annually. 5 census tracts 

were chosen for the study area because they generally represent the baseline socioeconomic data on

nearby populations.

10 These tracts are compared with county-wide totals for Umatilla County to provide 

regional context. 

 

10 Tract 9505 includes the immediate project area near Rieth and rural Umatilla County, tracts 9504, 9506, and 9507 

include Pendleton and rural areas of Umatilla County, and tract 9400 includes the Umatilla Indian Reservation.
August 2020 Page 3-32

Community Character

The project area is situated near the town of Rieth on the outskirts of Pendleton, Oregon, which are 

agriculture-based rural communities. Pendleton’s history is deeply rooted in agriculture, ranching, 

manufacturing such as the Pendleton woolen mill, and its well-known Pendleton Round-Up rodeo—a 

week-long event held annually the second week in September, which typically draws more than 50,000 

visitors to town. Situated at the foot of the Blue Mountains, the community also serves as a jumping-off 

point for recreational activities such as hunting, fishing, skiing, snowshoeing, cycling, and hiking (City of 

Pendleton 2019). 

Population, Demographics, and Housing

Based on 2018 population estimates, Umatilla County has a population of 76,736 people with the most 

populous areas in the county seat of Pendleton (16,810) and its largest city of Hermiston (18,200) (USCB 

2019; PSU 2019). Growth across the county has averaged less than one percent the last three years (PSU 

2019). Located east of Pendleton, the Umatilla Indian Reservation has a population of 2,956 (USCB 

2019). Study-area census tracts represent about 29 percent of the total current county population. 

Table 3-5: Demographic Characteristics

Measure Study Area Umatilla County 

Population 21,929 76,736

Median Age 39.4 36.1

% Minority Population 25.8% 20.9%

Households 8,021 30,172

Average Size 2.53 2.65

Median Income 25,954 50,071

% One-Unit Structures 69.5% 65.2%

% Two-or-More Units 19.3% 17.6%

Poverty Rate 14.5% 17.8%

Unemployment Rate 10.8% 8.32%

% of Population Age 25 or Older With 

Bachelor’s Degree or Higher

18.3% 15.5%

Employment and Income 

The largest employment centers within Umatilla County are Hermiston and Pendleton. Within study-area 

tracts, the ACS estimates a total active labor force (civilian employed population over than 16 years) of 

approximately 17,700 people. As illustrated by Table 3-5, which summarizes the employment by industry 

for workforce living in the study area and compares it to Umatilla County, the top five industries 

employing study-area residents are education and health care (24 percent), manufacturing (12 percent), 

retail trade (12 percent), public administration (12 percent), and arts, entertainment, and recreation, and 

accommodation, and food services (11 percent). Compared to Umatilla County as a whole, the study area 

is mostly similar, with the exception of the percentage of people working in the industry category for 

agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining—more people work in that category in the county as 

a whole. As discussed above and illustrated in Table 3-5, median income for the study area is about half 

that of the county. 
August 2020 Page 3-33

Table 3-6: Employment by Industry for Study-Area Residents

Industry Study Area Umatilla County

% Rank % Rank

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 3.2% 10 9.7 4

Construction 5.6% 7 4.8 9

Manufacturing 11.9% 2 12.0 3

Wholesale trade 1.9% 13 2.8 11

Retail trade 11.8% 3 13.5 2

Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 4.4% 8 6.9 7

Information 1.8% 12 1.5 13

Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental/leasing 2.6% 11 2.6% 12

Professional, scientific, and management, and 

administrative and waste-management services 

6% 6 6.1% 8

Educational services, and health care and social assistance 24.4% 1 19.1% 1

Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation 

and food services

11% 5 7.9% 6

Other services, except public administration 4% 9 4.6% 10

Public administration 11.6% 4 8.5% 5

Environmental Justice

Identifying low-income and minority populations in the study area lays the foundation for characterizing 

environmental justice in the study area. A census tract within the study area meets environmental-justice 

criteria if more than 20 percent of its population is below the poverty level or if the percentage of the 

population that identifies as a minority is greater than the percentage of the state identifying as a minority. 

Based on the 2017 ACS estimate, Oregon’s minority population is 15.1 percent. On the basis that they are 

the home to minority populations higher than the statewide average, most environmental-justice 

populations reside in two census tracts: census tract 9400, coextensive with the Umatilla Indian 

Reservation, has a minority population of 49.2 percent; and census tract 9506, encompassing downtown 

Pendleton and an area south of town to the east of the project area, has minority population of 21.1

percent. 

3.11.2 Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action

Population, Demographics, and Housing

There would generally be little impact on local populations from implementing the Proposed Action. 

Construction crews would likely consist of about 10-15 local workers; however, as discussed below,

overall employment associated with the Proposed Action could range as high as about 48 jobs. None of 

the actions would generate a requirement for additional permanent employees nor would they require 

individuals to leave the local area, or relocate within it. There would therefore be no impact on housing 

available for local populations in Pendleton and surrounding areas in Umatilla County. This action would 
August 2020 Page 3-34

not displace people or eliminate residential suitability from lands being restored or from lands near 

restoration project sites. Overall, there would be low impact on population, demographics, and housing.

Employment and Income 

Implementation of the restoration actions would likely create short-term beneficial economic impacts

from the temporary employment of construction workers and for local businesses through purchases of 

food, fuel, lodging, and materials associated with the estimated $2 million in overall direct project 

spending. Materials necessary to build projects would also be sourced locally (e.g., large-woody material

and boulders), and lodging, food, and other services would be required to support construction workers 

traveling from outside of the immediate area. When practicable, local companies would be utilized for 

restoration project activities, which could provide a short-term increase in jobs in Umatilla County. 

Accounting for the predicted multiplier effect for employment and economic output from a restoration 

project in Oregon—estimated at 15.7 and 23.8 jobs per $1 million spent and 1.4 to 2.4 times the direct 

project spending amount—the resulting employment and local economic output could range as high as

47.6 jobs and $4.8 million (Nielsen-Pincus and Moseley 2010).

The restoration actions may also improve fish runs and natural scenery leading to long-term benefits for 

fishing and tourism within the communities. 

Land-use conversions in restored riparian areas from agriculture to natural habitats may require changes 

in grazing practices or some land uses, but no action is anticipated to impact agricultural productivity or 

revenue sufficient to change land uses, decrease ranching- or farming-related jobs, or lead to a decrease in 

agricultural support services. 

Overall, for these reasons, there would be a moderate impact on employment and income.

Environmental Justice

As discussed above, environmental justice populations are present in the general proximity of the project 

area. The Proposed Action, however, does not propose activities that would result in displacements of 

human activity or land uses except for a private landowner allowing altered land uses to accommodate 

restoration actions on their property. As such, the Proposed Action would not generate any human health 

or environmental impact that might disadvantage any population, including minority or low-income 

populations. 

The potential short-term loss of a small amount of riparian or upland habitats in anticipation for restored, 

more-productive habitats to develop is not likely to have consequential adverse impacts on cultural or 

traditional practices of Indian Tribes (the most likely environmental justice population to be affected). On 

the other hand, the Proposed Action seeks to restore wildlife, anadromous fish runs, and increase the

capacity of Birch Creek to produce and support fish. The long-term impact, if successful in achieving its 

goals, would likely be beneficial to Indian Tribes in contributing to the restoration of fish resources 

sufficient to support ceremonial, subsistence and commercial fishing. 

On balance, the Proposed Action is unlikely to result in negative impacts on any population. Overall, with 

the short-term adverse impact from restoration work and long-term beneficial impact to fish and wildlife 

habitat, the Proposed Action would have a low impact on environmental justice populations.

3.11.3 Environmental Consequences – No Action

The No Action Alternative would not induce any environmental or economic change to a community or 

an environmental justice population. There would be no adverse impact, short- or long-term in the study 

area. However, there would also be not be any potential for long-term beneficial impacts of restored fish 

runs and improved riparian areas and floodplains that might otherwise contribute to improved

socioeconomic conditions. 
August 2020 Page 3-35

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts describe the impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of a 

project when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what 

agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such action (40 CFR 1508.7). Cumulative impacts 

can result from individually minor, but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. 

The effects of past actions in the vicinity of the proposed action are part of the affected environment 

baseline for each resource. Past actions of cumulative environmental consequence in the Birch Creek 

watershed include agriculture, construction of transmission lines, bridges, roads, and the Union Pacific 

railroad, water withdrawals, rural development, timber harvest, grazing, suppression of natural fire 

regimes, and harvests of fish and wildlife.

Sections 3.1 through 3.11 of this chapter present information about current environmental conditions and 

the environmental and socioeconomic consequences of implementing the Proposed Action. 

Present actions include the use and maintenance of roads and the Union Pacific railroad; ongoing land 

uses and management actions such as agriculture and associated water withdrawals from Birch Creek; 

grazing; lumber yard operations near Pilot Rock; forest management in the Umatilla National Forest; and 

the management and harvest of fish and wildlife populations. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

To identify potential reasonably foreseeable projects to consider in the cumulative effects assessment, 

planned work by Bonneville, the CTUIR, US Forest Service, and ODFW was reviewed, as were county 

planning documents and other publicly available planning information sources. The planning department 

for Umatilla County was also contacted. The list below of reasonably foreseeable projects primarily 

includes planned work by Bonneville, CTUIR, ODFW, and Umatilla County for which specific projects 

were identified that could be considered reasonably foreseeable.

Reasonably foreseeable future actions (RFFAs) are those where some form of planning (environmental or 

engineering) has been initiated or a planning document (e.g., transportation plan; forest management plan) 

exists that describes specific potential projects. RFFAs in the project’s region of influence include:

 Ongoing actions. Continuance of the ongoing actions listed above, with some increases in those 

ongoing actions as populations and land-use pressures gradually increase. 

 UmaBirch Floodplain Restoration Project. CTUIR, with Bonneville funding, would restore the 

Umatilla River and Birch Creek and their associated floodplains in several locations near the 

confluence of the Umatilla River near Rieth. Restoration activities proposed would include levee 

removal or setback; main channel realignment and restoration; side channel and floodplain 

creation and reconnection; wetland and pond creation; and upland vegetation plantings

 East Birch Floodplain Restoration Project. CTUIR, with Bonneville funding, would reconnect 

the floodplain through about a one-mile reach located roughly 15 miles upstream of the Proposed 

Action. This project would initiate pool development, remove levees, restore topography and 

vegetation, and construct new channels, floodplain ponds, side channels; and alcoves.

 Umatilla County Road Maintenance on Birch Creek Road. Umatilla County conducts annual 

maintenance activities on Birch Creek Road that includes road grading on all sections from Rieth 

to the sections south of Pilot Rock. 
August 2020 Page 3-36

 ODFW Umatilla Fish Enhancement projects. ODFW maintains multiple projects in Birch 

Creek basin including over 100 riparian acres (including yearly herbicide treatments) and over 5 

miles of stream habitat, and riparian fence. Planned projects along Birch Creek would focus on

constructing and maintaining existing riparian fencing.

Cumulative Impacts

Geology and Soils

The geographic area for cumulative impacts to geology and soils is the Birch Creek watershed. Past, 

present, and RFFAs that affect geology and soils primarily result from land-disturbing activities 

associated with rural development, agriculture, railroad and road maintenance, grazing, and the floodplain

restoration projects. Grazing and agricultural activities during the planting and harvest cycle throughout 

the watershed would continue to disturb soils in upland and riparian areas and create the potential for 

erosion and sedimentation. 

The Proposed Action would contribute to the cumulative impact on a short-term basis due to minor and 

temporary increases in erosion from construction. It would also add incremental improvement with the 

formation of floodplain and hydric wetland soils. On balance, the proposed action when combined with 

past and current actions and RFFAs, would result in a low cumulative impact to soils with the mitigation 

measures described in table 2-5, which would decrease further with revegetation efforts. 

Vegetation 

The geographic area for cumulative impacts to vegetation is the Birch Creek watershed. Past, present, and 

RFFAs that could cumulatively affect vegetation, including the spread of noxious weeds, include the use 

and maintenance of roads and the Union Pacific railroad, agriculture, forest management, grazing, and the

floodplain restoration projects. 

The Proposed Action would contribute to a low cumulative effect to vegetation during construction 

because other activities that affect vegetation would occur during the same timeframe as construction. 

Long term, the Proposed Action could incrementally improve vegetation by reestablishing native plants

and limiting the spread of invasive plant species, which could combine with the beneficial effects from 

other restoration projects in the watershed. On balance, applying the mitigation measures described in 

Table 2-5 to construction activities when combined with past and current actions and RFFAs, would 

ensure that cumulative impacts would remain low during construction. 

Water Resources (Water Quality, Groundwater, Wetlands, and Floodplains)

The geographic area for cumulative impacts to water resources is the Birch Creek watershed to the 

confluence of Birch Creek and the Umatilla River. For groundwater, it includes the underlying aquifer

used for agricultural withdrawals for surrounding farmland. Past, present, and RFFAs that cumulatively 

affect surface and groundwater include road and railroad construction, maintenance, and use, agriculture 

and associated surface water withdrawals, and grazing, timber harvest and lumber yard operations, forest 

management, the floodplain restoration projects that alter the quality or quantity of water in Birch Creek. 

The Proposed Action would likely cumulatively affect water quality through sediment discharges and 

vegetation removal on a short-term basis during and after construction. Longer term, the Proposed Action 

would incrementally improve downstream water quality in Birch Creek by improving sedimentation and 

turbidity conditions. On balance, the design features and mitigation measures in Table 2-5 would ensure 

that cumulative impacts to water quality from construction would be low, with long-term moderate 

beneficial and cumulative impacts to water resources.

The Proposed Action would not contribute an adverse cumulative effect with the implementation of 

mitigation described in Table 2-5 and because it would not increase the volume of groundwater 
August 2020 Page 3-37

withdrawn. It would incrementally improve groundwater and contribute to a low beneficial cumulative 

effect from the increased return volume for groundwater recharge. 

The Proposed Action would contribute a low beneficial cumulative effect to wetlands and floodplains

because it would create wetlands and expand floodplains where they do not exist or currently have limited 

function. 

Fish and Wildlife

The geographic area for cumulative impacts to fish and wildlife is the Birch Creek watershed. Past and 

present development, water withdrawals for agriculture, and other activities have had a cumulative impact 

on fish and wildlife and their habitats. The conversion of land for grazing, agriculture, and rural 

development have resulted in the loss of fish and wildlife habitat. The Proposed Action would 

cumulatively affect fish and wildlife primarily through temporary construction disturbance and vegetation 

removal. The Proposed Action would create thermal refugia and recruit large woody debris, creating 

habitat favorable to ESA-listed Steelhead and other anadromous species. It would also create and 

improve wildlife habitat. Overall, project construction when combined with past and current actions and 

RFFAs, would have a low adverse cumulative impact on fish and wildlife, with long-term moderate

beneficial cumulative impacts to fish and wildlife.

Cultural Resources

Cultural resources in the APE have likely been cumulatively affected by past, present, and current 

development activities. Most impacts have likely occurred as a result of inadvertent disturbance or 

destruction during ground-disturbing activities such as road work and facility construction. Other RFFAs

the vicinity of the APE have the potential to disturb previously undiscovered cultural resources. 

Implementation of the mitigation measures described in Table 2-5 would minimize potential proposed 

project impacts and would reduce the potential for construction activities to contribute incrementally to 

the adverse cumulative impact on cultural resources in the APE. In the event that previously 

undiscovered historic properties were encountered, potential impacts would be no to low, depending on 

the level and amount of disturbance and the eligibility of the resource for listing on the National Register. 

Land Use

The geographic area considered for cumulative impacts analysis is the Birch Creek watershed. Land use 

has incrementally changed over time due to past and present development, particularly with rural 

development and conversion of open space to agriculture, which is expected to continue at a gradual pace. 

In addition, restoration projects such as that under the Proposed Action and reasonably foreseeable

floodplain restoration projects, may convert lands previously used for agriculture and grazing into riparian 

vegetation and wetlands that make them unsuitable for those prior land uses. Under the Proposed Action, 

existing land use is expected to slightly change in this manner, thus the impacts from the Proposed 

Action, when combined with past and current actions and RFFAs, would contribute to a low cumulative 

impact to land use. 

Air Quality and Climate Change

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions affecting air quality and greenhouse gases (GHGs) 

include all types of combustion engine use in cars and trains on nearby roads and highways, residential 

wood burning, industrial and agricultural operations, forest management, and grazing. The Proposed 

Action would result in some short-term emissions of criteria pollutants, including particulate matter, from 

construction equipment, but would not add a stationary source that would produce long-term emissions. 

The mitigation measures in Table 2-5 would minimize emissions from the Proposed Action, which when 

combined with past and current actions and RFFAs, would result in a low cumulative air quality impact. 

The Proposed Action would have a cumulative impact on climate change by adding GHGs to the 

atmosphere. These sources of GHG emissions would continue, and any addition, when considered 
August 2020 Page 3-38

globally, would contribute incrementally to long-term atmospheric conditions for climate change. The 

Proposed Action would contribute such incremental additions of GHGs through restoration actions that 

require construction activities using heavy equipment.

GHG contributions globally have also contributed to a trend of less predictable and reduced flows as well 

as increasing temperatures in Birch Creek, which is expected to continue into the future. Combined with 

other habitat improvement projects in Birch Creek, such as the UmaBirch and East Birch floodplain 

restoration projects, the Proposed Action could contribute to a low cumulative impact in reducing local 

climate change impacts by improving water quality through reduction of water temperatures and 

alleviating stressors for anadromous and resident fish species by increasing the availability of habitat and 

cold-water refugia. 

Noise

The geographic area considered for noise cumulative impacts includes neighboring properties that 

encompass the area where sounds generated from within the project area could be heard by humans or 

wildlife. The ongoing activities accounting for noise impacts primarily include extended periods of noise 

generated by a groundwater pumping station on the project site during irrigation season, vehicle traffic 

from Birch Creek Road, and trains passing on the Union Pacific railroad. RFFAs such as annual Birch 

Creek road maintenance may add to these noise levels. Cumulatively, construction under the Proposed 

Action may coincide with these sources of noise, particularly passing trains, which may result in a 

moderate cumulative impact when combined with past and current actions and RFFAs, in short durations;

however, the implementation of mitigation and BMPs listed in Table 2-5, in conjunction with the longterm reduction in noise in removing the existing noise-generating groundwater pumping station under the 

Proposed Action, would reduce that impact level to low. 

Public Health and Safety

The geographic area for cumulative impacts to public health and safety includes Pendleton, Birch Creek 

Road, and nearby floodplain areas along Birch Creek to the confluence with the Umatilla River. While 

there are no known public health and safety risks associated with RFFAs, the potential cumulative impact 

to health and safety is primarily associated with the risk that an emergency response during construction 

could combine with other incidents in the Pendleton area to reduce the response time and availability of 

emergency services. The mitigation measures in Table 2-5 would minimize health and safety risks from 

construction and assure that there would be no cumulative impact to health and safety related under the 

Proposed Action.

Regarding the cumulative impact to health and safety hazards relating to flood risk, combined with the 

past, present, RFFAs, such as planned floodplain restoration projects, the Proposed Action would 

maintain or improve flood protection and, therefore, would have a negligible beneficial cumulative 

impact. 

Socioeconomics

The geographic area for cumulative socioeconomic impacts is Umatilla County and the Umatilla Indian 

Reservation. The Proposed Action would not directly add permanent jobs, so there would be no 

incremental cumulative impact on local populations and income, and therefore no need to change 

infrastructure and services to accommodate new residents. Forecasts of future returns of anadromous 

salmonids are not available, thus expenditures and income associated with their potential contribution to 

socioeconomic impacts cannot be predicted; however, the addition of the Proposed Action in concert with

habitat-improvement projects in Birch Creek, such as the UmaBirch and East Birch floodplain restoration 

projects, and ODFW Umatilla Fish Enhancement projects, would ultimately increase anadromous fish 

returns. The cumulative impact of these actions expected to increase anadromous fish returns, over time, 

would improve local and regional economies, and further support tribal social and cultural interests, and 

would not result in cumulative adverse impact on environmental justice populations. 
August 2020 Page 4-1

CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTATION, REVIEW, AND 

PERMIT REQUIREMENTS

Several federal and state statutes, implementing regulations, Executive Orders, and other consultation, 

review, and permit requirements are potentially applicable to this project (see Table 4-1). For this table,

similar resources (e.g., vegetation and wildlife) have been combined when statutes or regulations overlap 

multiple resource areas. 

Table 4-1. Potential Applicable Statutory, Regulatory, and Other Requirements 

Potentially Applicable 

Requirement

Relevant Project Information

All Resources

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969

42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.

Bonneville has prepared this EA pursuant to regulations implementing 

NEPA, which requires federal agencies to assess, consider, and disclose 

the impacts that their actions may have on the environment before 

taking major federal actions. 

Geology and Soils

The Farmland Protection Policy 

Act (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.)

The Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.) directs 

federal agencies to minimize the extent to which their programs result 

in the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. The farmland classification for the project area is 

“prime farmland only if irrigated” (NRCS 2015). Because these 

project-area soils are not currently irrigated, there is no prime 

farmland in the project area. 

Vegetation, Wildlife, and Fish

Endangered Species Act of 1973

16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.

Impacts to federally listed anadromous fish and critical habitat, in 

addition to Pacific lamprey, are covered by a programmatic Biological 

Opinion issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service for 

Bonneville Habitat Implementation Program projects (NMFS 2013a) 

and impacts to listed terrestrial, marine, and non-anadromous fish 

species are covered by a Biological Opinion issued by USFWS 

(USFWS 2013a). These Biological Opinions are for habitat 

restoration projects in the Columbia River Basin funded by 

Bonneville under its HIP, which mitigates for impacts of the Federal 

Columbia River Power System on fish, wildlife, and their habitat. A 

HIP restoration review team review and Project Notification Form 

would be submitted prior to project implementation.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) of 1976

16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Pacific salmon Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is administered under the 

amended Magnuson-Stevens Act; EFH for steelhead, coho, and 

Chinook salmon are found in Birch Creek. Compliance with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act would occur through adherence to the 

guidance in Bonneville’s HIP programmatic Biological Opinion.

Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act (Eagle Act) of 1940

16 U.S.C. § 668-668d

No active bald eagle nests have been documented or observed near the 

project site, and the nearest active golden eagle nest is 2.5 miles from

the project area. If a nest is identified, Bonneville would avoid 

construction activities within 0.5 mile of an active bald eagle or 

golden eagle nest during the breeding season and avoid snag and large 

tree removal to the extent possible. 
August 2020 Page 4-2

Table 4-1. Potential Applicable Statutory, Regulatory, and Other Requirements 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

(MBTA) of 1918

16 U.S.C. § 703-712

Responsibilities to Federal 

Agencies to Protect Migratory 

Birds

Executive Order 13186

Many bird species protected under the MBTA are present in the 

project corridor and some nest in the general vicinity or the corridor. 

Potential impacts on nesting birds are described in Section 3.5, 

Wildlife. Compliance with the MBTA would be assured by adopting

mitigation measures, such as using seasonal timing restrictions during 

the breeding season and avoiding removal of snags and large trees to

the extent possible. 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Act

16 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

16 U.S.C. § 661 et seq.

Bonneville contacted USFWS and ODFW during scoping. 

Consultation with USFWS and NMFS occurs through the application 

of their programmatic Biological Opinions and thereby incorporates

BMPs to avoid and minimize potential impacts on fish and wildlife

resources (Table 2-5). Impacts on fish and wildlife are described in 

section 3.4, Fish and Aquatic Species, and section 3.5, Wildlife.

Waters, Wetlands, and Floodplain Protection

Clean Water Act (Sections 401, 

402, 404, and 303(d))

33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.

Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 

(42 U.S.C. § 300 et seq.).

Floodplain/Wetlands 

Environmental

Review Requirements

10 CFR 1022.12

Birch Creek constitutes a waterbody subject to regulation under the 

Clean Water Act. CTUIR would obtain the necessary permits for this 

project as regulated under Clean Water Act Sections 401 and 404

(anticipated to be covered by the US Army Corps Of Engineers under 

Regional General Permit 6). For construction that disturbs soils, 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality would issue a National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit under CWA 

Section 402. This permit would authorize the CTUIR to construct, 

install, modify, or operate erosion and sediment control measures and 

stormwater treatment and control facilities, and to discharge 

stormwater to public waters in conformance with all the requirements, 

limitations, and conditions set forth in the NPDES permit. 

In December 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

approved Oregon's 2012 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of 

impaired waterbodies that need pollution reduction plans, called Total 

Maximum Daily Loads or TMDLs. DEQ uses the 303(d) list to 

determine requirements for water quality permits and total maximum

daily loads. As discussed in section 3.3.1.1, Birch Creek is on the 

section 303(d) list for iron, and TMDLs have yet to be established. 

There are no designated sole-source aquifers protected under Section 

1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act in the project area.

As part of this NEPA review, DOE NEPA regulations require 

assessing impacts on floodplains and wetlands along with an 

evaluation of alternatives for protection of these resources in 

accordance with Compliance with Floodplain/Wetlands 

Environmental Review Requirements (10 CFR 1022.12), Executive 

Order 11988, Floodplain Management, and Executive Order 11990, 

Protection of Wetlands. Project corridor wetlands were delineated in 
August 2020 Page 4-3

Table 4-1. Potential Applicable Statutory, Regulatory, and Other Requirements 

Floodplain Management

Executive Order 11988

Protection of Wetlands

Executive Order 11990

2018 and did not find that wetlands are present in the project area 

(Tetra Tech 2019c). A FEMA-designated floodplain covers much of 

the project area. As discussed in section 3.3.1.3.2, this evaluation 

determined that the Proposed Action would not result in long-term 

adverse impacts to wetlands or floodplains.

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

The Clean Air Act, as revised in 

1990

42 U.S.C. § 4701

Air quality impacts of the Proposed Action would be low, localized, 

and temporary, as described in section 3.8. 

Final Mandatory Reporting of 

Greenhouse Gases Rule (40 CFR 

98)

Federal Leadership in 

Environmental, Energy, and 

Economic Performance

Executive Order 13514

Greenhouse gas emissions would be low, localized, and temporary, as 

described in Ssection 3.8. 

Cultural and Historic Resources

Antiquities Act of 1906

16 U.S.C. § 431-433

Historic Sites Act of 1935

16 U.S.C. § 461-467

National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA), as amended, inclusive of 

Section 106

54 U.S.C. § 306108 et seq.

Archaeological Data Preservation 

Act of 1974

(16 U.S.C. § 469 – 469-1)

Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act of 1979, as 

amended

16 U.S.C. § 469 a-c

Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act 

25 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq.

Indian Sacred Sites

Executive Order 13007

Bonneville identified and documented cultural resources in the project 

area and evaluated them for eligibility for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places. Pursuant to its responsibilities under 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and 36 CFR 

Part 800, BPA initiated consultation with the Oregon State Historic 

Preservation Office (SHPO), Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla 

Indian Reservation, and Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs on 

January 8, 2020 and received responses from the SHPO on February 

10, 2020 from the Tribes on January 13, 2020 and January 30, 2020.

If previously unidentified cultural resources that would be adversely 

affected by the Proposed Action are found during construction, 

Bonneville would follow the procedures set out in Table 2-5 and in 

compliance with applicable regulations.
August 2020 Page 4-4

Table 4-1. Potential Applicable Statutory, Regulatory, and Other Requirements 

American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act of 1978

(42 U.S.C. § 1996)

Noise, Public Health, and Safety

Noise Control Act of 1972

42 U.S.C. § 4901 et seq.

Noise disturbance would be short in duration, and would occur during 

daylight hours as described in section 3.9.

Spill Prevention Control and 

Countermeasures Rule

40 CFR 112

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act

42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.

Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act 

42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.

Small amounts of hazardous chemicals such as fuels, and motor and 

lubricating oils could be released into the environment by the 

Proposed Action or used during construction work. Use of chemicals 

would be controlled via use of a Spill Prevention Plan. Any generated 

waste material would be disposed of according to state law and the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Solid wastes would be 

disposed of at an approved landfill or recycled.

State, County, and Local Plan Consistency

Oregon Removal-Fill Law (ORS 

196.795–990)

Because the Proposed Action would involve removal and fill activity 

in waterways and wetlands, CTUIR would obtain the necessary 

removal-fill permit from the Oregon Department of State Lands. 

Umatilla County Development 

Code

As discussed in section 3.7.2, restoration actions would not create a

major change in land uses, although there may be small-scale use 

modifications given the changes in water distribution and vegetation 

patterns on specific acres within the project area. For this reason, the 

Proposed Action would conform with Umatilla County’s Exclusive 

Farm Use zoning designation. 

Environmental Justice 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 Because short-term adverse impacts to resources (in particular fish 

and wildlife) that tribal populations could uniquely experience are 

generally low from the Proposed Action, there would not be

disproportionately high and adverse impacts on environmental justice 

communities. Potential environmental justice impacts resulting from 

the Proposed Action are further discussed in section 3.11.2.
August 2020 Page 5-1

CHAPTER 5 TRIBES, AGENCIES, AND PERSONS RECEIVING THE EA

The project mailing list contains contacts for Tribes; local, state, regional, and federal agencies; public

officials; interest groups and businesses; and potentially interested or affected landowners. These groups 

of stakeholders have directly received or have been given instructions on how to receive all project

information made available so far, and they will have an opportunity to review the EA. Specific entities

(other than private persons) receiving the scoping notifications and this EA are listed below by category.

Federal 

National Marine Fisheries Service

Representative Greg Walden

Senator Ron Wyden

Senator Jeff Merkley

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

State

Oregon Governor’s Office

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

Representative Greg Barreto, District 58

State Senator Bill Hansell, District 29

Tribes 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

Local Governments

Wallowa County Board of Commissioners

Union County Board of Commissioners

Umatilla County Board of Commissioners

Other 

Columbia Rural Electric Association 

Native Fish Society 

Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association 

Save Our Salmon Coalition 

Snake River Salmon Solution 

Trout Unlimited
August 2020 Page 6-1

CHAPTER 6 REFERENCES

Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville). 

2004. Distribution and Status of Freshwater Mussels in the Umatilla River System. Available at: 

http://docs.streamnetlibrary.org/BPA_Fish_and_Wildlife/00011402-1.pdf. 

2012. Bonneville Power Administration Habitat Improvement Program (HIP III); Draft 

Biological Assessment and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 2012 Initiation of 

Consultation. June 2012.

Carmichael, R.W., and B.J. Taylor. 2010. Conservation and Recovery Plan for Oregon Steelhead 

Population in the Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment. Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife.

CTUIR (Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation). 

2016. Birch Creek Watershed Action Plan. 

2019. Weeds Geodatabase. 

Coutant, C. C. 1999. Perspectives on temperature in the Pacific Northwest's fresh water. ORNL/TM1999/44. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, 

TN.

Dodd, Lawrence (editor). 1982 My Journal 1836 by Narcissa Prentiss Whitman. Ye Galleon Press, 

Fairfield, WA

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2016. Noise Fundamentals. Available at: 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environMent/noise/regulations_and_guidance/polguide/polguide02.cf

m. Accessed February 5, 2019. 

Fleming, R. L., R. F. Powers, N. W. Foster, J. M. Kranabetter, D. A. Scott, F. Ponder, Jr., S. Berch, W. K. 

Chapman, R. D. Kabzems, K. H. Ludovici, D. M. Morris, D. S. Page-Dumroese, P. T. Sanborn, 

F. G. Sanchez, D. M. Stone, and A. E. Tiarks. 2006. Effects of organic matter removal, soil 

compaction, and vegetation control on a 5-year seedling performance: a regional comparison of 

long-term soil productivity sites. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36(3): 529–550. Available 

at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/x05-271. Accessed March 4, 2020. 

General Land Office (GLO). 1860. Survey Notes. Available at: 

https://www.blm.gov/or/landrecords/survey/yGrid_ORWA.php?state=OR&ln=10000000. 

Accessed March 26, 2020. 

Jones, K. L., G. C. Poole, E. J. Quaempts, S. O’Daniel, T. Beechie, 2009. Umatilla River Vision. 

Prepared for the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, 31 pp.

Lal, R., Kimble, J., Levine, E. & Stewart, B. 1995. Soils and Global Change. CRC Press (1995).

Lloyd, R. A., K. A. Lohse, and T. P.A. Ferré, 2013. Influence of road reclamation techniques on forest 

ecosystem recovery. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11(2): 75–81. Available at: 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/120116. Accessed March 4, 2020. 
August 2020 Page 6-2

Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (IMST). 2004. Oregon's water temperature standard and its 

application: causes, consequences, and controversies associated with stream temperature. 

Technical Report 2004-1, Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, Oregon Watershed 

Enhancement Board, Salem, OR.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate change 2007: the physical science 

basis. Available: www.ipcc.ch (February 2007).

Miller, Carey L.2019 A Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Removal of Wyss Dam on the 

Umatilla River above the Mouth of Birch Creek, Umatilla County, Oregon

Murphy, B.R. and D.W. Willis, editors. 1996. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries 

Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 

Nahlik, A., Fennessy, M. 2016. Carbon storage in US wetlands. Nat Communications 7, 13835. 

December 13, 2016. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13835. Accessed 

March 3, 2020. 

National Historic Oregon Trail Interpretive Center. n.d.a Basic Facts About the Oregon Trail. Electronic 

document, from https://www.blm.gov/or/oregontrail/files/facts_oregtrail_eng.pdf. Accessed 

March 3, 2020. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2009. Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS ESA 

Recovery Plan. Available at: https://www.salmonrecovery.gov/Files/RecoveryPlans/mid-cplan.pdf. Accessed March 30, 2020. 

2013. Reinitiation of the Endangered Species Act Section 7 Formal Programmatic Conference and 

Biological Opinion and Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential 

Fish Habitat Consultation for Aquatic Restoration Activities in the States of Oregon and 

Washington (ARBO II). Seattle, Washington.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).

2002. Hermiston Series Office Soil Series Description. Available at: 

https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/H/HERMISTON.html. Accessed February 6, 

2019. 

2013. Web Soil Survey 3.1. Available at: 

https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed February 12, 2019. 

2015. Prime Farmland List for Oregon (March 2015). Available at: 

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/PA_NRCSConsumption/download?cid=nrcseprd385408&ext=pd

f. Accessed February 19, 2020. 

Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA). 

2018. Oregon State Weed Board. Accessed from: 

https://www.oregon.gov/ODA/programs/Weeds/Pages/WeedBoard.aspx
August 2020 Page 6-3

2019. Oregon Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Plants. Accessed from: 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/programs/PlantConservation/Pages/AboutPlants.aspx.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

2019a. Current Nonattainment Areas in Oregon. Available at: 

https://www.oregon.gov/deq/aq/Pages/Nonattainment-Areas.aspx. Accessed February 1, 2019.

2019b. Air Quality Status and Planning Map (Pendleton McKay Creek Monitoring Station 

Description). Available at: https://hdcgcx2.deq.state.or.us/HVR291/?viewer=aqm&viewer=aqm. 

Accessed February 13, 2020. 

2020a. Groundwater Administrative Areas/Critical Groundwater Areas. Available at: 

https://www.oregon.gov/OWRD/programs/GWWL/GW/Pages/AdminAreasAndCriticalGWAreas

.aspx. Accessed February 13, 2020. 

2020b. Personal communication with Don Butcher, ODEQ Umatilla Basin Coordinator on June 

1, 2020. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 

2016. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Sensitive Species List. Available online at: 

https://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/diversity/species/docs/2016_Sensitive_Species_List.pdf. 

Accessed May 2019.

2018a. Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Fish and Wildlife Species in Oregon. Available 

online at: 

https://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/diversity/species/docs/Threatened_and_Endangered_Species

.pdf. Accessed May 2019.

2018b. Areas of Known Wolf Activity – December 2018. Available online at: 

https://dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/population.asp. Accessed May 2019.

2020. Personal Communication with Josh Hanson, Project Leader, ODFW Northeast Region, on 

February 19, 2020.

Oregon Flora Project (OFP). 2019. Oregon Flora Project Atlas. Available online at: 

http://www.oregonflora.org/atlas.php. Accessed May 2019. 

Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC). 

2018. Biotics Rare Species Database, Fall 2018. Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species 

GeoDatabase Request. 

2019. Oregon Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species. Available online at: 

https://inr.oregonstate.edu/orbic/rare-species/rare-species-oregon-publications. Accessed May 

2019. 

Oregon Water Resources Development Board (OWRD). 

2018. Water Rights in Oregon: An Introduction to Oregon’s Water Laws. Available at: 

https://www.oregon.gov/owrd/WRDPublications1/aquabook.pdf. Accessed March 25, 2020.
August 2020 Page 6-4

Page-Dumroese, D., M. Jurgensen, A. E. Tiarks, F. Ponder Jr., F. G. Shanchez, R. L. Fleming, J. M. 

Kranabetter, R. F. Powers, D. M. Stone, J. D. Elioff, and D. A. Scott. 2006. Soil physical property 

changes at North American long-term soil productivity study sites: 1 and 5 years after 

compactions. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36: 551–564. Available at: 

http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ja/ja_page-dumroese001.pdf. Accessed March 4, 2020. 

Pendleton Air Quality Commission (AQC). 2012. An overview of air quality in Pendleton. Available at: 

https://pendleton.or.us/sites/pendleton.or.us/files/File/building/AQinPendleton.pdf. Accessed 

February 1, 2019.

Pincus-Nielsen, M. and Moseley, C. 2010. Employment and Economic Impacts of Forest and Watershed 

Restoration in Oregon. University of Oregon Institute for a Sustainable Environment. Ecosystem 

Workforce Program Briefing Paper 23 (Spring 2010). 

Portland State University (PSU). 2019. College of Urban and Public Affairs: Population Research Center. 

Certified Population Estimates, July 1, 2018. Available at: 

https://www.pdx.edu/prc/sites/www.pdx.edu.prc/files/Certified_2018_Population_Estimates.xlsx

Accessed February 20, 2019. 

Ray, Verne F. 1936 Native Villages and Groupings of the Columbia Basin. Pacific Northwest Quarterly 

27(2):99‐152. 

Snyder, D.E. 2003. Electrofishing and its harmful effects on fish: U.S. Geological Survey Information and 

Technology Report 2003–0002. 149 p. 

Stern, Theodore. 1998. “Cayuse, Umatilla, and Walla Walla.” Handbook of North American Indians. 

Vol. 12 Plateau. Smithsonian Institution, Washington. 

Stromberg, J.C., Beuchamp, V.B., Dixon, M.D., Lite, S.J., Paradzick, C., 2007. Importance of low-flow 

and high-flow characteristics to restoration of riparian vegetation along rivers in arid southwestern United States. Freshw. Biol. 52, 651e679.

Tabacchi E, Correll DL, Hauer R, Pinay G, Planty-Tabacchi AM, Wissmar RC. 1998. Development, 

maintenance and role of riparian vegetation in the river landscape. Freshwater Biology 40: 

497±516.

Toepel, Kathryn Anne, William F. Willingham, and Rick Minor. 1980. “Cultural resource overview of 

BLM lands in North-Central Oregon: ethnography, archaeology, history.” University of Oregon 

Anthropological Papers, No. 17, Eugene.

U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). 2018. Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United 

States: Fourth National Climate Assessment. Available at: 

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/downloads/NCA4_2018_FullReport.pdf. Accessed February 4, 

2019. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1994. Groundwater Conditions in the Columbia Plateau (Table 4). 

Groundwater Atlas of the United States: Idaho, Oregon, Washington (HA-730-H). Available at: 

https://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_h/jpeg/Htab4.jpeg. Accessed February 12, 2020. 
August 2020 Page 6-5

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 

2017. Quick Facts for Pendleton, Oregon. Available at: 

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/pendletoncityoregon. Accessed February 5, 2019. 

2019. American Community Survey. Available at: 

https://www.census.gov/censusexplorer/censusexplorer.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2015b. Summary of Executive Order 12898 - Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. 

November 16. Available at http://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-executive-order12898-federalactions-address-environmental-justice. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

2009. Freshwater Mussels of the Pacific Northwest. Available at: 

https://www.fws.gov/columbiariver/mwg/pdfdocs/Pacific_Northwest_Mussel_Guide.pdf. 

Accessed February 5, 2020.

2019a Species by County Report: Umatilla County. Available online at: 

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/reports/species-by-current-range-county?fips=41059. Accessed May 

2019.

2019b. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Threatened & Endangered Species Active Critical Habitat 

Report. Available online at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html. Accessed 

May 2019.

2019c. Pacific Lamprey 2019 Regional Implementation Plan for the Mid-Columbia Regional 

Management Unit. Submitted to the Conservation team August 27, 2019. Accessed February 4, 

2020. Available at https://www.fws.gov/pacificlamprey/Documents/RIPs/2019/2019%20MidColumbia%20RIP.pdf.

United States Forest Service. 2014. NorWest Regional Database and Modeled Stream Temperatures. 

Rocky Mountain Research Station Air, Water, and Aquatic Environments Program. Boise, Idaho. 

Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/boise/AWAE/projects/NorWeST.html. Accessed March 27, 

2020.

Umatilla County Critical Groundwater Task Force (UCCGTF). 2008. Umatilla Sub-Basin 2050 Water 

Management Plan. 

Umatilla County Department of Land Use Planning (UCDLUP). 2018. Umatilla County Development 

Code. EFU: Exclusive Farm Use Zone. Available at: 

www.co.umatilla.or.us/planning/pdf/Umatilla_County_Development_Code.pdf.

U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United 

States. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Tetra Tech. 

2019a. Draft Terrestrial Biological Resources Report for the Umatilla River-Birch Creek 

Floodplain Restoration Project. July 2019.
August 2020 Page 6-6

2019b. UmaBirch Geomorphic Assessment. 

2019c. Wetlands and Other Waters Delineation report for Umatailla River and Birch Creek 

Instream Enhancement and Floodplain Restoration. 

Vepraskas M. J., Craft C. B. (eds). 2016. Wetland Soils, 2nd edition. CRC Press (2016).

Walker, Deward E. Jr.. 1998. Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 12 Plateau. Smithsonian 

Institution, Washington.

Wedemeyer, G.A., B.A. Barton and D.J. McLeay. 1990. Stress and acclimation. C.B. Schreck and P.B. 

Moyle, editors. Methods for Fish Biology, pp. 451–489. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, 

Maryland. 
August 2020 Page 7-1

CHAPTER 7 APPENDIX
August 2020 Page 7-2

This page left blank intentionally
August 2020 Page 7-3

Appendix A: Bonneville’s HIP Mitigation Measures
1

HIP III CONSERVATION MEASURES

General Aquatic Conservation Measures Applicable to all Actions. 2

Project Design and Site Preparation.............................................................................................. 2

Work Area Isolation & Fish Salvage. ............................................................................................. 6

Construction and Post-Construction Conservation Measures. .................................................... 11

Staged Rewatering Plan................................................................................................................ 13

HIP III Turbidity Monitoring Protocol......................................................................................... 14

Stormwater Management Guidance ................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

General Conservation Measures for Terrestrial Plants, Wildlife and Aquatic Invertebrates...... 15

River, Stream, and Floodplain Restoration .................................................................................. 18

2a: Improve Secondary Channel and Wetland Habitats .............................................................. 18

2c: Protect Streambanks Using Bioengineering Methods............................................................ 19

2d: Install Habitat-Forming Natural Material Instream Structures (LW, Boulders, and Spawn 

Gravel) 21

2e: Riparian Vegetation Planting ................................................................................................. 23

2f: Channel Reconstruction .......................................................................................................... 23

Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan................................................................................ 23
2

GENERAL AQUATIC CONSERVATION MEASURES APPLICABLE TO ALL 

ACTIONS.

The activities covered under the HIP III are intended to protect and restore fish and wildlife 

habitat with long-term benefits to ESA-listed species; however, construction activities may have 

short-term adverse effects on ESA-listed species and associated critical habitat. To avoid and 

minimize these short-term adverse effects, BPA has developed the following general 

Conservation Measures in coordination with USFWS and NMFS. These measures will be 

implemented on all projects covered under the HIP III.

Project Design and Site Preparation.

1) Climate change. Best available science regarding the future effects within the project area of 

climate change, such as changes instream flows and water temperatures, will be considered 

during project design.

2) State and federal permits. All applicable regulatory permits and authorizations will be 

obtained prior to project implementation. These permits and authorizations include, but are 

not limited to, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA), state and federal Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) 

permits, and Section 401 water quality certifications.

3) Timing of in-water work. Formal recommendations published by state agencies such as the 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife (WDFW), Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), and Montana Fish Wildlife 

and Parks (MFWP) or informal recommendations from the appropriate state Fishery 

Biologist in regard to the timing of in-water work will be followed. 

a) Bull trout - Utilizing state-recommended in-water work windows will decrease potential 

effects to bull trout, but this alone may not be sufficient to protect local bull trout 

populations. This is especially true if work will occur in spawning and rearing areas 

because eggs, alevin, and fry are present nearly year round. Some project locations may 

not have designated in-water work windows for bull trout, or if they do, they may differ

from the in-water work windows for salmon and steelhead. If this is the case, or if the 

proposed work is to occur within bull trout spawning and rearing habitats, the project 

sponsor will contact the appropriate USFWS field office to ensure that all reasonable 

implementation measures are considered and an appropriate in-water work window is 

being used to minimize project effects.

b) Lamprey - the project sponsor and/or their contractors will avoid working instream or 

river channels that contain Pacific lamprey from March 1 to July 1 in low- to midelevation reaches (<5,000 feet). In high-elevation reaches (>5,000 feet), the project 

sponsor will avoid working instream or river channels from March 1 to August 1. If 

either timeframe is incompatible with other objectives, the area will be surveyed for nests 

and lamprey presence, and avoided if possible. If lampreys are known to exist, the project 
3

sponsor will utilize dewatering and salvage best management practices (BMPs) outlined 

in USFWS 201011.

c) Exceptions to ODFW, WDFW, MFWP, or IDFG in-water work windows will be 

requested through the Variance Process.

Work area isolation and fish salvage activities are considered incidental to 

construction-related activities and shall occur during state-recommended in-water 

work windows.

4) Contaminants. The project sponsor will complete a site assessment with the following 

elements to identify the type, quantity, and extent of any potential contamination for any 

action that involves excavation of more than 20 cubic yards of material:

a) A review of available records, such as former site use, building plans, and records of any 

prior contamination events; 

b) A site visit to inspect the areas used for various industrial processes and the condition of 

the property; 

c) Interviews with knowledgeable people, such as site owners, operators, and occupants, 

neighbors, or local government officials; and 

d) A summary, stored with the project file that includes an assessment of the likelihood that 

contaminants are present at the site, based on items 4(a) through 4(c).

5) Site layout and flagging. Prior to construction, the project area will be clearly flagged to 

identify the following:

a) Sensitive resource areas, such as areas below ordinary high water (OHW), spawning 

areas, springs, and wetlands;

b) Equipment entry and exit points;

c) Road and stream crossing alignments;

d) Staging, storage, and stockpile areas; and

e) No-herbicide-application areas and buffers.

6) Temporary access roads and paths.

a) Existing access roads and paths will be preferentially used whenever possible, and the 

number and length of temporary access roads and paths through riparian areas and 

floodplains will be minimized to lessen soil disturbance, soil compaction, and impacts to 

vegetation.

b) Temporary access roads and paths will not be built on slopes where grade, soil, or other 

features suggest a likelihood of excessive erosion or failure. If slopes are steeper than 

30%, the road will be designed by a civil engineer with experience in steep road design.

c) The removal of riparian vegetation during construction of temporary access roads will be 

minimized. When temporary vegetation removal is required, vegetation will be cut at 

ground level (not grubbed).

 

11 USFWS. 2010. Best management practices to minimize adverse effects to Pacific lamprey. Available online at: 

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/Fisheries/sphabcon/lamprey/pdf/Best%20Management%20Practices%20for%20Pacific

%20Lamprey%20April%202010%20Version.pdf
4

d) At project completion, all temporary access roads and paths will be obliterated, and the 

soil will be stabilized and revegetated. Road and path obliteration refers to the most 

comprehensive degree of decommissioning and involves decompacting the road surface 

and associated ditches, pulling the fill material onto the running surface, and reshaping to 

match the original contour. 

e) Temporary roads and paths in wet areas or areas prone to flooding will be obliterated by 

the end of the in-water work window. 

7) Temporary stream crossings. 

a) Existing stream crossings will be preferentially used whenever reasonable, and the 

number of temporary stream crossings will be minimized.

b) Temporary bridges and culverts will be installed to allow for equipment and vehicle 

crossing over perennial streams during construction. Treated wood shall not be used on 

temporary bridge crossings or in locations in contact with or over water. 

c) Equipment and vehicles will cross streams in the wet only where:

i. The streambed is bedrock; or

ii. Mats or off-site logs are placed in the stream and used as a crossing.

d) Vehicles and machinery will cross streams at right angles to the main channel wherever 

possible.

e) The location of the temporary crossing will avoid areas that may increase the risk of 

channel re-routing or avulsion.

f) Impacts to potential spawning habitat (i.e., pool tailouts) and pools will be avoided to the 

maximum extent possible. 

g) No stream crossings will occur at active spawning sites, when holding adult listed fish are 

present, or when eggs or alevins are in the gravel. The appropriate state fish and wildlife 

agency will be contacted for specific timing information.

h) After project completion, temporary stream crossings will be obliterated, and the stream 

channel and banks restored.

8) Staging, storage, and stockpile areas.

a) Staging areas (used for construction equipment storage, vehicle storage, fueling, 

servicing, and hazardous material storage) will be 150 feet or more from any natural 

waterbody or wetland, or on an adjacent established road area in a location and manner 

that will preclude erosion into or contamination of the stream or floodplain. 

b) Natural materials used for implementation of aquatic restoration, such as large wood, 

gravel, and boulders, may be staged within the 100-year floodplain. 

c) Any large wood, topsoil, and native channel material displaced by construction will be 

stockpiled for use during site restoration at a specifically identified and flagged area. 

d) Any material not used in restoration, and not native to the floodplain, will be removed to 

a location outside of the 100-year floodplain for disposal. 

9) Equipment. Mechanized equipment and vehicles will be selected, operated, and maintained 

in a manner that minimizes adverse effects on the environment (e.g., minimally-sized, low 

pressure tires; minimal hard-turn paths for tracked vehicles; temporary mats or plates within 

wet areas or on sensitive soils). All vehicles and other mechanized equipment will be: 

a) Stored, fueled, and maintained in a vehicle staging area located 150 feet or more from 

any natural water body or wetland or on an adjacent, established road area; 
5

b) Refueled in a vehicle staging area located 150 feet or more from a natural waterbody or 

wetland, or in an isolated hard zone, such as a paved parking lot or adjacent, established 

road (this measure applies only to gas-powered equipment with tanks larger than 5 

gallons);

c) Biodegradable lubricants and fluids shall be used on equipment operating in and adjacent 

to the stream channel and live water.

d) Inspected daily for fluid leaks before leaving the vehicle staging area for operation within 

150 feet of any natural water body or wetland; and 

e) Thoroughly cleaned before operation below ordinary high water (OHW), and as often as 

necessary during operation, to remain grease free. 

10) Erosion control. Erosion control best management practices (BMPs) will be prepared and 

carried out, commensurate in scope with the action, that may include the following: 

a) Temporary erosion control BMPs. 

i. Temporary erosion control BMPs will be in place before any significant alteration of 

the action site and appropriately installed downslope of project activity within the 

riparian buffer area until site rehabilitation is complete.

ii. If there is a potential for eroded sediment to enter the stream, sediment barriers will 

be installed and maintained for the duration of project implementation.

iii. Temporary erosion control measures may include fiber wattles, silt fences, jute 

matting, wood fiber mulch and soil binder, or geotextiles and geosynthetic fabric.

iv. Soil stabilization utilizing wood fiber mulch and tackifier (hydro-applied) may be 

used to reduce erosion of bare soil if the materials are noxious weed-free and 

nontoxic to aquatic and terrestrial animals, soil microorganisms, and vegetation. 

v. Sediment will be removed from erosion control BMP once it has reached 1/3 of the 

exposed height of the BMP. 

vi. Once the site is stabilized following construction, temporary erosion control BMPs

will be removed.

b) Emergency erosion control BMPs. The following materials for emergency erosion 

control will be available at the work site: 

i. A supply of sediment control materials; and

ii. An oil-absorbing floating boom whenever surface water is present.

11) Dust abatement. The project sponsor will determine the appropriate dust control measures 

by considering soil type, equipment usage, prevailing wind direction, and the effects caused 

by other erosion and sediment control measures. In addition, the following criteria will be 

followed:

a) Work will be sequenced and scheduled to reduce exposed bare soil subject to wind 

erosion. 

b) Dust-abatement additives and stabilization chemicals (typically magnesium chloride, 

calcium chloride salts, or ligninsulfonate) will not be applied within 25 feet of a natural 

waterbody or wetland and will be applied so as to minimize the likelihood that they will 

enter streams. Applications of ligninsulfonate will be limited to a maximum rate of 0.5 

gallons per square yard of road surface, assuming a 50:50 (ligninsulfonate to water) 

solution.

c) Application of dust abatement chemicals will be avoided during or just before wet 

weather and at stream crossings or other areas that could result in unfiltered delivery of 
6

the dust abatement chemicals to a waterbody (typically these would be areas within 25 

feet of a natural waterbody or wetland; distances may be greater where vegetation is 

sparse or slopes are steep). 

d) Spill containment equipment will be available during application of dust abatement 

chemicals. 

e) Petroleum-based products will not be used for dust abatement.

12) Spill prevention, control, and counter measures. The use of mechanized machinery 

increases the risk for accidental spills of fuel, lubricants, hydraulic fluid, or other 

contaminants into the riparian zone or directly into the water. Additionally, uncured concrete 

and form materials adjacent to the active stream channel may result in accidental discharge 

into the water. These contaminants can degrade habitat and injure or kill benthic 

invertebrates and ESA-listed species. The project sponsor will adhere to the following 

measures: 

a) A description of hazardous materials that will be used, including inventory, storage, and 

handling procedures will be available on-site.

b) Written procedures for notifying environmental response agencies will be posted at the 

work site. 

c) Spill containment kits (including instructions for cleanup and disposal) adequate for the 

types and quantity of hazardous materials used at the site will be available at the work 

site.

d) Workers will be trained in spill containment procedures and will be informed of the 

location of spill containment kits.

e) Any waste liquids generated at the staging areas will be temporarily stored under an 

impervious cover, such as a tarpaulin, until they can be properly transported to and 

disposed of at a facility that is approved for receipt of hazardous materials. 

13)Invasive species control. The following measures will be followed to avoid introduction of 

invasive plants and noxious weeds into project areas:

a) Prior to entering the site, all vehicles and equipment will be power-washed, allowed to 

fully dry, and inspected to make sure no plants, soil, or other organic material adheres to 

the surface. 

b) Watercraft, waders, boots, and any other gear to be used in or near water will be 

inspected for aquatic invasive species. Wading boots with felt soles are not to be used 

due to their propensity for aiding in the transfer of invasive species.

Work Area Isolation & Fish Salvage. 

Any work area within the wetted channel will be isolated from the active stream whenever ESAlisted fish are reasonably certain to be present, or if the work area is less than 300-feet upstream 

from known spawning habitats. Work area isolation & fish salvage activities are considered 

incidental to construction-related activities and shall occur during the state-recommended inwater work windows. 
7

When work area isolation is required, design plans will include all isolation elements, fish 

release areas, and, when a pump is used to dewater the isolation area and fish are present, a fish 

screen that meets NMFS’s fish screen criteria (NMFS 201112, or most current). Work area 

isolation and fish capture activities will occur during periods of the coolest air and water 

temperatures possible, normally early in the morning versus late in the day, and during 

conditions appropriate to minimize stress and death of species present.

For salvage operations in known bull trout spawning and rearing habitat, electrofishing shall only 

occur from May 1 to July 31. No electrofishing will occur in any bull trout occupied habitat after 

August 15. Bull trout are very temperature sensitive and generally should not be electrofished or 

otherwise handled when temperatures exceed 15 degrees Celsius. Salvage activities should take 

place during periods of the coolest air and water temperatures possible, normally early in the 

morning versus late in the day, and during conditions appropriate to minimize stress to fish 

species present. 

Salvage operations will follow the ordering, methodologies, and conservation measures specified 

below in Steps 1 through 6. Steps 1 and 2 will be implemented for all projects where work area 

isolation is necessary according to conditions above. Electrofishing (Step 3) can be implemented 

to ensure all fish have been removed following Steps 1 and 2, or when other means of fish 

capture may not be feasible or effective. Dewatering and rewatering (Steps 4 and 5) will be 

implemented unless wetted instream work is deemed to be minimally harmful to fish, and is 

beneficial to other aquatic species. Dewatering will not be conducted in areas known to be 

occupied by lamprey, unless lampreys are salvaged using guidance set forth in USFWS 201013.

1) Isolate.

a) Block nets will be installed at upstream and downstream locations and maintained in a 

secured position to exclude fish from entering the project area.

b) Block nets will be secured to the stream channel bed and banks until fish capture and 

transport activities are complete. Block nets may be left in place for the duration of the 

project to exclude fish.

c) If block nets remain in place more than one day, the nets will be monitored at least daily 

to ensure they are secured to the banks and free of organic accumulation. If the project is 

within bull trout spawning and rearing habitat, the block nets must be checked every 4

hours for fish impingement on the net. Less frequent intervals must be approved through 

a variance request.

 

12 NMFS. 2011. Anadromous salmonid passage facility design. Northwest Region. Available online at: 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Hydropower/FERC/upload/Fish-Passage-Design.pdf

13 USFWS. 2010. Best management practices to minimize adverse effects to Pacific lamprey. Available online at: 

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/Fisheries/sphabcon/lamprey/pdf/Best%20Management%20Practices%20for%20Pacific

%20Lamprey%20April%202010%20Version.pdf
8

d) Nets will be monitored hourly anytime there is instream disturbance.

2) Salvage. As described below, fish trapped within the isolated work area will be captured to 

minimize the risk of injury, then released at a safe site: 

a) Remove as many fish as possible prior to dewatering.

b) During dewatering, any remaining fish will be collected by hand or dip nets. 

c) Seines with a mesh size to ensure capture of the residing ESA-listed fish will be used. 

d) Minnow traps will be left in place overnight and used in conjunction with seining. 

e) If buckets are used to transport fish: 

i. The time fish are in a transport bucket will be limited, and will be released as quickly 

as possible;

ii. The number of fish within a bucket will be limited based on size, and fish will be of 

relatively comparable size to minimize predation;

iii. Aerators for buckets will be used or the bucket water will be frequently changed with 

cold clear water at 15 minute or more frequent intervals.

iv. Buckets will be kept in shaded areas or will be covered by a canopy in exposed areas. 

v. Dead fish will not be stored in transport buckets but will be left on the streambank to 

avoid mortality counting errors. 

f) As rapidly as possible (especially for temperature-sensitive bull trout), fish will be 

released in an area that provides adequate cover and flow refuge. Upstream release is 

generally preferred, but fish released downstream will be sufficiently outside of the 

influence of construction. 

g) Salvage will be supervised by a qualified fisheries biologist experienced with work area 

isolation and competent to ensure the safe handling of all fish.

3) Electrofishing. Electrofishing will be used only after other salvage methods have been 

employed or when other means of fish capture are determined to not be feasible or effective.

If electrofishing will be used to capture fish for salvage, the salvage operation will be led by 

an experienced fisheries biologist and the following guidelines will be followed:

The NMFS’s electrofishing guidelines (NMFS 200014).

a) Initial Site Surveys and Equipment Settings

i. In order to avoid contact with spawning adults or active redds, researchers must 

conduct a careful visual survey of the area to be sampled before beginning 

electrofishing.

ii. Prior to the start of sampling at a new location, water temperature and conductivity 

measurements shall be taken to evaluate electrofisher settings and adjustments.

No electrofishing should occur when water temperatures are above 18°C or are expected to 

rise above this temperature prior to concluding the electrofishing survey. In addition, 

 

14 http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/reference_documents/esa_refs/section4d/electro2000.pdf
9

studies by NMFS scientists indicate that no electrofishing should occur in California 

coastal basins when conductivity is above 350 μS/cm.

iii. Whenever possible, a block net should be placed below the area being sampled to 

capture stunned fish that may drift downstream.

iv. Equipment must be in good working condition and operators should go through the 

manufacturer's preseason checks, adhere to all provisions, and record major 

maintenance work in a logbook.

v. Each electrofishing session must start with all settings (voltage, pulse width, and 

pulse rate) set to the minimums needed to capture fish. These settings should be 

gradually increased only to the point where fish are immobilized and captured, and 

generally not allowed to exceed conductivity-based maxima (Table 1). Only direct 

current (DC) or pulsed direct current (PDC) should be used.

Table 1. Guidelines for initial and maximum settings for backpack electrofishing.

b) Electrofishing Technique

i. Sampling should begin using straight DC. The power needs to remain on until the fish 

is netted when using straight DC. If fish capture is unsuccessful with initial low 

voltage, gradually increase voltage settings with straight DC.

ii. If fish capture is not successful with the use of straight DC, then set the electrofisher 

to lower voltages with PDC. If fish capture is unsuccessful with low voltages, 

increase pulse width, voltage, and pulse frequency (duration, amplitude, and 

frequency).

iii. Electrofishing should be performed in a manner that minimizes harm to the fish. 

Stream segments should be sampled systematically, moving the anode continuously 

in a herringbone pattern (where feasible) through the water. Care should be taken 

when fishing in areas with high fish concentrations, structure (e.g., wood, undercut 

banks) and in shallow waters where most backpack electrofishing for juvenile 

salmonids occurs. Voltage gradients may be high when electrodes are in shallow 

water where boundary layers (water surface and substrate) tend to intensify the 

electrical field.
10

iv. Do not electrofish in one location for an extended period (e.g., undercut banks) and 

regularly check block nets for immobilized fish.

v. Fish should not make contact with the anode. The zone of potential injury for fish is 

0.5 m from the anode.

vi. Electrofishing crews should be generally observant of the condition of the fish and 

change or terminate sampling when experiencing problems with fish recovery time, 

banding, injury, mortality, or other indications of fish stress.

vii. Netters should not allow the fish to remain in the electrical field any longer than 

necessary by removing stunned fish from the water immediately after netting.

c) Sample Processing and Recordkeeping

i. Fish should be processed as soon as possible after capture to minimize stress. This 

may require a larger crew size.

ii. All sampling procedures must have a protocol for protecting held fish. Samplers must 

be aware of the conditions in the containers holding fish; air pumps, water transfers, 

etc., should be used as necessary to maintain safe conditions. Also, large fish should 

be kept separate from smaller prey-sized fish to avoid predation during containment.

iii. Use of an approved anesthetic can reduce fish stress and is recommended, particularly

if additional handling of fish is required (e.g., length and weight measurements, scale 

samples, fin clips, tagging).

iv. Fish should be handled properly (e.g., wetting measuring boards, not overcrowding 

fish in buckets, etc.).

v. Fish should be observed for general condition and injuries (e.g., increased recovery 

time, dark bands, visually observable spinal injuries). Each fish should be completely 

revived before releasing at the location of capture. A plan for achieving efficient 

return to appropriate habitat should be developed before each sampling session. Also, 

every attempt should be made to process and release ESA-listed specimens first.

vi. Pertinent water quality (e.g., conductivity and temperature) and sampling notes (e.g., 

shocker settings, fish condition/injuries/mortalities) should be recorded in a logbook 

to improve technique and help train new operators. It is important to note that records 

of injuries or mortalities pertain to the entire electrofishing survey, including the fish 

sample work-up.

vii. The anode will not intentionally contact fish.

viii. Electrofishing shall not be conducted when the water conditions are turbid and 

visibility is poor. This condition may be experienced when the sampler cannot see the 

stream bottom in one foot of water.

ix. If mortality or obvious injury (defined as dark bands on the body, spinal 

deformations, de-scaling of 25% or more of body, and torpidity or inability to 

maintain upright attitude after sufficient recovery time) occurs during electrofishing, 

operations will be immediately discontinued, machine settings, water temperature,

and conductivity checked, and procedures adjusted or electrofishing postponed in 

order to reduce mortality.

4) Dewater. Dewatering, when necessary, will be conducted over a sufficient period of time to 

allow species to naturally migrate out of the work area and will be limited to the shortest 

linear extent practicable.
11

a) Diversion around the construction site may be accomplished with a cofferdam and a bypass culvert or pipe, or a lined, non-erodible diversion ditch. Where gravity feed is not 

possible, a pump may be used, but must be operated in such a way as to avoid repetitive 

dewatering and rewatering of the site. Impoundment behind the cofferdam must occur 

slowly through the transition, while constant flow is delivered to the downstream reaches.

b) All pumps will have fish screens to avoid juvenile fish impingement or entrainment, and 

will be operated in accordance with NMFS’s current fish screen criteria (NMFS 201115, 

or most recent version). If the pumping rate exceeds 3 cubic feet per second (cfs), a 

NMFS Hydro fish passage review will be necessary.

c) Dissipation of flow energy at the bypass outflow will be provided to prevent damage to 

riparian vegetation and/or stream channel.

d) Safe re-entry of fish into the stream channel will be provided, preferably into pool habitat 

with cover, if the diversion allows for downstream fish passage.

e) Seepage water will be pumped to a temporary storage and treatment site or into upland 

areas to allow water to percolate through soil or to filter through vegetation prior to 

reentering the stream channel.

5) Salvage Notice. Monitoring and recording of fish presence, handling, and mortality must 

occur for the duration of the isolation, salvage, electrofishing, dewatering, and rewatering 

operations. Once operations are completed, a salvage report will document procedures used, 

any fish injuries or deaths (including numbers of fish affected), and causes of any deaths.

Construction and Post-Construction Conservation Measures.

1) Fish passage. Fish passage will be provided for any adult or juvenile fish likely to be present 

in the project area during construction, unless passage did not exist before construction, or 

the stream is naturally impassable at the time of construction. If the provision of temporary 

fish passage during construction will increase negative effects on ESA-listed species or their 

habitat, a variance can be requested from the NMFS Branch Chief and the USFWS Field 

Office Supervisor. Pertinent information, such as the species affected, length of stream reach 

affected, proposed time for the passage barrier, and alternatives considered will be included 

in the variance request.

2) Construction and discharge water.

a) Surface water may be diverted to meet construction needs, but only if developed sources 

are unavailable or inadequate. 

b) Diversions will not exceed 10% of the available flow.

c) All construction discharge water will be collected and treated using the best available 

technology suitable for site conditions. 

d) Treatments to remove debris, nutrients, sediment, petroleum hydrocarbons, metals and 

other pollutants likely to be present will be provided.

3) Minimize time and extent of disturbance. Earthwork (including drilling, excavation, 

dredging, filling and compacting) in which mechanized equipment is utilized instream

 

15 NMFS. 2011. Anadromous salmonid passage facility design. Northwest Region. Available online at: 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Hydropower/FERC/upload/Fish-Passage-Design.pdf
12

channels, riparian areas, and wetlands will be completed as quickly as possible. Mechanized 

equipment will be used instreams only when project specialists believe that such actions are 

the only reasonable alternative for implementation, or would result in less sediment in the 

stream channel or damage (short- or long-term) to the overall aquatic and riparian ecosystem 

relative to other alternatives. To the extent feasible, mechanized equipment will work from 

the top of the bank, unless work from another location would result in less habitat 

disturbance. 

4) Cessation of work. Project operations will cease under the following conditions:

a) High flow conditions that may result in inundation of the project area, except for efforts 

to avoid or minimize resource damage;

b) When allowable water quality impacts, as defined by the state CWA section 401 water 

quality certification or HIP III Turbidity Monitoring Protocol, have been exceeded; or

c) When “incidental take” limitations have been reached or exceeded.

5) Site restoration. When construction is complete:

a) All streambanks, soils, and vegetation will be cleaned up and restored as necessary using 

stockpiled large wood, topsoil, and native channel material.

b) All project-related waste will be removed.

c) All temporary access roads, crossings, and staging areas will be obliterated. When 

necessary for revegetation and infiltration of water, compacted areas of soil will be 

loosened.

d) All disturbed areas will be rehabilitated in a manner that results in similar or improved 

conditions relative to pre-project conditions. This will be achieved through redistribution 

of stockpiled materials, seeding, and/or planting with local native seed mixes or plants.

6) Revegetation. Long-term soil stabilization of disturbed sites will be accomplished with 

reestablishment of native vegetation using the following criteria:

a) Planting and seeding will occur prior to or at the beginning of the first growing season 

after construction. 

b) An appropriate mix of species that will achieve establishment, shade, and erosion control 

objectives, preferably forb, grass, shrub, or tree species native to the project area or 

region and appropriate to the site will be used. 

c) Vegetation, such as willow, sedge and rush mats, will be salvaged from disturbed or 

abandoned floodplains, stream channels, or wetlands. 

d) Invasive species will not be used. 

e) Short-term stabilization measures may include the use of non-native sterile seed mix 

(when native seeds are not available), weed-free certified straw, jute matting, and other 

similar techniques. 

f) Surface fertilizer will not be applied within 50 feet of any stream channel, waterbody, or 

wetland. 

g) Fencing will be installed as necessary to prevent access to revegetated sites by livestock 

or unauthorized persons. 

h) Re-establishment of vegetation in disturbed areas will achieve at least 70% of pre-project 

conditions within 3 years. 

i) Invasive plants will be removed or controlled until native plant species are wellestablished (typically 3 years post-construction).
13

7) Site access. The project sponsor will retain the right of reasonable access to the site in order 

to monitor the success of the project over its life. 

8) Implementation monitoring. Project sponsor staff or their designated representative will 

provide implementation monitoring by filling out the Project Completion Form (PCF) to 

ensure compliance with the applicable BiOp, including:

a) General conservation measures are adequately followed.

b) Effects to listed species are not greater than predicted and incidental take limitations are 

not exceeded.

c) Turbidity monitoring shall be conducted in accordance with the HIP III turbidity 

monitoring protocol and recorded in the PCF.

9) CWA section 401 water quality certification. The project sponsor or designated 

representative will complete and record water quality observations to ensure that in-water 

work is not degrading water quality. During construction, CWA section 401 water quality 

certification provisions provided by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 

Washington Department of Ecology, or Idaho Department of Environmental Quality will be 

followed.

Staged Rewatering Plan. 

When appropriate, the project sponsor shall implement a staged rewatering plan for projects that 

involve introducing streamflow into recently excavated channels under the 2a) Improve 

Secondary Channel and Wetland Habitat Activity category or 2f) Channel Reconstruction

categories. 

1) Pre-wash the newly-excavated channel before rewatering. Turbid wash water will be detained 

and pumped to the floodplain, rather than discharging to fish-bearing waters.

2) Prepare new channel for water by installing seine at upstream end to prevent fish from moving 

downstream into new channel until 2/3 of total streamflow is available in that channel. Starting 

in the early morning, introduce 1/3 of the flow into the new channel over a period of 1-2 hours.

3) Perform monitoring according to HIP III Turbidity Monitoring Protocol.

1) If turbidity exceeds 10% of background, modify the activity to reduce turbidity. In this 

case, this may mean decreasing the amount of flow entering the new channel and/or 

correcting any other issues causing turbidity (e.g., correct a bank that is sloughing, install 

or correct a BMP, etc.). 

2) Monitor every 2 hours as long as the instream activity is occurring.

3) If exceedances occur for more than 2 monitoring intervals in a row (4 hours), then the 

activity must stop until turbidity reaches background levels. This means that the contractor 

may have to plug off water supply to the new meander until turbidity is within acceptable 

levels.

4) Once turbidity is within 10% of background levels, move on to the next re-watering stage.

4) Prepare to introduce the second 1/3 of the flow (up to a total of 2/3) to the new channel by 

installing seine at upstream end of old channel in order to prevent fish from moving into a 

partially-dewatered channel. Introduce the second 1/3 of the flow over the next 1-2 hours. 

Salvage fish from the old channel at this time, so that the old channel is fish-free before 

dropping below 1/3 of the flow. Note: the fish will be temporarily blocked from moving 
14

downstream into either channel until 2/3 of the flow has been transitioned to the new channel. 

This blockage to downstream fish passage is expected to persist for roughly 12 to 14 hours, 

but fish will still be able to volitionally move out of the channel in the downstream direction. 

Perform monitoring as in #3 above.

5) After the second 1/3 of flow is introduced over 2 hours, and turbidity is within 10% of the 

background level, remove seine nets from the new channel, and allow fish to move downstream 

back into the channel. 

6) Introduce the final 1/3 of flow. Once 100% of the flow is in the new channel, install plug to 

block flow into the old channel and remove seines from the old channel. 

HIP III Turbidity Monitoring Protocol.

The Project Sponsor shall complete and record the following water quality observations to 

ensure that any increase in suspended sediment does not exceed the limit for HIP III compliance. 

Records shall be reported on the HIP III PCF.

If the geomorphology of the project area (e.g., silty or claylike materials) or the nature of the 

action (e.g., large amounts of bare earth exposed below the bankfull elevation) shall preclude the 

successful compliance with these triggers, notify your EC Lead who shall pre-notify the Services 

of the likelihood of an exceedance.

1. Take a background turbidity sample using a recently-calibrated turbidimeter in 

accordance with manufacturer’s instructions, or measure turbidity with a visual turbidity 

observation (Figure 1). Turbidity should be measured every 2 hours while work is being 

implemented or more often if sediment disturbance varies greatly. Frequent monitoring 

will ensure that the in-water work area is not creating turbid conditions within the water 

column. The background samples/visual observations should be taken at a relatively 

undisturbed location approximately 100 feet upstream from the project area. Record the 

observation, location, and time before monitoring at the downstream point, known as the 

measurement compliance point. 

2. Take a second sample or observation, immediately after each upstream sample or 

observation, at the measurement compliance point, approximately 50 feet downstream 

from the project area instreams that are 30 feet wide or less; 100 feet downstream from 

the project area for streams between 30 and 100 feet wide; 200 feet downstream from the 

project area for streams greater than 100 feet wide; and 300 feet from the discharge point 

or nonpoint source for locations subject to tidal or coastal scour. Record the downstream 

observation, location, and time. 

3. Compare the upstream and downstream observations/samples. If observed or measured 

turbidity downstream is more than upstream observation or measurement (> 10%), the 

activity must be modified to reduce turbidity. If visual estimates are used, an obvious 

difference between upstream and downstream observations shall bear the assumption of a 

(> 10%) difference (Figure 1). Mark “Yes” or “No” on your datasheet. Continue to 

monitor every 2 hours as long as instream activity continues. 
15

4. If exceedances occur for more than two consecutive monitoring intervals (after 4 hours), 

the activity must stop until the turbidity level returns to background, and the EC lead 

must be notified within 48 hours. The EC lead shall document the reasons for the 

exceedance and corrective measures taken, then notify the local NMFS branch chief 

and/or USFWS field supervisor and seek recommendations.

5. If at any time, monitoring, inspections, or observations/samples show that the turbidity 

controls are ineffective, immediately mobilize work crews to repair, replace, or reinforce 

controls as necessary.

Figure 1. Suggested Visual Observational Differences in Turbidity.

General Conservation Measures for Terrestrial Plants, Wildlife and 

Aquatic Invertebrates

This section describes general conservation measures and practices developed to minimize or 

avoid the exposure of certain endangered, threatened, and proposed (candidate) species managed 

by USFWS to any effects of the project activities. These standards include practices that would 

minimize or avoid any such effects on designated critical habitat for those species.

A USFWS biologist will review the PNF/PCF for each project to confirm the project design 

meets the conditions for no effect or not likely to adversely affect for listed species and/or critical 
16

habitat. Projects than cannot meet these conditions will need to be modified or will require a 

separate Section 7 consultation.

Identifying Species Locations. When proposed project locations have been identified, the EC 

Lead or project sponsor will obtain the current species list for the county in which the proposed 

project is located. The species lists can be accessed at the following websites:

 Idaho: http://www.fws.gov/idaho/species/IdahoSpeciesList.pdf

 Oregon: http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Lists/default.asp

 Montana: http://www.fws.gov/montanafieldoffice/Endangered_Species/

Listed_Species/countylist.pdf

 Washington, Western: http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/speciesmap.html

 Washington, Eastern: http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/species_EW.html

If species are located within the county where the proposed project is located, refer to the habitat 

descriptions for each species below for each species or critical habitat to determine whether that 

listed species may occur in the vicinity of the proposed project.For additional assistance, contact 

the appropriate state USFWS office for more information:

 Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office: (208) 378-5243

 Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office: (503) 231-6179

 Montana Ecological Services: (406) 459-5225

 Washington Fish and Wildlife Office: (360) 753-9440

 Eastern Washington Field Office: (509) 891-6839

 Central Washington Field Office: (509) 665-3508

Site-specific information of listed species occurrences in Washington State may be obtained 

from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species Program 

http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phspage.htm and from the Washington Department of Natural 

Resources Natural Heritage Program at http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/. Site-specific 

information of listed species occurrences in Oregon may also be available from the Oregon 

Biodiversity Information Center at http://orbic.pdx.edu/index.html. 

Site-specific information of listed species occurrences in Oregon may also be available from the 

Oregon Biodiversity Information Center at http://orbic.pdx.edu/index.html. 

If it is determined that listed species, critical habitat, or unsurveyed suitable habitat for listed 

species are located within the vicinity (generally within 1 mile) of the proposed project, the 

action agency will implement the following project design standards for each species. 

Additional species-specific conservation measures may apply (Your EC lead shall provide you 

with those). 

Conservation Measures: 

If it is determined that ESA-listed species, critical habitat, or unsurveyed suitable habitat for 

ESA-listed species are located within the vicinity (generally within 1 mile) of the proposed 
17

project, BPA will implement the following project design criteria for each species. Additional 

species-specific conservation measures may apply (the EC lead shall provide these).

1) Project Access. Existing roads or travel paths will be used to access project sites whenever 

possible; vehicular access ways to project sites will be planned ahead of time and will 

provide for minimizing impacts on riparian corridors and areas where listed species or their 

critical habitats may occur.

2) Vehicle use and human activities. Vehicle use and human activities, including walking in 

areas occupied by ESA- listed species, will be minimized to reduce damage or mortality to 

listed species.

3) Flight patterns. Helicopter flight patterns will be established in advance and located to avoid 

seasonally-important wildlife habitat

4) Herbicide Use. On sites where ESA-listed terrestrial wildlife may occur, herbicide 

applications will be avoided or minimized to the extent practicable while still achieving 

project goals. Staff will avoid any potential for direct spraying of wildlife, or immediate 

habitat in use by wildlife for breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Herbicide use in or within 1 

mile of habitat where ESA-listed terrestrial wildlife occur will be limited to the chemicals 

and application rates as shown in Table 2. 

Table 2: Maximum Application Rates within 1 Mile of Habitat where ESA-listed 

Terrestrial Species Occur.

 2,4-D Aminopyralid Chlorsulfuron Clethodim Clopyralid Dicamba Glyphosate 1 Glyphosate 2 Imazapic Imazapyr Metsulfuron Picloram Sethoxydim Sulfometuron Triclopyr (TEA)

 Listed Species

 Mammals N A 0.22 0.083 N A 0.375 N A 2.0 2.0 0.189 1.0 0.125 N A 0.3 N A N A

 Birds* N A 0.11 0.083 N A 0.375 N A 2.0 2.0 0.189 1.0 0.125 N A 0.3 N A N A

 Invertebrates* N A N A N A N A 0.375 N A 2.0 2.0 N A 1.0 N A N A 0.3 N A N A

Maximum Rate of Herbicide Appliction (lb/ac)

Table 1. Maximum herbicide application rates in or within 1 mile of habitat where listed species occur

 NA = Not Authorized for use 

 * See required buffers and methods restrictions within each species-specific PDS
18

River, Stream, and Floodplain Restoration

7.7.1 2a: Improve Secondary Channel and Wetland Habitats

Description. BPA proposes to review and fund projects that reconnect historical stream channels 

within floodplains; restore or modify hydrologic and other essential habitat features of historical 

river floodplain swales, abandoned side channels, spring-flow channels, wetlands, and historical 

floodplain channels; and create new self-sustaining side channel habitats, which are maintained 

through natural processes. 

Actions include the improvement and creation of secondary channels, off-channel habitats, and 

wetlands to increase the available area for and access to rearing habitat; increase hydrologic 

capacity, providing resting areas for aquatic species at various levels of inundation; reduce flow 

velocities; and provide protective cover for fish and other aquatic species.

Reconnection of historical off- and side channel habitat that has been blocked includes the 

removal of plugs, which impede water movement through these areas; excavation of pools and 

ponds in the historical floodplain/channel migration zone to create connected wetland

complexes; and reconnection of existing side channels with a focus on restoring fish access and 

habitat forming processes (e.g., hydrology, riparian vegetation restoration). In addition, wetland 

habits will be created to reestablish a hydrologic regime that has been disrupted by human 

activities, including functions such as water depth, seasonal fluctuations, flooding periodicity, 

and connectivity. 

All activities intended for improving secondary channel habitats will provide the greatest degree 

of natural stream and floodplain function achievable and shall be implemented to address 

limiting factors specific to the basin. The long-term development of a restored side channel will 

depend on natural processes like floods and mainstem migration. 

If more than 20% of the amount of water from the main channel shall be diverted into the 

secondary channel then the action shall be considered Channel Reconstruction.

Conservation Measures:

1) Off- and side-channel improvements may include minor excavation (< 10%) of naturallyaccumulated sediment within historical channels. Evidence of historical channel location, 

such as land use surveys, historical photographs, topographic maps, remote sensing 

information, or personal observation. There is no limit as to the amount of excavation of 

anthropogenic fill within historical side channels as long as such channels can be clearly 

identified through field and/or aerial photographs.

2) Designs must demonstrate sufficient hydrology and that the project will be self-sustaining 

over time. Self-sustaining means the restored or created habitat would not require major or 

periodic maintenance, but function naturally within the processes of the floodplain.
19

3) Proposed new side channel construction must be within the functional floodplain (5-year 

recurrence interval), current channel meander migration zone, and require limited excavation 

for construction. Reconnection of historical fragmented habitats is preferred. 

4) Side channel habitat will be constructed to prevent fish stranding by providing a continual 

positive overall grade to the intersecting river or stream or by providing a year-round water 

connection. 

5) Excavated material removed from off- or side-channel habitat shall be hauled to an upland 

site or spread across the adjacent floodplain in a manner that does not restrict floodplain 

capacity. Hydric soils may be salvaged to provide appropriate substrate and/or seed source 

for hydrophytic plant community development. Hydric soils will only be obtained from 

wetland salvage sites.

6) Excavation depth will never exceed the maximum thalweg depth of the main channel.

7) All side channel and pool habitat work will occur in isolation from waters occupied by ESAlisted salmonid species until project completion. During project completion, a reconnection

may be made by either excavation to waters occupied by ESA-listed salmonids or rewatering of these channel units.

8) Adequate precautions will be taken to prevent the creation of fish passage issues or stranding 

of juvenile or adult fish by demonstrating sufficient hydrologic conditions.

9) Re-watering stream channels. For stream channels which have been isolated and dewatered 

during project construction:

a) Reconstructed stream channels will be “pre-washed” into a reach equipped with sediment 

capture devices, prior to reintroduction of stream flow.

b) Stream channels will be re-watered slowly to minimize a sudden increase in turbidity (see 

Staged Rewatering Plan).

7.7.2 2c: Protect Streambanks Using Bioengineering Methods 

Description. BPA proposes to review and fund projects that restore eroding streambanks 

through bank shaping; installation of soil reinforcements (e.g., coir logs, large wood, etc.) and 

other bioengineering techniques, as necessary, to support development of riparian vegetation;

and/or planting of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous cover, as necessary, to restore ecological 

functions in riparian and floodplain habitats.

As actions that are covered by this programmatic need to have the sole purpose of 

restoring floodplain and estuary functions or to enhance fish habitat, streambank 

stabilization shall only be proposed when there are additional interrelated and 

interdependent habitat restoration actions.

Streambank erosion often occurs within meandering alluvial rivers on the outside of meander 

bends. The rate of erosion and meander migration is often accelerated due to degradation or 

removal of the riparian vegetation and land use practices that have removed riparian woody 

species. Historically, as the river migrates into the adjacent riparian areas, large wood would be 

recruited from the banks resulting in reduced near-bank velocities and increased channel 

boundary roughness. Where a functional riparian area is lacking, the lateral bank erosion may 
20

occur at an unnaturally accelerated rate. The goal of streambank restoration is to reestablish 

long-term riparian processes through re-vegetation and riparian buffer strips. Structural bank 

protection may be used to provide short-term stability to streambanks, allowing for vegetation 

establishment.

The primary structural streambank protection action proposed is the installation of large wood 

and riparian vegetation configured to increase bank strength and resistance to erosion. This is 

considered to be an ecological approach to managing streambank erosion (i.e., bioengineering).

The following bioengineering techniques16 are proposed for use either individually or in 

combination: (a) woody plantings and variations (e.g., live stakes, brush layering, facines, brush 

mattresses); (b) herbaceous cover, for use on small streams or adjacent wetlands; (c) deformable 

soil reinforcement, consisting of soil layers or lifts strengthened with biodegradable coir fabric 

and plantings that are penetrable by plant roots; (d) coir logs [long bundles of coconut fiber], 

straw bales, and straw logs used individually or in stacks to trap sediment and provide a growth 

medium for riparian plants; (e) bank reshaping and slope grading, when used to reduce a bank 

slope angle without changing the location of its toe, to increase roughness and cross-section, and 

to provide more favorable planting surfaces; (f) tree and large wood rows, live siltation fences, 

brush traverses, brush rows, and live brush sills in floodplains, when used to reduce the 

likelihood of avulsion in areas where natural floodplain roughness is poorly-developed or has 

been removed; (g) floodplain flow spreaders, consisting of one or more rows of trees and 

accumulated debris used to spread flow across the floodplain; and (h) use of large wood as a 

primary structural component.

1) Without changing the location of the bank toe, damaged streambanks will be restored to a 

natural slope, pattern, and profile suitable for establishment of permanent woody vegetation. 

This may include sloping of unconsolidated bank material to a stable angle of repose or the 

use of benches in consolidated cohesive soils. The purpose of bank shaping is to provide a 

more stable platform for the establishment of riparian vegetation, while also reducing the 

depth to the water table, therefore promoting better plant survival.

2) Streambank restoration projects shall include the placement of a riparian buffer strip,

consisting of a diverse assemblage of species native to the project area or region, including 

trees, shrubs, and herbaceous species. Do not use invasive species.

3) Large wood will be used as an integral component of all streambank protection treatments 

unless restoration can be achieved with soil bioengineering techniques alone. 

4) Large wood will be placed to maximize near-bank hydraulic complexity and interstitial 

habitats through use of various large wood sizes and configurations of the placements.

 

16 For detailed descriptions of each technique refer to the WDFW Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines: 

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00046/,the USACE’s EMRRP Technical Notes, Stream Restoration: 

http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/publications.cfm?Topic=technote&Code=emrrp, or the NRCS National Engineering 

Handbook Part 654, Stream Restoration: http://policy.nrcs.usda.gov/viewerFS.aspx?id=3491
21

5) Structural placement of large wood should focus on providing channel boundary roughness 

for energy dissipation versus flow re-direction that may affect the stability of the opposite 

streambank. 

6) Large wood will be intact, hard, and undecayed to partly decaying with untrimmed root wads 

to provide functional refugia habitat for fish. Use of decayed or fragmented wood found 

lying on the ground may be used for additional roughness and to add complexity to large 

wood placements but will not constitute the primary structural components.

7) Wood that is already within the stream or suspended over the stream may be repositioned to 

allow for greater interaction with the stream.

8) Large wood anchoring will not utilize cable or chain. Manila, sisal or other biodegradable 

ropes may be used for lashing connections. If hydraulic conditions warrant use of structural 

connections then rebar pinning or bolting may be used. The utilization of structural 

connections should be used minimally and only to ensure structural longevity in highly

energetic systems (high gradient systems with lateral confinement and a limited floodplain).

The need for structural anchorage shall be demonstrated in the design documentation. 

9) Rock will not be used for streambank restoration, except as ballast to stabilize large wood 

unless it is necessary to prevent scouring or downcutting of an existing flow control structure 

(e.g., a culvert, bridge support, headwall, utility lines, or building). In this case, rock may be 

used as the primary structural component for construction of vegetated riprap with large 

wood. Scour holes may be filled with rock to prevent damage to structural foundations but 

will not extend above the adjacent bed of the river. This does not include scour protection for 

bridge approach fills.

10) The rock may not impair natural stream flows into or out of secondary channels or riparian 

wetlands.

11) Fencing will be installed as necessary to prevent access and grazing damage to revegetated 

sites and project buffer strips. 

12) Riparian buffer strips associated with streambank protection shall extend from the bankfull 

elevation towards the floodplain a minimum distance of 35 feet. 

7.7.3 2d: Install Habitat-Forming Natural Material Instream Structures (LW, 

Boulders, and Spawn Gravel)

1) Large wood placements must mimic natural accumulations of large wood in the channel, 

estuary, or marine environment and addresses basin defined limiting factors. 

2) Large wood placements for other purposes than habitat restoration or enhancement are 

excluded from this consultation. 

3) Large wood will be placed in channels that have an intact, well-vegetated, protected riparian 

buffer (of 35 feet or more) or in conjunction with riparian rehabilitation or management.

4) Stabilizing or key pieces of large wood that will be relied on to provide streambank stability 

or redirect flows must be intact, hard, and undecayed to partly decaying and should have 

untrimmed root wads to provide functional refugia habitat for fish. Use of decayed or 

fragmented wood found lying on the ground or partially sunken in the ground is not 

acceptable for key pieces but may be incorporated to add habitat complexity.

5) Large wood anchoring will not utilize cable or chain. Manila, sisal or other biodegradable 

ropes may be used for lashing connections. If hydraulic conditions warrant use of structural 
22

connections then rebar pinning or bolting may be used. The utilization of structural 

connections should be used minimally and only to ensure structural longevity in highly

energetic systems (high gradient systems with lateral confinement and limited floodplain).

Need for structural anchorage shall be demonstrated in the design documentation. 

6) Rock may be used for ballast but should be limited to what is needed to anchor the large 

wood.

7) Piling installation for large wood structures

a. Minimize the number (<12 per structure) and diameter (<24-inch diameter) of pilings

b. Use only wood piles; steel piles are not to be used under any circumstance

8) Drive each piling as follows to minimize the use of force and resulting sound pressure

a. Use a vibratory hammer to drive the piles; an impact hammer shall not be used

b. Select areas with soft substrate rather than rocky hard substrate; avoid bedrock

c. Isolate the work area if possible to minimize acoustic disturbance

Conservation Measures (Boulder Placement):

1) Boulder placements for purposes other than habitat restoration or enhancement are not 

covered under HIP III.

2) Boulder placements will be limited to stream reaches with an intact well-vegetated riparian 

corridor, which includes native trees and shrubs. These plants may be either naturallyoccurring or part of a restoration action. In addition, boulder placements will be limited 

reaches with a streambed that consists predominantly of coarse gravel or larger sediments.

3) The cross-sectional area of boulder placements may not exceed 25% of the cross-sectional 

area of the low-flow channel.

4) Boulder placements may not be installed with the purpose of shifting the stream flow to a 

single flow pattern in the middle or to the side of the stream.

5) Boulders will be machine-placed (no end dumping allowed) and will rely on the size of 

boulder for stability. 

6) Boulders will be installed in a low position in relation to channel dimensions so that they are 

completely overtopped during channel-forming flow events (approximately a 2-year flow 

event). 

7) Permanent anchoring, including rebar or cabling, may not be used.

Conservation Measures (Spawning Gravel):

1) Spawning gravel augmentation is limited to areas where the natural supply has been 

eliminated or significantly reduced through anthropogenic means.

2) Spawning gravel to be placed instream must be obtained from an upland source outside of 

the channel and riparian area and a properly-sized gradation for that stream, clean, and nonangular.

3) A maximum of 100 cubic yards of spawning-sized gravel can be imported or relocated and 

placed upstream of each structure.

4) Spawning gravel must be used in combination with other restoration activities that address 

the basin-specific limiting factors. For example, a project may consist of all of the following: 

planting streambank vegetation; placing instream large wood; and supplementing spawning 

gravel.

5) Imported gravel must be free of invasive species and non-native seeds.
23

7.7.4 2e: Riparian Vegetation Planting

1) An experienced silviculturist, botanist, ecologist, or associated technician shall be involved 

in designing vegetation treatments.

2) Species to be planted must be of the same species that naturally occurs in the project area.

3) Tree and shrub species as well as sedge and rush mats to be used as transplant material shall 

come from outside the bankfull width, typically in abandoned floodplains, and where such 

plants are abundant.

4) Sedge and rush mats should be sized to prevent their movement during high flow events.

5) Concentrate plantings above the bankfullelevation.

6) Species distribution shall mimic natural distribution in the riparian and floodplain areas.

7.7.5 2f: Channel Reconstruction

1) Detailed construction drawings must be provided.

2) Designs must demonstrate that channel reconstruction will identify, correct (to the extent 

possible), and account for in the project development process, the conditions that lead to the 

degraded condition.

3) Designs must demonstrate that the proposed action will mimic natural conditions for 

gradient, width, sinuosity and other hydraulic parameters.

4) Designs must demonstrate that structural elements shall fit within the geomorphic context of 

the stream system.

5) Designs must demonstrate sufficient hydrology and that the project will be self-sustaining 

over time. Self-sustaining means the restored or created habitat would not require major or 

periodic maintenance but function naturally within the processes of the floodplain.

6) Designs must demonstrate that the proposed action will not result in the creation of fish 

passage issues or post-construction stranding of juvenile or adult fish.

Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan.

1) Introduction

2) Responsible parties involved.

3) Existing Monitoring Protocols

4) Project Effectiveness Monitoring Plan

a) Objective 1

b) Objective 2

5) Project Review Team Triggers

6) Monitoring Frequency, Timing, and Duration

a) Baseline Survey

b) As-built Survey

c) Monitoring Site Layout

d) Post-Bankfull Event Survey

e) Future Survey (related to flow event)

7) Monitoring Technique Protocols
24

a) Photo Documentation and Visual Inspection

b) Longitudinal Profile

c) Habitat Survey

d) Survival Plots

e) Channel and Floodplain Cross-sections

f) Fish Passage

g) Other

8) Data Storage and Analysis

9) Monitoring Quality Assurance Plan

10) Literature Cited
DOE/BP-4961 • August 2020