final report – mirror lake restoration project · final report – mirror lake restoration...

Final Report – Mirror Lake Restoration Project Rooster Rock State Park

Multnomah County, Oregon

Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership Contract No. 07-2008

Prepared for

Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership 811 SW Naito Parkway, Suite 120

Portland, OR 97204

Prepared by

Parametrix 700 NE Multnomah, Suite 1000

Portland, OR 97232-4110 503-233-2400

www.parametrix.com

December 15, 2008 │ 273-3243-004

http://www.parametrix.com/

CITATION

Parametrix. 2008. Final Report – Mirror Lake Restoration Project. Prepared by Parametrix,

Portland, Oregon. December 15, 2008.

Final Report – Mirror Lake Restoration Project Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership

December 15, 2008 │ 273-3243-004

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership Evan Haas Jill Leary Krista Jones Deb Marriott

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department Kevin Price Mark Stevenson Glenn Littrell John Potter Jack Wiles Jenn Cairo Amy Gillette

Oregon Department of Transportation Bill Warncke Ken Farrimond Bill Ryan

Regulatory Agencies Lisa Estrin (Multnomah County) Nicole Navas (Oregon Department of State Lands) Jaimee Hammit (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) Devin Simmons (National Marine Fisheries Service) Jim Brick (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife)

Parametrix, Inc. Randy Reeve Mark Vlahakis Mike Pyszka Stephanie Maltby Jennifer Hughes Cheryl Murphy Kenna Halsey Chris Collins

Ash Creek Forest Management, Inc. George Kral Matt Stine

Haley Construction, Inc. Randy Haley


December 15, 2008 │ 273-3243-004 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 1 1.1 SITE HISTORY ........................................................................................................ 1 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................... 2

2. PROJECT TASKS ................................................................................................ 2 2.1 TASKS 1 AND 2 – IMPROVEMENT OF FISH PASSAGE INTO AND

THROUGH THE I-84 CULVERT............................................................................ 2 2.1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 2 2.1.2 Design.............................................................................................................. 3 2.1.3 Construction .................................................................................................... 3 2.1.4 Monitoring and Maintenance .......................................................................... 7

2.2 TASK 3 – LARGE WOODY DEBRIS PLACEMENT IN YOUNG CREEK ......... 8 2.2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 8 2.2.2 Design.............................................................................................................. 8 2.2.3 Construction .................................................................................................... 8 2.2.4 Monitoring and Maintenance ........................................................................ 15

2.3 TASK 4 – RIPARIAN REFORESTATION ........................................................... 15 2.3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 15 2.3.2 Design............................................................................................................ 15 2.3.3 Construction .................................................................................................. 16 2.3.4 Monitoring and Maintenance ........................................................................ 20

2.4 TASK 5 – PERMITTING ....................................................................................... 20 2.5 TASK 6 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT................................................................. 21 2.6 TASK 7 – MONITORING: STREAM CANOPY COVER AND

TEMPERATURE.................................................................................................... 21 2.6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 21 2.6.2 Methods ......................................................................................................... 22 2.6.3 Results ........................................................................................................... 22

2.7 TASK 8 – SITE-WIDE RESTORATION PLAN AND CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY FUNDING ................................................................................. 22

3. REFERENCES.................................................................................................... 23

LIST OF TABLES 1 Mirror Lake Restoration Project – Tree and Shrub Planting List............................ 16 2 Mirror Lake Restoration Project – Permits.............................................................. 21


TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

ii December 15, 2008 │ 273-3243-004

APPENDICES A Figures

B I-84 Culvert Feasibility and Cost-Benefit Analysis

C Design Drawings

D Fish Salvage Summary

E Monitoring Plan

F Post-Planting Site Assessments

G Reference Site Search

H Conceptual Restoration Plan


December 15, 2008 │ 273-3243-004 1

1. INTRODUCTION The Mirror Lake site is a 390-acre parcel located within Rooster Rock State Park, approximately 10 miles east of Troutdale in the Columbia River Gorge (Gorge) (Appendix A, Figures 1 and 2). I-84 forms the site’s northern boundary; the Union Pacific Railway rail line forms the southern boundary. The primary land use in the vicinity of the site is undeveloped forest, much of which is owned by the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD). Approximately 50 percent of the site’s watershed is in public ownership.

The Mirror Lake site, which includes two lakes, two streams, expansive wetlands, and remnants of a large bottomland hardwood forest, is a backwater channel off the Columbia River. The site is unique in that it provides a large, contiguous tract of bottomland hardwood forest adjacent to the Columbia River. Additionally, it is located within the Gorge, where salmon habitat restoration opportunities are limited and costly, due largely to Gorge morphology and strict land use regulations.

Two streams traverse the Mirror Lake site: Latourell and Young Creeks. Both streams enter the site as moderate gradient systems with gravel/cobble substrate, but quickly transition to meandering, low gradient streams flanked by extensive wetlands. Young and Latourell Creeks both support spawning populations of Lower Columbia River coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) (StreamNet 2008; Parametrix 2004). Both streams also provide rearing and/or off-channel habitat for steelhead (O. mykiss) and Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), potentially from both Lower Columbia and up-river evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (StreamNet 2008; Sol et al. 2008). Numerous other species of interest also are found on-site. These include great blue heron (Ardea herodias), red-legged frogs (Rana aurora), lamprey (Lampetra spp.), sculpins (Cottus spp.), and a variety of waterfowl.

1.1 SITE HISTORY The Mirror Lake site was part of a field survey conducted by Robert V. Short of the General Land Office (GLO) in 1860. Field notes from this survey indicate that the area south of I-84 was dominated by Oregon ash, some up to 20 inches in diameter. Interspersed within the forest areas were two semi-open wetland prairies with scattered willows, and larger willow-dominated bottomlands. The GLO Survey (Appendix A, Figure 3) provides a good reference for designing restoration activities at the Mirror Lake site taking into account the contemporary influences of the railroad, I-84, and the hydrologically modified Columbia River.

Before the construction of I-84 and the railroad to the south of the site, the majority of the property was used as farming and grazing land and was first homesteaded by Joseph Latourell in 1857. Figure 4 (Appendix A) is a 1935 aerial photograph of the site, which gives an indication of the level of clearing and disturbance that resulted from farming practices at the site. Cattle grazing continued on approximately 170 acres of the Mirror Lake site after OPRD purchased the property. Grazing was intended to control invasive weed species and maintain the pastoral view of the area from Vista House. OPRD ended cattle grazing practices in the early 1990s. Since that time, invasive species have established expansive, dominant communities that prevent significant recruitment of native species and re-establishment of native riparian habitats. The primary invasive species of concern on the site are reed canarygrass (Philaris arundinacea), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), and yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus).


2 December 15, 2008│ 273-3243-004

OPRD has managed the Mirror Lake site as open space with no active recreation since the 1990s. The site has been a top restoration priority for OPRD since its acquisition, but resources unfortunately have not been available to further OPRD’s goals. However, from 2004 through 2006, interest at OPRD, the Estuary Partnership (EP), the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), and other regulatory and resource management agencies coalesced to provide a restoration plan and funding source for the site. In 2005, the EP funded construction of a bridge that provided access for restoration activities and replaced a culvert that was an impediment to fish passage. Additionally, ODOT planned to restore over 100 acres of the site as a component of its statewide mitigation program. However, due to new design and construction performance standards, ODOT’s impacts, and associated mitigation needs were reduced to the point where creation of a mitigation bank was no longer needed or justifiable. In order to take advantage of the desire, baseline studies, and permits completed by ODOT, and plans to restore the site, the EP funded the Mirror Lake Restoration Project.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION On June 6, 2007, the EP awarded Parametrix $243,191 to implement the Mirror Lake Restoration Project. This project originally consisted of the following six tasks:

• Task 1 – Improvement of Fish Passage into the I-84 Culvert

• Task 2 – Improvement of Fish Passage through the I-84 Culvert

• Task 3 – Large Woody Debris Placement in Young Creek

• Task 4 – Riparian Reforestation

• Task 5 – Permitting

• Task 6 – Project Management

On May 27, 2008, the EP executed an amendment adding Task 7 – Monitoring Stream Canopy Cover and Temperature. This task was valued at $5,059. The EP also added $4,845 to Task 6 for assistance with fish monitoring and reference site search bringing the total contract value up to $253,094.

On August 6, 2008, the EP executed a third amendment adding Task 8 – Site-Wide Restoration Plan and Construction Contingency Funding. The total value of this task was $20,500, of which $13,500 was designated for the development of a site-wide conceptual design. The remainder of the funds was to be used either for construction contingencies or additional planning, i.e., a permitting strategy and implementation plan.

The following sections discuss each of these tasks in detail. Aspects addressed include design, construction, monitoring, unique challenges, etc.

2. PROJECT TASKS

2.1 TASKS 1 AND 2 – IMPROVEMENT OF FISH PASSAGE INTO AND THROUGH THE I-84 CULVERT

2.1.1 Introduction As outlined above, in addition to spawning habitat for Lower Columbia River coho salmon, the Mirror Lake site provides rearing and/or off-channel habitat for up to 11 threatened and endangered ESUs, and habitat for other species of interest, including lamprey and sculpins.


December 15, 2008 │ 273-3243-004 3

Access to the site is limited to the I-84 culvert (Appendix A, Figure 5), which restricts access to the site by fish in the Columbia River during the following two scenarios:

• During low flows when water temperatures permit entry (September and October; intermittently during July and August), the culvert restricts use of the site due to piles of riprap that distribute flow and do not provide preferred depths for juvenile or adult passage.

• During elevated on-site flows when the Columbia River is not high enough to backwater into the site (roughly November to March), and the uniform channel and culvert do not provide adequate hydraulic refugia.

In summary, passage conditions into the site are reliably adequate only during spring runoff, when the Columbia River backwaters into the site. During other portions of the year, substrate and hydrologic/hydraulic conditions may limit passage.

2.1.2 Design Design of Tasks 1 and 2 began with a feasibility and cost-benefit analysis (Appendix B). This analysis determined that during certain flow regimes, the I-84 culvert posed a passage constraint that could be addressed with a combination of low-cost solutions. Based on the estimated cost of these improvements and the anticipated benefit, the project team recommended proceeding with Tasks 1 and 2.

To address these passage concerns, the project team proposed a three-part solution:

1. Using existing slots at the upstream end of the culvert, the project team proposed installing a 6-inch cedar plank at the upstream end of the east barrel. The invert elevation of the culvert’s west barrel would remain the same. This difference in elevation would divert the majority of low flows into the west barrel of the culvert, therefore, concentrating low flows in one barrel and increasing water depths.

2. On the culvert’s apron, the project team proposed regrading existing riprap to form two separate channels. Once formed, 15 cubic yards of native substrate (fines, gravel, and cobbles from a nearby Gorge stream) would be used to fill the interstitial spaces. This effort would create a channel with natural characteristics, including a thalweg that would help prevent subsurface flows and therefore provide adequate depths for low flow passage. Natural substrate also would be added to other portions of the culvert to produce the same effect and decrease exposure to jagged riprap.

3. The project team also proposed to place 44 large boulders on the culvert’s apron and within both barrels. These boulders would provide hydraulic refugia during high flows.

Details regarding these actions can be found in the project’s design plan set (Appendix C).

2.1.3 Construction Construction of Tasks 1 and 2 originally was scheduled for early August. However, due to higher than average water levels in the Columbia River, which prevented dewatering of the work area, construction was delayed until late August and the first week of September. Haley Construction, Inc. performed all construction for these tasks with oversight, fish salvage, and field engineering provided by Parametrix. As planned, each barrel was constructed separately, with the dormant barrel being used to carry streamflow and provide fish passage while the dewatered barrel was improved. Appendix D provides a summary of species captured during fish isolation.


4 December 15, 2008│ 273-3243-004

All improvements were constructed as designed, i.e., no significant deviations from the approved design were required. The primary issue encountered during construction occurred during dewatering. The dewatering plan called for a combination of the 6-inch cedar plank on the upstream end of the culvert and a sandbag berm layered with plastic sheeting on the culvert’s apron. This combination was expected to isolate flow in one barrel at a time; however, flows topped the 6-inch cedar plank, and more problematically, the sandbag berm did not prevent water from flowing subsurface and compromising dewatering on the apron. To address this concern, the project team increased the height of the diversion plank with sandbags and plastic sheeting (Photo 1) and used a large plastic sheet (20 feet by 50 feet) to seal the bottom of the culvert and apron and prevent flow from going subsurface (Photo 2). This combination dewatered the channel effectively.

All regrading of existing riprap at the invert was accomplished by hand. A skid steer hauled and placed river run on the invert approach, which was graded by hand. An excavator handed boulders to the skid steer (Photo 3), which hauled and placed them inside the dewatered culvert barrels individually (Photo 4). On the apron, the excavator regraded all existing riprap, placed and graded the river run, and placed all of the boulders.

Photo 1: Upstream dewatering structure Photo 2: Downstream dewatering structure

Photo 3: Loading rock into skid steer Photo 4: Rock placement inside culvert


December 15, 2008 │ 273-3243-004 5

2.1.3.1 Before and After Pictures The following series of pictures details passage conditions at the culvert before and after construction. All “before” pictures were taken in summer and fall 2007 during moderate to low flows. All “after” pictures were taken during low flow conditions in September 2008.

Photo 5: Before – Outlet and Apron (Nov. 2007) Photo 6: After – Outlet and Apron (Sept. 2008)

Photo 7: Before – West Barrel Outlet (Nov. 2007) Photo 8: After – West Barrel Outlet (Sept. 2008)


6 December 15, 2008│ 273-3243-004

Photo 9: Before – West Barrel Outlet (Nov. 2007) Photo 10: After – West Barrel Outlet (Sept. 2008)

Photo 11: Before – Inside of East Barrel (Nov. 2007) Photo 12: After – Inside of East Barrel (Sept. 2008)

Photo 13: Before – Inlet of West Barrel (Sept. 2007) Photo 14: After – Inlet of West Barrel (Sept. 2008)


December 15, 2008 │ 273-3243-004 7

Photo 15: Before – Culvert Inlet (July 2007) Photo 16: After – Culvert Inlet (Sept. 2008)

2.1.4 Monitoring and Maintenance Appendix E contains the monitoring protocol for the Mirror Lake Restoration Project, which will be implemented by Parametrix under a separate contract. Monitoring activities at the culvert consist of the following:

• Visually inspect cedar plank at upstream end of east barrel to determine if it is diverting approximately 75 percent of low flows into the west barrel;

• Measure and monitor the locations and orientations of a subset (10–20 percent) of boulders to determine if they migrate during high-flow events;

• Visually observe and qualitatively assess the effectiveness of boulders at providing hydraulic refugia;

• Measure dimensions of the low-flow channel and its depth of flow to determine if it maintains its geometry and substrate characteristics; and,

• Visually inspect and comment on the general layout, structure, and stability of the low-flow channel and its ability to provide low-flow passage.

These activities will be summarized in a memo that includes photographs from monumented locations, CADD drawings comparing baseline and current conditions, and summary text. Annual monitoring will occur during low flows and, as practical, during elevated winter flows when the Columbia River is not affecting culvert hydrology. To document baseline conditions, monitoring will begin immediately following construction. Subsequent monitoring events will occur 6 months and 1 year after construction, and each summer following a 5-year or greater storm event.

Future maintenance of passage improvements is not anticipated.


8 December 15, 2008│ 273-3243-004

2.2 TASK 3 – LARGE WOODY DEBRIS PLACEMENT IN YOUNG CREEK

2.2.1 Introduction As outlined above, the Mirror Lake site provides rearing habitat for three listed ESUs, off-channel refugia for up to nine threatened and endangered ESUs, and habitat for other species of interest. Several of these species (Chinook and coho salmon, sculpin, and lamprey) have been documented in the upper portions of Young Creek. Lamprey and wild coho salmon are known to use the site year-round as rearing habitat. Coho salmon were observed spawning in this area during November 2008. A 2004 spawning survey noted numerous redds and coho salmon kelts (Parametrix 2004).

When the site was developed for agriculture, its riparian forests were cleared and large portions of its streams were channelized, cleaned of large woody debris (LWD), and bermed. This limited access to off-channel habitats and removed almost all hydraulic refugia and habitat (pool) forming structures. Because one of the primary limiting factors to coho production in Oregon streams is the availability of low-velocity, winter habitats (Nickelson et al. 1992), the EP funded installation of LWD in Young Creek (Appendix A – Figure 5).

2.2.2 Design OPRD donated a total of 65 pieces of LWD for this task. All of these logs were Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and each had their root balls attached. Twelve of the logs were 40–50 feet long with an average diameter of 30 inches. The remaining logs were 20—25 feet long with an average diameter of 18 inches.

Appendix C contains the project’s design drawings, which includes details for Task 3. Design of Task 3 was driven primarily by three factors:

1. The number and dimensions of logs available;

2. The type of habitat to be created; and,

3. Access/construction restrictions.

Based on these factors, the project team formulated two basic designs (Appendix C, Sheet C2). The first was a smaller structure constructed of two to five logs, none of which spanned the entire length of the channel. This structure is intended to create edge effect, provide hydraulic refugia, and create small scour pools. The second structure was a larger, more complex structure composed of five to ten logs. This “log jam” would create a dammed pool upstream of the structure as well as a downstream plunge pool. It also would raise the stream bed, increase water surface elevations, and inundate adjacent wetlands.

Dewatering was not deemed necessary for this task; however, fish would be removed and isolated from the work area using seine nets and electroshocking. Turbidity would be controlled by a silt curtain.

2.2.3 Construction Construction of Task 3 occurred on August 26–29, 2008. Haley Construction, Inc. performed all construction with oversight, fish salvage, and field engineering provided by Parametrix. Appendix D provides a summary of species captured during fish isolation.


December 15, 2008 │ 273-3243-004 9

Several deviations from design plans were required due to permitting and site limitations. These deviations are detailed below.

1. During permitting, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) requested that no structures fully span the creek channel. This request was made due to fish passage concerns, primarily regarding chum salmon (O. keta), which historically occupied the site and could be reintroduced. Consequently, the “log jam” design option was eliminated.

2. Access to the south side of the site is limited to machinery weighing less than 10,000 pounds. The contractor had both large and small (<10,000 lb.) excavators available for the project; however, during initial installation, it was realized that the larger equipment was much more effective at both installing the LWD as desired and limiting impacts (turbidity) to the stream. Additionally, by operating only from one side of the creek, impacts to planted vegetation would be minimized. Consequently, a decision was made to install LWD only from the north side of the creek, which required modification of the smaller design structure. Due to the size of the LWD relative to the creek, sufficient treatment of the full channel still was realized despite this limitation.

3. The steep banks flanking Young Creek limited access to a few select areas. Additionally, the equipment could only be operated at or near a 90-degree angle to the stream (this angle maximized the amount of track available for balance, therefore minimizing the likelihood of tipping equipment) and could not be operated on the wetland bench. Consequently, most logs had to be installed at or near a 90-degree angle to the stream bank.

Despite these limitations, construction went very well. Of particular note, the soils on-site contained a high amount of clay. This clay allowed construction to proceed with minimal impact. Specifically, the project team was able to dig a trench with a narrow (6–12 inch) wall remaining along the streambank. In all but a few instances, this berm held and kept water out of the trench. Not until the log was positioned, a portion of the dirt was backfilled, and the log was pressed through the berm and into place, did water enter the trench. Typically, only a very small amount of water backfilled into the trench, and very little sediment entered the stream.

Additionally, the high levels of clay provided very effective anchoring of the logs. This largely eliminated the need for vertical logs to pin the structures in place. Consequently, all but two of the logs were placed in the creek. This greatly increased the amount of habitat provided to the creek. Photos 17, 18, and 19 show installation of log structures. Figure 6 (Appendix A) provides aerial photos of the site with locations of the LWD structures.


10 December 15, 2008│ 273-3243-004

Photo 17: Installation of LWD structures Photo 18: Installation of LWD structures

Photo 19: Installation of LWD structures

2.2.3.1 Before, During, and After Pictures The following series of pictures detail habitat conditions in Young Creek before, during, and after construction. All pictures were taken during moderate to low flows. Figure 7 (Appendix A) details photopoint locations for Task 3.


December 15, 2008 │ 273-3243-004 11

Structure 2 from Photopoint T3-2:

Photo 20: Before Construction – Looking u/s (Jan. 2005)

Photo 21: After Construction – Looking u/s (Oct. 2008)


Photo 22: Before Construction – Looking d/s (Aug. 2008)

Photo 23: During Construction – Looking d/s (Aug. 2008)


12 December 15, 2008│ 273-3243-004

Photo 24: After Construction – Looking d/s (Sept. 2008)


Photo 25: Before Construction (Aug. 2008) Photo 26: After Construction (Oct. 2008)


December 15, 2008 │ 273-3243-004 13


Photo 27: Before Construction – Looking u/s (Aug. 2008)

Photo 28: During Construction – Looking u/s (Aug. 2008)

Photo 29: After Construction – Looking u/s (Oct. 2008)


14 December 15, 2008│ 273-3243-004


Photo 30: Before Construction – Looking d/s (Aug. 2008)

Photo 31: After Construction – Looking d/s (Oct. 2008)

Structure 10: Although a photopoint had not been established at Structure 10, it is interesting to note that two weeks after construction, beavers had used this structure to anchor a small dam. Two post-construction photos of this structure are included below.

Photo 32: After Construction – Looking u/s (Sept. 2008)

Photo 33: After Construction – Looking u/s (Nov. 2008)


December 15, 2008 │ 273-3243-004 15

2.2.4 Monitoring and Maintenance Appendix E contains the monitoring protocol for the Mirror Lake Restoration Project, which will be implemented by Parametrix under a separate contract. Monitoring of the LWD structures will consist of the following:

• Establish 20 monumented transects and survey elevations across each transect to document changes in the channel’s cross-sectional geometry (Roegner et al. 2006 - Protocol 4.3);

• Document select structures with photographs from monumented locations; and,

• Visually assess recruitment of small woody debris.

These activities will be summarized in a memo that includes photographs from monumented locations, cross-section profiles, survey methodologies, results, and discussions. All monitoring will occur during low flows. To document baseline conditions, monitoring will begin as soon as practical following construction. Subsequent monitoring events will occur 1, 3, and 5 years after construction, and each summer following a 5-year or greater storm event.

Future maintenance of the LWD structures is not anticipated.

2.3 TASK 4 – RIPARIAN REFORESTATION

2.3.1 Introduction As detailed above, the site’s riparian and bottomland forests were cleared approximately 100 years ago and are not regenerating due to expansive monocultures of invasive species. Upstream of the timber bridge, intermittent trees are the only remnants of Young Creek’s historic riparian forest. This condition has resulted in negligible LWD recruitment, very low in-stream habitat complexity (one pool currently exists in the entirety of Young Creek), and instream temperatures that warm rapidly, rendering a large portion the site unsuitable for salmonids during summer months (Parametrix unpublished data).

ODOT implemented 3 years of site preparation designed to deplete the invasive species community and prepare the site for planting. In order to capitalize on this investment and restore critical riparian functions, the EP funded replanting of 28.4 acres of this area, thereby creating a substantial riparian buffer along Young Creek (Appendix A, Figure 5). With continuing maintenance from ODOT and OPRD, overt-time this planting will re-establish a riparian forest and functions (namely shading and LWD recruitment) that are critical to the continuance of Young Creek as viable salmon habitat.

2.3.2 Design The project team’s design utilized agro-forestry principles to facilitate future maintenance (continued invasive species control) and capitalize on lessons learned at the Sandy River Delta restoration site. Table 1 details the species planted along with their density and stock type. Woody and herbaceous species were planted in rows spaced at 10 feet (on-center). Spacing along individual rows varied based on species present, but generally, trees were planted with an average spacing of approximately 5 feet. Shrubs were interspersed amongst the trees.


16 December 15, 2008│ 273-3243-004

Table 1. Mirror Lake Restoration Project – Tree and Shrub Planting List

Species Common Name Stock Type # per acre Acer macrophyllum big-leaf maple 1-0 bare-root-D 17 Abies grandis grand fir 1-1-1 bare-root 8 Alnus rubra red alder 1-0 bare-root-D 50 Cornus stolonifera red-osier dogwood c-1 bare-root-D 40 Crataegus douglasii black hawthorn 1-0 bare-root-COP 40 Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash 1-1 bare-root-W 25 Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash 1-0 bare-root-B 230 Holodiscus discolor oceanspray mp-1 bare-root-W 50 Lonicera involucrata black twinberry mp-1 bare-root-B 50 Mahonia aquifolium tall Oregon grape 1-0 bare-root-B 100 Physocarpus capitatus Pacific ninebark 1-0 bare-root-B 100 Populus trichocarpa black cottonwood 1-0 bare-root-B 300 Psuedotsuga menziesii Douglas fir 1-1 bare-root 30 Rosa pisocarpa swamp rose 1-0 bare-root-B 100 Rubus parviflorus thimbleberry mp-1 bare-root-B 50 Rubus spectabilis salmonberry mp-1 bare-root-B 50 Salix lasiandra Pacific willow mp-1-1 bare-root-W 50 Sambucus cerulea blue elderberry 1-0 bare-root-B 10 Sambucus racemosa red elderberry 1-0 bare-root-B 100 Spiraea douglasii Douglas spiraea mp-1 bare-root-D 130 Symphoricarpos albus snowberry c-1 bare-root-D 240 Thuja plicata Western red cedar P-1 bare-root 20 Populus trichocarpa black cottonwood 6-8-ft whips-D 100

Total Bare-Root Plants per Acre 1890

Notes: 1-0 = seeds sown directly into nursery soil and grown for one season. 1-1 = seeds sown directly into nursery soil, grown for one season, then transplanted and grown for second season. c-1 = cutting from a plant grown in nursery soil for one season. mp-1 = seeds grown in plug trays for half season, then transplanted to nursery soil for remainder of season.

2.3.3 Construction Construction of Task 4 occurred during late January and early February. All improvements were constructed as designed, i.e., no significant deviations from the approved design were required, and no significant issues were encountered during construction. Ash Creek Forest Management (ACFM) installed all of the plantings.


December 15, 2008 │ 273-3243-004 17

Photo 34: Planting bare root shrubs and trees (Jan. 2008)

Photo 35: Planting cottonwood poles (Jan. 2008)

2.3.3.1 Before, During, and After Pictures The following series of pictures detail riparian conditions along Young Creek before, during, and after planting. Figure 7 (Appendix A) details photopoint locations for Task 4.

Photopoint T4-1:

Photo 36: Before site preparation (Aug. 2005) Photo 37: After site preparation, before planting (Feb.

2008)


18 December 15, 2008│ 273-3243-004

Photo 38: After planting (Sept. 2008)

Photopoint T4-2:

Photo 39: Before site preparation (Aug. 2005) Photo 40: During site preparation, before planting

(Oct. 2005)



December 15, 2008 │ 273-3243-004 19

Photopoint T4-3:

Photo 42: During site preparation, before planting (Sept. 2005)

Photo 43: After site preparation, before planting (Feb. 2008)


Photopoint T4-4:

Photo 45: Before site preparation (July 2004) Photo 46: After planting (Nov. 2008)


20 December 15, 2008│ 273-3243-004

2.3.4 Monitoring and Maintenance

Appendix E contains the monitoring protocol for the Mirror Lake Restoration Project, which will be implemented by Parametrix and ACFM under a separate contract. In summary, long-term monitoring of the revegetation areas will consist of the following:

• Monitoring instream temperatures to assess the effect of reforestation on the site’s thermal regime (Roegner et al. 2006 – Protocol 4.2);

• Densiometer readings at monumented locations (Roegner et al. 2006 – Protocol 4.6);

• Documenting the percent survival of woody plantings along monumented transects (Roegner et al. 2006 – Protocol 4.6); and,

• Documenting the percent survival of herbaceous plantings at monumented plots (Roegner et al. 2006 – Protocol 4.6).

These activities will be summarized in a memo that includes survey methodologies; photographs from monumented locations; maps of probe, transect, and plot locations; results; and discussions. All monitoring will occur during summer months.

To document baseline conditions, monitoring will begin during the summer following planting. A subsequent vegetation monitoring event will occur five years after construction. Temperature monitoring will occur during the first two years following construction, then for two years cycles staged at 10 year intervals, i.e., 2018, 2019, 2028, and 2029.

Initial assessments of planting success are provided in Appendix F. ACFM and ODOT will be maintaining all reforested areas until the plantings are established.

2.4 TASK 5 – PERMITTING Due to its location in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (NSA) and within a federal highway corridor, permitting for the Mirror Lake Restoration Project was more complicated than for most restoration projects. Fortunately, much of the permitting effort had been completed during the site’s development as a mitigation bank. Therefore most regulatory requirements either: 1) were programmatic, 2) required only revision and resubmittal of permit information previously provided for the Mirror Lake Bank, and/or 3) were satisfied by active Mirror Lake Bank permits. This combination of factors greatly reduced the cost required to permit the project.

Table 2 details all permits utilized for the project. All approved permits have been provided to the EP; however, copies are available from Parametrix upon request.


December 15, 2008 │ 273-3243-004 21

Table 2. Mirror Lake Restoration Project – Permits

Regulation Permitting Mechanism Permit Number Date

Approved

Federal Permitting Requirements Clean Water Act (§404)a NWP 27 – Stream and Wetland

Restoration NWP-2008-126 6/17/08

Endangered Species Act SLOPES IV NA 6/17/08 Clean Water Act (§401) Certified under NWP 27 NA 6/17/08 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

Addressed by Corps under §404 review

NA 6/17/08

National Scenic Area (NSA) NSA Site Review T2-05-008b 7/1/05

State Permitting Requirements Oregon Removal/Fill General Authorization for Fish

Habitat Enhancement 40051-GA 4/16/08

Scientific Take Permit – Fish Individual Permit Application OR2008-13420 7/10/08 ODOT Access Permit (OAR Ch 734, Div 55)

Permit Application to Perform Operations on a State Highway

2CM37263 6/5/08

ODFW In-Water Work Timing Guidelines

In-water Work Window Extension Requestc

NA 8/18/08

Local Permitting Requirements Multnomah County Grading Erosion Control Code

Grading and Erosion Control Permit Application

T1-08-003 T1-08-004d

4/9/08

Multnomah County Floodplain Development Code

Floodplain Development Permit Application

T1-08-003 T1-08-0044

4/9/08

a The Clean Water Act §404 permit was the federal nexus, therefore the Corps served as the lead federal agency. b Tasks 3 and 4 were completed under permit T2-05-008, which was issued to ODOT for the Mirror Lake Mitigation Bank. Tasks 1

and 2 qualified for a maintenance exemption and therefore, did not require an NSA permit. c Due to higher than average water levels, Tasks 1 and 2 had to be completed after the standard in-water work window ended

(August 31). Consequently, an extension was required. d T1-08-003 included the Grading and Erosion Control and Floodplain Development approvals for Task 3, while T1-08-004 included

both permit approvals for Tasks 1 and 2.

2.5 TASK 6 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT In addition to managing all components of the Mirror Lake Restoration Project (including design, construction, monitoring, and invoicing), Parametrix also provided limited assistance to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in fish sampling at the site. Additionally, Parametrix also provided 30 hours of assistance in the identification of a potential reference site for Mirror Lake. That effort is summarized in Appendix G.

2.6 TASK 7 – MONITORING: STREAM CANOPY COVER AND TEMPERATURE

2.6.1 Introduction The purpose of this task is to collect data that will be used to evaluate the thermal characteristics of surface water within the Mirror Lake site and establish a baseline against which future studies can be compared. Future comparisons will help determine the effect of riparian reforestation and other restoration activities on the site’s thermal regime.


22 December 15, 2008│ 273-3243-004

Task 7 involved only the deployment and retrieval of automated data logging equipment. Data analysis and reporting will be conducted under the 2008-2009 Effectiveness Monitoring Contract.

2.6.2 Methods The project team deployed 11 Vemco™ Minilog TR temperature probes on July 20, 2008. Figure 8 (Appendix A) includes a map detailing the locations of these probes, which were set to record stream temperatures at 30 minute intervals. Due to lower than anticipated effort and a resulting budget surplus, the project team purchased two additional probes, which were deployed on August 6, 2008. Eleven probes were retrieved on September 16, 2008. Although the rebar pins to which they were attached were found in-place, the probes located at the outlets of Latourell Lake and Mirror Lake could not be located. Due to their close proximity to beaver dams, it is assumed that these probes were removed by beavers.

2.6.3 Results All results and conclusions will be detailed in a comprehensive report submitted as part of Parametrix’s 2008-2009 Effectiveness Monitoring Contract.

2.7 TASK 8 – SITE-WIDE RESTORATION PLAN AND CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY FUNDING

The EP funded Task 8 with a dual purpose: 1) to provide future design and planning for the site, and 2) to provide contingency funds for construction. The restoration plan was funded through a transfer of $7,500 of surplus funds from Tasks 1, 2, and 3 as well as by $6,000 added to the contract. $7,000 of contingency funds were provided exclusively by existing funding from Tasks 1, 2, and 3.

The project team was tasked with developing a three-part restoration plan for the entire site:

1. Conceptual Design: Site-wide conceptual design that outlines restoration treatments for specific locations throughout the site.

2. Permitting Strategy: Strategy that minimizes the effort required to comply with the ESA and NSA restrictions. Due to the complex (and therefore, costly) permitting processes required by both of these regulations, streamlining compliance for the entire restoration plan will be critical to cost-effective implementation.

3. Implementation Schedule: A cost-effective and sustainable approach for implementing the activities proposed as part of the conceptual design (with streamlined permitting as a major consideration).

None of the contingency funds were utilized during construction; therefore, sufficient funds were available to develop all components of the conceptual restoration plan. The restoration plan is organized as a stand-alone document and is included in Appendix H.


December 15, 2008 │ 273-3243-004 23

3. REFERENCES

Nickelson, T.E., J.D. Rodgers, S.L. Johnson, and M.F. Solazzi. 1992. Seasonal Changes in Habitat Use by Juvenile Coho Salmon in Oregon Coastal Streams. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci 49: 783-789.

Parametrix. 2004. Unpublished Spawning Survey Data from Young and Latourell Creeks.

Roegner, C., H. Diefenderfer, A. Whiting, A. Borde, R. Thom, and E. Dawley. 2006. Monitoring Protocols for Salmon Habitat Restoration Project in the Lower Columbia River and Estuary. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District.

Sol, Sean Y., O. Paul Olson, Kate H. Macneale, Paul Chittaro, and Lyndal. L. Johnson. 2008. Summary of Results of the Fish Monitoring Component of the Lower Columbia River Ecosystem Monitoring Project 2007-2008.

StreamNet. 2008. Pacific Northwest Interactive Mapper. Accessed online on October 29, 2008. Available at www.streamnet.org.

http://www.streamnet.org/

APPENDIX A

Figures

CO

LU

MB

IA

RIV

ER

Mirr

or L

ake

Site

Cla

rk

Cla

ckam

as

Ska

man

ia

Mul

tnom

ah

Was

hing

ton

Col

umbi

a

Mar

ion

Yam

hill

Hoo

dR

iver

� � �5

� ��205

� ��405

� �26

��217

��14

Por

tland

Van

couv

er

Hill

sbor

o

Gre

sham

Bea

vert

on

Am

boy

Tiga

rd

Cam

as

Hoc

kins

on

Alo

ha

Tual

atin

Ven

ersb

org

Orc

hard

s

Lew

isvi

lle

Bru

sh P

rairi

e

Oat

field

Rid

gefie

ld

Mou

nt V

ista

Bar

berto

n

Wes

t Lin

n

Lake

Osw

ego

Ore

gon

City

Mill

Pla

in

Wils

onvi

lle

Can

by

New

berg

St.

Hel

ens

Trou

tdal

e

Milw

auki

e

Woo

dbur

n

Felid

a

Five

Cor

ners

Fairv

iew

Was

houg

al

Sal

mon

Cre

ek

San

dy

She

rwoo

d

Mea

dow

Gla

de

Ced

ar M

ill

Mou

nt H

ood

Vill

age

Dol

lar C

orne

r

Oak

Gro

ve

Wal

nut G

rove

Mol

alla

Woo

dlan

d

Bat

tle G

roun

d

Che

rry

Gro

ve

Sun

nysi

de

Gla

dsto

ne

Sca

ppoo

se

Hap

py V

alle

y

Min

neha

ha

Ced

ar H

ills

Cor

neliu

s

Cla

ckam

as

Cas

cade

Loc

ks

Roc

kcre

ek

Dun

dee

Oak

Hill

s

Haz

el D

ell N

orth

Nor

th B

onne

ville

Ste

vens

on

Lake

Sho

re

Wes

t Hav

en-S

ylva

n

Haz

el D

ell S

outh

Wes

t Slo

pe

But

tevi

lle

Est

acad

a

Jenn

ings

Lod

ge

Car

son

Riv

er V

alle

y

Met

zger

La C

ente

r

Gar

den

Hom

e-W

hitfo

rd

Ral

eigh

Hill

s

Yac

olt

Col

umbi

a C

ity

Aur

ora

Hub

bard

Woo

d V

illag

e

Nor

th P

lain

s

Dur

ham

Kin

g C

ity

Day

ton

St.

Pau

lD

onal

d

Riv

ergr

ove

May

woo

d P

ark

Bar

low

Roa

ds Free

way

Hig

hway

; Maj

or R

oad

Citi

es

Cou

nty

Bou

ndar

y

05

10

Mile

s

Geo

grap

hic

Dat

a S

tand

ards

:P

roje

cted

Coo

rdin

ate

Sys

tem

:

Lam

bert

Con

form

al C

onic

U

nits

: US

Foo

t

Con

tact

Info

rmat

ion:

Par

amet

rix70

0 N

E M

ultn

omah

Sui

te 1

000

Por

tland

, OR

972

32-2

131

(503

) 23

3-24

00

Dat

a S

ourc

e:

Par

amet

rixTh

is p

rodu

ct is

for i

nfor

mat

iona

l pur

pose

s an

d m

ay n

ot h

ave

been

prep

ared

for l

egal

, eng

inee

ring

or s

urve

ying

pur

pose

s. U

sers

of

this

info

rmat

ion

shou

ld r

evie

w o

r co

nsul

t the

prim

ary

data

and

info

rmat

ion

sour

ce to

asc

erta

in th

e us

abili

ty o

f thi

s in

form

atio

n.

�

Ana

lysi

s by

C. H

aine

y; A

naly

sis

Dat

e: N

ov-2

008;

Plo

t Dat

e: N

ovem

ber 1

1, 2

008;

File

Nam

e: F

igur

e1_M

irror

Lake

JPro

ject

Loca

tion.

mxd

Figu

re 1

:M

irro

r La

ke R

esto

ratio

nS

ite

Pro

ject

Loc

atio

n

Mir

ror

Lake

Site

Bou

ndar

y

01,

000

2,00

03,

000

Feet

Geo

grap

hic

Dat

a S

tand

ards

:P

roje

cted

Coo

rdin

ate

Sys

tem

:

Lam

bert

Con

form

al C

onic

U

nits

: US

Foo

t

Con

tact

Info

rmat

ion:

Par

amet

rix70

0 N

E M

ultn

omah

Sui

te 1

000

Por

tland

, OR

972

32-2

131

(503

) 23

3-24

00

Dat

a S

ourc

e:

Par

amet

rixTh

is p

rodu

ct is

for i

nfor

mat

iona

l pur

pose

s an

d m

ay n

ot h

ave

been

prep

ared

for l

egal

, eng

inee

ring

or s

urve

ying

pur

pose

s. U

sers

of

this

info

rmat

ion

shou

ld r

evie

w o

r co

nsul

t the

prim

ary

data

and

info

rmat

ion

sour

ce to

asc

erta

in th

e us

abili

ty o

f thi

s in

form

atio

n.

Figu

re 2

:M

irro

r La

ke R

esto

ratio

nS

ite

�

Ana

lysi

s by

C. H

aine

y; A

naly

sis

Dat

e: N

ov-2

008;

Plo

t Dat

e: N

ovem

ber 1

1, 2

008;

File

Nam

e: F

igur

e2_P

roje

ctV

icin

ity.m

xd

Pro

ject

Vic

inity

Figu

re 3

: GLO

Sur

vey

Future Site of I-84 Hillslope

Cut Future Site of

Culvert/Bridge

Approximate Future Site of Interchange

Confluence

Figure 4 – 1935 Aerial Photo

��

��

��

��

�G

eogr

aphi

c D

ata

Sta

ndar

ds:

Coo

rdin

ate

Sys

tem

:

NA

D 1

983

Ore

gon

Sta

tew

ide

Lam

bert

Feet

Inte

rnat

iona

lP

roje

ctio

n: L

ambe

rt C

onfo

rmal

Con

ic

Uni

ts: F

eet

Site

Bou

ndar

y

Task

3 -

LW

D S

truct

ures

Task

4 -

Rip

aria

n R

efor

esta

tion

OD

OT

Ref

ores

tatio

n A

reas

Mow

ed A

cces

s R

oad

This

pro

duct

is fo

r in

form

atio

nal p

urpo

ses

and

may

not

hav

e be

en p

repa

red

for l

egal

, en

gine

erin

g or

sur

veyi

ng p

urpo

ses.

Use

rs

of th

is in

form

atio

n sh

ould

revi

ew o

r con

sult

the

prim

ary

data

and

info

rmat

ion

sour

ce to

as

cert

ain

the

usab

ility

of t

his

info

rmat

ion.

Dat

a S

ourc

e:P

aram

etrix

and

Spe

ncer

B. G

ross

700

NE

Mul

tnom

ah S

uite

100

0P

ortla

nd, O

R 9

7232

(503

) 233

-240

0M

irro

r La

keR

esto

ratio

n P

roje

ct

Figu

re 5

:

Ana

lysi

s by

C. H

aine

y; A

naly

sis

Dat

e: N

ov-2

008;

Plo

t Dat

e: N

ovem

ber 1

1, 2

008;

File

Nam

e: F

igur

e5_M

irror

Lake

Res

tora

tionP

roje

ct.m

xd

01,

000

2,00

0

Feet

Res

tora

tion

Act

iviti

es

2

1

13

3

4

5

67

8

9

10

1112

�G

eogr

aphi

c D

ata

Sta

ndar

ds:

Coo

rdin

ate

Sys

tem

:

NA

D 1

983

Ore

gon

Sta

tew

ide

Lam

bert

Feet

Inte

rnat

iona

lP

roje

ctio

n: L

ambe

rt C

onfo

rmal

Con

ic

Uni

ts: F

eet

Site

Bou

ndar

y

This

pro

duct

is fo

r in

form

atio

nal p

urpo

ses

and

may

not

hav

e be

en p

repa

red

for l

egal

, en

gine

erin

g or

sur

veyi

ng p

urpo

ses.

Use

rs

of th

is in

form

atio

n sh

ould

revi

ew o

r con

sult

the

prim

ary

data

and

info

rmat

ion

sour

ce to

as

cert

ain

the

usab

ility

of t

his

info

rmat

ion.

Dat

a S

ourc

e:P

aram

etrix

and

Spe

ncer

B. G

ross

700

NE

Mul

tnom

ah S

uite

100

0P

ortla

nd, O

R 9

7232

(503

) 233

-240

0M

irro

r La

keR

esto

ratio

n P

roje

ct

Figu

re 6

:

Ana

lysi

s by

C. H

aine

y; A

naly

sis

Dat

e: N

ov-2

008;

Plo

t Dat

e: N

ovem

ber 1

1, 2

008;

File

Nam

e: F

igur

e6_M

irror

Lake

Res

tora

tion_

LWD

stru

ctur

es.m

xd

025

050

0

Feet

Loca

tions

of L

WD

Str

uctu

res

in Y

oung

Cre

ek

3

LWD

Stru

ctur

e Lo

catio

n

LWD

Stru

ctur

e ID

Youn

g C

reek

Brid

ge

Youn

g C

reek

Rai

lroad

Cro

ssin

g

� �T4

-3

� �T3

-3

T4-2

/ T3

-1� �

� �T3

-2

T4-1

� �

T3-4� �

� �T3

-5

T4-4

� �

21

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1013

1211

�G

eogr

aphi

c D

ata

Sta

ndar

ds:

Coo

rdin

ate

Sys

tem

:

NA

D 1

983

Ore

gon

Sta

tew

ide

Lam

bert

Feet

Inte

rnat

iona

lP

roje

ctio

n: L

ambe

rt C

onfo

rmal

Con

ic

Uni

ts: F

eet

Site

Bou

ndar

y

Task

4 -

Rip

aria

n R

efor

esta

tion

This

pro

duct

is fo

r in

form

atio

nal p

urpo

ses

and

may

not

hav

e be

en p

repa

red

for l

egal

, en

gine

erin

g or

sur

veyi

ng p

urpo

ses.

Use

rs

of th

is in

form

atio

n sh

ould

revi

ew o

r con

sult

the

prim

ary

data

and

info

rmat

ion

sour

ce to

as

cert

ain

the

usab

ility

of t

his

info

rmat

ion.

Dat

a S

ourc

e:P

aram

etrix

and

Spe

ncer

B. G

ross

700

NE

Mul

tnom

ah S

uite

100

0P

ortla

nd, O

R 9

7232

(503

) 233

-240

0

Mir

ror

Lake

Res

tora

tion

Pro

ject

Figu

re 7

:

Ana

lysi

s by

C. H

aine

y; A

naly

sis

Dat

e: N

ov-2

008;

Plo

t Dat

e: N

ovem

ber 1

1, 2

008;

File

Nam

e: F

igur

e7_M

irror

Lake

Res

tora

tionP

hoto

poin

ts.m

xd

025

050

0

Feet

Pho

topo

int L

ocat

ions

Youn

g C

reek

Brid

ge

Youn

g C

reek

Rai

lroad

Cro

ssin

g

3LW

D S

truct

ure

Loca

tion

LWD

Stru

ctur

e ID

Pho

topo

int L

ocat

ion

and

ID� �

T3-2

� �

� �

� ��

� �

� �

� �

3712

J

3704

J

3713

J

3710

J

3706

J37

09J

3707

J

3703

J

� � � ��

� �37

08J

3705

J 3752

J

3753

J

3711

J

�G

eogr

aphi

c D

ata

Sta

ndar

ds:

Coo

rdin

ate

Sys

tem

:

NA

D 1

983

Ore

gon

Sta

tew

ide

Lam

bert

Feet

Inte

rnat

iona

lP

roje

ctio

n: L

ambe

rt C

onfo

rmal

Con

ic

Uni

ts: F

eet

Site

Bou

ndar

y

This

pro

duct

is fo

r in

form

atio

nal p

urpo

ses

and

may

not

hav

e be

en p

repa

red

for l

egal

, en

gine

erin

g or

sur

veyi

ng p

urpo

ses.

Use

rs

of th

is in

form

atio

n sh

ould

revi

ew o

r con

sult

the

prim

ary

data

and

info

rmat

ion

sour

ce to

as

cert

ain

the

usab

ility

of t

his

info

rmat

ion.

Dat

a S

ourc

e:P

aram

etrix

and

Spe

ncer

B. G

ross

700

NE

Mul

tnom

ah S

uite

100

0P

ortla

nd, O

R 9

7232

(503

) 233

-240

0M

irro

r La

keR

esto

ratio

n P

roje

ct

Figu

re 8

:

Ana

lysi

s by

C. H

aine

y; A

naly

sis

Dat

e: N

ov-2

008;

Plo

t Dat

e: N

ovem

ber 1

1, 2

008;

File

Nam

e: F

igur

e9_M

irror

Lake

Res

tora

tionP

roje

ct_T

empP

robe

.mxd

01,

000

2,00

0

Feet

Tem

pera

ture

Pro

beLo

catio

ns

3712

J

Tem

pera

ture

Pro

be L

ocat

ion

� �

Tem

pera

ture

Pro

be ID

APPENDIX B

I-84 Culvert Feasibility and Cost-Benefit Analysis

M E M O R A N D U M

Date: October 31, 2007

To: Evan Haas – Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership

From: Chris Collins

Subject: Mirror Lake Restoration Project: I-84 Culvert Feasibility & Cost/Benefit Analysis

cc: Bill Warncke (ODOT), John Potter (OPRD), Steve Maltby (PMX), Jill Leary (EP) Evan, As specified in the Mirror Lake Restoration Project contract (No. 07-2008), the intent of Tasks 1 and 2 is to improve passage into and through the Interstate 84 culvert such that adult and juvenile salmonids may access the Mirror Lake site during all flow regimes. Parametrix completed a feasibility and cost-benefit analysis as the first step for Tasks 1 and 2. This memo summarizes that effort and serves as the document by which a decision should be made regarding implementation of Tasks 1 and 2. Section one of this memo identifies salmonids that likely utilize the Mirror Lake site and therefore would benefit from improved passage into and out of the site. Section two details existing culvert conditions. Specifically, section two provides information regarding hydrology, substrate, and in-stream temperatures, combining available data to determine when conditions at the culvert produce a suboptimal setting for juvenile and/or adult salmonid passage. Finally, section three presents an overview of our initial design concepts and how these concepts will benefit passage at the culvert. Section One - Species Benefited by Proposed Passage Improvements Two threatened species, Lower Columbia River coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and steelhead (O. mykiss) spawn and rear within the site (StreamNet 2007; Parametrix 2004; Parametrix 2005). Based on hydrologic and habitat characteristics and two years of spawning survey data, Chinook (O. tshawytscha) and chum (O. keta) salmon are not believed to spawn in Latourell or Young Creeks (Parametrix 2004; Parametrix 2005). However, StreamNet (2007) reports Chinook salmon rearing within the site, and Parametrix biologists observed juvenile Chinook on-site in 2005. This indicates that Chinook salmon spawned in other Columbia River tributaries use the site for rearing. Additionally, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife biologists report that the project area provides off-channel habitat for juvenile and adult salmon and steelhead from threatened and endangered Middle Columbia River, Upper Columbia River, and Snake River ESUs that migrate through, over-winter, and/or rear in the mainstem Columbia River and its off-channel habitats (ODFW, personal communication).

(Rev. 07/13)

Evan Haas October 31, 2007 Page 2 of 10 In summary, the site provides spawning habitat for two threatened ESU’s, rearing habitat for at least three listed ESU’s, and off -channel refugia and/or rearing habitat for up to nine threatened and endangered ESUs. It also may provide habitat for resident and anadromous cutthroat trout (O. clarki) and a variety of other non-listed resident species. Section Two - Existing Passage Conditions at the Culvert The Culvert

The I-84 culvert is a concrete, twin-box culvert that is approximately 237 feet long. The dimensions of each of the culvert’s barrels are 10’ x 10’. The culvert has a concrete bottom; both the upstream and downstream ends have concrete wingwalls and aprons. Slope data are not available for the I-84 culvert; however, estimates from visual inspection indicate that its slope is relatively flat and is not a contributing factor to fish passage concerns. Hydrology

The hydrology of the culvert is determined by two differing systems, the Columbia River and Latourell Creek. Latourell Creek is a third order stream that flows through the site, entering the Columbia River immediately downstream of the I-84 culvert. Its watershed is approximately 8.9 square miles; Young Creek enters it within the site and is its largest tributary.

This relatively low-elevation watershed has a hydrograph characteristic of a rain-driven system (peak flows in the winter, low flows in the summer and early fall). Based on Oregon Water Resources Department flow estimates for other streams in the Gorge, minimum and maximum mean monthly flows in Latourell Creek at the culvert are estimated to be 7.0 cfs (September) and 58.7 cfs (February). Low flows typically persist from July though September, while the highest flows occur from December through May.

The Columbia River is a snow-driven system with peak flows occurring during spring runoff. During these elevated spring flows, the Columbia River exceeds the base elevation of the I-84 culvert. When this occurs, the Columbia River flows through the culvert, inundating large portions of the Mirror Lake site with backwater. Based on a hydrology study conducted by Parametrix (which included an analysis of Columbia River flow data dating to the 1960’s), the average annual duration of backwater in the site is approximately 150 days (Figure 1) (Parametrix 2006a). This backwater period typically extends from late February through mid-July (Figure 2) (Parametrix 2006a). During this period, water depths and velocities in the culvert provide suitable conditions for fish passage.

Hydrologic conditions at the culvert present suboptimal fish passage conditions during periods when the Columbia River is not providing backwater to the site and Latourell Creek is experiencing low or high flows. These conditions typically occur from mid-July through October (low flows) and December through mid-February (high flows). Substrate

As indicated previously, the culvert has a concrete bottom and concrete aprons. These aprons are backfilled with angular rip-rap of varying sizes, which disperses flow such that no thalweg exists (Photos 1 and 5). At the downstream end of the culvert, a significant portion of Latourell Creek’s flow is subsurface – a situation that creates suboptimal passage conditions for both adults and juveniles. During elevated flows, passage is difficult due to angular rock (which can cause injuries) and a lack of resting spots, i.e., hydraulic refugia. Similar conditions exist in the two riffles located downstream of the culvert (Photos 5 and 6).

Evan Haas October 31, 2007 Page 3 of 10 At the upstream end of the culvert, the first 15-20 feet of its interior has a significant amount of rip-rap that has been pushed into the culvert (Photo 2). This is the only substrate other than fines that exists within the culvert. During low flows, water disperses through these mounds of rip-rap, significantly impeding passage.

In the remainder of the culvert, very little substrate exists (Photo 3). During elevated flows, this results in a lack of hydraulic refugia. During low flows, water depths may prevent passage for adults. Temperature

During a 2005 temperature study conducted by Parametrix, daily in-stream temperatures at the culvert averaged a low of 20.9°C (70°F) from July 15th through August 31st. During the same period, mean daily maximum temperatures at the culvert were 26.4°C (80°F). Although this thermal regime will pose a barrier to fish passage during portions of July and August, daily low temperatures often are cool enough to allow passage into the site (Parametrix 2006b). Additionally, during summer months, there typically are brief cool, wet, and/or overcast periods that drop the site’s more dynamic instream temperatures below those of the mainstem Columbia River (Parametrix 2006b). During these periods, access to the site would be attractive as a cool-water refuge. Once in the site, temperatures in the mid- and upper portions of both Young and Latrourell Creeks are suitable for salmonid rearing year-round and therefore provide valuable off-channel habitat (Parametrix 2006b). Summary of Passage Conditions

In summary, passage into the site is limited by substrate and hydrologic/hydraulic conditions during all or portions of January, February, July, August, September, October, and December. Although mean daily maximum temperatures during July and August exceed National Marine Fisheries Service standards, daily low temperatures (as well as temperatures during cool, wet periods) typically drop to levels that would not only permit passage into the site, but also make it attractive as a cool-water refuge. Section Three - Summary of Design Concepts As stated previously, the intent of Tasks 1 and 2 is to improve passage into and through the Interstate 84 culvert such that adult and juvenile salmonids may access the site during all flow regimes. Parametrix’s initial design concepts are outlined below. Task 2 is presented first as its design affects that of Task 1, which builds on the solution for Task 2. Task 2: Improve Passage through the I-84 Culvert

Task 2 is intended to improve passage within the I-84 culvert. ODOT provided Parametrix with as-built drawings of the culvert, which indicated that it was built with slots at its upstream end (Photo 1). These slots are intended to house boards used to control Mirror Lake’s water surface elevation. Remnant boards remain in this slot; however, approximately 18 inches of additional height can be added via this feature.

Using the existing slots, the project team proposes to add an additional six to ten inches of board height at the upstream end of the culvert’s east barrel. This will be accomplished by replacing the existing boards with a steel plank that spans the entire width of the culvert. Across the entrance to the west barrel, its maximum elevation will be approximately the same as the existing board’s maximum elevation. However, across the entrance to the east barrel, the steel plank’s maximum elevation will be approximately six to ten inches higher. This difference in elevation at the culvert’s entrance will divert low flows into the west barrel of the culvert,

Evan Haas October 31, 2007 Page 4 of 10 therefore concentrating low flows in one barrel and increasing water depths. During periods of elevated flows and/or Columbia River backwater, flows will overtop the steel plank creating equal elevations in both barrels.

Pending ODOT approval, the project team also proposes to place baffles and/or boulders in the culvert to further increase depths during low flows and provide hydraulic refugia during high flows. Task 1: Improve Passage into the I-84 Culvert

Task 1 is intended to improve passage immediately downstream of the I-84 culvert. The project team’s conceptual design proposes to use native substrate (gravels, cobbles, and boulders) to recreate a natural stream channel. This channel will feature a thalweg that will provide adequate depths for passage through the two riffles immediately downstream of the culvert during low flows. This recreated channel also will help prevent subsurface flows and provide hydrologic refugia.

Natural substrate also will be added to other portions of the channel to decrease exposure to jagged rip-rap and provide hydrologic refugia during elevated flows. Cost estimate A detailed cost estimate is not available at this time; however, the conceptual design has changed little from initial concepts provided in the project proposal. As a result, the cost estimate provided at that time is still accurate. The costs estimated for the proposal are as follows:

Task 1: $42,217 ($37,995 Partnership Contribution)

Task 2: $43,925 ($23,196 Partnership Contribution) Summary The I-84 culvert poses a significant fish passage constraint during certain flow regimes. Due primarily to site access and the structure of the culvert, several low-cost solutions are available to improve passage. Based on the estimated cost of these improvements and the anticipated benefit, the project team recommends proceeding with Tasks 1 and 2. Sincerely, Chris Collins Mirror Lake Project Manager 503-230-8161

Evan Haas October 31, 2007 Page 5 of 10 References: ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2007. Personal communication with Art

Martin, ODFW Fisheries Biologist. May 2007.

Parametrix. 2004. Mirror Lake Mitigation Bank - Spawning Survey Memorandum prepared for the Oregon Department of Transportation. Portland, Oregon.

Parametrix. 2005. Mirror Lake Mitigation Bank - Spawning Survey Memorandum prepared for the Oregon Department of Transportation. Portland, Oregon.

Parametrix. 2006a. Mirror Lake Mitigation Bank - Hydrologic Technical Memorandum prepared for the Oregon Department of Transportation. Portland, Oregon.

Parametrix. 2006b. Mirror Lake Mitigation Bank – Draft Thermal Profile Technical Memorandum prepared for the Oregon Department of Transportation. Portland, Oregon.

StreamNet. 2007. StreamNet Pacific Northwest Interactive Mapper. Accessed online on October 17, 2007 at http://map.streamnet.org/snetmapper/viewer.htm

http://map.streamnet.org/snetmapper/viewer.htm

Evan Haas October 31, 2007 Page 6 of 10

Photo 1: Upstream end of the culvert. Note slots for inserted water level control boards.

Photo 2: Upstream end of the west barrel.


Photo 3: Inside of the east barrel of the culvert.

Photo 4: Downstream end of the west barrel.


Photo 5: Downstream end of the culvert and the first of two riffles located downstream of it.

Photo 6: The first of the two riffles located downstream of the culvert.

Col

umbi

a R

iver

Dur

atio

n A

naly

sis

Dur

atio

n ba

sed

on A

vera

ge D

aily

Flo

w b

etw

een

1966

to 2

005

Dur

atio

ns fr

om m

ean

Dai

ly F

low

bet

wee

n O

ctob

er 2

004

to S

epte

mbe

r 20

05

0.0

50.0

100.

0

150.

0

200.

0

250.

0

300.

0

350.

0

400.

0

450.

0

020

4060

8010

012

014

016

018

020

022

024

026

028

030

032

034

036

038

0

Num

ber

of D

ays

Flow

s E

xcee

ded

this

Val

ue

Discharge in thousands of cfs

Ave

rage

Dai

ly F

low

2004

- 20

05 F

low

Bac

kwat

er a

t I-8

4 S

taff

Gag

e

Col

umbi

a R

iver

Flo

ws

Ave

rage

Dai

ly F

low

50100

150

200

250

300

350 24

-Dec

14-J

an4-

Feb

25-F

eb18

-Mar

8-A

pr29

-Apr

20-M

ay10

-Jun

1-Ju

l22

-Jul

12-A

ug2-

Sep

23-S

ep14

-Oct

4-N

ov25

-Nov

16-D

ec6-

Jan

Day

and

Mon

th

Discharge in thousands cfs

2005

Ave

rage

(196

6 to

200

5)B

ackw

ater

Thr

esho

ld

APPENDIX C

Design Drawings

APPENDIX D

Fish Salvage Summary

Mirror Lake Restoration Project Fish Salvage Summary

At the LWD project site, fish were removed primarily through the use of electroshocking. Seining initially was used; however, that method generated high levels of turbidity. Electroshocking proved to be very successful and fish were recovering quickly, therefore the use of seine nets was terminated except within one large pool where electroshocking was impractical.

A block net was set at the downstream limit of each project area, and the crew worked upstream with the electroshocker and/or seine, setting a block net behind them once they reached the upstream end of the work area. The electroshocker was used to both capture fish and push them upstream through the work area. Numerous fish were seen escaping upstream, therefore we felt we were effectively “herding” fish out of the work area.

All captured fish were held temporarily in 5-gallon buckets and released upstream of the project area immediately after salvage was completed. All individuals recovered in a relatively short period of time. All fish recovered fully before they were released, and no mortalities or injuries were observed.

Table 1: Summary of Species Captured at LWD Sites Species Scientific Name Number Captured Life Stage

Coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch 188 juvenile Three-spine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus 307 unknown

Lamprey Lampetra spp. 40 juvenile Sculpin Cottus spp. 168 juvenile & adult

Unidentified minnow unknown 23 unknown

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 4 juvenile & adult

At the culvert site, the water was too warm for electroshocking, therefore seine nets were used exclusively. This method was very effective because given the culvert’s uniform dimensions, it was easy to seine. At this site, block nets were set upstream of the work area, and the seine was run downstream through the project area. Once the seine passed the downstream end, a second block net was set. Additionally, as the culvert was dewatered, biologists stood by to net fish that had been missed during the first pass and transport them upstream. Again, all fish were released quickly and no mortalities or injuries were noted.

Table 2: Summary of Species Captured at the Culvert Site Species Scientific Name Number Captured Life Stage Sculpin Cottus spp. 27 juvenile & adult Minnow unknown 29 unknown

Common carp Cyprinus carpio 51 juvenile Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 21 juvenile Crayfish unknown 41 juvenile & adult

APPENDIX E

Monitoring Plan

Monitoring Plan: Mirror Lake Restoration Project

Tasks 1 and 2: Improve Passage Into and Through I-84 Culvert

Goals and Associated Monitoring Methods:

Goal 1: • Goal: Provide hydraulic refugia during elevated flows. • Monitoring: Measure locations and orientations of select boulders (10-20% subset).

Document locations on CADD drawings and orientations with physical markings (spray paint). Visually inspect and comment on general layout and effectiveness at providing hydraulic refugia. Photos from monumented location(s).

• Criterion for success: Boulders remain in place, are evenly distributed throughout both culvert barrels, and provide effective refugia.

• Timing: Once during summer low flows, and if practical, once during elevated winter flows.

• Frequency: Immediately after construction (document boulder locations). Monitor six months (if practical) and one year after construction, and each summer following a 5-year or greater storm event.

• Target Implementation Date: September 2008 – collect baseline (as-built) data; Winter 2008/2009 – initiate monitoring.

Goal 2: • Goal: Concentrate low flows in the culvert’s west barrel to improve passage conditions

during low flow periods. • Monitoring: Visually inspect inlet diversion. Photos from monumented location(s). • Criterion for success: Plank at upstream end of east barrel remains in place and is

diverting approximately 75% of low flows into the west barrel. • Timing: Monitor during summer low flows. • Frequency: Immediately after construction (document baseline performance) and one

year after construction. Each summer following a 5-year or greater storm event. • Target Implementation Date: September 2008 – collect baseline (as-built) data; Summer

2009 – initiate monitoring.

Goal 3: • Goal: Improve passage through apron of culvert by creating a more natural stream

channel. • Monitoring: Measure channel dimensions, locations of boulders, and depth of flow.

Visually inspect and comment on general layout, structure, and stability of channel. Photos from monumented location(s).

• Criterion for success: Constructed channel maintains geometry and substrate characteristics. Minimum depth of 4” maintained during low flows. Boulders remain in place and provide adequate hydraulic refugia.

• Timing: Monitor during high and low flows. • Frequency: Immediately after construction (document boulder locations, channel

dimensions, water depths, etc.). Monitor once during high flows and once during low flows during first year after construction. During subsequent years, monitor each summer following a 5-year or greater storm event.

• Target Implementation Date: September 2008 – collect baseline (as-built) data; Winter 2008/2009 – initiate monitoring.

Page 1 of 4

Reporting: Summary memo that includes the following:

• Photographs from monumented locations; • CADD drawings comparing baseline (as-built) and current conditions (e.g.,

boulders locations and channel dimensions); and, • Text summarizing shifting of boulders, performance of low-flow diversion

plank, performance of channel, etc.

Page 2 of 4

Task 3: Install LWD Structures in Young Creek


Goal 1: • Goal: Improve in-stream habitat and hydrologic diversity. • Monitoring: Roegner et al. 2006 – Protocol 4.3. Establish 5 monumented transects at 5-

10’ spacing below approximately 4 structures. Survey elevations across each transect to determine the channel’s cross-sectional geometry. Document cross-sections with photographs from monumented locations.

• Criterion for success: Creation of hydraulic refugia and pool habitat, particularly off-channel pools (i.e., alcoves) and lateral scour pools.

• Timing: Survey cross-sections during summer low flows. Photograph and visually observe structure performance during high and low flows.

• Frequency: Immediately after construction. Also, one, three, and five years after construction. After 5 years, survey and photograph cross-sections each summer following a 5-year or greater storm event.

• Target Implementation Date: September 2008.

Goal 2: • Goal: Provide structure for recruitment of debris (leaves, twigs, needles, etc.) to promote

increased insect production. • Monitoring: Visually assess and qualitatively describe recruitment. Photographs from

monumented locations. • Criterion for success: Structures effectively recruit small woody debris. • Timing: Monitor during summer low flows. • Frequency: Not critical – monitor during other field efforts, e.g., cross-sections. • Target Implementation Date: September 2008.

Reporting: Summary memo that includes the following:

• Cross-section profiles (Excel format) comparing baseline (as-built) and current conditions;

• Photographs from monumented locations; • Shapefile with cross-section, photopoint, and reference locations; and, • Text summarizing methodology and results.

Page 3 of 4

of 4

Task 4: Riparian Reforestation


Goal 1: • Goal: Increase canopy cover/stream shading and reduce instream temperatures • Monitoring: Roegner et al. 2006 – Protocol 4.2. Use dataloggers to record instream

temperatures at ½-hour intervals. Probes will be located so as to replicate ODOT’s 2005 temperature study. Four additional probes would be added, one in the middle portion of Young Creek and three near the outlet of Latourell Lake.

• Criterion for success: 10 years after planting, maintain baseline increases in temperature between the Young Creek – RR and Young Creek – Bridge monitoring locations.

• Timing: Approximately July 15 – September 15 • Frequency: Baseline data during first two summers following planting (2008 and 2009).

Post-planting monitoring to occur for a period of two years at ten year intervals, i.e., 2018, 2019, 2028, 2029, etc.

• Report: Follow ODOT methodology and format (data and graphs in Excel format; maps showing data summary and areas of habitat usage for coho and smallmouth; summary text).

• Target Implementation Date: July 2008. Goal 2:

• Goal: Increase canopy cover/stream shading. • Monitoring: Densiometer readings at monumented locations (select LWD cross-sections,

vegetation plots, and others as specified). • Criterion for success: After 10 years, >50% average reach shading at center of channel. • Timing: Summer (when cross-sections and vegetation plots are surveyed). • Frequency: During vegetation monitoring, LWD cross-sections, and temperature studies. • Report: Incorporate results into temperature report. • Target Implementation Date: July 2008.

Goal 3:

• Goal: Reestablish native riparian forest. • Monitoring: Roegner et al. 2006 – Protocol 4.6. Measure survival and percent cover of

woody and herbaceous vegetation by: o Establishing woody species monitoring transects randomly within existing

planting rows; o Establishing herbaceous monitoring plots at each end of the monitoring transects; o Collecting data for percent survival of woody plantings (transects) and percent

cover for herbaceous strata (plots); and, o Taking densiometer readings at monumented locations to assess canopy cover.

Locations of transects and plots will be recorded with GPS and transferred onto aerial photographs. Photos will be taken from monumented locations.

• Criterion for success: 70% tree and shrub survival of initial planting stock after 5 years. 60% survival of initial planting stock after 10 years.

• Timing: June/July. • Frequency: Once annually during years 1 and 5. Frequency beyond year 5 TBD. • Report: Summary memo detailing methods and results. Include locations of plots and

photos from monumented locations. • Target Implementation Date: Summer 2008.

APPENDIX F

Post-Planting Site Assessments

700 NE MULTNOMAH, SUITE 1000

PORTLAND, OR 97232-4110

T. 503.233.2400 F, 503.233.4825

www.parametrix.com

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Date: May 14, 2008

To: Evan Haas, Restoration Coordinator

From: Mark Vlahakis

Subject: Post-Planting Site Assessment

cc: Chris Collins

Project Number: 273-3243-004

Project Name: Mirror Lake Reforestation Project The Mirror Lake reforestation project area (site) was visited on May 13, 2008, by Mark Vlahakis and Chris Collins of Parametrix. The purpose was to visually assess the condition of the site regarding plant establishment and growth from the recent reforestation planting and seeding. The woody plantings (trees and shrubs) have emerged from dormancy and generally show good to excellent vigor. Being early in the first growing season, there is expected to be nominal growth as plants focus energy on developing their root systems. Shrub leaf-out is strong, except for Oregon grape which shows signs of general die-back. Trees are in the very early stages of leaf out. Some of the cottonwood poles show signs of damage by rubbing (deer/elk). This is estimated at less than 10% and most of these have resprouted on lower, secondary buds. There is evidence of browse on several cedars, and a handful of cottonwood poles have been cut down by beaver in the far eastern portion of the site. There is little to no evidence of beaver impacts to plantings installed along the creek. Herbaceous species are establishing good cover between the planted rows (the rows themselves are being maintained for woody plants). Herbaceous cover at this early stage is dominated by grasses (estimated 30-60% cover) with few forbs evident at this time (lupine, yarrow, gilia). Grass identification is difficult at this stage, though some individual species are evident such as slender hairgrass, meadow barley, blue wildrye, along with the two bunch grasses that were seeded: tufted hairgrass and spike bentgrass. There are some invasive species emerging from the seedbank. Himalayan blackberry seedlings are present, though scattered and in relatively low numbers. Teasel rosettes are present and numerous in localized areas (west side by bridge), while Canada thistle rosettes are more numerous and generally site-wide except for the wetter depressions.

700 NE MULTNOMAH, SUITE 1000

PORTLAND, OR 97232-4110

T. 503.233.2400 F, 503.233.4825

www.parametrix.com

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Date: September 11, 2008

To: Evan Haas, Restoration Coordinator

From: Mark Vlahakis

Subject: Post-Planting Site Assessment

cc: Chris Collins

Project Number: 273-3243-004

Project Name: Mirror Lake Reforestation Project The Mirror Lake reforestation project area (site) was visited on August 27, 2008, by Mark Vlahakis and George Kral of Ash Creek Forest Management, LLC. The purpose of the visit was to visually assess the overall condition of the site regarding plant establishment and growth from this year’s reforestation planting and seeding. Formal monitoring is being conducted by Ash Creek Forest Management under a separate Estuary Partnership contract and will provide a more detailed assessment of vegetation establishment and growth characteristics at the site. The woody plantings (trees and shrubs) are generally showing good vigor for late summer conditions. There is plant mortality, but it is not clear from casual observations what the survival rate is overall, or survival rates within species or different planting areas. It is useful to keep in mind that woody plantings have concentrated on root establishment and growth during their first growing season, rather than vegetative top growth. Succeeding years should show accelerated top growth. Most of the cottonwood poles have been impacted by rubbing from deer and/or elk, although the vast majority of these are alive and have emerging growth from secondary buds. Previous planting experience with cottonwood poles indicate that those plants that survive this first year will show greatly accelerated top growth in the ensuing years. Other deciduous trees (Oregon ash, red alder, etc.) show spotty mortality and browse impact. Beaver browse is concentrated on willow plantings near Young Creek and does not appear to be widespread on any other trees species. Conifers seem to have a higher mortality rate, especially cedars, though remaining live plants show excellent vigor. Shrub survival appears good, except for Oregon grape which experienced general die-back. Red-osier dogwood has experienced extensive browse, though most plants appear alive, but with moderate to low vigor. Some of the smaller plants (Oregon grape, oceanspray, elderberry) are being shaded from the taller grasses within the herbaceous layer. Douglas spirea, and to a slightly lesser extent Pacific ninebark and twinberry, show high vigor and growth with little or no browse impact.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED)

Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership 273-3243-004Post-Planting Site Assessment 2 September 11, 2008

Herbaceous species have established good cover throughout the site. Herbaceous cover is generally estimated at >80% cover and dominated by grasses such as spike bentgrass, meadow barley, and blue wildrye. Forbs are noticeably sparse, but that was to be expected due to competition from the more aggressive and more heavily seeded grasses. There are invasive species present in most of the planting areas, though only a few areas contain dense coverage. Himalayan blackberry seedlings are present, though scattered and in relatively low numbers. Teasel rosettes are present and numerous in areas just north the Young Creek bridge. Canada thistle and reed canarygrass are currently wide-spread and will likely present maintenance challenges in the ensuing years.

APPENDIX G

Reference Site Search

M E M O R A N D U M

Date: December 15, 2008

To: Krista Jones – Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership (EP)

From: Chris Collins

Subject: Mirror Lake Restoration Project: Reference Site Search

cc: Evan Haas - EP Krista,

Per Task 6 in our contract with the Estuary Partnership, Parametrix spent thirty hours reviewing potential reference sites for the Mirror Lake project. Parametrix reviewed nine potential sites, including four that currently are being monitored by the Pacific Northwest National Lab (Hamilton, Hardy, Horsetail, and McCord Creeks). This memorandum provides a brief outline of each site and a discussion of its applicability as a reference for the Mirror Lake site.

Potential sites in Oregon

Multnomah and Wahkeena Creeks: Multnomah and Wahkeena Creeks flow through Benson State Park, entering the Columbia River approximately six miles upstream of the Mirror Lake site. Both streams share several characteristics with Young and Latourell Creeks, including size, gradient (both within and upstream of the site), and protected watersheds. However, the low-gradient portions of the streams are located in Benson State Park, which is developed and managed for active recreation and receives heavy use. The riparian areas of both streams are paved, mowed, and/or dominated by Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor). Consequently, the site is too impacted by anthropogenic activities to be used as a reference site.

Multnomah Creek near pond outlet Benson State Park

(Rev. 07/13)

Reference Site Search December 15, 2008 Page 2 of 6 Oneonta and Horsetail Creeks: Oneonta and Horsetail Creeks are second-order streams that flow through Ainsworth State Park. Horsetail Creek is a tributary to Oneonta Creek, which enters the Columbia River approximately nine miles upstream of the Mirror Lake site. Oneonta Creek shares few characteristics with Young and Latourell Creeks; however, Horsetail Creek is of similar size and has several similarities. Like Young and Latourell Creeks, Horsetail Creek flows a short distance below its falls before its gradient flattens, and it meanders through a forested wetland and into a pond/wetland complex. Additionally, StreamNet reports that Horsetail Creek supports several species of anadromous salmonids. Below its railroad and historic highway crossings, invasive species dominate its riparian areas. Consequently, it likely is too impacted to be useful as a reference site for vegetation monitoring. However, a sufficient number of legacy trees, and therefore canopy, remain to potentially provide a viable reference for temperature and LWD monitoring. A spawning population of coho salmon also may provide a viable reference for monitoring fish communities in the upper portions of the Mirror Lake site. Additional investigation is warranted to assess the suitability of this site as a reference for these parameters.

Horsetail Creek – d/s of historic highway Horsetail Creek Ponds

McCord Creek: McCord Creek is a first-order stream that enters the Columbia River approximately twelve miles upstream of the Mirror Lake site. McCord Creek shares few characteristics with Young and Latourell Creeks. Specifically, it has moderate to high gradient, is dominated by cobble and boulder substrate, and does not flow through a pond or lake before entering the Columbia River. Additionally, access is very difficult. For these reasons, McCord Creek is not recommended as a reference site.1

1 Due to access difficulties, pictures of McCord Creek are not available for this report.

Reference Site Search December 15, 2008 Page 3 of 6 Potential sites in Washington

Gibbons Creek: Gibbons Creek is a third-order stream located in Clark County. It enters the Columbia River approximately four miles downstream of the Mirror Lake site. The portion of Gibbons Creek that flows through the Columbia River floodplain is highly disturbed by agricultural activities, and its riparian area has retained few of its natural characteristics. It is not recommended for use as a reference site.

Gibbons Creek – u/s of Highway 14 Gibbons Creek riparian areas within the

Columbia River floodplain

Franz Lake: The Franz Lake National Wildlife Refuge is located in Skamania County. Due to access restrictions, Franz Lake could not be surveyed; however, based on a review of available information, it appears to be the least disturbed floodplain habitat in this portion of the river. It shares many characteristics with the Mirror Lake site, including expansive wetlands and shallow open water systems in close proximity to the Columbia River. However, it functions primarily as a backwater area and receives little inflow from surrounding drainages. Consequently, its hydrology is significantly different. For these reasons, it would not be appropriate as a reference for temperature and LWD, but likely would be useful as a reference for monitoring fisheries in the lower portion of the Mirror Lake site as well as vegetation.

Franz Lake – Looking d/s from Hwy 14 Franz Lake – Location Unknown

Reference Site Search December 15, 2008 Page 4 of 6 Duncan Creek: Duncan Creek is a first-order stream located in Skamania County. It enters the Columbia River approximately eleven miles upstream of the Mirror Lake site. Duncan Creek shares few characteristics with Young and Latourell Creeks. Specifically, it has moderate gradient, is dominated by cobble and boulder substrate, and is flanked by paved roads through much of the Columbia River floodplain. Similar to the Mirror Lake site, Duncan Creek flows through a large wetland complex prior to entering the river; however, this wetland is impounded seasonally to form a lake. The outlet of the lake, which is used for recreation, is screened to prevent entry of fish from the Columbia River. For the aforementioned reasons, Duncan Creek is not recommended for use as a reference site.

Duncan Creek near Hwy 14 crossing Wetland near mouth of Duncan Creek

Woodward Creek: Woodward Creek is a second-order stream located in Skamania County. It flows through Beacon Rock State Park and enters the Columbia River approximately twelve miles upstream of the Mirror Lake site. Woodward Creek shares few characteristics with Young and Latourell Creeks. Specifically, it has moderate gradient, is dominated by cobble and boulder substrate, and does not flow through a pond, lake, or wetland complex before entering the Columbia River. Additionally, it has a low elevation road crossing that washed out during a recent flood event. Woodward Creek is not recommended for use as a reference site.

Woodward Creek – Looking u/s Woodward Creek – Looking d/s

Reference Site Search December 15, 2008 Page 5 of 6 Hardy Creek: Hardy Creek is a first-order stream located in Skamania County. Above Highway 14, it is a high gradient system that shares few characteristics with either Young or Latourell Creek. Due to access restrictions, the portion of Hardy Creek located between Highway 14 and the Columbia River could not be surveyed. Further investigation may be warranted as this low gradient portion of the stream flows through a wildlife refuge located in the Columbia River floodplain. The protected status this affords may have preserved habitat, potentially making it useful as a reference site. Additionally, StreamNet reports spawning and rearing habitat for several salmonids in Hardy Creek. For these reasons, additional investigation is recommended.

Hardy Creek – Looking u/s from Hwy 14 Hardy Creek – Looking d/s from Hwy 14

Hamilton Creek: Hamilton Creek is a third-order stream located in Skamania County. It flows through the town of North Bonneville, entering the Columbia River approximately two miles downstream of Bonneville Dam. Hamilton Creek shares few characteristics with Young and Latourell Creeks. Specifically, it has moderate gradient, is dominated by cobble and boulder substrate, and has a significant amount of residential and commercial development in its lower reach (including three road crossings). Additionally, it does not flow through a pond, lake, or wetland complex, but rather receives inflow from a lake surrounded by extensive residential development. Hamilton Creek is not recommended for use as a reference site.

Hamilton Creek – Looking u/s Hamilton Creek – Looking d/s

Reference Site Search December 15, 2008 Page 6 of 6

Conclusions:

The Mirror Lake site is larger and more diverse than most floodplain habitats located in the upper portion of the Columbia River Estuary. Consequently, finding one reference site that provides a viable reference for all habitats and parameters being monitoring at the Mirror Lake site is not practical. Based on the review of potential reference sites presented in this memorandum, Parametrix recommends the following sites for each parameter being monitored at Mirror Lake.

Horsetail Creek2:

Large Woody Debris

Temperature

Fisheries (Mirror Lake monitoring locations #2 and #3)

Franz Lake:

Fisheries (Mirror Lake monitoring locations #1 and #4)

Sand Island (side channel):

Vegetation

2 Recommendations regarding Horsetail Creek are preliminary. A detailed site visit with EP staff is recommended prior to making a final determination regarding its use as a reference site.

APPENDIX H

Conceptual Restoration Plan

Mirror Lake Conceptual Restoration Plan

Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership Contract No. 07-2008

Prepared for

Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership 811 SW Naito Parkway, Suite 120

Portland, OR 97204

Prepared by

Parametrix 700 NE Multnomah, Suite 1000

Portland, OR 97232-4110 503-233-2400

www.parametrix.com

December 15, 2008 │ 273-3243-004

http://www.parametrix.com/

CITATION

Parametrix. 2008. Mirror Lake Conceptual Restoration Plan. Prepared by Parametrix, Portland,

Oregon. December 15, 2008.

Mirror Lake Conceptual Restoration Plan Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership

December 15, 2008 │ 273-3243-004 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION TO THE SITE............................................................................ 1 1.1 SITE HISTORY............................................................................................................ 1

2. CONCEPTUAL RESTORATION PLAN................................................................ 2 MA1: Riparian Plantings – Latourell Creek................................................................. 3 MA2: Riparian Plantings – Latourell Lake and Latourell Creek ................................. 5 MA3: Habitat Structures – Latourell Lake, Latourell Creek, and Young Creek.......... 7 MA4: Riparian Plantings – Select Young and Latourell Creek Riparian Areas ........ 10 MA5: Riparian Plantings – Young Creek .................................................................. 13 MA6: Wetland Enhancement/Off-Channel Habitat Creation (Excavation)............... 15 MA7: Wetland Enhancement ..................................................................................... 18

3. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .................................................................................... 20

4. PRIORITY RANKING.......................................................................................... 21

5. PERMITTING STRATEGY.................................................................................. 22

6. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE ....................................................................... 25

7. REFERENCES.................................................................................................... 27

LIST OF TABLES 1 Management Activity Evaluation Matrix ................................................................ 21 2 Permitting Strategy.................................................................................................. 23

FIGURES 1 Mirror Lake Restoration Site Project Vicinity

2 GLO Survey

3 1935 Aerial Photo

4 Mirror Lake Conceptual Design


December 15, 2008 │ 273-3243-004 1

1. INTRODUCTION TO THE SITE The Mirror Lake site is a 390-acre parcel located within Rooster Rock State Park, approximately 10 miles east of Troutdale in the Columbia River Gorge (Gorge). I-84 forms the site’s northern boundary; the Union Pacific Railway rail line forms the southern boundary. The primary land use in the vicinity of the site is undeveloped forest, much of which is owned by the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD) (Figure 1). Approximately 50 percent of the site’s watershed is in public ownership.

The Mirror Lake site is unique in that it provides a large, contiguous tract of historic bottomland hardwood forest within the Columbia River floodplain. The site includes two lakes, two streams (Young and Latourell Creeks), expansive wetlands, and remnants of its bottomland hardwood forest. Latourell and Young Creeks enter the site as moderate gradient systems with gravel/cobble substrate, but quickly transition to meandering, low gradient streams flanked by extensive wetlands. Both streams support spawning populations of Lower Columbia River coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) (StreamNet 2008; Parametrix 2004). Both streams also provide rearing and/or off-channel habitat for steelhead (O. mykiss) and Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), potentially from both Lower Columbia and up-river evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (StreamNet 2008; Sol et al. 2008). Numerous other species of interest also are found on-site. These include great blue heron (Ardea herodias), red-legged frogs (Rana aurora), lamprey (Lampetra spp.), sculpins (Cottus spp.), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and a variety of waterfowl.

1.1 SITE HISTORY The Mirror Lake site was surveyed by Robert V. Short of the General Land Office (GLO) in 1860. Field notes from this survey indicate that the area south of I-84 was dominated by Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) up to 20 inches in diameter. Interspersed within the forest areas were two semi-open wetland prairies with scattered willows, and larger willow-dominated bottomlands. The GLO Survey (Figure 2) provides a good reference for designing restoration activities at the site taking into account the contemporary influences of the railroad, I-84, and the hydrologically modified Columbia River.

Before the construction of I-84 and the railroad to the south of the site, the majority of the property was used as farming and grazing land and was first homesteaded by Joseph Latourell in 1857. Figure 3 is a 1935 aerial photograph of the site, which gives an indication of the level of clearing and disturbance that resulted from farming practices at the site. Cattle grazing continued on approximately 170 acres of the Mirror Lake site after OPRD purchased the property. Grazing was intended to control invasive weed species and maintain the pastoral view of the area from Vista House. OPRD ended cattle grazing practices in the early 1990s. Since that time, invasive species have established expansive, dominant communities that prevent significant recruitment of native species and the re-establishment of native riparian habitats. The primary invasive species of concern on the site are reed canarygrass (Philaris arundinacea), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), and yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus).

OPRD has managed the Mirror Lake site as open space with no active recreation since the 1990s. The site has been a top restoration priority for OPRD since its acquisition, but resources unfortunately have not been available to further OPRD’s goals. However, from 2004 through 2006, interest at OPRD, the Estuary Partnership (EP), the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), and other regulatory and resource management agencies coalesced to provide a restoration plan and funding source for the site. In 2005, the EP funded construction of a bridge that provided access for restoration activities and replaced a culvert


2 December 15, 2008│ 273-3243-004

that was an impediment to fish passage. Additionally, ODOT planned to restore over 100 acres of the site as a component of its statewide mitigation program. However, due to new design and construction performance standards, ODOT’s impacts and associated mitigation needs were reduced to the point where creation of a mitigation bank was no longer needed or justifiable. In order to take advantage of the baseline studies, permits, and design work completed by ODOT, and plans to restore the site, the EP funded the Mirror Lake Restoration Project, which included funding for development of a sitewide conceptual restoration plan.

2. CONCEPTUAL RESTORATION PLAN This document details a conceptual restoration plan for the Mirror Lake site. This restoration plan is at a conceptual level only and is intended to provide the framework for project development and final design. Detail regarding the roles and responsibilities of project partners will come forth during project development; however, all management activities were designed with the following assumptions:

• All match funding potentially provided by OPRD will be in-kind contributions provided during previous projects, e.g., large woody debris (LWD) and mowing;

• All monitoring will be voluntary and if implemented, will be funded by the EP;

• Funding for long-term maintenance will not be available; and,

• OPRD has limited capacity to implement future remediation actions.

The restoration plan includes descriptive text, figures, a permitting strategy, and a proposed implementation schedule. It has several general goals:

• Return focal portions of the site as close as practical to their estimated pre-disturbance condition;

• Restore ecological structure and key functions, e.g., cold-water temperature regime and in-stream habitat forming processes;

• Increase the quantity of habitats of interest, e.g., riparian wetlands; and,

• Provide benefits to species of interest, primarily salmon and waterfowl.

This restoration plan is based on five years of experience at the site as well as the following studies conducted by Parametrix:

• Hydrologic evaluation (2005/2006);

• Surface water temperature monitoring (2005 and 2008);

• Sensitive plant and wildlife surveys (2005);

• Soil and seed bank analysis (2005);

• Topographic survey (2005); and

• Salmon spawning surveys (2004).

The restoration plan is presented as seven individual management activities (MAs) that occur in discrete portions of the site (Figure 4). These MAs total approximately 100 acres and are detailed below.


December 15, 2008 │ 273-3243-004 3

MA1: Riparian Plantings – Latourell Creek Summary: Reforest approximately 28 acres of Latourell Creek’s riparian area, transforming the current reed canarygrass monoculture into a forested wetland that approximates historic conditions and provides critical functions to the creek.

Current Condition: The riparian area within this reach is entirely emergent wetland dominated by thick stands of reed canarygrass. In-stream habitat diversity in Latourell Creek, which flows through this portion of the site, is minimal and is limited to legacy pieces of small woody debris, one small beaver dam, and a limited number of undercut banks, many of which are collapsing due to insufficient root structure. Shade is limited to reed canarygrass overhanging from adjacent banks. Organic input to the creek is poor.

Photo 1: Looking east across MA1 towards Latourell Creek and Latourell Lake (Jan. 2006)

Photo 2: Aerial view of MA1, MA2, and MA3 (Jan. 2006)

Restoration Approach: The goal for this MA is to establish select native woody and shrub plantings along Latourell Creek. Restoration of the herbaceous community is not a priority, and it is assumed that reed canarygrass and other invasive species will recolonize the herbaceous layer. Restoration tasks will include site preparation, installation of native trees and shrubs, and short-term maintenance of newly established plantings.

Site preparation is required in order to provide plantings full exposure to sunlight and reduce root competition in the first two to three years of establishment. Installation of native trees and shrubs will consist of bare-root stock, which should be installed manually during plant dormancy (February – March). Knowledge of the site and a previous wetland delineation dictate a focus on “wetter” riparian trees and shrubs. Plantings will be in rows to facilitate manual installation as well as post-planting maintenance and monitoring. Maintenance will consist of manual mowing and spot herbicide applications within the planting rows to reduce competition.

This portion of the site has four unique limitations:

1. It is highly visible from Crown Point, Sheppard’s Dell Bridge, and other points along the scenic highway. Consequently, planting rows should be sinuous to limit this MA’s short-term aesthetic impact.


4 December 15, 2008│ 273-3243-004

2. Due to backwater from the Columbia River, it has seasonally inundated/wet soils that may limit access through early summer (July). Consequently, specialized equipment may be required for site preparation, and/or much of the work may have to be performed manually, e.g., weed-whacking instead of mowing.

3. It is relatively isolated from the rest of the site and can only be accessed via the Young Creek bridge. Consequently, loaded vehicle weights and dimensions may not exceed 10,000 pounds and 10 feet wide.

4. Several crossings of Latourell Creek will be required. These crossings will require small, portable crossing structures.

Activities:

Site Preparation:

• Perform initial cutting/mowing of the reed canarygrass in mid-September.

• Apply glyphosate (Rodeo®) to the reed canarygrass if any regrowth appears prior to the onset of fall rains (October). All herbicide applications are subject to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) approval.

Native Tree/Shrub Installation:

• Install bare-root Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra), Douglas spirea (Spiraea douglasii), Pacific ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus), and twinberry (Lonicera involucrata) within sinuous planting rows. The anticipated planting density is approximately 2,000 plants per acre.

• Install Pacific willow cuttings at higher density (~2,700 plants per acre) along streambanks (water’s edge to top-of-bank).

Maintenance:

• Mow reed canarygrass regrowth in early summer.

• Spot-spray reed canarygrass regrowth in late summer with glyphosate.

The final planting plan will be formulated following initial site preparation work, which will reveal the site’s microtopography and therefore influence specific planting locations.

Goals/Benefits:

• Provide shade to Latourell Creek to help control in-stream temperatures;

• Increase aquatic habitat diversity by providing overhanging vegetation and a source for long-term in-stream wood recruitment;

• Promote bank stability;

• Promote beaver activity;

• Increase riparian species diversity; and,

• Help control invasive plant and fish communities.

Proposed Schedule and Estimated Cost: MA1 could be implemented as either a one-year or two-year project. A two-year timeframe allows for additional post-planting maintenance (except within the densely planted bank areas), which can significantly increase plant establishment.


December 15, 2008 │ 273-3243-004 5

The cost estimates presented for MA1 include all projected costs, except permitting and OPRD labor. Some activities, e.g., mowing, may be performed by OPRD or others as match contribution.

One-Year Schedule (9/15 – 9/15 Timeline)

Activity Timeline Estimated Cost Design September $600 Initial mowing September $11,300 Herbicide application Early October $3,400 Install bare-root trees and shrubs February-March $65,100

Mow between planting rows July $2,100 Herbicide (spot) application of weed regrowth September $3,400

Total Estimated Cost $85,900

Two-Year Schedule (9/15 – 9/15 Timeline)

Activity Timeline Estimated Cost

Year One Design September $600 Initial mowing September $11,300 Herbicide application Early October $3,400 Install bare-root trees and shrubs February-March $65,100 Mow between planting rows July $2,100 Herbicide (spot) application of weed regrowth September $3,400

Year Two Mow between planting rows July $2,100 Herbicide (spot) application of weed regrowth September $3,400


MA2: Riparian Plantings – Latourell Lake and Latourell Creek

Summary: Establish a willow community along approximately 15 acres of Latourell Lake and Latourell Creek’s riparian areas. This will help transform the riparian community, which is dominated by reed canarygrass, into a forested wetland that approximates historic conditions and provides key functions to these waterbodies.

Current Condition: The shorelines and riparian areas of Latourell Lake and lower Latourell Creek currently exist as emergent wetlands dominated by reed canarygrass. The Latourell Lake shoreline is within a gently sloping basin, and the position of the lake’s shoreline fluctuates with seasonal precipitation, backwater from the Columbia River, and beaver activity. Hydrologic conditions in the lower portion of Latourell Creek also vary widely dependent on beaver activity and Columbia River levels.


6 December 15, 2008│ 273-3243-004

Habitat diversity in both waterbodies is very low, due primarily to low LWD recruitment and a lack of overhanging vegetation. The existing riparian community provides very little shade and organic input to the lake and creek.

Photo 3: General riparian condition along Latourell Creek within MA2 (Jan. 2006)

Photo 4: General riparian condition along Latourell Lake within MA2 (Feb. 2006)

Note: Photo 2 provides an aerial view of a portion of the area proposed as MA2.

Restoration Approach: The hydrology and topography of the lake limits options for providing shade and refugia to aquatic species in the lake. However, Pacific willow forms an association around shallow lakes and mudflats in Columbia River bottomlands, and has been shown to establish within fluctuating lake shorelines (example: south shore of Vancouver Lake). MA2 proposes establishing a Pacific willow community by planting live cuttings along the east, west, and north shorelines of Latourell Lake (Figure 4). Similarly, a willow community also could be established along the lower portion of Latourell Creek to provide shade and organic input to the creek.

Site preparation in both of these areas is problematic due to fluctuating water levels and seasonal access restrictions; therefore, only an initial mowing (weed-whacking) is proposed. Cuttings will be 6-8 feet in length to avoid being shaded out by the reed canarygrass. The taller height also will help limit browse, though rubbing by deer and elk likely will result in some impacts, as will beaver browse. Installation will be performed manually.

The dense planting and site topography will make mechanical weed control or use of herbicides problematic, therefore, no follow-up maintenance is proposed. The willow plantings should establish well above the reed canarygrass within one to two growing seasons.

As with MA 1, restoration of the herbaceous community is not a priority, and it is understood that reed canarygrass and other invasive species likely will persist in the herbaceous layer.

Activities:

Site Preparation:



• Install Pacific willow as live-stake cuttings in February/March. Planting density is anticipated to be approximately 2,700 cuttings per acre. This density and overall quantity allows for anticipated impacts from browse.


December 15, 2008 │ 273-3243-004 7

Maintenance:

• None.

Goals/Benefits:

• Provide shade to Latourell Creek to help control in-stream temperatures;

• Increase aquatic habitat diversity by providing overhanging vegetation and a source for long-term wood recruitment;


• Increase species diversity; and,

• Help control invasive species communities.

Proposed Schedule and Estimated Cost: MA2 will be implemented as a one-year project due to difficulties associated with post-planting maintenance. Its cost estimate includes all projected costs, except permitting and OPRD labor. Some activities, e.g., mowing, may be performed by OPRD or others as match contribution.


Activity Timeline Estimated Cost Design September $600 Initial mowing September $6,200 Install live-stake cuttings February-March $46,300


MA3: Habitat Structures – Latourell Lake, Latourell Creek, and Young Creek Summary: Increase in-stream habitat diversity in Latourell Creek, Latourell Lake, and lower Young Creek by installing LWD structures designed to provide cover for amphibians and fish, low-velocity winter-rearing habitats for juvenile salmon, and pools for returning adults. The structures also will help stabilize streambanks in areas where they are sloughing into the creek and promote beaver activity.

Current Condition: Latourell Creek and lower Young Creek almost completely lack pools, off-channel areas, beaver ponds, and other low-velocity habitats that juvenile salmon prefer. Furthermore, the only off-channel area (Latourell Lake) completely lacks structure that could provide cover for rearing salmonids. Overall, habitat diversity in Latourell Creek, lower Young Creek, and Latourell Lake is very low, due primarily to negligible quantities of LWD and limited overhanging vegetation. The absence of woody species in their riparian communities limits opportunities for future LWD recruitment or beaver activity.


8 December 15, 2008│ 273-3243-004

Photo 5: Latourell Creek in-stream habitat conditions (Jan. 2006)

Photo 6: Latourell Creek in-stream habitat conditions (Aug. 2008)

Note: Photo 2 provides an aerial view of the portions of Latourell Lake and upper Latourell Creek proposed for MA3. Photo 12 provides an aerial view of the portions of lower Young and Latourell Creeks proposed for MA3.

Restoration Approach: Nickelson et al. (1992) suggested that, given adequate spawners, winter habitat limits production of coho salmon smolts in most Oregon coastal streams.1 Coho salmon prefer low-velocity habitats during winter, which typically are provided by specific types of pools (primarily alcove/off-channel pools and beaver ponds). To address this limiting factor, MA3 will place approximately seventy-five conifers with root balls in Latourell Creek, Latourell Lake, and lower Young Creek to form structures of varying size and complexity. The structures placed in Young and Latourell Creeks will be designed to create (scour) off-channel and pool habitats, provide structure for anchoring beaver dams (see Phase I, Structure 10), and provide edge habitat. The structures placed in Latourell Lake will be designed to provide complex habitat/cover in this four acre wetland/lake that currently lacks structure of any type.

MA3 will benefit both salmonids spawned and reared on-site, as well as salmon that use the site as off-channel habitat during outmigration. MA3 will benefit coho salmon spawned on-site by addressing not only the factor most likely limiting coho production in the two streams (limited winter refugia), but also by providing structure to Latourell Lake, the prime rearing habitat in the system. The structures placed in lower Young and Latourell Creeks will provide habitat for several species of outmigrating (up-river) salmon that use the site as off-channel habitat. In addition to increasing habitat diversity, where possible, these structures will be designed to protect streambanks and raise water surface elevations to promote interaction with the floodplain.

All LWD will be anchored to prevent migration during floods and backwater events. Two separate approaches will be used to install the LWD structures:

1 Although not located on the coast, Latourell and Young Creeks share many characteristics with coastal streams, including elevation, hydrologic regime, and historic land use.


December 15, 2008 │ 273-3243-004 9

A. In the portion of Latourell Creek that flows through MA1, the logs will be anchored by burying approximately two-thirds of their length in the streambank. This approach was used in Phase I and worked extremely well, due primarily to high levels of clay in the site’s soils. Due to relatively flat topography, it is anticipated that the structures placed in Latourell Creek could be constructed with more diversity than the Phase I structures; however, final design will be limited by the dimensions of available LWD, fish passage restrictions, and the type and size of equipment that can cross the Young Creek bridge.

B. In Latourell Lake and the lower portions of Young and Latourell Creeks, access limitations, hydrology, and topography dictate an alternate anchoring method. An Earth Anchor™ and/or Manta Ray™ system would be used to anchor structures in these areas.

OPRD likely will provide the LWD for this activity; consequently, design is limited by the type and dimensions of available logs. As noted in MA1, this portion of the site has several restrictions that will limit access and the type of construction equipment used. Given the bridge’s weight restrictions, a helicopter will be required to transport and stage LWD in the work area. Small excavators will be used to install logs in upper Latourell Creek. The remainder of the logs will be placed by the helicopter and anchored manually.

Activities:

Construction:

• Mow construction area to facilitate access.

• Transport and place LWD via helicopter at installation sites.

• Excavate, place LWD, and backfill to anchor structures in upper Latourell Creek.

• Install anchoring systems and cable LWD manually in Latourell Lake, lower Latourell Creek, and lower Young Creek.

• Seed and mulch disturbed areas immediately after installation.

Goals/Benefits:

• Provide hydraulic refugia for juvenile and adult salmon;

• Create pool habitat and structure for cover during summer months when temperatures in off-channel areas are too warm for use;

• Increase habitat complexity in this off-channel area for use by out-migrating salmon;

• Provide structure for year-round cover;

• Promote beaver activity; and,

• Recruit small woody debris to help stimulate the local food web.

Proposed Schedule and Estimated Cost: All work for MA3 could be designed, permitted, and constructed in one year. Construction should occur prior to implementation of MA 1 and MA 2.

The cost estimate presented below includes all projected costs for MA3, except LWD, permitting, and OPRD labor. The LWD for this task will be donated by OPRD as a portion of their match contribution.


10 December 15, 2008│ 273-3243-004


Activity Timeline Estimated Cost Design and Contracting December – May $22,000 LWD Transport/Placement (via helicopter) August $30,000

Construction August $45,000


MA4: Riparian Plantings – Select Young and Latourell Creek Riparian Areas

Summary: Reforest approximately 32 acres of historic bottomland forest transforming the current invasive-dominated herbaceous community into a riparian forest that approximates historic conditions and provides critical functions to the Young and Latourell Creek watersheds.

Current Condition: Based on the 1860 GLO survey, these portions of the site were dominated by bottomland hardwood forests. Currently, these areas contain both upland and wetland areas, both of which are dominated by an herbaceous community composed almost exclusively of reed canarygrass, Himalayan blackberry, and Canada thistle.

Photo 7: Looking east across MA4 (Feb. 2006) Photo 8: Aerial view of MA4 (Jan. 2006)

Restoration Approach: This 32-acre area will be reforested using principles applied to Phase I reforestation, i.e., an “Agro-Forestry” approach to installation and maintenance. Agro-forestry utilizes tractor-width spacing between linear, sinuous planting rows that allows mechanical mowing and other maintenance activities to occur during plant establishment.

Site preparation will consist of a single mow and herbicide application in September/October. Planting will occur the following winter using bare-root materials. The installed woody and shrub species will be similar to those used in the Phase I reforestation. The final planting list will be developed based on microtopography revealed after initial site preparation and monitoring results from the Phase I reforestation. Herbaceous seeding will not be performed due to the lack of suitable site preparation.


December 15, 2008 │ 273-3243-004 11

Maintenance will consist of mowing within the tractor rows and herbicide spot-spraying adjacent to the plantings. Mowing will occur during the spring following planting (access permitting) and again in summer. Selective spot spraying will occur during the late spring and again in mid-late summer for control of both spring and summer weed germinants.

As with MA1 and MA2, restoration of the herbaceous community is not a priority, and it is understood that reed canarygrass and other invasive species likely will persist in the herbaceous layer. Additionally, mortality due to browse and rubbing by deer and elk likely will occur.

Activities:

Site Preparation:


• Apply glyphosate (Rodeo®) to the reed canarygrass if any regrowth appears prior to the onset of fall rains (October).


• Install bare-root trees and shrubs within planting rows during February-March dormancy.

• Targeted tree species include: Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), red alder (Alnus rubra), black cottonwood (Populas balsamifera), big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), grand fir (Abies grandis), and western red cedar (Thuja plicata).

• Targeted shrub species include: Douglas spirea (Spiraea douglasii), twinberry (Lonicera involucrata), Pacific ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus), and snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus).

Maintenance:

• Mow between planting rows in spring and again in mid-late summer (if necessary) to reduce reed canarygrass competition.

• Spot-spray (with glyphosate) reed canarygrass and thistle regrowth in late summer.

Goals/Benefits:

• Provide shade to portions of Young Creek;

• Increase aquatic habitat diversity by providing a source for long-term wood recruitment;




Alternate Strategy: Portions of MA4 contain remnant populations of Columbia sedge (Carex aperta) and slough sedge (Carex obnupta). An alternate short-term management strategy for this area, which is located northeast of Latourell Lake, could focus on promoting the sedges to establish bottomland “elk meadow” habitat. This management strategy could help focus elk activity away from other management areas (and I-84), which will contain woody plantings that are susceptible to damage from elk browse and rubbing. Management activities within the elk meadow would involve strategically timed mowing twice a year to inhibit the reed canarygrass while favoring the native sedges. No plantings would occur.


12 December 15, 2008│ 273-3243-004

Without sustained long-term maintenance, this strategy likely would not prove successful over the long term; however, its short-term benefits may be worth pursuing to relieve grazing pressure until MA1, MA2, MA4, and MA5 plantings are established. It also would provide an activity that potentially could be implemented by OPRD as part of their cost-share commitment.

Proposed Schedule and Estimated Cost: MA4 could be implemented as either a one-year or two-year project. A two-year project allows for additional post-planting maintenance, which can significantly improve plant establishment.

The cost estimates presented below include all projected costs for MA4, except permitting and OPRD labor. Some activities, e.g., mowing, may be performed by OPRD or others as match contribution.


Activity Timeline Estimated Cost Design September $600 Initial mowing September $12,900 Broadcast herbicide application Early October $3,900 Install bare-root trees and shrubs February-March $77,800

Mow between planting rows May/June $2,400 Mow between planting rows Late July $2,400 Herbicide (spot) application of weed regrowth Early September $3,900




Year One Design September $600 Initial mowing September $12,900 Broadcast herbicide application Early October $3,900 Install bare-root trees and shrubs February-March $77,800

Mow between planting rows May/June $2,400 Mow between planting rows Late July $2,400 Herbicide (spot) application of weed regrowth Early September $3,900

Year Two Mow between planting rows May/June $2,400 Mow between planting rows Late July $2,400 Herbicide (spot) application of weed regrowth Early September $3,900



December 15, 2008 │ 273-3243-004 13

MA5: Riparian Plantings – Young Creek

Summary: Reforest approximately 11 acres of historic riparian forest transforming the current herbaceous community (dominated by reed canarygrass) into a riparian forest that approximates historic conditions and provides critical functions to Young Creek.

Current Condition: Based on the 1860 GLO survey, this portion of the site was dominated by a bottomland hardwood forest. Currently, the majority of Young Creek’s riparian corridor is composed of native emergent wetlands flanked by upland areas dominated by invasive species. MA5 is an upland area that contains a remnant sedge community interspersed amongst its reed canarygrass.

Photo 9: Looking west across MA5 (Aug. 2005)

Photo 10: Aerial view of MA5 (Jan. 2006)


14 December 15, 2008│ 273-3243-004

Restoration Approach: Re-establishing a riparian forest will provide numerous benefits to Young Creek; however, due to hydrology, the presence of abundant native herbaceous species that are not tolerant of shade, and access restrictions, it is not practical to establish woody species in the majority of the Young Creek corridor. In assessing the corridor, however, Parametrix identified two sub-areas that would be desirable to establish native trees. These areas are characterized by gently sloping “benches” that are slightly above the main drainage corridor. Trees and shrubs are generally absent from these areas and the herbaceous stratum is dominated by reed canarygrass, although remnant populations of native slough sedge and lesser amounts of Columbia sedge are present.

Reforestation of the targeted Young Creek riparian area will total approximately 11 acres. Because ground conditions are favorable for light equipment and access will be similar to that for Phase I, a modified version of the agri-forestry approach outlined in MA4 will be utilized in this area. The primary difference between the two approaches is that herbicides will not be utilized in this area due to the native species community present.

First year monitoring results from the Phase I project will help refine the MA5 planting plan.

Activities:

Site Preparation:



• Install bare-root Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), red alder (Alnus rubra), black cottonwood (Populas balsamifera), and western red cedar (Thuja plicata) on 20-foot centers within select areas.

Maintenance:

• Mow between planting rows in spring and, if necessary, again in mid-late summer.

Goals/Benefits:

• Provide shade to Young Creek;

• Increase aquatic habitat diversity by providing a source for long-term wood recruitment;

• Promote native Carex community;



• Help control invasive species.

Proposed Schedule and Estimated Cost: MA5 could be implemented as either a one-year or two-year project. A two-year project allows for additional post-planting maintenance, which can significantly improve plant establishment and growth of native sedges.

The cost estimates presented below include all projected costs for MA5, except permitting and OPRD labor. Some activities, e.g., mowing, may be performed by OPRD or others as match contribution.


December 15, 2008 │ 273-3243-004 15


Activity Timeline Estimated Cost Design September $600 Initial mowing September $4,400 Install bare-root trees February-March $26,400 Mow between planting rows May/June $1,000 Mow between planting rows July/August $1,000




Year One Design September $600 Initial mowing September $4,400 Install bare-root trees February-March $26,400 Mow between planting rows May/June $1,000 Mow between planting rows July/August $1,000

Year Two Mow between planting rows May/June $1,000 Mow between planting rows July/August $1,000


MA6: Wetland Enhancement/Off-Channel Habitat Creation (Excavation)

Summary: Create a hydrologic regime that favors native emergent species over invasive species by excavating to mimic elevations seen in adjacent native-dominated wetlands. These areas also will create high quality off-channel habitat for salmonids during high flows.

Current Condition: Adjacent to the confluence of Latourell and Young Creeks is an area with potential for restoring wetlands with a seasonal surface water connection to both creeks. Currently, the area is delineated as upland and slopes gently up (north) from the creek. Characteristic vegetation consists of sparse tree (Oregon ash) and shrub (red-osier dogwood) cover and a groundcover dominated by reed canarygrass. Based on the 1860 GLO survey, this portion of Young Creek was approximately 16 feet wide and was flanked by a bottomland hardwood forest. Currently, the creek is narrower and has very little off-channel habitat.


16 December 15, 2008│ 273-3243-004

Photo 11: Looking northeast across MA6 (Aug. 2008)


Restoration Approach: Shallow excavation (up to 2 feet) would create a “backwater” wetland area of approximately 0.7 acres that would have a shallow surface water connection to the creeks during the winter rainy season and again during the Columbia River’s spring runoff.

This backwater wetland would be graded to match the hydrology of the existing emergent wetland habitat within the creek corridor (wapato/woolgrass/bur-reed complex). Seed from these plants would be collected for distribution within the graded area. Hummocks would be graded to create western red cedar “tree islands”. These hummocks also would be used to anchor LWD that would provide cover for rearing salmonids during high flows. The banks of the excavated area and tree islands would be planted with Pacific willow stakes to promote canopy diversity and provide shade. Excess excavation spoils would be placed on adjacent upland areas dominated by reed canarygrass and Himalayan blackberry and planted with native riparian trees, shrubs, and grasses.

Excavation would be completed using traditional methods in areas along Young Creek and lower Latourell Creek (below the confluence). To control costs, disposal areas would need to be within immediate proximity of excavation sites.

Topographic, hydrologic, and soil surveys are required prior to final design of this management activity. Design would need to account for the potential of fish entrapment.

Activities:

Construction:

• Excavate, grade, and seed off-channel areas and tree islands during the in-water work period. Anchor LWD in tree islands during construction.

• Plant woody species during winter months.

Maintenance:

• Spot-spray herbicide applications in summer and fall to reduce competition from non-native species.


December 15, 2008 │ 273-3243-004 17

Goals/Benefits:

• Create wetland areas for multi-species benefits;

• Create off-channel habitat areas for use during elevated water levels;



Proposed Schedule and Estimated Cost: MA6 could be implemented as either a one-year or two-year project. A two-year project allows for additional post-planting maintenance, which can significantly enhance plant establishment and reduce competition from invasive species. It also would allow for planting bare-root trees and shrubs in winter, a significant cost savings over container plants. Cost estimates for this activity cannot be developed without further investigation.


Activity Timeline Estimated Cost Topographic survey September/October NA Soil survey September/October NA Grading Plan December – January NA Construction (Grading, Install LWD, Seed, etc.) July/August NA

Planting (container plants) Early September NA

Total Estimated Cost NA



Year One Topographic survey September/October NA Soil survey September/October NA Grading Plan December – January NA Construction (Grading, Install LWD, Seed, etc.) July/August NA

Year Two Install bare-root trees and shrubs February/March NA

Spot herbicide application (if necessary) May/June NA

Spot herbicide application (if necessary) August/ September NA



18 December 15, 2008│ 273-3243-004

MA7: Wetland Enhancement

Summary: Enhance an existing wetland’s hydrologic regime by increasing the depth and duration of inundation to favor native emergent species over the current invasive species community. The wetland’s hydrology would be managed mechanically by constructing a water control structure on a former farm access road.

Current Condition: The existing habitat consists of an emergent wetland dominated by dense stands of reed canarygrass. This area is part of a long, narrow wetland that flows west into the east end of Latourell Lake. Flow is discernable (even during a recent site visit after a prolonged dry period); however, there is no defined channel. Surface topography is obscured by the reed canarygrass, although recent site visits indicate numerous small depressions and other microtopographical features. Salmonids are not present in this portion of the site.

Photo 13: Looking east across MA7 (Oct. 2005) Photo 14: Berm proposed for impounding MA7 (Oct. 2005)


Restoration Approach: The wetland would be enhanced by extending the depth and duration of inundation in an effort to stress the existing reed canarygrass community and favor native emergent species. This would be accomplished by installing a weir where the abandoned road’s culvert is located. The weir would be designed such that its height can be readily adjusted by adding or removing “flash boards”, thus regulating water levels behind the weir. This type of approach has been utilized in previous wetland enhancement projects, the most notable being the Port of Portland’s Vanport wetland complex located in Portland, Oregon.

The existing 5.6-acre wetland is located in the southeastern portion of the site. Its southern boundary is defined by the railroad embankment. To the north, its grade increases gradually until wetland characteristics are lost and it transitions to a habitat similar to that reforested as part of Phase I. The area affected by MA7 would be defined by the extent of inundation.


December 15, 2008 │ 273-3243-004 19

Desirable water levels would be determined by matching topographic surveys, hydrologic analyses, and the estimated extent of inundation at various elevations with depths known to be effective at invasive species control. Depending on the approach taken, an approximate affected (enhanced) area of 6-7 acres is anticipated.

Wetland plant communities exhibit highly variable responses to sudden changes in inundation; therefore, it is not practical to predict the resultant vegetation community beyond the fact that reed canarygrass would become competitively disadvantaged. The plant community would be monitored following inundation, the results of which would guide water level control (using the flash boards) and any determination for active intervention and planting.

All equipment used for this MA would be subject to Young Creek bridge size and load restrictions.

Activities:

Water Control Structure:

• Topographic and hydrologic surveys and analyses (September – December).

• Prepare design drawings for water control structure (December – February).

• Remove existing culvert, regrade berm as required, and install water control structure (July/August).

Goals/Benefits:

• Increase water retention and hydrologic complexity;

• Enhance diversity of the wetland’s plant community;

• Provide habitat for waterfowl and amphibians;

• Increase wetland acreage; and,


Proposed Schedule and Estimated Cost: Implementation of MA7 is a one-year project. Cost estimates for this activity cannot be developed without further investigation.


Activity Timeline – Year One Estimated Cost Topographic and hydrologic analyses September – December NA

Design December – February NA Construction July/August NA



20 December 15, 2008│ 273-3243-004

3. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT As stated in the EP’s Restoration Strategy, developing partnerships with communities, organizations, individuals, and agencies is critical to the long-term success of its restoration program, as well as individual projects. Throughout the development of the Mirror Lake site, the EP and Parametrix have benefited from a positive relationship with OPRD, ODOT, and numerous regulatory agencies. This positive relationship has created significant support for the site and momentum for completing future restoration work. Such support will benefit future restoration activities.

Beyond these existing relationships, the unique features of the Mirror Lake site provide two opportunities that should be considered as future phases of the project are brought on-line:

1. Location: The Mirror Lake site is located within Rooster Rock State Park (RRSP), directly below Crown Point. Crown Point provides sweeping views of the Columbia Gorge, and RRSP includes an active recreation area adjacent to the Mirror Lake site. Tens of thousands of regional residents and tourists visit these facilities every year. From Crown Point, visitors can see the entirety of the Mirror Lake site in enough detail to observe restoration activities, while visitors to RRSP could easily access restored portions of the site during their visit.

Given its proximity to these areas, future restoration work could include funding for interpretive signage and/or hand-outs. These materials would educate visitors about activities specific to Mirror Lake as well as provide an opportunity to promote the EP’s regional restoration efforts.

2. Public Ownership: OPRD owns the entirety of the Mirror Lake site. Although no plans to develop it for active recreation exist, access to the site is excellent during summer and fall months. Walking or boating the site provides opportunities to view waterfowl, heron, salmon-bearing streams, and active restoration areas. For these reasons, use of the site for public education, including EP classroom excursions and OPRD interpretive programs, could be an attractive option.

Photo 16: View of the Mirror Lake site from Crown Point


December 15, 2008 │ 273-3243-004 21

4. PRIORITY RANKING This restoration plan outlines approximately 100 acres of potential restoration. All of this acreage helps move the Mirror Lake site towards its historic condition, promotes habitat-forming processes, and will be of considerable benefit to its habitats and species. However, given funding limitations and other restoration priorities in the region, Parametrix developed a two-step process for prioritizing MAs in the event that all MAs cannot be pursued in the future.

Step 1: Matrix Parametrix developed an evaluation matrix based on the EP’s Criteria for Identifying and Prioritizing Habitat Protection and Restoration Projects on the Lower Columbia River and Estuary. This matrix identifies which MAs address each criteria simply by assigning a value of 1 (addresses the specific criteria) or 0 (does not address that criteria). Because the Mirror Lake site has already been selected for restoration, only criteria that apply to individual restoration activities within a site were evaluated. Site selection and monitoring criteria are not applicable to this analysis and will be evaluated in another context.

Table 1 presents the results of the evaluation matrix. Matrix results provide a numerical indication of the relative importance of each MA, i.e., how many of the EP’s criteria it addresses.

Table 1. Management Activity Evaluation Matrix

MA1 MA2 MA3 MA4 MA5 MA6 MA7 Habitat Connectivity Addressed by I-84 culvert passage improvements and Young Creek

culvert removal/bridge construction.

Area of Historic Habitat Type Loss

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Improvement in Ecosystem Function

1 1 1 0 1 1 0

Adequate Size and Shape

1 1 1 1 1 0 1

Level of Complexity 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Accessibility for Target Species

Addressed by I-84 culvert passage improvements and Young Creek culvert removal/bridge construction.

Use Natural Processes to Restore and Maintain Structure Over Habitat Creation

1 1 1 1 1 0 1

Potential for Self-Maintenance and Certainty of Success

1 1 1 1 1 1 0

Potential for Improvement in Ecosystem Function while Avoiding Impacts to Healthy and Functioning Ecosystems

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Total Score 7 7 7 6 7 5 5


22 December 15, 2008│ 273-3243-004

Step 2: Site-Specific Prioritization Parametrix refined Step 1 results by evaluating additional site-specific considerations. These considerations, which were identified through four years of data gathering, analysis, and restoration at the site, include the following:

• Limiting factors;

• The ability of an MA to address those limiting factors;

• Projected cost of each MA; and,

• Anticipated changes/trends at the site.

For example, MA1 and MA2 received high scores in the matrix evaluation. They also were elevated in priority due to observed high temperatures in Latourell Creek, the anticipated benefit these MAs will provide to that system’s thermal regime, the anticipated impacts to temperature resulting from recent increases in beaver activity, and demonstrated success with similar efforts at the site.

Results Based on matrix results (Step 1) and site-specific prioritization (Step 2), Parametrix proposes the following priority ranking:

1. MA1: Riparian Plantings – Upper Latourell Creek

2. MA3: Habitat Structures – Latourell Lake, Latourell Creek, and Young Creek

3. MA2: Riparian Plantings – Latourell Lake and Latourell Creek

4. MA5: Riparian Plantings – Young Creek

5. MA4: Riparian Plantings – Select Young and Latourell Creek Riparian Areas

6. MA7: Wetland Enhancement

7. MA6: Wetland Enhancement/Off-Channel Habitat Creation (Excavation)

5. PERMITTING STRATEGY The Mirror Lake site is located in the Columbia River Gorge where restoration opportunities are limited and complex, due in large part to strict land use regulations and the presence of federally protected species. Although extensive experience at the site allows the project team to work through permitting processes efficiently, compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and National Scenic Area (NSA) regulations will require significant permitting efforts.

Due to the complex permitting processes required by both of these regulations, streamlining ESA and NSA compliance will be critical to cost-effective implementation of the restoration plan. Consequently, Parametrix recommends structuring implementation such that NSA and ESA compliance can be obtained simultaneously for all MAs that may be implemented in the foreseeable future. Similarly, Section 404 and Removal/Fill permits, which also require significant effort, will be obtained only once. This streamlined approach will greatly reduce permitting costs. Additionally, all complex permitting efforts will be scheduled for completion in Year 1. In subsequent years, implementation of the restoration plan likely will not require professional consulting services, therefore, the reforestation contractor could complete all work.


December 15, 2008 │ 273-3243-004 23

Based on conversations with the EP’s Restoration Coordinator, near-term funding will be available primarily for restoration activities that directly benefit salmonids. Consequently, Table 2 provides a permitting strategy for MA1 through MA5 only. MA6 and MA7 likely would require detailed hydrologic analysis and design to satisfy permitting requirements. Additionally, they provide benefits primarily to wetlands and wildlife, as opposed to ESA species. Consequently, these MAs will be addressed as a separate effort and are not considered in this permitting strategy.

Table 2. Permitting Strategy

Regulation Permitting Mechanism

Permit for Duration of

Project? Duration of

Permit Renewable?

Federal Permitting Requirements Clean Water Act (§404) Nationwide

Permit 27 Yes Expires

March 2012 Potential for

one year extension

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

Formal Consultation Yes Project Life NA

Clean Water Act (§401) Addressed by Corps (via Oregon DEQ) during §404 review

Yes Same as §404 permit

Dependent on §404 permit

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

Addressed by Corps during §404 review

Yes Same as §404 permit

Dependent on §404 permit

State Permitting Requirements Oregon Removal/Fill Fish Habitat

Enhancement and Wetland Enhancement General Authorizations

Yes 1 year Yes

Scientific Take Permit – Fish

Individual Permit No 1 year No

ODFW In-Water Work Timing Guidelines3

Addressed by Removal/Fill Permit and ESA Consultation

Yes Project Life; Extensions

good for one season

NA

Local Permitting Requirements National Scenic Area (NSA)

NSA Site Review Yes 2 years – longer period

can be granted

Yes

Multnomah County Grading & Erosion Control (G&EC) Code

Grading and Erosion Control Permit Application

No Same as NSA permit

Dependent on NSA permit

Multnomah County Floodplain Development (FD) Code

Floodplain Development Permit Application

No Same as NSA permit

Dependent on NSA permit


24 December 15, 2008│ 273-3243-004

The following sections provide additional detail specific to each regulation. As stated previously, MA6 and MA7 are not addressed as they likely will not be implemented using existing funding sources.

Clean Water Act (§404): The §404 permit will be the federal nexus, therefore the Corps will be the lead federal agency. Nationwide permit (NWP) 27 will be used for §404 permitting; however, depending on project implementation, the proposed expiration of all NWPs in March 2012 poses a potential problem. The implementation schedule should consider this end-date. The site’s existing delineation will need to be updated for concurrence; however, this likely will not require a significant effort. §401 and NEPA compliance will be addressed during the §404 application review process.

Endangered Species Act (ESA): The Mirror Lake site supports at least three species listed as threatened under the ESA. Additionally, the Columbia River, which is hydrologically connected to the site, supports numerous other listed species/ESUs as well as species proposed for listing. Because proposed restoration activities could result in incidental take, a Biological and Conference Opinion from the NMFS is required2. This is a straightforward process for most MAs; however, the proposed use of herbicides for MA1 and MA4 precludes the use of SLOPES IV for ESA compliance and likely will require formal consultation. Consultation will require a modeling analysis of herbicide transport and effect.

Oregon Removal/Fill Regulations: DSL’s Fish Habitat Enhancement and Wetland Restoration and Enhancement General Authorizations (GAs) will be used for Removal/Fill compliance. Although two GAs are required, they may be administered under one permit. This permit will be used to implement the entire restoration plan (MA1 – MA5); however, the permit will need to be renewed annually. The site’s existing delineation will need to be updated for concurrence; however, this likely will not require a significant effort.

Scientific Take Permit – Fish: Of the MAs required for implementation in the near-term, only MA3 will require a scientific take permit. This permit is required to salvage fish prior to construction and is good for one calendar year.

ODFW In-Water Work Timing Guidelines: In-water work window guidelines will only apply to MA3. These guidelines typically are considered during ESA, National Scenic Area (NSA), and wetland permitting and likely will be a condition of several permits. If required, extending the specified window (July 15 – August 31) would be considered for an individual season by each applicable agency.

National Scenic Area (NSA): The Mirror Lake Site is located in the Columbia River Gorge NSA. The NSA includes strict land use regulations, which do not include programmatic exemptions for restoration projects. Consequently, NSA permitting for the site will require a lengthy and complex review process. Many support documents prepared by ODOT during development of the site as a mitigation bank likely could be reused during this process. These include the sensitive plant survey, wetland delineation, and cultural resources survey. Although these documents may require modification, updating them likely will not require significant effort. The NSA permit condition restricting ground disturbance to 15 percent of the site at any given time is a major determinant of the implementation plan.

2 The presence of species proposed for listing under the ESA may require a conference opinion from NMFS. A conservative approach to this possibility is recommended to help insure consultation does not need to be reinitiated midway through implementation of the restoration plan.


December 15, 2008 │ 273-3243-004 25

Multnomah County Grading & Erosion Control (G&EC) Code: Of the MAs proposed for implementation in the short-term, a G&EC permit likely will be required for MA3 only. This permit likely will require EC measures similar to those implemented during LWD installation in Young Creek.

Multnomah County Floodplain Development (FD) Code: Of the MAs proposed for implementation in the short-term, a FD permit will be required for MA3 only. The FD typically requires completion of a detailed hydraulic analysis, certified by a Registered Professional Engineer, which demonstrates that the affected stream’s flood carrying capacity, area of inundation, and base flood levels will not be affected. Due to the nature of the project, Multnomah County waived this requirement for Phase I installation of LWD in Young Creek, and it is anticipated they will make the same determination for this effort. However, a hydraulic analysis may be required if they determine that project conditions warrant such an effort. Overall, the FD permit likely will stipulate permit conditions similar to those implemented during LWD installation in Young Creek.

Estimated Cost: The total estimated cost to apply for and coordinate approval of all permits identified in Table 2 is $48,000.

6. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE Implementation of the site-wide design outlined above is a multi-year process that will require multiple funding cycles. Managing this process will require considerable planning to ensure the most cost-effective and sustainable approach is implemented. To initiate this planning process, Parametrix developed the implementation schedule outlined below. This implementation schedule is based on three factors:

1. Permit Restrictions: As stated above, permitting for projects in the Columbia Gorge is costly and time-consuming, due primarily to NSA regulations. Therefore, sequencing is arranged such that major permits will need to be obtained only once. Additionally, NSA regulations specify that no more than 15 percent of the site may be disturbed at once. The implementation plan accounts for this restriction by ensuring that a maximum of 58 acres is disturbed at any time.

2. Logical Sequencing: Implementation is sequenced to minimize edge effect and potential impacts from browse. Additionally, due to ground disturbance realized during installation of LWD, MA3 should occur prior to adjacent riparian planting (MA1 and MA2).

3. Priority Ranking: As outlined above, Parametrix developed a priority ranking based on each MA’s ability to address EP criteria and the site’s limiting factors.

Based on these factors, Parametrix proposes the following implementation schedule:

Year One (2009-2010)3:

• Site-Wide Permitting; Estimated Cost = $48,000

CWA §404 (including §401 and NEPA clearance)

ESA

NSA

3 2009 is recommended for consideration as a start date to ensure that all work can be completed prior to expiration of the §404 NWP in 2012.


26 December 15, 2008│ 273-3243-004

Removal/Fill

MA Specific Permitting:

• Scientific Take permit for MA3

• G&EC permit for MA3

• FD permit for MA3

• MA3 – Design and construction (8 acres); Estimated Cost = $127,000

• MA4 – Mow “elk meadow” habitat (minimum of 5 acres); Estimated Cost = $2,000

• Total Estimated Year One Cost4 = $177,000

Year Two (2010-2011):

• MA1 – Preparation, planting, and maintenance (28 acres); Estimated Cost = $85,900

• MA2 – Planting (15 acres) ; Estimated Cost = $53,100

• MA4 – Mow “elk meadow” habitat (minimum of 5 acres) ; Estimated Cost = $2,000

• Total Estimated Year Two Cost4 = $141,000

Year Three (2011-2012):

• MA4 – Site prep and planting (32 acres) ; Estimated Cost = $103,300

• MA5 – Site prep and planting (11 acres) ; Estimated Cost = $33,400

• Total Estimated Year Three Cost4 = $136,700

Schedule assumes all MAs with potential for 1 or 2 year implementation are implemented on a one-year cycle. MA6 and MA7 are not included for the aforementioned reasons.

Implementation of these MAs will require matching funds from OPRD and potentially other entities. This implementation schedule assumes OPRD will have funding, materials, and/or staff to participate in proposed activities. Coordination with their Region 2 Manager and Natural Resources Manager will be required prior to project scoping. Additionally, ODOT has expressed interest in pursuing future mitigation at the site. Although their areas and activities of interest generally do not overlap with those proposed in this document, coordination with ODOT should occur prior to funding future work.

4 Total potential cost to Estuary Partnership, i.e., includes some activities that may be performed by OPRD or others as match contribution. All estimates provided using 2008 costs and are subject to modification.


December 15, 2008 │ 273-3243-004 27

7. REFERENCES

Nickelson, T.E., J.D. Rodgers, S.L. Johnson, and M.F. Solazzi. 1992. Seasonal Changes in Habitat Use by Juvenile Coho Salmon in Oregon Coastal Streams. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci 49: 783-789.

Parametrix. 2004. Unpublished Spawning Survey Data from Young and Latourell Creeks.

Sol, Sean Y., O. Paul Olson, Kate H. Macneale, Paul Chittaro, and Lyndal. L. Johnson. 2008. Summary of Results of the Fish Monitoring Component of the Lower Columbia River Ecosystem Monitoring Project 2007-2008.

StreamNet. 2008. Pacific Northwest Interactive Mapper. Accessed online on October 29, 2008. Available at www.streamnet.org.

http://www.streamnet.org/

FIGURES

Mirror Lake Site Boundary

0 1,000 2,000 3,000

Feet

Geographic Data Standards:Projected Coordinate System: Lambert Conformal Conic Units: US Foot

Contact Information:Parametrix700 NE MultnomahSuite 1000Portland, OR 97232-2131(503) 233-2400

Data Source: ParametrixThis product is for informational purposes and may not have beenprepared for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Users ofthis information should review or consult the primary data andinformation source to ascertain the usability of this information.

Figure 1:Mirror Lake RestorationSite

�

Analysis by C. Hainey; Analysis Date: Nov-2008; Plot Date: November 11, 2008; File Name: Figure2_ProjectVicinity.mxd

Project Vicinity

Figure 2: GLO Survey

Future Site of I-84 Hillslope

Cut Future Site of

Culvert/Bridge

Approximate Future Site of Interchange

Confluence

Figure 3 – 1935 Aerial Photo

Young CreekBridge

Young CreekRailroad Crossing

Confluence

�Geographic Data Standards:Coordinate System: NAD 1983 Oregon Statewide Lambert Feet InternationalProjection: Lambert Conformal Conic Units: Feet

Management AreasMA1: Riparian Plantings – Latourell Creek

MA2: Riparian Plantings – Latourell Lake and Latourell Creek

MA3: In-stream Habitat Structures – Upper Latourell Creek and Latourell Lake

MA4: Riparian Plantings – Select Young and Latourell Creek Riparian Areas

MA5: Riparian Plantings – Young Creek

MA6: Wetland Enhancement / Off-Channel Habitat Creation

MA7: Wetland Enhancement

Phase 1 - Reforestation

Phase 1 - LWD

This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information source to ascertain the usability of this information.

Data Source:Parametrix and Spencer B. Gross

700 NE Multnomah Suite 1000Portland, OR 97232

(503) 233-2400Mirror Lake

Restoration Project

Figure 4:

Analysis by C. Hainey; Analysis Date: Nov-2008; Plot Date: December 15, 2008; File Name: Figure4_ConceptualDesign.mxd

0 500 1,000

Feet

Mirror LakeConceptual Design

Mowed Access Road

Site Boundary

final report – mirror lake restoration project · final report – mirror lake restoration...

Documents