Attachments 3-23 (20260420 update) Compressed.pdf

Attachment 3:

Chumbley Wildlife Mitigation Site As-Built Planting Map

Attachment :

Cottonwood Island Mitigation Site Location Map

Cottonwood Island Mitigation Site Work Barge Landing and Road Access Map

Cottonwood Island Mitigation Site As-Built Planting Map

6a

Attachment : Species of Plantings

SPECIFIC SPECIES – ESTIMATED QUANTITIES FROM INITIAL PLANTING

(since this table was created, known 4,000 plantings have died and were not replaced – more plantings may have died since 2012)

Field

Spacing Between

Rows

Plant Spacing

Along Row Willow

Tree Cottonwood

Tree Red

Osier Douglas Spirea Elderberry Snowberry

Wild Rose Total

1 10 ft 6 ft 4770 0 780 850 0 0 0 6400 2 10 ft 6 ft 6300 0 900 1050 0 0 0 8250 3 10 ft 6 ft 2500 8520 650 2300 1250 0 0 15220 4 10 ft 6 ft 0 6310 0 325 0 700 0 7335 5 10 ft 5 ft 600 5471 2000 50 0 400 0 8521 6a 10 ft 4.5 ft 50 1730 200 0 50 530 0 7960 6b 10 ft 3 ft 200 1548 1500 120 50 590 200 4208 common crupina Crupina vulgaris blueweed Echium vulgare Ravenna grass Tripidium ravennae cordgrass, common Spartina anglica Brazilian elodea Egeria densa rush skeletonweed Chondrilla juncea cordgrass, dense-flowered Spartina densiflora bugloss, annual Lycopsis arvensis saltcedar Tamarix ramosissima cordgrass, saltmeadow Spartina patens bugloss, common Anchusa officinalis Scotch broom * Cytisus scoparius cordgrass, smooth Spartina alterniflora butterfly bush ** Buddleja davidii shiny geranium * Geranium lucidum

Isatis tinctoria camelthorn Alhagi maurorum spurge flax Thymelaea passerina eggleaf spurge Euphorbia oblongata common reed (nonnative) Phragmites australis spurge laurel Daphne laureola false brome Brachypodium sylvaticum common tansy Tanacetum vulgare spurge, leafy Euphorbia virgata floating primrose-willow Ludwigia peploides Dalmatian toadflax Linaria dalmatica ssp. dalmatica spurge, myrtle Euphorbia myrsinites flowering rush Butomus umbellatus Eurasian watermilfoil *** Myriophyllum spicatum sulfur cinquefoil Potentilla recta French broom Genista monspessulana European coltsfoot Tussilago farfara tansy ragwort Jacobaea vulgaris garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata fanwort Cabomba caroliniana thistle, musk Carduus nutans giant hogweed Heracleum mantegazzianum gorse Ulex europaeus thistle, plumeless Carduus acanthoides goatsrue Galega officinalis grass-leaved arrowhead Sagittaria graminea thistle, Scotch Onopordum acanthium hydrilla Hydrilla verticillata hairy willowherb Epilobium hirsutum velvetleaf Abutilon theophrasti Johnsongrass Sorghum halepense hawkweed oxtongue Picris hieracioides water primrose Ludwigia hexapetala knapweed, bighead Centaurea macrocephala hawkweed, orange Hieracium aurantiacum white bryony Bryonia alba knapweed, Vochin Centaurea nigrescens hawkweeds: all nonnative Hieracium, subgenus Pilosella wild chervil Anthriscus sylvestris kudzu Pueraria montana var. lobata hawkweeds: all nonnative Hieracium, subgenus Hieracium yellow floatingheart Nymphoides peltata meadow clary Salvia pratensis hoary alyssum Berteroa incana yellow nutsedge Cyperus esculentus oriental clematis Clematis orientalis houndstongue Cynoglossum officinale yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitialis Palmer amaranth Amaranthus palmeri knapweed, black Centaurea nigra purple starthistle Centaurea calcitrapa knapweed, brown Centaurea jacea absinth wormwood Artemisia absinthium reed sweetgrass Glyceria maxima knapweed, diffuse Centaurea diffusa babysbreath Gypsophila paniculata ricefield bulrush Schoenoplectus mucronatus knapweed, meadow * Centaurea x gerstlaueri black henbane Hyoscyamus niger roundlead bittersweet Celastrus orbiculatus knapweed, Russian Rhaponticum repens buffalobur Solanum rostratum sage, clary Salvia sclarea knapweed, spotted Centaurea stoebe fragrant waterlily Nymphaea odorata sage, Mediterranean Salvia aethiopis knotweed, Bohemian Fallopia x bohemica hairy whitetop Lepidium appelianum silverleaf nightshade Solanum elaeagnifolium knotweed, giant Fallopia sachalinensis hoary cress Lepidium draba small-flowered jewelweed Impatiens parviflora knotweed, Himalayan Persicaria wallichii medusahead Taeniatherum caput-medusae South American spongeplant Limnobium laevigatum knotweed, Japanese Fallopia japonica Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia Spanish broom Spartium junceum kochia Bassia scoparia spikeweed Centromadia pungens Syrian beancaper Zygophyllum fabago lesser celandine Ficaria verna thistle, bull * Cirsium vulgare Texas blueweed Helianthus ciliaris loosestrife, garden Lysimachia vulgaris thistle, Canada * Cirsium arvense thistle, Italian Carduus pycnocephalus loosestrife, purple Lythrum salicaria yellowflag iris Iris pseudacorus thistle, marsh Cirsium Palustre loosestrife, wand Lythrum virgatum thistle, milk Silybum marianum Malta starthistle Centaurea melitensis thistle, slenderflower Carduus tenuiflorus parrotfeather Myriophyllum aquaticum thistle, Turkish Carduus cinereus poison hemlock Conium Maculatum variable-leaf milfoil and hybrid Myriophyllum heterophyllum and M. heterophyllum x M.

hippuroides

Impatiens glandulifera wild four-o'clock Mirabilis nyctaginea puncturevine Tribulus terrestris

* Control is not mandated unless the weeds are within 100 feet of a neighboring property that is producing agriculture. *** Control is mandated unless the weeds are within 100 feet of the Columbia River.

** Control is not mandated unless the weeds are within 100 feet of a natural waterbody. Revised 02/05/25

CLARK COUNTY NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL BOARD

2025 CLARK COUNTY NOXIOUS WEED LIST

CLASS 'A'

ERADICATION REQUIRED

Eradication = destroy the entire plant and eliminate all plants Control = prevent all seed production and prevent the dispersal of all propagative parts capable of forming new plants

CONTROL OF CLASS 'B' & 'C' REGULATED WEEDS IS REQUIRED

CLASS 'B'

CLASS 'C'

Tanacetum vulgare common tansy Thymelaea passerina spurge flax Tribulus terrestris puncturevine Tripidium ravennae Ravenna grass Tussilago farfara European coltsfoot Ulex europaeus gorse

Class C Weeds Aegilops cylindrica jointed goatgrass Ailanthus altissima tree-of-heaven Alopecurus myosuroides blackgrass Artemisia absinthium absinth wormwood Arum italicum Italian arum Berberis vulgaris common barberry Cenchrus longispinus longspine sandbur Centromadia pungens spikeweed Cirsium arvense thistle, Canada Cirsium vulgare thistle, bull Clematis vitalba old man's beard Convolvulus arvensis field bindweed Cortaderia jubata jubata grass Cortaderia selloana Pampas grass Crataegus monogyna English hawthorn Cuscuta approximata smoothseed alfalfa dodder

Daucus carota wild carrot (except where commercially grown)

Dipsacus fullonum common teasel Elaeagnus angustifolia Russian olive Gypsophila paniculata babysbreath Hedera helix ‘Baltica’, ‘Pittsburgh’, and ‘Star’, and H. hibernica ‘Hibernica’

English ivy - four cultivars only

Hyoscyamus niger black henbane Hypericum perforatum common St. Johnswort Hypochaeris radicata common catsear Impatiens capensis spotted jewelweed Iris pseudacorus yellow flag iris Lepidium appelianum hairy whitetop Lepidium draba hoary cress Leucanthemum vulgare oxeye daisy Linaria vulgaris yellow toadflax Myriophyllum spicatum x Myriophyllum sibiricum

Eurasian watermilfoil hybrid

Nanozostera japonica Japanese eelgrass Nymphaea odorata fragrant waterlily Pentaglottis sempervirens green alkanet

Phalaris arundinacea reed canarygrass Potamogeton crispus curlyleaf pondweed Rorippa austriaca Austrian fieldcress Rubus bifrons (Rubus armeniacus)

Himalayan blackberry

Rubus laciniatus evergreen blackberry Secale cereale cereal rye Senecio vulgaris common groundsel Silene latifolia white cockle Solanum rostratum buffalobur Soliva sessilis lawnweed Sonchus arvensis perennial sowthistle Sphaerophysa salsula Swainsonpea Taeniatherum caput-medusae medusahead

Tripleurospermum inodorum scentless mayweed

Typha species nonnative cattail species and hybrids (reminder, does not include the native common cattail, Typha latifolia)

Ventenata dubia ventenata Xanthium spinosum spiny cocklebur

To learn more about noxious weeds and noxious weed control in Washington State, please contact:

WA State Noxious Weed Control Board P.O. Box 42560

Olympia, WA 98504-2560

(360) 725-5764

Email: noxiousweeds@agr.wa.gov Website: http://www.nwcb.wa.gov

Or

WA State Department of Agriculture

(509) 249-6973

Or

Your County Noxious Weed Control Board

Washington State Noxious Weed List

Wild basil, Clinopodium vulgare, was a new Class B noxious weed for 2022. This invasive mint quickly invades disturbed areas and forest understories, creating monocultures.

Illustration by Anne Schuster

List arranged alphabetically by:

SCIENTIFIC NAME

ATTACHMENT :

CONTRACT DISCREPANCY REPORT

Instructions: QAP fills in blocks 1, 3, 4, 5 (prepared), and 6. Contractor fills in blocks 9 and 10.

1. CONTRACT NUMBER 2. REPORT NUMBER FOR THIS DISCREPANCY

3. TO: (Contractor and Managers Name) 4. FROM: (Name of QAE)

5. DATES

PREPARED RETURNED BY CONTRACTOR ACTION COMPLETE

6. DISCREPANCY OR PROBLEM: (Describe in detail: include applicable SOW/Contract references: attach continuation sheet if necessary.)

7. SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

8. TO: (Contracting Officer) FROM: (Contractor)

9. CONTRACTOR RESPONSE AS TO CAUSE, CORRECTIVE ACTION AND ACTIONS TO PREVENT RECURRENCE: ATTACH CONTINUATION SHEET IF NECESSARY.

(Cite applicable Q.C. program procedures or new Q.C. procedures.)

10. SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE DATE

11. GOVERNMENT EVALUATION (Acceptance, partial acceptance, rejection; attach continuation sheet if necessary.)

12. GOVERNMENT ACTIONS (Reduced payment, cure notice, show cause, other.)

CLOSE OUT

NAME-TITLE SIGNATURE DATE

CONTRACTOR

NOTIFIED

QAE

ACO

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

To: Jeanie Braun Braun Construction 24805 SW Gage Road Wilsonville, OR 97070

From: Chris Moller, Wetland Scientist / Project Manager

Date: August 6, 2021

Re: Chumbley Wildlife Mitigation Site Vegetation Monitoring Plan / SWCA Project No.

67254

PROJECT BACKGROUND

The Chumbley Wildlife Mitigation Site is located approximately 2 miles north of Woodland, Washington, adjacent to Interstate 5 and consists of 71 acres of monitoring area (Figure 1). The area consists of native species plantings which occurred at the site in 2009 (original plantings) and in 2018 (additional plantings to replace original failed plantings). Maintenance is required to control competing and invasive vegetation around the native plantings. The species of plantings and their approximate locations are shown in Attachments 3 and 4 in the RFP. Competing vegetation is defined as all vegetation within the site boundary except for plantings and native volunteers. The 2018 plantings are generally marked with plant protectors. Competing vegetation has grown taller than the plantings and protectors in many places.

Invasive vegetation is defined as all Class A, Class B, and Class C plants listed in Attachment 11 in the

RFP.

The contractor will distinguish on-site between plantings and other native species (Attachments 8 and 9) versus invasive species classes (Attachment 11) as outlined in the RFP. In 2019, mulch was applied in a layer 2 inches thick over the areas shown in Attachment 10 in the RFP (approximately 4 acres). Work under this contract will avoid disturbing the mulched areas.

PROJECT OVERVIEW

Monitoring Requirements

The contractor will conduct vegetation monitoring according to the methods in this vegetation monitoring plan. Two wetland scientists will record stem density, tree and shrub survival, invasive species cover, and native/desirable species at plot locations. Monitoring will occur over 2 days in the summer of 2021 (between June and September, depending on project schedule). Monitoring results will be presented in monitoring reports for each site. Requirements for monitoring and reporting are shown in Table 1.

Chumbley Wildlife Mitigation Site Vegetation Monitoring Plan

Table 1. Riparian Planting Survival and Vegetation Assessment Requirements at Chumbley Wildlife Mitigation Site

Performance Standards Fully Met? (Y/N) Comments/Reason for shortfall (mark N/A if doesn’t apply this year)

Establishment of Monitoring Transects and Plot Locations

Required: 30 transect/plot locations must be established during the first annual monitoring in sufficient number and locations to be representative of the site.

Required: Provide GPS coordinates for all transects/plots.

Required: Establish photo points and GPS locations for each transect/plot location.

Documenting Tree and Shrub Planting Survival (including re-plantings)

Required: Stem (individual plant) counts of living planted and naturalized vegetation at transect/plot locations. Average of planting areas will be reported to assess tree and shrub survival.

Measuring Invasive Species % Cover

Required: Less than 20% invasive species cover across all strata.

Percent cover measured across all plot locations.

Measuring Native/Desirable Species % Cover

Required: 80% or greater cover of native species across all vegetation strata. Percent cover measured across all plot locations.

Note: GPS = global positioning system.

Monitoring Methods

The vegetation monitoring plan will establish a total of 30 monitoring plot locations established along five (5) transects. The transects will have six (6) sample randomly placed plots per transect. The transects run roughly north to south at equidistant intervals across the project area (Figure 2). The contractor will navigate to these plot locations, evaluate the area, and adjust as needed to avoid any built environment (buildings, roads, etc.) as well as wetlands and waterways where plantings did not occur. Final plot locations will be recorded by global positioning system (GPS) unit and provided for subsequent monitoring years.

Photographs of each sample plot will be taken to document conditions at time of monitoring. At each plot, two panoramic photos showing the entire area will be taken. The first panorama will be taken to the north (in an arc from west to east), and the second panorama will be taken to the south (in an arc from east to west). The photograph locations will be recorded at each sample plot location by GPS. GPS coordinates will be provided by the contractor to support subsequent year’s monitoring activities.

At each plot location, the contractor’s wetland scientists will conduct 15-foot-radius visual vegetation estimates to document species presence and percent cover of individual species within tree and scrub-shrub vegetation strata (Appendix A). Herbaceous and bare ground percent cover at each plot location will be evaluated within a 5-foot radius. Since vegetation within and between strata often overlaps there is the potential for more than 100% cover at sample plot locations. Visual vegetation estimation methodology will follow method prescribed in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) (USACE 2010). In addition to recording the species and percent cover, stem counts of planted and naturalized shrub and tree species will be documented within a 15-foot radius.

Site access for Chumbley Monitoring Site will be coordinated with Braun Construction. Two days of monitoring field work are anticipated. Fieldwork will be scheduled once the monitoring plan has been finalized. In 2021, fieldwork should occur before August 15, 2021. However, in subsequent years, the contractor shall perform monitoring in May or June and before annual maintenance begins.

VEGETATION MONITORING REPORTING

Upon completion of field survey of the monitoring sites, the contractor will prepare the current-year monitoring report for the site. The report will detail maintenance activities, present vegetation data, evaluate results against performance standards, and recommend management actions. A draft report will be provided by November 1, and a final report will be provided by November 30, 2021. The report will include the following as relevant to the monitoring project:

Project Name: Columbia River Channel Improvement Project Riparian Mitigation, Chumbley Mitigation Site.

Name of party responsible for conducting the monitoring and the date(s) the inspection was conducted.

A brief paragraph describing the purpose of the approved project, acreage and type of aquatic resources impacted, and mitigation acreage and type of aquatic resources authorized to compensate for the aquatic impacts.

Written description of the location, any identifiable landmarks of the mitigation project including information to locate the site perimeter(s) and coordinates of the mitigation site (expressed as latitude/longitude, Universal Transverse Mercator, state plane coordinate system, etc.).

Dates the mitigation project commenced and/or was completed.

Short statement on whether the performance standards are being met.

Dates of any recent corrective or maintenance activities conducted since the previous report submission.

Specific recommendations for any additional corrective or remedial actions.

Requirements

List the monitoring requirements and performance standards as specified in the approved monitoring plan (see Table 1).

Monitoring Methods

Detailed description of the monitoring methods and rationale behind them.

Summary Data

Summary data in the form of descriptions and tables representing the monitoring data collected in the field will be provided. Field data will be assessed to determine the presence and percent cover of native/desirable species, the presence of invasive species (see Appendix A), and the stem counts and survival of planting within the monitoring sites. These data will be used assess the success and/or potential challenges associated with the mitigation project. Photo-documentation of the plots and site conditions will be provided to support the findings and recommendations referenced in the monitoring report.

Maps and Plans

Maps showing the project locations of the mitigation sites relative to other landscape features, habitat types, locations of photograph reference points, transects, sampling data points, and/or other features pertinent to the mitigation plan will be included. The maps will also include clearly delineated mitigation site perimeters.

CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions will include a description of the conditions of the mitigation project. If performance standards are not being met, the contractor will recommend remedial actions, including a brief explanation of the difficulties of remedial actions and a timetable for implementation.

LITERATURE CITED

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y- 87-1. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountain, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0).

edited by J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center.

Figure 1. Chumbley Wildlife Mitigation Site location map. Shows the location of monitoring site north of Woodland, Washington (lower left).

Figure 2. Chumbley Wildlife Mitigation Site sampling map. Shows the location of monitoring transect/plots relative to the tax parcels, mulched areas, planting zones, and study area boundary.

APPENDIX A

Monitoring Form Example

A-1

Site:

Upland Buffer Habitat Unit

Species 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Row Average

Native Herbaceous Species species-latin name 0

Invasive Herbaceous Species species-latin name 0

Non-Native Herbaceous Species species-latin name 0

Native Shrub and Tree Species species-latin name 0

Routine Performance Standards 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Habitat Average

Standard Error

Cover of Native Herbaceous Species #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Lower CI (80%) #DIV/0!

Upper CI (80%) #DIV/0!

Cover of Invasive Herbaceous Specie #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Lower CI (80%) #DIV/0!

Upper CI (80%) #DIV/0!

Cover of Native Shrubs and Trees #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Lower CI (80%) #DIV/0!

Upper CI (80%) #DIV/0!

Percent Cover

Instructions: Add or delete columns and rows to reflect the data collected. Review formulas in highlighted cells (green) and fix formulas as needed. After completing, use the Summary Information to evaluate site performance against the specific standards found in your monitoring plan. These standards and the Summary Information should be filled into the Monitoring Report Cover Sheet. Print this worksheet and include it in the monitoring report.

Table A-1. Vegetation Monitoring Point Coordinates (Plot Centers)

Monitoring Point Number Latitude Longitude

Table A-2. Photo Point Coordinates

Photo Point Number Latitude Longitude

Braun Construction 24805 SW Gage Road Wilsonville, OR 97070

From: Chris Moller, Wetland Scientist / Project Manager

Date: August 6, 2021

Re: Cottonwood Island Wildlife Mitigation Site Vegetation Monitoring Plan / SWCA Project No. 67254

PROJECT BACKGROUND

The Cottonwood Island Wildlife Mitigation Site is located on an island approximately 4.5 miles north of Kalama, Washington, and consists of 90 acres of monitoring areas (Figure 1). The site was originally planted with native species in 2011 (original plantings) and in 2018 (additional plantings to replace original plantings that failed). Maintenance is required to control competing and invasive vegetation around the 2011 mitigation plantings. The species of plantings are listed in Attachments 8 and 9 in the Request for Proposal (RFP). Competing vegetation is defined as all vegetation within the site boundary, except for plantings (and native volunteers). The plantings are generally marked with flags on metal stakes or plant protectors. Competing vegetation may have grown taller than the plantings and markers in many places, or the markers have been dislodged and only the metal stakes may remain. Invasive vegetation is defined as all Class A, Class B, and Class C plants listed in Attachment 11 in the RFP.

The contractor will distinguish on-site between plantings and other native species (Attachments 8 and 9) versus invasive species classes (Attachment 11) as outlined in the RFP. In 2019, mulch was applied in a layer 2 inches thick over the areas shown in Attachment 10 in the RFP (approximately 4 acres). Work under this contract will avoid disturbing the mulched areas.

PROJECT OVERVIEW

Monitoring Requirements

The contractor will conduct vegetation monitoring according to the methods in this vegetation monitoring plan. Two wetland scientists will record stem density, tree and shrub survival, invasive species cover, and native/desirable species at plot locations. Monitoring will occur over 2 days in the summer of 2021 (between June and September, depending on project schedule). Monitoring results will be presented in monitoring reports for each site. Requirements for monitoring and reporting are shown in Table 1.

Cottonwood Island Wildlife Mitigation Site Vegetation Monitoring Plan

Table 1. Riparian Planting Survival and Vegetation Assessment Requirements at Cottonwood Island Wildlife Mitigation Sites

Performance Standards Fully Met? (Y/N) Comments/Reason for shortfall (mark N/A if doesn’t apply this year)

Establishment of Monitoring Transects and Plot Locations

Required: 30 plot locations must be established during the first annual monitoring in sufficient number and locations to be representative of the site.

Required: Provide GPS coordinates for all transects/plots.

Required: Establish photo points and GPS locations for each transect/plot location.

Documenting Tree and Shrub Planting Survival (including re-plantings)

Required: Stem (individual plant) counts of living planted and naturalized vegetation at transect/plot locations. Average of planting areas will be reported and used to assess tree and shrub survival.

Measuring Invasive Species % Cover

Required: Less than 20% invasive species cover across all strata.

Percent cover measured across all plot locations.

Measuring Native/Desirable Species % Cover

Required: 80% or greater cover of native species across all vegetation strata. Percent cover measured across all plot locations.

Note: GPS = global positioning system.

Monitoring Methods

The vegetation monitoring plan will establish a total of 30 monitoring plot locations. The site is a mosaic of planting areas, wetlands, open water, mulched areas, and other treatment areas. Instead of transects, geographic information system (GIS) software was used to generate random locations within the planting areas. Plot locations were adjusted to avoid recently mulched areas (Figure 2) within the planting zones.

The contractor will navigate to these plot locations, evaluate the area, and adjust as needed to avoid any built environment (buildings, roads, etc.) as well as wetlands and waterways where plantings did not occur. Final plot locations will be recorded by global positioning system (GPS) unit and provided for subsequent monitoring years.

Photographs of each sample plot will be taken to document conditions at time of monitoring. At each plot, two panoramic photos showing the entire area will be taken. The first panorama will be taken to the north (in an arc from west to east), and the second panorama will be taken to the south (in an arc from east to west). The photograph locations will be recorded at each sample plot location by GPS. Photographs of the eight (8) photograph locations from the 2013 As-Built Report will also be taken. GPS coordinates will be provided by the contractor to support subsequent year’s monitoring activities.

At each plot location, the contractor’s wetland scientists will conduct 15-foot-radius visual vegetation estimates to document species presence and percent cover of individual species within tree and scrub-shrub vegetation strata (Appendix A). Herbaceous and bare ground percent cover at each plot location will be evaluated within a 5-foot radius. Since vegetation within and between strata often overlaps there is the potential for more than 100% cover at sample plot locations. Visual vegetation estimation methodology will follow method prescribed in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0)

(USACE 2010). In addition to recording the species and percent cover, stem counts of planted and naturalized shrub and tree species will be documented within a 15-foot radius.

Transportation and site access for the Cottonwood Island Wildlife Mitigation Site will be coordinated with Braun Construction. An access map to planting areas is provided in Attachment 6 in the RFP. Two days of monitoring field work are anticipated. Fieldwork will be scheduled once the monitoring plan has been finalized. In 2021, fieldwork should occur before August 15, 2021. However, in subsequent years, the contractor shall perform monitoring in May or June and before annual maintenance begins.

VEGETATION MONITORING REPORTING

Upon completion of field survey of the monitoring sites, the contractor will prepare the current-year monitoring report for the site. The report will detail maintenance activities, present vegetation data, evaluate results against performance standards, and recommend management actions. A draft report will be provided by November 1, and a final report will be provided by November 15, 2021. The report will include the following as relevant to the monitoring project:

Project Name: Columbia River Channel Improvement Project Riparian Mitigation, Cottonwood Island Mitigation Site.

Name of party responsible for conducting the monitoring and the date(s) the inspection was conducted.

A brief paragraph describing the purpose of the approved project, acreage and type of aquatic resources impacted, and mitigation acreage and type of aquatic resources authorized to compensate for the aquatic impacts.

Written description of the location, any identifiable landmarks of the mitigation project including information to locate the site perimeter(s) and coordinates of the mitigation site (expressed as latitude/longitude, Universal Transverse Mercator, state plane coordinate system, etc.).

Dates the mitigation project commenced and/or was completed.

Short statement on whether the performance standards are being met.

Dates of any recent corrective or maintenance activities conducted since the previous report submission.

Specific recommendations for any additional corrective or remedial actions.

Requirements

List the monitoring requirements and performance standards as specified in the approved monitoring plan (see Table 1).

Monitoring Methods

Detailed description of the monitoring methods and rationale behind them.

Summary Data

Summary data in the form of descriptions and tables representing the monitoring data collected in the field will be provided. Field data will be assessed to determine the presence and percent cover of native/desirable species, the presence of invasive species (see Appendix A), and the stem counts and survival of planting within the monitoring sites. These data will be used assess the success and/or potential challenges associated with the mitigation project. Photo-documentation of the plots and site conditions will be provided to support the findings and recommendations referenced in the monitoring report.

Maps and Plans

Maps showing the project locations of the mitigation sites relative to other landscape features, habitat types, locations of photograph reference points, transects, sampling data points, and/or other features pertinent to the mitigation plan will be included. The maps will also include clearly delineated mitigation site perimeters.

CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions will include a description of the conditions of the mitigation project. If performance standards are not being met, the contractor will recommend remedial actions, including a brief explanation of the difficulties of remedial actions and a timetable for implementation.

LITERATURE CITED

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y- 87-1. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountain, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0).

edited by J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center.

Figure 1. Cottonwood Island Wildlife Mitigation Site location map. Shows the location of monitoring site north of Kalama, Washington (lower left).

Figure 2. Cottonwood Island Wildlife Mitigation Site sampling map. Shows the location of monitoring transect/plots relative to the tax parcels, mulched areas, planting zones, and study area boundary.

Site:

Upland Buffer Habitat Unit

Species 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Row Average

Native Herbaceous Species species-latin name 0

Invasive Herbaceous Species species-latin name 0

Non-Native Herbaceous Species species-latin name 0

Native Shrub and Tree Species species-latin name 0

Routine Performance Standards 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Habitat Average

Standard Error

Cover of Native Herbaceous Species #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Lower CI (80%) #DIV/0!

Upper CI (80%) #DIV/0!

Cover of Invasive Herbaceous Specie #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Lower CI (80%) #DIV/0!

Upper CI (80%) #DIV/0!

Cover of Native Shrubs and Trees #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Lower CI (80%) #DIV/0!

Upper CI (80%) #DIV/0!

Percent Cover

Instructions: Add or delete columns and rows to reflect the data collected. Review formulas in highlighted cells (green) and fix formulas as needed. After completing, use the Summary Information to evaluate site performance against the specific standards found in your monitoring plan. These standards and the Summary Information should be filled into the Monitoring Report Cover Sheet. Print this worksheet and include it in the monitoring report.

Table A-1. Vegetation Monitoring Plots, Coordinates of Plot Centers

Monitoring Point Number Latitude Longitude

1 46.073662 -122.87936

2 46.073844 -122.88049

3 46.072959 -122.88176

4 46.075342 -122.88186

5 46.076798 -122.88142

6 46.07376 -122.88108

7 46.076376 -122.87968

8 46.076831 -122.87997

9 46.075089 -122.87918

10 46.075417 -122.87959

11 46.075729 -122.87859

12 46.081921 -122.87981

13 46.078441 -122.87907

14 46.080781 -122.87862

15 46.079812 -122.87898

16 46.079644 -122.88482

17 46.07908 -122.88387

18 46.08021 -122.88519

19 46.078682 -122.88313

20 46.079025 -122.88121

21 46.083144 -122.88576

22 46.082795 -122.88501

23 46.079922 -122.88221

24 46.081934 -122.88346

25 46.081688 -122.88104

26 46.081603 -122.88214

27 46.083384 -122.8843

28 46.080641 -122.88045

29 46.082953 -122.88371

30 46.082762 -122.88161

Table A-2. Photo Point Coordinates

Photo Point Number Latitude Longitude

1 46.073628 -122.8794

2 46.073821 -122.88044

3 46.072929 -122.88183

4 46.075291 -122.88186

5 46.076762 -122.88142

6 46.073704 -122.88107

7 46.076324 -122.87969

8 46.076784 -122.87994

9 46.075029 -122.8792

10 46.075359 -122.87956

11 46.075675 -122.87862

12 46.081903 -122.87975

13 46.0784 -122.87905

14 46.080718 -122.87863

15 46.079767 -122.87896

16 46.079608 -122.8848

17 46.07905 -122.88385

18 46.080164 -122.88519

19 46.078697 -122.8831

20 46.078972 -122.8812

21 46.083123 -122.8857

22 46.08277 -122.88497

23 46.079885 -122.88224

24 46.081902 -122.88342

25 46.081647 -122.88099

26 46.081569 -122.88209

27 46.083345 -122.88425

28 46.080591 -122.88045

29 46.082922 -122.88366

30 46.082714 -122.88157

Table A-3. 2013 As-Built Reference Point Photo Coordinates.

Reference Point

Number

Coordinates (NAD83 Oregon North, US survey feet)

Coordinates (WGS 1984, Decimal

Degrees) Description

1 7597714, 886575 46.073935, -122.881588 Southeastern portion of mitigation site, field 6, near southeast entrance of island.

2 7597909, 886728 46.07437, -122.880838 Follows constructed path, southeast portion of site, north of reference point 1, junction of field

6 and field 5.

3 7597896, 887037 46.075213, -122.880927 Southeastern portion of site, west of reference point 2, northern junction of fields 5 and 6.

4 7597925, 888123 46.078194, -122.880939 Central portion of site, junction between fields

5 and 2, borders northern portion of constructed wetland 1.

5 7597722, 888969 46.080496, -122.881834 Western portion of site, junction between central portions of fields 3 and 2, north of constructed wetland 3.

6 7597312, 888282 46.078579, -122.883369 Southwestern portion of site, eastern portion of field 1, south of constructed wetland 3.

7 7596610, 889547 46.081989, -122.886283 Western portion of site, western portion of field

1, south of constructed wetland 3.

8 7596561, 890218 46.083826, -122.886554 Western portion of site, western portion of field

3, junction between fields 3 and 1 and constructed wetland 3.

Braun Construction 24805 SW Gage Road Wilsonville, OR 97070

From: Chris Moller, Wetland Scientist / Project Manager

Date: June 28, 2022

Re: Chumbley and Cottonwood Wildlife Mitigation Site Wildlife Usage Monitoring Plan / SWCA Project No. 67254

PROJECT BACKGROUND

The Chumbley Wildlife Mitigation Site is located approximately 2 miles north of Woodland, Washington, adjacent to Interstate 5 and consists of 71 acres of monitoring area. The area consists of native species plantings which occurred at the site in 2009 (original plantings) and in 2018 (additional plantings to replace original failed plantings). The Cottonwood Island Wildlife Mitigation Site is located on an island approximately 4.5 miles north of Kalama, Washington, and consists of 90 acres of monitoring areas. The site was originally planted with native species in 2011 (original plantings) and in 2018 (additional plantings to replace original plantings that failed). Maintenance is required to control competing and invasive vegetation around the 2011 mitigation plantings.

PROJECT OVERVIEW

Monitoring Requirements

The contractor will conduct monitoring according to the methods in this wildlife usage monitoring plan.

One wildlife biologist will conduct the monitoring at the site. Monitoring will occur over 2 days in the summer of 2021 (between July and September, depending on project schedule). Monitoring results will be presented in monitoring reports for each site.

Background

Monitoring the health and long-term stability of bird communities can provide an important measure of overall environmental health (Smits and Fernie 2013) and effectiveness of management decisions (Noson and Hutto 2005). Birds are good environmental monitors for several reasons: many species can be monitored simultaneously with a single method, methods for monitoring are well understood and standardized, birds occupy all habitat types, and birds as a community represent several trophic levels and habitat-use guilds. Monitoring species abundance, community diversity, and trends provides information that can be used to determine the effectiveness of management actions in moving towards restoration goals.

Attachment 21:

Chumbley and Cottonwood Wildlife Mitigation Site Wildlife Usage Monitoring Plan

Point counts are the most widely used quantitative method for monitoring land birds and involve an observer recording birds from a single point for a standardized time period (Ralph et al. 1995). The methodology follows recommendations by Ralph et al. (1995) and is consistent with that employed by the Forest Service Northern Region Land Bird Monitoring Project (Hutto et al. 2001) and recommendations for the Idaho Partners in Flight Bird Monitoring Plan (Leukering et al. 2000). Fixed-radius plots (where the radius is arbitrarily small) reduce the interspecific difference in detectability by assuming that: 1) all the birds within the fixed-radius are detectable; 2) observers do not actively attract or repel birds; and 3) birds do not move into or out of the fixed-radius plot during the counting period. This allows for comparisons of abundance among species. Unlimited radius plots maximize the amount of data collected because they include all detections and are appropriate when the objective is to monitor population changes within a single population (Ralph et al. 1995). Birds should be tallied in two distance bands, one 0 to 50 m from the point center and one more than 50 m from the point center. This maximizes data collection while permitting interspecific analysis. Additional information on establishing point count stations, data collection, and sample data forms can be found in Ralph et al. (1993), Ralph et al. (1995), and Huff et al. (2000).

Protocol Bird populations are sampled by the point-count method. Each sampling point is the center of a point-count station. The focal survey area consists of a 50-m radius circle around each point. All point-count stations will be georeferenced and recorded on the point-count data form. All birds detected are recorded and specified as being within or outside the focal survey area. Bird surveys are conducted from July to late August beginning at approximately 0700 hours and ending by 1100 hours. A single observer spends 8 minutes at each birding station recording in three intervals (0–3 minutes, 3–5 minutes, and 5–8 minutes).

All birds seen or heard within each of these three time periods are recorded. Species are identified using a four-letter code based on common name (e.g., RWBL for red-winged blackbird). A generic code is used if the species cannot be identified. Birds encountered are assigned a group type from among the following:

male (M), female (F), pair (P), nest (N), flock (FL), or unknown (U). An observation type is also assigned: singing (S), calling (C), visual (V), or drumming (D). For flocks, the approximate number of individuals is noted. Birds that are observed flying within the plot, but do not appear to be using the area, are noted as flyovers.

Weather conditions can have a great influence on the effectiveness of a survey. Upon arrival at each monitoring station, weather conditions are noted as: clear (C), partly cloudy (P), overcast (O), drizzle (D), rain (R), or fog (F). Because most birds are observed by sound, wind or rain can mask songs or call notes enough that they are not discernible to the observer. High wind and heavy rain can also force high canopy foragers to take shelter or generally decrease the morning activity of most birds. Surveys are not conducted, or are discontinued, if these weather conditions exist.

All stations should be visited two times during the breeding season (late May to late August, though late May to early July is ideal), with a minimum of 1 week between counts. Exact timing of sampling may vary due to conditions outside the observers’ control (e.g., road and weather conditions). Subsequent analyses are weighted by the number of entries. To the extent possible, the order of daily visits to the point-count stations is reversed for each entry to increase the probability of observing both early and late morning singers across the point-count stations. To maximize the probability of recording all bird species present at a station regardless of variable arrival and breeding times, surveys are scheduled so that each station is visited throughout the breeding season. Observations while moving between survey points of notable species or nesting behaviors, or of species not detected during point count surveys within a mitigation property, are recorded in field notes and reported as incidental sightings.

Chumbley and Cottonwood Wildlife Mitigation Site Vegetation Monitoring Plan

WILDLIFE USAGE MONITORING REPORTING

Upon completion of field survey of the monitoring sites, the contractor will prepare a summary of wildlife use at the sites and include it in the vegetation monitoring report. A draft report will be provided by November 1, and a final report will be provided by November 30. The summary will include the following as relevant to the monitoring project:

Name of party responsible for conducting the monitoring and the date(s) the inspection was conducted.

Short statement on whether the performance standards are being met.

Maps and Plans

Maps showing the project locations of the mitigation sites relative to other landscape features, habitat types, locations of photograph reference points, point count locations, and specific siting details.

LITERATURE CITED

Huff, M. H., K. A. Bettinger, H. L. Ferguson, M. J. Brown, and B. Altman. 2000. A habitat based point-count protocol for terrestrial birds, emphasizing Washington and Oregon. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-501. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Hutto, R. L., J. Hoffland, and J. S. Young. 2001. USDA Forest Service Northern Region Land Bird Monitoring Project Field Methods 2001, West Side Monitoring. Missoula: University of Montana Division of Biological Sciences.

Noson, A. C., and R. L. Hutto. 2005. Using Bird Indices of Biotic Integrity to Assess the Condition of Wetlands in Montana: Final Report. Montana Department of Environmental Quality, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, University of Montana.

Ralph, C. J., G. R. Geupel, P. Pyle, T. E. Martin, and D. F. DeSante. 1993. Handbook of Field Methods for Monitoring Landbirds. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-144. Albany, California: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.

Ralph, C. J., J. R. Sauer, and S. Droege. 1995. Monitoring Bird Populations by Point Counts. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-149. Albany, California: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.

Smits, J. E. G., and K. J. Fernie. 2013. Avian wildlife as sentinels of ecosystem health. Comparative Immunology, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 36:333–342.