STORMWATER RESTORATION



STORMWATER RESTORATION

FW/FOR 445 Ecological Restoration

Shawn Bishop, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife

April Lindeman, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife

Melissa Murphy, College of Oceanography and Atmospheric Sciences

Jenny Ruthven, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife

Greg Woloveke, Department of Ecological Engineering

Oregon State University

Corvallis, Oregon

[pic]

Table of Contents: page

I. Goals and Objectives……………………………………………………………….…4

II. Context……………………………………………………………………………..….4

A. Historical………………………………………………………………………..…4

B. Ecological…………………………………………………………………….…...7

C. Policies and Regulations……………………………………………………….….9

D. Economic………………………………………………………………………...11

E. Social……………………………………………………………………………..11

III. Ecological Principle………………………………………………………………….12

IV. Conceptual Reference System……………………………………..………………...14

V. Constraints………………………………………………………………………...…17

VI. Alternative Options…………………………………………………………………..17

A. 35th St. Alternative Option 1……………………………………………………..17

B. 35th St. Alternative Option 2……………………………………………………..18

C. 35th St. Alternative Option 3…………………………………………………..…20

D. Reser Stadium Alternative Option 1……………………………………………..21

E. Reser Stadium Alternative Option 2………………………………………….….22

F. Reser Stadium Alternative Option 3……………………………………………..25

VII. Preferred Alternative for 35th St…………………………………………………...…25

A. Location …………………………………………………………………………25

B. Action……………………………………………………………………………26

C. Timing ………………………………………………………………………..…29

D. Sequence…………………………………………………………………………30

E. Equipment…………………………………………………………….................30

F. Permitting Requirements………………………………………………………...31

G. Coordination…………………………………………………………………..…31

H. Approximate Cost……………………………………………………………..…32

VIII. Expected Outcomes for 35th St.…………………………………………………...…32

A. Timeframe……………………………………………………………………..…32

B. Spatial extent…………………………………………………………………..…33

C. Degree of Change………………………………………………………………..33

D. Measures of Success for 35th St …………………………………………………33

IX. Preferred Alternative for Reser Stadium………………………………………….…34

A. Location …………………………………………………………………………34

B. Action………………………………………………………………………….…35

C. Timing ………………………………………………………………………...…37

D. Sequence…………………………………………………………………………38

E. Equipment…………………………………………………………….................38

F. Permitting Requirements…………………………………………………..….…39

G. Coordination…………………………………………………………………..…39

H. Approximate Cost…………………………………………………………….….39

X. Expected Outcomes for Reser Stadium……………………………………….….…40

A. Timeframe…………………………………………………………………..……40

B. Spatial extent………………………………………………………………..……40

C. Degree of Change…………………………………………………….….………41

XI. Measures of Success for Reser Stadium………………………………………..……41

A. Measurements……………………………………………………………………41

B. Statistical or experimental design for monitoring…………………………..……42

XII. Citations…………………………………………………………………………...…48

Acknowledgements

We’d like to thank Dave Eckert for his time, expertise and tireless energy towards making Corvallis a healthier ecosystem. Rollie Baxter, for his help in identifying potential outfalls and over all knowledge of the Corvallis stormwater system and providing us with a map of the Corvallis stormwater system. John Olsen for his marathon overview of the Corvallis stormwater system. Brandon Trelstad for meeting with us and giving us tips and insights into OSU’s stormwater system and sustainability outlook. Paul Doescher for identifying grasses for us. Craig Smith for touring the site and identifying plants. Stan Gregory for his historical knowledge of the area. And the Corvallis Sustainability Coalition for their volunteer efforts in making our town a better place to live.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Our main goal is to improve the quality and quantity of stormwater that enters Oak Creek from stormwater outfalls by reducing the thermal and chemical pollution as well as the velocity of stormwater events.

Objectives:

Minimize stormwater chemical and thermal pollution of concern.

• Maintain limits set by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) water quality standards: beneficial uses, polices and criteria for Oregon (OAR 340-041-0001) (DEQ 2009).

Limit stormwater peak flows into natural water bodies.

• Maintain limits set by the Erosion Prevention and Sedimentation Control for the city of Corvallis.

• Improve hydrologic function of area to prevent further erosion.

Conserve Natural Areas

• Maintain existing native vegetation

• Increase ground cover with native vegetation

Educate public

• Create pamphlet for public use.

• Create interpretive billboard at sites for public use.

I. CONTEXT

A. Historical

Land Use

Homesteaders began settling the Willamette valley in the mid 1800’s after encouraged by the federal government and supported by the Donation Land Claim Act which gave 320acres of land to anyone whom moved to Oregon (Chused 1984). Soon, the first homesteaders began farming the large areas of grassland that existed along Oak Creek due to the periodic burning by the Kalapuya Indians (Williams 2002). The small town of Marysville, present day Corvallis, was established in 1846 at the confluence of the Mary’s River and the Willamette River close to these productive grasslands.

Oregon Agricultural College, now Oregon State University, was established along the lower section of Oak Creek in 1868. Construction of agricultural facilities began on sites near what is now central campus and moved westward with acquisition of new land. At the beginning of the 19th century, agricultural facilities included a horse barn, a cattle barn, a dairy, a piggery, and several feed silos. In 1929, near the present-day EPA Water Lab facility, a large hog barn was constructed along with a sheep barn near 35th St. and Campus Way. By 1936 the OSU dairy moved to its current location on Harrison Street between 35th St. and 53rd St. (Oldfield 1994).

Currently, OSU owns 40% of the Oak Creek watershed (1329 ha), with the remaining area managed by the City of Corvallis, private timber companies, and private landowners for agriculture and residential uses (OSU 2002).

Oak Creek Channelization

In the 1800s, the construction of roads and buildings was minimal along Oak Creek due in part to the frequent flooding of low lying areas (Figure 1). Past records indicated that the lower reach below Harrison Boulevard was originally braided with side channels (Benner 1984). Seven years later in 1853, Marysville changed its name to Corvallis. Around the time of World War I, three steam powered sawmills were constructed along Oak Creek,

which runs through Corvallis and flows into the Marys River. These mills operated for about three years processing lumber from timber harvested within a half-mile radius of the mills (Benner 1984).

The channelization of Oak Creek during the mid-1900s created downstream degradation of the stream banks, channel instability, and a reduction in the diversity and abundance of riparian vegetation. The increased runoff from OSU campus and the city of Corvallis has further escalated the situation (Dunne and Leopold 1978).

A June 2000 report by OSU (Report of the Oak Creek Action Team to Oregon State University) identified stormwater drainage as one of six critical issues or activities that are impacting the Oak Creek basin. Other issues identified as critical included; toxic waste storage and handling, dams and barriers, water withdrawal, riparian condition and water quality, and manure application and water quality. A computer model was used to identify the hydraulic capacity and projected flows of the conveyance system (pipes, culverts, and channels) for the current existing system at the time of the study and future scenarios. The results of the model indicated that the main Oak Creek channel between 35th St and Harrison Boulevard exceeded the velocity criteria of 4 ft/sec, indicating the potential for erosion of the stream bank and/or streambed. The existing two-year storm velocities ranged from 4.9 ft/sec to 7.4 ft/sec at various locations along the reach (City of Corvallis 2009).

B. Ecological

Aquatic Ecosystem

Urbanization and agriculture in the Willamette Valley has altered many of the natural stream processes associated with erosion and deposition of material, which in turn, change the streambed characteristics that influence aquatic life (Naiman et al. 1998). For example, the increased stormwater input into Oak Creek coupled with the removal of natural side channels and the development of wetlands has increased the environmental risks for both resident and anadromous fish species that rely on the Oak Creek and its tributaries for survival. The increased velocity flows and discharge during flood events flush both juvenile and adult fish downstream, increasing mortality rates.

The increased stream flow velocity is also directly related to sediment and bed load transport. This results in the scouring and filling of the streambed and a loss of gravel beds used for spawning (redds) due to excavation or burial or ideal substrate. It also results in the displacement or burial of eggs. The altered discharge regimes along with thermal and chemical pollutants associated with stormwater in-put has also been found to influence the distribution of invertebrate fauna (Naiman et al. 1998).

Riparian Ecosystem

The alteration of the hydrological regimes in the lower Oak Creek basin due to increased stormwater in-put, stream channelization, and the loss of riparian and wetland habitat has also influenced the riparian plant and wildlife communities. Riparian wetlands and ponds created by beavers and the natural stream morphology provide breeding habitat for salamanders, frogs, and reptiles, such as the western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata), a listed endangered species (Hays 1999). Vegetation associated with riparian and wetland areas not only provide habitat for wildlife, it also creates buffer strips that reduces the damaging effects of floods, by stabilizing the stream banks and reducing erosion. Moreover, buffer strips reduce the input of non-point source pollution related to current agricultural practices and urban run-off (Naiman et al. 1998).

C. Policies and Regulations

Federal

Clean Water Act:

This act was passed by congress and signed by the president to establish programs that will protect the water quality of our nation. The main focus for this act is “the restoration and maintenance of chemical, physical, and biological integrity of our nation’s waters” (Federal 2009). The act gave the EPA all rights to develop, implement, and enforce regulations that fall under the clean water act (Federal 2009).

EPA:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has implemented the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). This is a body of regulations that govern the legality of stormwater outputs, including a permit system. The permits can either be issued by the EPA or by the state which can take control of the permitting system as long as all permits meet the NPDES regulations. Oregon governs its own permitting system issuing all permits to meet NPDES regulations (EPA 2009).

Oregon

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) water quality standards:

The Oregon DEQ regulates the protection of Oregon’s environment. Their mission is to “be a leader in restoring, maintaining, and enhancing the quality or Oregon’s air, land and water (DEQ, 2009).” DEQ has established water quality standards for Oregon which include the management of public waters, water quality standards as well as the legal levels for point and non point pollution, see Table 1 through 3.

|Table 1. NUMERICAL GROUNDWATER QUALITY REFERENCE LEVELS: 1 Inorganic Contaminants- Reference Level (mg/L) |

|Arsenic -- 0.05 |

|Barium -- 1.0 |

|Cadmium -- 0.01 |

|Chromium -- 0.05 |

|Fluoride -- 4.0 |

|Lead -- 0.05 |

|Mercury -- 0.002 |

|Nitrate-N -- 10.0 |

|Selenium -- 0.01 |

|Silver -- 0.05 |

|1All reference levels are for total (unfiltered) concentrations unless otherwise specified by the Department. |

| |

| |

|Table 2 NUMERICAL GROUNDWATER QUALITY REFERENCE LEVELS (Continued): 1 Organic Contaminants -- Reference Level (mg/L) |

|Benzene -- 0.005 |

|Carbon Tetrachloride -- 0.005 |

|p-Dichlorobenzene -- 0.075 |

|1,2-Dichloroethane -- 0.005 |

|1,1-Dichloroethylene -- 0.007 |

|1,1,1-Trichloroethane -- 0.200 |

|Trichloroethylene -- 0.005 |

|Total Trihalomethanes -- 0.100 |

|(the sum of concentrations bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane, tribromomethane (bromoform), and trichloromethane (chloroform)) |

|Vinyl Chloride -- 0.002 |

|2,4-D -- 0.100 |

|Endrin -- 0.0002 |

|Lindane -- 0.004 |

|Methoxychlor -- 0.100 |

|Toxaphene -- 0.005 |

|2,4,5-TP Silvex -- 0.010 |

|1All reference levels are for total (unfiltered) concentrations unless otherwise specified by the Department. |

| |

| |

|Table 3 NUMERICAL GROUNDWATER QUALITY GUIDANCE LEVELS: 1 Miscellaneous Contaminants -- Guidance Level (mg/L) 2 |

|Chloride -- 250 |

|Color -- 15 Color Units |

|Copper -- 1.0 |

|Foaming agents -- 0.5 |

|Iron -- 0.3 |

|Manganese -- 0.05 |

|Odor -- 3 Threshold odor number |

|pH -- 6.5-8.5 |

|Sulfate -- 250 |

|Total dissolved solids -- 500 |

|Zinc -- 5.0 |

|1All guidance levels except total dissolved solids and are for total (unfiltered) concentrations unless otherwise specified by the Department. |

|2Unless otherwise specified, except pH. |

|(DEQ 2009) |

City

Erosion Prevention and Sedimentation Control

The city of Corvallis has created a booklet called the Erosion Prevention and Sedimentation Control Manual. The goal for this manual is to provide “technical guidance for design, installation, maintenance, and inspection of temporary and permanent erosion prevention and sediment control measures (City 2009).”

The city made it a priority to create this document in compliance with several federal, state, and local regulatory agencies. Applicable to this project are: US EPA NPDES program for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems, Endangered Species Act, DEQ, City of Corvallis Stormwater Master Plan (SWMP), City of Corvallis Municipals codes and Council policies, as well as a survey of Corvallis public opinion (City 2009).

D. Economic

The Corvallis Sustainability Coalition will be heading the completion of the restoration project. While cost is an issue, they will be fundraising to cover all expenditures and request that the preferred management plan be based on sound ecological principles rather than choosing cost-effective alternatives.

E. Social

Oregon State University manages 40% of the Oak Creek watershed (Oregon 2002). Oak Creek, in which our two stormwater outfalls drain, is part of the larger Marys River Watershed. It encompasses a 310 sq mile area that drains the Coast Range on the west side of the Willamette Valley in the vicinity of Marys Peak (Raymond 2002). The Marys River flows into the larger Willamette River, from which Corvallis draws 60% of its water usage (Corvallis Public Works 2009). Quality of the overall natural environment is highly valued by 93% of Corvallis citizens (The City 2009). Achieving healthy streams and rivers should therefore be of high priority.

II. ECOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE

The primary goal of restoration is to promote healthy watersheds through healthy vegetation. The recommended plan for the Corvallis stormwater restoration project draws its principles of ecological repair by focusing on direct positive autogenic processes of soil and vegetation, the ability of naturally occurring interactions between the vegetation and soil to perform ecosystem services such. Vegetation builds soil and provides habitat and food while soil captures, stores, and releases water and nutrients for growing vegetation. Vegetation and soil also make up the primary driving processes of the ecosystem: energy capture, nutrient cycling, and the functionality of the water cycle. By coupling the natural ability of plants and soil to remove thermal and chemical pollution alongside physical efforts to minimize erosion, the Corvallis stormwater projects seeks to restore ecological function from human impact and maintain healthy landscape interactions.

The introduction of thermal and chemical pollutants into the ecosystem has accelerated the degradation process of riparian areas. The intermediate disturbance hypothesis states that biodiversity is highest when a disturbance is neither too rare nor too frequent. As it currently stands both of our outfalls of interest have disturbances that are too frequent due to the constant source of aquatic pollution and erosive processes of the water. The high rate of disturbance has built a community of disturbance tolerant species. This has left little room for native plants to grab a foot hold and lots of available nutrients for invasive species to spread. By restoring the area to native conditions we can satisfy the intermediate disturbance hypothesis by allowing a more historic disturbance regime to increase the natural biodiversity of the area.

In reference to the ecological degradation model our systems have reached stage 2 of degradation where primary processes are damaged but still functional as seen in the figure below.

[pic]

At stage two of the degradation model the biotic threshold has been crossed and the abiotic threshold is encroached upon. The biotic threshold involves the loss of vegetation and living populations while the abiotic threshold involves losses to the physical environment. Stage two involves degradation of two components: the loss of keystone species and the loss of plant species alongside their predators and symbiotes. From a food web perspective these losses have been observed from both top-down and bottom-up processes that control the trophic system. Together with present erosion the thermal and chemical pollution increases stream temperature, lowers oxygen availability, increases suspended sediment concentration, and poisons the riparian area. The effects that these pollutants have on riparian vegetation degrade the ecosystem from bottom-up control while the effect taken on aquatic and terrestrial communities creates top-down control. Before natural ecological conditions can return restoration must occur to repair damage done to trophic interactions.

III. CONCEPTUAL REFERENCE SYSTEM

Bringing these two locations back to historically pristine systems is not a viable option due to the ongoing human changes to the areas. There is a greater possibility of restoring the 35th Street site to a historical level of ecological function given that the amount of human interference near the site is minimal; however, the Reser Stadium site is subject to numerous sources of disturbance from the stadium itself, the nearby parking lot, the previously constructed bio-swale, and the potential for human impacts from sporting events. These continuing sources of degradation create a situation where the best alternative for restoration is to plan for future disturbance and accept the sites at their current state. Therefore, the best option for a reference system is a conceptually created one that deals with the current level of disturbance and an attainable goal of restoration.

Both sites have outfalls where an underground pipe is directly emptying stormwater runoff into a stream system. The 35th Street outfall sits in the stream system and releases runoff slowly. The area includes mature native riparian trees and is in a relatively undisturbed setting. The outfall pipe is not easily visible and at present covered by blackberry brambles. The area is not open to the public but is accessible and is located on University property which gives rise to development opportunities in the future.

The Reser outfall is above the stream and appears to flow constantly. The area above the pipe and stream sits directly next to the stadium parking lot but a bioswale has been constructed to buffer flooding and runoff. A drain in the bioswale diverts runoff farther downstream. Beyond the bioswale is an open terrace of vegetation which ends at the stream bank. This area is fairly well protected from human disturbance because of the existing ditch.

Conceptually, the ideal goal for these sites would be to return as much of the systems to their original state, historically, as possible while also creating an environment that is resilient to disturbance and change. A return and growth of native riparian trees, shrubs and aquatic plants is a main goal, with the control and possibly eradication of some of the more aggressive invasive plants. A second goal would be lowering the impacts of humans by educating the public about the restoration efforts and discouraging the use of the area for trash disposal. As for the outfalls, fitting them into the landscape (Figure 4) and creating a pathway where the entry of stormwater into the creek system happens more naturally with less impact is the long term vision.

The best case scenario for each site is to return as many of the historically original and native characteristics to the locations as possible and then carefully plan and introduce new characteristics that can adapt to change. Ideally, removing human contact from the sites would be preferred but might not be realistic.

It is our overall goal that the site should regain primary process to support aquatic and riparian plant life that will be integral to the abiotic functions of the system. The key to restoration at the two sites is the role of plants and how they will be used to slow down the outfall discharge, filter the creek water, and hold important sediment in and around the creek and riparian area.

IV. CONSTRAINTS

The largest constraint for this project is the need for funding.  Although the Corvallis Sustainability Coalition will be fundraising to cover all expenditures, there is still the issue of actually raising the money.  The two projects combined could potentially cost $111,000. Hopefully, some of the cost of the 35th St. project could be lessoned with donations of grass and forb seed, as well as volunteer labor, and collaboration with other community groups.

The other constraint for this project is the lack of a reference system to use as an example.  There is a great deal of information available about the types of procedures we will be implementing, but for the 35th St. site in particular there is no reference that we have found that is similar to this particular project.

V. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

A. 35th St Alternative Option 1

Currently the stormwater pipe that drains the western portion of the OSU campus runs under SW Jefferson way and empties into a pond. This pond then connects perpendicularly into a manmade channel that runs approximately 60m into Oak Creek. This same channel also extends up stream another 27m (totaling 97m) where a stream that drains agricultural lands and wetlands feeds into it (Figure 5). Currently this channel is heavily degraded and has crossed over both a biological threshold. It has also possibly crossed over a physical threshold in the channel. The channel has very little debris in it and is down to the clay base layer. The stream has eroded away at least two meters from the riparian area above the flow of water.

If nothing is done we will continue to see stream channel degradation. This degradation has already begun to include the stream that feeds into it. The stream is actively eroding within 15 feet of the channel. In this section the stream drops down to the clay layer and is much wider [pic]

than anything upstream from it. We can assume that the erosion of this stream channel will consume the prairie that it runs through and ultimately lead to higher turbidity in Oak Creek.

B. 35th St Alternative Option 2

For this option we will extend the pipe approximately 50m northwest to a location that currently has ponding water. This area will need to be cleaned up as it currently has large pieces of concrete in it, possibly an old foundation. Once cleaned, this area will be filled with sediment that will encourage infiltration of the water and reduce its velocity. A plant community conducive to phytoremediation will be planted.

A pipe extension will need to be placed that will take water at least 50 m NW, over that distance the water will need to travel approximately 3 vertical feet (Figure 6). Also in the ponding area an outlet will need to be created that will allow the water to drain back to Oak Creek. Ideally this will be relatively short connecting with the current stream, then to the current channel and on to Oak Creek. The channel will need to be stabilized to prevent any further erosion.

Again the plant community in this prairie will need to be analyzed. The invasive reed canarygrass and blackberries will need to be removed. In this location sometime in the past foliar herbicide has been applied and killed a significant amount of the blackberries. This open space and nutrients will need to be replaced with a community of plants that will contribute to the overall goals of decreasing erosion as well as the beneficial goal of replacing the invasive plants with natives.

[pic]

C. 35th St Alternative Option 3

With this option the man made stream channel will be lifted, widened, and filled with debris (Figure 7). The stream is currently triangular shaped. It is .5 meters wide at the clay layer that the water runs through, 2 meters deep and 3 meters wide at the top of the channel. The channel will be gouged out and filled with layers of sediment that will allow for infiltration of water as well as decreased velocity. With a decrease in velocity we will also see a decrease in the sediments that are delivered to the stream and an increase in the filtering that the stream channel provides.

Figure 7. Current channel shape on left. Channel shape after gouging out stream and filling it with velocity reducing debris on Right.

We will also need to reestablish native plants both in the pond region as well as along the channel. Currently Reedcanary grass and blackberries dominate the plant community. There are natives on the site that can be used as source populations.

D. Reser Stadium Alternative Option 1

No action at the current outfall site would likely lead to continued erosion around the existing pipe during high stormwater discharge, compounded by high water events occurring in Oak Creek. The erosion of the bank and streambed would increase the stream sediment input in addition to reducing the amount of overlying riparian vegetation needed to maintain bank stability. As the degradation increases over time, some future action will be needed to reduce the erosion and stabilize the bank, but at a higher cost.

The input of chemical pollutants, sediments, and other debris washed into the storm drains will continue enter Oak Creek untreated and unfiltered. This issue will likely need to be addressed in the future as regulations governing water quality and stormwater input could become stricter, especially when it pertains to habitat quality, ecosystem function, and the conservation of species diversity.

E. Reser Stadium Outfall Alternative Option 2

An alternative option to the Reser Stadium parking lot site would be to remove the over-lining hillside and cut back the discharging end of the pipe approximately 45 ft2 represented in the figure below.

[pic]

Figure 8. Area where stormwater pipe would be removed.

At its current state there is no room to install a bioswale at discharging point because the pipe currently ends directly above Oak Creek; this leaves no room for any sort of constructed landscape remediation. Because of this, other options for filtering stormwater is limited to end of pipe solutions; however, due to low detention time end of pipe solutions may not be effective. By increasing the distance between the effluent of the pipe and the influent at Oak Creek a small bioswale could be installed capable of remediation filtering stormwater. At present the Reser Stadium outflow drains a significant amount of the southwestern part of the Oregon State University campus and handles irrigated flow from the sporting event fields during the drier months. Together this leads to a high volume of water being discharged through this particular storm water pipe year round.

Currently, the Reser Stadium parking lot already houses a constructed swale at the south end of the parking lot; this swale is located directly above the proposed second swale and was designed to handle parking lot run off and water from 35th St. during storm events. By adding a second lower swale to the area, an effective buffer zone will be created capable of handling increased flow caused during high storm level flows.

In order to carry out this plan the first steps will involve machinery to remove the hillside overlying the discharging pipe and then stabilizing the exposed hillside using erosion control matting. Once stabilized, the discharging pipe will be cut back approximately 50 – 100 feet and the discharge area that will become our bioswale will be constructed into a bowl shape to limit erosive processes and be given a slope of 1 to 2 degrees in order to increase detention time and promote flow in an appropriate downward direction.

Once the structure of the bioswale is complete the next step involves preparing the soil to support new vegetation. The majority of organic material contained in the soil will be located near the top in the A, O, or E horizons, once removed organic material will need to be supplemented a proper cycle can be reestablished. Once the soil has been supplemented to suppose life native vegetation will be restored along with specialized plants capable of performing phytoremediation services; these will be the plants performing the majority of pollution cleanup.

Benefits to Alternative:

The benefit of installing a bioswale would be the long-term ecological impact it would have on the riparian area and further areas downstream. Due to the high velocities of effluent stormwater, end of pipe solutions do no provide enough detention time in order for effective treatment of chemical and thermal pollution; the advantage of a bioswale is its ability to handle larger volumes of runoff from a source to a discharge point while intentionally promoting slower flow rates. Because the main mechanism of pollution control exists between vegetative root and soil interactions, bioswales promote healthy landscape interactions through strong usage of the primary processes to drive restoration.

Limitations to Alternative:

The main limitation in this alternative is the expense and feasibility of implementing a project of this size. Timing will need to be considered because of the year round high flow rates typical of this outflow. Optimum time to implement a project like this will be when flow rates are lowest, most likely in the fall. This project will require use of machinery in order to remove the overlying hillside and to cut back the discharging pipe. Alongside the major expense of machinery more minor costs come from constructing and maintaining the bioswale. A long term monitoring plan will also need to be implemented in order to measure restoration success in accordance to goals and objectives previously discussed. A cost-benefit analysis will need to be implemented to determine value of put into action a project of this magnitude. However, it is import to consider both the ecological value alongside the economic value before a final decision is reached.

F. Reser Stadium Outfall Alternative Option 3

Strategically placed openings to the main outfall pipe can result in the diversion of either the primary or the secondary storm-water run-off to the restoration area. By placing an opening in the bottom of the main outfall pipe and connecting a bypass, the primary storm-water, which contains the highest concentrations of pollutants, can be diverted to a site more efficient in filtering out contaminants before they enter a riparian area or stream. Placing an opening in the top of the main outfall pipe and connecting to a diverter will capture the bulk of the secondary storm-water. Both methods will divert pollutants and reduce the end flow-rate at the restoration site which will decrease erosion and other negative impacts to the stream system.

VI. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR 35TH ST

A. Location

The storm water outfall is located at the dead end of Jefferson St west of 35 St. It drains a large area of Oregon State University campus and adjacent residential units as well as agricultural fields. The outfall is located at a man made pond which drains to a channel that travels approximately 60m to Oak Creek. The channel is located in a fallow agricultural field where attempts have been made to plant native shrubs and trees. The field is currently dominated by reed canarygrass, Phalaris arundinaceaI. Though there are several native species of trees, shrubs, and forbs still on the site.

Historically this area was a complex network of braided channels and flood plains for Oak Creek (Figure 9). It became more channelized as the city of Corvallis expanded. By the late 1800’s Oregon State University had acquired much of this land and had turned it into pasture land for sheep grazing.

Sometime in the last decade the College of Agricultural sciences and the College of Animal Sciences decided to let the land go fallow and have begun restoration projects in the flood plains, which is evidenced by the new plantings of shrubs and trees on this site.

B. Action

The current pond and channel system is severely degraded, without attention we can expect to see the pond to continue as a stagnant breeding ground for mosquitoes during the low flow seasons, continued erosion in the channel, and siltation in Oak Creek. The following plan should remedy each of these problems on top of meeting the objective of improving the quality and quantity of storm water that enters Oak Creek from storm water outfalls which will be done by reducing the thermal and chemical pollution as well as the velocity of storm waters.

In order to do meet these goals a two stage project needs to be executed. First the pond needs to be restructured so that it will reduce the velocity of storm water and act as the first location where chemical pollutants can settle out. Second the eroded channel needs to be redesigned as a working bioswale. This type of constructed wetland is known as a two cell pond.

The pond:

Currently, this pond is approximately 150 square meters. During mild water events the stormwater pipe is below the high water level in the pond. The pond is rimmed with Himalayan Blackberries, Reed canarygrass, teasel, and lemon balm. It does have some native species including cow parsnip, snowberry, and fringe cup but these are sparse. The pond is surrounded by a few legacy oaks and willows.

The Channel:

The channel was originally built to drain the pond. The channel extends approximately 30m north of the junction with the pond for unknown reasons. You can see from Figure 11 that the sides of the channel are heavily eroded. There is no long lived vegetation growing near the channel. The alder in this Figure 11 is growing nearly vertical to the earth before growing upward. There is very little substrate in the channel. What is there looks like rock used for gravel roads, but even that is sparse, it is nearly completely down to its clay layer.

Two-cell Pond-

A two cell pond is a wet basin that is comprised of a wet pond connected to a wetland with a stream running through it (Figure 12). Where the current pond lies will be a deep open wet pond and where the current channel is, a shallower marsh area. The new pond will be a surface flow pond similar to a marsh. The invasive plants around the pond will be eradicated and new plants such as cattails, pond weed, bulrushes, and sedges will be planted.

Following the surface flow pond a subsurface flow wetland will be built where the existing channel is. This wetland will be filled with emergent vegetation and plants that discourage erosion such as vine maples and alders.

This two cell constructed wetland plan has several physical, chemical, and biological processes that will lead to improved quality and quantity of the water. The physical processes include sedimentation and flotation. The chemical processes are sorption of pollutants to bottom of soil and precipitation in the water. The biological processes are the uptake and sorption by free floating algae, transformation of pollutants by bacteria and uptake by vegetation (Minton 2002).

C. Timing

This project should take approximately 15.5 months. It should take approximately 12 months to fundraise adequate money to complete this project and 3.5 months for the actually project itself. This will be dependent on our ability to raise the necessary funds, obtain the permit, and also to obtain the correct seeds and plugs for plantings.

The implementation of the two cell pond needs to begin no earlier than June 1st and no later than August 1st. This is the beginning of the dry season which will allow construction to take place when the stormwater outflow is dry. This will reduce the cost of dredging the pond and increase safety throughout the site as there is a significantly reduced risk of injury if the water is not flowing.

Time budget:

- Obtaining permits and finalizes design -2 weeks

- Prepare site -1 month

- Install two-cell pond- 2 months

D. Sequence

1. Fundraise

- Obtain adequate funds for this project

2. Design

- Finalize design

3. Permits

- Obtain appropriate permits

4. Site Preparation

- Dredge pond

- Herbicide treatments

5. Installation

- Build wetland

- Plantings

- Interpretive sign for public

6. Monitoring and Maintenance

- Monitor establishment of pond and wetland plants

- Monitor for invasive plants

E. Equipment

• Dredging pond

o Excavator

o Dump truck

o Shovels

o People (manual labor)

o Buckets

• Pond preparation

o Trained Herbicide applicator

o Herbicides

o Equipment to do the application

o Plants

o Shovels

o People (manual labor)

o Seed spreader

• Building bioswale

o Excavator

o Backhoe

o Dump truck

o Shovels

o People (manual labor)

o Fencing

o Plants

F. Permitting Requirements

One permit is required for this project: the Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Permit is required for all projects that will disturb 2000 square feet of land surface or more but does not involve the construction of a single family or duplex dwelling. This permit is available through the city of Corvallis (City 2009).

The permitting process includes an Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plan. This document must meet all minimum standards set forth in the City of Corvallis Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Manual. All construction on site must wait for the approval of this permit (City 2009).

Upon approval this permit will meet all compliance regulations with the City of Corvallis National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the Endangered Species Act, DEQ total maximum daily load levels for streams, the Oregon Structural Specialty code, the Uniform Building Code and all City of Corvallis city ordinances and Council projects (City 2009).

Oregon State University does not issue permits for construction on school property but all construction projects on school property must be approved by the President’s Cabinet prior to construction. Guidelines for this approval are set forth in the General University Policy and Procedures Manual (OSU GEN 1995).

G. Coordination

This project is going to take a cooperative effort from Oregon State University, OSU Department of Animal Sciences, Facilities Services: OSU, the City of Corvallis, and The Corvallis Sustainability Coalition. Each of these groups is currently or has been invested in this stormwater outfall or the property that it goes through. During the organization of this project each of these entities has been very helpful in the design of this project and no problems are foreseen.

H. Approximate Cost

|  |Cost |Unit |Total |

|Permit (Yaich 2009) |$25.00 |500 sq. ft. |$1,025.00 |

|Excavator/Backhoe (ERS 2009) |$950.00 |per week |$7600.00 |

|Dump truck (ERS 2009) |$3500 |per week |$3500.00 |

|Landfill fees (Lundeberg 2007) |$44.00 (& $5/load) |per ton |$1,000.00 |

|Shovels (D-handle 2009) |$9.99 |each |$99.90 |

|Herbicides (Boerboo 2009) |$26.15 |acre |$13.08 |

|Grasses and Forbes (Blakely-Smith 2009) |$100.00 |acre |$50.00 |

|Fencing (Cost 2009) |$200.00 |50 ft |$2,800.00 |

|Wages (Heavy 2009) |$580 |per person/week |$89,900 |

|Total | |  |$105,987.98 |

| | | | |

VII. EXPECTED OUTCOMES FOR 35TH ST

A. Timeframe

Following completion of the project the short-term expected outcomes include an immediate reduction in discharge volume and erosion during large stormwater events, a reduction in non-point source and sedimentation through the utilization of the bioswale, as well as decreased thermal pollution during low flow season through increased water absorption of the bioswale. Long-term expected outcomes include the control and/or eradication of invasive species through mechanical and chemical treatment as necessary, and the establishment of native ground cover through planting. Although these two expectations will be in place following completion, it will take several years for the native ground cover to completely establish and diligent monitoring and eradication of new invasive plants will be required.

B. Spatial extent

Although the scope of this project is small, it will have a large impact on the entire downstream component of Oak Creek. The quality and quantity of storm water that enters Oak Creek will improve by reducing the thermal and chemical pollution as well as the velocity of storm waters. This will have a positive effect not only the site itself but on the entire portion of Oak Creek that is downstream from the outfall.

C. Degree of Change

In terms of the degradation model, restoration of the 35th street outfall should bring the site from stage 2 back to stage 1. Currently, the biotic threshold has been crossed because there is a loss of native vegetation. Once restoration is completed autogenic processes will be back in place, the natural ability of plants and soil to remove thermal and chemical pollution will be restored and erosion will be minimized.

D. Measures of Success for 35th St.

Measures of success will include the following:

• Reduction in discharge volume and erosion through the utilization of the proposed bioswale to intercept stormwater runoff;

• Reduction in non-point source pollution and sedimentation through the utilization of the proposed bioswale to filter stormwater runoff;

• Control and/or eradication of invasive of species by mechanical and chemical treatment as necessary;

• Establishment of native ground cover through planting and reduced competition of non-native invasive species after removal; and

• Decreased thermal pollution during low flow season through increased water absorption of the bioswale.

The overall success of these two restoration projects will be determined by ability of these two sites to function as an integral part of a sustainable ecosystem that provides habitat for fish and wildlife, ecosystem services (e.g. nutrient cycling, water filtration, carbon sequestering, etc.), biodiversity, and intrinsic value.

VIII. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR RESER STADIUM

A. Location

The storm-water outfall at Reser Stadium’s South-west parking area lies just beyond a University installed bio-swale and empties into Oak Creek between 30th Street and Grove Street at Western Avenue (see image below). The site is sandwiched between expansive parking lot area on the North side and encroaching apartment housing on the South. The location has been utilized by the nearby residents (it is presumed) as a dumping ground for such items as bikes, some trash, a basketball hoop, and various other items. Garbage is not a huge problem here and probably could be lessened with the implementation of interpretive signage on both sides of the creek.

B. Action

The preferred action for this site will focus on minimizing erosion of the bank and creek area while also addressing the issue of possible thermal pollution by dissipating the impact at which the outfall water enters the creek system.

The water exiting the outfall at this site has been identified as mainly groundwater with some storm-water discharge mixed in. The water is constantly flowing and at a fairly fast rate. The cause is presumed to be due to sump-pumps that were installed under Reser Stadium to divert groundwater that is obstructed by underground sections of the stadium (pers coms Stan Gregory). This has led the restoration effort to focus more on reducing the effects of the flow and less on capturing the pollutants that may be in the discharge.

To address the issues laid out above, two main actions must be taken at the outfall site. First, a slope mush be built beneath the outfall pipe that will allow the effluent to flow easily into the creek below. Currently the emerging water drops from the pipe like a waterfall (Figure 14), which has a harsh impact on the surrounding environment. Avoiding a change in slope greater than 25% beneath the outfall (Figure 16) will lessen the impact of the water (Scourstop 2009).

The discharge channel will need to be built as wide, level, and long as possible to allow the velocity of the flow to dissipate before entering the creek system and to lessen the degree of soil protection needed on and around the slope (Scourstop 2009). Here, existing soil and concrete materials will be used and the concrete will be placed in a slight stair step manner to increase the level of dissipation. Utilizing the existing concrete will also reduce the chance of erosion at the outfall opening. By creating a mellow, sloping, wide discharge channel the erosion of the riparian shore area will be minimized as well. No longer will water emerging from the pipe drop directly onto the area below and flow out around the shore. With the new channel the discharge will flow directly to the creek and gently enter.

The second action to be taken is to install a scooped end (Figure 15 and 16), as in the examples below, onto the outfall pipe that lies evenly with the newly created discharge slope. This will create a smooth transition in the flow from pipe to slope to creek and decrease the level of erosion at the site.

In addition to the main actions listed, some important tasks must also be included in this plan. The removal of invasive species and trash from the area should be done before any other action to have a clear view of the landscape. Concrete debris, which is currently piled up on the site, will need to be collected for the construction of the discharge slope.

Cuttings of existing native plants will be taken and re-planted along the creek bed to stabilize the soil and assist in preventing erosion. Ideally, a fence should be placed around the restoration area to avoid negative impacts from humans and animals until the area is deemed ecologically sound and can withstand disturbance of this kind.

Lastly, interpretive signage (Figure 17) should be placed on both sides of the creek, one where the site meets the Reser Stadium parking area and another at Grove Street. Interpretive signs will explain the restoration process and hopefully bring a sense of stewardship and ownership to the area from residents, students and visitors.

[pic] [pic]

C. Timing

Estimated time to complete the restoration objectives is three to six months. Completion depends on volunteer availability, permitting and university approvals, availability of needed equipment and materials, compatible weather conditions, and unforeseen variables that may arise. Football season may also become an obstacle to finishing the restoration project within the estimated time frame.

D. Sequence

The restoration process at this site does have a level of variability pertaining to timeline and steps taken. The ideal process is outlined below but this process can change to fit any emerging constraints.

Step 1 Acquire all needed permits, reserve equipment, and schedule volunteers

Step 2 Removal of invasive species & waste from the site

Step 3 Collection of onsite material for slope construction

Step 4 Build outfall slope using existing & new material

Step 5 Outfit pipe-end with scoop attachment

Step 6 Collection of native riparian plant cuttings & re-plant along creek bank

Step 7 Fence off the restoration area on both sides of the creek

Step 8 Design and placement of interpretive signage

E. Equipment

The bulk of the equipment needed for this project will be hand tools, to be used for taking plant cuttings, re-planting, and removal of invasive plants within the area. The use of a tractor or crane instrument may be needed to remove some of the larger pieces of concrete and for the placement and building of the outfall slope. Delivery of any needed soil or rock materials may also call for larger mechanical machinery.

F. Permitting Requirements

No permitting should be required at this site due to the small size of the project and the lack of any real removal or fill of any part of the creek system. If the project were deemed to be an acre or more in size then a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit #1200-C, may be needed on this project. This permit is required when one or more acres of land will be disturbed through acts such as clearing, grading, and excavation. If this becomes the case then an NPDES permit will be sought through the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ 2009).

G. Coordination

One of the most important aspects of this project is coordination. An individual will be designated to coordinate the schedule of activities at the site, volunteers for the various days and tasks, acquiring the correct permits, reserving the needed equipment, design and placement of interpretive signage, and keeping a line of communication open with the city, university, and organizations involved. This person may be assisted by others but it is important to have a recognized project manager to avoid confusion and misdirection.

H. Approximate cost

Costs are estimated to be low due to the reliance on volunteer effort. Rental of equipment to place and build discharge slope is estimated to be between $10 and $30 per hour (Hyslop 2007). It may be necessary to hire someone to operate the machinery which is estimated at approximately $15 to $30 per hour (Hyslop 2007). Design and manufacturing of the interpretive signage is estimated to be between $500 and $1200 per sign, depending on materials and other variables. Fencing, additional concrete, and other tools and materials will cost approximately an additional $1000. Total budget for this project should range between $2500 and $5000.

IX. EXPECTED OUTCOMES FOR RESER STADIUM

The expected outcome for the Corvallis stormwater project at the Reser stadium site is the elimination of erosion occurring around effluent of the outfall and the management of invasive species with eventual reestablishment of native vegetation. Since the outfall has been identified to discharge mostly groundwater it is unlikely that the university would find it cost effective to undertake a project that seeks to reduce a minimal amount of thermal and chemical pollution. By focusing on reducing the velocity and slope where the effluent enters Oak Creek an inexpensive approach can be taken to restore the area from erosion and invasive vegetation.

A. Timeframe

The timeframe of this project is a relatively short and physical efforts put forth should not take more then 3 – 6 months. Efforts to reduce erosion will not take more than a month and once the slope has been reduced and the scooped end installed erosion processes will be minimized almost immediately. It will take longer to reach a desired level of success for restoring native vegetation. Due to the small size of the area being restored, initial invasive plant removal will be completed quickly. Monitoring of the site will need to be vigilant to combat the invasive plants that appear in later years. Because of the focus on using physical efforts for control, and the high impact from humans, it could take many years of intense management before invasive plants are completely gone from this site.

B. Spatial extent

From a spatial extent the Reser stadium site is a very small area and should be easy to manage. The small size is one of the benefits of restoring this site because the cost will be minimal and success can be easily assessed.

C. Degree of Change

As previously mentioned the level of degradation at the Reser Stadium site has reached stage 2 of the degradation model. At this stage the abiotic threshold has been encroached upon and not crossed and primary processes are damaged by invasive but are still functional. By the completion of this project we hope to revert back to stage 1 of the degradation model. Because of efforts to minimize erosion the abiotic threshold should no longer be a concern and the real task lies in efforts to revert the site back to native vegetation. It is unreasonable to assume a full revert back to stage 0 of the degradation model, where the ecoregion has been fully restored to native conditions. Because of the longevity and survival characteristics of invasive species our goals expect re-establishment of native vegetation and an effective ability to maintain invasive species to a minimum.

X. MEASURES OF SUCCESS FOR RESER STADIUM

Our measures of success will be determined primarily by the achievement of our main goals, objectives, and ecological principles in which this project is guided, through monitoring and comparing the post-treatment development with the pre-treatment state. We will utilize our conceptual reference system as a standard to gauge the future success and accomplishments of the project. In light of the fact that we are utilizing a conceptual reference system, statistical analysis of spatial and temporal data will only be used to model change of the restoration sites over time.

A. Measurements

Reser Stadium Site

Measures of success will include the following:

• Reduction in erosion at outfall site through the modification of the stormwater discharge angle and velocity;

• Reduction in stream bank erosion following the establishment of increased native ground cover vegetation;

• Control and/or eradication of invasive of species by mechanical means while reserving chemical treatment as last resort;

• Establishment of native ground cover through planting and reduced competition of non-native invasive species after removal; and

• Reduction in human impacts related to improper land use and illegal dumping of garbage through signage and possible physical barrier.

B. Statistical or experimental design for monitoring

To establish an effective monitoring strategy in restoration one must recognize the specific management question(s) being addressed, determine what level of effort will be required to produce quality measurements, what to measure, and what parameters need to be used to assess the restoration efforts (Scholz and Booth 2001). To assist in the establishment of level of effort for monitoring, Scholz and Booth (2001) provided the following 3 level scale:

1 - Rapid, low cost, but likely to generate only qualitative or imprecise quantitative data. Efforts at Level 1 are single snapshot evaluations and typically have modest utility because they can reliably offer only a coarse discrimination of aquatic-system quality or health. However, they may be useful in evaluating gross conditions (“good” vs. “bad”), and they are suitable for a wide range of volunteers with only minimal training.

2 - Nominal equipment, relatively rapid, and likely to generate reproducible (albeit coarse) quantitative results. These techniques require trained volunteers or professionals. At this level of effort, measures can be useful to classify a stream or reach, or to characterize conditions relative to some reference condition. As such, they can be used for both onetime and continuous monitoring programs, but most parameters will require substantial change for any difference to be detected.

3 - Similar requirements and applications as Level 2 but requiring more time and training in order to yield more precise results; discrimination of trends should be commensurately improved.

Erosion

Particularly in urban areas, measuring bank erosion and bank stability of local streams is critical in the assessment of channel health and for guiding restoration efforts (Table 6). Moreover, measurement and assessment it is one of the few tools available to recognize the hydrologic disturbance that often accompanies urban development (Hollis, 1975; Booth, 1991). The follow table can be used to address management questions related the trends in stream erosion, current stream health, and the ranking of restoration efforts (Scholz and Booth 2001). Monitoring efforts for measurements should be conducted twice annually for eight years post-treatment (City of Salem 2008).

Table 6. Parameters used to assess bank erosion and bank stability (L - not useful for the identified management question at the specified level of effort; M - moderately useful; H - very useful).

[pic]

Riparian Vegetation

Characterization of riparian vegetation using the following parameters (Table 7) can be readily used to accurately describe both long-term trends, current conditions, and ranking related to importance regarding usefulness for identifying management questions at the specified levels of effort within the restoration sites (Scholz and Booth 2001). Monitoring efforts for measurements should be conducted twice annually for eight years post-treatment (City of Salem 2008).

Table 7. Parameters used to assess riparian vegetation (L - not useful for the identified management question at the specified level of effort; M - moderately useful; H - very useful).

[pic]

A verbal ranking requiring minimal effort, with or without a photographic record, can generally describes current conditions of erosion and vegetation, which may be useful for some level of trend analysis. Such observations may assist in locating areas for additional restoration efforts. Assessment methods typically divide the observed range of bank stability (susceptibility to erosion) into several distinct categories of descriptive conditions. The following class descriptions (Table 8) from Scholz and Booth (2001) are useful and are particularly applicable for use as a categorical variable that can be used in a statistical analysis.

Table 8. Stream bank stability and erosion verbal ranking classification criteria.

[pic]

Bioswale

The City of Salem (2008) suggests that water samples should be collect automatically three times annually for the first three years after construction. Collection should be taken at the inflow and the out flow of the bioswale after storms to analyze for temperature, total suspended solids, pH, turbidity, metals, petroleum residue, phosphorus, nitrogen, and chemical oxygen demand (COD) to ensure that the structure is functioning properly. Additionally, monitoring should be conducted to identify signs of erosion, accumulation of debris around bioswale structures, and indications of excess sedimentation which could lead to a clogged filtering system (University of Florida 2008).

Major Disturbances

Major disturbances such as severe flooding, damaging windstorms, and fire can have significant effects on restoration efforts and progress. For example, newly planted vegetation may be damaged, killed, or swept away by severe flooding providing the opportunity for weedy and/or invasive species to colonize the site. Therefore, monitoring of the restoration sites post-disturbance should be included as an adaptive management strategy to help ensure a successful restoration project(s).

Statistics

Comparisons will be made against pre-treatment measurements using replicable observations (e.g. presence of invasive species, pollutant levels, etc.), grading systems (e.g. stable, slightly unstable, etc.), and properly functioning systems (e.g. bioswale and outfall). Therefore, qualitative data will be recorded over time and analyzed for progress related to specific restoration goals and objectives. Quantitative data with sufficient numbers of independent observations may be analyzed using a linear regression model to indicate a possible trend related to specific restoration goals and objectives.

XI. CITATIONS

Benner, P. 1984. The historical record of Oak Creek Benton County, Oregon. .

Boerboom. C, Trower T. 2002. 2002 Herbicide Price List. University of Wisconsin Department of Agronomy. . June 4, 2009.

Blakely-Smith M, Gisler M, Fiegener R. Tyee WRP Benton County Oregon. 2009. Wildlife Habitat Conservation and Management Plan Cooperative Agreement Report (Willamette Valley Province). . June 4, 2009.

Booth, D.B.: 1991, Urbanization and the Natural Drainage System--Impacts, Solutions, and

Prognoses, Northwest Environmental Journal, 7, 93-118.

Chused RH.1984. “The Oregon Donation Act of 1850 and Nineteenth-Century Federal Married Women's Property Law.” Law and History Review 2, no. 1: 44-78.

City of Corvallis. 2009. Stormwater Master Plan (SWMP). Chapter 11, Watershed Planning and Analysis: Oak Creek.

City of Corvallis Development Services. 2009. Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Manual. Corvallis, OR. SERVICES/EPSC/EPSCManual.pdf. April 25, 2009.

City of Corvallis Public Works. 2009. Water Treatment Facilities.

City of Salem. City of . Kroger Park Restoration/Bioswale Project: Monitoring Efforts. Resources/KrogerParkRestoration/Pages/monitoring_efforts.aspx.

Cost estimator for chain link fence. April 7, 2009. . June 4 2009.

DEQ. 2009. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: About Us. Portland, OR.

. DEQ/about_us.shtml. April 25, 2009

D-handle Round Point Classic Shovel. June 4, 2009. Hardware World. D-handle-Round-point-Classic-Shovel-pW3AUF5.aspx June 4, 2009.

Dunne T. and Leopold, L.B. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco. 818p

EPA. 2009. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater regulations. m_id=6. May 3, 2009.

ERS Rental rates as of April 2009. June 3, 2009. Excavator Rental Services. . RateSchedule.htm June 4, 2009.

Falk DA, Palmer MA, Zedler JB. 2006. Foundations of Restoration Ecology. Island Press Washington DC. 364p.

Federal Water Pollution Control Act Title 33 Navigation and Navigable Waters Chapter 26 Water Pollution Prevention and Control. California EPA State Water Resource Control Boards. controlact.pdf . May 3, 2009.

Hays, D. W., K. R. McAllister, S. A. Richardson, and D. W. Stinson. 1999. Washington state

recovery plan for the western pond turtle. Wash. Dept. Fish and Wild., Olympia. 66 pp.

Heavy Equipment Operator Jobs Salary. June 4, 2009. . . June 4, 2009.

Hyslop Field Research Laboratory. 2007. Oregon State University: College of Agricultural Sciences. Farm Charges.  152009.

Hollis, G.E.: 1975. The effects of urbanization on floods of different recurrence intervals, Water

Resources Research, 11, 431-435.

Lundeberg, S. November 6, 2007. Manager: Changes help stifle Coffin Butte Odor. Gazette- Times. coffinbutte.txt June 4, 2009.

Minton, Gary. 2002. Stormwater Treatment. Resource Planning Associates. Seattle. 416p

Nawa R. K., Frissell C. A., and Liss W. J. 1989. Life history and persistence of anadromous fish stocks in relation to stream habitat and watershed classification. Annual progress report. Oak Creek Laboratory of Biology, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon state University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.

Naiman R. J., Bibley R. E., and Kantor S., editors. 1998. River Ecology and Management: Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Oldfield, J. E. 1994. In Service to Animals: The Evolution of the Department of Animal Sciences at Oregon State University. 60 p.

Oregon State University (OSU). 2002. Oak Creek: Research and Teaching in OSU’s Home Watershed. .

Raymond R., Snyder K., Moore D. and Grube A. 2002. Phase I Water Quality Monitoring. Marys River Watershed Council.

Scholz J. G. and Booth D. B. 2001. Monitoring Urban Streams: Strategies and Protocols for

Humid-Region Lowland Systems. .

Scourstop. 2009. Design Methodology Manual.. May 15 2009.

South Maitland Historical Association Website.2009. Photo of Interpretive Sign. . May 15 2009.

The City. March 2009. Special Issue: 2008 Report Card Progress Toward Meeting the 2020 Vision. Vol 22 (3).

Town of Fraser Website. 2008. Photo of Girls Exploring Interpretive Sign. . Accessed 15 May 2009.

University of Florida. 2008. Florida Field Guide to Low Impact Development: Bioswales/Vegetated Swales. .

Williams, G.W. 2002. Aboriginal Use of Fire: Are There Any “Natural” Plant

Communities? USDA Forest Service, Washington D.C. 18p.

Yaich, J. December 31, 2008. Erosion Prevention Sedimentation. The City Of Corvallis Oregon’s official site. Itemid=3146. June 4 2009.

-----------------------

Figure 2. Storm drain sewer map from 1912 showing the stormwater system and the braided Oak Creek channels west of 35th St and South of Harrison Blvd.

Figure 1. Frequent flooding prohibited development of the low lying areas near Oak Creek in the 1800’s.

Figure 3: Ecological degradation model. Both sites have crossed a biotic threshold but have not yet crossed the abiotic threshold (Falk 2006).

Figure 5. Map showing stormwater outfall into manmade pond into a man made channel and then into Oak Creek

Figure 6. Schematic showing proposed pipe extension and areas where flooding and ponding naturally occur.

Figure 9. Junction of Oak Creek and the Jefferson Street Stormwater outfall (in red) with some of the stormwater pipes that did or currently do drain to this outfall.

Figure 10 Pond showing extant of invasive plant encroachment

Figure 11. Channel showing the extent of erosion.

Wetland

Pond

Stream Channel

Oak Creek

Figure 12 Schematic of two-cell constructed pond and wetland.

Table 6. Estimated costs for two cell pond construction.

Figure 14. Oak Creek Outfall at Reser Stadium – Lindeman 2009

Figure 15. Example of water fall effect. (Scourstop 2009)

Figure 16. Example of acceptable slope (Scourstop 2009)

Figure 17. Examples of Interpretive Signs (L: Town 2009 and R: South 2009).

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download