Temperature Management Plan and Credit Trading Activities Annual Report

Transcription

1 Temperature Management Plan and Credit Trading Activities 2015 Annual Report

2 1.0 Background Clean Water Services (District) is a special service district that serves the urban portion of Washington County. The District has 12 member cities and owns and operates four wastewater treatment plants in the Tualatin River basin. The wastewater treatment plants and the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) are permitted by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) under the District s watershed-based National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, which was initially issued on February 26, 2004, and reissued on July 27, The District continues to operate under the terms and conditions of the 2005 watershed-based NPDES permit pending DEQ action on its permit renewal application, which was submitted in The watershed-based NPDES permit included stringent thermal load limits for the District s Rock Creek and Durham Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facilities (AWTFs) from the 2001 Temperature Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Tualatin River. The District explored several alternatives to meet the thermal load allocations for the two facilities. The District concluded that a technology-based approach, which would require mechanical cooling, was resource intensive and cost prohibitive, and would not improve watershed health. Instead, the District adopted a strategy to improve watershed health by offsetting the thermal load from the Rock Creek and Durham AWTFs with flow augmentation and riparian planting. The District s watershed-based NPDES permit included provisions to develop and implement a Temperature Management Plan (TMP) that would document the District s approach and programs for offsetting the thermal load from the Rock Creek and Durham AWTFs. The Thermal Load Credit Trading Plan, which is included in the District s TMP, specified the methodology for calculating the thermal credits associated with the riparian plantings and flow augmentation. The District s watershed-based NPDES permit allows water quality credit trading for temperature as well as oxygen demanding parameters, such as ammonia and CBOD. Water quality trading for temperature is conducted in accordance with the District s DEQ-approved TMP. The conditions for trading for oxygen demanding parameters are specified in Schedule A.1.a.4 of the watershed-based NPDES permit. Schedule B.3 of the watershed-based NPDES permit requires the District to submit annual reports of its TMP activities and credit trading activities by March 1. This report fulfills the requirements for submitting an annual report for the District s TMP activities and an annual report for the District s credit trading activities TMP Activities The temperature related activities presented in this report are for the period from February 1, 2015, to January 31, This section contains a discussion of the District s flow augmentation and riparian planting activities for the above-referenced period. This section also includes a summary of temperature management measures at the wastewater treatment facilities, recycled water use, and source control activities that impact the thermal load discharged to the river. 2.1 Flow Augmentation Annually the District has 12,618 acre-feet of available stored water in Hagg Lake (Scoggins Reservoir) and 1,654 acre-feet in Barney Reservoir. The District releases stored water during the summer and fall to enhance water quality in the Tualatin River. Stored water releases in July and August form the basis of the flow augmentation credit in the Thermal Load Credit Trading Plan. In 2015, much of the Pacific Northwest experienced an unusually dry spring and warm summer. Notably, precipitation levels for May and June were 27 and 44 percent of normal, respectively. Figure 1 compares the 2015 data and average monthly precipitation data for 1948 through 2014 for the Portland metropolitan area. Figure 2 compares stream flows in the Tualatin River for 2015 to the average stream flow for 2005 to Annual Report 1

3 *KHIO Weather Station, wunderground.com Figure 1. Comparison of 2015 and Average Monthly Preciptation for * for the Portland Metropolitan Area *Oregon Water Resources Department Figure 2. Comparison of 2015 and Average Mean Daily Flow* in the Tualatin River at Farmington The dry spring and summer in 2015 resulted in greatly reduced stream flows in the Tualatin River watershed and impacted the timing of the District s stored water use. The District initiated stored water releases from Scoggins Reservoir on June 9, almost a month earlier than in previous years. The District initiated stored 2015 Annual Report 2

4 water releases from Barney Reservoir on July 15, also several weeks earlier than in previous years. The District also used more of its stored water to maintain minimum flows in the Tualatin River. The District released an average of 51.2 cubic feet per second (cfs) during July and August in 2015 compared to an average of 35.8 cfs released during July and August from 2004 to Riparian Activities The following sections summarize riparian planting activities, riparian maintenance activities, and shade monitoring activities during the reporting period Riparian Planting Activities In 2015, a total of 4.06 stream miles in the Tualatin Basin were planted and enrolled for credit by the District. Table 1 presents the riparian planting projects and the stream length associated with each project. Summary Total Stream Miles: Project 4.06 mi Stream Length (ft) SWCD SWCD SWCD SWCD Tualatin River Farm Bronson Creek Greenway Cedar Creek - Stella Olsen Table 1: 2015 Riparian Planting Projects Project Summaries Appendix A contains a Project Summary for each project credited in Project summaries contain general site information (site location, number of acres, location description, stream length and average width, plant communities, partners, project activities, etc.), a site assessment report, and a summary of thermal credits. Capital Program Riparian planting projects implemented under the District s Capital Program mostly occur on public lands where large scale restoration opportunities are available and multiple water quality and ecological benefits can be achieved. Project activities under this program include securing easements or stewardship agreements with property owners, site preparation activities, invasive species management, re-vegetation, monitoring and maintenance. Additional enhancement activities such as channel reconfiguration, large wood placement, gravel-boulder placement, off-channel habitat creation, and in-stream pond removal are performed on a site-specific basis to improve a broader range of site functions. In 2015, three riparian enhancement projects were undertaken under the District s Capital Program Bronson Creek Greenway- 2135, Cedar Creek, Stella Olsen-1767, and Tualatin River Farm-2168 resulting in 1.78 miles of riparian planting. Landowner Incentive Program The District contracts with the Tualatin Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) to provide incentives for enrolling landowners in an enhanced version of the U.S. Department of Agriculture s Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (ECREP) and Vegetated Buffer Areas for Conservation (VEGBAC) program. The ECREP has provided an opportunity to leverage local and federal programs. This collaboration has greatly increased the acceptance and implementation of restoration programs at the local 2015 Annual Report 3

5 level. Riparian planting projects in the rural areas primarily consist of site preparation, re-vegetation and invasive species management. Four projects were undertaken and a total of 2.28 miles of riparian corridor were planted under the District s Landowner Incentive Program in Riparian Maintenance Activities Site monitoring and maintenance play a critical role in ensuring the success of the riparian planting projects because re-vegetated sites need protection from a variety of threats including invasive species, herbivores, and dry weather. As a result, the District implements a robust maintenance and monitoring program that includes qualitative and quantitative monitoring that are captured in site assessment reports. Qualitative and Quantitative Monitoring The District conducts qualitative and quantitative monitoring at riparian planting projects that are enrolled for thermal credit. Typically, monitoring is conducted during early fall prior to leaf drop. Site assessment reports document site conditions and include site specific management actions. Qualitative monitoring is conducted on an annual basis and is used to assess overall project health and project phase. The District implements a functional component-based assessment process to determine if a riparian planting project is in a transitional, established, or stewardship phase. This assessment approach assists in determining the necessary level of ongoing maintenance needed for riparian planting projects (e.g., inter-planting, seeding, weed control, herbivore protections) and project phase. This assessment methodology is designed to mimic the dynamic nature of riparian planting projects as they mature from initial plantings to stable riparian ecosystems. Quantitative monitoring is conducted biennially and includes information regarding native tree and shrub counts, species composition, density, and riparian structure. Stem densities, one of the parameters monitored, vary within and between projects due to a number of factors. Activity from native and nonnative animals, soil conditions, seasonal inundation, and dynamic stream morphology affect project areas differently. Additionally, variation in stem density reporting is inherent in the random plot monitoring protocol that is utilized. To achieve target stem densities, a number of factors are considered for management and plant mortality is factored into the number of stems that are inter-planted. Data collected during qualitative and quantitative monitoring is used in conjunction with function-based success criteria to gauge the success of a project. Function-based success criteria are developed from appropriate reference site monitoring and data analysis. Success criteria were developed for the following components: species composition (both woody and herbaceous, native and non-native), density (trees and shrubs), structure (overstory, understory, and groundcover), and riparian shade. In order to adequately collect the necessary data, a combination of monitoring methodologies is utilized. Existing monitoring methodologies were reviewed to develop success criteria, including Protocols for Monitoring Habitat Restoration Projects in the Lower Columbia River and Estuary (Roegner et al., 2008), Stream Visual Assessment (U.S. Department of Agriculture s Natural Resources Conservation Service), Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet (Environmental Protection Agency), and Proper Functioning Condition (U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management). Site Assessment Reports The District prepares a site assessment report for each site and uses the report to document site conditions, identify management actions taken, and identify proposed actions for the following year. Each site assessment report contains project specific information including project acreage, the initial planting year, the year when thermal credit was taken, and the stream length associated with the project. Site assessment reports also contain information regarding each plant community (e.g., riparian forest, forested wetland, upland forest, scrub-shrub) within a project. This information contains a list of categorized plant species, stem densities, and the phase of each plant community. Site assessment reports for projects credited in 2015 are included in the project summaries in Appendix A. Appendix B contains site assessment reports for earlier projects (i.e., ) for which the District has taken thermal 2015 Annual Report 4

6 credit. With the exceptions noted below, site specific management actions completed in 2015 and recommended for 2016 are also presented in the site assessment reports. In 2015, the District renewed landowner contracts for the SWCD-Brooks and SWCD-McBride projects. For these sites, the site assessment reports in Appendix B reflect monitoring conducted in The landowner contract at the SWCD-Beardsley site is in the process of being renewed and monitoring was conducted at this site in The landowner contract for the SWCD-Garrison project and the SWCD- Lichtner project were not renewed in 2015, and as a result, these projects and the associated 1.51 million kcal/day and 0.32 million kcal/day of thermal credit, respectively, were removed from the District s credit portfolio Shade Monitoring As noted in the previous section, the District conducts annual monitoring to assess plant survival, overall project health, and project phase. In addition, the District collects data to assess shade at riparian projects every five years. The shade monitoring protocol calls for establishing one monitoring point for each 500- foot stream segment of a project with a minimum of three monitoring points per project. At each monitoring point, a combination of photographs and densiometer readings are taken. Photographic monitoring includes both upstream and downstream views. Shade is estimated as densiometer readings of canopy cover mid-channel and/or at each stream bank as determined by specific protocols for stream wadeability, bank incision and accessibility. In 2015, field monitoring of streamside shade was conducted at five project sites. In addition, streamside canopy cover was measured at fourteen project sites using remotely sensed datasets, including aerial photography and LiDAR. Figure 3 presents the field monitoring results at the five sites that were monitored for streamside shade in Figure 3: 2015 Shade Monitoring Results 2015 Annual Report 5

7 All five of the projects that were monitored in 2015 showed good streamside canopy cover. The two projects credited in Rock Creek-Noble Woods and 130-Tualatin River-Eagle Woods at Fern Hill showed a robust streamside canopy cover of 98 and 94%, respectively. Of the five sites that were monitored in 2015, three were previously monitored in Figure 4 presents the results of the field monitoring for streamside canopy in 2010 and 2015 (sites credited in 2005). Figure 4: Shade Monitoring Results for 2005 Projects The field shade monitoring results for the three projects that were credited in 2005 show that all three projects had streamside canopy of 78% or greater. The 124-Willow Creek-Bronson Rd project continued to show a canopy cover near 100% in both 2010 and Two projects the 25-Dawson Creek- Evergreen Blvd project and the 36-Beaverton Creek-Transit Center have shown a significant increase in percent canopy cover between 2010/2011 and These two sites had underperformed for several years and the District s actions to improve canopy cover at these sites have proven effective, demonstrating the importance and effectiveness of the District s monitoring and maintenance program. Site assessment reports for all five projects show that they are functioning well. The site assessment reports, which include site conditions and management actions, can be found in Appendix B. As previously mentioned, in 2015 streamside canopy cover was measured at fourteen project sites using remotely sensed datasets, including aerial photography and LiDAR. The streamside canopy cover was measured within a 10-ft width of the stream channel. Results for 2007 and 2014 LiDAR measurements of streamside canopy cover at the fourteen projects are shown in Figure Annual Report 6

8 Figure 5: Comparison of 2007 and 2014 LiDAR Percent Streamside Canopy Cover In Figure 5, the four projects shown at the top of the plot 2052-SWCD, 116-SWCD, 1906-SWCD, and 2051-SWCD were initially planted and credited in As a result, the 2014 LiDAR data is the only data point available after project implementation. There appears to be be good streamside canopy cover at three of the four project sites. The SWCD-2051 project has not resulted in measureable streamside canopy cover within a 10-ft width of the stream channel as yet. When initially planted in 2010, there was no existing vegetation at the site, and as a result, significant canopy cover was not expected in the first few years. Future shade measurements are expected to yield a higher percentage of canopy cover; additional management actions as noted in the site assessment reports are planned at the site to improve performance and ensure plant establishment. LiDAR measurements at eight of the other ten project sites show a meaningful increase in canopy cover from 2007 to The 1421-Hedges Creek-Upper Marsh project and the 10-Council Creek-Beal Pond project show minimal canopy cover within a 10-ft width of the stream channel. Both of these sites have large ponds and wetland complexes that cover a majority of the site; additionally, these sites have been planted with wetland plant species that do not provide the same level of shade as riparian forest plant species. A project-scale analysis using LiDAR measurements of percent canopy cover show that canopy cover is increasing over the entire site. Appendix B contains site assessment reports for all fourteen projects which include project-specific information about site conditions and management actions. Shade monitoring conducted from identified only six out of 56 projects that did not provide the anticipated shade. The District has taken a number of follow-up actions at these sites since the initial 2015 Annual Report 7

9 planting to improve performance. Appendix C describes the challenges encountered at these sites and the additional management actions that have been taken at each site. As shown in Figure 4, the 36-Beaverton Creek-Transit Center and the 25-Dawson Creek-Evergreen Blvd projects now have good streamside canopy and will be removed from Appendix C in next year s annual report. 2.3 Activities The TMP specifies reuse, treatment facility improvements, and source control activities as methods that could be used to reduce the thermal load discharged by the AWTFs. The following is a summary of the actions taken in each of these areas. The District produces Class A recycled water at both the Rock Creek and Durham AWTFs. Recycled water from the Durham AWTF is used at three golf courses, athletic fields at two public schools, and for on-site irrigation. The District delivered million gallons of recycled water to off-site users during An additional million gallons of recycled water was used on-site at the District s Wastewater Treatment Facilities (WWTFs). Of the million gallons, 75.6 million gallons was directed to the Fernhill Natural Treatment System in Forest Grove to establish and sustain the wetland plants (refer to the 2015 Recycled Water Use Annual Report for additional information). These volumes represent a direct reduction in the thermal load discharged by the District s AWTFs. The District is pursuing treatment facility improvements to reduce the thermal load discharged by the AWTFs. In 2015, the District continued work on the 95-acre Fernhill Natural Treatment System at Forest Grove to treat wastewater from the Forest Grove and Hillsboro WWTFs. Currently, the Forest Grove and Hillsboro WWTFs transfer wastewater through twin 24-inch pipelines to the Rock Creek AWTF for treatment and discharge during the dry season. The District is proposing to provide advanced secondary treatment at the Forest Grove WWTF during the dry season, and then direct the treated wastewater from the Forest Grove and Hillsboro WWTFs through the Fernhill Natural Treatment System for further treatment prior to discharge to the Tualatin River. Temperature modeling predicts substantial cooling across the natural treatment system. Thus, the thermal loads from the Fernhill Natural Treatment System will be substantially lower than current conditions where the Hillsboro and Forest Grove WWTF service area flows are directed to the Rock Creek AWTF for treatment and discharge. Approximately 5 mgd would be treated through the natural treatment system upon start-up and flows are projected to increase to 6.3 mgd for year 2025 conditions. Implementating this project should substantially reduce the overall thermal load being discharged to the Tualatin River. The District is also pursuing capital improvements to further reduce thermal loads discharged from the AWTFs. For example, the District completed a cogeneration project at the Durham AWTF that dissipates excess heat to the atmosphere rather than discharging it to the treatment facility. In the 2014 Temperature Management Plan annual report, the District incorrectly noted that the cogeneration facility at the Rock Creek AWTF was being replaced. Instead, the District modified the operations at the existing cogeneration facility at the Rock Creek AWTF. The District lowered the heating loop temperature set point in the facility s heating system which significantly reduced the amount of heat the engines discharge to the treatment facility. Additional adjustments were made to the heat exchangers and heating loop for the facility s chemical building. Implementing these alternatives has reduced the thermal load to the treatment facilities. The District regulates all significant industrial user discharges into the sanitary sewer system as part of its DEQ-approved industrial pretreatment program. In 2015, there were no significant changes in permitted industrial sources that would have resulted in substantive changes in the thermal loads to the Durham AWTF. The District noted increases in the thermal load at the Rock Creek AWTF and believes that it is due in part to increased flow from existing industrial sources. The District is evaluating thermal loads from significant industrial users to the Rock Creek AWTF this year. Follow up actions will be determined upon completion of this analysis Annual Report 8

10 Annual Report for Credit Trading Activities Schedule D.7.b of the District s watershed-based NPDES permit authorizes water quality credit trading plans for temperature and oxygen demanding parameters. The following sections describe the credit trading activities for oxygen demanding parameters and for temperature. 3.1 Oxygen Demanding Parameters Credit Trading Activities The District s watershed-based NPDES permit authorizes credit trading activities for oxygen demanding parameters, including ammonia and CBOD, between the Rock Creek and Durham AWTFs. The District did not conduct trading for oxygen demanding parameters as allowed by the permit during this reporting period. Figure 6 shows the actual and the allowable discharge loads for oxygen demanding parameters from the Rock Creek and Durham AWTFs. Dry season limits and the trading provisions apply after July 1 or when the flow in the Tualatin River (as measured at Farmington Bridge RM 33.3) is below 250 cfs. In 2015, the allowable and actual oxygen loads were calculated from May onward, when the trading provisions became effective. The allowable and actual oxygen loads are presented until mid-november when the wet season limits became effective. The increase in the allowable oxygen load during August occurred as a result of an increase in the dissolved oxygen in the river which allowed the facilities to operate under Tier 1 conditions. Figure 6: Comparison of Actual vs. Allowable Loads for Oxygen Demanding Parameters 3.2 Temperature Credit Trading Activities A summary of credit trading activities for temperature for the previous year is required by Schedule D.7.b of the watershed-based NPDES permit and includes the following elements: (a) Identification of Trading Baselines; (b) Summary of Actual Loads Discharged; 2015 Annual Report 9

11 (c) Summary of Credit Trades, including credits used to meet baselines, as well as credits generated, purchased, or held but not applied to baseline compliance; (d) Environmental Benefits Summary, describing how the credit trades supported watershed management objectives; and (e) Efficiency Summary, describing how the credit trades supported cost-effective and timely watershed management. The following sections discuss each of these elements Identification of Trading Baselines The trading baseline data for flow augmentation that is used to calculate the allowable thermal loads, thermal loads discharged, and flow augmentation credit is summarized in Appendix D. It includes the following: the daily average effluent flow from the Rock Creek and Durham AWTFs for the period July 1 August 31; the daily average effluent temperature from the Rock Creek and Durham AWTFs for the period July 1 August 31; the daily average Tualatin River flow at the Farmington Bridge (River Mile 33) for the period July 1 August 31; and the daily average flow augmentation rate from Scoggins Reservoir (Hagg Lake) and Barney Reservoir for the period July 1 August 31. The following information is used to determine baseline conditions for calculating riparian shade credits: elevation, stream aspect, wetted width, near stream disturbance zone, and incision; the District also accounts for the existing vegetation and the shade provided by the vegetation. The Shade-a-Lator model is used to determine baseline shade conditions Summary of Actual Loads Discharged The thermal loads for the Rock Creek and Durham AWTFs are based on average daily effluent temperature and effluent flow conditions from July 1 to August 31. This time period is identified as the temperature credit trading period in the watershed-based NPDES permit and corresponds to the time of year when river temperatures are most likely to exceed the temperature criterion. The average effluent flow, average effluent temperature and the excess thermal load discharged from the Rock Creek and Durham AWTFs for 2015 are presented in Table 2. In 2015, the July/August average excess thermal load discharged from the Rock Creek AWTF was 1,113 million kcal/day and the average excess thermal load discharged from the Durham AWTF was 257 million kcal/day. Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility Data YEAR: 2015 Rock Creek AWTF Durham AWTF Mean RC AWTF flow: 49.0 cfs Mean DM AWTF flow: 24.2 cfs Mean RC effluent temperature: 24.2 C Mean DM effluent temperature: 22.8 C Median river flow u/s RC AWTF: cfs Median river flow u/s DM AWTF: cfs Excess Thermal Load Discharged from RC: 1113 million kcal/d Excess Thermal Load Discharged from DM: 257 million kcal/d Table 2: Excess Thermal Load Discharged from Rock Creek (RC) and Durham (DM) AWTFs (July 1 August 31, 2015) Summary of Credit Generated This section presents the thermal credits generated from flow augmentation and riparian planting Annual Report 10

12 Flow Augmentation Credits Table 3 presents the thermal credits for flow augmentation at the Rock Creek and Durham AWTFs. The average flow augmentation rate from July 1 August 31, 2015 was 51.2 cfs, which resulted in thermal credits from flow augmentation of 780 million kcal/day at the Rock Creek AWTF and thermal credits from flow augmentation of 484 million kcal/day at the Durham AWTF. Flow Augmentation YEAR: 2015 Median Farmington flow: cfs Average thermal Credit for flow aug at RC: 780 million kcal/d Mean flow augmentation: 54.6 cfs Average thermal Credit for flow aug at DM: 484 million kcal/d Table 3: Thermal Credits for Flow Augmentation at the Rock Creek (RC) and Durham (DM) AWTFs in 2015 Riparian Planting Credits Table 4 presents shade credits from riparian plantings. This table presents the stream miles planted, the thermal load blocked by existing vegetation conditions (baseline), the future enhanced vegetation conditions (modeled using a 20-year shade establishment period), the overall thermal load reduction, and the thermal credit for each project. The Shade-a-Lator component of the Heat Source temperature model was used to calculate effective shade and thermal load blocked with baseline riparian vegetation conditions, and effective shade and thermal load blocked for the future enhanced vegetation conditions. The difference between the thermal load blocked with the enhanced conditions and the thermal load blocked with baseline conditions represents the reduction in thermal load (i.e., environmental benefit) associated with the riparian planting project. The District s TMP specifies a 2:1 trading ratio for calculating credit for shade (i.e., the thermal credit for shade is equal to 50% of the environmental benefit). For 2015, the thermal credit from the riparian planting projects was 12 million kcal/day. THERMAL CREDIT FOR SHADE YEAR: 2015 Summary Total Stream Miles: Thermal Credit Received This Year: 4.06 mi 1.2E+07 kcal/d Restoration/Protection Record Project Stream Length (ft) Thermal Load Blocked (Baseline Conditions) (kcal/d) Thermal Load Blocked (Enhanced Conditions) (kcal/d) Thermal Load Reduction (Environmental Benefits) (kcal/d) Thermal Credit Received (kcal/d) Credit per Length (kcal/d/ft) SWCD E E E E SWCD E E E E SWCD E E E E SWCD E E E E Tualatin River Farm E E E E Bronson Creek Greenway E E E E Cedar Creek - Stella Olsen E E E E Table 4: 2015 Riparian Planting Projects and Associated Thermal Credit 4.0 TMP Activities ( ) The following section summarizes the District s TMP activities from the inception of the thermal load trading program in 2004 to the present. Table 5 presents the average flow augmentation rates for July and August, resulting thermal credits from flow augmentation at the Rock Creek and Durham AWTFs, stream miles planted each year, and thermal credits from riparian shade plantings from 2004 to Annual Report 11

13 Permit Mean Flow Augmentation Flow Augmentation Flow Augmentation Stream Miles Riparian Shade Year Rate Credit (Rock Creek) Credit (Durham) Planted Credit Year 1 (2004) million kcal/d 282 million kcal/d million kcal/d Year 2 (2005) million kcal/d 407 million kcal/d million kcal/d Year 3 (2006) million kcal/d 325 million kcal/d million kcal/d Year 4 (2007) million kcal/d 329 million kcal/d million kcal/d Year 5 (2008) million kcal/d 394 million kcal/d million kcal/d Year 6 (2009) million kcal/d 337 million kcal/d million kcal/d Year 7 (2010) million kcal/d 357 million kcal/d million kcal/d Year 8 (2011) million kcal/d 416 million kcal/d million kcal/d Year 9 (2012) million kcal/d 537 million kcal/d million kcal/d Year 10 (2013) million kcal/d 454 million kcal/d million kcal/d Year 11 (2014) million kcal/d 477 million kcal/d million kcal/d Year 12 (2015) million kcal/d 484 million kcal/d million kcal/d Table 5: Thermal Credit Summary ( ) Table 6 presents the actual, allowable, and excess thermal loads from the Rock Creek and Durham AWTFs, the thermal credits generated with flow augmentation in 2015, the thermal credits generated with riparian plantings for and 2015, and the net thermal load for Credits associated with the SWCD- Garrison and SWCD-Lichtner projects were removed from the District s credit portfolio. The 2015 thermal budget continues to show that the District is able to completely offset the excess thermal loads from the Rock Creek and Durham AWTFs. At the Durham AWTF, flow augmentation completely offsets the facility s excess thermal load. At the Rock Creek AWTF, credits from both riparian plantings and flow augmentation were used to offset the excess thermal load. Facility Actual Thermal Load Allowable Thermal Load Thermal Loads and Thermal Credits (2015) Excess Thermal Load Thermal Credits from Flow Augmentation Thermal Credits from Riparian Shade ( ) Thermal Credits from Riparian Shade (2015) Thermal Credits (total) Net Thermal Load Rock Creek AWTF Durham AWTF N/A N/A Units: million kcal/day Table 6: 2015 Thermal Budget 5.0 Environmental Benefits and Efficiency Summary This section contains a summary of the environmental benefits describing how the credit trades support watershed management objectives. It also includes an efficiency summary describing how the credit trades support cost-effective and timely watershed management. 5.1 Environmental Benefits Summary The environmental benefits of implementing a water quality trading program in supporting watershed management objectives are numerous. The ability to enhance riparian areas both within and outside the District s service area promotes a watershed-based approach to improving and enhancing the overall health of the Tualatin River watershed. The activities, which are covered by the District s numerous programs and initiatives, work to form the basis of a collaborative and cost-effective watershed-based management strategy. The District s trading program supports numerous ecosystem benefits beyond temperature benefits. The ecosystem benefits of riparian shading activities include improved stream functions (e.g., floodplain roughness, bank stabilization, peak flow attenuation, habitat creation), increased diversity of aquatic and terrestrial plant and animal species, filtering of stormwater runoff, and improved water quality. The increased complexity of structure and diversity of restored riparian forests and scrub-shrub wetlands support many important ecosystem functions for the aquatic environment. One example of this is 2015 Annual Report 12

14 colonization of some stream reaches by beavers, a keystone species for stream function in the basin. By raising the water table, beavers promote floodplain wetlands with enhanced plant, animal, and geomorphic diversity in comparison to the original simplified stream channel. These features and the resultant geomorphic complexity enhance fish habitat quality and may also provide cold water refuges. Furthermore, the enhancement of riparian areas within and outside the District s service area improves the overall health of the Tualatin River watershed and creates partnerships with positive outcomes for water quality. The District s release of stored water also provides multiple ecosystem benefits. The water used for enhancement provides cooling effects, buffers against temperature changes, and results in higher dissolved oxygen levels and improved overall water quality to support aquatic life. The release of stored water, along with the release of highly treated discharges from the District s Rock Creek and Durham AWTFs, provides a sustainable base flow to the mainstem Tualatin River during the dry season. 5.2 Efficiency Summary The activities that constitute the District s thermal load credit trading program support a cost-effective and timely approach to improving and restoring the overall health of the Tualatin River watershed. The program focuses resources on addressing a systematic approach to integrated watershed management. By evaluating and considering the multiple objective nature of the District s water quality trading program, the benefits to the entire watershed are substantial and widespread. Additionally, the shade generation activities support and generate numerous opportunities for collaboration of various organizations, as well as serving as a great mechanism to reconnect the citizens of Washington County to their watershed. All these benefits indicate that the District s thermal load credit trading program has resulted in a cost-effective and collaborative approach to watershed management. 6.0 Appendices Appendix A: Project Summaries for Riparian Planting Projects Credited in 2015 Appendix B: Site Assessment Reports for Riparian Planting Projects ( ) Appendix C: Additional Appendix D: Identification of Trading Baselines for Flow Augmentation 2015 Annual Report 13

15 Appendix A Project Summaries for Riparian Planting Projects Credited in Annual Report 14

16 SWCD Project Summary Site ID Acres Location Private property on Gales Creek in the Gales Creek subbasin, in rural Washington County Lat/Long Number of Plants Installed , ,000 (total from 2015) Stream Length Average Stream Width 2,257 ft. 25 ft. Initial Planting Year/Credit Year Thermal Benefits/Credits 2015/ / 2.63 (million kcal/day) Plant Communities Riparian Forest (refer to the Site Assessment Report for additional information) Partners Tualatin Soil and Water Conservation District and USDA Farm Service Agency Riparian Planting Activities Site preparation, targeted invasive species treatment, herbivore control, and riparian plantings Stream Enhancement Activities None Site Assessment Summary Plant Community: Riparian Forest Phase: Transitional Stems Per Acre: 1700 cascara native cherry black twinberry tall Oregon grape common horsetail spike bentgrass tufted hairgrass Interplant Interplant Seeding Seeding Herbivore Control Herbivore Control Canada thistle 2015 Annual Report 15

17 Thermal Credit for Shade Enhancement Stream Length (ft) Thermal Load Blocked (Baseline Conditions) (kcal/d) Thermal Load Blocked (Enhanced Conditions) (kcal/d) Thermal Load Reduction (Environmental Benefits) (kcal/d) Thermal Credit Received (kcal/d) Credit per Length (kcal/d/ft) E E E E Shade-a-Lator Input and Output Spreadsheets Table 1. SWCD-2137 Input and Output Data for Baseline Shade Conditions SHADE DETAILS All columns under STREAM INFORMATION and under RIPARIAN CODES are input to the Shade-O-Later from the Heat Source model; codes are included only for riparian zones that were restored or protected The 'Effective Shade' column is output from the Shade-O-Later from the Heat Source model The "Thermal Load Blocked" column is calculated from the stream width and length, the effective shade, and an assumption of solar insolation of 480 kcal/d PROJECT SHADE & HEAT STREAM INFORMATION RIPARIAN CODES -- LEFT BANK-- code only vegetation that CWS is responsible for RIPARIAN CODES -- RIGHT BANK-- code only vegetation that CWS is responsible for Thermal Segment Wetted NSDZ Channel Load Orientation LB LB LB LB LB LB LB LB LB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB Length Width Width Incision Blocked (0 deg=n) 0-15 ft ft 30-45ft ft ft ft ft ft ft 0-15 ft ft 30-45ft ft ft ft ft ft (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (kcal/d) Effective Shade (%) SWCD % 6.4E SWCD % 1.8E SWCD % 2.7E SWCD % 5.3E SWCD % 9.7E SWCD % 1.1E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 3.0E SWCD % 7.0E SWCD % 3.2E SWCD % 1.5E SWCD % 8.5E SWCD % 1.1E SWCD % 1.6E SWCD % 7.1E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 1.1E RB ft 2015 Annual Report 16

18 Table 2. SWCD-2137 Input and Output Data for Enhanced Shade Conditions SHADE DETAILS All columns under STREAM INFORMATION and under RIPARIAN CODES are input to the Shade-O-Later from the Heat Source model; codes are included only for riparian zones that were restored or protected The 'Effective Shade' column is output from the Shade-O-Later from the Heat Source model The "Thermal Load Blocked" column is calculated from the stream width and length, the effective shade, and an assumption of solar insolation of 480 kcal/d SHADE & HEAT STREAM INFORMATION RIPARIAN CODES -- LEFT BANK-- code only vegetation that CWS is responsible for RIPARIAN CODES -- RIGHT BANK-- code only vegetation that CWS is responsible for PROJECT Effective Shade (% ) Thermal Load Blocked (kcal/d) Segment Length (ft) Orientation (0 deg=n) Wetted Width (ft) NSDZ Width (ft) Channel Incision (ft) LB 0-15 ft LB ft LB 30-45ft LB ft LB ft LB ft LB ft LB ft LB ft RB 0-15 ft RB ft RB 30-45ft RB ft RB ft RB ft RB ft RB ft RB ft SWCD % 6.6E SWCD % 2.9E SWCD % 3.9E SWCD % 6.0E SWCD % 2.7E SWCD % 1.1E SWCD % 8.8E SWCD % 2.4E SWCD % 6.3E SWCD % 2.8E SWCD % 7.6E SWCD % 7.0E SWCD % 7.7E SWCD % 2.9E SWCD % 1.7E SWCD % 1.6E SWCD % 1.7E SWCD % 1.1E SWCD % 2.1E SWCD % 5.9E SWCD % 6.9E SWCD % 7.2E SWCD % 1.6E Table 3. Riparian Codes for Shade-a-Lator Inputs Height Density OH Code Source Description (m) (%) (m) 1000 CWS Not in project 0.0 0% CWS Forest fully vegetated % CWS Forest partially vegetated % CWS Forest partially vegetated % CWS No existing forest vegetation 0.0 0% CWS Wetland fully vegetated % CWS Wetland partially vegetated % CWS Wetland partially vegetated % CWS No existing wetland vegetation 0.0 0% Annual Report 17

19 SWCD Project Summary Site ID Acres Location Private property on Little Beaver Creek, in the Gales Creek subbasin, in rural Washington County Lat/Long Number of Plants Installed , ,900 (total from 2015) Stream Length Average Stream Width 572 ft. 8 ft. Initial Planting Year/Credit Year Thermal Benefits/Credits 2015/ / 0.71 (million kcal/day) Plant Communities Riparian Forest (refer to the Site Assessment Report for additional information) Partners Tualatin Soil and Water Conservation District and USDA Farm Service Agency Riparian Planting Activities Site preparation, targeted invasive species treatment, herbivore control, and riparian plantings Stream Enhancement Activities None Site Assessment Summary Plant Community: Riparian Forest Phase: Transitional Stems Per Acre: 2700 cascara clustered wild rose salal buttercup common yarrow giant horsetail slender hairgrass spike bentgrass western pearly everlasting western yellow cress Interplant Interplant Seeding Seeding Herbivore Control Herbivore Control bull thistle Canada thistle 2015 Annual Report 18

20 Thermal Credit for Shade Enhancement Stream Length (ft) Thermal Load Blocked (Baseline Conditions) (kcal/d) Thermal Load Blocked (Enhanced Conditions) (kcal/d) Thermal Load Reduction (Environmental Benefits) (kcal/d) Thermal Credit Received (kcal/d) Credit per Length (kcal/d/ft) E E E E Shade-a-Lator Input and Output Spreadsheets Table 1. SWCD-2138 Input and Output Data for Baseline Shade Conditions SHADE DETAILS All columns under STREAM INFORMATION and under RIPARIAN CODES are input to the Shade-O-Later from the Heat Source model; codes are included only for riparian zones that were restored or protected The 'Effective Shade' column is output from the Shade-O-Later from the Heat Source model The "Thermal Load Blocked" column is calculated from the stream width and length, the effective shade, and an assumption of solar insolation of 480 kcal/d PROJECT SHADE & HEAT STREAM INFORMATION RIPARIAN CODES -- LEFT BANK-- code only vegetation that CWS is responsible for RIPARIAN CODES -- RIGHT BANK-- code only vegetation that CWS is responsible for Thermal Segment Wetted NSDZ Channel Load Orientation LB LB LB LB LB LB LB LB LB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB Length Width Width Incision Blocked (0 deg=n) 0-15 ft ft 30-45ft ft ft ft ft ft ft 0-15 ft ft 30-45ft ft ft ft ft ft (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (kcal/d) Effective Shade (%) SWCD % 8.3E SWCD % 4.1E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 1.5E SWCD % 1.9E RB ft Table 2. SWCD-2138 Input and Output Data for Enhanced Shade Conditions SHADE DETAILS All columns under STREAM INFORMATION and under RIPARIAN CODES are input to the Shade-O-Later from the Heat Source model; codes are included only for riparian zones that were restored or protected The 'Effective Shade' column is output from the Shade-O-Later from the Heat Source model The "Thermal Load Blocked" column is calculated from the stream width and length, the effective shade, and an assumption of solar insolation of 480 kcal/d SHADE & HEAT STREAM INFORMATION RIPARIAN CODES -- LEFT BANK-- code only vegetation that CWS is responsible for RIPARIAN CODES -- RIGHT BANK-- code only vegetation that CWS is responsible for PROJECT Effective Shade (% ) Thermal Load Blocked (kcal/d) Segment Length (ft) Orientation (0 deg=n) Wetted Width (ft) NSDZ Width (ft) Channel Incision (ft) LB 0-15 ft LB ft LB 30-45ft LB ft LB ft LB ft LB ft LB ft LB ft RB 0-15 ft RB ft RB 30-45ft RB ft RB ft RB ft RB ft RB ft RB ft SWCD % 2.3E SWCD % 1.5E SWCD % 3.2E SWCD % 3.2E SWCD % 3.1E SWCD % 2.4E Annual Report 19

21 Table 3. Riparian Codes for Shade-a-Lator Inputs Height Density OH Code Source Description (m) (%) (m) 1000 CWS Not in project 0.0 0% CWS Forest fully vegetated % CWS Forest partially vegetated % CWS Forest partially vegetated % CWS No existing forest vegetation 0.0 0% CWS Wetland fully vegetated % CWS Wetland partially vegetated % CWS Wetland partially vegetated % CWS No existing wetland vegetation 0.0 0% Annual Report 20

22 SWCD Project Summary Site ID Acres Location Private property on Carpenter Creek, in the Carpenter Creek subbasin, in rural Washington County Lat/Long Number of Plants Installed , ,500 (total from 2015) Stream Length Average Stream Width 4,023 ft 6 ft. Initial Planting Year/Credit Year Thermal Benefits/Credits 2015/ / 1.74 (million kcal/day) Plant Communities Riparian Forest (refer to the Site Assessment Report for additional information) Partners Tualatin Soil and Water Conservation District and USDA Farm Service Agency Riparian Planting Activities Site preparation, targeted invasive species treatment, herbivore control, and riparian plantings Stream Enhancement Activities None Site Assessment Summary Plant Community: Riparian Forest Stems Per Acre: 620 cascara black twinberry evening-primsrose spike bentgrass tall annual Interplant Interplant Seeding Seeding Phase: Herbivore Control Herbivore Control Canada thistle common teasel morning-glory Transitional 2015 Annual Report 21

23 Thermal Credit for Shade Enhancement Stream Length (ft) Thermal Load Blocked (Baseline Conditions) (kcal/d) Thermal Load Blocked (Enhanced Conditions) (kcal/d) Thermal Load Reduction (Environmental Benefits) (kcal/d) Thermal Credit Received (kcal/d) Credit per Length (kcal/d/ft) E E E E Shade-a-Lator Input and Output Spreadsheets Table 1. SWCD-2139 Input and Output Data for Baseline Shade Conditions SHADE DETAILS All columns under STREAM INFORMATION and under RIPARIAN CODES are input to the Shade-O-Later from the Heat Source model; codes are included only for riparian zones that were restored or protected The 'Effective Shade' column is output from the Shade-O-Later from the Heat Source model The "Thermal Load Blocked" column is calculated from the stream width and length, the effective shade, and an assumption of solar insolation of 480 kcal/d PROJECT SHADE & HEAT STREAM INFORMATION RIPARIAN CODES -- LEFT BANK-- code only vegetation that CWS is responsible for RIPARIAN CODES -- RIGHT BANK-- code only vegetation that CWS is responsible for Thermal Segment Wetted NSDZ Channel Load Orientation LB LB LB LB LB LB LB LB LB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB Length Width Width Incision Blocked (0 deg=n) 0-15 ft ft 30-45ft ft ft ft ft ft ft 0-15 ft ft 30-45ft ft ft ft ft ft (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (kcal/d) Effective Shade (%) SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 2.5E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 1.5E SWCD % 1.2E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % -2.6E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 3.4E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 1.5E SWCD % 6.6E SWCD % 5.6E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 5.9E SWCD % 1.2E SWCD % 7.3E SWCD % 1.1E SWCD % 1.8E SWCD % 1.5E SWCD % 6.9E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 0.0E Annual Report 22 RB ft

24 Table 2. SWCD-2139 Input and Output Data for Enhanced Shade Conditions SHADE DETAILS All columns under STREAM INFORMATION and under RIPARIAN CODES are input to the Shade-O-Later from the Heat Source model; codes are included only for riparian zones that were restored or protected The 'Effective Shade' column is output from the Shade-O-Later from the Heat Source model The "Thermal Load Blocked" column is calculated from the stream width and length, the effective shade, and an assumption of solar insolation of 480 kcal/d SHADE & HEAT STREAM INFORMATION RIPARIAN CODES -- LEFT BANK-- code only vegetation that CWS is responsible for RIPARIAN CODES -- RIGHT BANK-- code only vegetation that CWS is responsible for PROJECT Effective Shade (% ) Thermal Load Blocked (kcal/d) Segment Length (ft) Orientation (0 deg=n) Wetted Width (ft) NSDZ Width (ft) Channel Incision (ft) LB 0-15 ft LB ft LB 30-45ft LB ft LB ft LB ft LB ft LB ft LB ft RB 0-15 ft RB ft RB 30-45ft RB ft RB ft RB ft RB ft RB ft RB ft SWCD % 5.3E SWCD % 4.8E SWCD % 4.7E SWCD % 5.3E SWCD % 5.0E SWCD % 4.9E SWCD % 5.0E SWCD % 5.1E SWCD % 5.6E SWCD % 2.7E SWCD % 2.8E SWCD % 2.3E SWCD % 2.3E SWCD % 2.7E SWCD % 2.9E SWCD % 3.0E SWCD % 2.8E SWCD % 2.7E SWCD % 1.7E SWCD % 2.6E SWCD % 1.7E SWCD % 6.0E SWCD % 5.7E SWCD % 9.6E SWCD % 4.9E SWCD % 6.0E SWCD % 9.5E SWCD % 2.3E SWCD % 2.1E SWCD % 2.6E SWCD % 2.5E SWCD % 2.6E SWCD % 2.3E SWCD % 2.6E SWCD % 2.5E SWCD % 2.5E SWCD % 1.6E SWCD % 2.5E SWCD % 2.0E SWCD % 2.0E SWCD % 2.4E Annual Report 23

25 Table 3. Riparian Codes for Shade-a-Lator Inputs Height Density OH Code Source Description (m) (%) (m) 1000 CWS Not in project 0.0 0% CWS Forest fully vegetated % CWS Forest partially vegetated % CWS Forest partially vegetated % CWS No existing forest vegetation 0.0 0% CWS Wetland fully vegetated % CWS Wetland partially vegetated % CWS Wetland partially vegetated % CWS No existing wetland vegetation 0.0 0% Annual Report 24

26 SWCD Project Summary Site ID Acres Location Private property on Little Beaver Creek, in the Gales Creek subbasin, in rural Washington County Lat/Long Number of Plants Installed , ,600 (total from 2015) Stream Length Average Stream Width 5,161 ft 10 ft. Initial Planting Year/Credit Year Thermal Benefits/Credits 2015/ / 3.3 (million kcal/day) Plant Communities Riparian Forest (refer to the Site Assessment Report for additional information) Partners Tualatin Soil and Water Conservation District and USDA Farm Service Agency Riparian Planting Activities Site preparation, targeted invasive species treatment, herbivore control, and riparian plantings Stream Enhancement Activities None Site Assessment Summary Plant Community: Riparian Forest Stems Per Acre: 1650 cascara Douglas-fir Oregon oak red alder W. v. ponderosa pine black twinberry clustered wild rose elderberry Sitka Willow tall Oregon grape thimbleberry cleavers common horsetail Cooley's hedge-nettle fringecup giant horsetail moss rice cutgrass small-fruited bulrush soft rush spike bentgrass western pearly everlasting Phase: Transitional bittersweet nightshade bull thistle Canada thistle English holly garlic mustard hedge false bindweed Continued on Next Page 2015 Annual Report 25

27 Interplant Interplant Seeding Seeding Herbivore Control Herbivore Control Thermal Credit for Shade Enhancement Stream Length (ft) Thermal Load Blocked (Baseline Conditions) (kcal/d) Thermal Load Blocked (Enhanced Conditions) (kcal/d) Thermal Load Reduction (Environmental Benefits) (kcal/d) Thermal Credit Received (kcal/d) Credit per Length (kcal/d/ft) E E E E Annual Report 26

28 Shade-a-Lator Input and Output Spreadsheets Table 1. SWCD-2142 Input and Output Data for Baseline Shade Conditions SHADE DETAILS All columns under STREAM INFORMATION and under RIPARIAN CODES are input to the Shade-O-Later from the Heat Source model; codes are included only for riparian zones that were restored or protected The 'Effective Shade' column is output from the Shade-O-Later from the Heat Source model The "Thermal Load Blocked" column is calculated from the stream width and length, the effective shade, and an assumption of solar insolation of 480 kcal/d PROJECT SHADE & HEAT STREAM INFORMATION RIPARIAN CODES -- LEFT BANK-- code only vegetation that CWS is responsible for RIPARIAN CODES -- RIGHT BANK-- code only vegetation that CWS is responsible for Thermal Segment Wetted NSDZ Channel Load Orientation LB LB LB LB LB LB LB LB LB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB Length Width Width Incision Blocked (0 deg=n) 0-15 ft ft 30-45ft ft ft ft ft ft ft 0-15 ft ft 30-45ft ft ft ft ft ft (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (kcal/d) Effective Shade (%) SWCD % 2.6E SWCD % 2.5E SWCD % 2.5E SWCD % 2.4E SWCD % 2.1E SWCD % 2.5E SWCD % 1.4E SWCD % 1.3E SWCD % 1.8E SWCD % 2.3E SWCD % 1.6E SWCD % 1.1E SWCD % 2.4E SWCD % 1.7E SWCD % 2.5E SWCD % 2.1E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 1.0E SWCD % 1.2E SWCD % 2.2E SWCD % 3.0E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 2.0E SWCD % 5.5E SWCD % 2.6E SWCD % 5.5E SWCD % 2.1E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 3.9E SWCD % 2.8E SWCD % 3.1E SWCD % 2.6E SWCD % 2.8E SWCD % 2.1E SWCD % 4.0E SWCD % 4.3E SWCD % 5.2E SWCD % 6.7E SWCD % 1.2E SWCD % 9.7E SWCD % 1.6E Annual Report 27 RB ft

29 Table 2. SWCD-2142 Input and Output Data for Enhanced Shade Conditions SHADE DETAILS All columns under STREAM INFORMATION and under RIPARIAN CODES are input to the Shade-O-Later from the Heat Source model; codes are included only for riparian zones that were restored or protected The 'Effective Shade' column is output from the Shade-O-Later from the Heat Source model The "Thermal Load Blocked" column is calculated from the stream width and length, the effective shade, and an assumption of solar insolation of 480 kcal/d SHADE & HEAT STREAM INFORMATION RIPARIAN CODES -- LEFT BANK-- code only vegetation that CWS is responsible for RIPARIAN CODES -- RIGHT BANK-- code only vegetation that CWS is responsible for PROJECT Effective Shade (% ) Thermal Load Blocked (kcal/d) Segment Length (ft) Orientation (0 deg=n) Wetted Width (ft) NSDZ Width (ft) Channel Incision (ft) LB 0-15 ft LB ft LB 30-45ft LB ft LB ft LB ft LB ft LB ft LB ft RB 0-15 ft RB ft RB 30-45ft RB ft RB ft RB ft RB ft RB ft RB ft SWCD % 2.6E SWCD % 2.5E SWCD % 2.6E SWCD % 2.6E SWCD % 2.7E SWCD % 2.6E SWCD % 2.5E SWCD % 2.3E SWCD % 2.5E SWCD % 2.6E SWCD % 2.6E SWCD % 2.6E SWCD % 2.6E SWCD % 2.6E SWCD % 2.6E SWCD % 2.1E SWCD % 0.0E SWCD % 2.1E SWCD % 2.0E SWCD % 1.9E SWCD % 1.8E SWCD % 2.4E SWCD % 1.4E SWCD % 3.2E SWCD % 1.8E SWCD % 1.8E SWCD % 1.9E SWCD % 1.9E SWCD % 1.9E SWCD % 4.3E SWCD % 4.1E SWCD % 4.3E SWCD % 3.4E SWCD % 4.0E SWCD % 3.5E SWCD % 4.1E SWCD % 4.0E SWCD % 4.1E SWCD % 4.3E SWCD % 4.3E SWCD % 4.3E SWCD % 4.8E SWCD % 4.4E SWCD % 2.8E SWCD % 2.9E SWCD % 2.5E SWCD % 3.1E SWCD % 3.2E SWCD % 8.4E SWCD % 1.4E SWCD % 1.7E SWCD % 1.6E Annual Report 28

30 Table 3. Riparian Codes for Shade-a-Lator Inputs Height Density OH Code Source Description (m) (%) (m) 1000 CWS Not in project 0.0 0% CWS Forest fully vegetated % CWS Forest partially vegetated % CWS Forest partially vegetated % CWS No existing forest vegetation 0.0 0% CWS Wetland fully vegetated % CWS Wetland partially vegetated % CWS Wetland partially vegetated % CWS No existing wetland vegetation 0.0 0% Annual Report 29

31 Tualatin River Farm Project Summary Site ID Acres Location Public property on the Tualatin River in the Tualatin subbasin, south of Minter Bridge Rd. Lat/Long Number of Plants Installed , ,725 (total from ) Stream Length Average Stream Width 2,794 ft 66 ft. Initial Planting Year/Credit Year Thermal Benefits/Credits 2014/ / 0.89 (million kcal/day) Plant Communities Riparian Forest, Forested Wetland, Scrub-Shrub, Upland Forest, Emergent Marsh, and Wet Prairie (refer to the Site Assessment Report for additional information) Partners Metro and Natural Resources Conservation Service Riparian Planting Activities Site preparation, targeted invasive species treatment, herbivore control, and riparian plantings Stream Enhancement Activities Floodplain wood assemblages Project Map 2015 Annual Report 30

32 Site Assessment Summary Plant Community: Riparian Forest Phase: Transitional Stems Per Acre: 1422 pacific crab apple beaked hazelnut black twinberry clustered wild rose elderberry mock-orange red elderberry American bird's-foot trefoil bluehead gilia common beggarticks common selfheal common woolly sunflower common yarrow Cusick's popcornflower denseflower farewell to spring fringecup giant horsetail grand collomia gumweed lupine meadow barley popcornflower sedge shortspur seablush skunkweed slender hairgrass spike bentgrass spotted touch-me-not stinging nettle tarweed western yellow cress bittersweet nightshade morning-glory Interplant Interplant Seeding Seeding Herbivore Control Herbivore Control 2015 Annual Report 31

33 Thermal Credit for Shade Enhancement Stream Length (ft) Thermal Load Blocked (Baseline Conditions) (kcal/d) Thermal Load Blocked (Enhanced Conditions) (kcal/d) Thermal Load Reduction (Environmental Benefits) (kcal/d) Thermal Credit Received (kcal/d) Credit per Length (kcal/d/ft) E E E E Shade-a-Lator Input and Output Spreadsheets Table 1. Tualatin River Farm Input and Output Data for Baseline Shade Conditions SHADE DETAILS All columns under STREAM INFORMATION and under RIPARIAN CODES are input to the Shade-O-Later from the Heat Source model; codes are included only for riparian zones that were restored or protected The 'Effective Shade' column is output from the Shade-O-Later from the Heat Source model The "Thermal Load Blocked" column is calculated from the stream width and length, the effective shade, and an assumption of solar insolation of 480 kcal/d PROJECT SHADE & HEAT STREAM INFORMATION RIPARIAN CODES -- LEFT BANK-- code only vegetation that CWS is responsible for RIPARIAN CODES -- RIGHT BANK-- code only vegetation that CWS is responsible for Thermal Segment Wetted NSDZ Channel Load Orientation LB LB LB LB LB LB LB LB LB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB Length Width Width Incision Blocked (0 deg=n) 0-15 ft ft 30-45ft ft ft ft ft ft ft 0-15 ft ft 30-45ft ft ft ft ft ft (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (kcal/d) Effective Shade (%) Tualatin River Farm % 2.5E Tualatin River Farm % 5.5E Tualatin River Farm % 6.0E Tualatin River Farm % 4.1E Tualatin River Farm % 4.2E Tualatin River Farm % 3.6E Tualatin River Farm % 3.6E Tualatin River Farm % 2.1E Tualatin River Farm % 1.7E Tualatin River Farm % 3.2E Tualatin River Farm % 3.2E Tualatin River Farm % 7.9E Tualatin River Farm % 1.4E Tualatin River Farm % 2.7E Tualatin River Farm % 2.3E Tualatin River Farm % 1.7E Tualatin River Farm % 6.2E Tualatin River Farm % 7.8E Tualatin River Farm % 5.4E Tualatin River Farm % 1.4E Tualatin River Farm % 7.1E Tualatin River Farm % 7.0E Tualatin River Farm % 5.8E Tualatin River Farm % 4.8E Tualatin River Farm % 4.3E Tualatin River Farm % 3.0E Tualatin River Farm % 1.9E Tualatin River Farm % 1.4E RB ft 2015 Annual Report 32

34 Table 2. Tualatin River Farm Input and Output Data for Enhanced Shade Conditions SHADE DETAILS All columns under STREAM INFORMATION and under RIPARIAN CODES are input to the Shade-O-Later from the Heat Source model; codes are included only for riparian zones that were restored or protected The 'Effective Shade' column is output from the Shade-O-Later from the Heat Source model The "Thermal Load Blocked" column is calculated from the stream width and length, the effective shade, and an assumption of solar insolation of 480 kcal/d SHADE & HEAT STREAM INFORMATION RIPARIAN CODES -- LEFT BANK-- code only vegetation that CWS is responsible for RIPARIAN CODES -- RIGHT BANK-- code only vegetation that CWS is responsible for PROJECT Effective Shade (% ) Thermal Load Blocked (kcal/d) Segment Length (ft) Orientation (0 deg=n) Wetted Width (ft) NSDZ Width (ft) Channel Incision (ft) LB 0-15 ft LB ft LB 30-45ft LB ft LB ft LB ft LB ft LB ft LB ft RB 0-15 ft RB ft RB 30-45ft RB ft RB ft RB ft RB ft RB ft RB ft Tualatin River Farm % 5.5E Tualatin River Farm % 5.9E Tualatin River Farm % 6.4E Tualatin River Farm % 5.2E Tualatin River Farm % 4.7E Tualatin River Farm % 3.8E Tualatin River Farm % 3.8E Tualatin River Farm % 2.2E Tualatin River Farm % 2.1E Tualatin River Farm % 3.4E Tualatin River Farm % 3.5E Tualatin River Farm % 2.0E Tualatin River Farm % 2.0E Tualatin River Farm % 3.0E Tualatin River Farm % 2.5E Tualatin River Farm % 1.8E Tualatin River Farm % 6.5E Tualatin River Farm % 9.1E Tualatin River Farm % 1.0E Tualatin River Farm % 2.3E Tualatin River Farm % 7.7E Tualatin River Farm % 7.9E Tualatin River Farm % 7.8E Tualatin River Farm % 6.5E Tualatin River Farm % 5.2E Tualatin River Farm % 3.5E Tualatin River Farm % 2.1E Tualatin River Farm % 1.4E Table 3. Riparian Codes for Shade-a-Lator Inputs Height Density OH Code Source Description (m) (%) (m) 1000 CWS Not in project 0.0 0% CWS Forest fully vegetated % CWS Forest partially vegetated % CWS Forest partially vegetated % CWS No existing forest vegetation 0.0 0% CWS Wetland fully vegetated % CWS Wetland partially vegetated % CWS Wetland partially vegetated % CWS No existing wetland vegetation 0.0 0% Annual Report 33

35 Bronson Creek Greenway Project Summary Site ID Acres Location Public property on Bronson Creek, in the Rock Creek subbasin, near Beaverton, OR, between Sunset Hwy and NW West Union Rd Lat/Long Number of Plants Installed , ,114 (total from ) Stream Length 4,600 ft 7 ft. Average Stream Width Initial Planting Year/Credit Year Thermal Benefits/Credits 2013/ / (million kcal/day) Plant Communities Riparian Forest, Scrub Shrub, and Forested Wetland (refer to the Site Assessment Report for additional information) Partners Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District Riparian Planting Activities Site preparation, targeted invasive species treatment, herbivore control, and riparian plantings Stream Enhancement Activities Floodplain wood assemblages Project Map 2015 Annual Report 34

36 Site Assessment Summary Plant Community: Scrub-Shrub Phase: Transitional Stems Per Acre: 1466 bigleaf maple Oregon oak beaked hazelnut black twinberry clustered wild rose mock-orange Pacific Willow Piper s willow serviceberry Sitka Willow American bird's-foot trefoil American sloughgrass American speedwell California figwort cleavers common cattail common horsetail cursed buttercup fringecup marsh pennywort nodding beggarticks northern water plantain rice cutgrass sawbeak sedge sedge slender rush slough sedge small duckweed soft rush tufted hairgrass wapato water foxtail western swordfern bittersweet nightshade common hawthorn common teasel Continued on Next Page 2015 Annual Report 35

37 Plant Community: Forested Wetland Stems Per Acre: 2950 black cottonwood cascara vine maple western red cedar Plant Community: Riparian Forest Stems Per Acre: 9200 Douglas-fir Oregon oak Pacific dogwood black twinberry clustered wild rose nootka rose oceanspray Pacific Willow Scouler s Willow Sitka Willow tall Oregon grape Western wahoo baldhip rose beaked hazelnut mock-orange osoberry, indian plum Pacific poison oak salal serviceberry tall Oregon grape American speedwell buttercup California figwort cleavers Cooley's hedge-nettle fringecup lady fern pointed rush rice cutgrass slender hairgrass slough sedge soft rush spike bentgrass taperfruit shortscale sedge western swordfern western yellow cress western starflower western swordfern Interplant Interplant Phase: Established bittersweet nightshade bull thistle Phase: cherry Seeding Seeding Herbivore Control Herbivore Control English holly Established 2015 Annual Report 36

38 Thermal Credit for Shade Enhancement Stream Length (ft) Thermal Load Blocked (Baseline Conditions) (kcal/d) Thermal Load Blocked (Enhanced Conditions) (kcal/d) Thermal Load Reduction (Environmental Benefits) (kcal/d) Thermal Credit Received (kcal/d) Credit per Length (kcal/d/ft) E E E E Annual Report 37

39 Shade-a-Lator Input and Output Spreadsheets Table 1. Bronson Creek Greenway Input and Output Data for Baseline Shade Conditions SHADE DETAILS All columns under STREAM INFORMATION and under RIPARIAN CODES are input to the Shade-O-Later from the Heat Source model; codes are included only for riparian zones that were restored or protected The 'Effective Shade' column is output from the Shade-O-Later from the Heat Source model The "Thermal Load Blocked" column is calculated from the stream width and length, the effective shade, and an assumption of solar insolation of 480 kcal/d PROJECT SHADE & HEAT STREAM INFORMATION RIPARIAN CODES -- LEFT BANK-- code only vegetation that CWS is responsible for RIPARIAN CODES -- RIGHT BANK-- code only vegetation that CWS is responsible for Thermal Segment Wetted NSDZ Channel Load Orientation LB LB LB LB LB LB LB LB LB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB Length Width Width Incision Blocked (0 deg=n) 0-15 ft ft 30-45ft ft ft ft ft ft ft 0-15 ft ft 30-45ft ft ft ft ft ft (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (kcal/d) Effective Shade (%) Bronson Creek Greenway % 3.8E Bronson Creek Greenway % 6.4E Bronson Creek Greenway % 6.6E Bronson Creek Greenway % 6.4E Bronson Creek Greenway % 2.8E Bronson Creek Greenway % 6.1E Bronson Creek Greenway % 4.4E Bronson Creek Greenway % 4.6E Bronson Creek Greenway % 4.4E Bronson Creek Greenway % 1.7E Bronson Creek Greenway % 5.4E Bronson Creek Greenway % 4.8E Bronson Creek Greenway % 5.0E Bronson Creek Greenway % 2.0E Bronson Creek Greenway % 4.5E Bronson Creek Greenway % 0.0E Bronson Creek Greenway % 4.1E Bronson Creek Greenway % 5.8E Bronson Creek Greenway % 6.4E Bronson Creek Greenway % 0.0E Bronson Creek Greenway % 0.0E Bronson Creek Greenway % 0.0E Bronson Creek Greenway % 6.5E Bronson Creek Greenway % 8.6E Bronson Creek Greenway % 4.8E Bronson Creek Greenway % 0.0E Bronson Creek Greenway % 8.9E Bronson Creek Greenway % 1.5E Bronson Creek Greenway % 0.0E Bronson Creek Greenway % 3.3E Bronson Creek Greenway % 3.1E Bronson Creek Greenway % 4.2E Bronson Creek Greenway % 1.3E Bronson Creek Greenway % 9.6E Bronson Creek Greenway % 1.1E Bronson Creek Greenway % 4.7E Bronson Creek Greenway % 3.7E Bronson Creek Greenway % 2.1E Bronson Creek Greenway % 2.8E Bronson Creek Greenway % 4.1E Bronson Creek Greenway % 0.0E Bronson Creek Greenway % 0.0E Bronson Creek Greenway % 0.0E Bronson Creek Greenway % 2.9E Bronson Creek Greenway % 3.1E Bronson Creek Greenway % 0.0E RB ft 2015 Annual Report 38

40 Table 2. Bronson Creek Greenway Input and Output Data for Enhanced Shade Conditions SHADE DETAILS All columns under STREAM INFORMATION and under RIPARIAN CODES are input to the Shade-O-Later from the Heat Source model; codes are included only for riparian zones that were restored or protected The 'Effective Shade' column is output from the Shade-O-Later from the Heat Source model The "Thermal Load Blocked" column is calculated from the stream width and length, the effective shade, and an assumption of solar insolation of 480 kcal/d SHADE & HEAT STREAM INFORMATION RIPARIAN CODES -- LEFT BANK-- code only vegetation that CWS is responsible for RIPARIAN CODES -- RIGHT BANK-- code only vegetation that CWS is responsible for PROJECT Effective Shade (% ) Thermal Load Blocked (kcal/d) Segment Length (ft) Orientation (0 deg=n) Wetted Width (ft) NSDZ Width (ft) Channel Incision (ft) LB 0-15 ft LB ft LB 30-45ft LB ft LB ft LB ft LB ft LB ft LB ft RB 0-15 ft RB ft RB 30-45ft RB ft RB ft RB ft RB ft RB ft RB ft Bronson Creek Greenway % 6.3E Bronson Creek Greenway % 6.4E Bronson Creek Greenway % 6.6E Bronson Creek Greenway % 6.4E Bronson Creek Greenway % 5.8E Bronson Creek Greenway % 6.1E Bronson Creek Greenway % 4.4E Bronson Creek Greenway % 4.6E Bronson Creek Greenway % 4.4E Bronson Creek Greenway % 1.7E Bronson Creek Greenway % 5.5E Bronson Creek Greenway % 7.6E Bronson Creek Greenway % 1.2E Bronson Creek Greenway % 2.6E Bronson Creek Greenway % 2.8E Bronson Creek Greenway % 4.4E Bronson Creek Greenway % 4.2E Bronson Creek Greenway % 3.6E Bronson Creek Greenway % 4.9E Bronson Creek Greenway % 9.4E Bronson Creek Greenway % 2.2E Bronson Creek Greenway % 1.1E Bronson Creek Greenway % 2.9E Bronson Creek Greenway % 1.3E Bronson Creek Greenway % 1.3E Bronson Creek Greenway % 6.3E Bronson Creek Greenway % 6.2E Bronson Creek Greenway % 1.1E Bronson Creek Greenway % 1.7E Bronson Creek Greenway % 2.0E Bronson Creek Greenway % 5.9E Bronson Creek Greenway % 4.2E Bronson Creek Greenway % 6.8E Bronson Creek Greenway % 2.7E Bronson Creek Greenway % 2.6E Bronson Creek Greenway % 4.7E Bronson Creek Greenway % 1.1E Bronson Creek Greenway % 3.4E Bronson Creek Greenway % 3.4E Bronson Creek Greenway % 1.1E Bronson Creek Greenway % 3.2E Bronson Creek Greenway % 1.1E Bronson Creek Greenway % 2.2E Bronson Creek Greenway % 3.5E Bronson Creek Greenway % 2.3E Bronson Creek Greenway % 1.1E Annual Report 39

41 Table 3. Riparian Codes for Shade-a-Lator Inputs Height Density OH Code Source Description (m) (%) (m) 1000 CWS Not in project 0.0 0% CWS Forest fully vegetated % CWS Forest partially vegetated % CWS Forest partially vegetated % CWS No existing forest vegetation 0.0 0% CWS Wetland fully vegetated % CWS Wetland partially vegetated % CWS Wetland partially vegetated % CWS No existing wetland vegetation 0.0 0% Annual Report 40

42 Cedar Creek Stella Olsen Project Summary Site ID Acres Location Public property in Sherwood, OR, bisected by Cedar Creek in the Chicken Creek subbasin, and located just south of Pacific Hwy. Two riparian planting projects were conducted at this site one credited in 2004 and the other credited in Credits noted in this summary reflect the project conducted in Lat/Long , Stream Length 7,194 ft (total for 2004 and 2015 project) 2,027 ft (2015 only) Number of Plants Installed 98,763 (total from ) 21,873 (2015 only) Average Stream Width 14 ft. Initial Planting Year/Credit Year Thermal Benefits/Credits 2004/ / 2.3 (million kcal/day) Plant Communities Riparian Forest and Scrub Shrub (refer to the Site Assessment Report for additional information) Partners City of Sherwood and Friends of Trees Riparian Planting Activities Site preparation, targeted invasive species treatment, herbivore control, and riparian plantings Stream Enhancement Activities Large woody debris Project Map 2015 Annual Report 41