Notice of Decision

Rev 3/05

MULTNOMAH COUNTY LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM 1600 SE 190TH Avenue Portland, OR 97233 PH: 503-988-3043 FAX: 503-988-3389 http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/landuse

NOTICE OF DECISION

This notice concerns a Planning Director Decision on the land use case(s) cited and described below.

Case File: T2-08-075 Vicinity Map NÇ

Permit: NSA Scenic Area Site Review Permit

Location: Located in the I-84, Historic Columbia River Highway & Union Pacific Railroad Right-of-Ways from just east of Multnomah Falls to just east of Ainsworth State Park T1N, R6E, Sections 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9. W.M

Applicant: City of Cascade Locks, Bernard Seeger PO Box 308 Cascade Locks, OR 97014

Owners: Oregon Department of Transportation Union Pacific Railroad Co. Attn. Kristen Stallman Attn. Jon Devish 123 NW Flanders 1400 Douglas St Stop Portland, OR 97203-4037 Omaha, NE 68179

Summary: NSA Site Review Request to replace an existing overhead electric transmission line with an underground line including placement of 28 utility vaults, 4 transformer boxes, 4 service meter pedestals, underground line to four existing services along the line and replacement of 4 poles and overhead line crossing Horsetail Creek and Oneonta Creek (temporary bridges will be placed over these two streams for the project period). The project is in the Gorge Special Open Space (GSO) and Gorge Special – Public Recreation (GS-PR) Zone District and Floodplain Development Overlay District.

Decision: Approved with Conditions Unless appealed, this decision is effective May 5, 2009, at 4:30 PM.

Issued by:

George A. Plummer, Planner

For: Karen Schilling- Planning Director Date: April 21, 2009

T2-08-075 Page 1

Opportunity to Review the Record: A copy of the Planning Director Decision, and all evidence submitted associated with this application, is available for inspection, at no cost, at the Land Use Planning office during normal business hours. Copies of all documents may be purchased at the rate of 30-cents per page. The Planning Director Decision contains the findings and conclusions upon which the decision is based, along with any conditions of approval. For further information on this case, contact George A. Plummer, Staff Planner at 503-988-3043 ext. 29152.

Opportunity to Appeal: This decision may be appealed within 14 days of the date it was rendered, pursuant to the provisions of MCC 38.0640. An appeal requires a $250.00 fee and must state the specific legal grounds on which it is based. To obtain appeal forms or information on the procedure, contact the Land Use Planning offices at 1600 SE 190th Avenue (Phone: 503-988-3043). This decision cannot be appealed to the Columbia River Gorge Commission until all local appeals are exhausted.

This decision is final at the close of the appeal period, unless appealed. The deadline for filing an appeal is April 21, 2009 at 4:30 pm.

Applicable Approval Criteria: Multnomah County Code (MCC): Multnomah County Code (MCC): Chapter 38, Part 1: General Provisions, Part 3: Administration and Procedures, Part 4: Zoning Districts (MCC 38.2600-2695: GSO and MCC 38.2800-.2895: GS-PR) and Part 6: Approval Criteria (SMA criteria).

Copies of the referenced Multnomah County Code sections can be obtained by contacting our office at 503-988-3043 or by visiting our website at http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/landuse.

Scope of Approval

1. Approval of this land use permit is based on the submitted written narrative(s) and plan(s). No work shall occur under this permit other than that which is specified within these documents. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant and the property owner(s) to comply with these documents and the limitations of approval described herein.

2. Pursuant to MCC 38.0690, this land use permit expires two years from the date the decision is final if; (a) development action has not been initiated. The property owner may request to extend the timeframe within which this permit is valid, as provided under MCC 38.0690 and 38.0700. Such a request must be made prior to the expiration date of the permit.

Conditions of Approval

The conditions listed are necessary to ensure that approval criteria for this land use permit are satisfied. Where a condition relates to a specific approval criterion, the code citation for that criterion follows in brackets.

1. To protect sensitive wildlife species and to avoid disturbance of nesting birds and immature mammals, ground disturbance related to the project shall be limited to the time period between August 15th and March 15th as requested by ODFW. Any work outside that period shall first be approved by ODFW in written form and submitted to Multnomah County Land Use Planning. Any work related to the project that may have an impact below the ordinary high water level of any water body (either directly

T2-08-075 Page 2

through soil disturbance or indirectly through fall-back of soils into waters) shall be limited to the ODFW in-water work period between July 15th and August 31st or as allowed through an extension issued by ODFW in writing and submitted to County Planning. If the work associated with installation or removal of the temporary bridges will not impact below ordinary high water, then that part of project need not adhere to the in-water work period; however the installation of the bridges should be done during the in-water work period in case there is an accidental impact to the stream water. These work periods are outlined in the application narrative (Exhibit 1.12) and ODFW emails letter included as Exhibits 3.11 and 3.12. [MCC 38.7075(K), (M), (O), (Z)(1) and (Z)(5)].

2. The mitigation plan for work within the stream, pond, wetland and wildlife buffers shall include the following: The City of Cascade Locks shall remove noxious weeds such as English Ivy, Scott’s Broom, Japanese Knotweed, Tansy Ragwort, and Himalayan Blackberry in the right-of-ways along the project area and shall plant native grasses and/or other native species to replace vegetation removed. [MCC 38.7075(K), (O), (Z)(1) and (Z)(5)].

3. The tops of the vaults (any visible portion of the vaults) shall be a dark brown be a dark earth tone as shown in the top row of the color chart in the Columbia River Gorge Commission Scenic Resources Implementation Handbook to blend with natural landscape elements and shadows. The applicant shall plant around the two foot above ground vaults, vegetation that will grow to at least two feet in height and shall monitor that vegetation to ensure it becomes established. The transformer boxes and service meter pedestals shall be a dark green or dark brown earth tone color as shown in the top row of the color chart in the Columbia River Gorge Commission Scenic Resources Implementation Handbook. The applicant shall plant vegetation (native bushes) around transformer boxes and service meter pedestals to screen them from the KVAs and so they will blend into the environment. The bushes shall be of a sufficient size that they either screen the project feature so it is visually subordinate and not visually evident from the KVA or will screen them to meet those standards within five years. The planted vegetation shall be monitored to determine if the vegetation has successfully been established. If the vegetation establishment is not successful then the applicant will be responsible for its replacement within the next growing season. The planted vegetation shall be species native to the Columbia River Gorge and included on the recommended species list in the Scenic Resources Implementation Handbook. [MCC 38.7040(A)(1), (A)(3), (A)(9) and(A) (10), MCC 38.7040(C)(2) and (C)(5) and MCC 38.7040(D)].

4. Vegetated areas disturbed (soil disturbed) as a result of this project shall be revegetated through replanting with only native plant species of the Columbia River Gorge, as soon as possible after the excavation work has been completed, the electric line has been buried, and the vaults, transformer boxes other facilities have been have been installed or removed. All planted vegetation shall be native plant species of the Columbia River Gorge. A progress report on the success and survival of the planted vegetation shall be submitted to the Multnomah County Planning Office by August 31st the year after the completion of the project. [MCC 38.7040 (B), MCC 38.7075(B) and MCC 38.7075 (X)]

5. Prior to any soil disturbance, excavation or grading on the project area, the City of Cascade Locks (applicant) shall submit to County Land Use Planning office an affidavit, as shown in Exhibit 2.2, signed by the project contractor demonstrating that person(s) understands the conditions of approval and the requirement to immediately stop work if any archeological artifacts and/or human remains are found on-site during the project. That affidavit shall also include a statement that the contractor has informed employees and/or subcontractors so that they also understands the requirement to immediately stop work if any archeological artifacts are found. And that it is understood that within 24 hours of any such discovery the Multnomah County Planning Director (or staff contact) shall be

T2-08-075 Page 3

notified. All ground disturbing activity on-site shall be carried out in a cautious and conscience manner so as not to disturb or damage any archeological sites and human remains that may be on site. [MCC 38.0660 and MCC 38.7050(H)]

6. If any Cultural Resources, archaeological resources or human remains are located or discovered during this project, including finding any evidence of historic campsites, old burial grounds, implements, or artifacts, the applicant/contractor/equipment operators shall immediately stop work, and implement the following procedures: [MCC 38.7050 (H)]

In the event of the inadvertent discovery of cultural resources during construction or development, the applicant and/or contractor shall notify the Multnomah County Planning Director and implement the following procedures: (1) In the event of the discovery of cultural resources, work in the immediate area of discovery shall be suspended until a cultural resource professional can evaluate the potential significance of the discovery pursuant to MCC 38.7050 (G) (3). (2) If the discovered material is suspected to be human bone or a burial, the following procedure shall be used: (a) Stop all work in the vicinity of the discovery. (b) The applicant shall immediately notify the U.S. Forest Service, the applicant’s cultural resource professional, the State Medical Examiner, and appropriate law enforcement agencies. (c) The U.S. Forest Service shall notify the tribal governments if the discovery is determined to be an Indian burial or a cultural resource. (d) A cultural resource professional shall evaluate the potential significance of the discovery pursuant to MCC 38.7050 (G) (3) and report the results to the U.S. Forest Service which shall have 30 days to comment on the report. (3) If the U.S. Forest Service determines that the cultural resource is not significant or does not respond within the 30 day response period, the cultural resource review process shall be complete and work may continue. (4) If the U.S. Forest Service determines that the cultural resource is significant, the cultural resource professional shall recommend measures to protect and/or recover the resource pursuant to MCC 38.7050 (G) (4) and (5).

7. The “High Voltage Underground” Warning signs (front and back) shall be earth tone colors as shown in the top three rows the color chart in the Columbia River Gorge Commission Scenic Resources Implementation Handbook. The sign posts shall be a dark earth tone as shown in the top row of that color chart. This condition, related to the sign only, is considered overridden if there is any state or federal regulation and/or law that require other colors for this type of warning sign.

8. Silt fencing shall be properly installed and maintained down slope of the soil disturbance areas of the project as shown in Exhibit 1.2, Appendix A. Prior to any soil disturbance a Grading and Erosion Control Permit shall be obtained and the requirements of that permit shall be adhered to and implemented. Within 1 year of project completion, 80 percent minimum of the project area surface disturbance shall be established with effective native ground cover species or other soil-stabilizing methods to prevent soil erosion shall be maintained until the area has an 80 percent minimum vegetative cover. [MCC 38.7075 (P)]

Notice to Mortgagee, Lien Holder, Vendor, or Seller: ORS Chapter 215 requires that if you receive this notice it must be promptly forwarded to the purchaser.

T2-08-075 Page 4

1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Applicant: The applicant, the City of Cascade Locks, proposes to replace an overhead utility (electric) line with an underground system within the rights-of-way of the Historic Columbia River Highway (HCRH), Interstate 84 (I-84), and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) as well as on US Forest Service land. Existing, three-phase, overhead power lines, which cross the HCRH in several locations, would be removed. New power lines (i.e., three-phase conductors in conduit) would be installed underground along the north side of the HCRH, except in one area where they would be installed underground along the south side of the highway to avoid wetlands.

The purpose of the project is to increase the reliability of electrical service and reduce maintenance and repair needs along the project section. The existing power poles are approximately 50 years old. The western portion of the Columbia River Gorge, which includes the project section, often experiences severe weather conditions such as heavy rain, strong winds, and winter storms including snow and ice. Landslides sometimes occur. The overhead power lines have a history of damage caused by trees, wind, ice, and snow, resulting in disturbance and interruptions to electrical service.

Project Work

Project construction would involve six steps: excavating a trench (or boring in areas that cannot be excavated) for the underground lines, placing conduit in the trench and bores, running wires through the conduit, transferring power from the overhead to the underground lines, removing the overhead lines, and cutting flush and covering poles with natural soil or gravel depending on location. However, poles in Wetland B will remain as is per the request of the National Marine Fisheries Service. Cutting flush and covering the poles will be completed by the City of Cascade Locks approximately a year after the underground line is installed.

Four new wood poles would be installed to replace existing poles, two each at the Horsetail Creek and Oneonta Creek crossings. Underground vaults would be placed at approximately 1,000-foot intervals, and aboveground transformer boxes would be placed at two locations to serve the UPRR line and one location to serve Ainsworth State Park. A metering pedestal would also be installed to serve the UPRR.

The applicant will employ a contractor to dig the trenches, create the bores and lay the underground line. One of three different methods, each of which will meet electrical code standards, would be used to bury the proposed line, depending on site conditions. Cross-sections of each method are shown on Sheet 2B of the project plans and described below. Plastic, “high voltage warning” tape would be buried above the electrical line within the trench backfill along the entire length of the line, as required by electrical code.

Where the line is placed immediately adjacent to the HCRH, the contractor will dig a trench approximately 17 inches wide and 14 inches deep (see Sheet 2B). Three 2-inch-diameter PVC conduits would be placed in concrete at the bottom of the trench. The concrete would be at least 10 inches deep. The concrete would be covered with gravel and made to blend into the adjoining areas. Excavators, backhoes, rock saws, directional boring equipment, light duty trucks and trailers will be required during construction. The project would not disturb any of the historic

T2-08-075 Page 5

qualities or features of the HCRH such as the historic Warrenite surface or the masonry drinking fountain.

Where the line is placed within the graveled area within the railroad right-of-way, the contractor will dig a trench at least 57 inches deep and approximately 16 inches wide (see Sheet 2B). Three 2-inch-diameter PVC conduits would be placed in concrete at the bottom of the trench. The concrete would be at least 8½ inches deep. Above the concrete, the trench would be backfilled with compacted gravel then covered with crushed rock. The electrical line would have at least 12 inches of horizontal clearance from nearby underground telephone lines.

In areas not constrained by the HCRH and/or topography and not within the graveled railroad access area, the line would not be encased in concrete. In accordance with electrical code requirements, the line would be buried within a trench at least 34½ inches deep and 14 inches wide (see Sheet 2B). Three 2-inch-diameter PVC conduits would be placed within clean backfill approximately 6½ inches deep. The trench would be backfilled with gravel and compacted. The electrical line would have at least 12 inches of horizontal clearance from nearby underground telephone lines.

To ensure proper voltage flow and control, the applicant will install 28 concrete vaults (4 feet wide, 4 feet long, and either 4 feet or 6 feet deep) along the proposed line. Proposed vault locations are shown on Sheets GA-2 through GA-10 of the project plans. On all but three vaults, the top surface of the vaults would be at grade, and the rest of the vault would be below grade. As shown on Sheet 2B-1, the vault covers would be galvanized steel and painted dark brown to match the natural landscape elements. Three vaults will be 2 feet above grade to maintain access to them during the wet season (Sheet GA-6 and GA-7).

Three transformer boxes would be installed: two to serve the UPRR and one to serve Ainsworth State Park. Locations are shown on the plans near Stations 27+25, 137+00, and 167+00. The boxes will enclose transformers, which are needed to provide service to individual properties. The transformer box near Ainsworth State Park would provide a service connection for the restrooms and well pump at the park. A new metering pedestal would be associated with the UPRR service near Station 27+25. The pedestal would be steel, 40 inches high, and placed a foot away from a transformer. Each transformer box will be 32 inches square and 24 inches high, set on a 4-inch high concrete pad. They have a matte plastic surface and will be dark green.

The proposed line would cross two streams: Oneonta Creek and Horsetail Creek. As shown on Sheets GA-6 and GA-7 of the project plans, both creeks would be crossed using overhead lines. The underground conduits will be brought to the ground surface, then the power lines will be routed to new, wood power poles, strung across the stream to a new, wood pole, then routed down to underground conduits on the other side of the stream. The power poles are set back approximately 60 feet from the stream bank (see Sheets GA-6 and GA-7).

Once the new system is installed, crews will transfer the electric load from the old system to the new system. The old system will be de-energized and its components removed. Lines will be disconnected, and materials recycled or reused when possible. Utility poles will be cut flush to the ground to minimize potential environmental impacts except where they are within wetlands in which case they will remain in place as requested by the National Marine Fisheries (Sheet GA- 6:GA-8). Light duty trucks and trailers will be used during the energy transfer and dismantling

T2-08-075 Page 6

process. Vegetated areas disturbed by construction of the project will be replanted with native plant species of the Columbia River Gorge.

Construction access for the west end of the project area will be via I-84 in an already disturbed area near station 20+00. For the east end of the project area, construction access will be from the HRCH with a temporary bridge over Horsetail Creek. The temporary bridge will be wood, 12 feet wide and span over the OHWM for the creek. Any areas disturbed by the temporary bridge will be returned to their pre-project state using appropriate native species.

Work on the HRCH will be done during the day. There will be single lane closures during the day for approximately two weeks. There will be one supervisor and two flaggers to manage traffic flow. Signs will be placed at safe intervals to alert drivers of upcoming lane closures. At night, vertical cones will placed on the work area to allow the concrete to set. Applicable ODOT Standard Specifications for Highway Construction (2008) will be followed for all construction and roadway work.

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has made a request that ground disturbance occur only between August 15 through March 31 in order to avoid disturbance of nesting birds and immature mammals. This is a recommendation and not a requirement of the permitting process.

Staff: The applicant has provided a thorough description of the proposed project. The NSA Site Review application is for a project to replace an existing overhead electric transmission line with an underground electric line. The project includes burying the line with protective coating, placement of several utility vaults for easy access and maintenance of the buried line, four transformer boxes, four service meter pedestals, underground line extensions to four existing service connections along the line (two railroad signal lights and two Ainsworth State Park faculties) and replacement of four existing poles and overhead electric line for the Horsetail Creek and Oneonta Creek crossings (temporary bridges will be place over these two streams for the project period). Additionally the proposal includes placement of several red and white, 12 by 3 inch, high voltage underground warning signs.

The project is located in the Special Management Area (SMA) of the Columbia River Gorge. The project is in the Gorge Special Open Space (GSO) and Gorge Special – Public Recreation (GS- PR) Zone District and Floodplain Development Overlay District. The project is in the Coniferous Woodland Landscape Setting. This project requires an NSA site review to address potential impacts to scenic, cultural, natural and recreational resources.

2. SITE AND VICINITY CHARACTERISTICS

Applicant: The project would begin immediately east of Multnomah Falls and end just east of Ainsworth State Park, covering a distance of approximately 3.8 miles (see Appendix A, Figure 1 Vicinity Map). The proposed power line would cross two creeks: Horsetail and Oneonta. Overhead lines would be used for both creek crossings.

The project corridor lies on the south side of the Columbia River Gorge, characterized by a floodplain terrace between the river and steep, rocky terrain drained by perennial and seasonal tributaries. The project corridor is a rural residential area of the Columbia River Gorge National

T2-08-075 Page 7

Scenic Area (NSA). The site lies approximately 10 miles west of the city of Cascade Locks. The project corridor is vegetated primarily by non-native herbaceous and scrub-shrub plant species.

The proposed underground power line would begin just east of Multnomah Falls, at an existing concrete vault owned by the City of Cascade Locks, as shown on Sheet GA-2 of the site plans. The vault is north of the HCRH and UPRR line and south of I-84. The proposed line would continue eastward along the north side of the HCRH and the railroad tracks for approximately 0.4 mile. Then, for a distance of approximately 0.4 mile, it would cross to the south side of the railroad (remaining on the north side of the HCRH). It would then cross back to the north side of the railroad line and continue for another 1.9 miles, crossing both Oneonta and Horsetail creeks. Approximately 0.9 mile east of the Horsetail Creek crossing, the line would cross over to the south side of the railroad and HCRH to avoid a large wetland complex that is immediately adjacent to the railroad fill on the north side of the HCRH. The proposed line would continue eastward along the south side of the highway for approximately 1.1 mile to the project terminus, east of Ainsworth State Park.

The project site passes through UPRR right-of-way for approximately 2.4 miles. The UPRR right- of-way varies from approximately 100 feet wide to 300 feet wide. The typical UPRR right-of-way section in the project area is usually just less than 200 feet wide. In parts of the project area, the UPRR right-of-way encompasses the HCRH right-of-way. The UPRR tracks themselves are on fill, above natural grade with graveled slopes. Existing physical features of the UPRR right-of- way range from flat fields and wetland areas to more elevated wooded areas.

A portion of the project lies along the southern edge of the gravel in the I-84 right-of-way (shown on sheets GA- 4 and GA-5). The I-84 road prism area is raised on fill and is already highly disturbed by highway-related activities. A small portion of the project is within US Forest Service land along the Historic Columbia River Highway from approximately station 140+00 to station 162+00. The US Forest Service is the underlying fee owner with the Oregon Department of Transportation having an easement for Highway 30, Historic Columbia River Highway, in the above described area. (The US Forest Service is completing their own review of the project on their lands under a separate application process).

Parts of the proposed line would lie immediately adjacent to the edge of pavement of the HCRH. The area is maintained by ODOT and is covered with gravel, weeds, and some native vegetation. The HCRH is narrow, and the right-of-way available for installation of the underground line is constrained by steep slopes, rock walls, trees, and (on the north side of the highway) the adjacent railroad tracks.

Only two trees are proposed to be removed (see Sheet 4). However, if during the course of construction activities, root systems are encountered and endangered disturbing the viability of any trees and rendering them unsafe, additional trees may be removed. A total of no more than six trees will potentially be removed from the project area.

The project area is in the Special Management Area (SMA) of the National Scenic Area (NSA). Nearly all of the project would be located on property within the Gorge Special Open Space (GSO) zoning district. The portion of the project adjacent to Ainsworth State Park would be within the Gorge Special Public Recreation (GS-PR) zoning district, and the eastern terminus of the project would be within the Gorge Special Forest (GSF-40) zoning district. Figure 2, Zoning Map (Appendix A) shows the zoning districts in the project area and vicinity.

T2-08-075 Page 8

Staff: The applicant has provided a thorough description of the proposed project site.

3. INITIATION OF ACTION BY PROPERTY OWNER

MCC 38.0550: Except as provided in MCC 38.0760, Type I - III applications may only be initiated by written consent of the owner of record or contract purchaser. PC (legislative) actions may only be initiated by the Board of Commissioners, Planning Commission, or Planning Director.

Applicant: The HCRH right-of-way is publicly owned and under the jurisdiction of ODOT. ODOT property owner granted permission to the City of Cascade Locks via signature on the application form preceding this narrative. The UPRR has written a letter of consent which precedes this narrative. The Forest Service will review the portion of the project on Forest Lands.

Staff: Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) owns the Interstate I-84 and controls the Historic Columbia River Highway right-of-way. An ODOT representative has signed the application (Exhibit 1.1). The applicant submitted a letter dated August 26, 2008 from Jon Devish, Union Pacific Railroad authorizing this application (Exhibit 1.1). For the portion that crosses US Forest Service (USFS) lands, the USFS will review that portion of the project for consistency with the Management Plan as outlined in MCC 38.0207(B)(1).

4. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR A TYPE II CASE

MCC 38.0530(B) Type II decisions involve the exercise of some interpretation and discretion in evaluating approval criteria. Applications evaluated through this process are typically assumed to be allowable in the underlying zone. County Review typically focuses on what form the use will take, where it will be located in relation to other uses, and it’s relationship to scenic, natural, cultural and recreational resources of the area. However, an application shall not be approved unless it is consistent with the applicable siting standards and in compliance with approval requirements. Upon receipt of a complete application, notice of application and an invitation to comment is mailed to the Gorge Commission; the U.S. Forest Service; the Indian tribal governments; the State Historic Preservation Office; the Cultural Advisory Committee; and property owners within 750 feet of the subject tract. The Planning Director accepts comments for 14 days after the notice of application is mailed, except for comments regarding Cultural Resources, which will be accepted for 20 days after the notice is mailed. The Planning Directors decision is appealable to the Hearings Officer. If no appeal is filed the Planning Directors decision shall become final at the close of business on the 14th day after the date on the decision. If an appeal is received, the Hearings Officer decision is the County's final decision and is appealable to the Columbia River Gorge Commission within 30 days after the decision is final. The decision is final the day the decision is signed by the Hearings Officer.

Staff: This decision is a review of the proposed development pursuant to MCC 38.0530(B). The application was submitted on December 16, 2008 (Exhibit 1.1). A Completeness Review notice was sent on January 8, 2009 to interested agencies and Tribes. The application was deemed complete as of February 23, 2009. A 14 Day Opportunity to Comment notice was mailed by staff on February 24, 2009 to property owners within 750 feet of the right-of-way boundaries along the project, the Gorge Commission, the US Forest Service, and the Tribal Governments and other

T2-08-075 Page 9

agencies and interested parties. This decision was drafted and will be mailed in accordance with MCC 38.0660. We received fourteen letters and emails addressing the proposal which are attached as exhibits and summarized below:

• We received an email dated January 09, 2009 from Kristen Stallman, ODOT Scenic Coordinator stating that she found the application to be complete (Exhibit 3.7)

• We received an email with attached letter and mailed copy of the same letter dated January 23, 2009 from Amy K Senn, Archaeologist, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (Exhibit 3.1). Ms. Senn addressed inconsistency in the cultural findings in the application materials. This issue is addressed in the Cultural Resource Review in the letter submitted by Margaret Dryden (Exhibit 3.2). Cultural Resource Review findings are in Section 8 of this decision.

• We received a letter dated February 3, 2009 from Margaret L. Dryden, Archaeologist, Heritage Resource Program Manager, Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, US Forest Service (Exhibit 3.2). this letter addressed findings of “No Historic Properties Adversely Affected” and “no effect on archaeological properties.” Cultural Resource Review findings are in Section 8 of this decision.

• We received an email dated March 02, 2009 from Ms. Dryden with an attached ODOT letter dated February 27, 2009 with an attached ODOT letter dated January 15, 2009 with a Oregon State Historic Preservation Office archaeological concurrence finding of “No Historic Properties Affected (Archaeology)” by Susan Lynn White, M.A., R.P.A, Assistant State Archaeologist (Exhibit 3.3).

• We received a letter dated March 3, 2009 from Dennis Griffin, PH.D, RPA, State Archaeologist (Exhibit 3.4), which indicates that Mr. Griffin was unaware of that SHPO had already reviewed the project related to Cultural Resources. We sent Mr. Grifffin the SHPO Case No. to correct that issue. Mr. Giriffin responded back with an email on March 25, 2009 (Exhibit 3.4) stating it is ok to proceed.

• We received an email dated March 11, 2009 from Diana L Ross, USFS (Exhibit 3.5) addressing High Voltage Underground Warning Signs which are proposed to be red and white. Ms. Ross suggests that they should be eliminated or be a dark brown color. She also addresses concern that the location of the transformer boxes should not be next to important features, and be screened with vegetation and be a dark brown color. These concerns will be addressed in findings in Section 7of this decision.

• We received an email dated with an attached letter dated March 24, 2007 from Richard Till, Land Use Law Clerk, Friends of the Columbia Gorge, (Exhibit 3.6). In his letter Mr. Till, listed several Code sections that are related to the proposed development. Mr. Till reiterated that the applicable scenic standard is “not visually evident” and timing of the project requested by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). The issues raised in this letter are addressed in the findings later in this decision, in Sections 5 through 10.

• We received an email dated April 02, 2009 from Thomas Weatherford, ODOT Region 1 Local Agency Liaison, addressing No Effects Memo with attachments (Exhibit 3.8). This information is covered in more detail in the findings later in this decision, in Section 9.

T2-08-075 Page 10

• We received an email dated April 03, 2009 from Sue Vrilakas, Botanist/Data Manager, Oregon Natural Heritage Program addressing sensitive plant species (Exhibit 3.9). This information is covered in more detail in the findings later in this decision, in Section 9.

• We received an email dated April 06, 2009 from Robin Dobson, Botanist/Ecologist US Forest Service USFS) addressing Ms Vrilakas’ plant discussed in email (Exhibit 3.10). This information is covered in more detail in the findings later in this decision, in Section 9.

• We received an email dated April 10, 2009 from Danette Ehlers, Assistant District Fish Biologist, ODFW, with recommended conditions (Exhibit 3.11). This information is covered in more detail the findings later in this decision, in Section 9.

• We received an email dated April 14, 2009 from Todd Alsbury, District Fish Biologist, ODFW addressing the timing of work related the two proposed temporary bridges (Exhibit 3.12). This information is covered in more detail in the findings later in this decision, in Section 9.

• We received an email dated April 06, 2009 from Robin Dobson, Botanist/Ecologist US Forest Service (USFS) concurring with the applicant’s biological assessment that there would be no effects given the mitigation and adjustments to the project (Exhibit 3.13). This information is covered in more detail in the findings later in this decision, in Section 9.

5. NATIONAL SCENIC AREA ALLOWED USE

MCC 38.1005(B): The following uses may be allowed without review in all zone districts: (1) Repair, maintenance and operation of existing structures, including, but not limited to, dwellings, agricultural structures, trails, roads, railroads, and utility facilities.

MCC 38.0005: Definitions – Repair – Replacement or reconstruction of a part of a serviceable structure after damage, decay or wear. A repair returns a structure to its original and previously authorized and undamaged condition. It does not change the original size, scope, configuration or design of a structure, nor does it excavate beyond the depth of the original structure. Up to a 10 percent increase in the original size of a portion of a building to be repaired is allowed if required to comply with building codes, provided it does not require additional excavation.

Repair includes, but is not limited to, reproofing a building, replacing damaged guardrails, reconstructing a rotten deck or porch, replacing a broken window or door, replacing a utility pole and associated anchors, replacing a section of broken water or sewer line, replacing a damaged or defective utility line, reconstructing a portion of a building damaged by fire or a natural event, and replacing railroad ties or rails.

Applicant: Four new wood poles would be installed to replace existing poles, two each at the Horsetail Creek and Oneonta Creek crossings.

T2-08-075 Page 11

Staff: The project includes replacing four poles and lines which cross Horsetail Creek and Oneonta Creek. This section allows outright, in any zone district, the repair of utility facilities. Under the definition for repair, these four poles and the overhead electric line may be replaced without review, thus these facilities are not addressed in the following findings.

6. NATIONAL SCENIC AREA SITE REVIEW

6.1. Replacement of Existing Use

MCC 38.0030(B): Replacement of Existing Structures Not Damaged or Destroyed by Disaster: Except as provided in (C) below, an existing structure may be replaced if a complete land use application for a replacement structure is submitted to the reviewing agency within one year of the date the use of the original structure was discontinued. The replacement structure shall comply with the following standards: (1) The replacement structure shall be used in the same manner and for the same purpose as the original structure. (2) The replacement structure may have a different size and/or location than the original structure. An existing mobile home may be replaced with a framed residence and an existing framed residence may be replaced with a mobile home. (3) The replacement structure shall be subject to the scenic, cultural, recreation and natural resources provisions; the treaty rights provisions; and the land use designations provisions involving agricultural buffer zones, approval criteria for fire protection, and approval criteria for siting of dwellings on forest land. (4) The use of the original structure shall be considered discontinued if a complete land use application for a replacement structure is not submitted within the one year time frame.

MCC 38.0005: Definitions – Structure – that which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner. This includes, but is not limited to buildings, walls, fences, roads, parking lots, signs and additions/alterations to structures. All buildings are structures.

Staff: The proposal is to replace the existing electric line, an existing structure, which has not been damaged or destroyed by disaster. This provision allows the electric line to be replaced because it will be used in the same manner as the original structure. The replacement system is allowed to have a different size and location under subsection (2). By the nature of the underground line it will be in a different location along the same right-of-way and will be a different size. Under subsection (3) an NSA Site Review is required addressing the SMA criteria for the replacement structure scenic, cultural, recreation and natural resources provisions. These criteria are addressed in the findings in the following sections of this decision — Section 7: Scenic Resources, Section 8: Cultural Resources, Section 9: Natural Resources and Section 10: Recreation Resources. The Native American tribes with interest in the Columbia River Gorge were noticed of this proposal and given an opportunity to review the submittal. The existing use has not been discontinued.

T2-08-075 Page 12

6.2. Applicability

MCC 38.7010 : With the exception of Primary Uses, no building, structure or land shall be used and no building or structure shall be hereafter erected, altered or enlarged in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area except when approved pursuant to MCC 38.0530 (B) or (C) or 38.7090.

MCC 38.7015: An application for NSA Site Review shall address the applicable criteria for approval, under MCC 38.7035 through 38.7090.

MCC 38.7020: A decision on an application for NSA Site Review shall be based upon findings of consistency with the criteria for approval specified in MCC 38.7035 through 38.7085 or 38.7090 as applicable.

Staff: The proposed use is a replacement of existing structures not damaged or destroyed by disaster which under MCC 38.0030(B) may be replaced subject to the scenic, cultural, recreation and natural resources provisions. Therefore, a National Scenic Area Site Review is required. Findings addressing consistency have been made for the applicable SMA approval criteria in MCC Chapter 38, Part 6. These criteria are addressed in findings in the following sections of this decision.

6.4. Review Applications

MCC 38.0045 (A) The following additional information shall be submitted for all review and conditional uses: (1) A list of Key Viewing Areas from which the proposed use would be visible. (2) A map of the project area. The map shall be drawn to scale. The scale of the map shall be large enough to allow the reviewing agency to determine the location and extent of the proposed use and evaluate its effects on scenic, cultural, natural, and recreation resources. The map shall be prepared at a scale of 1 inch equals 100 feet (1:1,200), or a scale providing greater detail. If a parcel is very large, the map does not have to show the entire parcel. Rather, it may show only those portions of the parcel affected by the proposed use. The map shall include the following elements (listed in MCC 38.0045(A)(2)(a) through (o).

Applicant: Once the project is completed, only the following project elements would be visible: transformer boxes (one with a metering pedestal), power poles and overhead power lines at the Oneonta and Horsetail creek crossings, the at-grade covers of underground vaults, the three, 2- feet-above-grade vaults. Table 1 identifies the project elements that would be visible at Key Viewing Areas (KVAs), which are listed in MCC 38.0015. If a project element would be visible from a KVA, an “X” is placed in the table column.

A set of site and erosion control plans (Sheets GA:GA-10) is submitted as part of this application. The plans are drawn at a scale of 1:1,200 feet and include all of the elements listed in MCC 38.0045(2). Construction plans and details are also submitted with this application. Narrative descriptions of proposed uses and their impacts are described above in Project Description and throughout this application.

T2-08-075 Page 13

Table 1. Project Elements That Would Be Visible from Key Viewing Areas

Aerial Power At-Grade Transformer Raised None Key Viewing Area Lines at Creek Vault Box(es) Vaults Visible Crossings Covers

Beacon Rock X

Bonneville Dam Visitor Centers X

Bridal Veil State Park X

Cape Horn X

Columbia River X

Cook-Underwood Road X

Crown Point X

Dog Mountain Trail X

Historic Columbia River Highway X X X X

Highway I– 84, including rest stops X X X

Larch Mountain X

Multnomah Falls X

Oregon Highway 35 X

Pacific Crest Trail X

Panorama Point Park X

Portland Women’s Forum State Park X

Rooster Rock State Park X

Rowena Plateau and Nature X Conservancy Viewpoint

Sandy River X

Washington State Route 14 X

Washington State Route 141 X

Washington State Route 142 X

Larch Mountain Road X

Old Washington State Route 14 X (County Road 1230)

Sherrard Point on Larch Mountain X

Wyeth Bench Road X

Staff: The information required that is applicable for the proposed use has been submitted and included as exhibits to this decision.

7. SMA SCENIC REVIEW CRITERIA

MCC 38.7040: The following scenic review standards shall apply to all Review and Conditional Uses in the Special Management Area of the Columbia River Gorge National

T2-08-075 Page 14

Scenic Area with the exception of rehabilitation or modification of historic structures eligible or on the National Register of Historic Places when such modification is in compliance with the national register of historic places guidelines:

Applicant: The proposed use (utility facility for public service) is considered a review use or conditional use in the project area, as described in Section 2.2 of this narrative. The project would not rehabilitate nor modify historic structures eligible or on the National Register. Therefore, the standards of MCC 38.7040 are addressed in this section.

Staff: This project is a review use not conditional use. In the following section findings are made for the applicable code sections for this project.

7.1. MCC 38.7040(A): All Review Uses and Conditional Uses visible from KVAs. This section shall apply to proposed development on sites topographically visible from KVAs:

Applicant: The proposed underground electrical line will not be visible. As indicated in Table 1 of this narrative, some elements of the project will be topographically visible from KVAs. The covers of some of the underground vaults will be visible from the HCRH and I-84; one cover, at the western terminus of the project, would also be visible from Multnomah Falls. One of the three transformer boxes (shown on the plans near Station 27+25) could be visible from I-84. It would not be seen by people traveling on the HCRH because of topography; it would be downhill from the HCRH, at the base of a cliff (see Sheet GA-3 of the plans). The second transformer box (shown on the plans near Station 137+00) would not be visible from any KVA because of topography. The third transformer box, at Ainsworth State Park (shown on the plans near Station 167+00), would be visible from the HCRH. The power poles and power lines at the two overhead creek crossings would be visible from the HCRH but are unlikely to be visible from I-84 because of vegetation, distance, and topography. The three raised vaults are unlikely to be seen from either the HCRH or I-84 because of existing vegetation, distance and topography.

Staff: The proposed underground line will not be visible. The applicant indicates some of the proposed buried vaults tops will be visible from the Historic Highway, I-84 and Multnomah Falls KVAs and that the above ground vaults will be visible from the Historic Highway and I-84. Service meter pedestals placed near the transformer boxes will also be visible from the listed KVAs.

7.1.1. MCC 38.7040(A)(1): New developments and land uses shall be evaluated to ensure that the scenic standard is met and that scenic resources are not adversely affected, including cumulative effects, based on the degree of visibility from Key Viewing Areas.

Applicant: The existing overhead power lines and poles are visible from the HCRH throughout the length of project area, visible from Multnomah Falls and I-84 near the west end of the project area, and visible from I-84 in some parts of the project area. The project would replace the overhead system with an underground system that is less visible overall. Scenic standards are addressed under MCC 38.7040(A)(2), below. Because the project would reduce the overall visibility of the power line, it would not contribute to cumulative visual effects in the NSA.

Visible parts of the proposed project would be designed to blend with their natural surroundings. The steel vault covers, which would be at ground level except for the three vaults 2 feet above grade, would be painted dark brown. (Dark brown paint on the vault covers was required to meet

T2-08-075 Page 15

the conditions of approval for a similar project proposed by the applicant in the past [Multnomah County Case File T2-06-115].) Transformer boxes, which would be 32 inches square and approximately 28 inches high, would be dark green. The aerial power line crossings at Horsetail and Oneonta creeks would be supported on wood poles.

Staff: The proposal is to replace the existing overhead electric line with and underground line. Two small portions of the overhead line will be replaced as an overhead line for the crossing of Oneonta and Horsetail Creeks, which is allowed without review. The proposal includes below ground vaults placed flush with the ground surface. The vault tops will be dark brown to be blend into the environment. These vaults will not be visually evident and will be visually subordinate due to being flush with the ground and the tops being dark natural earth tone color (dark brown). Three vaults will be partially buried with the top two feet located above the grade (surrounding ground surface level) to maintain access to them during the wet season. The location of these vaults is shown on the plans Sheet GA-6 and GA-7 (Exhibit 1.2, Appendix A). These vaults are in locations where bushes or wetland grasses can be planted around the boxes to provided screening from KVAs. If these vaults are a dark brown color and have some vegetation planted around them they will blend into the environment, will be visually subordinate and not be visually evident from the KVAs. A condition can require these vaults be a dark brown color and planting native vegetation around them.

The applicant is proposing four above ground transformer boxes and service meter pedestals described in their narrative. These transformer boxes and service meter pedestals will serve nearby existing electrical service connections for Union Pacific Railroad signal lights and Ainsworth State Park facilities. The boxes at Stations 27+25 and 137+00 will be along the railroad right-of- way. The transformer boxes at Stations 167+00 and 185+50 will be located to the south of the Historic Columbia River Highway in the right-of-way (Exhibit 1.2, Appendix A). These locations appear to be at a distance from the railroad tracks and the highway pavement so that vegetation to screen them from KVAs can be established. If these boxes and pedestals are a dark green or dark brown color and have vegetation (bushes) planted around them they will blend into the environment being visually subordinate and not be visually evident from the KVAs. A condition can required these boxes be dark colors and vegetation planted to meet the visually subordinate and not be visually evident standards. This criterion is met through a condition.

T2-08-075 Page 16

Additionally the applicant is proposing installing several (12 by 3 inch) red lettered white high- voltage warning signs (Exhibit 3.5) along the route to inform of an under-ground high-voltage line. In a conversation between staff and the applicant, Bernard Seeger, Cascade Locks City Manager, Mr. Seeger stated that those signs could be changed to dark earth tone colors such as brown with black lettering. A condition will require the signs to be earth tone colors (front and back) shown in the top three rows the color chart in the Columbia River Gorge Commission Scenic Resources Implementation Handbook. This will allow a enough variation between the lettering and background color to make them readable. The sign posts will be required to be a dark earth tone color as shown in the top row of the color chart. This will provide for nearby warning while at a distance the signs will be visually subordinate and will not be visually evident.

7.1.2. MCC 38.7040(A)(2): The required SMA scenic standards for all development and uses are summarized in the following table.

REQUIRED SMA SCENIC STANDARDS LANDSCAPE LAND USE Scenic Standard SETTING DESIGNATION Coniferous Woodland, Forest (National Forest Not Visually Evident Oak-Pine Woodland Lands), Open Space Coniferous Woodland, Forest, Agriculture, Visually Subordinate Oak-Pine Woodland Residential, Public Recreation

MCC 38.0005: Definitions - Not visually evident (Special Management Area) - A visual quality standard that provides for development or uses that are not visually noticeable to the casual visitor. Developments or uses shall only repeat form, line, color, and texture that are frequently found in the natural landscape, while changes in their qualities of size, amount, intensity, direction, pattern, etc., shall not be noticeable.

Visually subordinate - The relative visibility of a structure or use where that structure or use does not noticeably contrast with the surrounding landscape, as viewed from a specified vantage point (generally a Key Viewing Area). Structures which are visually subordinate may be partially visible, but are not visually dominant in relation to their surroundings. Visually subordinate forest practices in the Special Management Area shall repeat form, line, color, or texture common to the natural landscape, while changes in their qualities of size, amount, intensity, direction, pattern, etc., shall not dominate the natural landscape setting.

Staff: The project is entirely located in the Coniferous Woodland Landscape Setting. The project is in the GSO (Open Space) and the GSPR (Public Recreation) Districts (Exhibit 2.1). The scenic standard for most of the project is “Not Visually Evident.” There are a couple areas of the projects, near Multnomah Falls Park and Ainsworth Park have a Public Recreation land use designation thus the scenic standard is “Visually Subordinate” for those areas.

T2-08-075 Page 17

7.1.3. MCC 38.7040(A)(3): In all landscape settings, scenic standards shall be met by blending new development with the adjacent natural landscape elements rather than with existing development.

Applicant: Visible parts of the proposed project would be designed to blend with their natural surroundings. The steel vault covers, which would be at ground level except for the three vaults 2 feet above grade, would be painted dark brown. (Dark brown paint on the vault covers was required to meet the conditions of approval for a similar project proposed by the applicant in the past [Multnomah County Case File T2-06-115].) Transformer boxes, which would be 32 inches square and approximately 28 inches high, would be dark green. The aerial power line crossings at Horsetail and Oneonta creeks would be supported on wood poles.

Staff: In the finding for MCC 38.7040(A)(1) in Section 7.1.1 of this decision we discuss requiring dark brown colors for vaults to blend with the landscape and dark green or brown for the transformers boxes and service meter pedestals to blend with the landscape an achieve visual subordinance and not be visually evident. The dark green or dark brown color will result in these facilities blending into the landscape appearing as shadows amongst the vegetation when viewed from the KVAs. A condition will require these colors. This criterion in met through a condition.

7.1.4. MCC 38.7040(A) (4) Proposed developments or land use shall be sited to achieve the applicable scenic standards. Development shall be designed to fit the natural topography and to take advantage of vegetation and land form screening, and to minimize visible grading or other modifications of landforms, vegetation cover, and natural characteristics. When screening of development is needed to meet the scenic standard from key viewing areas, use of existing topography and vegetation shall be given priority over other means of achieving the scenic standard such as planting new vegetation or using artificial berms.

Applicant: The proposed development will not alter the existing topography in the project area. Trenches will be backfilled to existing grade and planted with native vegetation where appropriate. All but three of the vaults will be underground; only the vault covers at ground level will be visible. The vault covers will be painted dark brown to minimize their visibility. Three vaults will be 2 feet above existing grade to allow for access during the rainy season. The three raised vaults will either be surrounded by water during the rainy season or by tall grasses during the drier seasons. Thus, they will blend in with the natural surroundings. Transformer boxes would be painted dark green to blend in with the landscape. Any disturbed areas from installation of the project would be restored to their pre-project state and planted with native vegetation if necessary. This criterion is met.

Staff: The proposed development is sited along the route of the existing above ground electric line within the right-of-ways of the Historic Columbia River Highway, the railroad and Interstate 84 (Exhibit 1.2). The project will not change the topography; the line will be installed in the existing topography minimizing the grading. The project will result in minimal vegetation removal, including some grasses, bushes and a couple trees along the installation path. All other existing vegetation providing screening along this project will remain. The potential visible components of the project include the vaults, four transformer boxes and four meter pedestals. All of the vaults, except for three, will be installed below ground level using existing topography to screen the vaults with only the tops of these vaults potentially visible. These vaults will be a dark brown to blend with the environment; no vegetation screen will be needed to screen them. Three vaults will be installed with the top two feet showing, these are locational depended. They will be screened

T2-08-075 Page 18

partially screened by topography and existing vegetation, however a condition them to be a dark brown color and will require grasses be planted around them. The four transformer boxes and four meter pedestals are locations depended on the location of the service, however existing vegetation within the right-of-ways along with newly planted vegetation will screen these faculties. The proposed warning signs must be placed along the under-ground line and thus can not be located to use topography and existing vegetation to screen them though they will be often be screened topography and existing vegetation at a distance. This criterion is met.

7.1.5. MCC 38.7040(A) (5) The extent and type of conditions applied to a proposed development or use to achieve the scenic standard shall be proportionate to its degree of visibility from key viewing areas. (a) Decisions shall include written findings addressing the Primary factors influencing the degree of visibility, including but not limited to: 1. The amount of area of the building site exposed to key viewing areas, 2. The degree of existing vegetation providing screening, 3. The distance from the building site to the key viewing areas from which it is visible, 4. The number of key viewing areas from which it is visible, and 5. The linear distance along the key viewing areas from which the building site is visible (for linear key viewing areas, such as roads). (b) Conditions may be applied to various elements of proposed developments to ensure they are visually subordinate to their setting as seen from key viewing areas, including but not limited to: 1. Siting (location of development on the subject property, building orientation, and other elements), 2. Retention of existing vegetation, 3. Design (color, reflectivity, size, shape, height, architectural and design details and other elements), and 4. New landscaping.

Applicant: The existing overhead power lines and poles are visible from the HCRH throughout the length of the project area, a distance of approximately 3.9 miles. Some are also visible from Multnomah Falls and I-84 near the west end of the project area, and from I-84 in some other parts of the project area. The project would replace the overhead system with an underground system that is less visible overall.

The project has been designed so that only a few, small project elements would be visible from KVAs, as demonstrated in Table 1. Visible project elements have been sited, as feasible, so they are screened from KVAs by topography and/or vegetation. They have also been designed to minimize their visual impact: • Vaults will be below ground with only the covers visible; covers will be painted a matte, dark brown. • Where vaults need to be elevated, they are screened by existing vegetation and topography. • Transformer boxes have been sited to minimize their visibility from KVAs; however, one may be visible from I-84, and one will be visible from the HCRH. To minimize their visual impact, the surface of the boxes will be a matte, dark green. Because clear access to the boxes is required for periodic maintenance, vegetation cannot be planted near the boxes for screening.

T2-08-075 Page 19

• The transformer box that may be visible from I-84 will be approximately 150 feet south of the highway, at the base of a cliff that visually screens the box from the HCRH. Because of its small size and distance from I-84, it would not be visually evident to travelers. • The transformer box that will be visible from the HCRH will be adjacent to the highway, perhaps 10 feet distant. Existing vegetation will provide some screening for travelers on the highway. It would only be visible, at most, for a distance of 200 feet from the transformer. • The third transformer box has been sited so it will not be visible from any KVA; it is screened from the HCRH by the UPRR grade and from I-84 by distance, vegetation, and topography. • Aerial crossings at Oneonta and Horsetail creeks would be at least partially screened from view (from the HCRH) by the UPRR grade. Because of topography, only the tops of the power poles would likely be visible from the HCRH. The power poles will be wood, helping them to blend into the landscape.

Staff: Given that the only visible aspect of the below ground vaults is the top of the vaults and their locations along the edge of highways and the railroad, the condition to require them to be dark brown is proportionate to the degree of visibility form the KVAs. For the vaults, installed with two feet above the ground, the transformer boxes and meter pedestals a condition requires them to be dark earth tone colors and have vegetation planted around them. Given locations of these facilities along the railroad and Historic Highway may result in them being visible from the KVA, it is appropriate and proportionate to require this condition due to the potential of visibility form the KVAs (Exhibit 1.2). The extent and type of conditions applied to this project to achieve the scenic standard are proportionate to its degree of visibility from key viewing areas. Additionally a condition requiring that proposed (12 by 3 inch) high-voltage underground, warning signs be earth tone colors as shown in the top three rows the color chart in the Columbia River Gorge Commission Scenic Resources Implementation Handbook This will allow enough variation between the lettering and background color to make them readable. The sign posts will be required to be a dark earth tone color as shown in the top row of the color chart. The condition will allow this condition to be overridden if it violates federal or state regulation or laws regard this type of sign. This is proportionate to their potential visibility.

This standard is met.

7.1.6. MCC 38.7040(A)(6) Sites approved for new development to achieve scenic standards shall be consistent with guidelines to protect wetlands, riparian corridors, sensitive plant or wildlife sites and the buffer zones of each of these natural resources, and guidelines to protect cultural resources.

MCC 38.0015 Definitions: Development: Any mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation, land division, or structure, including but not limited to new construction of a building or structure. Grading: Any excavating or filling of earth materials or any combination thereof, including the land in its excavated or filled condition.

Applicant: The project will be consistent with guidelines to protect wetlands, riparian corridors, sensitive plant or wildlife sites and the buffer zones of each of these natural resources, and guidelines to protect cultural resources. Consistency with the guidelines is demonstrated below in Section 2.5.

T2-08-075 Page 20

Staff: The electric line under-grounding project, including vaults, transformer boxes and meter posts, and placement of signs is considered development as indicated by the Code definition of development. The development will be consistent with guidelines to protect wetlands, riparian corridors, sensitive plant or wildlife sites and the buffer zones of each of these natural resources, and guidelines to protect cultural resources will be required through conditions of approval. See Section 8 for the cultural resource review findings and Section 9 for the natural resources review findings. This criterion is met.

7.1.7. MCC 38.7040(A)(7) Proposed developments shall not protrude above the line of a bluff, cliff, or skyline as seen from Key Viewing Areas.

Applicant: The visible components of the development include: • vault covers, which will be at ground level • three vaults that need to be raised two feet above existing grade; • transformer boxes, which will be about 28 inches high and placed at or near the base of a slope; • One metering pedestal, which will be associated with a transformer box and placed at station 27+25 (see Sheet GA3). • wood power poles and overhead electrical lines at two creek crossings; None of the visible components of the project will protrude above the skyline as seen from KVAs. This criterion is met.

Staff: No components of the proposed development will protrude above the line of a bluff, cliff, or skyline as seen from Key Viewing Areas. This criterion is met.

7.1.8. MCC 38.7040(A) (8) Structure height shall remain below the average tree canopy height of the natural vegetation adjacent to the structure, except if it has been demonstrated that compliance with this standard is not feasible considering the function of the structure.

Applicant: The average tree canopy height in the project corridor is 50 feet. The transformer boxes will be 24 inches high and placed on a 4-inch-high concrete pad. The three raised vaults will be two feet above existing grade. New wood power poles that will replace existing power poles will be 34 feet tall. The wood power poles are the tallest feature of the proposed project. They are the same height as the existing power poles and are below the average tree canopy height. No portion of the project will exceed the height of the tree canopy.

Staff: All components of the proposed development will be below the average tree canopy adjacent to the project. This criterion is met.

7.1.9. MCC 38.7040(A) (9) The following guidelines shall apply to new landscaping used to screen development from key viewing areas: (a) New landscaping (including new earth berms) to achieve the required scenic standard from key viewing areas shall be required only when application of all other available guidelines in this chapter is not sufficient to make the development meet the scenic standard from key viewing areas. Development shall be sited to avoid the need for new landscaping wherever possible. (b) If new landscaping is necessary to meet the required standard, existing on-site vegetative screening and other visibility factors shall be analyzed to determine the extent of new

T2-08-075 Page 21

landscaping, and the size of new trees needed to achieve the standard. Any vegetation planted pursuant to this guideline shall be sized to provide sufficient screening to meet the scenic standard within five years or less from the commencement of construction. (c) Landscaping shall be installed as soon as practicable, and prior to project completion. Applicants and successors in interest for the subject parcel are responsible for the proper maintenance and survival of planted vegetation, and replacement of such vegetation that does not survive. (d) The Scenic Resources Implementation Handbook shall include recommended species for each landscape setting consistent with the Landscape Settings Design Guidelines in this chapter, and minimum recommended sizes of new trees planted (based on average growth rates expected for recommended species).

Applicant: No vegetation will be planted for screening purposes. The project features will be painted to blend into the surrounding landscape.

Staff: Conditions of approval will require planting of vegetation around the above ground vaults, transformer boxes and meter pedestals to meet the visual subordinance and not visually evident standards. Conditions are required because, for these facilities, all other available guidelines in this chapter are not sufficient to make these facilities meet the scenic standard from key viewing areas without additional vegetation. It is not feasible to site these facilities in other locations that will not need the new landscaping. A condition will require the new vegetation to be a sufficient size to provide screening to meet the scenic standard within five years or less from the commencement of construction. A condition will require that landscaping be installed as soon as practicable, and prior to project completion and require the utility, Cascade Locks, is responsible for the proper maintenance and survival of the planted vegetation, and replacement of such vegetation that does not survive. A condition will require the planted vegetation to be species native to the Gorge recommending that the Scenic Resources Implementation Handbook be consulted for species. This criterion is met through a condition.

7.1.10. MCC 38.7040(A) (10) Unless expressly exempted by other provisions in this chapter, colors of structures on sites visible from key viewing areas shall be dark earth-tones found at the specific site or the surrounding landscape. The specific colors or list of acceptable colors shall be included as a condition of approval. The Scenic Resources Implementation Handbook will include a recommended palette of colors as dark or darker than the colors in the shadows of the natural features surrounding each landscape setting

Applicant: The vault covers will be painted dark brown, a dark earth-tone color found in the surrounding landscape. Transformer boxes will be painted dark green. The new power poles will be wood. Therefore, this standard is met.

Staff: A condition of approval will require the top of the vaults and the above ground vaults to be painted dark brown and the transformer boxes and service meter pedestals a dark earth-tone color found in the surrounding landscape either dark green or dark brown. A condition will require the “High Voltage Underground” Warning signs (front and back) to be earth tone colors as shown in the top three rows the color chart in the Columbia River Gorge Commission Scenic Resources Implementation Handbook and the sign posts to be a dark earth tone as shown in the top row of that color chart. This condition, related to the sign only, is considered overridden if there is any state or federal regulation and/or law that require other colors for this type of warning sign. This criterion will be met through a condition.

T2-08-075 Page 22

7.1.11. MCC 38.7040(A) (11) The exterior of buildings on lands seen from key viewing areas shall be composed of non-reflective materials or materials with low reflectivity. The Scenic Resources Implementation Handbook will include a recommended list of exterior materials. These recommended materials and other materials may be deemed consistent with this guideline, including those where the specific application meets approval thresholds in the “Visibility and Reflectivity Matrices” in the Implementation Handbook. Continuous surfaces of glass unscreened from key viewing areas shall be limited to ensure meeting the scenic standard. Recommended square footage limitations for such surfaces will be provided for guidance in the Implementation Handbook.

MCC 38.0005 Definition — Building: A structure used or intended to sup-port or shelter any use or occupancy. Buildings have a roof supported by columns or walls. They include, but are not limited to, dwellings, garages, barns, sheds and shop buildings.

Applicant: No buildings or glass surfaces are proposed. Visible project features will have matte, dark-colored surfaces. This standard does not apply.

Staff: The proposed facilities are not buildings thus this criterion is not applicable.

* * *

7.2. MCC 38.7040 (B) The following shall apply to all lands within SMA landscape settings regardless of visibility from KVAs (includes areas seen from KVAs as well as areas not seen from KVAs): (2) Coniferous Woodlands and Oak-Pine Woodland: Woodland areas shall retain the overall appearance of a woodland landscape. New developments and land uses shall retain the overall visual character of the natural appearance of the Coniferous and Oak/Pine Woodland landscape. (a) Buildings in the Coniferous Woodland landscape setting shall be encouraged to have a vertical overall appearance and a horizontal overall appearance in the Oak-Pine Woodland landscape setting. (b) Use of plant species native to the landscape setting shall be encouraged. Where non-native plants are used, they shall have native appearing characteristics.

Applicant: The landscape setting, Coniferous Woodlands, is designated in MCC 38.7040(A)(2), as having a scenic standard for open space as “Not Visually Evident.” “Not Visually Evident” is defined in MCC 38.0015 - Definitions as:

Staff: The proposed project is located within the Coniferous Woodlands Landscape. The Coniferous Woodlands Landscape Setting will retain the overall appearance of a woodland landscape and will retain the overall visual character of the natural appearance of the landscape. The proposed project will not impact but will improve that appearance by removal of the overhead lines. The proposed project does not include any buildings. A condition will require plants used for the mitigation to be native plants.

T2-08-075 Page 23

7.3. MCC 38.7040(C) SMA Requirements for KVA Foregrounds and Scenic Routes

MCC 38.0015: Definitions - Foreground (SMA) - One-half mile either side of a traveled road or trail.

Staff: In the following section findings are made for the applicable code sections for this project.

7.3.1. MCC 38.7040(C)(1) All new developments and land uses immediately adjacent to the Historic Columbia River Highway, Interstate 84, and Larch Mountain Road shall be in conformance with state or county scenic route standards.

Applicant: Part of the project corridor is adjacent to the HCRH. Visible features of the project will be designed to blend into the natural landscape and use colors from the recommended palette for the Western Gorge as required by the Scenic Resources Implementation Handbook. The vault covers will be matte, dark brown, and transformer boxes will be matte, dark green. The new power poles at the creek crossings would be wood. The appearance of areas disturbed by construction will be restored, as feasible, to their pre-project state through grading and planting with native species.

The western terminus of the project corridor, including one of the underground vaults, is adjacent to I-84. The I-84 Corridor Strategy is a design manual for facilities along the highway. While the vaults discussed in the manual are used as de-icing infrastructures, they are very similar in nature and design to the proposed vaults. The proposed vaults meet the design standards, and therefore meet the scenic standards.

Staff: Immediately adjacent to Interstate 84, this project includes replacement of an existing overhead electric line installed underground and there will be two below ground vault with only the top showing after installation. The I-84 Corridor Strategy is a design manual for facilities along the highway. While the vaults discussed in the manual are used as deicing infrastructures, these vaults are very similar in nature and design to the proposed vaults. The proposed vaults meet these design standards, thus meet the scenic standards.

Immediately adjacent to Historic Columbia River Highway, this project includes replacement of an existing overhead electric line installed underground, several below ground vault with only the top showing after installation and two transformer boxes and meter pedestals. The Historic Columbia River Highway does not have state or county scenic route standards other than those reviewed under Section 7 of this decision. The vaults (ground level tops) will meet the “not visually evident” and “visually subordinate” standards through dark colors. The transformer boxes and meter pedestals will meet the “not visually evident” and “visually subordinate” standards through dark colors and vegetative planting.

T2-08-075 Page 24

earth tone color as shown in the top row of the color chart. This will provide for nearby warning while at a distance the signs will be visually subordinate and will not be visually evident. This criterion is met through conditions of approval.

7.3.2. MCC 38.7040 (C)(2) The following guidelines shall apply only to development within the immediate foregrounds of key viewing areas. Immediate foregrounds are defined as within the developed prism of a road or trail KVA or within the boundary of the developed area of KVAs such as Crown Pt. and Multnomah Falls. They shall apply in addition to MCC 38.7040(A).

Applicant: The project meets the applicable standards of 38.7040(A), visual not evident, as the visible project elements will not be noticeable and could be easily overlooked. Since the project meets MCC 38.7040(A), the remaining applicable standards are form, line, color, texture, and design to ensure the project blends into the setting and meets the scenic corridor standards.

The setting for the vaults is right next to the pavement of the highway or within the UPRR right-of- way. They will be at ground level and painted dark brown to blend into the shadows, meeting the color standards of the Scenic Resources Implementation Handbook and the policy for vaults in the I-84 Corridor Strategy manual.

The new power poles at the creek crossings will be wood in compliance with the Scenic Resources Implementation Handbook.

Each transformer box will be 32 inches square and 28 inches high. They have a matte plastic surface and will painted dark green to meet the recommended palette for the Western Gorge as required by the Scenic Resources Implementation Handbook.

Staff: Portion of the proposed development is within the immediate foreground of the Historic Columbia River Highway and Interstate I-84 both KVAs.

7.3.2.1. MCC 38.7040(C)(2)(a)The proposed development shall be designed and sited to meet the applicable scenic standard from the foreground of the subject KVA. If the development cannot meet the standard, findings must be made documenting why the project cannot meet the requirements of 38.7040(A) and why it cannot be redesigned or wholly or partly relocated to meet the scenic standard.

* * * MCC 38.7040(C)(2)(c) Form, line, color, texture, and design of a proposed development shall be evaluated to ensure that the development blends with its setting as seen from the foreground of key viewing areas: 1. Form and Line-Design of the development shall minimize changes to the form of the natural landscape. Development shall borrow form and line from the landscape setting and blend with the form and line of the landscape setting. Design of the development shall avoid contrasting form and line that unnecessarily call attention to the development. 2. Color-Color shall be found in the project’s surrounding landscape setting. Colors shall be chosen and repeated as needed to provide unity to the whole design.

T2-08-075 Page 25

3. Texture-Textures borrowed from the landscape setting shall be emphasized in the design of structures. Landscape textures are generally rough, irregular, and complex rather than smooth, regular, and uniform. 4. Design-Design solutions shall be compatible with the natural scenic quality of the Gorge. Building materials shall be natural or natural appearing. Building materials such as concrete, steel, aluminum, or plastic shall use form, line color and texture to harmonize with the natural environment. Design shall balance all design elements into a harmonious whole, using repetition of elements and blending of elements as necessary. * * *

Staff: The project meets the applicable standards of 38.7040(A), visually not evident and visually subordinate, through the conditions of approval. Since the project meets MCC 38.7040(A), the remaining applicable standards are form, line, color, texture and design to ensure it blends in to the setting and meets the scenic corridor standards. The setting for the vaults is near the pavement of the Historic Highway and I-84 KVAs for those portions of the project. These vaults will be installed below ground with the top at ground level, with dark brown color to blend into the shadows. The dark brown color that meets the standards for dark earth tone colors as shown in the top row of the color chart of the Scenic Resources Implementation Handbook and applies the policy for vaults in the I-84 Corridor Strategy manual. In finding for MCC 38.7040(C)(1) the vaults were found to meet the scenic corridor standards. Because the vaults are below ground with the tops being dark brown, they meet the design compatibility with the natural scenic quality of the Gorge. There will be two transformer boxes and meter pedestals located at Ainsworth Park that will be a dark brown or a dark green color that meets the standards for dark earth tone colors as shown in the top row of the color chart of the Scenic Resources Implementation Handbook. Vegetation can be planted to screen the box and meter from the KVAs. These standards can be met through conditions of approval. The vaults, transformer boxes and meter pedestals are not buildings, however the dark colors and planted vegetation will result in them to blending into the environment. The design of project facilities is determined by it linear nature and the function the facility serves.

A condition will require the signs to be earth tone colors (front and back) shown in the top three rows the color chart in the Columbia River Gorge Commission Scenic Resources Implementation Handbook. This will allow a enough variation between the lettering and background color to make them readable. The sign posts will be required to be a dark earth tone color as shown in the top row of the color chart. This will provide for nearby warning while at a distance the signs will be visually subordinate and will not be visually evident. This criterion is met through conditions of approval.

* * *

7.3.3. MCC 38.7040 (C)(5) Development along Interstate 84 and the Historic Columbia River Highway shall be consistent with the scenic corridor strategies developed for these roadways.

Staff: The Interstate 84 Corridor Strategy is a design manual for facilities along the highway. While the vaults discussed in the manual are used as deicing infrastructures, these vaults are very similar in nature and design to the proposed vaults. The proposed vaults meet these design standards, thus meet the scenic standards along Interstate 84. According to Kristen Stallman, ODOT Planner, there is no scenic corridor strategies developed for these roadways for the Historic

T2-08-075 Page 26

Columbia River Highway, however the vaults will be the same as along I-84. There will be two transformer boxes and meter pedestals located along the Historic Highway right-of-way. Those facilities will be required by a condition to be screened from the KVAs. The signs are installed for safety reasons which is allowed in these corridors. This standard is met through conditions.

7.4. MCC 38.7040 (D) SMA Requirements for areas not seen from KVAs

Unless expressly exempted by other provisions in MCC 38.7040, colors of structures on sites not visible from key viewing areas shall be earth-tones found at the specific site. The specific colors or list of acceptable colors shall be approved as a condition of approval, drawing from the recommended palette of colors included in the Scenic Resources Implementation Handbook.

Applicant: Any visible features of the project will be designed to blend into the natural landscape and use colors from the recommended palette for the Western Gorge as required by the Scenic Resources Implementation Handbook, as described previously.

Staff:. A condition of approval will require the materials be a dark brown color for the vaults and either dark green or brown as shown in the color chart Scenic Resources Implementation Handbook recommended colors chart. The standard can be met through a condition.

8. SMA CULTURAL RESOURCE REVIEW CRITERIA

Staff: In the following section findings are made for the applicable code sections for this project.

8.1. MCC 38.7050 (C): The procedures of MCC 38.7045 shall be utilized for all proposed developments or land uses other than those on all Federal lands, federally assisted projects and forest practices.

Applicant: The proposed project is federally assisted; therefore the application must be reviewed under the SMA cultural resources standards MCC 38.7050.

Staff: We concur with the applicant.

8.2. MCC 38.7050 (D) All cultural resource information shall remain confidential, according to the Act, Section 6(a)(1)(A). Federal agency cultural resource in-formation is also exempt by statute from the Freedom of Information Act under 16 USC 470 hh and 36 CFR 296.18.

Staff: The cultural resource information will be sealed in an envelope labeled confidential.

8.3. MCC 38.7050 (E) Principal investigators shall meet the professional standards published in 36 CFR part 61.

Applicant: The initial field investigation was conducted on February 15, 2008, by Archaeological Investigations Northwest, Inc. (AINW), senior archaeologist John L. Fagan Ph.D., R.P.A who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Archaeology. Mr. Fagan conducted a pedestrian archaeological survey of the proposed corridor with the DEA project engineers. The field inspection of the project corridor was done to identify high probability areas where shovel testing was needed, and to confirm the presence of imported fill over much of the proposed

T2-08-075 Page 27

corridor for the buried cable. On April 4, and May 20, senior archaeologist Michael J. Boynton, M.A. and senior architectural historian Judith A. Chapman, M.A. both with AINW, performed the pedestrian survey of the project area.

Staff: Principal investigators meet the professional standards published in 36 CFR part 61. this criterion is met.

MCC 38.7050 (G): If the U.S. Forest Service or Planning Director determines that a cultural resource survey is required for a new development or land use on all Federal lands, federally assisted projects and forest practices, it shall consist of the following: (1) Literature Review and Consultation (a) An assessment of the presence of any cultural resources, listed on the National Register of Historic Places at the national, state or county level, on or within the area of potential direct and indirect impacts. (b) A search of state and county government, National Scenic Area/U.S. Forest Service and any other pertinent inventories, such as archives and photo-graphs, to identify cultural resources, including consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and tribal governments. (c) Consultation with cultural resource professionals knowledgeable about the area. (d) If the U.S. Forest Service deter-mines that there no recorded or known cultural resource, after consultation with the tribal governments on or within the immediate vicinity of a new development or land use, the cultural resource review shall be complete. (e) If the U.S. Forest Service determines that there is the presence of a recorded or known cultural resources, including those reported in consultation with the tribal governments on or within the immediate vicinity of a new development or land use, a field inventory by a cultural resource professional shall be required. (2) Field Inventory (a) Tribal representatives shall be invited to participate in the field inventory. (b) The field inventory shall consist of one or the other of the following standards, as determined by the cultural re-source professional: 1. Complete survey: the systematic examination of the ground surface through a controlled procedure, such as walking an area in evenly-spaced transects. A complete survey may also require techniques such as clearing of vegetation, angering or shovel probing of subsurface soils for the presence of buried cultural resources. 2. Sample survey: the sampling of an area to assess the potential of cultural resources within the area of proposed development or use. This technique is generally used for large or difficult to survey parcels, and is generally accomplished by a stratified random or non-stratified random sampling strategy. A parcel is either stratified by variables such as vegetation, topography or elevation, or by non-environmental factors such as a survey grid. Under this method, statistically valid samples are selected and surveyed to indicate the probability of presence, numbers and types of cultural resources throughout the sampling strata. Depending on the results of the sample, a complete survey may or may not subsequently be recommended. (c) A field inventory report is required, and shall include the following: 1. A narrative integrating the literature review of subsection (1) above with the field inventory of subsection (2) (b) above.

T2-08-075 Page 28

2. A description of the field inventory methodology utilized under subsection (2) (b) above, describing the type and extent of field inventory, supplemented by maps which graphically illustrate the areas surveyed, not surveyed, and the ration-ale for each. 3. A statement of the presence or absence of cultural resources within the area of the new development or land in use. 4. When cultural resources are not located, a statement of the likelihood of buried or otherwise concealed cultural resources shall be included. Recommendations and standards for monitoring, if appropriate, shall be included. (d) Report format shall follow that specified by the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office. (e) The field inventory report shall be presented to the U.S. Forest Service for review. (f) If the field inventory determines that there are no cultural resources within the area of the new development or land use, the cultural resource review shall be complete.

Staff: The applicant submitted a cultural resource survey (Exhibit 1.2, Appendix D) that meets the standards listed under MCC 38.7050 (G). The field inventory determined that there are no cultural resources within the area of the new development or land use. We received a letter dated February 3, 2009 from Margaret L. Dryden, Archaeologist, Heritage Resource Program Manager, Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, US Forest Service (Exhibit 3.2) addressing cultural resources. It stated that Dr. Robert Hadlow, ODOT Senior Historian, recommended a finding of “No Historic Properties Adversely Affected” and that Dr. Stephen Poyser, SHPO Review and Compliance Specialist concurred that, “No Historic properties would be affected.” Ms. Dryden concurred with those findings. The cultural resource review is deemed complete. These criteria are met.

8.4. MCC 38.7050 (H) Discovery During Construction

All authorizations for new developments or land uses shall be conditioned to require the immediate notification of the Planning Director in the event of the inadvertent discovery of cultural re-sources during construction or development. (1) In the event of the discovery of cultural resources, work in the immediate area of discovery shall be suspended until a cultural resource professional can evaluate the potential significance of the discovery pursuant to MCC 38.7050 (G) (3). (2) If the discovered material is suspected to be human bone or a burial, the following procedure shall be used: (a) Stop all work in the vicinity of the discovery. (b) The applicant shall immediately notify the U.S. Forest Service, the applicant’s cultural resource professional, the State Medical Examiner, and appropriate law enforcement agencies. (c) The U.S. Forest Service shall notify the tribal governments if the discovery is determined to be an Indian burial or a cultural resource. (d) A cultural resource professional shall evaluate the potential significance of the discovery pursuant to MCC 38.7050 (G) (3) and report the results to the U.S. Forest Service which shall have 30 days to comment on the report. (3) If the U.S. Forest Service determines that the cultural resource is not significant or does not respond within the 30 day response period, the cultural resource review process shall be complete and work may continue.

T2-08-075 Page 29

(4) If the U.S. Forest Service determines that the cultural resource is significant, the cultural resource professional shall recommend measures to protect and/or recover the resource pursuant to MCC 38.7050 (G) (4) and (5).

Applicant: The applicant will comply with these standards. If evidence of archaeological or historical resources be encountered during construction, all ground-disturbing activity near the find(s) should be halted immediately and the NSA archaeologist and the SHPO promptly notified. The Management Plan for the NSA requires that if human remains are encountered at any point, the applicant must comply with the requirements of the General Management Plan, “Discovery of Human Remains.” The applicant will notify the Columbia River Gorge Commission (which will assist with tribal coordination), as well as the SHPO, the Commission on Indian Services, the Oregon State Police, the Multnomah County coroner/medical examiner, and the Forest Service. Excavation will cease in that area, the location will be secured, and no work will resume at that location until a decision on a treatment plan is agreed upon

Staff: Conditions of approval will require these criteria to be met.

9. SMA NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW CRITERIA

MCC 38.7075: All new developments and land uses shall be evaluated using the following standards to ensure that natural resources are protected from adverse effects. Comments from state and federal agencies shall be carefully considered.

Staff: The proposed development was evaluated using the standards below. In the following sections, findings are made for the applicable SMA Natural Resource Review code sections for this project. The federal agencies that reviewed this project included the Gorge Commission, the US Forest Service, and FEMA. State agencies include the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Oregon Natural Heritage Program, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Comments from state and federal agencies were carefully considered.

9.1. MCC 38.7075 (A) All Water Resources shall, in part, be protected by establishing undisturbed buffer zones as specified in MCC 38.7075 (2)(a) and (2)(b). These buffer zones are measured horizontally from a wetland, stream, lake, or pond boundary as defined in MCC 38.7075 (2)(a) and (2)(b).

9.1.1. MCC 38.7075 (A)(1) All buffer zones shall be retained undisturbed and in their natural condition, except as permitted with a mitigation plan.

Applicant: The project is designed to avoid and minimize impacts to water resources. However, the project would cross three streams, Oneonta Creek, Horsetail Creek, and a small unnamed creek in the east portion of the study area. Multnomah Creek is outside of the project area approximately 160 feet west of the start of the project starting point. Four wetlands in the project area, Wetlands A through D occupy a total of 4.30 acres and vary from palustrine emergent to palustrine scrub-shrub. The project will result in minor wetland impacts.

Below, each water resource is described in detail. These resources are also further delineated in Appendix E. Buffer zones are shown on the site plans (Sheets GA-2:GA10).

T2-08-075 Page 30

Staff: Buffer zones will be disturbed by the proposed project as stated in the following findings. A mitigation plan will be required. The applicant has submitted a mitigation plan outlined in Exhibits 1.2 and 1.3. Findings addressing the mitigation plan are under Sections 9.22 through 9.25 of this decision).

9.1.2. MCC 38.7075 (A)(2) Buffer zones shall be measured outward from the bank full flow boundary for streams, the high water mark for ponds and lakes, the normal pool elevation for the Columbia River, and the wetland delineation boundary for wetlands on a horizontal scale that is perpendicular to the wetlands, stream, pond or lake boundary. On the main stem of the Columbia River above Bonneville Dam, buffer zones shall be measured landward from the normal pool elevation of the Columbia River. The following buffer zone widths shall be required:

9.1.2.1. (a) A minimum 200 foot buffer on each wetland, pond, lake, and each bank of a perennial or fish bearing stream, some of which can be intermittent.

Applicant: Multnomah Creek is a perennial stream that crosses under the HCRH and the UPRR, then drains to the Columbia River. The ordinary high water mark (OHWM) was flagged within the study area and was based on a distinct break between the vegetated bank and scoured un- vegetated cobble channel. Multnomah Creek is classified as essential salmonid habitat. According to MCC 38.7075, perennial streams require a 200-foot buffer zone along each bank. Project construction will extend to within 135 feet of Multnomah Creek’s OHWM. Based on a disturbed area of 20 feet on each side of the power line (This is a maximum disturbed area. The majority of impacts will be within the 15 foot construction corridor.), approximately 2,000 square feet of temporary impacts will occur within the buffer zone of Multnomah Creek. There will be no permanent impacts. (See Sheet GA-2).

Oneonta Creek is a perennial stream that crosses under the HCRH and the UPRR, then flows about 4,500 feet before flowing through a culvert under I-84 and draining to the Columbia River. The OHWM was flagged within the study area and was based on a distinct break between the vegetated bank and scoured un-vegetated cobble channel. Oneonta Creek is classified as essential salmonid habitat. According to MCC 38.7075, perennial streams require a 200-foot buffer zone along each bank. Project construction will extend to within 45 feet of Oneonta Creek’s OHWM. Based on a disturbed area of 20 feet on each side of the power line (This is a maximum disturbed area. The majority of impacts will be within the 15 foot construction corridor.) , approximately 16,000 square feet of temporary impacts and 40 square feet of permanent impacts will occur within the buffer zone of Oneonta Creek (See Sheet GA-6)

Horsetail Creek is a perennial stream that crosses under the HCRH and the UPRR, then meanders through a large wetland/floodplain complex before joining Oneonta Creek, flowing beneath I-84, and draining to the Columbia River. The OHWM was flagged within the study area and was based on a distinct break between the vegetated bank and scoured un-vegetated cobble channel. Horsetail Creek is classified as essential salmonid habitat. A temporary construction bridge crossing the creek extends to within 5 feet of Horsetail Creek’s OHWM. Based on a disturbed area of 20 feet on each side of the power line (This is a maximum disturbed area. The majority of impacts will be within the 15 foot construction corridor.) , approximately 16,000 square feet of temporary impacts and 40 square feet of permanent impacts will occur within the buffer zone Horsetail Creek (See Sheet GA-7).

T2-08-075 Page 31

Wetland A: Wetland A (0.11 acre) is at the east end of the project area, just west of the small, unnamed stream. This palustrine emergent/scrub-shrub wetland is dominated by a reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) plant community with a small thicket of hardhack (Spiraea douglasii, FACW) at the east edge. The wetland is in a depression that connects north to the floodplain/wetland complex. Indicators of wetland hydrology include saturation in the upper 12 inches of soil and the drainage patterns of the depression. Soils in the wetland displayed more prominent mottles than adjacent upland soils. The boundary of this wetland is defined by changes in all three parameters. In particular, the presence of Armenian blackberry, a facultative upland species, in the plant community adjacent to the wetland defined the wetland boundary. The waters of the small stream north of Wetland A are impounded by a beaver dam, which may have raised the water table in the vicinity. Based on a disturbed area of 20 feet on each side of the power line (This is a maximum disturbed area. The majority of impacts will be within the 15 foot construction corridor.) , approximately 14,000 square feet of buffer will be temporarily impacted by the proposed construction and 16 square feet of permanent impacts will occur within the buffer zone Wetland B (See Sheet GA-8).

Wetland B: Wetland B (2.96 acres) is east of Horsetail Creek and is dominated by a reed canarygrass plant community. This large, palustrine emergent wetland is composed of shallow open water (less than 6 feet deep), with a ponded area in the western portion with deeper water (greater than 6 feet deep). Vegetation in the majority Wetland B is dominated by reed canarygrass. In the west, a small portion of the wetland is emergent and scrub-shrub, including hardhack and red osier dogwood (Cornus sericea, FACW). In the east, the wetland boundary was defined by a change in vegetation community and by a break in topography. Soil pits were unobtainable here due to rock talus and inundation. At its western edge, the wetland was defined by a break in slope and by the change in plant community, again most notably by the presence of blackberry in the upland vegetation community. Wetland soils at the west edge of Wetland B possessed a lower chroma and more distinct mottles than adjacent upland soils. Based on a disturbed area of 20 feet on each side of the power line (This is a maximum disturbed area. The majority of impacts will be within the 15 foot construction corridor.) , approximately 70,000 square feet of buffer will be temporarily impacted by the proposed construction and approximately 72 square feet of permanent impacts will occur within the buffer zone Wetland B (See Sheet GA- 7:GA-8). Additionally, there will be approximately 600 feet of temporary impacts to Wetland B.

Wetland C: Wetland C (.39 acres) is between Horsetail Creek and Oneonta Creek and is vegetated by a monotypic stand of reed canarygrass. This palustrine emergent wetland lies in a low area or floodplain that is topographically connected to an area of open water and an emergent wetland to the north. Soils sampled both inside and outside Wetland C were hydric. Saturated soils were observed in the center of Wetland C, and the eastern and western boundaries were well defined by a break in slope and the presence of blackberry in the adjacent upland community. Based on a disturbed area of 20 feet on each side of the power line (This is a maximum disturbed area. The majority of impacts will be within the 15 foot construction corridor.), approximately 16,000 square feet of buffer will be temporarily impacted by the proposed construction and 16 square feet of permanent impacts will occur within the buffer zone of Wetland C (See Sheet GA-6:GA-7). Additionally, there may be approximately 18,000 square feet of temporary impacts within Wetland C. However, there will be no permanent impacts within Wetland C.

Wetland D: Wetland D (.84 acres) is west of Oneonta Creek and vegetated by monotypic reed canarygrass, which was mowed in the last two weeks. This palustrine emergent wetland lies in a

T2-08-075 Page 32

low area or floodplain that is topographically connected to an area of emergent and forested wetland to the north. Throughout this wetland, deep (6-10 inches) tire ruts were observed, indicating very soft wet soils through the winter season. In addition to the tire ruts, small (3-5 feet in diameter) ponded areas were observed. A culvert was found in the railroad fill area and appeared to drain south across the railroad alignment. Regardless of which way the culvert drains, its existence indicates the likely presence of hydrology. The west boundary of Wetland D is defined by a change in slope and plant community, and most notably by a change in soils. Upland soils adjacent to the wetland in this area were very sandy, while those soils inside the wetland were silty clay or silty clay loam with distinct mottles. The eastern boundary of Wetland D was defined by a change in slope and by a change in plant community. The upland vegetation community outside of the wetland contained Armenian blackberry and colonial bentgrass (Agrostis capillaris, FAC), with a complete lack of reed canarygrass. Armenian blackberry thickets were prolific at a similar elevation to the upland plot outside of the maintained area. Based on a disturbed area of 20 feet on each side of the power line (This is a maximum disturbed area. The majority of impacts will be within the 15 foot construction corridor.), approximately 16,000 square feet of buffer will be temporarily impacted by the proposed construction and 16 square feet of permanent impacts will occur within the buffer zone of Wetland D (See Sheet GA- 5:GA-6). Approximately 54,000 square feet of temporary impacts and 16 square feet of permanent impacts will occur by the proposed construction within Wetland D. The 16 square feet of permanent impacts would be the only permanent impacts to a wetland as a result of the proposed project.

Staff: As outlined by the applicant, the proposed project will be sited within the buffer areas of Multnomah Creek, Oneonta Creek and Horsetail Creek each of which are perennial streams. The project will also be will be within the buffer areas of a pond and four wetlands. The applicant provides a detailed description of the proposed development within each buffer area.

9.1.2.2. (b) A 50-foot buffer zone along each bank of intermittent (including ephemeral), non-fish bearing streams.

Applicant: The small, unnamed stream is intermittent and not fish-bearing. It crosses under the HCRH and the UPRR, then flows northwest where it is impounded by a beaver dam before reaching the large wetland complex. The OHWM was flagged within the study area and was based on a distinct break between the vegetated bank and scoured un-vegetated cobble channel. According to MCC 38.7075, intermittent non-fish bearing streams require a 50-foot buffer zone along each bank. Project construction will have no permanent or temporary impacts within the buffer zone of the un-named stream (See Sheet GA-8).

Staff: There is a small unnamed creek in the project area (Exhibit 1.2), however the there will be no impacts no permanent or temporary impacts within the buffer zone of the un-named stream.

9.1.3. MCC 38.7075 (A)((3) The buffer width shall be increased for the following: (a) When the channel migration zone exceeds the recommended buffer width, the buffer width shall extend to the outer edge of the channel migration zone. (b) When the frequently flooded area exceeds the recommended riparian buffer zone width, the buffer width shall be extended to the outer edge of the frequently flooded area.

T2-08-075 Page 33

(c) When an erosion or landslide hazard area exceeds the recommended width of the buffer, the buffer width shall be extended to include the hazard area.

Applicant: According to FEMA map panel number 4101790300 A, neither the channel migration zone nor the frequently flooded area exceed the recommended riparian buffer zone widths. There is no erosion or landslide hazard area exceeding the recommended width of the buffer. Therefore, no increase in the buffer is required or needed.

Staff: We concur with the applicant that the buffers need not be increased.

9.2. MCC 38.7075 (B) When a buffer zone is disturbed by a new use, it shall be replanted with only native plant species of the Columbia River Gorge.

Applicant: The project will result in some disturbance to the buffer zones. Disturbed vegetated areas will be replanted with appropriate native species of the Columbia River Gorge.

Staff: This criteria will be include as a condition of approval.

9.3. MCC 38.7075 (C) The applicant shall be responsible for identifying all water resources and their appropriate buffers.

Applicant: Water resources and their appropriate buffers are described under MCC 38.7075 (A)(2). Sheets GA-2 through GA-10 identify water sources and their buffers.

Staff: The applicant has identified the water resources and their buffer areas in Exhibit 1.2

9.4. MCC 38.7075 (D) Wetlands Boundaries shall be delineated using the following: (1) The approximate location and extent of wetlands in the Scenic Area is shown on the National Wetlands Inventory (U. S. Department of the Interior 1987). In addition, the list of hydric soils and the soil survey maps shall be used as an indicator of wetlands. (2) Some wetlands may not be shown on the wetlands inventory or soil survey maps. Wetlands that are discovered by the local planning staff during an inspection of a potential project site shall be delineated and protected. (3) The project applicant shall be responsible for determining the exact location of a wetlands boundary. Wetlands boundaries shall be delineated using the procedures specified in the ‘1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (on-line Edition)’. (4) All wetlands delineations shall be conducted by a professional who has been trained to use the federal delineation procedures, such as a soil scientist, botanist, or wetlands ecologist.

Applicant: The information in this narrative is derived from Appendix E, Wetland Delineation. The Multnomah Falls, Oregon, NWI map identifies the large wetland complex between I-84 and the railroad as having several components of open water, forested wetland, and emergent wetland. Wetlands A through D, as delineated in Appendix E and described under MCC 38.7075 (A)(2) , closely match the wetlands mapped by the NWI. Wetland A appears to extend slightly farther south than those mapped by the NWI. The presence of the beaver dam and associated impoundment of the waters of the small unnamed stream may be the cause. Wetlands B, C, and D appear to match those mapped by the NWI. Reference materials were reviewed prior to the field

T2-08-075 Page 34

investigation to provide information regarding the possible presence of wetlands, water features, hydric soils, wetland hydrology, and site topography. The materials reviewed included: • Multnomah Falls, Oregon, 7.5 minute Quadrangle, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS 1961) (Photo revised 1985) • Soil Survey of Multnomah County Area, Oregon, U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS), (USDA 1982) • Multnomah Falls, Oregon, National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) 7.5 minute quadrangle maps, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 1988) • Aerial Photographs of Multnomah County Area, Oregon (Google Earth)

The Multnomah Falls, OR USGS Quadrangle was examined to determine water features and topography of the site and adjacent properties that might influence on-site conditions. The Multnomah Falls, Oregon NWI map was examined to determine if wetlands are mapped on site. Aerial photographs were examined to determine if wetland hydrology is evident in different seasons on site The Soil Survey map was reviewed to determine if any hydric soils are mapped on site. A description of the soils mapped and the wetland delineation for the project area can be found below in Appendix E.

Wetland areas were delineated according to the Level 2 Routine On Site Method described in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). This method requires an area to possess a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Under normal circumstances, positive indicators of each of these three parameters must be present for an area to satisfy the criteria for jurisdictional wetlands. Normal conditions exist at this site. Ethan Rosenthal, DEA Ecologist, and Ian Read, DEA Biologist, performed the site delineation. Mr. Read is the author of the Wetland Delineation, Appendix E.

Staff: The Wetlands Boundaries were delineated using methods that meet the requirements listed under MCC 38.7075 (D). The applicant used the NWI maps, following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual methods and conducted field verification by a qualified ecologist and biologist (Exhibit 1.2 Appendix E). This criterion is met.

9.5. MCC 38.7075(E) Stream, pond, and lake boundaries shall be delineated using the bank full flow boundary for streams and the high water mark for ponds and lakes. The project applicant shall be responsible for determining the exact location of the appropriate boundary for the water resource.

Applicant: Multnomah Creek, Horsetail Creek, Oneonta Creek, a Pond and the small unnamed creek in the east portion of the project area are waters of the U.S. and State. The ordinary OHWM for each was flagged within the project area as shown on Sheets GA-2,GA-6, GA-7 and GA-8.

Staff: The applicant determined the stream and pond, boundaries and mapped those boundaries using the method required by MCC 38.7075(E). This criterion is met.

9.6. MCC 38.7075(F) The local government may verify the accuracy of, and render adjustments to, a bank full flow, high water mark, normal pool elevation (for the Columbia River), or wetland boundary delineation. If the adjusted boundary is contested by the project applicant, the local government shall obtain professional services, at the project applicant's

T2-08-075 Page 35

expense, or the county will ask for technical assistance from the U.S. Forest Service to render a final delineation.

Applicant: Boundaries were identified by a professional who has been trained to use the federal delineation procedures following procedures specified in the ‘‘1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (on-line Edition)’’. Also, the project area has been highly impacted by human activity for many years. The most notable impacts are due to transportation, with fill materials from the railroad grade, HCRH, and I-84 being the most significant alterations within the project vicinity. In many areas of the Oregon side of the Columbia River Gorge, the presence of I-84 and its associated road fill block passage of river flows. The presence of dams on the Columbia River has altered historical patterns of seasonal flooding and inundation throughout the drainage basin.

Staff: The County accepts the boundaries as mapped by the applicant.

9.7. MCC 38.7075(G) Buffer zones shall be undisturbed unless the following criteria have been satisfied:

9.7.1. MCC 38.7075(G)(1) The proposed use must have no practicable alternative as determined by the practicable alternative test. Those portions of a proposed use that have a practicable alternative will not be located in wetlands, stream, pond, lake, and riparian areas and/or their buffer zone.

Applicant: The project is designed to avoid, when possible, and minimize impacts to wetlands, stream, pond, lake, and riparian areas and/or their buffer zones. The location was chosen for several reasons, but primarily that ODOT and FHWA do not allow a utility to be located on an Interstate Freeway except under special circumstances and the City of Cascade Locks also has an existing utility easement for the location of their power line and have no legal authority to install the power line outside of the established easement. The proposed location also has little impact to wetlands or other natural resources in the area. As requested, reference to MCC 38.7075(Q) has been added to the response for MCC 38.7075(G)(1). An amended page is attached for your records.

Staff: The proposed replacement of the overhead electric line with and underground electric line will result in improvement to the scenic quality along these corridors. It will also reduce public safety hazards from power lines coming down during ice storms. The proposed underground line route is along the existing line within established right-of-ways providing electrical service at four points along the route. The applicant designed the location of the underground line to avoid wetlands, ponds and streams along the right-of-ways when possible. An example of that is the stream crossings, were the existing overhead lines will be replaced with new overhead lines for the short distance across the stream. Changing the location of the line is not practical because of the service connections and the difficultly and cost of establishing new right-of-ways or easements. This criterion is met.

9.7.2. MCC 38.7075(G)(2) Filling and draining of wetlands shall be prohibited with exceptions related to public safety or restoration/enhancement activities as permitted when all of the following criteria have been met:

T2-08-075 Page 36

(a) A documented public safety hazard exists or a restoration/ enhancement project exists that would benefit the public and is corrected or achieved only by impacting the wetland in question. (b) Impacts to the wetland must be the last possible documented alternative in fixing the public safety concern or completing the restoration/enhancement project. (c) The proposed project minimizes the impacts to the wetland.

Applicant: One vault will be installed in Wetland D. The vault will require 3.6 cy (0.0004 ac; 16 ft2) of permanent soil excavation and an equal-sized concrete vault will be permanently installed. This is the only permanent wetland impact for this project. Approximately 5 cy will be temporarily over-excavated for vault placement. The existing overhead power lines have a history of damage caused by trees, wind, ice, and snow, resulting in disturbance and interruptions to electrical service. Placing the existing overhead lines underground would increase the reliability of service therefore benefiting the public. The proposed project alignment was chosen because it had the least impact to wetlands than either following the existing overhead lines or following along I-84 for a greater distance.

There are several benefits of the project, most directly, relocating an overhead electrical line and installing it underground were it is protected from winter storm damage that in the past has caused lengthy power outages in the area. This also reduces the chance of accidents occurring along the UPRR rail line that also relies on electricity from the electrical line to maintain the UPRR warning signals and devices, significantly reducing the need for extensive alternative power sources such as batteries or gasoline/diesel generators. Without a consistent power supply, the UPRR requires its system to have additional backup battery or generator systems. Additionally, the area that would be affected by construction of the project would be improved by removing invasive plant species and replanting them with native vegetation.

Staff: The project includes some wetland area in which the underground electric line will be placed. This installation includes trenching, covering the line with a protective coating and filling in the trench with the native soil material. There will not be any fill placed (a minor amount of soil material will be removed from the site). The project includes one vault within a wetland that the applicant has labeled Wetland D (Exhibit 1.2). Installation of this vault at this location is necessary for access to and maintenance of the underground electric line.

This project, under-grounding the electric line, will eliminate public safety hazards resulting from the above ground line being damaged during storm events which creates a hazard to humans and wildlife of a live electric line on the ground and power outages to the railroad facilities (signal lights) and to Multnomah Falls Park facilities. The project would benefit the public through reduced power outages, reduced repair costs to the utility, and the scenic benefit of removal of the above ground lines and poles. An additional benefit would be less disturbance to the wetlands resulting from emergency repairs of the above ground lines after storm events. This criterion is met.

9.7.3. MCC 38.7075(G)(3) Unavoidable impacts to wetlands and aquatic and riparian areas and their buffer zones shall be offset by deliberate restoration and enhancement or creation (wetlands only) measures as required by the completion of a mitigation plan.

Applicant: Mitigation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands and aquatic and riparian zones and their buffer zones is incorporated into the project design and the Site and Erosion Plans, Appendix

T2-08-075 Page 37

B and ODOT’s Standard Specifications for Highway Construction (2008), including Section 00280.00 Erosion and Sediment Control, 00290.00 Environmental Protection, and 00320.00 Clearing and Grubbing, Section 0010.30 Seeding and Section 0010.40 Planting Appendix C. Permanent impacts from the project are minor, less than 0.1 acre. The impact areas are all within previously historically disturbed areas by the construction of the HCRH, historic fill or earthmoving activity, likely related to the construction of the UPRR, the installation and maintenance of the overhead power lines, and other human related activities. The proposed plan would restore and enhance any impacted areas by eliminating noxious weeds and replanting with native species. The majority of wetland impacts are temporary and will be restored to pre-project conditions. No long-term adverse effects are anticipated. Hydrology, vegetation communities, and soil conditions are expected to return to pre-project conditions.

Staff: The proposed project has very minor impacts that are limited to the temporary disturbance to the wetland and buffer area resulting from the installing of the underground electric, the underground vaults and the three vaults predominately underground except for two feet above ground in the buffer area. Additionally there will be permanent impact to Wetland D (Exhibit 1.2) by installation of a vault within the wetland. Applicant has proposed a mitigation plan to restore and enhance any impacted areas by eliminating noxious weeds and replanting with native species. There are additional long term mitigation benefits that result from less maintenance and emergency repairs of the underground electric line verses the overhead line.

9.8. MCC 38.7075 (H) Protection of sensitive wildlife/plant areas and sites shall begin when proposed new developments or uses are within 1000 feet of a sensitive wildlife/plant site and/or area. Sensitive Wildlife Areas are those areas depicted in the wildlife inventory and listed in Table 4 of the Management Plan titled “Types of Wildlife Areas and Sites Inventoried in the Columbia Gorge”, including all Priority Habitats Table. Sensitive Plants are listed in Table 7 of the Management Plan, titled “Columbia Gorge and Vicinity Endemic Plant Species.” The approximate locations of sensitive wildlife and/or plant areas and sites are shown in the wildlife and rare plant inventory.

Applicant: The project is within 1000 feet of the Columbia River, Horsetail Creek Wetlands, Horsetail Creek, Multnomah Creek and Oneonta Creek. Therefore, it is within 1000 feet of sensitive resources.

Staff: The project is within 1000 feet of sensitive wildlife/plant areas.

9.9. MCC 38.7075 (I) The local government shall submit site plans (of uses that are proposed within 1,000 feet of a sensitive wildlife and/or plant area or site) for review to the U.S. Forest Service and the appropriate state agencies (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for wildlife issues and by the Oregon State Natural Heritage Program for plant issues).

Applicant: The applicant has submitted site plans to Multnomah County as part of this application.

Staff: The application materials were posted on the County Land Use Planning webpage and notice was emailed to the US Forest Service, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Oregon Natural Heritage Program for completeness review after the application was submitted. An opportunity to comment was mailed to these agencies again providing access the application materials and revisions via the webpage.

T2-08-075 Page 38

9.10. MCC 38.7075 (J) The U.S. Forest Service wildlife biologists and/or botanists, in consultation with the appropriate state biologists, shall review the site plan and their field survey records. (1) Identify/verify the precise location of the wildlife and/or plant area or site. (2) Determine if a field survey will be required. (3) Determine, based on the biology and habitat requirements of the affected wild-life/plant species, if the proposed use would compromise the integrity and function of or result in adverse affects (including cumulative effects) to the wildlife or plant area or site. This would include considering the time of year when wildlife or plant species are sensitive to disturbance, such as nesting, rearing seasons, or flowering season. (4) Delineate the undisturbed 200 ft buffer on the site plan for sensitive plants and/or the appropriate buffer for sensitive wildlife areas or sites, including nesting, roosting and perching sites. (a) Buffer zones can be reconfigured if a project applicant demonstrates all of the following: (1) the integrity and function of the buffer zones is maintained, (2) the total buffer area on the development proposal is not decreased, (3) the width reduction shall not occur within another buffer, and (4) the buffer zone width is not reduced more than 50% at any particular location. Such features as intervening topography, vegetation, man made features, natural plant or wildlife habitat boundaries, and flood plain characteristics could be considered. (b) Requests to reduce buffer zones shall be considered if an appropriate professional (botanist, plant ecologist, wildlife biologist, or hydrologist), hired by the project applicant, (1) identifies the precise location of the sensitive wildlife/plant or water resource, (2) de-scribes the biology of the sensitive wildlife/plant or hydrologic condition of the water resource, and (3) demonstrates that the proposed use will not have any negative effects, either direct or indirect, on the affected wild-life/plant and their surrounding habitat that is vital to their long-term survival or water resource and its long term function. (c) The local government shall submit all requests to re-configure sensitive wildlife/plant or water resource buffers to the U.S. Forest Service and the appropriate state agencies for review. All written comments shall be included in the record of application and based on the comments from the state and federal agencies, the local government will make a final decision on whether the reduced buffer zones is justified. If the final decision contradicts the comments submitted by the federal and state agencies, the local government shall justify how it reached an opposing conclusion.

Applicant: The City of Cascade Locks understands that the Forest Service will be reviewing the submitted materials to determine appropriate protection measures for sensitive plants and habitats. According to a Biological Evaluation for the project area, no sensitive plant populations are known to be near the project area (Appendix G). The applicant’s representative DEA, has interviewed Forest Service Biologist with knowledge of the project corridor and has also coordinated with representative of USFWS, ODFW, and NMFS regarding the proposed project.

David Kennedy was the primary author for both No Effect Technical Memorandum and Biological Evaluation. He has more than 16 years of experience as a wildlife biologist and environmental planner. He serves as project manager for federal agencies projects throughout the Pacific Northwest. These projects range from leading teams of specialists completing watershed analysis for the US Forest Service, completing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents for a

T2-08-075 Page 39

wide variety of federal actions, and providing formal and informal consultation on Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, to the US Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries on project effects on listed species. Mr. Kennedy also serves as principle investigator for wildlife surveys of federally listed species.

There were two documents prepared for this project to address federal candidate, proposed, and listed species. The reason the two documents address different species is the No Effect Technical Memorandum addresses only the species identified as potentially occurring in Multnomah County, while the Biological Evaluation includes the federal species as well as US Forest Service special status species identified as occurring on the Mt. Hood National Forest. The No Effects Technical Memorandum is signed by the author; however, the U.S Forest Service Biological Evaluation format does not include a place for an author’s signature.

Staff: The proposed project plans have been reviewed by the US Forest Service and ODOT, ODFW and Natural Heritage Program staff (Exhibits 3.7 through 3.13 ).

9.11. MCC 38.7075 (K) The local government, in consultation with the State and federal wildlife biologists and/or botanists, shall use the following criteria in reviewing and evaluating the site plan to ensure that the proposed developments or uses do not compromise the integrity and function of or result in adverse affects to the wildlife or plant area or site: (1) Published guidelines regarding the protection and management of the affected wildlife/plant species. Examples include: the Oregon Department of Forestry has prepared technical papers that include management guidelines for osprey and great blue heron; the Washington Department of Wildlife has prepared similar guidelines for a variety of species, including the western pond turtle, the peregrine falcon, and the Larch Mountain salamander (Rodrick and Milner 1991). (2) Physical characteristics of the subject parcel and vicinity, including topography and vegetation. (3) Historic, current, and proposed uses in the vicinity of the sensitive wildlife/plant area or site. (4) Existing condition of the wildlife/plant area or site and the surrounding habitat and the useful life of the area or site. (5) In areas of winter range, habitat components, such as forage, and thermal cover, important to the viability of the wildlife must be maintained or, if impacts are to occur, enhancement must mitigate the impacts so as to maintain overall values and function of winter range. (6) The site plan is consistent with the "Oregon Guidelines for Timing of In-Water Work to Protect Fish and Wildlife Resources" (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2000). (7) The site plan activities coincide with periods when fish and wildlife are least sensitive to disturbance. These would include, among others, nesting and brooding periods (from nest building to fledgling of young) and those periods specified. (8) The site plan illustrates that new developments and uses, including bridges, culverts, and utility corridors, shall not interfere with fish and wildlife passage. (9) Maintain, protect, and enhance the integrity and function of Priority Habitats (such as old growth forests, talus slopes, and oak woodlands) as listed in the Priority Habitats Table. This includes maintaining structural, species, and age diversity,

T2-08-075 Page 40

maintaining connectivity within and between plant communities, and ensuring that cumulative impacts are considered in documenting integrity and function.

Applicant: The applicant understands that site plans submitted with this application will be reviewed by appropriate agencies to ensure the criteria listed below are met. The proposed project is not expected to compromise the integrity and function of or result in adverse effects to the wildlife or plants within the project area. There will be no in-water work as part of this project. The main impact from the project will be minor wetland impacts to wetland areas already highly disturbed by highway, rail, previous fill, and other human activities. A Biological Evaluation being reviewed by the US Forest Service (Appendix G), determined no federal or state listed threatened endangered or sensitive species or Forest Service Special Status species are found in the project area. Therefore, no effect/impact to listed or Forest Service Special Status species is anticipated. Listed fish species are present in the Columbia River which is designated critical habitat also present in the project area.

The site plans, Sheets GA-2:10, show the physical characteristic of the project area including topography and vegetation (trees greater than 6 inches in height). Appendix E Wetland Delineation and Appendix F Biological Evaluation also describe the physical characteristics of the project area.

The cultural resource documents in Appendix D discuss the historic uses of the site. The current uses of the area would not change with the project as the project is to underground existing overhead utility lines.

The existing conditions of the site are described in the narrative introduction of this application and in Appendix E Wetland Delineation and Appendix F No Effects Memorandum.

There will be no impact to areas of winter range or habitat components. The project corridor is in a highly disturbed area from human activity and any habitat that is affected will be enhanced by the project design.

ODFW has made a request that ground disturbance occur only between August 15 through March 31 in order to avoid disturbance of nesting birds and immature mammals. The applicant will try and coordinate construction activities to coincide with periods when fish and wildlife are least sensitive to disturbance.

The proposed project features do not constitute a barrier to wildlife or fish passage as the majority of the project will be buried underground. No structures associated with the project will be placed in areas where fish pass nor will the project features present any obstruction to wildlife.

The proposed project area is in an area already highly disturbed by human activity and follows close to I-84, the HRCH and the UPRR railroad tracks. The project will not impact any Priority Habitats and will enhance habitats with native species.

Staff: The applicant conducted a study and submitted documents that meet the requirements for this review which was submitted to state agencies and the US Forest Service. ODFW staff biologists have reviewed the application submittal and an email included as Exhibits 3.11 and 3.12 requesting certain standards for the work. Because a significant portion of the project is within the Interstate 84 and Historic Columbia River Highway right-of-ways, ODOT has reviewed the

T2-08-075 Page 41

project and has issued a “No Effect to listed species, designated critical habitat, or Essential Fish Habitat” determination (Exhibit 3.8). We consulted with Natural Heritage Program staff and received an email commenting on sensitive plants, expressing concern about a couple plants (Exhibit 3.9). USFS biologists have reviewed the submitted materials and comments by the state agencies and have made a “no effects” determination (Exhibit 3.13).

The applicant stated in the narrative that ODFW requests a work period between August 15th and March 15th to coincide with periods wildlife are least sensitive to disturbance. Additionally ODFW staff have requested, in an emailed (Exhibit 3.11) dated April 10, 2009 from Danette Faucera (Ehlers), Assistant District Fish Biologist, ODFW, North Willamette Watershed District stated that:

• “Construction activities, including installation and removal of temporary work bridges, in or around water should be conducted within the in-water work period (July 15 - August 31). Placement of temporary bridges should be designed to minimize impacts to stream banks. If for any reason the applicant believes the temporary structures will remain in place for a second in-water work period, plans and specifications for the temporary crossing should be submitted to ODFW for review. Any work needs outside of the in-water work period will require consultation with ODFW.” • “Although the application states that the Right of Way is mowed, ODFW recommends that the adjacent riparian areas be planted with native vegetation consistent with native vegetation currently in the area.” • “Conifer trees (>18 dbh) removed as a result of this project should be placed into channels or wetted areas of Oneonta or Horsetail Falls Creek. Time permitting, ODFW may assist with the design and placement of these trees.”

The project will not include any in water work. Staff asked for a clarification of the water work period (July 15 - August 31) for work near the stream. In an email (Exhibit 3.12) dated April 14, 2009 Todd Alsbury, District Fish Biologist, ODFW-North Willamette Watershed District stated that:

“If the work associated with installation and removal of the temporary bridges will not impact areas below ordinary high water (either directly through soil disturbance or indirectly through fall-back of soils into water) then you will not need to adhere to the in-water work period established for Gorge streams. Our concern lies with activities “directly adjacent” to flowing water that are not “in-water” but have the ability to have significant detrimental impacts if something goes wrong during implementation. In a case like this we would have no problem providing an in-water work extension to complete the work necessary to install and remove the temporary bridges so we can go either way. If you plan on installing and removing the temporary bridges between June 1 and August 31 we would not require that you request an in-water work extension, but if you feel that you may need to conduct that work before June 1st or after August 31st we would ask that you request an in-water work extension due to the higher risk of heavy precipitation causing problems at the temporary stream crossings.”

Conditions of approval can address ODFW work period concerns for wildlife and the in-water work period. Native plants will be required for replanting disturbed area through a condition. The applicant states only two trees will need to be removed with a possible four other trees that may be damaged thus needing removal. Placing conifers in the two streams was not proposed as part of

T2-08-075 Page 42

this application, given we do not have detailed information about the location, the potential for archeological impacts, the potential impacts to plants, or to the hydrology of the stream we can not include placing large logs in the stream under this review. Additional information would need to be submitted to include placing logs in the streams, which could be accomplished through a follow-up application if ODFW wishes to peruse placing logs in the streams.

The proposed use will result in minor temporary disturbance of a narrow corridor along the I-84, railroad and Historic Highway right-of-ways installing the electric line and related facilities vaults underground, three vaults predominately underground with two feet above ground and four transformers with related meter pedestals. According to ODOT (Exhibit 3.8) this project will not impact the integrity and function of Priority Habitats (such as old growth forests, talus slopes, and oak woodlands) as listed in the Priority Habitats Table. The structural function of the habitat, the species, and age diversity, connectivity will be maintained within and between plant communities. There will not be any cumulative impacts.

9.12. MCC 38.7075 (L) The wildlife/plant protection process may terminate if the local government, in consultation with the U.S. Forest Service and state wildlife agency or Heritage program, determines (1) the sensitive wildlife area or site is not active, or (2) the proposed use is not within the buffer zones and would not compromise the integrity of the wildlife/plant area or site, and (3) the proposed use is within the buffer and could be easily moved out of the buffer by simply modifying the project proposal (site plan modifications). If the project applicant accepts these recommendations, the local government shall incorporate them into its development review order and the wildlife/plant protection process may conclude.

Applicant: The proposed use will be within several buffer zones. Therefore, it is not expected that the wildlife protection process will be terminated at this point. The applicant has met the Practicable Alternative Test under (M). Mitigation will be completed according to the erosion control plans (Sheets GA-2:GA-10) and ODOT standards (Appendix C).

Staff: The proposed development does not meet the standards to be terminated through this code section and must include a mitigation plan that meets the following standards and criteria.

9.13. MCC 38.7075 (M) If the above measures fail to eliminate the adverse affects, the proposed project shall be prohibited, unless the project applicant can meet the Practicable Alternative Test and prepare a mitigation plan to offset the adverse effects by deliberate restoration and enhancement.

Applicant: The applicant understands that Multnomah County may require the revision of the mitigation plan as necessary to ensure the proposed project will not adversely affect a sensitive wildlife / plant area or site. The applicant has considered other alternatives and found no other practicable alternative as demonstrated under MCC 38.7075(Q).

Staff: The proposed project meets the no practicable alternatives test, it can not avoid the stream buffers and the location due its necessity of running along the established right-of-ways of the highway and railroad right-of-way and easements with wetlands located nearby, the need to cross the streams and the need for a minor amount of work within a wetland. The project must be installed and pass through wildlife and sensitive plan buffers. The applicant has submitted a mitigation plan to offset the adverse effects through restoration and enhancement.

T2-08-075 Page 43

9.14. MCC 38.7075 (N) The local government shall submit a copy of all field surveys (if completed) and mitigation plans to the U.S. Forest Service and appropriate state agencies. The local government shall include all comments in the record of application and address any written comments submitted by the state and federal wildlife agency/heritage programs in its development review order. Based on the comments from the state and federal wildlife agency/heritage program, the local government shall make a final decision on whether the proposed use would be consistent with the wildlife/plant policies and guidelines. If the final decision contradicts the comments submitted by the state and federal wildlife agency/heritage program, the local government shall justify how it reached an opposing conclusion.

Applicant: The applicant acknowledges the County’s responsibilities for consistency with state and federal recommendations

Staff: The applicant conducted a study and submitted documents that meet the requirements for this review. ODFW staff biologists have reviewed the application submittal and submitted two emails included as Exhibits 3.11 and 3.12 requesting certain standards for the work. We consulted with Natural Heritage Program staff and received an email commenting on sensitive plants, expressing concern about a couple plants (Exhibit). Because a significant portion of the project is within the Interstate and Historic Columbia River Highway right-of-ways ODOT has reviewed the project and has issued a “No Effect to listed species, designated critical habitat, or Essential Fish Habitat” determination. We have also consulted with the USFS biologists and they have issued a “no effects” determination. Based on the comments from the state and federal wildlife agency/heritage program, we have determined that the project with conditions is consistent with the wildlife/plant policies and guidelines.

In consultation with the state and federal wildlife biologists and/or botanists, staff finds that with conditions of approvals the proposed development and use do not compromise the integrity and function of or result in adverse affects to the sensitive wildlife, sensitive plants or their habitat.

9.15. MCC 38.7075 (O) The local government shall require the project applicant to revise the mitigation plan as necessary to ensure that the proposed use would not adversely affect a sensitive wildlife/plant area or site.

Applicant: The applicant understands Multnomah County may require a revised mitigation plan as necessary to ensure the proposed project will not adversely affect a sensitive wildlife / plant area or site.

Staff: The proposed project including the mitigation project is revised due to conditions of approval to address requests from ODFW biologists. These revisions are necessary to ensure that the proposed use would not adversely affect a sensitive wildlife/plants area or site.

9.16. MCC 38.7075 (P) Soil productivity shall be protected using the following guidelines: (1) A description or illustration showing the mitigation measures to control soil erosion and stream sedimentation. (2) New developments and land uses shall control all soil movement within the area shown on the site plan.

T2-08-075 Page 44

(3) The soil area disturbed by new development or land uses, except for new cultivation, shall not exceed 15 percent of the project area. (4) Within 1 year of project completion, 80 percent of the project area with surface disturbance shall be established with effective native ground cover species or other soil- stabilizing methods to prevent soil erosion until the area has 80 percent vegetative cover.

Applicant: A Grading and Erosion Control Plan is included in this application as Sheets GA-2 through GA-10. All grading and erosion control will follow ODOT Standard Specifications for Highway Construction (2008).

Staff: The applicant has submitted an erosion control plan showing measures to control soil erosion and stream sedimentation which will also be reviewed for the Grading and Erosion Control (GEC) Permit. The applicant has submitted an application for a GEC Permit and a condition will require that work must follow requirements of that permit. The project area for this project is the right-of-ways of I-84, the railroad and the Historic Highway of which less than 15 percent of the area will be disturbed by the project. The proposed erosion control methods should control soil movement within the area on the plan. A condition of approval will require that within 1 year of project completion, 80 percent of the project area with surface disturbance shall be established with effective native ground cover species or other soil-stabilizing methods to prevent soil erosion until the area has 80 percent vegetative cover. This criterion is met by conditions.

9.17. MCC 38.7075 (Q) An alternative site for a proposed use shall be considered practicable if it is available and the proposed use can be undertaken on that site after taking into consideration cost, technology, logistics, and overall project purposes. A practicable alternative does not exist if a project applicant satisfactorily demonstrates all of the following: (1) The basic purpose of the use cannot be reasonably accomplished using one or more other sites in the vicinity that would avoid or result in less adverse effects on wetlands, ponds, lakes, riparian areas, wildlife or plant areas and/or sites. (2) The basic purpose of the use cannot be reasonably accomplished by reducing its proposed size, scope, configuration, or density, or by changing the design of the use in a way that would avoid or result in less adverse effects on wetlands, ponds, lakes, riparian areas, wildlife or plant areas and/or sites.. (3) Reasonable attempts were made to remove or accommodate constraints that caused a project applicant to reject alternatives to the proposed use. Such constraints include inadequate infrastructure, parcel size, and land use designations. If a land use designation or recreation intensity class is a constraint, an applicant must request a Management Plan amendment to demonstrate that practicable alternatives do not exist.

Applicant: There is no practicable alternative for the proposed project. The proposed alignment for the underground utility line generally follows the existing alignment of the overhead utility line that it is replacing. The City of Cascade Locks has existing easements and permits with ODOT and UPRR allowing the City the use of the parcels for their utility corridor.

The proposed alignment varies from the existing alignment in some areas – most importantly near the existing wetlands. To bury the underground power lines along the existing aerial power line alignment would require trenching and pole removal through fish-bearing wetlands that are connected to Horsetail Creek. The proposed project was planned to avoid as much as possible direct impacts to wetlands, ponds, lakes, riparian areas, wildlife or plant areas and/or sites; it

T2-08-075 Page 45

strays from the existing overhead alignment when necessary to accomplish this. The wetlands and buffers that are affected by the proposed project are in areas that are already highly disturbed by UPRR, highway, and other human activities. The proposed alignment avoids impacts to fish- bearing waters by leaving poles in place in wetland areas and trenching in upland areas. The proposed project includes aerial crossings above Oneonta and Horsetail Creeks to avoid impacts to fish and fish habitat.

To modify the alignment to follow I-84 for almost the whole project rather than a portion of the project would have a more direct adverse impact on wetlands than the proposed alternative. Part of I-84 through the project area is constructed on fill in an area with wetlands bordering to the south and the Columbia River to the north. Because I-84 is raised on fill in the area and the shoulders slope, the line would have to be laid in the adjoining wetlands. Plus, to serve UPRR and Ainsworth Park, the underground utility line would have to cross directly through the wetlands to reach the UPRR tracks and Ainsworth Park from I-84. An alternative alignment following I-84 would result in approximately 5,000 linear feet of trenching in wetlands areas or approximately 1.72 acres of disturbance based on a 15-foot wide construction corridor.

The length of the underground utility alignment could not be shortened and still serve the UPRR and Ainsworth Park. Moving the project alignment to either follow the existing overhead alignment or parallel I-84 would cause more adverse impacts to wetlands and buffers. Therefore, there is no alternative location with less adverse effect.

Staff: The basic purpose of the proposed project is to provide safe and reliable transmission of electricity to the railroad, state parks and other uses located along the project corridor and beyond the project. The proposed electric line under-grounding project will result in improvement to the scenic quality of this corridor, by eliminating the overhead line. It will also reduce public safety hazards of power lines coming down during ice storms and interrupting service to railroad signal lights. The lines will be buried along these right-of-ways in the disturbed road prism, along the railroad right-of-way. The streams will be crossed with replaced overhead lines to reduce impacts to the stream areas.

Relocating the project to another location would result in disturbing additional areas, creation of additional easements and difficulties serving the existing service connections along the route. The right-of-ways have been historically used for this purpose. There is no practical alternative to the proposed minor disturbance along the right-of-ways and the stream, pond, wetland and wildlife buffer areas. This standard is met.

9.18. MCC 38.7075 (R) The Mitigation Plan shall be prepared when: (1) The proposed development or use is within a buffer zone (wetland, pond, lakes, riparian areas, wildlife or plant areas and/or sites). (2) There is no practicable alternative as determined by MCC 38.7075 (Q).

Applicant: The proposed project meets both these requirements.

Staff: There is no practicable alternative as determined by findings for MCC 38.7075 (Q). There is no practical alternative to the proposed minor disturbance along the right-of-ways and the stream, pond, wetland and wildlife buffer areas. This standard is met.

T2-08-075 Page 46

9.19. MCC 38.7075 (S) In all cases, Mitigation Plans are the responsibility of the applicant and shall be prepared by an appropriate professional (botanist/ecologist for plant sites, a wildlife/fish biologist for wildlife/fish sites, and a qualified professional for water resource sites).

Applicant: Mitigation plans have been incorporated into the project design and were prepared by David Kennedy, a Wildlife Biologist at David Evans and Associates, Inc.

Mitigation for temporary-construction related impacts are shown on the erosion control plans (Appendix A, GA-2 through GA-10). Mitigation for temporary-construction related impacts will consist of reseeding affected areas with one of three types of seed mixes, depending on location. Seed mix specifications are described in Appendix A, sheet GA, and locations of where the three seed mix types will be applied are identified in Appendix A, sheets GA-2 through GA-10.

The Joint Permit Application states that no mitigation is necessary for permanent impacts to wetlands because the level of permanent impact to wetlands (0.00007 acre, 30 square feet) falls below the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) mitigation threshold (33 CFR Part 330). The project is not anticipated to affect the overall wetland function. Additionally, the Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL) stated that it would not require compensatory mitigation for so small a permanent impact area (personal communication between Nicole Navas (DSL) and Loren Stucker (DEA) on June 24, 2008). We can provide documentation of the conversation, if requested.

Because the impacts to wetlands do not meet their threshold for compensatory mitigation, DSL has said that a separate wetland restoration plan is not necessary and that the mitigation efforts identified on the mitigation plan will be adequate to meet their requirements, and while it was not specifically identified as a “wetland restoration plan, the erosion control plan is intended to meet that purpose, in addition to specifying erosion control measures.

Staff: Mitigation plans (Exhibit 1.2) have been incorporated into the project design and were prepared by David Kennedy, a Wildlife Biologist at David Evans and Associates, Inc.

9.20. MCC 38.7075 (U) The applicant shall submit the mitigation plan to the local government. The local government shall submit a copy of the mitigation plan to the U.S. Forest Service, and appropriate state agencies. If the final decision contradicts the comments submitted by the state and federal wildlife agency/heritage program, the local government shall justify how it reached an opposing conclusion.

Applicant: Mitigation plans have been incorporated into the project design and are included in this submittal.

For the project area which is already highly altered by human activities, this means planting native species and removing non-native species.

Extensive analysis had been completed that includes biological evaluations, a threatened and endangered species No Effect memorandum, and a Joint Permit Application for the COE and the DSL. None of these documents identified any impacts that would require mitigation for sensitive species or wetlands. As stated above in response to MCC 38.7075(S), neither the COE nor the DSL are requiring any mitigation for the minimal impacts to wetlands.

T2-08-075 Page 47

Areas temporarily affected by construction will be planted with permanent seed mixes (general, wetland, or lawn, depending on location) to restore those areas after construction is complete. No additional mitigation is anticipated. These areas are identified on in Appendix A, sheet GA-2 through GA -7.

Staff: A copy of the plan was submitted U.S. Forest Service, ODFW, Natural Heritage Program and ODOT. There were no comments on the mitigation aspects of the project. The impact to the buffers is mostly temporary and minor. Removing the overhead electric lines and poles is already a type of mitigation. As a benefit of the electric line under-grounding project, there will be less impact to the buffers, because the impact that resulted from winter storm damage maintenance will be likely be totally eliminated. The applicant also has proposed removal of non-native invasive species along the project and replanting the area with native species. Additionally the ODFW work period requirements will be required as a condition. Given the minor impact of the project and conditions of approval this criterion is met.

9.21. MCC 38.7075 (V) A project applicant shall demonstrate sufficient fiscal, technical, and administrative competence to successfully execute a mitigation plan involving wetland creation.

Applicant: No wetland creation is proposed as part of the mitigation plan.

Staff: The mitigation plan does not include wetland creation. This standard is not applicable.

9.22. MCC 38.7075 (W) Mitigation plans shall include maps, photographs, and text. The text shall: 9.22.1. (1) Describe the biology and/or function of the sensitive resources (e.g. Wildlife/plant species, or wetland) that will be affected by a proposed use. An ecological assessment of the sensitive resource to be altered or destroyed and the condition of the resource that will result after restoration will be required. Reference published protection and management guidelines.

Applicant: The wetland delineation report (Appendix E) and biological evaluation (Appendix G) describe the biology and/or function of the sensitive resources. Both documents state that the sensitive resources will not be significantly altered by the proposed project. Guidelines are referenced in each document.

Staff: The required information was submitted.

9.22.2. (2) Describe the physical characteristics of the subject parcel, past, present, and future uses, and the past, present, and future potential impacts to the sensitive resources. Include the size, scope, configuration, or density of new uses being proposed within the buffer zone.

Applicant: The wetland delineation report (Appendix E) and biological evaluation (Appendix G) describe the physical characteristics of the subject parcel, past, present, and future uses, and the past, present, and future potential impacts to the sensitive resources. The proposed uses within the buffers zones are shown in Table 2. Only two trees, which are not in buffer zones, are proposed to be removed (see Sheet 4). However, if during the course of construction activities, root systems are encountered and endangered disturbing the viability of any trees and rendering

T2-08-075 Page 48

them unsafe, additional trees may be removed. A total of no more than six trees will potentially be removed from the project area some of which maybe in a buffer zone. All of the trees that may be removed are immediately adjacent to the construction area; none provide unique or special wildlife habitat. Table 2. Proposed Uses within Buffer Zones

Resource within Buffer Proposed Use Size, Configuration

Multnomah Creek - Underground power line - 3, 2-inch diameter conduits placed in trench approximately 16” wide and 58” inches deep, backfilled and reseeded.

Oneoata Creek - Underground power line - 3, 2-inch diameter conduits placed in trench approximately 14” wide and 38 inches deep, backfilled and reseeded.

- Two wooden poles approximately - Aerial power lines and power 34 feet high and 175 feet apart to poles span the creek.

- Two vaults, each 4 feet by 4 feet by 4 feet with tops at ground level. - Underground utility vaults

Wetland D (and - Underground power line - 3, 2-inch diameter conduits placed associated Pond Buffer) in trench approximately 14” wide and 38 inches deep, backfilled and reseeded.

- Two vaults, each 4 feet by 4 feet by - Underground utility vaults 6 feet with tops two feet above existing grade.

Wetland C - Underground power line - 3, 2-inch diameter conduits placed in trench approximately 14” wide and 38 inches deep, backfilled and reseeded.

- One vault 4 feet by 4 feet by 4 feet - Underground utility vault with top 2 feet above existing grade.

Horsetail Creek - Underground power line - 3, 2-inch diameter conduits placed in trench approximately 14” wide and 38 inches deep, backfilled and reseeded.

- Two wooden poles approximately - Aerial power lines and power 34 feet high and 175 feet apart to poles span the creek.

- Two vaults, each 4 feet by 4 feet by 4 feet with tops at ground level. - Underground utility vaults

Wetland B (and - Underground power line - 3, 2-inch diameter conduits placed associated Pond Buffer) in trench approximately 12” wide and 14” inches deep, backfilled and covered with gravel.

Wetland B (and - Two vaults, each 4 feet by 4 feet by

T2-08-075 Page 49

Resource within Buffer Proposed Use Size, Configuration associated Pond Buffer), 4 feet with tops at ground level. cntd. - Vaults - Two vaults, each 4 feet by 4 feet by 6 feet with tops 2 feet above existing grade.

- 24 inches high, provides service to

UPRR, adjacent to utility vault on - Transformer north side of RR tracks.

Wetland A - Underground power line - 3, 2-inch diameter conduits placed in trench approximately 14” wide and 341/2 inches deep, backfilled and reseeded.

- Two vaults, each 4 feet by 4 feet by - Underground utility vault 4 feet with tops at ground level

Unnamed Stream - No project elements within buffer N/A

Staff: The required information was submitted.

9.22.3. (3) Explain the techniques that will be used to protect the sensitive resources and their surrounding habitat that will not be altered or destroyed (for examples, delineation of core habitat of the sensitive wildlife/plant species and key components that are essential to maintain the long-term use and integrity of the wildlife/plant area or site).

Applicant: Conservation and protection measures have been incorporated into the project design to minimize and avoid impacts to the wetlands and adjacent fish-bearing waters. These measures are intended to minimize or avoid environmental impacts to listed fish species or critical habitat. Conservation measures include development of an erosion and sediment control plan (including supported erosion control fences), pollution control plan, and specific measures that protect fish, wildlife, and plant species. The proposed alignment avoids impacts to fish-bearing waters. ODOT Standard Specifications for Highway Construction (2008) will also be followed to protect sensitive resources and their habitats.

Conservation measures incorporated into the design include:

• Disturbance will be limited to the maintained (mowed) wetland areas. No wetland shrubs or trees are anticipated to be cleared. • Overhead lines will remain in place over Oneonta and Horsetail Creeks. No in-water work or fish impacts are expected to occur with the chosen alternative. • A temporary full span bridge will be installed to allow access on both sides of the creek. The bridge will not involve any in-water work. • Vaults were placed to have only one vault within a wetland. • The chosen alignment avoids impacts to fish-bearing waters. • All temporarily disturbed wetland areas will be reseeded with a native seed mix.

Staff: The required information was submitted.

T2-08-075 Page 50

9.22.4. (4) Show how restoration, enhancement, and replacement (creation) measures will be applied to ensure that the proposed use results in minimum feasible impacts to sensitive resources, their buffer zones, and associated habitats.

Applicant: Following construction, areas disturbed by the project will be graded to pre-existing contours (except for the three raised vaults). A native seed mix will be used to reseed all disturbed areas (see Sheets GA-2:GA-10). The proposed use will have minimal permanent impacts to sensitive resources and their buffer zones, by returning the project site to pre-project conditions and replanting with native species in areas that previously had invasive non-native species.

Staff: The required information was submitted.

(5) Show how the proposed restoration, enhancement, or replacement (creation) mitigation measures are NOT alternatives to avoidance. A proposed development/use must first avoid a sensitive resource, and only if this is not possible should restoration, enhancement, or creation be considered as mitigation. In reviewing mitigation plans, the local government, appropriate state agencies, and U.S. Forest Service shall critically examine all proposals to ensure that they are indeed last resort options.

Applicant: As described in MCC 38.7075 (Q), there is no practicable alternative location for the proposed project. The proposed alignment avoids sensitive resources, where practicable, and mitigation is proposed only for impacts that could not be avoided.

Staff: The applicant has submitted a plan that includes mitigation that meets these standards.

9.23. MCC 38.7075 (X) At a minimum, a project applicant shall provide to the local government a progress report every 3-years that documents milestones, successes, problems, and contingency actions. Photographic monitoring stations shall be established and photographs shall be used to monitor all mitigation progress.

Applicant: As surrounding wetlands and uplands are dominated by reed-canary grass and Himalayan blackberry, monitoring and success criteria for native species is not feasible for this site. Because the permanent impacts will be minor (less than 0.1 acre) and the mitigation is incorporated as part of the project, the applicant requests an exemption from this standard. However, the following ODOT Standard will be followed: 01040.72 Periodic Inspections - During the plant establishment period, the Agency will make three plant establishment inspections jointly with the Contractor at the following times: • Spring, early May • Summer, mid July • Fall, late September Depending on when the establishment period begins, one of the above inspections will be the final inspection. During each plant establishment inspection, the Agency may determine, based upon the specified success criteria, that corrective work is required. If so, the Agency will provide the Contractor with a written notice of required corrective work sent by hand-delivery or mail.

Staff: Given the nature of this project the vegetation planted to mitigate for intrusion into buffers should be fully established within one year of the project. Only one progress report will be needed to meet this requirement, unless the vegetation fails to grow. If that is the case additional reports will be required to assure the vegetation becomes established. A condition will require the reports.

T2-08-075 Page 51

9.24. MCC 38.7075 (Y) A final monitoring report shall be submitted to the local government for review upon completion of the restoration, enhancement, or replacement activity. This monitoring report shall document successes, problems encountered, resource recovery, status of any sensitive wildlife/plant species and shall demonstrate the success of restoration and/or enhancement actions. The local government shall submit copies of the monitoring report to the U.S. Forest Service; who shall offer technical assistance to the local government in helping to evaluate the completion of the mitigation plan. In instances where restoration and enhancement efforts have failed, the monitoring process shall be extended until the applicant satisfies the restoration and enhancement guidelines.

Applicant: For other agencies, the Corps and DSL, compensatory mitigation is not required for permanent wetland impacts since the amount of impact is minimal and overall wetland function will remain in tact. The Corps does not require compensatory wetland mitigation since permanent wetland impacts are less than 0.10 acre and wetland functions will not be lost. DSL will not require compensatory wetland mitigation for 16 square feet (0.0004 ac) of permanent wetland impacts from vault installation (Pers. Comm.. Loren Stucker (DEA) discussed wetland mitigation with Nicole Navas (DSL) on June 24, 2008).

As surrounding wetlands and uplands are dominated by reed-canary grass and Himalayan blackberry, monitoring and success criteria for native species is not feasible for this site. The wetland regulatory agencies are not requiring wetland mitigation because the permanent impacts are less than 0.1 acres (see Appendix G). The applicant requests an exemption from this standard.

Staff: A report addressing the success of the restoration, enhancement, or replacement activity for planting of native plants is required for the project. However a condition will require the applicant submit a report documenting the success or lack of success of the planted vegetation.

9.25. MCC 38.7075 (Z) Mitigation measures to offset impacts to resources and/or buffers shall result in no net loss of water quality, natural drainage, fish/wildlife/plant habitat, and water resources by addressing the following:

9.25.1. (1) Restoration and enhancement efforts shall be completed no later than one year after the sensitive resource or buffer zone has been altered or destroyed, or as soon thereafter as is practicable.

Applicant: The areas disturbed by the project will be covered and reseeded immediately after construction according to ODOT Standards (see Appendix C).

Staff: A condition will require that the native plantings be completed immediately after the line is buried and equipment has been removed.

9.25.2. (2) All natural vegetation within the buffer zone shall be retained to the greatest extent practicable. Appropriate protection and maintenance techniques shall be applied, such as fencing, conservation buffers, livestock management, and noxious weed control. Within five years, at least 75 percent of the replacement vegetation must survive. All plantings must be with native plant species that replicate the original vegetation community.

T2-08-075 Page 52

Applicant: ODOT Standards will be followed for protection and maintenance techniques, such as fencing, conservation buffers, and noxious weed control (see Appendix C). All plantings will be native species that replicate the original vegetation community.

Staff: All native plants will be retained outside of the narrow disturbance area. Noxious weeds will be selectively removed.

9.25.3. (3) Habitat that will be affected by either temporary or permanent uses shall be rehabilitated to a natural condition. Habitat shall be replicated in composition, structure, and function, including tree, shrub and herbaceous species, snags, pool-riffle ratios, substrata, and structures, such as large woody debris and boulders.

Applicant: Affected habitats will be rehabilitated to their natural condition. For the project area which is already highly altered by human activities, this means planting native species and removing non-native species. Trees removed will not be replanted. However, the impact from their removal is negligible as there would be no net loss of habitat function because the adjacent areas are forested.

Staff: The affected project area will be rehabilitated to a natural condition. The standard is met through conditions.

9.25.4. (4) If this standard is not feasible or practical because of technical constraints, a sensitive resource of equal or greater benefit may be substituted, provided that no net loss of sensitive resource functions occurs and provided the County, in consultation with the appropriate State and Federal agency, determine that such substitution is justified.

Applicant: No substitution is necessary or being requested.

Staff: The standard is not applicable.

9.25.5. (5) Sensitive plants that will be destroyed shall be transplanted or replaced, to the maximum extent practicable. Replacement is used here to mean the establishment of a particular plant species in areas of suitable habitat not affected by new uses. Replacement may be accomplished by seeds, cuttings, or other appropriate methods. Replacement shall occur as close to the original plant site as practicable. The project applicant shall ensure that at least 75 percent of the replacement plants survive 3 years after the date they are planted

Applicant: According to the Biological Evaluation (Appendix G), no sensitive plants will be destroyed, transplanted or replaced as part of the proposed project

Staff: Staff concurs after consultation with the USFS botanist (Exhibit 3.10) that there have been no sensitive plants identified within the project area nor is there habitat where sensitive plants are likely to occur. This standard is not applicable to this project.

9.25.6. (6) Nonstructural controls and natural processes shall be used to the greatest extent practicable.

T2-08-075 Page 53

9.25.6.1. (a) Bridges, roads, pipeline and utility corridors, and other water crossings shall be minimized and should serve multiple purposes and properties.

Applicant: No structural controls are proposed. There will be no new permanent water crossings, just replacing of the existing water crossing of overhead power lines for Oneonta and Horsetail Creeks. A temporary construction bridge will cross Horsetail Creek above its OHWM and will be removed at the end of the project. The proposed utility corridor will replace an existing one.

Staff: The project includes two temporary bridges that will be removed when the project is completed. The proposed underground electric line will not cross the water.

9.25.6.2. (b) Stream channels shall not be placed in culverts unless absolutely necessary for property access. Bridges are preferred for water crossings to reduce disruption to hydrologic and biologic functions. Culverts shall only be permitted if there are no practicable alternatives as determined by MCC .38.7075 (Q).

Applicant: No culverts are proposed as part of this project; therefore, this criterion does not apply.

Staff: The stream crossing will be via temporary bridges. This standard is met.

9.25.6.3. (c) Fish passage shall be protected from obstruction.

Applicant: There will be no obstruction to fish passage as part of this project.

Staff: We concur with the applicant. This standard is met.

9.25.6.4. (d) Restoration of fish passage should occur wherever possible.

Applicant: The project avoids impacts to fish and fish habitat and will not affect culverts or fish barriers; therefore, this criterion does not apply.

Staff: The project does not include any in-water work. The proposed project avoids impact to fish and fish habitat. This standard is not applicable to this project.

9.25.6.5. (e) Show location and nature of temporary and permanent control measures that shall be applied to minimize erosion and sedimentation when riparian areas are disturbed, including slope netting, berms and ditches, tree protection, sediment barriers, infiltration systems, and culverts.

Applicant: Erosion control measures are shown on sheets GA-2:10. Erosion control measures will follow ODOT erosion control standards (see Appendix C).

Staff: The applicant submitted erosion control plans including sediment fences and reseeding with native vegetation. This standard is met through a condition requiring these practices to be implemented and maintained through the project period.

T2-08-075 Page 54

9.25.6.6. (f) Groundwater and surface water quality will not be degraded by the proposed use. Natural hydrologic conditions shall be maintained, restored, or enhanced in such a manner that replicates natural conditions, including current patterns (circulation, velocity, volume, and normal water fluctuation), natural stream channel and shoreline dimensions and materials, including slope, depth, width, length, cross- sectional profile, and gradient.

Applicant: The proposed project will not affect water quality and hydrologic conditions will be maintained as is. ODOT Standard Specifications for Highway Construction (2008)(Appendix C) will be followed to ensure groundwater and surface water quality are not degraded.

Staff: The applicant is taking appropriate measure so that groundwater and surface water quality will not be degraded by the proposed use. The project will not impact the natural hydrologic conditions. These standards are met.

9.25.6.7. (g) Those portions of a proposed use that are not water-dependent or that have a practicable alternative will be located outside of stream, pond, and lake buffer zones.

Applicant: As described in Section MCC 38.7075 (Q), there is no practicable alternative.

Staff: The proposed use is not water dependent. As previous findings state there is no practical alternative to the proposed corridor for the underground electric line. This standard is not applicable because there is no alternative location for the line.

9.25.6.8. (h) Streambank and shoreline stability shall be maintained or restored with natural revegetation.

Applicant: Stream bank and shoreline stability will be restored with natural vegetation per the plan Sheets GA-2:10 and ODOT standards (Appendix C).

Staff: The proposal includes crossing two streams with temporary bridges that will be lowered into place without impacting the stream banks. These bridges will be removed when the project is completed. This standard is met.

9.25.6.9. (i) The size of restored, enhanced, and replacement (creation) wetlands shall equal or exceed the following ratios. The first number specifies the required acreage of replacement wetlands, and the second number specifies the acreage of wetlands altered or destroyed.

Restoration: 2: l Creation: 3: l Enhancement: 4: l

Applicant: The permanent impacts to wetlands are minimal, less than 0.1 acre and do not affect wetland functionality (Appendix H Joint Permit Application). The wetlands which are impacted will be enhanced by the implementation of the below referenced ODOT Standard (also found in Appendix C) for a 15 foot wide corridor through the wetlands. This will result in .61 acres of wetland enhancements; an enhancement ratio of 6:1. Therefore, this criterion is met.

T2-08-075 Page 55

01040.48 Planting Area Preparation - All planting areas shall be Weed Free before planting or seeding operations begin. Identify, kill, and remove plants according to 01030.62(b-3). Prepare planting areas according to the following methods, or as otherwise specified: (b) Method "B" (Non-Cultivated Planting Areas) - Spray existing weeds and non-desirable vegetation with herbicide to kill all top growth and roots in areas not requiring cultivation. Use herbicides that have limited residual toxicity to permit safe planting as required under the Contract.

Do not spray or otherwise harm plants to be saved. After inspection and approval, remove the dead top growth of plant material within 2 inches of the surface and dispose of according to Section 00320. Replace plants to be saved that are damaged by herbicide application at no additional cost to the Agency. Add any soil conditioners, soil amendments, soil bio-amendments or fertilizers with the backfill at each plant pit or to the seeding operation. Finish wetland mitigation planting areas to specified finish elevations, blending to existing ground smoothly, as required and directed. Except for projects that are less than one year in duration and unless otherwise approved, review the seasonal hydrology of the area to be planted for one full winter season (November 15 to February 28) prior to planting any wetland plants. Adjust plant types and planting locations as required or directed, based on the review of site hydrology. When planting seedling plants, completely scalp vegetation from a 12 inch diameter area around each planting hole. Clear all debris such as wood and rocks from the planting spots, provided debris is not deeper than 12 inches. When debris is deeper, move the planting location. Use herbicides around seedlings only upon written approval of the Agency.

Staff: There is a minor area of wetland, 16 square feet that will be altered permanently by the project with the placement of a vault. Additionally there will be minor the temporary disturbance to wetland to install the underground line that will not impact the affect wetland functionality. The applicant proposal includes .61 acres of wetland enhancements. The restoration and enhancement ratio requirements are exceeded by the proposed project. This standard is met through conditions.

9.25.7. (7) Wetland creation mitigation shall be deemed complete when the wetland is self- functioning for 5 consecutive years. Self-functioning is defined by the expected function of the wetland as written in the mitigation plan. The monitoring report shall be submitted to the local government to ensure compliance. The U.S. Forest Service, in consultation with appropriate state agencies, shall extend technical assistance to the local government to help evaluate such reports and any subsequent activities associated with compliance.

Applicant: The proposed project will have minimal permanent wetland impacts, 16 square feet, and will not affect the functionality of the wetlands (Appendix H, JPA). Since surrounding wetlands and uplands are dominated by reed-canary grass and Himalayan blackberry, monitoring and success criteria for native species is not feasible for this site; thus, an exemption is requested. The wetland regulatory agencies are not requiring wetland mitigation and monitoring because the permanent impacts are less than 0.1 acres (see Appendix H).

Staff: This project does not require any wetland creation. This standard is not applicable to this project.

T2-08-075 Page 56

10. SMA RECREATION RESOURCE REVIEW

10.1. MCC 38.7085 (A) (1) New developments and land uses shall be natural resource-based and not displace existing recreational use.

Applicant: The proposed project will not displace any existing recreation use. The applicant provides electrical service to Ainsworth State Park. The project will allow that service to continue and will increase the reliability of that service. Although the proposed development is not natural resource based, it provides a necessary service to the existing recreational use.

Staff: The proposed electric line under-grounding project will not displace any existing recreation use; in fact the project will improve recreation in the area by improving the scenic nature of the area. This standard is met.

10.2. MCC 38.7085 (A) (2) Protect recreation resources from adverse effects by evaluating new developments and land uses as proposed in the site plan. An analysis of both on and off site cumulative effects such as site accessibility and the adverse effects on the Historic Columbia River Highway shall be required.

Applicant: : The proposed project will not have any negative impacts to recreation resources. It will not affect access at Ainsworth State Park and will not adversely affect the HCRH. The project will increase the reliability of electrical service to the park and will improve scenic quality along the HCRH by removing aerial power lines and power poles along the project corridor.

Staff: The proposed electric line under-grounding project will not have any negative impacts to recreation resources. It will improve recreation in the area by improving the scenic nature of the area. This standard is met.

11 CONCLUSION

Based on the findings, narrative, and other information provided herein, this application, as required for Site Review in the National Scenic Area, has satisfied the applicable approval criteria and standards or can satisfy the applicable approval criteria and standards through conditions of approval, thus this application can be approved with conditions.

12 EXHIBITS

12.1 Exhibits submitted by the Applicant:

Exhibit 1.1: NSA application form with Union Pacific Railroad authorization attached (2 pages) Exhibit 1.2: Applicant’s narrative (48 pages) with Appendix A through H Appendix A: Figures & Site, Erosion, and Construction Plans Appendix B: Pre-Application Notes Appendix C: ODOT Standards Appendix D: Cultural Survey Appendix E: Wetlands Appendix F: Threatened and Endangered Species No Effect Determination Memorandum

T2-08-075 Page 57

Appendix G: Draft Biological Assessment Appendix H: joint Permit Application Exhibit 1.3: Addendum to the narrative (9 pages) Exhibit 1.4: FHWA Required Documentation to Complete the Environmental Process for Class 2 projects (3 pages) Exhibit 1.5: ODOT No Effects Memorandum (22 pages) Exhibit 1.6: ODFW Oregon Guidelines for Timing In-Water Work to Protect Fish and wildlife Resources (12 pages) Exhibit 1.7: Email dated April 08, 2009 from Walt Bartel, PE, David Evans and Associates with attached emails from Phillip Rickus, Biologist, David Evans and Associates responding to other attached emails and two photos included (5 pages)

12.2 Exhibits included by County:

Exhibit 2.1: County Zoning Maps for the project area (2 pages) Exhibit 2.2: Affidavit to be signed by the contractor (2 pages)

12.3 Exhibits submitted by other parties:

Exhibit 3.1: Email with attached letter and mailed copy of the same letter dated January 23, 2009 from Amy K Senn, Archaeologist, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (5 pages); Exhibit 3.2: letter dated February 3, 2009 from Margaret L. Dryden, Archaeologist, Heritage Resource Program Manager, Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, US Forest Service (1 page). Exhibit 3.3: Email dated March 02, 2009 from Ms. Dryden with an attached ODOT letter dated February 27, 2009 with an attached ODOT letter dated January 15, 2009 with a Oregon State Historic Preservation Office archaeological concurrence (6 pages) Exhibit 3.4: Letter dated March 3, 2009 from Dennis Griffin, PH.D, RPA, State Archaeologist with attached email dated March 25, 2009 (2 pages) Exhibit 3.5: Email dated March 11, 2009 from Diana L Ross, USFS (2 pages) Exhibit 3.6: Email dated with an attached letter dated March 24, 2007 from Richard Till, Land Use Law Clerk, Friends of the Columbia Gorge (7 pages) Exhibit 3.7: Email dated January 09, 2009 from Kristen Stallman, ODOT Scenic Coordinator (2 pages) Exhibit 3.8: Email dated April 02, 2009 from Thomas Weatherford, ODOT Region 1 Local Agency Liaison, with attachments (8 pages) Exhibit 3.9: Email dated April 03, 2009 from Sue Vrilakas, Botanist/Data Manager, Oregon Natural Heritage Program (3 pages) Exhibit 3.10: Email dated April 06, 2009 from Robin Dobson, Botanist/Ecologist USFS (4 pages) Exhibit 3.11: Email dated April 10, 2009 from Danette Ehlers, Assistant District Fish Biologist, ODFW (3 pages) Exhibit 3.12: Email dated April 14, 2009 from Todd Alsbury, District Fish Biologist, ODFW (4 pages) Exhibit 3.13: Email dated April 14, 2009 from Robin Dobson, Botanist/Ecologist USFS (1 page)

T2-08-075 Page 58