Ordinance No. 15-13 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE NO. 15- 13
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, CPA2015-00002, TO
REMOVE .12 ACRES OF LOCALLY SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS FROM THE"TIGARD WETLAND
AND STREAM CORRIDOR MAP"INVENTORY.
WHEREAS, Section 18.775.090 includes Special Provisions for Development within Locally Significant
Wetlands and Along the Tualatin River,Fanno Creek,Ball Creek,and the South Fork of Ash Creek;and
WHEREAS, Section 18.775.090.A. states in order to address the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5
(Natural Resources) and the safe harbor provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule (OAR 666-023-0040)
pertaining to wetlands, all wetlands classified as significant on the City of Tigard "Wetlands and Streams
Corridors Map" are protected. No land form alterations or developments are allowed within or partially within
a significant wetland,except as allowed/approved pursuant to Section 18.775.130;and
WHEREAS,Section 8.775.130 Plan Amendment Option,provides that any owner of property affected by the
Goal 5 safe harbor(1)protection of significant wetlands and/or(2)vegetated areas established for the Tualatin
River,Fanno Creek,Ball Creek,and the South Fork of Ash Creek may apply for a quasi-judicial comprehensive
plan amendment under Type IV procedure. This amendment must be based on a specific development
proposal. The effect of the amendment would be to remove Goal 5 protection from the property, but not to
remove the requirements related to the CWS Stormwater Connection Permit, which must be addressed
separately through an alternatives analysis, as described in Section 3.02.5 of the CWS "Design and Construction
Standards,"and
WHEREAS, Section 8.775.130.A further provides that the applicant shall demonstrate that such an
amendment is justified by an environmental, social, economic and energy (ESEE) consequences analysis
prepared in accordance with OAR 660-23-W;and
WHEREAS,the applicant prepared an ESEE analysis (Appendix B of Application) prepared in accordance
with OAR 60-23-040, to justify removal of Goal 5 protection from 0.12 acres of significant wetlands on the
subject property;and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council has considered applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines
adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; any federal or state statutes or regulations found
applicable; any applicable Metro regulations; any applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies; and any applicable
provisions of the City's implementing ordinances;and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council has found the following to be the applicable review criteria: Community
Development Code Chapters 18.390,Decision Making Procedures; and 18.775 Sensitive Lands; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 6, 2015 and recommended
approval of CPA2015-00002 by motion with a unanimous vote in favor;and
WHEREAS,the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on July 28,2015, to consider the request for a quasi-
judicial Comprehensive Plan Amendment and determined that the amendment will not adversely affect the
health,safety and welfare of the City and meets all applicable review criteria.
ORDINANCE No. 15-13
Page 1
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: Comprehensive Plan Amendment,CPA2015-00002,is hereby approved.
SECTION 2: The attached findings (Exhibit A) are hereby adopted in explanation of the Council's
decision.
SECTION 3: The ESEE analysis (Exhibit B) shall be incorporated by reference into the Tigard
Comprehensive Plan, and the "Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridor Map" shall be
amended to remove the site from the inventory,as approved.
SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the
Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder.
PASSED: By Z117an /M61z<- vote of all Council members present after being read by number
and title only, this-2,L"day of w i ,2015.
Carol A. Krager,City Recorder
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this v�g day of ,C ,2015.
]o L. Cook,Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorn
-7la� l s'
Date
ORDINANCE No. 15-
Page 2
Agenda Item: 5
Hearin Date: 1 2015 Ti e:7: P
STAFF REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION c
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
120 DAYS = NA
SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY
FILE NAME: DIRKSEN NATURE PARK WETLANDS EDUCATION
CASE NOS.: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 2015-00002
REQUEST: The City of Tigard is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to remove 0.12 acres of
Tigard significant wetlands from the Wetlands and Stream Corridor map to accommodate the
future installation of two trail boardwalks in Dirksen Nature Park. These boardwalks are
critical park infrastructure and will serve as environmental education facilities, consistent with
public feedback and earlier site plan concepts regarding the layout and design of the property
approved by the Parks and Recreation Advisor Board (PRAB). The boardwalks that could
extend into the mapped wetlands will provide overlooks into these unique habitat areas.
APPLICANT/ City of Tigard
OWNER: c/o Jeff Peck
13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigard, OR 97223
LOCATION: 11000 Block of SW Tigard Street. 48 acres on Tax Lots 1S134DD 900, 1000, 2400, 2500;
ZONE/ 2S103AA00200; 2S103AB00200; 1S134DC, 3000, 3001, 3002, 3100, 3101, 3102, 3300, 3400;
COMP PLAN
DESIGNATION: PR/Public Institution and Open Space
APPLICABLE
REVIEW
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapter: 18.775 Sensitive Lands.
SECTION H. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Planning Commission find that the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment will not
adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the Cita and meets the approval Standards as outlined in Section N'
of this report. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council
APPROVAL of the proposed amendment.
THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS
FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION.
(TA2015-(AUN)21)1RKSI?N NATURE:PARK CPA PAGE 1 OP G
SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Proposal Description:
The City requests removal of 0.12 acres from the City's Local Wetlands Inventory and from Sensitive Lands Review
provisions of the Tigard Development Code, to accommodate the future installation of two trail boardwalks in
Dirksen Nature Park. These boardwalks are critical park infrastructure and will serve as environmental education
facilities, consistent with public feedback and earlier site plan concepts regarding the layout and design of the
property- approved by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (DRAB). The boardwalks that would extend into
mapped wetlands will provide overlooks into these unique habitat areas. This comprehensive plan map amendment
will enable the future installation of the boardwalks. The park improvements themselves are not a part of this
application.
Context of the Request
The Park System Master Plan outlines the need to acquire park property and construct park improvements to
preserve open spaces, enhance water quality and provide recreational opportunities. On November 2, 2010, Tigard
voters passed a $17 million general obligation bond to fund the purchase of real property- for parks and to fund a
limited amount of park development.
The Dirksen Nature Park (formerly known as the Summer Creek or the Fowler property) is a high priority project
in the Park System Master Plan, the adopted City of Tigard CIP and the Notice of City Measure Election provided
to voters regarding the 2010 parks bond.
Dirksen Nature Park contains a mix of mature forests, wetlands, open space and existing active recreation facilities.
The majority of the property will remain a natural area as approximately 35 acres, about 70%, are protected under a
conservation easement with Metro.
Dirksen Nature Park is designated as a community park and will become a unique environmental education
resource for the City. This amendment includes an economic, social, environmental, and energy (ESEE) analysis of
the proposed removal of 0.12 acres from the Local Wetland Inventory to accommodate two planned boardwalks,
consistent with TDC 18.775.
In 2013, the two boardwalks were included among other park improvements in the Conditional Use Permit
(CPA2013-00001) and Sensitive Lands Review that was reviewed by the Hearings Officer. The Hearings Officer
approved the proposed improvements except for the installation of the boardwalks and expressly noted the
potential for an exception via a comprehensive plan amendment,which is the subject of this application.
Vicinity Information:
Dirksen Nature Park is comprised of 14 parcels consisting of 48 acres located along the 11000 block of SW Tigard
Street, immediately north of Fowler Middle School. The subject site also includes an existing, paved section of the
Fanno Creek Trail. The project site is located in the Tigard Area 3 neighborhood.
SECTION IV. NOTICE AND COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES
The city sent notice of a Public Hearing to interested parties and posted the request on the city's website on May 6,
2015. The city published notice of the Planning Commission and City Council hearings in the May 14, 2015 issue of
the Tigard Times. The city received written comments from the Tualatin RiverKeepers and Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife in support of the requested comprehensive plan amendment. These letters are included within the
land use application materials,which is attached to this staff report.
SECTION V. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
The following review criteria apply to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to the City of Tigard
"Wetland and Stream Corridors" map.
(TA-701540M DIRKSEN NATURE PARK CPA PAGE..201'6
18.775.090 Special Provisions for Development within Locally Significant Wetlands and Along the Tualatin
River, Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash Creek
A. In order to address the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources) and the safe
harbor provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule (OAR 666-023-0030) pertaining to wetlands, all
wetlands classified as significant on the City of Tigard "Wetlands and Streams Corridors Map" are
protected. No land form alterations or developments are allowed within or partially within a significant
wetland, except as allowed/approved pursuant to Section 18.775.130.
The subject property includes locally significant wetlands that are identified as locally significant wetlands on the
City of Tigard "Wetlands and Stream Corridors" map and are, therefore, protected. The applicant has applied for
the Plan Amendment Option in Section 18.775.130 to remove Goal 5 protections from 0.12 acres of significant
wetlands to allow the proposed boardwalks for habitat enhancement and educational purposes.
18.775.130 Plan Amendment Option
Any owner of property affected by the Goal 5 safeharbor (1) protection of significant wetlands and/or (2)
vegetated areas established for the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash
Creek may apply for a quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendment under Type IV procedure. This
amendment must be based on a specific development proposal. The effect of the amendment would be to
remove Goal 5 protection from the property, but not to remove the requirements related to the CWS
Stormwater Connection Permit, which must be addressed separately through an alternatives analysis, as
described in Section 3.02.5 of the CWS "Design and Construction Standards." The applicant shall
demonstrate that such an amendment is justified by either of the following:
A. ESEE analysis. The applicant may prepare an environmental, social, economic and energy (ESEE)
consequences analysis prepared in accordance with OAR 660-23-040.
The applicant has chosen to demonstrate the amendment is justified through an ESEE analysis, rather than a
demonstration that the wetlands are not significant.
The applicant submitted an ESEE analysis dated 2-24-15 (Appendix B of Application) prepared in accordance with
OAR 60-23-040, to justify removal of Goal 5 protection from 0.12 acres of significant wetlands on the subject
property.
This provision is met.
1. The analysis shall consider the ESEE consequences of allowing the proposed conflicting use,
considering both the impacts on the specific resource site and the comparison with other comparable sites
within the Tigard Planning Area;
As described in the ESEE analysis, the applicant has considered the ESEE consequences of allowing the conflicting
use, in this case the two trail boardwalks, and considered the impacts on the specific resource site as well as other
comparable sites within Tigard. As described in the applicant's analysis, the consequences of allowing the proposed
conflicting use provide a net positive benefit to the resource through enhancements and the controlled access to the
resource area. Since the proposal is specific to environmental education opportunities within these unique wetlands
at Dirksen Nature Park, no other comparable sites exist within the Tigard Planning Area.
This provision is met.
2. The ESEE analysis must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Tigard City Council that the adverse
economic consequences of not allowing the conflicting use are sufficient to justify the loss, or partial loss,
of the resource;
The ESEE analysis outlines the predominantly positive economic benefits of limiting the conflicting use by allowing
the construction of the boardwalks to provide resource enhancement and access for educational purposes.
CPA20154 0 912 nlRKSEN NATURE P.iRK CRA PAGE 3 01 6
The ESEE analysis indicates that the " City of Tigard spent $3.3 million on the acquisition of Dirksen Nature Park.
Planning for the initial phase of park development is underway, and according to the adopted park master plan, the
cost estimate for full development of the park was in the range of$2 to $2.3 million. Passive uses, such as walking
and wildlife observation, are important aspects to the park. Additionally, the site is intended to serve as an outdoor
classroom and a center for environmental education and experiential learning. The proposed boardwalks are an
integral element of the environmental education and interpretive program for the park, since these boardwalks will
allow visitors to experience two different and unique wetland ecosystems in the park in a safe, environmentally
sound and ecologically sensitive manner."
As identified in the ESEE analysis, based on a US Fish and Wildlife Service report in calculating economic benefits
of "refuge" visitation, "it is reasonable to assume that a clear, positive economic benefit exists for installing the
boardwalks to not only enhance safe accessinto the wetland areas for wildlife observation, photography and
environmental interpretation, but also as a means to further improve and enhance the quality of those unique
wetlands by controlling visitor access."
In addition, "The focus of the Washington County Visitor's Association toward the promotion of nature-based
experiences reinforces the relative importance of providing and enhancing these opportunities for local residents
and visitors. The development of Dirksen Nature Park will provide opportunities for increased tourism and
visitation. The environmental education and experiences at the park will be enhanced by the installation of the
proposed boardwalks."
The proposed comprehensive plan amendment supports the city's investment of park acquisition fundsand
enhances and improves access to the resource to protide opportunities for increased visitation for tourism and
environmental education. The Tigard City Council may find that the economic benefits are sufficient to justify
partial loss (0.12 acres, or 5,227 square feet) of the wedand resource.
This provision is met.
3. In particular, ESEE analysis must demonstrate why the use cannot be located on buildable land,
consistent with the provisions of this chapter, and that there are no other sites within the Tigard Planning
Area that can meet the specific needs of the proposed use;
The applicant states in their ESEE analysis that"The conflicting use (two trail boardwalks) is specific to the wetland
resources at Dirksen Nature Park, and is actually less conflicting than the existing rogue trails. The park is
designated as a community park and will become a unique environmental education resource for the City. The
installation of the planned boardwalks can occur nowhere else on the site, other than in the wetland areas.
Functionally, the boardwalks are required as an environmentally-sensitive, accessible extension of the park trails into
the wetland habitats. The boardwalks will provide managed and controlled access near and into the wetland areas
with the aim to eliminate rogue, off-trail passage through the wetland resources and to enable the successful
restoration of the wetlands in those areas where past trail walking has occurred and damaged the immediate wetland
environment. The boardwalks will further the environmental education opportunities for park users and provide
safe, accessible platforms for community groups, students and classes to view and begin to understand and
appreciate the nature and importance of these wetland habitats without damaging them and disturbing wildlife."
Because of the unique nature of these wetland resources within Tigard and the unique education and access
management control functions provided by the boardwalks, there are no alternative sites within the Tigard Planning
Area that can meet the specific needs of the proposed use.
This provision is met.
4. The ESEE analysis shall be prepared by a team consisting of a wildlife biologist or wetlands ecologist
and a land use planner or land use attorney, all of whom are qualified in their respective fields and
experienced in the preparation of Goal 5 ESEE analysis;
The ESEE Analysis provided in Appendix B was prepared by a qualified team consisting of a land use attorney with
Jordan Ramis, PC and environmental scientists with WH Pacific, qualified in their respective fields with experience
GIA201540003 DIRKSEN NATURE P.UU<CPA PAGE 4 OF G
compiling such analyses.
This provision is met.
5. If the application is approved, then the ESEE analysis shall be incorporated by reference into the
Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and the `Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridor Map" shall be amended to
remove the site from the inventory.
On approval of this request, the ESEE analysis will be incorporated by reference into the Tigard Comprehensive
Plan, and the "Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridor Map"will be amended to remove the sites (Appendix C: Survey
of Proposed Exclusion Areas) from the inventory.
FINDINGS: As shown in the analysis above, the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment is consistent with
the applicable provisions of TDC Chapter 18.775 Sensitive Lands.
SECTION VI. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
The City Police Department reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it.
The City Public Works Department was notified of the proposal and did not provide comment.
SECTION VII. AGENCY COMMENTS
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) commented in a letter dated March 2, 2105 in support of the
proposed comprehensive plan amendment. The letter also includes recommendations for further protecting fish
and wildlife and their habitats. This letter is included as an attachment to this staff report.
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), Oregon Division of State Lands
(DSL),Washington County, and Metro were notified of the proposal but provided no comment.
SECTION VIII. STAFF ANALYSIS CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
ANALYSIS:
As shown in the analysis above, the applicant's ESEE analysis addresses the requirements of the Tigard
Development Code, Chapter 18.775 Sensitive Lands. The subject property contains locally significant wetlands
protected under Goal 5 safehatbor. The applicant has applied for a quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendment
under a Type IV procedure. The application is based on a specific development proposal for two boardwalks for
habitat enhancement and environmental education. The applicant has demonstrated that such an amendment is
justified by an ESEE analysis consistent with OAR 660-23-040.
The ESEE analysis concludes that limiting the conflicting use to the proposed boardwalks would result in the most
positive consequences of the three decision options. A decision to limit the conflicting use will avoid many of the
negative consequences attributed to either allowing or prohibiting the conflicting uses. Through the application of
site design and development standards to conflicting uses, the impacts on the significant wetland further can be
minimized, and the remaining resource can be enhanced. There will be a relatively high level of economic, social,
environmental and energy benefits achieved. Limiting the conflicting use offers the most benefit to the wetland
(through controlled access and enhancement) and to the community (access for all and education opportunities),
and it strikes a balance between conflicting uses and planning goals for the services provided in this public park.
CONCLUSION
Based on the findings and analysis, staff finds that the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment is consistent
(.PA2O15-(MNH)2D1RKSFN NATURE PARK CPA PAGE 5 OF 6
with applicable provisions of the Tigard Development Code, Chapter 18.775 Sensitive Lands. Staff agrees with the
conclusion of the applicant's ESEE Analysis and recommends modifying the decision from prohibiting conflicting
uses to limiting conflicting uses within the 0.12 acre significant wetland areas for resource enhancement and
environmental education purposes.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment modifying the current resource protection decision from prohibiting conflicting
uses to limiting conflicting uses and removing 0.12 acres from the significant wetlands inventory described in the
"Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridor Map".
Attachments:
Exhibit A City's Application dated February 14,2015.
Pe, 7-�,,,/
June 29, 2015
PREPARED BY: Gary agenstecher DATE
Associate Planner
-�-� july 30, 2015
APPROVED BY: Tom McGuire DATE
Assistant Community Development Director
CPA2015-WW2 DIRKSEN NATURE PARK CPA PAGE 6 OF 6
ESEE Analysis for the
Dirksen Nature Park Wetland Boardwalks
City of Tigard, Oregon
Submitted to:
City of Tigard, Oregon
February 24, 2015
Prepared by:
WHPacific Jordan Ramis,PC Conservation Technix, Inc.
9755 SW Barnes Rd,Ste 300 Two Centerpointe Drive,6th Floor PO Box 12736
Portland,OR 97225 Lake Oswego,OR 97035 Portland,OR 97212
Phone:(503)626-0455 Phone:(503)598-7070 Phone:(503)989-9345
Dirksen Nature Park Wetland Boardwalks
Economic, Social, Environmental & Energy (ESEE) Consequences Analysis
Introduction
The City of Tigard proposes to remove the significant wetland designation from a portion of two
wetlands located within the 48-acre Dirksen Nature Park,which is the City's newest community park
and a unique environmental education resource. The Applicant is pursuing a comprehensive plan
map amendment that includes an environmental,social, economic and energy (ESEE) consequences
analysis to request to remove 5,254 square feet (0.12 acres) of wetland from the Local Wetland
Inventory•in two discreet areas of the park, thereby removing this land from sensitive lands
protections as provided by the Tigard Development Code (18.775.130).These two exclusion areas
are planned to be utilized for the development of two boardwalked trails associated with future park
improvements. These boardwalks represent critical park infrastructure and will serve as
environmental education facilities, consistent with public feedback and earlier site plan concepts
regarding the layout and design of the property approved by the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board (DRAB). Dirksen Nature Park is comprised of 14 parcels consisting of 48 acres located along
the 11000 block of SW Tigard Street,immediately north of Fowler middle School.
The two areas proposed for removal from the Local Wetland Inventory are located within wetlands
designated as "significant" (i.e. a Statewide Planning Goal 5 resource) on the City of Tigard's
"Wetlands and Streams Corridors Map"and are protected.The City does not allow any landform
alterations or developments within or partially within a significant wetland, except as approved
pursuant to TDC 18.775.130. As described in the Plan Amendment Option section (TDC
18.775.130), the Code allows applicants to impact significant wetlands if the amendment is justified
under one of two options. The first option is to conduct an Economic,Social,Environmental, and
Energy (ESEE) analysis that considers the consequences of allowing the proposed conflicting use.
The second option is to demonstrate the wetland's "insignificance."WHPacific reviewed the
significance thresholds included as an addendum to the City of Tigard's Local Wetlands Inventory
and determined that the quality of the wetlands and the connections to Summer Creek and Fanno
Creek are significant. As such,the Applicant is submitting an ESEE analysis for a quasi-judicial
comprehensive plan map amendment via a Type-IV review.
This report includes an analysis of the ESEE (economic, social,environmental and energy)
consequences of three potential alternatives regarding a conflicting use impacting previously
documented and protected significant lands located within the Dirksen Nature Park in Tigard. This
ESEE analysis has been prepared in accordance with applicable provisions of Statewide Planning
Goal 5 (Goal 5) and the Goal 5 Rule (OAR Chapter 660, Division 023).This document focuses on
the significant wetland and does not include a significant habitat evaluation. It is understood the
significant habitat evaluation is an incentive based, non-regulatory element within the City's
regulatory framework.
ESEE Analysis 02/24/15
Dirksen Nature Park Wetland Boardwalks Page 2 of 24
ESEE Analysis Requirements
The analysis is based on a highly refined and targeted removal of limited portions of two small
wetlands areas from the local wetland inventory at Dirksen Nature Park that extend into a Goal 5
resource considered significant(e.g. a forested wetland north of Summer Creek and a wetland
associated with Fanno Creek).
The Goal 5 ESEE analysis involves evaluating the trade-offs associated with different levels of
natural resource protection. As required by the Goal 5 rule, the evaluation process involves
identifying the consequences of allowing,limiting or prohibiting conflicting uses in areas containing
significant natural resources. Specifically,the rule requires the following steps:
• Identify conflicting uses —A conflicting use is "any current or potentially allowed land use or
other activity reasonably and customarily subject to land use regulations that could adversely
affect a significant Goal 5 resource." [OAR 660-023-0010(1)]
■ Determine impact area—The impact area represents the extent to which land uses or
activities in areas adjacent to natural resources could negatively impact those resources. The
impact area identifies the geographic limits within which to conduct the ESEE analysis.
■ Analyze the ESEE consequences—The ESEE analysis considers the consequences of a
decision to either fully protect natural resources; fully allow conflicting uses;or limit the
conflicting uses. The analysis looks at the consequences of these options for both
development and natural resources.
■ Develop a program—The results of the ESEE analysis are used to generate
recommendations or an "ESEE decision."The ESEE decision sets the direction for how
and under what circumstances the local program will protect significant natural resources.
Existing Local Protections
The entirety of Dirksen Nature Park is within Tigard's Parks and Recreation (PR) zone.This zone
classification defines permitted and prohibited uses, as well as development standards including
setbacks and building height restrictions. Sites in the PR zone with overlay zones,plan districts,
inventoried hazards,and/or sensitive lands are subject to additional regulations. Conditional uses are
subject to a Type-III review, and development in or near sensitive lands trigger review under the
City's Sensitive Lands chapter (18.775). Sensitive lands are defined as lands potentially unsuitable for
development because of their location within:
■ The 100-year floodplain or 1996 flood inundation line,whichever is greater;
■ Natural drainageways;
■ Wetland areas which are regulated by the other agencies including the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the Division of State Lands,or are designated as significant wetland on the
City of Tigard "Wetland and Stream Corridors Map";
■ Steep slopes of 250/0 or greater and unstable ground;and
■ Significant fish and wildlife habitat areas designated on the City of Tigard"Significant
Habitat Areas Map."
ESEE Analysis 02/24/15
Dirksen Nature Park Wetland Boardwalks Page 3 of 24
The Sensitive Lands chapter outlines the permitted and regulated activities and uses within sensitive
lands, as well as defines the review and approval processes for development consideration based on
the type and intensity of the impact. The chapter further outlines processes in instances for requests
for variances or plan amendments. With regard to wetlands, sensitive lands were mapped following a
wetland inventory.
Site Description Ft Project History
Dirksen Nature Park is located within the Fanno Creek sub-watershed of the Lower Tualatin
Watershed. Fanno Creek flows along the eastern boundary of the site. Summer Creek flows along
the southern boundary of the site to its confluence with Fanno Creek. Dirksen Nature Park is
comprised of 14 parcels (Tax Map: 2S103AA,Lot 200; 2S103AB,Lot 200; 1S134DC,Lots 3000,
3001, 3002, 3100, 3101, 3102,3300, 3400; 1S134DD,Lots 900, 1000,2400, 2500) consisting of 48
acres located along the 11000 block of SW Tigard Street.
The site contains approximately 17 acres of wetland in total. Wetlands associated with Fanno Creek
along the eastern edge of the property are predominately freshwater emergent marshes and account
for approximately 8 acres of wetland. The likely water sources include flood water from Fanno
Creek and groundwater flowing east across the site. A forested wetland is located along the western
edge of the center of the site and is likely fed by rainwater that collects in flat areas during winter
rains and held by poorly drained silty loam soils. Some of these forested wetlands extend to Summer
Creek,where they are fed from flooding along the creek and groundwater. Portions of the property
include other mapped environmental features including sensitive lands and riparian zones.
A conservation easement with Metro protects 35 acres of the most sensitive areas on the property.
Trails,boardwalks,interpretive signs and other educational elements are pernutted within the
conservation easement. The previously approved land use application and development plan is
consistent with the conservation easement and has been reviewed favorably by Metro, the easement
holder.
The development plans for Dirksen Nature Park include two trail boardwalks that extend into
mapped wetlands and will provide overlooks into these unique habitat areas. Under consideration in
this ESEE analysis is the request is to remove 0.12 acres from the City's Local Wetlands Inventory
and from Sensitive Lands Review provisions of the Tigard Development Code to accommodate the
future installation of two trail boardwalks at Dirksen Nature Park to serve environmental education
purposes.
In 1994, the City of Tigard contracted with Fishman Environmental Services (FES) to prepare its
Local Wetland Inventory (L WI). Expanding upon a wetlands inventory previously completed by
another firm (SRI, 1989),FES developed an approach for completing the Goal 5 inventory and
conducting the ESEE analyses that identified stream corridor segments as resource units. The study
was completed in 1994 and approved by DSL in 1997. It is the basis for the adopted "Wetlands and
Streams Corridors Map".
The wetland boundaries depicted on the Wetlands and Streams Corridors Map are approximate. A
formal wetland delineation would be required prior to any site development in order to satisfy the
ESEE Analysis ----- - - ---- - ----- — ----- -- ---------- ---------- ---02/24/15
Dirksen Nature Park Wetland Boardwalks Page 4 of 24
legal requirements of DSL and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
As required by Tigard's development code, a land use application for the development of the
Dirksen Nature Park was submitted in 2013 as a Type-III Conditional Use Permit and Sensitive
Lands Review. The park site analysis and land use application included a wetland delineation,natural
resources assessment, stormwater report,geotechnical report and a no-rise certification.The
Hearings Officer conditionally approved the project and released the final decision in late 2013. The
two proposed boardwalks were included in the Conditional Use Permit and Sensitive Lands Review.
The Hearings Officer did not approve the installation of the boardwalks and expressly-noted the
potential for an exception via a comprehensive plan amendment,which necessitated this ESEE
analysis. The sensitive lands within Dirksen Nature Park will be protected and/or enhanced as
described and approved in the land use approval for the park,which also took into consideration the
various requirements related to Clean Water Services,Oregon Department of State Lands and the
U.S. Corps of Engineers.
Figure 1 shows the location and approximate size of local significant wetlands and creeks xx ithin
Dirksen Nature Park.The wetlands are identified with the unit and identification number from the
1994 Local Wetlands Inventory.
Figure 1:Mapped Significant Wetlands near Dirksen Nature Park
Dirksen Nature Park-
�' Local Significant
Wetlands
Tigard Local Wetland
Inventory
o OSignificant
O\on-Significant
�11�i A4` Jurisdictional
Unit H
&Wetland
nu
f � numbering relate to the
inventory assessments
conducted by Fishman
Environmental Services
Q p' (1994)
Y
C DCL
�!!: rGA� fSyy 1 a_CRS!1']
I �1• S7] sri
ESEE Analysis 02/24/15
Dirksen Nature Park Wetland Boardwalks Page 5 of 24
Figure 2 provides summary data from the Tigard Local Wetlands Inventors-of the quality
(functions) and size of both relevant wetlands (totaling 19.37 acres) inventoried by FDS.
Figure 2:Summary Data from the Tigard Local Wetland Inventory for the Affected Wetlands
Unit Wetland Acres Wildlife Fish linkage Unique WQ Hydro Rec Ed Aesth
3 B-5 8.0 H M H L M H L L M
4 B-17 11.37 H L H H L M M L H
H=High Wildlife=Wildlife Habitat Hydro=Hydrologic Control
M=Medium Fish=Fish Habitat Rec=Recreation
L=Low Linkage=Linkage Ed=Education
Unique=Uniqueness Aesth=Aesthetic Quality
Upon review of the wetland data sheets from the Local Wetlands Inventory, the following was
noted about these wetlands:
■ Wetland B-5:
o Plant species identified included a mixture of invasive reed-canary grass,native spiraea,
Oregon ash,and native willows.
o Wetland classification of feature identified palustrine emergent,palustrine forest, and
riverine habitat types.
o Soil identified as Cove silty clay loam.
Wetland B-17:
o Plant species dominating the feature included Oregon ash and slough sedge. Plant
community dominated by natives.
C) Wetland classification identified palustrine forest and riverine habitats.
o Yard debris dumping by area residents noted along impromptu trail.
o Soil identified as Cove silty clay loam.
As a component of the site development application for Dirksen Nature Park, a wetlands inventory
and natural resources assessment were completed in 2013.The map shown in Figure 3 illustrates the
"sensitive areas"identified within the Park,which consist of mixture of wetlands and their
associated vegetative corridor.
Due to the nature of the site specific wetland assessment, the naming convention used for Dirksen
Nature Park is different than that of the Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory. In comparing the older
data from LWI to the newer and more detailed wetland study from 2013, the B-17 (LWI) wetland is
referenced as Wetland 1,and B-5 wedand is referenced as Wetland 4.
ESEE Analysis 02/24/15
Dirksen Nature Park Wetland Boardwalks Page 6 of 24
Figure 3:Delineated Wetlands and Sensitive Areas within Dirksen Nature Park
a: : s ,. : i i .:V
yy
10
'9
C3
TV;v s
ESEE Analysis 02/24/15
Dirksen Nature Park Wetland Boardwalks Page 7 of 24
As described in the Natural Resources Assessment for Dirksen Nature Park, the following are
descriptions of the two wetlands where the planned boardwalks are proposed.
Wetland 1 (7.27 acres within study area) is an extensive "Slope"wetland that runs south
of SW Tigard Street and extends across to the western boundary of the site.The northern
portion is mostly an open slope with shrubs and saplings. The remainder is an extensive
forested wetland in a level to gently sloping basin with a relatively undisturbed native
plant community. Forested wetland vegetation consists of Oregon ash (Fraxinus
latifolia), Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa),Douglas spiraea (Spiraea douglasii),peafruited
rose (Rosa pisocarpa),red osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), slough sedge (Carex
obnupta),short scale sedge (Carex leptopoda),common camas (Camassia quamash),and
corn lily (Veratrum californicum).Areas of standing water are evident,with the water
table at or close to the surface through much of the area during the winter and spring
months. The open area vegetation consists of various introduced grasses,including meadow
foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis) and tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea),and patches of
small Oregon ash. Large areas of Himalayan blackberry (Rubus procerus) have been
mowed. The water table is at or close to the surface during the wet season through most
of this area.
Wetland 4 (small part, 1.11 acre within the study area) is an extensive wetland in the
Fanno Creek floodplain.The southern part of this wetland is forested. Vegetation
consists of Oregon ash,pea-fruited rose, Pacific ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus),red
osier dogwood,and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). Other non-native
dominants include English hawthorn and Himalayan blackberry.This forested wetland is
well-developed and dense in cover.The northern part is more open with extensive areas
of reed canarygrass. Shrub plantings have been established along the western edge of
this area,consisting mostly of twinberry (Lonicera involucrata) and red osier dogwood.
There are Oregon ash trees along the banks of Fanno Creek near the eastern property line.
ESEE Analysis 02/24/15
Dirksen Nature Park Wetland Boardwalks Page 8 of 24
Figure 4.Mapped Significant Wetlands near Dirksen Nature Park
1 .
"7
z
ti
<
Igo
tJ A
Ui
41 LP
C4 0
4x
CL
PON
ESEE Analysis 02/24/15
Dirksen Nature Park Wetland Boardwalks Page 9 of 24
Removal Area #1: This wetland area is located in Wetland 1 (as identified on Figure 4, above) and
will remove 2,447 square feet from the City's Local Wetland Inventory Map.
Removal Area #2: This wetland area is located in Wetland 4 (as identified on Figure 4, above) and
will remove 2,807 square feet from the City's Local Wedand Inventory Map.
Description of the Conflicting Use
An important step in the ESEE analysis is identifying conflicting uses that"exist, or could occur"
within regionally significant resource areas and identified in the impact area. The Goal 5 Rule (OAR
660-023-0010) defines conflicting uses as follows:
(1) "Conflicting use" is a land use, or other activity reasonably and customarily subject to land
use regulations,that could adversely affect a significant Goal 5 resource (except as provided in
OAR 660-023-0180(1)(b)). Local governments are not required to regard agricultural practices as
conflicting uses.
The Goal 5 Administrative Rule (OAR 660-023-0040) describes bow conflicting uses are identified:
(2) Identify conflicting uses. Local governments shall identify conflicting uses that exist,or could
occur,with regard to significant Goal 5 resource sites. To identif}, these uses, local govemments
shall examine land uses allowed outright or conditionally within the zones applied to the
resource site and in its impact area. Local governments are not required to consider allowed uses
that would be unlikely to occur in the impact area because existing permanent uses occupy the
site. The following shall also apply in the identification of conflicting uses:
(a) If no uses conflict with a significant resource site, acknowledged policies and land use
regulations may be considered sufficient to protect the resource site.The determination that
there are no conflicting uses must be based on the applicable zoning rather than ownership
of the site. (Therefore,public ownership of a site does not by itself support a conclusion that
there are no conflicting uses.)
(b)A local government may determine that one or more significant Goal 5 resource sites are
conflicting uses with another significant resource site. The local government shall determine
the level of protection for each significant site using the ESEE process and/or the
requirements in OAR 660-023-0090 through 660-023-0230 (see OAR 660-023-0020(1)).
As per the project description,only one conflicting use is under consideration - the planned
installation of a trail boardwalk in two discrete locations within existing resource areas. The intent is
to allow the boardwalks to extend into mapped wetlands and provide overlooks into these unique
habitat areas.The installation of off-street,multi-use trails within the Tigard's PR zone is permitted
outright; therefore, the intended project is allowed outright within the underlying PR zone.The
planned boardwalks are integral components of the multi-use trail at Dirksen Nature Park,and they
would be defined as "multi-use trails".
ESEE Analysis 02/24/15
Dirksen Nature Park Wetland Boardwalks Page 10 of 24
The PR zone would allow a variety of conflicting uses to occur on the site but because of the
focused nature of the proposed development request and the limited amount, and odd shape of land
requested to be removed from the inventory, the practical effect of the request is to limit the
conflicting uses to just the trail boardwalks. The remainder of the ESEE analysis will focus on the
impacts of the removal of wetland areas from the inventory based on the one proposed conflicting
use.
The primary purpose of trail boardwalks is to further the environmental education opportunities for
park users and provide safe,accessible platforms for community groups,birders, students and
Tualatin RiverKeepers classes to view and begin to understand and appreciate the nature and
importance of these wetland habitats without damaging them and disturbing wildlife.
In the area of both of these proposed trail boardwalks,numerous existing rogue trails traverse the
sensitive lands as a result of historic,uncontrolled access and have caused significant damage to the
wetlands. The secondary benefits of the boardwalks are to aim to eliminate rogue, off-trail passage
through the wetland resources,to provide managed and controlled access near and into the wetlands
and to enable the successful restoration of the wetlands in those areas where past trail walking has
occurred and damaged the immediate wetland environment. The proposed boardwalks will help
save and protect the wetland resources; they are the single most important component of restoration
plans for the wetlands in this urban nature park because without them, people interested in entering
the wetlands will continue to lack an alternative to the rogue trails.
Figures 5 and 6 show the impact areas for the two planned boardwalks.
ESEE Analysis 02/24/15
Dirksen Nature Park Wetland Boardwalks Page 11 of 24
Figure 5:Enlargement of Removal Area I
E)OSIW, IRA:-TO K DECOWSS'ONED
GA
40p
e0_00, G
.954
2"6.92 IrMISSF -A)w
.01
W4ILAN40 BOUNDARY
59
14
*5&e-62
5' NIDE SCrF1 SURFACE -RAIL
BRIDGE HEADER
22
SCALE 10 4
rEET) .460 47
I INDI 10 FT. I /
DS 72
Al
0=7*--C-DW5V% 02/MP5 i
ESEE Analysis 02/24/15
Dirksen Nature Park Wetland Boardwalks Page 12 of 24
Figure 6:Enlargement of Removal Area 2
1
�1
1
.1
11
i
ice/ ,•i ` `�
too �� 1
/
n
l � N,
555 i
\ ` O
ESEE Analysis 02/24/15
Dirksen Nature Park Wetland Boardwalks Page 13 of 24
Figure 7 summarizes relevant acreage information about the park,its wetlands and the potential
impact areas associated with the two planned boardwalks.
Figure 7:Resource and Impact Area Summary
Site Area(Dirksen Nature Park) 48.04 ac.
On-Site Sensitive Lands Area 29.5'ac.
Specific Resource Area(footprint of both boardwalks) 0.033 ac.
Specific Impact Area Acreage(30'temporary 0.088 ac.
construction buffer around boardwalks)
Combined Resource and Impact Area 0.12 ac.
Number of Parcels Affected 2
estimated based on combination of mapped wetlands/vegetative corridors and LWI data
As noted in the table above,the proposed removal of 0.12 acres from the Local Wetlands Inventory
represents 0.49/o of the overall sensitive lands on site and 0.02%of the total park acreage. The
requested removal of the 0.12 acres of wetland area enable the installation of two elevated
boardwalks will provide a single access entry into each wetland with high quality views, will enhance
the experience of the wetland,and will have far less impact to the resource than the uncontrolled use
that exists today.
Site Specific ESEE Analysis
This section details the three alternatives and discusses the Economic,Social, Environmental and
Energy (ESEE) impacts to the relevant portions of two wetlands located within Dirksen Nature
Park, addressing the following:
■ Prohibit conflicting uses providing full protection of the resource site;
■ Limit conflicting uses offering limited protection of the resource site (balance development
and conservation objectives);
■ Allow conflicting uses fully with no local protection for the resource site.
The action to 'limit conflicting uses' within this context of this ESEE .analysis is defined as allowing
only the limited intrusion of the boardwalks as proposed into the wetland and minimizing impacts to
the extent practicable through strict construction management. The action to 'allow conflicting uses'
in this case is to allow the development of the full range of permissible uses noted in the underlying
Parks and Recreation (PR) zone,which includes such amenities as playgrounds,picnic areas,
shelters, structures, sport courts and fields and other related items.
Economic Consequences
The following describes the economic consequences for each of the three protection scenarios.
Prohibit Conflicting Uses (fill proteetion�
The economic consequences of prohibiting conflicting uses would be mixed,because the
acreage occupied by wetlands could not be used to promote and support on-site environmental
ESEE Analysis 02/24/15
Dirksen Nature Park Wetland Boardwalks Page 14 of 24
education activities and programming that either have a direct local economic benefit or provide
an offset to on-going operating expenses incurred by the City. Prohibiting the conflicting use
would avoid a modest capital construction expenditure by the City of Tigard for the costs of the
boardwalks,but City maintenance crews will incur on-going operating expenses related to
monitoring unwanted activity and hiking in the wetlands,installing trail blockages to attempt to
minirni�e through-passage along the existing rogue wetland trails, and on-going replacement
costs for wetland restoration and vegetation management.There may be a reduction in short
term construction jobs necessary to complete the development of the park and planned
boardwalks.
Limit Conflicting Uses (limited proteetionl
Limiting the conflicting use to the two trail boardwalks and relying on the State's fill and
removal permit and Corps of Engineers 404/401 regulatory processes would,generally, have
positive consequences. DSL and Corps regulations set enhancement and mitigation thresholds
based on documented impacts and allow some flexibility to allow conflicting urban uses where
no reasonable alternative exists.
Additionally, the City of Tigard spent$3.3 million on the acquisition of Dirksen Nature Park.
Planning for the initial phase of park development is underway, and according to the adopted
park master plan, the cost estimate for full development of the park was in the range of$2 to
$2.3 million. Passive uses,such as walking and wildlife observation,are important aspects to the
park. Additionally, the site is intended to serve as an outdoor classroom and a center for
environmental education and experiential learning. The proposed boardwalks are an integral
element of the environmental education and interpretive program for the park, since these
boardwalks will allow visitors to experience two different and unique wetland ecosystems in the
park in a safe, environmentally sound and ecologically sensitive manner.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service published a report in 2013 called Banking on Nature: The
Economic Benefits to Local Corninunities ofNational Wildlife Refuge Visitation. This
report detailed the economics related to refuge (park) visitation. The Tualatin River National
Wildlife Refuge was one of the case study examples in the report. It is worth noting that the
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge is not only very close to the City of Tigard,but the
Refuge offers a similar experience to those planned at Dirksen Nature Park. In calculating
economic benefits, the USFWS grouped visitation into two categories: consumptive and non-
consumptive. Consumptive includes those activities that utilize the site's resources, such as
fishing and hunting. Non-consumptive uses include passive activities, such as cycling,
walking/hiking,photography and interpretation. Based on the report, the Tualatin River Refuge
had over 100,000 visits in 2011,and all visits were for non-consumptive activities. A figure for
economic value was estimated by multiplying net economic values for hunting, fishing, and non-
consumptive recreation use (on a per-day basis) by estimated refuge visitor days for that activity,
which was then divided by the refuge budget for 2011.The report estimated that the total
economic effects of the Tualatin River Refuge was $3.87 for every$1 of budget expenditures.
Applying this value to the planned development expenditures for Dirksen Nature Park results in
a potential economic benefit of the park as between$7.7 and $8.9 million.While it is not
reasonable to assign 100%of that potential economic benefit to the installation of the two
proposed boardwalks,it is reasonable to assume that a clear, positive economic benefit exists for
installing the boardwalks to not only enhance safe access into the wetland areas for wildlife
ESEE Analysis 02/24/15
Dirksen Nature Park Wetland Boardwalks Page 15 of 24
observation,photography and environmental interpretation,but also as a means to further
improve and enhance the quality of those unique wetlands by controlling visitor access.
The Washington County Visitors Association (WCVA) is the primary destination marketing
organization for Washington County and markets the destination,its attractions and activities to
leisure and business travelers around the globe and locally via several media channels. The
Tourism 2015 Strategic Plan,prepared by the WCVA, is the organization's guiding document
and sets the focus on high-yield,niche markets to expand recreational and leisure opportunities
for visitors and residents. The Tourism 2015 Plan identified the key tourism attractors for
Washington County and identified outdoor recreationalists, nature enthusiasts and birders
(among others) as niche market segments. According to the Plan, "nature-based experiences are
at the core of the Oregon tourism experience.While the county does not have the coastline,
mountains, and raging rivers of other areas of Oregon,it does have forests,wetlands and
meandering rivers that support diverse flora and fauna and opportunities for visitors to discover
and learn in comfort.A distinguishing aspect of these natural features is their proximity to
Portland and major population centers. Nature-based attractions throughout Washington
County include Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge,among others."The focus of the
WCVA toward the promotion of nature-based experiences reinforces the relative importance of
providing and enhancing these opportunities for local residents and visitors.The development
of Dirksen Nature Park will provide opportunities for increased tourism and visitation. The
environmental education and experiences at the park will be enhanced by the installation of the
proposed boardwalks.
Negative economic consequences include the possible necessity to construct expensive
stormwater infrastructure to manage increased runoff with decreased natural control
mechanisms.
Allow Conflicting Uses (no local protection)
The economic consequences of allowing conflicting uses are mostly negative. Allowing most of
the permissible uses from the underlying PR zone would not only further deteriorate the wetland
resources, but the relative costs would be high for capital construction, on-going management
and related and required mitigation and enhancement.The only likely benefit of allowing the
conflicting use is a short-term boost for construction, but this would not be in balance with or
exceed the costs of the infrastructure and required mitigation.
Social Consequences
The following describes the social consequences (education,recreation,aesthetics, etc.) for each of
the three protection scenarios.
Prohibit Conflicting Uses (full protection)
The social consequences of prohibiting the conflicting uses are mixed. Prohibiting the
conflicting use would not substantially protect the resources from the existing unregulated uses
occurring within each wetland area. Additionally,prohibiting the conflicting use would indirectly
result in the development of only permitted upland trails at Dirksen Nature Park,without
controlled access to Wetlands 1 and 4 and without specific environmental education
opportunities at the wetlands. Pedestrian access and use would be concentrated in upland
habitats with associated affects to local flora and fauna. People with mobility challenges would
ESEE Analysis 02/24/15
Dirksen Nature Park Wetland Boardwalks Page 16 of 24
be effectively prohibited from enjoying any activities in the wetlands.The wetlands would not be
(formally) accessible for educational purposes;however,without the controlled access that the
boardwalks provide, people may continue to pass through the wetlands on rogue trails to
experience these environments,while continuing to degrade the wetland habitat. Opportunities
for passive recreation (e.g.,bird watching, environmental learning) would be diminished;
however, the social benefits afforded from living near intact wetlands and open space would
remain.
Limit Conflicting Uses (limited protection)
The social consequences of limiting the conflicting uses in Wetlands 1 and 4 to the boardwalks
and associated wedand enhancement are generally positive. The grant funding received by the
City requires on-site environmental education to occur. Also, the conservation easement with
Metro allows environmental education,interpretive opportunities and the development of trails -
consistent with the planned boardwalks.
Limiting the conflicting uses to the installation of the planned boardwalks will not negatively
impact the wetlands, since their construction will include low-impact helical screw piers and
metal grate decking that allows light,air and water movement through the boardwalk to the
wetlands. Limiting the conflicting uses will provide significant social benefits in the form of
direct exposure to the wetlands for outdoor education, environmental interpretation and passive
recreation,including for people with limited mobility.The provision of the boardwalks will
reinforce appropriate trail usage and help control against unwanted and undesired off-trail
passage into or through the wetland habitats. Dirksen Nature Park, as a whole,will continue to
provide visual relief from the surrounding urban environment, and the conflicting uses are
sheltered from view from the park edge and will be visually unobtrusive.
Wetland function will remain intact and provide opportunities for urban quiet and solitude.
Urban aesthetics and connection to nature are not eliminated by alloying the identified
conflicting uses, and the planned, controlled access via the boardwalks to the wetlands and their
proximity to a relatively large population would establish new connections for people to the
outdoors.
Allow Conflicting Uses (no local protection)
The social consequences of allowing the conflicting uses are generally mixed. The development
of additional park amenities or gathering places for recreation, park visitors and family usage
may benefit park users and wider the range of recreation opportunities in the park. However, the
development of non-resource oriented amenities may not fit within the context of the site as a
nature park or within the immediate context of the wetland resources,and the City offers other
areas on dry land more suitable for active recreation.While social benefits may exist for the
installation of different amenities on-site, they may be out of place with the character of the park
and reduce recreational and social opportunities for other park users who are interested in
enjoying the passive,natural resources of the site.
Environmental Consequences
The following describes the consequences to water quality, hydrologic control,wildlife and fish
habitat (as well as other relevant factors) for each of the three protection scenarios.
ESEE Analysis 02/24/15
Dirksen Nature Park Wetland Boardwalks Page 17 of 24
Prohibit Conflicting Uses (full protection)
The environmental consequences of prohibiting the conflicting uses are mixed. If the conflicting
uses are prohibited, then the wetlands would remain in their current condition.The City of
Tigard Development Code aims to protect significant lands by allowing no impact to them.This
restriction, taken in the context of the Dirksen Nature Park where public access and use is
encouraged,actually causes greater impact to the resources. In their current state, the wetlands
are impacted by human use in the form of rogue (demand) trails, periodic homeless camping
activity and uncontrolled passage through these lands. The prohibition of the conflicting uses
will still allow for specific restoration activities,but these efforts would be diminished or limited
by continued uncontrolled access and the inability to fully pursue an on-site education program
regarding the health and benefits of urban wetlands.
The wetlands provide functions and values,but these are degraded due to past disturbances to
the site. Habitat quality for fish species is limited within each wetland area based on limited
availability and limited canopy coverage.Wildlife habitat value within each wetland is high with
varied structures and habitat complexity. Wetlands 1 and 4 provide runoff and flood storage
control and trap sediment and nutrients. These wetlands help to protect life and property during
floods by storing and absorbing water,a necessity exemplified by significant storms in recent
years.
Limit Conflicting:Uses (limited protection)
The environmental consequences of limiting the conflicting use to the trail boardwalks are
positive. The conflicting use is specific to the wetland resources (Weiland 1 and 4) at Dirksen
Nature Park,and installing short these boardwalks can occur nowhere else on the site, other
than in the wetland areas.
Currently,Wetlands 1 and 4 are criss-crossed with rogue trails and heavily impacted by human
use resulting from the lack of direction offered to the public. Limiting the conflicting use to die
boardwalks ultimately will lead to greater resource enhancement and protection of sensitive
lands.The boardwalks that would be placed in the removed wetland areas will enable focused
and controlled public access,versus unrestricted and unsustainable access without the
boardwalks (rogue trails).As the City's future community park and outdoor education resource,
efforts to restore and protect the wetlands at Dirksen Nature Park will require carefully planned
boardwalk overlooks that allow,but control,access to the wetlands. The proposed boardwalks
will help save and protect the wetland resources.They are the single most important component
of restoration plans for the wetlands in this urban nature park. These short elevated walkways
will provide a single access entry to each wetland,with high quality views,will enhance the
experience of the wetland, and will have far less impact to the resource than the uncontrolled
use that exists today. Additionally, as elevated boardwalks, these trail routes minimize soil
disturbance as compared to a surface trail. Installing controlled access and environmental
experiences with boardwalks in both locations will allow park users to experience and
understand the special qualities of both of the significant wetlands without damaging them and
disturbing wildlife.
Dirksen Nature Park is a unique site within the City of Tigard inasmuch as it contains 7 habitat
zones within the 48-acre park.These habitat zones and their associated wetlands are the primary
reason the park is home to the Tualatin RiverKeepers' summer camps and experience-based
environmental learning programs. Lou-impact design and unobtrusive construction techniques
ESEE Analysis 02/24/15
Dirksen Nature Park Wetland Boardwalks Page 18 of 24
for the planned boardwalks will be employed, such that the installation is environmentally-
sensitive. The design and installation of the boardwalks will be completed without any
excavation.The boardwalk piers are to be set with screw anchors. The boardwalk decking also is
designed to be sensitive to the wetland resource. The decking will be metal grating,which has
two significant benefits.
1) The grating is not opaque;it allows air,light and water to pass through the boardwalk in
support of the ecology of the wetland. Wetland plants can live underneath,and animal
species can pass without obstruction.
2) As opposed to traditional wood decking, the metal grating is non-slip and will not allow
the formation of the surface moss and algae that wood decking enables,thus creating a
safer platform for park users and wildlife observers.
Tigard's Development Code allows the restoration of significant wetlands,and the proposed
boardwalks are part of the restoration strategy for the wetland resources,which will limit and
control human access to the wetlands and reinforce efforts to re-vegetate and restore the
functions and qualities of the wetlands.
Allow Conflicting Uses no local grotectio I
The environmental consequences of allowing many of the permissible conflicting uses of the
underlying PR zone are negative. Wetlands 1 and 4 fall under the jurisdiction of DSI, and U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers administrative rules,which regulate the removal and fill of wetlands.
The development of park amenities,such as playgrounds, shelters or structures,will trigger DSL
and Corps review and mitigation due to the likely ground disturbing activities. Such impacts to
the existing wetland resources may be severe. Depending upon the success of implementation of
required mitigation strategies,mitigation and/or enhancement to compensate for the
development disturbance would likely occur in a different and potentially unconnected area of
the site,which may further diminish the quality and character of the remaining wetland
resources.
Energy Consequences
The following describes the energy consequences (transportation connectivity, efficient urban
development, etc.) for each of the three protection scenarios.
Prohibit Conflicting Uses (full Protection)
The energy consequences of prohibiting both conflicting uses would be mixed but slightly
negative. The installation of the boardwalks will not necessitate the removal of trees, so no
impact on natural shading or cooling are anticipated. This option,however, limits trail
connectivity to the unique habitat zones within the park, which will have energy-related effects.
Tigard residents will drive farther to experience similar natural environments (e.g.,Jackson
Bottom Wetlands Preserve,Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge). Students will need to be
bussed to more distant parks for environmental education.Tualatin RiverKeepers will not be
able to take full advantage of the environmental education values of the park without direct
access to the wetland habitat and will drive to other sites for such experiences. These create
inefficiencies in energy usage, as well as indirect energy expenditures related to lost or inefficient
environmental educator staff time and student learning time.
ESEE Analysis -- - _-- _ ---_— ---- _-_- --- --'-__02%24/15
Dirksen Nature Park Wetland Boardwalks Page 19 of 24
Limit Conflicting Uses (limited protection,
The energy consequences of limiting the conflicting use to the trail boardwalks generally would
be positive. The installation of the boardwalks will not necessitate the removal of trees, so no
impact on natural shading or cooling are anticipated.The shading and cooling potential
Wetlands 1 and 4 have will be preserved. The provision of the boardwalks and associated
environmental/interpretive displays will enable enhanced on-site outdoor education and
environmental learning. This,in turn,will accommodate access and usage by residents, students
and Tualatin R.iverKeepers classes for local environmental education without the need to drive
to distant or remote parks and natural areas with similar habitat features.
Allow Conflicting_Uses (no local protection)
The energy consequences of allowing the conflicting uses and relying on state and federal
regulations are generally negative. Since the proposed impact areas are wetlands and
development will trigger mitigation,more energy will be used for the construction and required
mitigation efforts related to the installation of recreational amenities, such as playgrounds,
shelters and structures. If unregulated, the potential development of conflicting uses may result
in an inefficient use of available parkland,especially if the conflicting uses are not wetland-
dependent amenities.
Conclusions/Recommendation
The wetland resources of Dirksen Nature Park are valuable to the City from an economic, social and
environmental perspective,and the opportunity to expand environmental education and outdoor
learning is significant. Past grants awarded to the City for the development of Dirksen Nature Park
support the creation of an environmentally-sensitive urban park and natural area with trails and
access to the site's varied habitat zones.
T'he following summarizes the anticipated impacts of the three alternatives related to the conflicting
use,and the table in Appendix A provides scores for each of the ESER criteria.
Prohibiting the conflicting use would avoid a modest capital construction expenditure by the
City of Tigard for the costs of the boardwalks or other amenities,but City maintenance crews
will incur on-going operating expenses related to monitoring unwanted activity and hiking in the
wetlands,installing trail blockages to attempt to minimize through-passage along the existing
rogue wetland trails, and on-going replacement costs for wetland restoration and vegetation
management. Tualatin RiverKeepers will not be able to take full advantage of the environmental
education values of the park without direct access to the wetland habitat and will drive to other
sites for such experiences. In their current state, the wetlands are adversely impacted by human
use in the form of rogue (demand) trails,periodic homeless camping activity and uncontrolled
passage through these lands.The prohibition of the conflicting uses will still allow for specific
restoration activities,but these efforts would be diminished or limited by continued uncontrolled
access and the inability to fully pursue an on-site education program regarding the health and
benefits of urban wetlands.
Limiting the conflicting uses to the two trail boardwalks will positively impact the wetlands,
since the planned construction of the trail boardwalks will include low-impact helical screw piers
ESEE Analysis 02/24/15
Dirksen Nature Park Wetland Boardwalks Page 20 of 24
and metal decking/grating to accommodate light,air and water movement through the
boardwalk to the wetlands,which is a substantial improvement over existing surface trails.
Limiting the conflicting uses will provide significant social benefits in the form of direct
exposure to the wetlands for outdoor education, environmental interpretation and passive
recreation, especially for persons with limited mobility.The provision of the boardwalks will
reinforce appropriate trail usage and help control against unwanted and undesired off-trail
passage into or through the wetland habitats. Dirksen Nature Park, as a whole,will continue to
provide visual relief from the surrounding urban environment, and the conflicting uses are
sheltered from view from the park edge and will be visually unobtrusive. Wetland function will
remain intact and provide opportunities for urban quiet and solitude.
Allowing most of the permissible uses from the underlying PR zone would not only further
deteriorate the wetland resources,but the relative costs would be high for capital construction,
on-going management and related and required mitigation and enhancement. Since the proposed
impact areas are wetlands and development will trigger mitigation,more energy will be used for
the construction and required mitigation efforts related to the installation of recreational
amenities,such as playgrounds, shelters and structures. Additionally, the development of non-
resource oriented amenities may not fit within the context of the site as a nature park or within
the immediate context of the wetland resources.
Decision
The analysis concludes that limiting the conflicting use to the proposed boardwalks would result in
the most positive consequences of the three decision options. A decision to limit the conflicting use
will avoid many of the negative consequences attributed to either allowing or prohibiting the
conflicting uses.Through the application of site design and development standards to conflicting
uses, the impacts on the significant wetland further can be minimized, and the remaining resource
can be enhanced. There will be a relatively high level of economic,social, environmental and energy
benefits achieved. Limiting the conflicting uses offers the most benefit to the wetland (through
controlled access and enhancement) and to the community(access for all and education
opportunities), and it strikes a balance between conflicting uses and planning goals for the services
provided in this public park. The recommendation is to limit conflicting use (i.e. the removal of two
areas from the City's Wetlands and Streams Corridors Map in order to accommodate the future
development of two boardwalks within the significant wetland).
ESEE Analysis - - _ --_-----—_--- ----. - -_--02/24/15
Dirksen Nature Park Wetland Boardwalks Page 21 of 24
Appendices / Figures
ESEE Analysis 02/24/15
Dirksen Nature Park Wetland Boardwalks Page 22 of 24
Appendix A: Site-specific ESEE Scoring Sheet
impact,Criteria Scores
on a Scale of I to 5
I =very negative
Scoringno/balanced ..
positive5 very
SITE: Dirksen Nature Park Wetland Boardwalks .
Conflicting Conflicting Conflicting
Uses Uses Uses
Economic
Efficient urban development _—- _-- __ 3_ 3 — 3
Cost of installation/maintenance of public infrastructure 3 S � 1
(roads,stormwate_r, utilities)__
Development potential for property owners 3 _ 3_—_�_ 3
Amount of employment land_ _ 3 3 _ i 3
Amount of residential land _ _ 3— — 3 3—
_Housing development costs +_ __ 3_ 3 _ 3
Employment development costs _ 3 3 3
Economic Subtotal 21 23 19
Social -----— ---- — -- — -- -
- Aesthetic Value - —— — —5 5 -- 1
Recreational Value _ _ 3i _5_ 3
Contribution to local quality of life —— 3 —i 5 — 3
_ Housing Costs — — ------- ----- -- - 3 3 i 3
Social Equal_it_y -------._. _. --- --------- 1 5 -- ---3
— Social Subtotal , IS 23 13
Environmental
Water quality: Filtration and removal of pollutants 3 3 _ 3
Hydrologic control:Water collection and storage _ i 3 _ 3 3
_ Wildlife habitat -- 5 3 3
Fish Habitat -- -- — ---- - --- __-- - - --- 3 — 3-- — —3 –
Environmentally-sensitive design — �3 5 —� 1
Environmental Subtotal 17 17 13
Energy
Transportation Connectivity __ 1_ —;� 5 _ 3
Efficient Urban development _-- _ 3 —_i 3 _ 3 —
Shading and cooling — 3 ( 3 — 1
Energy Subtotal 7 I 11 7
Average Overall Rating 1 60 74 52
ESEE Analysis 02/24/15
Dirksen Nature Park Wetland Boardwalks Page 23 of 24
ESEE Analysis 02/24/15
Dirksen Nature Park Wetland Boardwalks Page 24 of 24