The URL can be used to link to this page

SLR1994-00002POOR QUALITY RECORD PLEASE NOTE: The original paper record has been archived and put on microfilm. The following document is a copy of the microfilm record converted back to digital. If you have questions please contact City of Tigard Records Department. ' -ASH SIR= PEDAMMZ SIR 94-0002 Ash Ste S't crossing rannO Creak /4?" 2S1 2BD, 300 ':•k; . . , APPLICATION SENTIVILLANO____ILL CITY OF TIGARD, Tigard, Oregon 13125 SW Hall, PO Box 23397 97223 - (503) 639-4171 FOR STAFF USE ONLY 1. GENERAL INFORMATION PROPERTY ADDRESS/LOCATION TAX MAP AND TAX LOT NO. SITE SIZE PROPERTY OWNER/DEED HOLDERit_25ZIA_AL116400111) PHONE ADDRESS CITY ArPLICANT* a ADDRESS CITY APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY DATE: Application elements submitted: (A) Application form (1) (B) Owner's signature/written authorization (C) Title transfer instrument (1) (D) Assessor's map (1) (E) Plot plan (pre-app checklist) (F) Applicant's statement ZIP I (pre-app checklist) 1 (G) List of property owners and PHONE 1 addresses within 250 feet (1) ZIP 1 (H) Filing fee (020) *When the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a leasee in possession with written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner with written authorization. The owner(s) must sign this application it the space provided on page two or Submit a written authorization with this application. 2. PROPOSAL SUMMARY 'The ownerS of record of the subject property 'request a Sensitive Lands Permit to allow illt05_11Z14) t;feiD d* 0 1:01' 1 1 1 DATE DETERMINED TO BE COMPLETE: 1 1 FINAL DECISION DEADLINE: COMP. PLAN/ZONE DESIGNATION: N.P.O. Number: Approval Date: Final Approval Date: Planning engineering , • ,• - I y I', " ^ 1y, 1 1 I I 1 3. List any variance, conditional uses, or other land use actions to be considered 11-1, ) r4.1thi ,N 4. Applicants: To have a complete application you Will need to submit attachments described in the attached information sheet at the time you submit this application. 5. THE APPLICABT(S),SHALL CERTIFY THAT: A. The above rsilLes_tcloes not violate an deed restrictions that may be EqISLSLS2....2Lin2222i2P2L-----"the6ubiect,kriPSqa B. If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. C. All of the attachments, applicants - application, false. in the lot above statements and the statements n plot and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this may be revoked if it is found that any such statements are The applicant has read the entire contents of the policies and criteria, and understands the or denying the application. DATED this the application, including requirements for approving day of 19 SIGNATURES of each owner (eg. husband and wife) of the subject property. 11355 S.W, Bones Ferry N., Lake OR 0035 Partlaed Phone (503) 6354015 4 Fax (503) 5554395 bisect Nei (03) 699.4542 • Mobile Mane (503) 8.045B tirkland Phono (500 82M446 Pc Ad, Oregon Kirkland, Wathirigten ThomosW,HalmamikLA, Principal (KSL:Pm/0737P) r1 i ^� � � JAI �.• N , � 7 � � t w s`.' C ::: ?4S ��tryti fir: i .yr Yt { yt tpaai y��.r r :,fin �" i•4 r -� r d �i�. a 4 Ft + F,�1 i r• LEGIBILITY STRIP YeBaM E{{3iM ELLVd MV 3 S 4th. e ira LEGIBILITY STRIP' BRDCE DE : - SLOPES 2%+ TOP DECK 142.O± . ELEV. 141 8' MIA 1t: MAX. - O-SPAN' LEGIBILITY `STRIP' Nara 6 TO MATCH EXEC GRADE fr CROSS SLOPE: - DISTIRBANCE TOCTOWAITED TO WDT i FOR . PATH ERA TO A OF Er ABOVE ' AP Z BEY010 EDGE OF PAVEMENT - COMPACTION SUBGRADE _, ° A3 A.C. .O 2 MAX tr-Oa � N P"Si.11 PA fr ss�rmarfir! i>_ Es1 _Il�t.�,C�1,ri•11�t�..",r�0 1/4` s. 1' -0 S 1' STATE OF OREGON County of Washington City of Tigard AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING ) ss. depose and say: (Please print) That I am a 0. The City of Tigar', Oregon. being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath • for 4, That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR: That I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: City of Tigard Planning Director Tigard Planning Commission Tigard Hearings Officer Tigard City Council A copy (Public Hearing •otice/Notice of Decision) of which is attached (Marked Exhibit "A") was mailed to each named persons at the address shown on e QLI Said notice NOTICE OF DECISION as hereto ttached, Was pos ed on an appropriate bulletin board on the day of , 19 ; and deposited in the United States Mail on the day of , 19 postage prepaid, attached list marked exhibit "B" on the 5- day of 19 eLielesig- d Notice ibed and sworn/affirm to me oh the day o ae Co w OFFICIAL SEAL DIANE M. JIELDERKS NOTARY PUBLIC0OREGON 1( COMMISSION NO.000977 M COMMISSION EXPI O RES SEPT. 7, a)? ilill PUBLI OF My ComMiSsion E NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CENTER, MONDAY, Y, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD HEARINGS THEFIZG�ACIVIC�ETING ON MOND SN gp l y ?. 5 , _ 1994, AT 7:00 _ PM, IN THE TOWN HALL HALL BLVD,, TIGARD, OREGON, WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO: SLR 94 -0002 FILE TITLE: Ash Avenue Pedestrian Bridge APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNER: Same 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard; OR 97223 (503) 639 -4171 ST; SENSITIVE. LANDS REVIEW SLR 94 -0002 ASH AVENUE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE A REQUEST: approval to allow the request for Sensitive Lands ltte r�.ew app construction of a pedestrian bridge over Fenno Creek. LOCATION: South of the right -of -way for the SW Ash Avenue crossing of Fanno Creek and west of SW Burnham Street (WCTM 2S1 2DB, tax lot 300). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA; Community Development Code Chapter 18.84• services, ZONE: CBD (Central Bus�,nesS�DiStridt) The Central end library Ystra,et zone allows vices, parking publid administrative agendies, Cultural exhibits of facilities, public safety , services, religious assemblies, and a variety dommerdial and service activities among other uses. HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES THE CHAPTER T ° ,NT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED OF CHAPTER 18 .32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVEELOPM�, BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET 30, IMPAIRED HEARING. THE FORTH IN CHAPTER 8. ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE �� FOR QUALIFIED R SIGN WITH LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND CITY WILL ALSO LISTENING TO ARRANGE EXT. 3 5 REQUEST. DEVICES CALL 639 -4171, EX 356 BILINGUAL DD RP T�LEECOMMUNICAT !UEST : PLEASE FOR. THE. DEAF) NO LESS THAN QUALIFIED VO CE)EOR 684-2772 ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING To MAKE ARRANGEMENTS. G TO PRESENT WRITTEN PROPOSED MAY BE PRESENTED O SO IN ANYONE WISHING N TESTIMO]JY ONORTAHITES OPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO AT WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE WILL RECEIVE A THETPUB_.. � OFFICER HEARING; ENA ,. PUBLIC HEARING' AT THE POUBLTHEHG`ITYNPLAI �R HEARINGS STAFF ; OPEN THE p I THE . .. ,. HE MAY AND , GS O CER MAY COORNTINOUEE THE STAFF OBTAIN HEARINGS INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY, C`T REPORT PRESENTATION INFORMATION, EVIDENCE PUBLIC .CO ANOTHER A.CTIETING TO OBTA ADDITIONAL ON SUBMITS PUBLIC,... PEA_ RING ' H . APPLICATION AFTER APPLICATION, ._ IF ANY PARTY IS , , .. ENTITLED TO TAB ON ON T ally S M " CONTINUANCE GRANTED AT THE IN SUPPORT TO THE APPLIC REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING, ARING MAf REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN HEARING; ANY pp,,RTIC`IPANT IN FOR AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS AFTER THE HEARING, INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE HEARINGS OFFICER WILL BE BASED UPON THESE r' .ITERIA AND THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMVIENlid RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT SPECIFICITY TO AFFORD THE DECISION MAKER AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUE PRECLUDES AN APPEAL TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS BASED ON THAT ISSUE. ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE -NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TEN CENTS PER PAGE,. AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TEN CENTS PER PAGE. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER Will DI Andrea AT 639 -4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BLVD., TIGARD, OREGON. k'`�; � �i �r� x`42 a ' F it ��, �� t'�''a'�' ,r i t ; t �� _af t l t r 1 C ��j '�... �.i '�.� u ti� 1..:1 -,�e. ��'�� r..� �' .. ..r',: s:l �rr. w.4r.'.0 2S102DB' 00200 0 e o s° r; 0 0 0 RANDALL, ROBERT D PROP #816 9500 SW BARBUR BLVD #300 PORTLAND OR 97219 OR 97204 2S102DB -00203 mo0000000000000000000 BUS$E f, LOIS a AND ANDERSON, ROGER A TRUSTEES BY NORRIS a ST S REALTOR 520 6TH #400 PORTLAND _ OR 9720 ... ...� 2S102DD -00205 •00•••••••• 000evoo•roa TIGARD, CITY OP 13125 SW HALL PO BOX 23397 TIGARD OR 97223 2S102Dffi "00204 041 w5SEY, Y80IS a AND ANDERSON, ROGER A BY NORRIS & ST . ;c;,.,. S 520 SW 6TH #40 ►' PORTLAND 2S102DB- 00300 0 • TIGARD, CITY OP 13125 SW HALL PO BOX 23397 TIGARD • 0 0••• a o 0 0 0 o• STEES REALTOR OR 97204. OR 97223 2S102DB -00301 0 • a BOULEVARD TERRACE E JO SON, JEFF E AND LORA X PO BOX 19271 PORTLAND OR 97280 251027)„6,00201 —__-- FA►NNO CREEK ASSOCIATES 9895 SE SUNNYSIDE RD, STE P CS OR 97015 2S102AC -00100 00.0 •0 00. 0000.0.0 LEE, STEPHEN AND T„ EGER, DAVID AND LONG►KE�R, BARBARA M ET AL 1128 NE 3RD HILLSBORO OR 97124 2S102AC'b01800 oao0 o410000 0000o0 0 0 d ALLISON, KENNETH V & LA VELLE D % GILSDORF, ROBERT X & LESLIE N PO BOX 61772 VANCOUVER WA 98666 COMPANY, THE BLVD #300 OR 97219 2S102AD -03000 TIGARD, CITY OF 13125 SW HALL PO BOX 23397 TIGARD OR 97223 .. DRAFT 6-15-93 .. Language to be added is underlined4tL Language to be deleted is [strike-out/brackets] ■■•■•■00.6060 EXHIBIT "B" PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN VOLUME I -- INVENTORY TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER III. FUNCTIONAL STREET CLASSIFICATION The transportation system within the City of Tigard is facilitated by a hierarchy system of streets which are defined below. In discussing a street classification system there are several factors that need to be considered. These include: The capacity of the darstai—heeded based on volumes of traffic; existing streets and proposed street standards that would accommodate projected traffic volumes; through traffic versus intercity traffic; and land use. In addition to the above factors that need to be considered, Tigard's transportation system must be coordinated with the Metropolitan Service District's adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). "The objective of the RTP is to identify a transportation system that will adequately serve the travel needs of the fast growing Portland Metropolitan area." The specifics of the RTP as it affects Tigard,.and Tigard's role in transportation planning as stated in the RTP are discussed in Section IV - Street Improvements in this report. MSD further states that The RTP includes criteria for a highway classification system and adopts a map delineating the principal and major arterial components of the system. In accordance with this, local jurisdictions are required to adopt a Map delineating the various highways in their jurisdiction and in so doing, are recommended to adopt MSD's classification categories and definitions. In adopting a highway system, local jurisdictions must provide for Metro's adopted principal routes and major arterials and designate an adequate minor arterial and collector system to meet the following criteria: a. The minor arterial/collector systeia must adequately serve the local travel demands expected from development of the land use plan to the year 2000 to el Sure that the Principal and Major Arterial System is not overburdened; and b. The system should provide continuity between adjacent and affected jurisdictions (i.e, consistendy between neighboring jurisdictions, consistency between city and county plans for county facilities within city boundaries and consistency between city and ()DOT plans), A-1 ; PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION FILE NO: SLR 94-0002 FILE TITLE: Ash estrian Bridge APPLICANT: REQUEST: APPLICABLE LOCATION: City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard agard, OR 97223 (9'0 (*1-4L1L A request for Sensitive Lands Review approval to allow the construction of a pedestrian bridge over Fanno Creek. REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Sections 18.84. SoUth of the right-of-way for the SW Ash Street crossing of Fenno Creek and west of SW Burnham Street. L5t zA46, CBD (Cee.lral Business District) The Central Business Distridt zone allows public administrative agencies, cultural exhibits and library services, parking facilities, public safety services, religious assemblies, and a variety of commercial and service activities, among other uses. OWNER: Same CIT: South CIT REPRESENTATIVE:4 Bill Mitchell CHECK ALL WHICH APPLY: STAFF DECISION COMMENTS DUE BACK TO STAFF ON 1993 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF HEARING: jHEARINGS OFFICER DATE OF HEARING: CITY COUNCIL DATE OF HEARING: TIME :7:30 TIME:7:00 TIME:7:30 STAFF CONTACT: Wiil WAndrea 639-4171 , • 4.2 I I 7 L 1, v.', • , 4,r'• v a June 18 1994 RECEIVED NANNING JUN 1'3 1994 " t ' • ■ • Ii • — City of Tigard . 13125 SW Hail Blvd A ■ , • tgard, Oregon. 97223 ,.X:illii en RE: F' 1_,Airicteek Pedestrian g18rid e 1,,, ItanS Project No, L4275.G05 k ,144,th y 1 Dear Interested Party: , ir K." OTAK Architects, P.C. is representing the City of Tigard, who oWris the property ?1 1- . located southeast of the Ash Street right-of-way. This prOperty is TAX. Lot 300 of Tax Map 2S 1 2DB, NW 1/4 SE 1/4 Section 2 T2S R1W W.M. which is part of Fanno Creek Park, We are considering proposing a pedestrian bridge crossing Fanno Creek at this location, to connect pedestrian/bike paths together. As part of the application procedure to the City of Tigard for the necessary permits, we would like to discuss the proposal in more detail with the surrounding property owners and residents. You are invited to attend a meeting on June 22, 1994 Conference Room, Tigard Water Department 8777 SW Burnham 7:00 PM Please note this will be an informational meeting on preliminary plans, °These plans may be altered prior to the approval of the application by the City. We look forward to more specifically discussing the proposal with you, Please call me at 699-4542 if you have questions. 4E4 L • TitiO704aS Principal OTAK Ataiiiteco • ,v .t +..Z v!i .r v11 r } %. {:. • t:7 fS� �` • tit City ,o of Tigard Planning Department 13125 SW Hall R . 'Ilford, Or 97223 Attached is a request for a _Sensitive Lands Permit to construct a pedestrian application tic" paths, The bridge and paths are located in Fanno Creek Park The connection bridge over Fenno Creek at Ash Street} with includes the application form, a nafrative, drawings describing the work, a geotechnical investigation, wetlands delineation, and HEC -2 hydraulic analysis. The Fans of Fanno Creek have reviewed and approved the bridge and path location. FEMA was contacted and informed us that they do not ha'v a a review function on this project unless the City of Tigard either revises the existing floodway delineation requests FEMA City the review process. FEMA has a minimum requirement that any devel pme re',hint the e floodway not cause a rise in the water surface. As will be seen in the attached application, this development does not cause a rise in the water surface, The Unified Sewerage Agency was not contacted for this application, It is our understanding from City staff that the City handles this review function{ The bridge is located within the floodway, There is nothing in the ordinance than prohibits this, Section 18,84.015 D requites that a permit approval be obtained in areas of special flood hazard, All approval standards of the ordinance have been met. The path and connecting bridge meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, Approval is therefore requested for the bridge and connecting paths, If there are further questions, please give me a call, Si Thomas W. Hamann Principal, OTAK Architects PA TWH %pb PApro ecA4200\427b \applicatdir j' k�., tit �•I�"�A Kt 11 N M1`v � ili; 4 : it(! �l,1p1 a1 IV� �R �'��Tti Il•'{ May 31, 1994 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE AT ASH STREET Tigard, Oregon Project No. L4275 .18.84.040 Approval Standards A The Hearings Officer shall approve or approve with conditions an application request within the 100 -year floodplain based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: R 1. Land form alterations shall preserve or enhance the floodplain storage function and maintenance of the zero. foot rise floodway shall not result in any narrowing of the floodway boundary; The bridge is constructed of two (2) parallel Glu -Lam beam girders. Hand rails will be placed on top of these girders. The bike path is constructed between these girders. Concrete headwalls - set four (4) feet back from the top of the banks - anchor the bridge girders, The dimensions of the bridge are 48 feet long and 5' -6" feet from the bottom of the beams to the hand rail top, The proposed bridge will occupy approximately 200 ft3 (less than $ cubic yards) of floodplain storage. This volume will be . offset by additional storage volume created when debris removal, minor earthwork and bike path grading occurs. The HEC2 model analysis of Fanno Creek at the proposed bridge location confirms the preservation of the zero -rise floodway and maintenance of the established floodway boundary. 2. Land form alterations or developments N1uithin the 100 -year floodplain shall be allowed only in areas designated as commercial or industrial on the comprehensive plan land use map, except that alterations or developments associated with community recreation uses, utilities, or public support facilities as defined in Chapter 18.42 of the Community Development Code shall be allowed in areas designated residential subject to applicable zoning standards; This is a commun ity " . ity :recreation use, within an existing park and as such is allowed, 3, Where a land forni aiteratlon or developnnent a permitted to occur within the floodplain it will not t esuit in any increase in the water surface elevation of the 100 -year flood;; ee A41. above, The land form alteration or development plan includes a pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan, unless the construction of said pathway is deemed by the Hearing Officer as untimely; phis application is for a pedestrian/bicycle pathway, in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. 6. The plans for the pedestrian/bicycle pathway indicate that no pathway will be below the elevation of an average annual flood, The proposed pedestrian/bikeway pathway is set back from the top of creek banks. The bridge crosses Fanno Creek 1600 feet downstream from the Main Street bridge. 'Along this creek section the elevation athwa pathway ' varies but at the bridge crossing it is expected to be 142 - 143 feet. The average annual flood flow (.e expected to occur once every year) is not established for Fenno Creek at this location. There are, however, methods for estimating the annual flood water surface height using Observable physical characteristics found on a stream or waterbody. One such technique, used for this situation, relies on the defined vegetation boundary occurring on the stream bank to approximate the annual flood height, This boundary exists where the flow depth in a creek occurs frequently enough that vegetative growth below this level is prevented from establishing a root system to support growth. At the proposed bridge crossing location this boundary occurs 23 feet below the top of the bank and the b proposed ilte path elevation. ` • pp the claim � that und by evaluating the local Additional su ort for above the annual flood height y g topography and the City's existing Bike Path system The topography , g this ..,, sec tion of Fenno Creek is similar (gt) on both sides of the Creek. The proposed bike path will connect to the existing bike path that ends behind the City shops. This g path extended to Hall Boulevard The local existing bike t ash will be eaten topography dictates that the proposed bike path must be built very near to the same elevation as the existin g bike path. The City has approved the location of the new extended path, and this path is at the same elevations. The necessary �J.g AMY vp Corps of Engineers and State of ®re on � sar� g and $oard, Division of State Lands approvals shall be obtained; and Engineers p.. it, i fired due to the U'� Army Corps of Bn nests etmit is not requ ' small scope of the work. The path on the west side of the creek The impacts, which are fill need to be passes through wetlands, p , i greater than 10 cubic yards to require a permit. The Corps ir'!.�....1'i �, tiiiyx )G4.. b�t..4 �t ,,i l) {�L ?fi.. �r ?f �t: ir• a�= ..;!%�� fNy. c 4 d Xf +,�� 41+ B i 1 ys tr r s v;.t• . ^;;; (::r calculates only the filled area, not excavation. The path is 498 square feet by 6 1/2" (.54') deep, or 9.96 cubic yards. DEQ was contacted as well. They stated that, for a project of this nature, an impact of less than 10 cubic yards was approved by policy and did not require a permit from DEQ. Additionally, rip rap on the creek banks is allowed without a permit by the US Army Corps of Engineers if it is no greater than yard per frontage high water one cubic and er lineal fronts foot below the mean mark, for each high water mark is side of the bank. The mean hi side g identified in A.5, above, as 2 to 3 feet below the top of the bank. The sloping bank is approximately 12 feet at the bridge, less 2 feet to the mean high water mark. This is 10 feet, measured along the slope. The attached soils report recommends rip rap of 8 to 15 inches thick, two stones deep (page 4). This rip rap then is an average of two feet thick, Two feet thick by 10 feet high is twenty cubic feet per lineal foot, under the one cubic yard requirement (one cubic yard is twenty seven cubic feet), The Oregon Division of State Lands does not require a permit for wetlands work until the impacts exceed 50 cubic yards. The work in this project is less than 50 cubic yards, ' and /or development are the Where land form alterations allowed within and adjacent to the 100 -year floodplain, he City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance plan. ' e with. the comprehensive ovation fo��the � construction Include of a portions of a suitable elevation pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. This proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Volume 2, page 99 p g ; item G. The bridge is within existing open land area and is in the active park area between Ash and Hall. This proposed posed path is at a suitable elevation and is in accordance with the adopted plan, shall approve or approve with conditions an application request Director permit , for a Sensitive erin pas of 25 percent or greater or Pp.. it q on slopes p �' unstable ground based u +SOix findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: 1, extent and nature of the not s d land form alteration e� nor development sate site disturbances to an extent greater" than that required for the use; slopes gr , than ., .. I_ only o � . .. ` on the creek The area of wt►rk�lterati here to a com.modate the bridge at banks. The only . rip the top of the lbanit) and to provide ri rap on the bank. The disturbances are minimal) and are not greater than required. pr- 2. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erogion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on site and off site effects or hazards to life or property; Only the stream banks in the vicinity of the bridge occur at slopes greater than 25 percent. During construction erosion and sedimentation control will be accomplished through proper scheduling that limits activities during the "dry" months of the year and by implementing control measures (e.g. silt fences, etc,) as mandated IV the Tualatin River Basin Plan. Ground instability and potential erosion and sedimentation in and around the bridge footings will be controlled by the placement of rip rap aprons on either side of the channel to protect the bridge footings and control scour. 3. The structures are appropriately sited and designed to ensure structural stability and proper drainage of foundation and crawl space areas for development with any of the following soil conditions: wet/high water table; high shrink-swell capability; compressible/organic; and shallow depth-to-bedrock; and The bridge footings are set 4 feet back from the top of bank, to avoid impacting the stability of the bank. The construction of the bridge will be in accordance with the attached geotechnical investigation from Dames and Moore, dated May 17, 1994. 4, Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.100, Landscaping and Screening. The loss of vegetation will be mini/nal, Areas disturbed by the construction will be hydroseecled. The Director shall approve or approve with conditions an application request for a sensitive lands permit within drainageways based upon findings that all of the following criteria for the use: 1. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbanceS to the extent greater than that required for the uSe; See B41 above, 2 The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion, Stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to life or property; 8ee 112. above, 3. The water flow capacity of the drainageway is not decreased; The drainageway's flow capacity is not impaired by the bridge's construction. Annual floods will continue to pass freely under the proposed bridge. When flows greater than the annual flood occur water will leave the main channel, overtop the banks and pass around the bridge and flow over the bike path. These conditions have occurred and would continue to occur even if the bridge isn't built, 4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.100, Landscaping and Screening; See B.4 above. 5. The drainageway will be replaced by a public facility of adequate size maximum flow in accordance with the adop ed 1981 Master Drainage Plan. Doesn't apply. 6. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands approvals shall be obtained. See A.6 above. Where landform alterations and /or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100 -year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance wi h the y e adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. (Ord. 90 -29; Ord, 90 -22; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 87 -66; Ord. 87 -32; Or d. 86 -08; Ord, 84 -29; Ord. 83 -52) See A.7 above. Di The Di application oriditofis an application request for sensitive lands permit within wetlands based Upon findings Director shall a' rove or approve with c that all of the following criteria have been satisfied! 1. The proposed landform alteration or development is neither on wetland in an area designated as signifWant wetland on the Comprehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetland Map nor la within 25 feet of such a wetland; 'lA r.'"!*:, �'4,t � rc:�oi w '�'•° a J ^ �.� fir,,. t,Yi e� .. '� wr t'.1'�3;C h..�''�v�.- This site is not de;;ignated as significant wetland on the Comprehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetland Map, nor is it within 25 feet of such a wetland. The extent and nature of the proposed landform alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than the minimum required for the use; See B.1 above. Any encroachment or change in on -site or off -site drainage which would adversely impact wetland characteristics have been mitigated; This project does not change on -site or off -site drainage. 4. Where to e na alteration oridevelopment, been removed control landform provisions of the Surface Water Management program of Washington County must be met and areas not covered by � Y structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted in like or similar species in accordance with Chaptei 18.100, Landscaping and Screening; See 11,4 above. 5. All other sensitive lands requirements of this chapter have been met; This narrative responds to Section 18.84,40 Approval Standards in its entirety, 6. The provisions of Chapter 118:150, Tree Removal, shall be met; and No trees larger than six inches in diameter will be removed for this project, therefore this provision does not apply, Physical Limitations and Natural Hazards, Floodplains and Wetlands, Natural Areas, and Parks, Recreation and Open Space ace olicies of the Comprehensive Plan have been p Satisfied. (Ord. 90 -29; Ord, 89 -96; Ord: 87,66, Ord: 87 -32; Ord: 83 -52) This project meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan under Volume 2, page 1 -99, Item G. The park meets the plan, and the path is one of the intended uses of the park, tiAtikeje44200\4276\ rldge.app AMES & MOORE 1750 S.W. HARBOR WAY, SUITE 400, PORTLAND, OREGON 97201 (503) 228-7688 FAX: (503) 223-6083 Mr. David Copenhaver Gramm Development 9895 SE Sunnyside Road, Suite P Clackamas, Oregon 97015 Geotechnical Investigation Planned Pedestrian Bridge over Fanno Creek Main Street Village at Fanno Creek Park Tjgard. Ogon Dear Mr. Copenhaver: In accordance with your request and authorization, Dames & Moore has completed a geotechnical investigation for foundation support of the planned pedestrian bridge over Fanno Creek at the Main Street Village project. Authorization for this study was provided by Mr. Tom Hamann of OTAK. This report documents our investigation and presents our findings, conclusions, and recommendations regarding the planned bridge. ErgjesULessirpi Description Based on drawings provided by OTAK, we understand that the planned construction consists of a 48-foot long, 10-foot wide wooden pedestrian bridge. Abutment loads are anticipated to be on the order of around 25 ldps each or 2.5 kips per lineal foot along the abutments. Lateral loads were not available at the time of this report, but standard UBC earthquake loads will likely govern lateral design. The bridge will span the relatively narrow channel of Fanno Creek near the east corner of the Main Street Village at Fanno Creek Park project. Current surface grades at the planned crossing are approximately l43 feet at the west abutment and 141.75 feet at the east abutment loc,ation. A maximum slope of 2 percent is planned, indicating that almost no abutment fills will be required. Shallow foundation support is anticipated due to the relatively light abutment loads. The planned bridge site IS surrounded by undeveloped land fraversed by foot frails, Surface , , , topography is relatively flat except for the steep creek banks approximately 8 feet high on each Side, Vegetation at the site consists primarily of high grasses and blackberries with a few small the ' but not in the I'm I ' A trees, Mature trees are present surrounding t-e site, tit ot in ...e i med ate site area, A very soft, Wet area Was observed north of the west abutment along the coiastruction access path, WORLMIlt A ES .. Y MOORE Gratnor Development May 17, 1994 Page 2 Subsur, face Subsurface conditions near the planned abutments were investigated by means of two test pits excavated with a rubber -tired backhoe using a 2 -foot wide bucket. The test pits were continuously logged by Dames & Moore's project engineer. Logs of the test pits are presented on Figures 1 and 2, attached. In general, the conditions observed in the two test pits were similar to the conditions observed throughout the Main Street Village site Specifically, the site is underlain by brown and gray silty soils to a depth of about 8 feet over a variable deposit of blue -gray very silty fine sane or silt extending to the maximum depth explored: The brown silty soils are soft to medium stiff at the planned bridge site The blue -gray soils are generally stiff, but are too deep to of feat the planned construction. The upper soils were significantly softer on the west side compared to the east side. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of about 11 to 111Aa feet in Test Pit TP -2; groundwater was not encountered in TP -1, which terminated at a depth of 81/2 feet. It is likely that groundwater elevations at the site match the elevation in the nearby creek. However, the low permeability requires rmeabili of the soils r wires a long time for groundwater levels to pits. It is • i rise in the its I interesting to note that the contact between the upper brown and gray soils and the lower blue- gray materials is located very near the creek bed elevation. cluslo, nom. Based on the .. p p project site, it is i i results of our subsurface exploration and our experience ters perspective s provided our opinion that the planned construction is feasible from n design n and: construction. Significant the recommendations in this report are incorporated in include the g conditions which could affect the planned construction following: The site is underlain by soft to medium stiff silty soils. Conventional shallow foundation support is possible provided low bearing pressures are used The upper 3 to 3 % feet o f soil at the west abutment is noticeably softer an other foundation soils at the site The west abutment will require overexclwation or deepened footings as discussed below. t i i p+ y t 8 feet below ipresent site grades: Groundwater at the site is probably show Groundwater will probably not affect the planned construction. The native silty soils are highly sensitive .. + itive to disturbance when wet, Foundation bearing surfaces should be protected from equipment and foot traffic loads du ring Wet weather conditioner r q .l G ..0� , .t. � .� i . t :, it d . t i r. � `,. i .!. On:e:�.t .,.d� ?�1 f � V � •� Gramor Development May 17, 1994 Page 3 ltecornxnendation Foundation Support We recommend that the planned pedestrian bridge be supported by conventional strip abutment foundations established on firm native soils or properly compacted granular fill soils. Foundations may be proportioned using an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot for static vertical loads. This value may be increased by one -third when considering transient loads such as wind or seismic forces. We recommend that the east abutment foundation be established at least 2 feet beneath adjacent finished grades. Foundation conditions at the west abutment are less favorable, particularly in g view, we that the west foundation be established at least the upper 3 /i feet. 1 In this vi recom foundation bearin area .. be overexcavated to a depth 3 � feet beneath present grades, or that the bearing p g grade properly p g ils. Clean i granular fill so of at least. 4 feet and brought back to rade withcons act � ra �• Backfill materials ,. crushed sand is an acceptable fill material, as is � - and 11/2-inch below. We recommend that the should be selected, placed, and compacted as overexcavated area extend at least 2 -feet beyond the foundation perimeter. Lateral Resistance We recommend that the bridge abutments be designed to resist lateral loads usin g an allowable passive earth pressure of 350 pounds per square foot per foot of depth and a friction coefficient • inside faces of the of 0.3. passive � p. passive earth The assive resistance value should be reduced to 200 psf/ft on the insi abutments due to the reduced resistance of the nearby creek slope Friction and pass y s. pressure may be combined provided the passive component does not exceed two- thirds of the total. Foundation Settlement i g planned. relatively light foundation It is our understanding that abutment tment fills are not Due to the i •p will likely be about ,. ' -inch or less. Any loads, we antics 2 _ __ ,ate that ,foundation settlements several weeks of load -application. settlement should generally occur within sev . . Site Preparation and Fill Compaction i i access roads and minor grading around . : preparation . , will likely be confi ; constructing soft area north of the west abutment be excavated bite w n to the abutment the s t areas We recommend that p p 2 feet and brought back .., to grade with compacted crushed rock, A woven i to bac �� a x i e of fabric least fi 500X should be placed on the excavation bottom prior to backfillin : geotextile fabna (� ra , , p, Drainage should be provided from the rock backfill to the creek. Other access roads should y t' tit• +�r� r�� !:7 I- �ir.'..4s`,!;�rrlv�rnfj1 +y.is� I y.. "s id, v:,.,iv��• %AI �..'^ i rl ' by �•.� ... �• +.rtd e♦�Uh�V 4 i,•�c, :. �.;5'+1�.. AMES & MOORE Gramor Development May 17, 1994 Page 4 be surfaced with at least 6 inches of crushed rock. This section assumes relatively light wheel tion. Thicker sections may be required. loads and relatively dry conditions during construction. Y All structural fill and backfill, including abutment backfills, should consist of clean, durable crushed rock or sand with no more than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. Fill should be placed in uniform horizontal lifts and compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction as evaluated by ASTM Test Method D1557. The optimum lift thickness will vary depending on the compaction equipment used, but should generally not exceed 8 inches. It is our experience that the foundation soils are extremely sensitive to disturbance when wet. We recommend that all exposed footing subgrades be protected by a working blanket of compacted crushed rock at least 4 inches thick. Additional wet - weather construction recommendations can be provided if necessary. Slope Stability, (Erosion Control We recommend that abutment foundations be established outside the area described by a plane rising from the toe of the channel bank at an,inclination of 2 :1 (horizontal to vertical). We also recommend that interior abutment slopes be laid back to an inclination no steeper than 111. We recommend that the abutment slope areas be protected from erosion with riprap or other suitable erosion control system. Assuming a maximum. flow rate of 5 feet per second, we s m. g recommend that conventional stone riprap consist of 8 -inch to 15 -inch diameter crushed or quarried stone placed at least 2 stones thick on the interior abutment slopes. Riprap erosion protection should extend at least 5 feet beyond each side of the bridge: A filter layer is not considered necessary under the riprap. The toe of the riprap layer should be established at least 2 feet enea the current creek bed t elevation, and should be at least 2 stones Wide. Riprap may be end dumped and raked back into k or other excavation equipment. Stones should be adjusted to a place khoe bucket eq p lace with a ac stable configuration With at least 3 -point contact on underlying stones after the riprap layer has been shaped. Construction Monitorinu #ind Testing a The recommendations presented in this report are based on evaluation of conditions encountered in . two test p pits and c orrelation with our ,knowledge of conditions throughout the Main Street Village site. Subsurface conditions may vary, and u nantici p ated conditions may be encounte red g Burin construction.. Gramor Development May 17, 1994 Page 5 We recommend that foundation bearing surfaces be observed by a Dames & Moore representative prior to placing the working blanket. We also recommend that all structural fill placed around the abutments be tested by Dames & Moore. We appreciate this opportunity to be of continued service. Please call if you have any questions. or if additional information is required. Yours very truly, DAMES & MOORE, INC. James W. Associate ohnson, P.E. F r ti • ti c t LEGIBILITY STRIP } _ _ Y t .'z • 0.i. ioc0 j1/44 ROBEV■C glas R. chwarm, P.E. Project Engineer Attachments: Test Pit Logs cc Mr. Tom Hamann, OTAK 2154i-01,0 rwir:DRstith 21S4i-oo7h-oi6 ! 7 i -.LtA S r Y r�r t 3, it •tr t,r �:'�.l�+r r � � � x1l +H� ,k }!-MFG .�.1!1.1 TEST PIT TP -1 Date Excavated: May 11, 1994 0. 0 0. Surface Elevation: 141 +1- feet to Brown to dray -brown clayey SILT, stiff, moist to wet, moderate pinhole porosity. Color grades lighter gray Gray and olive brown mottl ©d clayey SILT, stiff, moist, trace fine sand, moderate manganese staining, minor pinhole porosity. Color grades light gray with brown mottling. Blue -gray very silty fine sand, medium dense, Wet, minor pinhole porosftyx NOTE: Test pit completed at a depth of 8.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered during excavation, , I3ackfilled'5 -11 -94 Drllion tl lnwnti aarplo bIstUrbed sample, gtoundWater depth tat time of ekcaVation. TEST PIT LOG a,' 1 1.0 1.5 1.5 kEV': b k i n th�nweVl erflmpia, bletuibod reampi ©, C roundwatnr doptii at alma o} o�taevo Un TEST PIT TP -2 Date Excavated: Mny 11, 1994 Surface Elevations 144 +/- feet Medium Orgy -brown clayey SILT, croft to medium stiff, wet, rootlets in upper 6 ", moderate pinhole porosity. Color grades to medium gray Consistency increases to stiff MH F3lu r e -gray clayey SILT with trace fine sand, stiff, moist, minor pinhole porosity. Color grades to light bluo -gray Moisture increases to saturated w� a NOTE: Test pit completed at a depth of 12.0 feet GroUndwator oncountored at depth of botWeon 11 and 11.5 feet during excaiiation. BackfOlod 5- 11.94. TEST PrT LOG 1541, 007,016 tit Figure A -2 1 .Y Gramor Development May 17, 1994 Page 3 Recommendations AMES & MOORE Foundation Support We recommend that the planned pedestrian bridge be supported by conventional strip abutment foundations established on firm native soils or properly compacted granular fill soils. Foundations may be proportioned using an allowable bearing g pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot for static vertical loads. This value may be increased by one -third when considering transient loads such as wind or seismic forces. east beneath adjacent We recommend that the east abutment foundation be established a at least 2 feet benea h adjacent nt finished grades. Foundation conditions at the west abutment are less favorable, particularly the upper 3'/i feet. In this view, we recommend that the west foundation be established at least . • 9 g overexcavated to a depth 3�h feet beneath �1 granular fill Heath present grades, or that the foundation bearing area be overexcava soils. depth of at least 4 feet and brought back to, grade with properly comps g p -• rock. ,f`ll materials sand is an acceptable fill material, as is 34- and 1' /z "inch minus crushed rocl� �acr` nd that, the discussed below. We recommend be selected, placed, and compacted as the foundation perimeter. overexcavated area extend at least 2-feet beyond P Lateral Resistance We recommend bridge resist lateral loads using an allowable designed be desi ned to foot of depth and a friction coefficient ... nd that the brad � pounds per square foot P 3S0 a value should be reduced to 200 psf /ft on the inside faces of the passiv� earth pressure stance v of 0 m. The due the reduced resistance of . � passive .earth the nearby creek slopes. Friction and �° ue to resistance y abutments d combined provided the passive component does not exceed two - thirds of the pressure may be comb p P total,. Foundation Settlement It is our understanding that abutment fills are not planned. Due to the relatively light foundation ip will i about ih -inch or .less. Any loads v� anticipate that foundation e be ants wit likely . + within several weeks of load dppli.cation settlement should generally occur Site Preparation and Fill Compaction Site preparation will likely be confined to constructing . access roads and minor grading around the abutn ant areas: We recommend back with abutment be excavated led . . , nd that the oft area north of the west shed rock: A 'coven to grade compacted crushed . , brought back to ra a 'pith .,...nation. bottom prior to bacl�iling a depth . of at least 2 feet and bro placed on the excavation p . xtile fabric (Mirafi 500X) should be pla o „ Drainage should be provided from the rock backfill to the creek. Other access roads should Drainage TO , Town Hamann; O'V'A , O 1" John Warinner, OAK »;, a I t D ,'r s April SUBJECT: Villa +e . Fenno Creek: tri'd ,M 4I » t FEMMfl. Bot » I xnaif�r heard frd� Katharine �enett � �;� M ;� ,,� . • fu 'referonco,`h ®r pho ►e; umber ;, (206):48 ?= 4I3 ,:» ° N' , . . • not, Savo x ®err fu�ncion t�ta�lae project Q make yla � d o y 'short, ► w, . 4 1' unless the City of Tigard. "eitl rs ,. I „ ) I t , I .1 ... W. .i t/ FYI ♦ \'��, jrM:N::'.1 i ' 1 ' '' 1' a delineation or or ' l'' w' ' " revises see existing j y requests That FE11I4 alsist them' with t the r ®vievv`prmess, - ' ' ♦ r .. Otherwise, FEMA has a minimum requirement .thatrany development vvithin the ! y floodway cannot cause a rise in the water surface, .Katharine suggested that the .'f, • City of Tigard's re uirements incorporate this FEMA requirement, , '� 1. t S5rf.11 ,.. ' 1, r��,t: !$, .• of ..: �,r.,if?`.,; iv.t)r� SW'. ._ .. h i. ' +'S ")'W • TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MMORANbiiM .. Tom Hamann, OTA,K John Warinner, OTAX March 29, 1994 Village at Fenno Creek Bridge Analysis -- Summary of Findings A F rinted copy of the existing Fenno Creek FIS model was provided by the City of Tigard. We coded the peirtinent section of this model into IrEC -2 and verified our coding with the output of the existing model. The resulting water surface elevations are shown below in the column labeled Existing FIS. proposed bridge, it was necessary' to develop a revised To evaluate the relative effect of the ropose �� condition. . . Two new channel cross sections (4.59 and 4.60) were added at the base mand downstream face proposed bridge to represent of the propos existing conditions before construction of the bridge. Sections 4.59 and 4.60 were generated by transposing for section 4,50 to this location and adjusting it s preserve the existing channel slightly to press el gradient. Comparing columns two and w, it is apparent that inclusion of the ne w sections results in a new base three below, water surface condition which is slightly higher than the existing FIS. The p proposed bridge was analyzed two different ways: a worst scenario, with orst case sce the entire structure perpendicular to flow; and another scenario with the structure P posed coded on a skew to the direction of flow. Though the second scenario resulted in less obstruction to flow, the results of the two runs were nearly identical. bridge appears In summary, the brid a rs to have a negligible impact on. Fanno Creek, even under the worst case scenario, lrido.oaAt4En. is ^tt01.§- Ij SCTS p C,•• S. ., • 'Afthftoctdr�e�. •- a 1o, a�t. rbarr Dos iis' �+ •'- • r J-R ✓,le, •i +, Oeveiopment rye cee `" S3 !larids{ aP�`�►rchit�cture Ai*OIWg,"pr2i/, SY TrarisporWlorr t., ;t:• nyft 1r on ai Serli�c ©se., '• yiWWtor ResDurees . t. .1' ytl xt,.,A • Existing New Babe k'][ Model 4.16 145:22` . 14522 .� 4:60 , 146.44 146.44 4:69 n/a _ 146:95 4.60 ;n/a 146.99 ,._ • 146.22 146:22 146.4 146.95 146.99 147.50 147.50 147,74 147.74 4,64 147:26 147,50 4.67 147.52.,.1 147:14 4.73 147.85 148.02 148:02 4.77 148,46 .. , 148.52 LEGIBILITY STRIP HEC -2 WATER SUFtEACR PROFILES Verson 4 -6_2 May 1991 * RUN DATE 29MAR94: TIME: 10 =25:32 *- *: * * *** * * * **. * * * * * *. ** * * * * **: 1-* * * * * **-* 2.9MAR94 10; :25:32 HEC` --2 WATER. SURFACE PROFILES Version_ 47-6--2p May 1991 T1 T2 T3 x x XXXXXXX xxxxx X x X x x X x x x xxxxxxc xxxc x X x x X x x x x x X x XXXI= xxxxx EANNO: CREEK HEC2 MODEL- BRIDGE MODEL UPDATED BY OTAK (3/24%S4) FILENAME: FANNO B1..DAT SAME= AS FANN0 NI -DAT OTHER THAN THE FOLLOWING REVISIONS` REVISED HEADER AND TITLE CARDS.. SECTION 4.60' COPIED AT BRIDGE: LOCATION' 1.- COPIED SECTION`- NAMED 4..59. BRIDGE TO LIE BETWEEN 4_59 AND 4.60 ADDED: BT CARDS= TO DEFINE BRIDGE STRUCTURE: ADDED GR POINTS TO CORRESPOND; WITH BT` POINTS NEW BASE; (FANNO B1` _DAT)` 100 -YEAR BASE FLOOD; PROFILE= FANNO? CK WORST" BRIDGE J1 ICHECK INQ NINV IDIR -1 Z 0- 0= J2 NPROF IPLOT PREVS XSECV 0 -L J3= VARIABLE CODES FOR SUMMARY PRINTOUT 150: 22 200 38:- 2a 54 STRT' 0 XSECR 52 34 XXXXX x x x ********* *.* * * * * * * * * ** * ** * * * * * * * * * ** * *** * U. S ARMY CORPS OE ENGINEERS * HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER * 609 SECOND STREET, SUITE D * DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 -4687 * * (916) 756 -1104 * * ** * * * ** *+fir * * ** iris * ** * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * ** PAGE THIS RUN EXECUTED 29MAR94 10:25:32 METRIC= HVINS Q: WSEL 0 0 145.22. EN` ALLDC IBW CHNIM ITRACE, 61 53 27 21. LEGIBILITY STRIP. B NC .085 _085- .046 ..1. .3 QT 2 4063 4.063= ET" 4.160- 0- 4..1 1240 1730 XT 4.1'60: 26 1520: 1565 580 510 1090 GR. 157.7 580 156 582 155..8 700 153 800 151 875 GR 147..7 975 147.5 1015• 147.2 1100 145.6 1200 144.3' 1300 GR 140 1390: 135 1520 136 1540 133.6 1544 132.4: 1547 GR. 132 155a 132.4 1554 133 -7 1557 136 1565 140 1575 GR 142 1715= 144 1730 146 1750 150 1835 152 1855 GR. 154. 1900' 29MAR94 10:25:32 PAGE' 2 NC ..085 _085 .04T _3 ..5 £T; 4.5 0' 4.1 1560 1930 XL 4..5 30 1717 1760 800 1410 1730 GR 154.4 900 153 -5 1000 152.4 1100 152.0 1200 152 1300 GR 151).3 1400 148! 1500 147 1545 142.5 1590 141.2 1664 GR. 141.9 1717 1,41..T 1725 136.8: 1731 135..7 1733 133.4' 1738 GR 13Z.2 1741 132.3 1745 135.7 1751 138.1 1752 141.7 1760 GR 142.3 1817 143_3: 1900 145.5 1965 150 2035 151 2100 GR. 153.3 2200 154.7 2280 156 2330 159.3 2400 159.6 2435 DOWNSTREAM FACE OE PROPOSED- BRIDGE: CO2Y' OE SECTION 4..60 ET 4.59 0 4.1 1560= 1930' X.1 4.59 34 1717 1760 300 325 375 GR 155.3- 900 154.4 1000 153_.3; 1.100` 152.9 1200 152.9 1300 GR 151.2 1400 148.9 1500 147.9' 1545 143.4 1590. 1.42.1 1664 GR 142..4: 1675 142.8 1717 142.8 1718! 142.6 1725 137..7 1731 GR 136.6 1733 13.4.3 1738 133.:1 1741 133.6 1745 136.6 1751 GR 139_0- 1752 142.6 1760 142.8. 1761 142.9 1780 143.2 1817 GR 144.2. 1900 146.4 1965 150_9 2035 151.9 2100 154.2 2200 GR`. 155.6 2280 156.9 2330 160.2 2400 160 -5: 2435 BT T4 1675 142.4'. 142.4 1717 14.4.8- 142.8 1718 148.1 142.8' BT ° 1725 148_1 142.8 1731 148.1 142.8 1733 148.1 142.8. Br 1738 148.1 142..8; 1741 148.1. 142.8 1745 148.1 142..8` BT" 1751 148.1 142.8 1752 148.1 142.8 1760 148.1 142.8 BT 1761 144.8 142.8 1780 142.9 142.9' UPSTREAM PACE OF PROPOSED BRIDGE ET 4..60`- 0= 4..1 1560: 1930 X1 4'-60 0 0 0 20- X2 20 20 1 QT 2. 40`42 4042 ET 4.64 0- 4.1 515 975 XI. 4.64 22. 530 575 280 305 355 GR 156 0 154 60 152 245 150 380 150 490 GR 148= 510 140 530 138.8 533 137.5 535 135.2 540 GR. 134 543= 134.5 547 137.5 553 139.9 554 140 575 GR: 142. 615 142 7 401. 144 895 146 945 148 1015 GR 152. 1260 158 1490 LEGIBILITY "$TRIP Er 4_67 0 4_1 560 1235 XL 4..67 26 1005 1030 340 170 500 GR 160 0 158 150 156 175 154 255 152 310 GR 150 455 148 520 146 645 144. 680 144 810 GR. 146 905 144 960 140 1005 135.8 1008 134.8 1011 GR 134..7' 1015 135 1018 135-8` 1021 140 1030 142 1055 I PAGE 29MAR9'4`. 10: :2532 GR 142 1190: 144 GR 160 1395: 1205 146 1230 148 1250 150 1270 ET- 4.:73: 0' 4.1 1100 1730 X1 4.73 25; 1347 1375- 100 360 620 GR. 160 500 160 525 158 680 156 715 154 803 GR 152 840 150 978 148 1045 146 1105 144 1275 GR 143'.,2 1324 143'.2 1339 142-6 1347 137 -6 1351 136 _6 1354 GR. 136..5 1358: 136.8` 1361 137_6 1364 140 1370! 142 1375 GR. 144 1435 146 1720: 148 174.0' 150 1785 154 1865 NC ..080 -080 .050- QT 2 4038;- 4038: ET 4.77 0 4_1 780 855 Xl 4_77 1-7 780 855 430 250 485 GR 160= 0 158 195 154 370 152 610 150 780 GR. 140 800 138 805 137.5 815 138 825 140 830 GR 150 855 154 1025 156..5 1100 160 1165 164 1400 GR 168:: 1540': 170 1660: 1 29MAR94: 1025 :32 SECNO'= DEPTK CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG. HMI iii OLOSS L- BANK .ELEV Q QLOB QM!: QROB ALOB ACH AROB VOL- TWA. R-BANK ELEV TIME VLOB= VCH VROB`, kI•L, XNCH XNR SrdTPT ELMIN SSTA SLOPE XLOBL, XLCE{ XLOBR ITRIAL IDC ICONT CORAR TOPWID: EN DST *PROF I 0: CCHV ..100 CE}PT= ..300; *SECNO 4'..16o- 4-160 13'._22 145.22 ..00 145.22 145..33: .11 .00 ..00 138.00' 4063..C° 1504..2 1719 -9 838..9 1117 -5 453 -4 703. -7 .0 .0' 136.:00 .:00° 1.35 3'-79= 1..19` ..085- ..046 ..085 .000: 132..00 1229`.23 .000665 580. 1090- 510.. 0 0 0- .00! 512.97 1742.20 CCHV .300 CEFiV= -500. *SECNO 4.500 3302 WARNING CONVEYANCE:. CHANGE OUTSIDE° OF ACCEPTABLE: RANGE, KRATIO'. = ..69 4.500 14.24 146.,44 .00 ..00; 146..61 .18 1.25 .03 141.90 4063 -0 1170.8 1845.2 1046 -9: 675 -6 392 1.. 693. -6 55.9 12_4 141-70 .,12 1.:73- 4 ;-71 1..51 ..085: ..047 ..085 .000 132.20 1550.65 PAGE: LEGIBILITY STRIP .00138a 428-89 1979.54 *SECNO 4-590 4-590 13.85 146-95 .00 .00 147.17 . 23 _54 .02 142.80 4063-0 1134-9 1958.2 969.9 607.6 375.2 605.0 68.4_ 15.5 142.60 .15 1.87 5-22 1.60 ..085 .047 .085 .000 133.10 1554.54 -001799 300 - 375.. 325.. 2 0 0 .00 418..96 1973.50 *SECNO 4.600 4.600 13.89- 146-99 4063-0, 11,37.6 1949.4 .15 1-86 5.18' .001.76I 20.. 20. -00 .00. 976-0 612.8 1_60 .085 20. 0 147.21 .22 -04 .00 142.80 376.6 611.8 69.2 15_7 142-60 .047 -085 -000 133.10 1554-22 0 0 .00 419-77 1973.99 *SECNO. 4-640-- 3302. WARNING: CONVEYANCE= CHANGE OUTSIDE; OE ACCEPTABLE' RANGE', KRATIO =- 1.56 4..640 13.50 147.50- .00 4042-0 75.5 1532..4; 2434.1 -19, 1-0T 3.59 1.34 -0007131 280- 355. 305- 2.9MAR94 1025:32. .00 147.60 .09 70.3 426.9 1810.2. .085 .047 .085 2. 0 0 .34 .04 140.00 83-1 18.8 140-00 -000 134.00 511.25 -00 486.32 997.57 SECNO DEPTH CWSEL. CRIWS WSELK EG HV HL. OLOSS L-BANK ELEV Q QLOB QCK QROB ALOB ACH AROB VOL Triv.71. R-BANK ELEV TIME_ VLOB VCR VROB 1c1,1L XNCH XNFt liTN ELMIN SSTA. SLOPE. )(Lost XLCK >MOBR. ITRIAL IDC ICONT CORAR TOPWID ENDST *SECNO, 4.- 670- 4.6711 13-..04. 147.74 .00, .00 147.81 .08 4042-0 1399.1 1080.8 : 1562.2 1343.8 282-9 1097.1 -24 1-04 3-82 1.42 . 085 -047 .085 .000680 340- 500'. 170. 2. 0 0 *SECNO. 4.730, 4.730 11.52 148-02 -00- -00 148..14 .11 4042-0 1224-0 1201.4. 1616.5 905.4 267-4 1183.5 .28 I-35 4-49- 1.37 -085 .047 .085 .001168: 100.. 620- 360.. 2 0 0 -21 .00 140.00 98-4 22.4 140.00 .000 134-70 536.54 .00 710.81 1247.35 .31 .02 142.60 114..3 26.1. 142.00 .000 136-50 1044-22 .00 696-30 1740.52 3302. WARNING:: CONVEYANCE_ CHANGE OUTSIDE OF ACCEPTABLE: RANGE, 4-770 4038 ..G .29 .006766 11.02. 148.52 .00 -O. 4038.0 .0 _Do e..52 -00 430.. 485- 250- -00 149.65 1-13 -0 473.7 .0 -000 .050 -000 2 0 1-00 .51 150.00 126.3 29.1 150.00 .000 137.50 782-97 .00 68c11 851.29 • LEGIBILITY STRIP 1 T1 T2 T3: 29MAR94 IQ =25:32 NEW BASE MODEL- (;EANNO B1.:DAT) ; 100-YEAR METHOD= ONE ELOODWPY PROFILE EANNQ Oa WORST BRIDGE. 01 ICHECK INQ NINV IDIA 0 3' 0 J2 NPROE (PLOT- PREYS: 15 29PLAR94 I0' 2532 SECNO DEPT}[ Q QLOa: TIME VLOB= SLOP& XLOBL- *PROF 2 0= CWSEL: QCF VCR XLCFi CCHVC =- ..100: CERV= ..300' *SECNO 4160: 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 4..160 13'..24 406.3_0 1507.8' . C) ..34. .000658= 580_-- 145.24 171T.5 3'-78: 1090'.. CCHV -- .300 CEHV= ..500 *SECNO 4..500= STRT METRIC, . XSECV XSECH EN: CRIWS'. QROB: VROB` XLOBR WSELK ALOB k'NL- ITRIAL_ EG ACF XNCK IDC' 124.0-.0 1730.._0- TYPE= _00: 145.22 145.35 837..6 112203: 454:.3'- 1.20. .085 .:046 510;.. 0- 0 3302 WARNING: CONVEYANCE CHANGE 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 4.500. 14`.25 146-45 4063 "..0 1189..7` 1861.3 -12 1.77 4..74; -001396 800.. 1730`., OUTSIDE=: OF ACCEPTABLE RANGE, }WINS Q WSEL, 145.24; ALLDC IBW- CHNIM 1560.0 1930..0 TYPE= 1 .00 146. 44' 146.63 673.6 392..7' ..085 -047 2 0 1012.0: 1.59 1410.. HV AROB XNR ICONT HL VOL WTM CORAR OLOSS TWA ELMIN; TOPSs7ID TARGET= 490.000 .,11 ..00 699..6 _.OE .085 .000 0 .00 KRATIO -_ .69 TARGET= .18 635.9 .085 0 SECNO: 4.590 3470; ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 1560..0` 1930.0 TYPE= 1 TARGET= 4.590 13.87 14.6 -97` .00 146..95 147.20' .23 4063..0: 1148.21: 1965.2 949..6 609.2 376.1 566.2 .00 .0 132_00` 490.00 370.000 1.25 .04 54.9 11.2 _000 132.20: .00 370.00 ITRACE L -BANK ELEV` R -BANK ELEV SSTA: ENDST 138.00 136.00 1240.00 1730.00 141.90 141.-70 1560.00: 1930.00 370.000 .54 02 142.80! 67.1. 13.9 142.60 PAGE PAGE 7 LEGIBILITY STRIP .15 1_.88: 5_23: 1_.68 .085 _047 ..085 - 000 133.10 1560.00 _401798: 300. 375_ 325.. 2 0 0 .00- 370.00 1930.00 *SECNO- 4_- -600; 3470; ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 1560.0 1930..0- TYPE= 1 TARGET= 370_000' 4-600 13.91 147.01 .00 146.99 147.23' -23' .04 .00 142.80 4063.0 1151.5 1957.0 954_5 614-2 377.5 571.6 67.8 14`.1 142.60 .15 1.87 5. -18> 1..67` .085. .047 .,085 .,000 133..10 1560.00 . 001761 20- 20 °. 20- 0 0 0 .00 370.00 1930.00 1' 29MAR94 10:25 =32: SECNO? DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG RV' HL GLOSS L -BANK ELEV ¢ QLOB QCi QROB ALOB ACE AROB VOL TWA R -BANK ELEV TIME VLOB VCI1 VROB; XNL XNCE XNR WTN ELMIN SSTA SLOPE XLOB1 XLC}i XLOBR. ITRIAL IDG ICONT' CORAR TOPWID ENDST *SECNO' 4640: 3302 WARNING= CONVEYANCE: CHANGE: OUTSIDE= OF ACCEPTABLE:. RANGE,- KRATIO = 1.57 3470; ENCROACHMENT' STATIONS= 515..0; 975..0' TYPE= 1 TARGET 460.000 4.640 13..52. 147..52 .00 147.50 147.62 .09 .34 .04 140.00 4042.0; 77.1 1528.3 2436.6 67.9 427.9 1811_5 81.7 17.,0 140.00 .19 1.14 3.57 1.35 ..085 .047 .085 . -000 134..00 515.00 .0007041 280. 355.. 305. 2 0 0 .00 460.00 975.00' *SECNO 4_670; 3470- ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 560.0 1235.0 TYPE= 1 TARGET= 675_000 4..670' 13.05 147.75 .00 143.74 147.83 .08 .21 .00 140.00 4042.0 1406_3 1077.0 1558.7 1347.6 283.4 1093.3 96.9` 20. -4' 140._00 .24 1..04 3.80 1.43 ..085 .047 .085 .000 134..70 560.00 _000672 3`40 500. 170. 2 0 0 .00 675.00 1235.00 *SECNO= 4-730= 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 1100 -0 1730.0 TYPE= 1 TARGET= 630.000 4.730 11.54 148..04 .:00 14 8.,02 148.15 .12 .30 ,_ .02 142. -60 4.042.0." 1204.9 1206.T 1630.4 857.6 267.8 1183..8 112.8 23.8 142.00 .28 1.40 4-51 1.38? .085 .047 ..085 .000 136.50 1100.00 .001171 1.00.: 620. 360. 2 0 0 .00 630.00 1730.00 *SECNO'- 4 -770 3301_ iii/.-` CHANGED: MORE THAN HVINS 3302: WARNING: CONVEYANCE;. CHANGE OUTSIDE OE ACCEPTABLE; RANGE,- KRATIO = .42 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 780.0 855.0 TYPE= 1 TARGET= 75.000 PAGE 8 LEGIBILITY STRIP 4_770 11_04 148.54 .00 148.52 149-66 1.12 1.00 .50 150.00 4038 -0 _0 4038.0! ..0' ..0' 475.1 ..0' 124..6 26..6 100000.00 .29 .00 8.:50; .00 .000 _050 _000: .000 137.50 782.93 _006715 430.= 4;85_ 250_ 2 0 0 .00 68..41 851.34: 2 PROFILE FOR STREAM FANNO CKa WORST BRIDGE PLOTTED POINTS- (BY PRIORITY) E ENERGY,W- -WRYER SURFACE, ,I- INVERT',.C- CRITICAL W. S. ,L -LEFT BANK, R- RIGHT' BANK,M -LOWER END STA ELEVATION: 132.. 137., 142.. 147.: 152_ 157.: 162- 167. 172. 177'., SECNO= CUMDIS 4.16 0., 1 R L WE _ M 1.00- I R.. L F. _ - M .. . 20G. L R.. L E: _ .. M . 300.. I R I. _ E. .. _ K .. 400.. 1 -R L. F. _ M _ 500 °.. I _R L. .. E M' _ 600`.. I ... .R L WE_ M.. 700. I R L WE _ M. 800.. I R: L: E .. M. 900.. I _ RL _ R M 1000'.: I RL - a M 1100.. _ _ R. L _ E ., -M' 1200- I _ RL _ E - M _ 1300.. 1 RL .. WE .. M . 1400.. I RL .. WE. M 1500.. ' .. RL.. E. - M .. 1600., I L. Ea M - 1700- 1 RL E. M 4.50 1800.. 1 e RL E. M - 1900.. CI .. L WE Mi 2000 =. CI RL: WE K 2100_ C I _L a M . 4.,59= 2200'_. C I _ .RL E M? _. 4.60; 2300 :. C 1 ..RL; E 14 r 2400'.. C I L WE .. M .. 4._64 2500.. C 1 L .. .E; M 2600- C 1 L _ .E M 2700_ C 1 .. L .. _E 14 2800.. C I I ..E _ M 2900._ C I L. .. ..WE .. .. M - 4_67` 3000.. C I L. E _ _ K 3100.. C I L _ _ E - M 3200.. C _ .= RL; _ _ E_ _ .- K .. 3300.. C I _ RL.. a M 3400- C I _ L. .. E` M .. 3500. C I .. RL E 14 .. • 4-73: 3600'_ C I.. RL - E M 3700- C I.. k L. _ WE ..M R 3800.. C I L, _ W° E M _ R 3900., C I _ L. WE .. .. M R 4000- C _1 _ W E M` R. 4_77 4100. C ._ .. .. W? EL • .. M R 29MAR94 10 :25~32 PAGE 9 • LEGIBILITY STRIP THIS RUN EXECUTED 29MAR94 10 :25 :37 HEC= 2WATER SURFACE: PROFILES Version: 4.6_2; May 1991 NOTE;- ASTERISK (*1)_ AT LEFT OF CROSS-SECTION- NUMBER INDICATES MESSAGE IN SUMMARY OF ERRORS LIST FANNO° CK: WORST" BRIDGE SUMMARY PRINTOUT SECNO' CWSEL DIFKWS EG DIFEG SSTA. STENCL STCHL STCHR: STENCR. ENDST TOPWID .01K 4.160 145_22 ..00 145«33 .00 1229_23 .00' 1520.00 1565.00 .00 1742.20 512.97 1575.95 4.160: 145.24 ..02 145..35 .02 1240_00 1240.00 1520.00' 1565.00 1730.00 1730.00 490.00 1583.35 4..500 146..44 .00? 146-61 _00 1550.65 .00 1717.00 1760.00 .00 1979.54: 428.89 1093.73 4_500= 146.45: .02 146..63 .02 1560_00 1560.00 1717.00 1760.00 1930.00 1930.00 370.00 1087.29 4-590` 146.95 -00 147.17 ..00 1554..54 _00 1717.00 1760.00 .00 1973.50 418.96 958.02 4.590 146_9T ..02 147.20: .02 1560..00 1560.00 1717.00 1760.00 1930.00 1930.00 370.00 958.21 41.600' 145.99 .00 147-21 ..00` 1554.22 .00 1717.00 1760_00 .00 1973.99 419.77 968.19 4.,600 147-01 .02 147.231 .02 1560.00 1560.00 1717.00 1760.00 1930.00 1930.00 370.00 968.10 *- 4-640 147 -50 ..00 147_60 .00 511.25 .00 530.00 575.00 .00 997.57 486.32 1513.78 *° 4_640 147_52 .02 147.62 .,02 515.00! 515_00. 530.00 575.00 975. 00 975.00 460.00 1523.59 .00 147..81 ..00 536.54 .00 1005.00 1030.00 .00 1247.35 710.81 1549.97 .02 147..83` .02 560..00 560.00 1005.00 1030-00 1235.00 1235.00 675.00. 1559.61 4-670 147-74 4..670 147.75: 4_730' 148.02 .00 148..14 ..00'• 1044.22 ..00 1347..00' 1375.00 .00 1740.52 696.30 1182.83 4.730 148.04. ..02 148.15 .02 1100 -00 1100.00 1347.00 1375.00 1730.00 1730.00 630.00 1180.93 4..770: 148.52 _00 149_65; ..00 782.97 .00 780.00 855.00 .00 851.29 68.33 490.91 4_770' 148.541 _02 149-66 .01 782_93: 780.00 780.00 855.00 855.00 851.34 68.41 492.76 29MAR94 10 :25::32 PAGE 10 FANNO CK:: WORST` BRIDGE= SUMMARY PRINTOUT` TABLE:: 151 SECNO= XLCH ELTRD ELLC ELMIN' Q 4_160 -00 .00 .00 132.00 4063.00 145.22 .00 145.331 6.65 3.79 2274.55 1575.95 4.160 .00 .00 .00. 132.00 4063.00 145.24 .00 145.35 6.58 3.78 2276.15 1583.35 4.500 1730.00 .00 ..00; 132.20 4063.00 146.44 .00 146.61 13.80 4.71 1761.22 1093.73 4._500: 1730.00 ..00', .00 132.20 4063.00 146_45 .00 146.63 13.96 4.74 1702.18 1087.29 CWSEL CRIWS EG 10 *KS VCH AREA .01K. LEGIBILITY STRIP 4..590= 375 _00 _00 ..00 133.10: 4063_00! 14.6..95 .00 147.17 17.99 5.22 1587.89 958.02 4..590° 375.00 .00 -00 133.10 4063.00 146..97 .00 147.20 17.98 5.23_ 1551.54 958.21 4-600 20..00- .00 _00' 133..10 4063.00 146.99 .00 147.21 17.61 5.18 1601.18 968.19 4-600= 20..00: ..00 .00 133..10` 4063 -00' 147.01 .00 147.23! 17.61 5.18' 1563.34' 968.10 4..640: 355.00 ..00 .00 134_00` 4042.00 147.50 .00 147.60 7.13 3.59 2307.45 1513.78 4..640' 355_00 .00 .00. 134..00- 4042.00 147.52 . :00 147.62 7.04' 3.57 2307.19 1523.59 4.670 500`00' .00` ..00 134.70; 4042.00 147.74 .00 147.81 6.80 3.82 2723.86 1549.97 4.670 500.00 .00: .:00 134«70 4044_00 147..75 .00 147.83 6.72 3.80' 2724.28 1559.61 4.,730, 620.00 -00 .00 136.50 4042-00 148.02 .00: 148.14 11.68 4.49 2356.25 1182.83. 4.730? 620.00 .00 .00 136.50 4042.00 148-04 .00 148.15; 11.71 4.51 2309.30 1180.93 4.770 485.00- .00: .00 137.50 4038.00 148.52 .00 149.65 67.66 8.52 473.75 490.91. 4.770' 485.00 _00 .00 137..50 4038_00 148..54 .00 149..66 67.15 8.50 475.06; 492.76 29MAR94 10:25x32 PAGE 11 E'ANNO: CK WORST BRIDGE. SUMMARY PRINTOUT' TABLE 150' SECNO: Q CWSEL: MEWS DIEWSK DIEKWS TO MID XLCH` 4-160: 4063.._00: 145.22 .00 .00 .00 512..97 .,00 4.160' 4063.00 145.24. .02 .°00 .02 490_00? .00 4.500: 4063.00` 146.44 .00 1.22 .00 428.89 1730.00 4-500 4063.00 146..45 ..02 1.21 .02 370~00 1730.00 4-590: 4063.00 146 -95 ..00 .51 ..00 418_96 375.00 4-590 4063..00; 146-97 ..02 .52 .02 370.00 375.00 4.600: 4063 -00: 146.99 .00 .04: _00 419.77 20.00 4-600 4063.00 147.01 _02 .04`. ..02 370`.00' 20`..00 4-640 4042.00 147 -.50 .00 .51 .00 486.32 355.00 4..640 4042.00 147.52 .02 _52 .02' 460_.00• 355.00 4.670 4042..00' 147'..74• .00 .23 .:00 710.81 500.00 4..670: 4042.:00 147.75 .:02 ..23' .02 675..00' 500.00 4..730' 4042..00' 148.02 .00? -29- .00` 696.30 620.00 4...730 4042-00 148.04 .02 .29 ..02 630.00 620.00 4..770= 40381.00' 148..52 ..00` ..49: _00 68_33 485.00 4:..770 4038_00; 148`.54. .02 _50? .02 68.41 485..00' 29MAR94 I0:25 .T:321 SUMMARY OE ERRORS AND SPECIAL NOTES PAGE 12 LEGIBILITY STRIP WARNING SECNO= WARNING SECNO= WARNING SECNO= WARNING SECNO= WARNING SECNO=. WARNING SECNO= 4_500'- PROE,ILE= 1 CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE" ACCEPTABLE RANGE 4.,500 PROFILE= 2 CONVEYANCE CHANGE. OUTSIDE: ACCEPTABLE RANGE 4_640: PROFILE= 1 CONVEYANCE'; CHANGE OUTSIDE ACCEPTABL":VNNGE 4_640= PROh:ILE= 2 CONVEYPNCE CHANGE OUTSIDE ACCEPTABLE', RANGE. 4..770' PROFILE= 1 CONVEYANCE= CHANGE:OUTSIDE- ACCEPTABLE RANGE 4_770: PROFILE= 2 CONVEYANCE: CHANGE OUTSIDE ACCEPTABLE RANGE 1 29MAR94 10:25.32 ELOODWAY DATA, EANNO CK4 WORST' BRIDGE. PROFILE: NO.: 2 ----- ELOODWAY ---- -- WATER SURFACE. ELEVATION STATION WIDTI SECTION MEAN WITH WITHOUT DIFFERENCE. AREA. VELOCITY ELOODWAY ELOODWAY 4..160' 490.4 2276. 1.8` 145.2 4.500 370 1702- 2.^41 146_4: 4.:590= 370.. 1552. , 2..6 146-9 4..600 370- 1563:... 2.6 14.7.0 4..640 460_ 2307_ 1.8= 147_5 4..670 675; 2724:' 1.5 147. 4..730, 630.. 2309. 1.8- 148.0 4.770 68`.. 475 .. 8'.: 5 14)1_5 145.2 146.4 146.9 147.0 147.5: 147.7 . 148.0 148.5 0; .0 t0` _0 .0 .0_ ..0 .0 PAGE' 13 LEGIBILITY STRIP HEC-2: WATER SURFACE PROFILES Version: 4.6..24,, May 1991 RUN DATE: 29MAR.94 TIN 10:25:43: 44 4 44 44 444444 *4 444 44444 444444 *4* 444 44 4 x x xxxxx: XXXXX xxxxx X x x X X X X X x x X x XXXXXXX XXXI x XXXXX XXXXX X x x x x X. x x x X` x x x xxxxxxx XXXXX I 29MAR94 10x2544 *4******* ***4 * * * * **- *1. *** * * * **: * * * * ** ** HEC -Z WATER SURFACE: PROFILES Version. 4.6..2; May 1991 * ****t** * ****f**:. * *44 4*_ ** *4444****** FANNO: CREEK HECZ MODEL. BRIDGE. MODEL. UPDATED BY. OTAK (3/2.9194) EILENRMEa FANNO B2..DAT` SAME AS FANNO' B1.7.DAT° OTHER THAN THE FOLLOWING REVISIONS: REVISED HEADER AND- TITLE; CARDS. PEI ISED' BRIDGE- TABLE, CARDS TO REFLECT SKEW NOTE: SKEW ANGLE ON X2 FIELD 9= DID NOT POSITION ACROSS CHANNEL Ti! NEW BASE-- (,FANNO BZ.DAT) T2 1041-YEAR BASE FLOOD PROFILE 73 FANNO> CREEK SKEWED BRIDGE *-.********* * * ** * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *.. * U.S. - ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER *' 609 SECOND STREET, SUITE D * DAVIS,, CALIFORNIA 95616 -4687 (916) 756-1104 * PAGE. THIS RUN! EXECUTED 29MAR94`. 10:25 :;44`: J1 ICHECK INQ NINV IDIFt STRT METRIC: HVINS Q WSEL FQ _1 2 0: 0 0; 0 0 145.22 J2" NPROF IPLOT PREVS: XSECV XSECH FN ALLDC IBW CHNIM ITRACE J3 VARIABLE .. CODES FOR SUMMARY PRINTOUT- 154 200: 22 28= 38= 1= 52 3 61 53 27 21 54 4 34 NC .085 .085 .04466 • LEGIBILITY STRIP Qs 2 4065 4063 ET' 4_1E0 0- 4_1 1240: 1730 Xl 4-1.60 26 1520: 1565 580 510 1090 GR 1.5-7.7 580: 156 582 155_8' 700! 153 800 151 875 GR 147.7 975 147.5 1015 147.2 1100 145.,6 1200 144.3 1300 GR 140- 1390 138'= 1520- 136 1540 133..6 1544 132.4 1547 GR 132 1550 132.4 1554 133- ..7 1557 136 1565 140 1575 GR 142 1715 144 1730 146 1750 150 1835 152 1855 GR 154 1900' NC .085 _085: .,047 .3 .5 ET' 4..5 0= 4_1 1560 1930: X1. 4.,5: 30' 1717' 1760- 800 1410 1730` GR 154_4 900 153.5 1000 152..4 .1100' 152.0 1200 152 1300 GR 150 -..3 1400' 148: 1500 147 1545 142_5 1590 141.2 1664 GR: 141_9 171.7 141..T 1725 136_8` 1731 135 7 1733 133.4 1738 GR 132_2 1741 132..7 1745 135..7 1751 138.1 1752 141.,7 1760 1 29MAR94 10=25:44 PAGE GR 142.3= 1817 143.,3: 11900 145.5 1965 150 2035 151 2100 GR I53'.<3 2200 154..T 2280: 156 2330 159.3 2400 159.6 2435 DOWNSTREAM FACE OF PROPOSED` BRIDGE BRIDGE TABLE ADJUSTED FOR SKEW OF BRIDGE WITH OVERBANK FLOW ET- 4_59+ 0` 4.1 1560 1930 . X1 4:_59 34 1717 1760 300 325 375 GP-' 155_3 900 154.4 1000. 153_3 1100 152.9' 1200 152 -9 1300 GR. 151.2 1400 148.,9 1500 147.9 1545 143 -4 1590 142.1 1664 GFL 142 -4 1675 142..8` 1717 142.8' 1718. 142.6 1725 137..7 1731 GR 136..6 1733 134..3' 1738 133..1 1741 133..6 1745 136.6 1751 GR 139.M 1752 142..6 1760 142-8: 1761 142.9 1780 143.2 1817 GR. 144.2 1900. 146.,4= 1965 150.9 2035 151.9 2100 154.2 2200 GR. 155.6 2280 156_9° 2330 160.2 2400 160.5 2435 BT' it 171T 142.3 142.8 1718 148.1 142.8; 1725 148..1 142.8' Bt 1731 148_1 142_8' 1733 148.1 142.8' 1738 148.1 142.8 BT 1741 142 -8 142_8 1745 142.8 142.8: 1751 142.8 1.42.8 BT 1752 142..8 142..8= 1760 142..8 142.8 UPSTREAM- FACE OF PROPOSED= BRIDGE ET ° 4..60 0- 4.:1 1560- 1930 XL 4 -..60` 0 0 0 20 20 X2 QT 2 4042 4042 ET' 4._64 0= 4_1 515 975 Xi 4...64. 22. 530 575 280 305 355 GR. 156 0 154 60 152 245 150 380 150 490 GR 148. 510 140 530 138.8 533 137x.5 535 135`..2' 540 GR 134 543 134.5 547 137.5 553 139.9 554 140 575 GR 142 615 142 740 144 895 146 945 148 1015 GR 152 1260 158> 1490 :..e _ c �."' � �. ^F tn:. ♦ c.. +.� +..... �: <�_ _ s.. - .. .. < K✓ _> . C.- .- �.�...Ya . .. � i J _... - � � Y � . v .> >:�.P - r.*�'�'�r . LEGIBILITY ET 4.6T XL 4 _67 GR 160 GR, 150; GR 146 GR 134.7 GR 142 GR 160 26 0 455; 905. 1015 119a 1395- 4_1' 1005: 158 148= 144 135= 144 560° 1030 150: 520- 960 1018_ 1205 1235 340 156 146 140: 135.a 8' 146 170 175 645 1005 1021 12.30 500 164 144 135.8 140 148 255 6130 1000 1030 1250 152 144 134.6 142 150 310 810 1011 1055 1270 PAGE ET 4-73_ J=- 4.1 XL 4.73'. 25 1347 GR 160 500: 160; GR 152 840 150 GR 143.2 1324 143.2 GR 1.36..5 1358: 136_8;; GR, 144: 1435 146 NC .080: .:080= ..050 4T' 2 4038` 4038' ET 4.77 0 4..1 X`1 4..7T IT 780 GR 16Q 0` 158'; GR 14.0 803 138= GR. 150 855 154 GR 168= 1540` 170- 29MAR94 10:25:.44 1100 1375:- 525= 978: 1339 1361 1720- 1730 1.00 158 148 142. .6 137..6 14.8= 360 680 1045 1347 1.364 1740 620 156 146 137.6 14.0 150 715 1105 1351 1370 1785 154 144'. 136..6' 142 154 803 1275 1354 1375 1865 780 855. 195- 805, 1025: 1660: 855 430 154 137 .5 156_5 250: 370- 81.5 1100 485 152 138 160 610 825 1165 150 140 164'. 780 830 1400 PAGE SECNO- DEEM CWSEL QLOB' QCFE TIME` VLc:? VCK SLOPE XLOBL XLCH PROE 1: 0 CRIWS QROB. VROB" XLOBR WSELK ALOB- XNL, ITRIAL- £G ACH XNCH IDC HV AROB- XNR ICONT HL VOID WTN CORAR. OLOSS T6 ELMIN TOPWID L -BAND ELEV R- BANK: ELEV SSTA ENDST CCHV .100; CEHV - *SECNO 4._160 4.160 13.22 4063.E 1504.2 _.00` 1..35 - 000665 580-.. CCIiV= ..300= CEHV *SECNO- 1-500= 3302 WARNING: .300= 145.22 1.719;.9 3'.,7 9> 11090.. .500= ..00'' 838 " -9 1..19 510.- 145 .33 4.53`.4: ..046 0 .11 703..7' .085 .00 ..000 -00' .00 ..0 132. 00 512..97 138. 00 136.00 1229 23 1742.20 CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE` OE' ACCEPTABLE RANGE,- KRATIO = .69 4.=500 4.063`..0 _12> - 001380_ 146.44- 1845._2 4..71 1730'- ..00 675..6 .085 146...61 392..1 .,047 .18 1.25 693_,6 55.9 .085 .,000 0 . 00 .03 12..4 132.20 428'_89' 141.90 141. 70 1550.65 1979.54; LEGIBILITY STRIP *SECNO 4-590 4.590 13-.85 146.95 .00 .00 147.17 „:3 .54 .02 142.80 4063.0 - 1134.9- 1958.2 969.9 607.6 375.2. 605.0 68.4 15.5 142.60 .15 1.87 5.22 1.60 .085 .047 .085. .000 133.10 1554.54 .001799 300. 375. 325. 2 0 0 .00 418.96 1973.50 *SECNO: 4..600 4..600.E 13.89: 14.6-99 .00- .00 143.21 .22 .04- -00 142.80 4.063-.0: 1137.6 1919.1 976.0 612.8 376-6: 611.8 69.2 15.7 142.60 .15 1.86; 5.18" 1.60 .085 .047 .085 .000 133.10 1554.22 .001761 20. 20.. 20.. 0 0- 0 .00 419.77 1973.99 *SECNO- 4.64a 3302 WARNING: CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE OE ACCEPTABLE RANGE,- KRATIO == 1.56 4.640 13.50 147.50 .00 .00 147.60 .09 .34 .04 140.00 4042.0 75.5 1532.4 2434.1 70.3 426.9 1810.2 83.1 18.8 140.00 .19 1.07 3.59 1.31 .085 .047 .085 .000 134.00 511.25 -000713 280- 355. 305.. 2 0 0 .00 486-32 997.57 29MAR91 I025:44 PAGE: SECNO. DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG HV HL OLOSS L-BANK ELEV Q QLOB QCEL QROB ALOE ACE AROB VOL TVA R-BANK ELEV TIME VLOB. VC}[ VROB XNL XNCR XNR WTN ELMIN SSTA. SLOPE XLOBL, XLCH XLOBR. IT RIAL IDC ICONT CORAR TOPWID ENDST *SECNO. 4.670 4-670 13-04. 147.74 -00 .00 147.81 .08 .21 .00 140.00 4042.0 1399.1 1080.8 1562.2. 1343.8 282.9 1097.1 98.1 22.4 140.00 .2.4. 1.04 3.82 1.42 .085 .047 .085 -000 134.70 536.54 .000680 340. 500.. 170.. 2, 0 0 .00 710.81 1247.35 *SECNO 4.730 4-730 11.52 148.02 .00 .00 148.14 .11 .31 02 142.60 4042.0 1224.0 1201.1 1616.5 905.4 267-4 1183.5 114.3 26.1 142.00 .28 1.35 4.19 1.37 .085 -017 .085 .000 136.50 1044-22 .001168 100. 620. 360. 2 0 0 .00 696.30 1710.52 3301 HV CHANGED MORE THAN !WINS 3302. WARNING :: CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE OF ACCEPTABLE RANGE, KRATIO = .42 4;.770 11.02 148-52 .00 .00 149-65 1.13 1-00 .51 150.00 4038-0 .0 4038-0 .0 .0 473.7 .0 126.3 29.1 150.00 .29 .00 8.52 .00 .000 .050 .000 .000 137.50 782.97 .006766 430- 185. 250. Z 0 0 .110 68.33 851.29 LEGIBILITY STRIP TI T2 T3 29MAR94 10:25:44 NEW BASE; MODEL CFANNO B2_DAT) I00---YEAR METHOD= ONE ELOODWAY PROFILE: FANNO° CREEK SKEWED'- BRIDGE JI. 'CHECK INQ NINV IDIR STRT 33 0- 'PLOT' PREYS'- XSECV` XSECF£ a J2 NPROF* 15 29MAR94 10i�25:44 SECNO- TIME SLOPE; *.PROF a 0 DEPTH; QLOB VLOB= XLOBL CWSEL, 4CH' VCR XLCR CCRV= -100- CERV` _300: *SECNO> 4:.:160° 3470 ENCROACHMENT` STATIONS= 4-160- 1.3.24 145.24 4063 -0 1507..8; 1717'..6 .00 T- -34= 3.78° .000658; 580'.= 1090`« CCH.V _300; CERV .500 4-SECNO= 4.;500' CRIWS QROB VROB XLOBR WSELK BLOB XNL ITRIAL. METRIC HVINS Q WSEL FQ 145.24 ®- ALLDC IBcfr CHNIM ITRACE EG ACID XNCRI IDC 1240.0 1730..0 TYPE= 1 -00 145.22 145.35 837.6 1122.3 454.3 1.20= _085 .046 510._ 0' 0 HV AROB XNR ICONT HL VOL WTN CORAR OLOSS: TWA_ ELMIN TOPWID TARGET= 490 -000' .11 .00 699.6 .,0 .085 .000 0 .00 3302 WARNING:; CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE: OE ACCEPTABLE: RANGE, KRATIO 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 1560.0 1930.,0 TYPE= 1 4500: 14.25- 146.45 .00 146.44 146..63 4063..0; 1189..7' 1861.3- 1012..0: 673.6 392..7' . .12 1..77 4.74 1-59= ..085: .047 .001396 800'_ 1730.: 1410.= Z 0 *SECNO= 4.590= 3470` ENCROACEMENT STATIONS= 4.590 13.8T 146-9T 4063.0' 1148?.2 1965_2 -IS 1..88` 5.23` .001798 300`._ 375. 1560 -0` 19.30..0: TYPE;= .00 146..95 147.20' 949.6 609. - -2 376.1 1.68` .085 .047 325- 2 0 TARGET= .18 635.9 .,085. 0 TARGET= _23 566.2 .085- 0• .69 .00 ..0. 132..00 490.00' 370.000 1.25 .04 54..9` 11.2 ..000 132.20 .00 370.00 370.000 .54; .02 67.1 13.9 .000 133.10 .00 370.00 L- BANK .ELEV R -BANK ELEV SSTA_ ENDST 138.00 136.00 1240.00 1730.00 141.90 141.70 1560.00' 1930.00 142.80 142.60 1560.00 1930.00 PAGE PAGE LEGIBILITY STRIP *SECNOI 4.600: 3470 ENCROACPMENT STATIONS= 1560.0 1930.0 TYPE= 1 TARGET= 370.000 4-500 13-91 147.01 0O1 146.99 147.23 .23 -04 .00 142.80 4063.� 1151.5 1957.0 954-5 614.2 377.5 571.6 67-8 14.1 142-60 .15 1.87 5.18 1-67 .085 .047 .085 . 030 133.10 1560-00 -001761 20 - 20.. 20- 0 0 0 .00 370.00 1930.00 1 29MAR94; 10:25r44 PAGE SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG HV HL OLOSS L-13ANK ELEV Q QLOB QCH QROB ALOB ACH AROB VOL TWA R-BANK ELEV TIME VLOB Vat VROB XN1.- XNCI-L XNR WTN ELMIN SSTA. SLOPE Ya.OBL, XLCH XLOBR ITRT.AL IDC ICONT CORAR TOPWID ENDST *SECNa 4.640 3302 ViARNING= CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE OF ACCEPTABLE RANGE,- KRATIO = 1_57- 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 515.0 975.01 TYPE= 1 TARGET= 460.000 4.640 13-52 147.52 .00 147.50 147.62 . 09 .34 . 04 140.00 4042-0 77.1 1528-3 2436.6 67.9 427.9 1811-5 81.7 17.0 140.00 .19 1.14 3.5T 1.35 .M85 .047 -085 .000 134-00 515.00 -000704 280.- 355. 305- 2 0 0 .00 460.00 975.00 *SECNO- 4.670 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 560.01 1235.0 TYPE 1 TARGET= 675.000 4.670 13.05 147.75 .00 147.74 147.83 .08 .21 .00 140.00 4042-0 1406.3 1077-0 1558.T 1347.6 283.4 1093.3 96-9 20.4 140.00 .24 1.04 3.80 1.43 .085 -047 . 085 .. COO 134.70 560.00 -000672 340. 500. 170- 2 0 0 .00 675.00 1235.00 *SECNO- 4.730- 3470: ENCROACHMENT' STATIONS= 1100.01 1730.0 TYPE= 1 TARGET= 630.000 4..730- 11.54 148-.04: .00' 148.02 148.15 -12 .30 .02 142.60- 4042.0. 1204.9' 1206.7 1630.4: 857.6 267..8 1183.8- 112-8 23.8 142.00 .28' 1.40: 4.51 1-38= .085 .047 .085 .000 136.50 1100.00 -001171 100. 620. 360. 2 0 0 .00 630.00 1730.00 *SECNO" 3301 RV CHANGED: MORE. THAN WINS' 3302: WARNING CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE OF ACCEPTABLE RANGE,. KRATIO .42 34702 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 780.01 855.0 TYPE= 1 TARGET= 75.000 4-770 11..0t 148.54 .00 148.52 149.66 1.12 1.00 . 50 150.00 4038.0 .0 4038.0 .0 .0 475.1 .0 124-6 26.6 100000-00 LEGIBILITY STRIP _29 -00; 8.50:= _00 ..000 ..050: .000: .000 137.50 782.93 .006715 430. 485.. 250.. 2 0 0 _00 68.41 851.34 I PROFILE; FOR STREAM FANNO CREEK SKEWED BRIDG PLOTTED` POINTS (EY PRIORITY)' E- ENERGY,W- WATER: SURFACE, I- IN1tERTrc CRITICAL W.S.,L -LEFT' BANK,R- RIGHT' BANK,M -LOWER END STA ELEVATION 132.. 137.. 142- 1.4;7.. 152. I57_ 162.., 167- 172. 177.. SECNO CUMDIS 4..16 0., I R_L. WE K 100.. _ R_ I. E . K 200.. I R., L E: a K 30.0 1 R L. E K 400.. I ..R L. E. _, _. M - 500.. I - R I. E M:: 600=.. 1 R I. WE; - M_ . 700'., 1 R L. WE, - M.. .. 800.: 1 R L E _ M- . 900. I R L_ E - M 1'000-_ 1 R E: -. M 1100 :. 1 RL E .. .14 • 1200_ 1 RL, E _ K 1300'•_ I RL - WE. M. F. • 1400.. 1 RL. f WE- M- 1500. 1 RL- E'_ 14 1600-<.. I L.. E.. K 1700 :.. I RL E!, .. M 4..50: 1800.. I RL, E'... _ K .. 1900 CI I. WE M 2000.. CL RL WE - 14 - 2T00'. C I _.L E _ M • 4.59: 2200-- C I _RL, E= H. 4..60: 2300-.. C I - ..RL_ E .. M 2400- C I L WE: M`- 4 -64 250D- Cl I L. ..E= M . 2600 -- C I L; .. -.l K • 2700- C I L: ..E - K 2800.. C I 1. ..E r M • 2900.. C I L. .WE M' 4_67 3000`.: a I L .. E. M. • 3100°.. C I L- - _ E .. M 3200'. C I RL:.. _ E - 14 • . 3300.. C I RL. .. E K 3400- C I - L.. E: M 3500-. C I .. RL E M 4:.:73 3600.. C I.: RL. • E= M 3700.. C €_ L= WE .M • .. R. 3800.. C I L, -. W' E - -- M: - - R 3900- C I L via M R 4000 -_ C ..I _ W E K .- . R 4:..77° 4100 - C . - W EL - . K R. 2S24AR94 10:25 44: PAGE • THIS RUN EXECUTED 29MAR94 10:25:48 HEC: 2 WATER SURFACE: PROFILES Version 4 _6..2; May 1991 ******** *** * * *** ** * * * * * * **** * * * * *** * **- NOTE- - ASTERISK c -). AT' LEES OF CROSS - SECTION NUMBER INDICATES: MESSAGE IN- SUMMARY OF ERRORS LIST EANNO CREEK SKEWED BRIDG SUMMARY' PRINTOUT' SECNO= CWSEL= DIEKWS EG DIEEG SSTA STENCL. STCHL STCHR STENCR ENDST TOPWID .OIK 4.160 145.22 .00 145-33 .00 1229.23 .00 1520.00 1565.00 .00 1742.20 512.97 1575.95 4.160: 145.24 _02 145..35. .02 1240.00 1240.00 1520 -00 1565.00 1730.00 1730.00 490.00 1583.35 4 -500 146 -44 -00. 146-61 .00' 1550. -65 .00 1717.00 1760.00 .00 1979.54 428.89 1093.73 4..500 146.:45= .02 146.63; -02 1560 -00 1560.00 1717.00 1760.00 1930.00 1930.00 370.00 1087.29 4_590 146 -95 .00' 147 -17' -00 1554.54 .00 1717.00 1760,00 .00 1973.50 418.96 958.02 4 -590` 146..97 ..02 14.7.20` ..02 1560 -00 1560.00 1717.00 1760.00 1930.00 1930.00 370.00 958.21 4..600 146..991 .00 - 147..21 ..00 1554_22 .00 1717.00 1760.00 -00 1973_99 419.77 968.19 4-600; 147..01 -02 147 -23 .02 1560.00 1560.00 1717-00 1760.00 1930.00 1930.00 370.00 968.10 = 4..640:: 147.50 _00? 147 -60; .00 511.25 .00 530.00 575.00 .00 997.57 486.32 1513.78 - * 4-640 147.52 .02 147.62 .02 515.00 515.00 530-00 575.00 975.00 975.00 460.00 1523.59' 4 -670 147-74 .00 147.81 .00 536.54; .00 1005.00 1030.00 00 1247.35 710.81 1549.97 4..670` 147..75 .02 147.83 .02 560.00 560.00 1005.00 1030 -00 1235.00 1235.00 675.00 1559.61 4.730 148.02 _00` 148 -14 .00 1044..22 .00 1347.00 1375.00 .00 1740.52 696.30 1182.83 4..730 148.04 ..02 148.15 .02 1100.00 1100 .00 1347.00 1375.00 1730..00 1730.00 630.00 1180.93 4-770 148.52 .00 149 -65 .00 762..97 .00 780.00 855.00 .00 851.29 68.33 490.91 41.770' 148-541 .02 149.66 .01 782 -93" 780.00 780.00 855.00 855.00 851.34 68.41 492.76. 2SMAR94 I0:725::44 E'ANNO' CREEK SKEWED; BRIDE SUMMARY PRINTOUT' TABLE; 150 PAGE 10 SECNO XLCE` ELTRD ELLC ELMIN Q CWSEL. CRIWS EG 10 *KS VCH AREA .OIK 41.160: -00. .00 .00 132. -00` 4063.00 145.22 .00 145.33 6.65 3.79 2274.55 1575.95 4-160 .:00 .00 .00 132..00- 4063.00 145.24 .00 145.35 6.58 3.78 2276.15 1583.35 4-500 1730.00 .00' -00° 132 -20 4063.00 146.44- .00 146.61 13.80 4.71 1761.22 1093.73 4.500= 1730..00- -00 .00 132.20` 4063.00 146.45 .00 146.63 13.96 4.74 1702.18 1087.29 4-590 375.00 .00 -00 133.10 4063.00 14.6.95; -00' 147.:17' 17.99 5.22 1587.89 958.02. LEGIBILITY STRIP 4_590: 375.00 _00 _00 133_10 4063..00 146_97' _00 147.20 17_98 5.23 1551.54 958.21 4..600' 20_00: .00! _00 133.10 4063.00 146_99' .00 147.21 17.61 5`.18' 1601.18 968.19 4..600 Z0.00 .00r .00 133 _10` 4.063-00 147.01 .00 147.23' 17.61 5.18 1563.34 968.10 4-640: 355-00 _00 .00: 134.00 4042..00 147.50 .00 147.60 7.13 3.59 2307.45 1513.78 4-640: 355_00: _00 _00 134.00 4042 -00` 147.52 .00 147.62' 7.04 3.57 2307.19 1523.59 4.670 500...00: .00 -00: 134_70 4042.00 147.74 .00 147.81 6_80 3.82 2723.86 1549.97 4.670: 500._00= .00 .00 134. -70: 4042.00 147.75 .00 147.83' 6..72 3.80 2724.28' 1559.61 4.730= 620.00 .00 .00 136.50 4042.00 148.02 .00 148.14 11.68 4.49 2356.25 1182.83 4-730 620_00` _00- .00 136.50; 4042.00 148 .04 . -00` 148.15 11..71 4.51 2309`.30 1180.93' 4.770: 485.00: .00 _00 137_50 4038.00 148.52 .00 149.65 67.66 8_52 473.75 490.91. 4.770 485_00 .00 .00; 137.50 4038.00 148.54 .,00 149.66 67.15 8`.50 475.06 492.76` 29MAR944 10 :25 44: PAGE 11 FANNO CREEK SKEWED: BR1DG SUMMARY PRINTOUT TABLE': 150: SECNO Q CHISEL DIEWSP: DIEWSX DIEKWS TOPWID XLCI-{ 4_.160, 4063..00: 14.5.22 -00 _00 _00 512.97 _00 4.560= 4063.00; 145.24 .02 _00 .02 490.00' _00 4.500: 4063.00 146.44 ..00 1.22 .00 428._89 1730.00 4..500_ 4063__00 146..45 .02 1_21, .02 370.00' 1730.00 4.590= 4063..00 146.95- ..00 .51 .00 418.96 375.00 4..590 4063.00 146_97 .02 _52 .02 370.00 375..00 4..600: 4053..00 146.99 .00 ..04 .00 419..77 20.00 4.600` 4063_00; 147..01 ..02 ..04' .02 370_00 20.00 4-640: 4042.00: 147 -50; _00 -51 _00 486.32 355.00 4.640 4042..00: 147.52 .02- _52 ..02 460..00 355.00 4_67Q: 4 1042.00: 14.7_74; .00 .23 ..00 710.81 500.00 4.670: 4042.00 147.75 .02 .23 .02 675.00` 500.:.00' 4-730 4042..00' 146_02 _.00: .29: ..00: 696.30 620..00: 4-730 4042.00` 148'.04 .:02 ..29` _02 630.00`- 620.00 4.770 4038.00: 14B-52 .00 .49 .00- 68.33' 485-00 4..770 4038°..00` 148.54 .02 .50` .02 68..41 485.00 29MAR94 10,x2544 PAGE 12 SUMMARY OE ERRORS- AND SPECIAL. NOTES: WARNING SECNO= 4 :.500; PROFILE= 1 CONVEYANCE: CHANGE: OUTSIDE: ACCEPTABLE': RANGE. WARNING SECNC= WARNING SECNO= WARNING SECNO= WARNING SECNO= WARNING SECNO= L 29MAR9 4 LEGIBILITY STRIP 4..500: PROFILE= 2 CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE ACCEPTABLE RANGE. 4_640 PRO CONVEYANCE CHANGE- OUTSIDE ACCEPTABLE RANGE: 4.640; PROFILE= 2: CONVEYANCEI CHANGE . OUTSIDE. ACCEPTABLE_ RANGE; 4..770 PROFILE " - 1 CONVEYANCE, CHANGE. OUTSIDE ACCEPTABLE RANGE- 4..770;' PROFILE 2. CONVEYANCE: CHANGE: OUTSIDE= ACCEPTABLE. RANGE PAGE 13 10:25 :441 ELOODWAY DATA` EANNO CREEK SKEWED BRIDG PROFILE NO._ 2 ELOODWAY - WATER SURFACE ELEVATION STATION WIDTW SECTION: MEAN' WITH: WITHOUT DIFFERENCE AREA: VELOCITY FLOODWAY FLOODWAY 4..160= 490.. 2276_ 1..8 145.2 145`2 4 -500 370'.: 1.7021., 1.4 146.4 146.4 4_590: 370 1552. 2-6 146..9` 146..9' 4_600? 370. 1563.. 2 <6 147-0 147_0 4..6401 460- 2307.. 1_8` 147_5 147.5: 4..670; 675- 2724 ". - 1 -5 147..7 147..7 4.730' 630'. 2309'.. 1..8 148-0 148.0 4..770= 68 - 475 ... 8..5 148.5 148-5 _0- .,0 .0 _0 .0 _0' r y.:.M.; �M{L,rt !•.,..',�.r, ,�11�.�1 -, �t '!. Yr t r 'r,4b ii�rqu:.,, �., :11.'r: !.. ry..,. , �:t,t f.�.,. � ,. ?:.�Xt:l:...ik:�'n ?1 {1 s,.:.r!.,�.'. {..•,�.. t.a, .,,5 ��.. ;i! d� ..44,1 ..5, v !, n2 , The following will be considered by the Tigard Hearings Officer on Monday, Jul 25 1994 . at 7.00 PM at Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and rules and procedures of the Hearings Officer. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter precludes an appeal, and failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. Further information may be Obtained from the Planning Division at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Or 97223, or by Calling 639 -4171. PUBLIC HEARINGS SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW SLR 94-0002 ASH STREET PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE LOCATION: South of the r ght-of-way for the SW Ash Street crossing of Fanno Creek and west of SW Burnham Street (WCTM 251 2DB, the lot 300). A request for Sensitive Lands Review approval to a truction of a pedestrian bridge over Fanno Creek. APPLICABLE fEVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code ` ssvD s rict) The Central Business pDistrict 4zone Oallows public administrate eiagencies, cultural CBD (Central xh p ng public safety services, exhibits and library services, parking fa religious assemblies, and a variety of commercial and service activities among other uses. TT PUBLISH CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER - BY HEARINGS OFFICER 1. Concerning Case Numbar(s): SLR 94-0002 2. Name of Owner: of of Ti.ard Name of Applicant: Same 3. Address 13125 SW Hall Blvd. City Tigard State OR Zip 97223_ 4. Address of Property: South of thgrigt1:91:mmyfor the SW Ash Avenue grogging.of Fanno Creek and west of SW 'urnham Street. Tax Map and Lot No(s).: 2S1 2DB tax lot 300 5. Request: Zone: 6. Action: 7. Notice: and mailed 411 OVA A request for Sensitive Lands Review approval to allow the construction of a pedestrian bridge over Fanno Creek. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapter 18,84. CBD (Central Business District) The Central Business District zone allows public administrative agencies, cultural exhibits and library services, parking facilities, public safety services, religious assemblies, and a variety of commercial and service activities among other uses. Approval as requested Approval with conditions Denial Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall, to: ;c # E a • 4 LEGIBILITY T RI R sk i x^ The applicant and owner(s) Owners of record within the required distance Affected governmental agencies 8, Final Decision THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. The adopted findingS of faCt, decision, and statement Of conditions an be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard dity kali, 13125 SW Hall i P.O. Box 23397i Tigard, Oregon 97223, 9. Apppall Any party to the dedision may appeal this decision in acdordande with 18.32.290(B) and Sedtion 18,32,3/0 whidh provides that a written appeal may be filed within 10 dayd after notide is given and sent, The appeal may be Submitted on City formS and must be accompanied by the appeal fee (*315,00) and transcript costs (varies up to a Maximum of *500,00), The deadline for filing of an appeal id 3t3O p.m. 10, Qupdtions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Department, 639-4171, • 2S102DB -00200 RANDALL, ROBERT D PROP #816 9500 SW BARBUR BLVD #300 PORTLAND OR 97219 • 0 0 • 0 2S102DB- 00203 0 .•• ••000.0 00 •0• BUSSEY, LOIS J AND ANDERSON, ROGER A TRUSTEES BY NORRIS & STEVENS REALTOR 520 SW 6TH #400 PORTLAND OR 97204 2S102DB -- 00205 TIGARD, CITY OF 13125 SW HALL PO BOX 23397 TIGARD OR 97223 2S102DB -00301 BOULEVARD TERRACE JOHNSON, JEFF E AND LORA M PO BOX 19271 PORTLAND OR 97280 25102A0'.00201 . . 0 FANNO CREEK ASSOCIATES 9895 SE SUNNYSIDE RD, STE P CLACKAMAS OR 97015 2S102Ab-02200 0•46•••:•0•• . ROBERT RANDALL COMPANY, THE PROP #381 9500 SW BARBUR BLVD #300 PORTLAND OR 97219 4'4 • . • 2S102DBm00202; ATWOOD .? JIM 33 SW THIRD AVE PORTLAND 2S102DB -00204 BUSSEY, LOIS 3 AND ANDERSON, ROGER A TRUSTEES BY NORRIS & STEVENS REALTOR 520 SW 6TH #400 PORTLAND 2S102DB'00300 0. ... .•• •....• ....a TIGARD, CITY OF 13125 SW HALL PO BOX 23397 TIGARD OR 97223 . J . OR 97204 2SIO2AC -4)0100 LEE, STEPHEN AND LEGER, DAVID AND LONGAKER, BARBARA M ET AL 1128 NE 3RD HILLSBORO 2S102AC- x01800 ALLISON, KENNETH V & LA VELLE D % GILSDORF, ROBERT M et LESLIE M PO BOX 61772 VANCOUVER OR 97124 • • • • • 0 . . . • • O . • 2S102AD-03000 TIGARD, CITY OF 13125 SW HALL PO BOX 23397 TIGARD WA 98666 OR 97223 III • • '' 44 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS TO: �01 a DATE: June 22, 1994 FROM: Tigard Planning Department RE: SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW SLR 94 -0002 ASH STREET PEDESTRI=N BRIDGE LOCATION: South of the right -of -way for the SW Ash Street crossing of Fanno Creek and west of SW Burnham Street (WCTM 2S1 2DB, tax lot 300). request for Sensitive Lands Review approval to allow the construction of a pedestrian bridge over Fanno Creek. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapter 18.84. ZONE: CBD (Central Business District) The Central Business District zone allows public administrative agencies, cultural exhibits and library services, parking facilities, public safety services, religious assemblies, and a variety of commercial and service activities among other uses. Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From • information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, we need Your comments by July 5, 1094. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. PHONE: 639 -4171. STAFF CONTACT: Will D'Andrea PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: i ' x We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. // "" Please contact of our office. • Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written Comments: Name.of Person Commenting: 11 d Phone Number: 3‘ �'",P!;�r rA i� °., i,6� �� ,.rt- :'.,s.l. s. ;'�S�i ",.a.,r ��x.A.•- *��`iM1 d�? °..A . ^4`...+n if ItEQUEB'1' . ER C:OMJME:i1R DATE: June 22 1994 FROM: Tigard Planning Department RE: SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW SLR 94-0002_ ASH STREET PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE LOCATION: South of the right -of -way for the SW Ash Street crossing of Fanno Creek and west of SW Burnham Street (WCTM 2S1 2DB, tax lot 300). A request for Sensitive Lands Review approval to allow the construction of a pedestrian bridge over Fanno Creek. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapter 18.84. ZONE: CBD (Central Business District) The Centra]. Business District zone allows public administrative agencies, cultural exhibits and library services, parking facilities, public safety services, religious assemblies, and a variety of commercial and service activities among other uses. Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, we need your comments by July 5, 1994. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. 2f you areunable to respond by the above date please phone the staff contact noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. PHONE: 639- 4171. STAFF CONTACT: Will D °Andrea PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written Comments: Name of Person Commenting: Phone N1.imber : of our office. yl{ ,)'Yt / •�r� i Ne''1 �I �, Y IJ l,i. � ..,. :. If. �... :,,..!11. .1: -1 f�.?,w ��ti2P a .. Ir •. %f... .i LA + ).fS,t3'� .r �?, J'S K, ,,,1 " -. •i, .}i, Ik . :�j. Y ! -,. f.,. 1, 2. TIF'�CAT;oN i-IST FORM -LL APPLICAT:ONs P CIT _(2) copies CT? DEPARTMENTS ✓, Building Official /Dave S, Acity Recorder ngineering /Mithael A. Permits Facilitator /Jerree o. 3. SPECIAL DISTRICTS Fir: District (pick -up bo;t) Tigard Water t.epartFent 8777 SW Burnha;, St, Tigard, OR 9723 Tualatin Valley Water Listrict 6501 SW Taylors Ferry Rd. Tigard, OR 97223 4, AFFECTED JURISDICTIONS Wash, y Co: Land Use & Transp, N 150 , First Ave, Hillsboro, OR 97124 Brent Curtis Xevin Martin : Mike Borreson �� Scott Xing --""' Fred Eberle City of Beaver -n "—^ Jim Hendiy - Prin:ipal Planer Po Bolt 4755 Beaverton, OF e7� "4 city of Xing ;° city Manager 15300 SW 116th Ring city, OR :12:4 city of Lake Cswegt - City Manager 380 SW A take Oswego, CR 97034 State HighwayiVision Bob boran PO tiok 25412 Portland, OR :1225. 0412 5, SPEC/AL AGENCIES General Telephone Engineering Office PO Bok 23416 Tigard, OR 91281.3416 MW Natural Gas Scott Palmer 220 NW Second AVe, Portland, oR 97209 TCI Ca} leVieion of Oregon Linda Peterson 3500 sWSohd St,.„ Portland, OR 97201 Columbia Cable (Frank Stone) 14200 sW Brigadoon et, BeaVer'toh, OR 97005 6, STATE AGENCIES 0eronautids biv, (ODOT) 1Vision of State t,ands ,dommerce Dept,, - 14,14, Part . Fish & Wildlife PUC letept, of LnV non, QUelity FiDERAL AGENCiES Corps, of tngiheeee Po §t office o'rHER Southern Pacific Transportation COMOhn)/ tliiane M, Forney, PLS Project Engineer 800 NW 6th Avenue,.,, R, 324, Union Station Portland, OR 97209 7, 8, CPO NO, Parks & Recreation Board Police _ - Fie1d Operations Long Range Planning /Carol Unified Sewerage Agency /SWM Program 155 N, First St. Hillsboro, OR 97124 Boundary commission 320 SW Stark Room 530 Portland, OR 97204 METRO - GREENSPACES PROGRAM - Mel Hiiie (CPA's /ZOA's) 600 NE Grand Portland, OR 97232 -2736 DLCD (CPA's /ZOA's) 1175 Court St, NE Salem, OR 97310-0590 Other City of DUrham - City Manager . PO Dok 23483 -3483 Tigard, OR 97224 . city of Portland —" Planning Director 1120 SW ,5th,. Portland, OR 97204 ObOT Lidwien Rahmann,r 9002 SE McLoughlin Blvd, Miluaukie, OR 97222 Pb city Xf 39alatin Tualatin, OR 97062 Portland Genera' -dec. Brian Moore 14655 sW Old Scholls Fry, BeaVertotll OR 91007 Metro Ard4 Communications - Jason HeWitt 'Nin oaks Tedhhology Center 1815 NW 169th Place 5.6020 Beaverton, OR 97006 =4886 West - Pete to Nelson 421 SW Oak St, Portland, oR 91264 Tri -Met Transit bey, — Kim Xnoit 716 Mt Holladay St, Portland, OR 97232 DOG OTHER ,3 s,� °_.: 1+ :k zA :. :;,,: i S w ,w,..`, ,q a,* - 4rM "X1,•��'i N ' ' • ty, to Federal Emergency Management Agency Region X Federal Regional Center 130 228th Street, S.W. Bothell, WA 98021-9796 Will D'Andrea City of Tigard Planning Department 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mr, D'Andrea: August 5, 1994 NaMENIALIVItiliftlin This follows your request to our office to review the "no rise" analysis that was performed by OTAK for the Pedestrian Bridge crossing of Fanno Creek at Ash Street in Tigard, We have completed our initial review and find that we need additional information concerning this proposed development: 1,) In order to process our review, we need the original input data for the FIS model for Fanno Creek; 2,) Some statement must be made from the local government concerning the cumulative effects of this development when considered with all past developments in the floodway of Fanno Creek and all foreseeable future developments in the floodway; 3,) Assurance that the City has the capability to review all thture no rise" analyses, This ia necessary because, currently, there is no requirement to have FEMA review these analyses, Therefor, the City has the right to review these analyses theniselves; 4,) Maintenance agreement for the development, This is just an assurance that the structure will be maintained in its post construction condition; 5,) The no rise" analysis must be performed to demonstrate no increase to the With and Without Floodway Base Flood Elevations, The existing analysis shows no increase to the Without Floodway BFEs oily; 6,). gone oxpiatiatic n. lit* be given to describe the •erosive action it the vicinity of the struture, • If you have any questions regarding this analysis, please do not hesitate to give me a cat! at (206)487-4703. Sincerely, 16,mAskIA-4. rence Basic , PE. Mitigation Division STATE OF OREGON County of Washington City of Tigard X, :T4 (1), depose and say: AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING ) (Please print) That I am a ICFC. S5I for The City of igard, Oregon. being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath ao That I That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR: served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: City of Tigard Planning Director Tigard Planning Commission Tigard Hearings Officer Tigard City Council A copy (Public Hearing Notice/Notice of Decision) of which is attached (Marked Exhibit "A") was mailed to each named persons at the address shown on tie attached list marked exhibit "H" on the day of 19 c? , said notice NOTICE OF DECISION as her to attached, was pos •n an appropriate bulletin board on the ,a__. day of i 19 ; and deposit c1 in the United States Mail on the ay of , 19 postage prepaid. r ared Notice Subsd ibed and sworh/affirmed before me on the 19 day of: , oFFiciAL SEAL DIANE M,JELDERKS NOTARY PUBLic.oREGON coMMsION isio, 036977 MY coMMissioti EXPIRES $EPT, 7,1995 Y PUBLIC My Commidsion REGON irest CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER - BY HEARINGS OFFICER 1. Concerning Case Number(s): SLR 94-0002 ORP 2. Name of Owner: Cit of Ti ard Name of Applicant: 3. Address 13125 SW Hall Blvd. City Tiord State OR Zip 97223 4. Address of Property: south of the right=21=itayfor the SW Ash Avenue crossin of Fanno Creek and west of SW Burnham Street. Tax Map and Lot No(s).: 2S1 2DB tax lot 300 Same &I,„„t)Di-k A 5. Request: ZOne: A request for Sensitive Lands Review approval to allow the construction of a pedestrian bridge over Fanno Creek. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapter 18.84. CBD (Central Business District) The Central Business District zone allows public administrative agencies, cultural exhibits and library services, Parking facilities,40* public safety services, religious assemblies, and a variety of commercial and service activities among other uses. 6. ,Adtion: •••■•■••■•••••••••• Approval as requested X Approval with conditions Denial •■••••••••■••••■•,1 7. potice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall, and mailed to: X The applicant and owner(s) Owner6 of record within the required distance wi.a.ssmemmeriors X . Affected governmental agencies 8. Final Dedision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL Aun9LAIL_1221__ UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of Conditions Can be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 1312 SW Hall, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. 94 apeal : Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in aCcordande With 18.32.290(B) and SeCtion 18.32.370 Which provides that a written appeal may be filed within 10 days after notice is given and Sent. The appeal ma be sUbmitted on City forms and mUst be acCoMpanied by the appeal fee ($315.00) and tranScriPt costs (varies Up to a maximum of $500400). The deadline for f ng of an a . p. . n ppeal 46 3t30 m i99 104 01tedtionst If you have any quedtionsi pleaSe Call the City of Tigard Planning DepartMenti 639-.41714 4 CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OP FINAL ORDER - BY HEARINGS OFFICER 1. Concerning Case Number(s): SLR 94-0002 2. Name of Owner: Sity9111i_ Name of Applicant: Same 3. Address 1312S SW Hall Blvd. City Tigard State OR Zip 97223 4 Address of Property South of the ri ht-of-wa for the SW Ash Avenue crossin of Fanno Creek and west of SW Burnham Street. Tax Map and Lot No(s).: 2S1 2DB tax lot 300 rn 5. Request: A request for Sensitive Lands Review approval to allow the construction of a pedestrian bridge over Fanno Creek. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapter 18.84. Zone: CBD (Central Lusiness District) The Central Business Distridt zone allows public administrative agencieS, Cultural exhibits and library services, parking facilities, public safety services, religious assemblies, and a variety of commercial and service activities among other Uses. 6. Action: X Approval as requested Approval with conditions Denial 7. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall, and mailed to: X The applidant and owner(s) X Owners of recotd within the required distance X Affedted governmental agendieS 8. Final Dedision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON hastaLual 1994 •UNLESS AN APPEAL XS PILED. The adopted finding of fact, decision, and Statement of conditions can be obtained from the Planning Departmento Tigard City Hallo 13125 SW Hallo P,O, Box 23397o Tigard, Oregon 97223, 9. Mae91..: Any party to the dedision mayappeal thi S decision in accordance with 18.32,290(B) and Sedtion 18,32,370 whidh provide b that a Written appeal may be filed Within 10 day S after notice is given and sent, The appeal may be sUbMitted on city forms and must be accompanied by the appeal fee (315.00) and transcript costs (varies up to a makimUm of $500,00), The deadline for filing of on sPIPsell is 330 P.S4. 10 s4g_ti.caks1 If you have di-I qUeStionso please dall the City of Tigard Planning Departmeni 63941/1. t BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OttliCER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding of an application by the City of Tigard and ) Graymor Development Co. for Sensitive Lands Reviar for ) a pdestrian bridge over Fanno Creek within the flood plain ) dramageway and wetland in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) EMIDS. 1. The hearings officer hereby adopts and incorporates herein the findings of the Tigard Community Development Department Staff Report in this matter (the "Staff Report"), including the summary, findings about the site and surroundings, applicable approval standards, NPO and agency comments, and evaluation of the request. 2. Hearings Officer Larry Epstein conducted a duly notice public hearing regarding the application on July 25, 1994. At that heating, the following a. testimony Was offered. a. City Planner Will D'Andrea summarized the Staff Report. ba Consulting planner Tom Hamman appeared for the applicant Graymor Development Company. He accepted the Staff Report without objection, including the recommended conditions of approval. c. No one else appeared at the hearing or testified orally or in writing. a:INCLUSE& Based on the above findings, and the conclusions in section VI of the Staff Report, the hr ec hearings act ionmg officer y f f iwith c er applicable concludes standards t h e a PPlicafonrtislarneqd ugrsmt should d t tiboen sa Pand P r" development e d ' beca u se in does drainage areas and wetlands, subject to conditions of approval necessary to assure the development complies with applicable standards as recommended in the Staff Report, ORDER The hearings officer hereby approves the applicant's requests, SLR 94-0002, subject to the conditions in Section VI of the Staff Report in this matter, EINAL—aRD-E2 SLR 94-0002 (Tigard/Graymor) ATE' this 29th da uly, 1994, -60 •4.1 44.4.0411.1 • City of Ti ilrgrs Officer iA AGENDA ITEM 7-'2" BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding an application by the City of Tigard and Graymor Development to construct a pedestrian bridge over Fanno Creek. This development is within the 100-year floodplain, drainageway and a wetland area CASE: SUMMARY STAFF REPORT SLR 94-0002 I. SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST Sensitive Lands Review SLR 94-0002 A request for Sensitive Lands Review to construct a Pedestrian Bridge over Fanno Creek, within the 100-year floodplain, drainageway and a wetland area. The bridge is located along SW Ash Avenue right-of-way and will connect with a bicycle path system within Fanno Creek Park. APPLICANTS: City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 OWNER: City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd, Tigard, OR 97223 Graymor Devolopment 9895 SE Sunnyside Road, Suite P Clackamas, OR 97015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: CBD (Central Business District) ZONING DESIGNATION: R-12(PD), (ReSidential, 12 units per acre, Plied Development Overlay), CBD (Central Business District), LOCATION: ()CTM 2S1 02BI), tax lot 300), West of SW 131trnharn Street, east of SW Mill Street and south of SW Ash Avenue right-of-way, APPLICABLE LAW: Cotnrmmity Development Code Chapter 18,84, Comprehensive Plan Policies 2,1,1, 3,1,1, 3,2,1, 3 2, 3,5,4, 71! sj • STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions. II. SITE AND VICINITY INFORMATION Background Info ation: No other development applications have been filed with the City of Tigard. B. Site Information and Proposal Descri tp ion:. The bridge is proposed to cross Fanno Creek. The property is undeveloped and is traversed by foot trails. Surface topography is relatively flat except for the steep creek banks approximately 8 feet high on each side of the creek. Vegetation consists primarily of high grasses and blackberries with a few small trees. The property contains wetland areas: The proposal is for the contruction of a 48 foot span pedestrian bridge to Cross Fanno Creek. The bridge is located on the north edge of the property adjacent to the SW Ash Avenue right -of -way. The bridge will connect with a pedestrian path to the north which was constructed with the Main Street Apartment complex. The bridge will connect with a pedestrian path on the west bank which is presently under construction and will connect with the Tigard City Hall and Tigard Library. The bridge is proposed to be constructed within the 100 -year floodplain, within a wetland area and along the drainageway of Fanno Creek. CG. 1C1i11tY,_1.1iformation The adjacent properties to the north, West and east are zoned CBD. Properties to the south are Zoned for R -12 (Residential, 12 units per acre). The surrounding area is developed with a mix of residential and connnhercial uses, II . APPLICABLE APPROVAL STANDARDS AND REQUEST EVALUATION COMMUNITY, DEVELOPMENT .CODE: Use Classification: Section 18,84,015(A) allows community recreation uses such as pathways p. a bj .� bicycle and pedestrian and arks in areas subject to Sensitive Lands Review, Section 18,84.020 D ) requires Hearings Officer aP P roval for a Sensitive Lands Permit within the 100 -year floodplain. I-IEAiZINOS OFFICER SLR. 04 -0002 - PEDESTRIAN ERI DOE /ORAYMOR Page2 • Chapter 18.84 contains regulations for lands within 100 year floodpl all's that are subject to Sensitive Lands Review. Sensitive Lands Review of proposed developments in these areas is intended to implement floodplain protection measures and to protect rivers, streams and creeks by minimizing erosion, promoting bank stability, maintaining and enhancing water quality and fish and wildlife habitat, and preserving scenic quality and recreational potential. Chapter 18.84.0400..1 states that the Hearings Officer shall approve or approve with 0 pP conditions an application request within the 100 -year floodplain based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied 1: Land form alterations shall preserve or enhance the floodplain storage function and maintenance of the zero -foot rise floodway shall not result in any narrowing of the floodway boundary. The proposed bridge will occupy approximately 200 f (less than 8 cubic yards) p g by additional of floodplain storage, This volume will be offset b storage volurne created b b y debri., removal, minor earthwork and when bike path grading occurs. The applicant shall document on the final construction drawings how the storage offset shall be obtained. The applicant's HEC2 model analysis of Fanno Creek at the proposed bridge location confirms the preservation of the zero-rise floodway and maintenance of the established floodway boundary, 2 Land form alterations or developments within the 100 -year floodplain shall be allowed only hi areas designated as commercial or industrial on the comprehensive plan land use map, except that alterations or developments associated with community recreation uses, utilities, or public support facilities as defined in Chapter 18.42 of the Community Development Code shall be allowed in areas designated residential subject to applicable zoning standards, The Comprehensive Plan designation for this parcel is CBl (Central Business District), 3, where a land form alteration or development is permitted to occur within the floodplain it will aaot result in any increase in the water surface elevation of the 100 -year flood, The applicants zero -rise floodway analysis rinds that this boundary will be maintained In addition, offsets to the floodplain storage capacity will p' .: 11 further reserve the 100 -year floodplain elevation, The applicant shall show on the final HEARINGS OFFICER - SLR 94,0002 - PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE /GRAYMOR Page3 L n, r:', xo-rA�k Y e rtr�W Ca'i'n • caw r construction drawings how the offset in storage capacity shall be obtained. While the applicant's model analysis of the floodplain shows a maintenance of the zero-rise floodway, staff is concerned about the effects on the 100 -year floodplain boundary. The concern is the placement of the bridge below the 100 -year floodplain elevation and the effects of debris etc. that may occur if such debris were to get caught on the bridge during flooding. Such an event could result in the bridge acting as a dam and effecting the elevation of the 100 -year floodplain elevation. 4 The land form alteration or development plan includes a pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan, unless the construction of said pathway is denied by the Hearing Officer as untimely. The application itself is for a pedestrian bridge to connect a pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with the pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. 5 i The plans for the pedestrian/bicycle pathway i dicate that no pathway will be below the elevation of an average annual flood. The pathway athwa elevation at the bridge crossing is expected to be 142 - 143 feet. The average annual flood flow (i.e expected to occur once every year) is not established for Fanno Creek at this location. There are, however, methods for estimating the annual flood water surface height using observable physical characteristics found o n a stream or . waterbody. One such technique relies on the defined vegetation boundary occurring on the stream bank to approximate the annual flood height, This boundary exists where the flow depth in a creek occurs frequently enough that vegetative � growth b e . ow t.. ii s level prevented e ,. d from establishing a root system to support growth. At the proposed bridge crossing location this boundary occurs 2 -3 feet below the top of the bank and the proposed bike path elevation, The proposed bridge and pathway will therefore be above the elevation of the average annual flood, which occurs within the creek banks. 6. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ineers and State of Oregon . _ Land Board, Division o f State Lands approvals shall be obtained. The n . y Corps , . applicant states that an US Army of Engineers permit is not required due to the small scope of the work. The impacts, which are 4.1° r „ .,. HEA.R1N S O1FICER - SLR 94 -0002 - PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE/ rRAYMOR page4 fill, need to be greater than 10 cubic yards to require a permit. The Corps calculates only fill area, not excavation. The path is 498 square feet by 6 1/2" (.54') deep, of 9.96 cubic yards. The applicant states that the Department of Environmental Quality was contacted as well. DEQ stated that, for a project of this nature, an impact of less than 10 cubic yards was approved by policy and did not require a permit from DEQ. The applicant also states that the Oregon Division of State Lands does not require a permit for wetlands work until the impacts exceed 50 cubic yards. The impact of this project is less than 50 cubic yards and therefore does not require a permit. Where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100 .-year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the comprehensive plan. This area . portions of a shall include ortons oi' a suitable elevation for the construction pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. Dedication required Dedica aired as � , Lion is not re this property is currently owned by the City of `Tigard and is designated for park purposes. The application complies with the Comprehensive Plan as this area has been identified as an active park space within the Comprehensive Plan Resource Document Volume I, Identified Resources (0) Fanno Creek Park/ Main Street. 84.040 C states that the Director shall . approve ... . .. . with conditions Chapter 18: ( ) 1 ns tae approve or appr an application request for a sensitive lands permit within dra n g ways based upon findings that all of the following criteria has been satisfied: 1 The extent and nature of the propose d land form alteration or h to the extent greater will not create development �elat �.. , . tastes site disturbances ance� um than that required for the raise. The disturbance is the minim disturbance necessary to accomodate the bridge at the top of the bank. The proposed land form alteration or development Will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation; ground instability; or other adverse onAite and of ffsite effects or hazards to life or property. During construction erosion and sedirrientation control will be ...pl ,,„ proper .g ... ...i i:. during the accom hsh . u sche .... , .. , ...�,,, . , ed thro dulin that limits activities urin "dry '' months of the year and by implementing control Measures (e.g► . O8 OFFICIR SLR 94 -0002 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE/OW[1ACR Page 4' Y , Hr�..3 n1 'yj �n r��F.. +�� fk Ja .4 K' tas� r�l�1�.. �.. r:y. i,. r�. .�'!s`. ;�... �tl ..rn .� ��.� i•, - -;rt silt fences, etc,) as mandated by the Tualatin River Basin Plan. Ground instability and potential erosion and sedimentation in and around the bridge footings will be controlled by the placement of rip rap aprons on either side of the channel to protect the bridge footings and control scow. The minimal amount of vegetation loss expected with construction will be hydroseeded. Required construction plans shall include erosion control. In addition, the final design of the bridge shall . be approved by the Engineering Department and shall include an investigation of alternatives to the recommended grading, such as piling or piers, and the verification of the limits of the proposed rip -rap that is to protect the channel under the bridge and the proposed abutments. 3. The water flow capacity of the drainageway is not decreased. The drainageway's flow capacity is not impaired by the bridge's construction. Annual floods will continue to pass freely under the proposed bridge. 4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Cha p ter 18100, Landscaping and Screening. The minimal amount of vegetation loss expected with construction will be Y .. h droseeded: Erosion control measures shall also be taken during construction. The applicants construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department. 5. The drainageway will be replaced by a public facility of adequate u j :.. the adopted This " with to accommodate maximum flow an accordance as the 1981 Master Drainage Plan, 'This requirement is not applicable drainageway will not be impaired by the bridge's construction: 6: The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands approvals shall be obtained: previous are not required. discussed in the section, permits uired. � Where iandform alterations and/or development within went are allowed watbaa and adjacent to the 100 -year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land and adjacent a e area within and to the floodplain in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. This area HEARJNOS OFFICER - SLR 94 -0002 - PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE /ORA. OR Page6 'x.90 '•,1, ": shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a lain in accordance within the flood plain pathway P with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. As discussed in the previous section, dedication is not required. Chapter 18.84.040(D) states that the Director shall approve or approve with conditions an application request for sensitive lands permit within wetlands based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: 1. The proposed landform alteration or development is neither on wetland in an area designated as significant wetland on the Comprehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetland Map nor is within 25 feet of such a wetland. The site is within a wetland area but it is not designated as significant wetland on the Comprehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetland Map, nor is it within 25 feet of such a wetland. 2. The extent and nature of the proposed landform alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than the minimum required for the use. The disturbance is the minimum disturbance necessary to accornodate the bridge at the top of the bank. 3. Any encroachment or change y g in on -site or off -site drainage which would adversely impact wetland characteristics have been mitigated, This project does not change on -site or off -site drainage. 4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to landform alteration or development, erosion control provisions of the alteration Surface Water Management program of Washington County must be met and areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted in like or similar species in accordance with Chapter 18.100, Landscaping and Screening, As previously discussed, the minimal amount of vegetation loss expected with construction will be hydroseeded. Erosion control measures shall also be taken during construction. All other sensitive lands requireinrents of this chapter have been met Other sensitive lands requireinents have been suet. as addressed in, this report 'A1UI' OFFICER. 81,11. 94 =0002 u I'EDESTRIAIN BRIDGE /Ol AAYMOR Pagel • lY ,,• t�_ anumnumaimem 6. The provisions of Chapter 118.150, Tree Removal, shall be met. No trees larger than six inches in diameter will be removed for thisrproject, therefore this provision does not apply. 7. Physical Limitations and Natural Hazards, Floodplaains and Wetlands, Natural Areas, and Parks, Recreation and Open Space policies of the Comprehensive Plan have been satisfied. Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies are satisfied as discussed, in Section B Comprehensive Plan Policies, below. COMPREHE NSIVE PLAN POLICIEq. 1. Policy 2.1.1 provides the City will assure that citizens will be provided an oPportufity to participate in all phases of the planning and development review process. Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because the applicant held a neighborhood meeting, notice of the application and public hearing on this item was provided to the Citizen Involvement Team East Representative, to owners of property in the vicinity of the site and in a newspaper of general circulation. The site has also been posted with a sign which states that a sensitive lands review application is pending for this property. 2. Policy 3.1.1 provides that the City shall not allow developent in areas meeting the definition of wetlands under cha p ter 18.26 or areas having. slop es in e xcess of 25% exce p t where it can be shown that established and proven engineering techniques related to a specific site plan vvill make the area suitable for the proposed development. (Note: This policy does not apply to lands designated as significant wetlands on the tloodplain and wetlands ,nap.) Policy 3.1.1 is satisfied because engineering techniques will make the site suitable for the proposed bridge and the applicable approval criteria for development in wetland areas have been satisfied, 3, Policy 3.2.1 provides that the City will prohibit any development within the 100 -year foodpian that would result In any rise in elevation of the 100 -year fioodplain, Policy 3,2,1 is satisfied because this proposal will not result in any rise in the elevation of the 100-year flooplaI. Policy 3 , 2.2 provides that the City shall prohibit development in the Polity P �'' p P. floodWay, except if the alteration preserves or enhances the function and HEARINGS OFFICER r .. SLR 94-0002 PEDESTRIAN EsEIDG/CRAYIOg, Past • , maintenance of the zero -foot rise floodway. Policy 3.2,2 is satisfied because this development will preserve the function and maintenance of the zero -foot rise floodway. 5. Policy 3.5.4 provides that the City provide an interconnected pedestrian / bihepath throughout the City. Policy 3.5.4 is satisfied because this bridge will connect sections of the pedestrian / bikeway system. P1. AGENCY COMMENTS 1. The City of Tigard Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal and has provided the following comments A. STREETS: The proposed bridge crossing is located at the intersection with the main Fanno Creek channel and the easterly right- of-way line of Ash Avenue. The proposed bridge would span the channel with 48 feet long glu -lam wood beams, . supported by reinforced concrete abutments. In addition, the applicant proposes to install rip -rap slope protection on each side and through the bridge improvements to stabilize the channel and subgrade. In the future, a bridge over of Fanno Creek will be constructed to provide a roadway crossing for Ash Avenue, a Minor Collector street as shown on the City Comprehensive Plan. The future roadway bridge design will need to address the under- crossing of the pedestrian path that is to constructed with this proposal, and the future connection to the sidewalk in the future Ash Street construction. Otherwise, the proposed pedestrian bridge appears to be compatible with the future roadway bridge. . STORM DPAINAOE The applicant's engineer, Otak, has provided I EC -2 calculations in a format acceptable g bridge to the Corp of Engineers to calculate the effects that the brid e .. construction will have ` to the water surface elevation as the 100 year flow passes the proposed bridge. H AktN OS OFFICER - SLR 94 -0002 PEDESTRIAN RiI OEiGRAXMOR Page9 h!`dl` j,w•r +. A44N ..�K. f• Y Vd‘(.. ,� �1 '.y17 7a YY `eM� LJ.'" I i (1 J. !1 f rt•..M'. The calculations include an examination of two scenarios: one with the bridge perpendicular bridge skew. e enchcular to the main stream flow and. the second with the bred The calculations indicate the there is a zero -rise in the elevation of the stream flow at the proposed pedestrian bridge 100 year flow. The code requires that the proposed development not cause an increase in the water surface elevation of the 100 year flood, nor a decrease in the drainageway capacity. Based on the calculations provided, the applicant's engineer concludes that the proposed pedestrian bridge will have a negligible impact on the Fanno Creek. C. GEOLOGY: The applicant has provided a geotechnical investigation prepared by Dames & Moore, that indicates that the existing soils are suitable to support the proposed pedestrian bridge. The report recommends that the westerly bridge abutment will require excavation and compaction of the native soils. The final design of the bridge should be approved by the Engineering Department and shall include an investigation of alternatives to the recommended grading, such as piling or piers, and the verification of the limits of the proposed rip -rap that is to protect the channel under the bridge and the proposed abutments. 2. The City of Tigard Public Works Department has reviewed this proposal and have no objections to this proposal: 3. The City of Tigard Planning Division (Long Range Planning) has reviewed this proposal and stated that the proposal is consistent with the Master Plan for Fanno Creek Park, which calls for a pathway extending from SW Main Street to SW Hall Boulevard, The U,S: Army Corps of Engineers, Division of State Lands and Department of Environmental Quality were contacted regarding this application. No comments have been recieved from these agencies. No additional comments have been recieved, VL CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION A.R NOS OFFICER - SLR 94.0002 - PEDESTRIA NN BRIDOEIORAYMOR Pagel() Staff concludes that the proposed impacts to Sensitive Lands Areas comply with the applicable approval criteria for issuane of a Sensitive Lands Pert. Staff recommends the approval of SLR 94 -0002 subject to the following conditions: PRIOR. TC�. THE CONSTR.UOTION, TiHE FOLLOWING CONDrfK i S SMALL BE .AT�sErED: 1. Two (2) sets of detailed design calculations and construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering Department. Five (5) sets of approved drawings, all prepared by a Professional Engineer, shall be submitted for final review and approval. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering. Department (639- 4171). UPON COMPLETION OF CONSTRUC,TI„ N 1. Provide an AS -BUILT certification and the AS -BUILT duplicate drawings on mylar of the completed construction to the Engineering Department. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering Department (639 -4171) THIS APPROVAL SMALL BE VALID FOR EIGHTEEN MONTHS OF THE EFFECTWE DATE OF THIS DECISION. Prepared by William D' Andrea Assistant Planner il Approved by: _ ,1 // � �,� ,,. / r -3/4 -t Biel Bewersdorff Date Senior Planner --/ Date 'tEARINGS OFFICER SLR 94 -0002 - PEDESTRIAN Bit1DOE/ORAYMOR Pagel 1 _�YIii191C1� O+I I A N A PL T PLC.': . • EXHIBIT MAP clk MEMOMNDUM CITY OF =GARD, OREGON TO: Will D'Andrea July 15, 1994 FROM: Michael Anderson, Development Review Engineer RE: SLR 94-0002 FANNC) CREEK PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE 121-MIELption: The applicant proposes to construct a pedestrian bridge over the Fanno Creek in the vicinity of the unimproved right-of-way of Ash Avenue. Findin s: 1. STREETS: A ; The proposed bridge crossing is located at the intersection with the main Fanno Creek channel and the easterly right-of-way line of Ash Avenue. The proposed bridge would span the channel with 48 feet long glu-lam wood beams, supported by reinforced concrete abutments. In addition, the applicant proposes to install rip-rap slope protection on each side and through the bridge improvements to stabilize the channel and subgrade. In the future, a bridge over of Fanno Creek will be constructed to provide a roadway crossing for Ash Avenue, a Minor Collector street as shown on the City Comprehensive Plan. The future roadway bridge design will need to address the under-crossing of the pedestrian path that is to constructed with this proposal, and the future connection to the Sidewalk in the future Ash Street construction. Otherwise, the proposed • pedestrian bridge appears to be compatible with the future roadway bridge. 2. STORM DRAINAGE: The applicant's engineer, Otak, has provided, HEC -2 calcUlations in a format acceptable to the Corp of Engineers to calculate the effects that the bridge construction will have to the water surface elevation as the 100 year flow passes the proposed bridge. The calculations include an ekamination of two scenarios: one with the bridge perpendicular to the main stream flow and the second with the bridge skew. The calculations indicate the there is a ero -rise in the elevation of the stream flow at the proposed pedestrian bridge 100 year flow. The code requires that the proposed development not cause an increase in the water surface elevatiOn of the 100 year flood, nor a decrease in the drainageway Capacity. • tOOIN -" FLT cMiN S 94 2 PEDt8TAIAN' ttklb0.2 . PAG1 I. • t • Based on the calculations provided, the applicant's engineer concludes that the proposed pedestrian bridge will have a negligible impact on the Fanno Creek. 3. GEOLOGY: The applicant has provided a geotechnical investigation Prepared by Dames & Moore, that indicates that the existing soils are suitable to support the proposed pedestrian bridge. The report recommends that the westerly bridge abutment will require excavation and compaction of the native soils. The final design of the bridge should be approved by the Engineering Department and shall include an investigation of alternatives to the recommended grading, such as piling or piers, and the verification of the limits of the proposed rip- rap that is to protect the channel under the bridge and the proposed abutments. Recommendations: PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: 1. Two (2) sets of detailed design calculations and construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering Department. Five (5) sets of approved drawings, all prepared by a Professional Engineer, shall be submitted for final review and approval. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering Department (639- 4171) UPON ,COMPLETION O. 1. ProVide an AS-BUILT certification and the AS-BUILT duplicate drawings on mylar of the completed construction to the Engineering Department STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering Department (639- 4171) APPROVED: Randall R. Woole city Engineer tit\ttidiNttik\JIA inja 41401.N4ZAINatOMMONt$. SLR Otbt8TAIAR:tAI6OZ. • PAOZ...2,. TO : 04)0i REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: June 22 1994 FROM: Tigard Planning Department RE: SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW SLR 94-0002 ASH. STREET PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE LOCATION: South of the right-of-way for the SW Ash Street crossing of Fanno Creek and west of SW Burnham Street (WCTM 2S1 2DB, tax lot 300). A request for Sensitive Lands Review approval to allow the construction of a pedestrian bridge over Fanno Creek. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapter 18.84. ZONE CBD (Central Business District) The Central Business District zone allows public administrative agencies, cultural exhibits and library services, parking facilities, public safety services, religious assemblies, and a variety of commercial and service activities among other uses. Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision Will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, we need your comments by July 5, 1994, You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If voU are unable to res ond by the above date please phone the staff contact noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. PHONE: 839-4171. STAFF CONTACT: Will D'Andrea PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: $0'" We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it Please contact Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written CoMMents: iith2f1t2„ e-4 of our office, tiv Phone Numbett / e 7IX el, '4'1 4, 11•011.01.1.01■•■•■•■•••••1111.01..M., ' Tigard Planning Department FROM: Maintenance Services DATE: June 27/ 1994 SUBJECT: Sensitive Lands Review SLR-94 0002 The Maintenance Services Division has no comments on the above referenced Site Review. REQUEST FOR COMMENTS TO: FROM: Ticani Planning Department RE: SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW SLR 94-0002 ASH STREET PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE LOCATON: South of the right-of-way for the SW Ash Street crossing of Fanno Creek and West of SW Burnham Street (WCTM 2S1 2DB, tax lot 300). A request for Sensitive Lands Review approval to allow the construction of a pedestrian bridge over Fanno Creek, APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapter 18.84. ZONE: CBD (Central Business District) The Central BUsiness District zone allows public administrative agencies, cultural exhibits and library services, parking facilities, public safety services, religious asseminies, and a variety of commercial and service activities among other uses. June 22 1554 Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, we need your comments by July 5, 1994. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return yout comments. If vou are Unable to res ond b the above date please phone the staff contact noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in writing* as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. PHONE: 639-4171. STAFF CONTACT: Will 'Andrea PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed lettet. Written Comments: Name of Person Commenting: [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] SUMMARY A wetland delineation was performed for the Village at Fanno Creek project specifically i- egarding two alternative locations for a bridge crossing of Fanno Creek. The delineation and evaluation was prepared based on several site visits during which data was collected on the hydrology, soil, and vegetative communities. The wetland mapping was prepared by OTAK staff based on the field data and measurements. This information will be used to evaluate potential impacts to wetlands from the proposed project design in the permit process. Two wetland are located only on the arrest side within the ce site along Fenno Creek: These wetlands project y e reek and in the creek channel itself. To best avoid impacts to wetlands, the preferred location for the bridge crossing is on the northern most portion of the study site. Proposed bridge crossing location, east bank of Fanno Creek. f. tpA , Vegetation on west bank of Fanno 'Crook at proposed bridge frogging, View east along southern property boundary of Gramor Development. • "b I scrub Vegetati ong. east bank of Fenno Creels. Shru�� on al � � ., Alternative bridge location is just this side of ash trees in center' of photo: w is 4;'4, i"., Narrow intermittent drainage along southern property boundary of Grantor Development: Wetland directly west of proposed bride crossi w. r - � __..•. z _. ._� -. -. .a :. 3..' i, .., ,• < -. ., a' .. - ....c k_Y rw, L 4 .h�✓ _ _ - _ _..!? fS .- ir._...iF f+.._c _ _._. __ r t. -. 'fH -� _...t.� S: •-.. .�" "'r .. , -: -i_. _ ..� 1« �. ^:i - - �, -� .7;, - � add -. -.w- [_ .y - - _',.' -,.... Y'r•. � .v K; :... .; .�. _ _.. ;. e•!i 'M tR w .S. t[9-_ -`'r •Y ; ._ -le._ �;� <- .�.1:.:' ,. _ -. .. _. .�. K....: . -._ ,,. t,;t _. ,t b - .j• .1� ,sr t.. f' sY•lL.,. S. _ - r r, .� LcGIBILITY J.� ;z._ •u .: °.Yt Yi ib. tcc ice. {•L 1., `f * t J!` . : �._. ,:-.F� y Ejn _.a...: •_,.. . <. f� s J� -k. '.G YN ii' °.e F= (,.�. -�� =f � �-0 y �� F•Yw� <!•� 1.. .,..4' L t .... -.. ;< - F „•.c . •° . -.'. «- :`... ... .}l r -Cx 2 r• _ lF..:' a. -.�. �.......: "-'mss- , _ °.�.�. - :��.:.- •T- � --r:., :- tx-.:_' rte.. . �.. .. -t -r. `t�-r _-, _ _ ._ —. .�-i. .. _. Y ... - _ _c ._C';Y r.[-. , • •.%1 4,, '', '" 4 ■• , cur' r ,•4 ' • . , „••• INTRODUCTION As part of the off site improvements for the Village At Fanno Creek project, an assessment was required for the best location for a bridge crossing of Fanno Creek. It was determined during a preliminary site visit that a delineation of the wetlands associated with the creek would be necessary . kleveral alternative to the bridge crossing were examined and the presence of all wetlands were determined on both sides of the creek at each alternative crossing location. SITE DESCRIPTION The site is located south of the Right Of Way (R.O.W) for the S. W. Ash Street crossing of Fanno Creek in Tigard, Oregon (figure 1), The Village At Fenno Creek development project is located directly north of the proposed bridge crossing alternatives. On the east side of Fanno Creek, a primitive bike path now exists and improvements proposed by the city will allow the connection of a bike path network with the bridge crossing. The wetlands within this study site are located as part of the Fanno Creek corridor and a forested/emergent wetland area directly west of the creek (figure 2). METHOD Site information was collected by OTAK's wetland biologist, Jack D. Dalton, between March and March 4, 1993, Two alternative crossings were considered in the preliminary planning phases and a determination of the presence of wetlands was made for Farina Creek and any wetlands on both the east and west sides of the creek. Subsequent to the background research, Mr. Dalton completed the proposed determination, evaluation, and mapping of the wetland area. The following steps were included: • Project plans were reviewed; • Appropriate topographic, NVVI maps, and soil maps were consulted; • Recent aerial photographs were reviewed; • On-site vegetation, soils, and hydrology were characterized; and • A proposed delineation and evaluation was made, The delineation and evaluation report have been prepared in accordance with the Routine Method outlined ; in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Weticirid Delineation Manual, The Routine method was used rather than the Intermediate Method, which uses transect lines, because the wetlands can be located relatively easily by analyzing the topography of the area along e 4 the riparian corridor. 416/weitituiti‘teis •0404,61 • • • tr 4 .,„ N SQUARE CENTER sd INR 28 vio,ro rEA WASH I NGT kAPLEI.EAF ATI SN BAY 7000 511 CLIUT f Nn 4 L T 10• EaroL Sit rAIM1uu sW EbGENoob sr tal ig I CENTER DR SIIAki .e JC. r',b,. ? Qnginoets pIanna r s s^ i `� r �_� a onvhon0 onl�l spacialisis �r Y sunreyots inco( orr`tei 17355 sW Boohoo Folty Rai Lake Osvicgo Oq 97035, (503)335 -3818 Gib ldrkland Wayr Nisi, Kirkland WA 580331 (200)027-9577 [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] WETLAND HYDROLOGY In order for the hydrologic criterion for a jurisdictional wetland determination to be satisfied, there must be enough water in the wetland area to saturate the soils within 12 inches of the surface for a duration of no less than 5% of the growing season. The growing season of the prevalent vegetation is loosely defined as the time in which a majority of the vegetation grows, generally between the months of March through September in the Pacific Northwest. Essentially, this means that the ground must be saturated between 12 and 15 consecutive days during this time The hydrological regime of the site consists of Fanno Creek which follows a meandering path north to south at the alternative crossing locations. On the west side of the creek, an extensive forested wetland exists which is sustained hydrologically by both surface and ground water sources. These sources were not definitively identified for this study. Testing of the east side of the creek revealed no presence of ground inundation or saturation. A ground water connection exists between the forested wetland and Fanno Creek, and there are se everal areas where small surface water connections between the two wetlands exist. Within the Ash Street R,O.W., a small drainage ditch exists between the forested wetland and the creek, however, impacts from past sewerline construction have altered the direct surface water flow, A surface water connection is presumed in this area. SOILS The second criterion for a jurisdictional wetland determination is the classification of on site soils as hydric. Hydric soils possess characteristics found in a reducing environment where prolonged water saturation has caused the available oxygen in the soil to be removed. The primary soil types found on the study area are listed as having hydric soil characteristics in Washington County. Field data collected supports this listing, which revealed that the soils found in the wetland areas possess hydric soil indicators such as soil mottling, low chroma, and gleyed soil conditions, Conservation Service (SCS) of Washington County has identified the soil along this Soil ortion of Fanno Creek as McBee silty clay loam (Figure 3 portion ty y _ ): McBee loam is only considered hydric by the SCS with Wapato and Cove soil inclusions. The McBee series moderately well drained soils that form in alluvium on flo p ` consists of modes od ear ns, The permeability is moderate and the available water capacity is 10 to 12 inches, The typical soil profile found within the wetland data plots has a chroma value . indicted by the Munsell Soil Color Chart as grey (2.5Y 4/1) to yellow (2,5Y 4/2) gley mixed in a dark brown (10YR 3/2) loam, Mottling was present in most of the samples, indicating past saturation, present on. an of the p lots on the east side of the creek, Soil samples taken on the Saturation west side of Fanno Creek included a dark grayish brown (1OYR 3/2) with dense rust- colored mottling (5YR 5/ . _.. � g 6) below 9 inches and a . , . , d sandy clay loam mire with a grey- yellow coloring (2,5Y 4/2 - 3/2) at other data plot locations, Area where surface water inundation was present were not tested for soils below the ALhorizon, d275 /wetiRrid +rep 0494.07 ••- • • .•.• • tr. VEGETATION The final criterion for a jurisdictional wetland determination states that a majority of the vegetative species found in an area must be characterized as hydrophytes, or plants adapted to life in saturated soil conditions. The vegetation covering the majority of the delineated site is caeggorized as obligate wetland, facultative wetland, or facultative in the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary. Facultative vegetation, the minimal vegetational wetland classification, is defined as plants found in wetlands 33% to 67% of the time Obligate wetland plants are those found in wetlands greater than 99% of the time. Vegetation found at the individual data points is recorded on the data sheets. (See Appendix A). The vegetative community along Fanno Creek at the Ash Street R.O.W is a shrub/scrub consisting of primarily Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), scotchbroom (Cytisus scoparius), and hawthorne (Crateagus rnonogyna) in the shrub layers and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) and yarrow (Achillea millifoium) in the forb layer. Approximately 120 feet south of the R.O.W.; the shrub/scrub community ends and an extensive Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) forest begins. The forest community continues south beyond the southern edge of the site along Fanno Creek. Typical vegetation along the west side of the creek corridor is Oregon ash, reed canarygrass; slough sedge (carex obnupta), big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), and Himalayan blackberry, The vegetation along this edge was obviously influenced by the presence of the forested/emergent wetland hydrology further west, The east edge of the creek differs greatly from the west edge in its species composition. The drier conditions produce a greater density of species such as snowberry (Symphoricarpus albus), osoberry (Osmaria cerasiformis), hawthorne, big-leaf maple and Himalayan blackberry. The forested wetland west of the creek has a large emergent component containing species more adapted to deep water such as common cattail (Typha latifolia), Additionally, the reed canarygrass has formed a virtual monoculture of growth along the saturated edge of the inundated area. Other emergent species such as soft rush (Juncus effusus), and slough sedge are present in isolated pods, FUNCTION AND CONDITION ASSESSME NT An assessment of the function and condition of the wetlands on site was conducted using the 1993 Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology (Oregon Method). This methodology is intended to give an overall qualitative description of a wetland's functions and condition in the context of the surrounding land uses, it is not meant be an impact anaiyais, This method will provide the ba9ic information to the local and state officials involved in the management and permitting decisions required for this project, This assessment methodology provides criteria for evaluating six wetland functions' Wildlife Habitat; Fish Habitat, Water Quality J Hydrologic Control) Education; and Recreation, It also assesses the following conditions related to wetlands: Sensitivity to Impact) Enhancement Potential; and Aesthetic Quality (See Appendix II), 4216/*•et1atilkop 0494401. LEGIBILITY STRIP t4 ,• ai +: � r � 1 • The U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Wetlands Inventory (NW), following the "Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States" scheme (Cowardin et al., 1979), has identified wetlands on site (figure 4). These include a palustrine emergent broadleaf deciduous wetland with a semipermanent/seasonal/saturated hydrologic regime and an associated palustrine forested wetland with an emergent component. Since the stream itself will not be impacted directly from the ,proposed project design, the assessment was made for the forested wetland while regarding the wetland along the creek as an influencing factor. The wetland provides wildlife habitat to some but not all species due to the limited diversity of wetland types and the close proximity of the surrounding residences. There is a potential for the wetland to provide the following functions: Fish habitat, Water quality, education, and recreation. The rationale for this designation on these functions is the severe problem rating on the water quality of Fanno Creek in addition to the lack of forested cover along the creek, current land use surrounding the site, and the relatively small size of the site Hydrological control is provided in the wetland and the importance of this is obvious due to the downstream structures within the 100 -year floodplain. The location of the site makes it a sensitive wetland to impacts, since the surrounding land use designation is residential and the water quality of Fenno Creek is so poor. There is, however, a potential for enhancement if the ripar; zn corridor of Fanno Creek is preserved. The aesthetic quality of the site remains high according to this methodology which is primarily due to the accessibility of the present habitat along Fenno Creek. CONCLUSION Wetlands exist along the entire western edge of Fenno Creek within the study site with the g g exception of a berm along the creek edge and a small berm on the northern edge of the study site . The east si de of Fenno Creek did not exhibit the necessary criteria for a jurisdictional wetland determination, primarily the hydrology. The bridge abutments will not impact the Fanno Creek wetland, but to attain the goals of this project, a small area of wetland on the west edge of the creek may be impacted. The construction is not anticipated to require a large area and may avoid the wetlands altogether. To achieve minimal impacts, the bridge crossing location should be located as close to the northern edge of the study site as possible, '275 /wetlandrtep 0404,07 4 • t' • n", r a,. a , ,R1 LOCATION OF SITE engineers iletriti/hindelid *leafing§ filfiVeyeit th�dtpotated 17i:54 .,±sq tloohei Pons, pd Laka °auk* oh Oojt, 050.6oiti SCALE 12OO9 62O ldethd Way i 66, WA .., •,1 .. ..>.., „ .,'",.. / .. • y. • ,• • ; � t, + ,. Tr �`I.7 Its f � !t' • s .. ,^v • • i 1h11 rur �� 1 Iii, • 1 y ♦'+• ▪ / ▪ 'r c �' \� /11 1• »i:hi. J tuf.frff , V7, " .1 \- . . it 1 . a • t 7 ./t1 11 - .' - i s 1...,, • .. , .rte , • �K ' 'POfWK Zh �' '' x y •,, �� .. , , . : � • P EM ITV . ii c • '. Pow; . ; Y: y'� Chh..11))11r�'•` `'wit I�, ''.;�, ! "rk, i ':., .. ±. :' tl I•, ' I +1 i' Zt /a. •'e,'Q 5•AI`, 1' , PG�MI • /�, •,+ y 4' . •. \�.\'4 i 1 7r,, •� , +a +� •t +.1 .. i . . • • a .S { . .....4 •t♦•. . ••• , 6 . 4 :1 •" ;1 : . •1 • •� ••I.i r • • , • +. el _ t'• JAI,U1_ •. +.',,1,• +. 1- , J P AA Y• "J• y- �,' � { , , '•• + • • y+ ' y I I• • �r�• ' ) . .' . /OWZ+.: r : • Y ,,, • • t ♦,: .. '• • i •i.. +' • ?:• r. +'' • il�f.' ., r•• .• ••♦ �':,•,rl •: :: •16•,•. I/i 1' {l. {11 ry g �� +�+J - .•'•'i*':'; 0.1 •11 - y -';�t •• ' y }' • J. M • . • Y ,1'�JOC�2 l l . . 1 ....,.�, s 6. J"•• ♦ ff. ••�• \ 'u�1 :•l"^•.•.1 : • :a.. :i 4 ..., ::.+ :«,.4 r' y L , t . ....�........ ..• �• : .,.:.1..14_ . .t.. ,- I• +al:.., ,...«......,-4...14.1....;., �..:1 1 / ' rC RJ`, „ • i Y Ii r~ , y ,r y; • 'I+y :•J •�, �• +. �. -: , PC/��. \(�/• � `•. •, +' Y' )•,..• ••: ;. +6, Pjw7�1` 1•. 'j /, + • . •♦�,' /�. "•,, -• +Y., I , ,•y �4. ... S. -, . ' ( y {•)y�• sati " • jti �• . 1•Y► / .. y. ♦ • ry • +� Y. ...f • 1 • �• ` , .•• • ,.......--.41:: �.. AN `•a •,• ', +..PV P "•1'j f 1/ ••y:IY- •, �Y�•ai •. +• i �11f 111111, T+ + +, Mr•0�•. •, +�`i + : i ` .,. P Q1Y ! ' /Y, ' I ... .f pFOIY'' r yi1� '•y ; ..�: :: , �y if EMly �'� I • t1 f"hlal, ; ;.t)`) .• • j,�r Yia '... •J, i+C ,,• . ' Yy��r+ i. ' \' +i • r V P • �i • ', •i ♦ �: ri't'ti� ill \., is .�' •� , I .1'ir J 1 +, i r 4 •• , I • • 1 • •• ,� �. :: -, . , r JI • Y. , � •1 I ; �'If -',1 r•ll tiP+ �Ci��• 2� -.IL, F',.....lie, ~ ' , Q , 1 ', a•�� /' `1 r � .: •..: y J 1 •,1 ►JJ :• , l..J ,: • • • .� • yf 1i.7+J'i11D • 1 I •,`Q! 1 0 , +/ r \:• '. 1 ,1 ' • /Ii C Y I i y JJ Y • • • • • it , J �• C �y,C •`11 ` ` �� '1 • • ,,/ :,t 1!•'':y:. i•i:. :� / �•'.'. • ••'':::r, y.l'l .'i • % %,(tl ♦••rill+ - 11't'l.,yi ,y. P •+ . • 1 /le �• i,/ i • • , / . 7 ,J I • .. •s 1 • : ,'' •• , ar F.7•1 X71 i - y 1RLX A. �� /(f ' .,. '• ':� J' i•,. `• . •. • •+ it .+ t�{ . Y� °" -••.J, }'p�±/'� v � .,,,,,..\ , ti• :. r+. , ;,� ,' ;, : �. • L 1 , i 44, 1 : ; ' , C T ` ▪ y'yJU ' / (• '1• i':� ' !.,.i +.,/ • Y , . +:� ▪ 1 t• oI' •• a.44 /. i, 4r PO YK • l '• ?M'(.• C, .:c,. J ♦ ' • • y . rlr '1 • Y` i • 1.,..44/••• •" •• '- • ,�, ♦ r i pCll1� \.Y i . -k . ,� a t:.. 1, '•. + ' 1 ,i i C •, 1,1 tl)� 1'44% •r' f' �/•�J • i �. s(� �M • Jr,..+ 11. , • it ` % )14,-1 f • ♦;E •• , yi: Slr • i .' Is . r�J I ■ 3� . Y Q • •Q. �.J • .If • �,' J J+.i .. t•, , .' 1 1. ,J"� \ t 1 , �—• •.: 1 'YI r....,..4: •A.i C. i .,�� • , --,1,' i' jl o t r y 1,. I' C Y. i 1 .. ..li III • ,/ • S u.• ' rl 7 , • �' r: : 41 + ,• ,'y < ;•''''':' , r`:. . y. i \J�'" • yd • ^,.,i 7 • • ▪ .. -_ 1 .• _ y • , y 1 • • Ai'. , •,. • )., C 77+ r ` • \' 1 e i J J I r %. Y ;' 1 �' —i, r....�� , ' , • . : ,;I�"{ •}•u. �/' -y1. C : : T• ri -.s' •,:: �r•r,:r '¢'I' %_ ' , i .� fk .,_ , 1/JJl�1'�tM +l'Ii+ liY. :�'tI .. 1 it �.•.. •yu aY., Iti f,2.. :' 1 1' • ' i. 111VV//// `., t „. ,, 1 i 1 ; �• r Pul+ HI, +' 1 ' . i . .`Y i �.. Q } ' + {1 i ' - L � • .., 1•� . .1 - r ' y + ' i ,, • y'•1' I '� ...+ Sf+'�.,,�” 7t +!'i `t ' +- t'•. i , •.`i . Ay ^ `11.4 t�+l�i`�A ��:. ..,�. + •i ` .i C� ` ♦...'ily C y 1 ti \ 111 • C,' •.'I41 + •, Jr` JJ ∎, /� i1 Iy1 j Ili il'r,,.� l,r }Z #�4'�... lalii,i6:ir.�.i ,aAy.. +. +� 0,,,..* . Y r; •�',i:,, J ! 14 / i , J ,, , ,, ,••' l ; i :. Y C �1, 1 ��r ; C a w , ,/ , +i l ,C PO , .11 :17'{ ,1+ • � , +1rC . �. \, ; `el)rl :' .`r`. f {+ �y. y r + y :'� po Y�! k C , Uti'. i,i ,+ ;. 1 • 1 , �,1 • .ff'�i i'''.r, l � 4167` •,.....I . , • i. i r • . yva....f•/ Y♦ Y i'I,'1' . f J : ` Y,I 1 .�e v'`+, flllilr 444, i . 1.4%44. i i I. i . , Y 1 e� �+. 1 f .x ' l',,, + 1 , 1, +, , • •J....'+.:ac..r'� •t.. ",♦ ,,,.. �OYY �.,. j 1'111 . wr\ il' ,q� •w , •, � u I. • I ow��x ]�' J • 1 r 1 �p . ..6 1 t� • , i Ij 1 P'L: , 1 �,' 7 +r.. / /(, J +.JC i iy J7�. 1 1 -'• i, +f / + i + ' c 5 v•1 /' .+ J, +il. ,�l�,'�`Y ,• , / r, I • ,1.�y (`1 t(,1j . 1 C �l�i JJ 1 Yi J ', 4' + i+ill• ' !! :+ 'r "1 1,1 i�i i + yl i f Y C. +IY '1J11+ y�:Jir1`iFyt a.i'1 'FI.+ +i{.',r ''''t 1 ti +f the •. �`%.yi::: • 'i•i , Y. Y 1Ait' •i 4 I Y JN t t♦1 . .Yi »♦ : ! 4 • Y 4 • 01, t .rd /• _ �:x i, • • J:C ii i 1 �• • '. ( 1i ,JY .l � � y Y PcpW '.�J� Y W . 11 ' •s+ lY: +' IY ' C `oll r �� i" •+ t iI ■ \ , r t. , • ti ♦JY a `f`:::1: , •� ' .1 i't• •: el ' r r t i • / ul, /�, iC., �1, j( ' 1 •+� �'4 y r \1NPFO1'II ' • O 1 1� + 1 1 a • FIGURE 4 8C) ACE! USEW National etlands Inventory Ma SCALE 1"!2000' efIgif,ealr8 01+61166 anvininmenfal spectriiicis eUrVe ors �tldOrpOrate i 73s5 sW Dooiios Feny► fad,, Lakin oivikijo OA D7c 3;;, (}a -3eio 620 Kiridand Way+, ioo, kirkiaiid WA 98033, (2O*27.95T/ LEGISuTS STRIP` 4 • WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Project: ...6,sagArt2„,east&E. County: _m6sJ.421Thi_ Client: lagjatea_tatirjatiaTownship/Range/Section: Date:jalSito Description: Hydrology Topography: Inundated? _ Surfac Water Depth: -- Soil Saturation Depth: >7/ 2," Other Indicators: Disturbed Situation? Ad Remarks: Wetland Hydrology: „ Basis: Plot Number: 1. State: -r agibmad2.05.s/N4 Soils Series/Description:, '6 Zte: 5 s I.rV Hydric Soil? v 6E) Histosoil? Sample Matrix Depth Color Mottle Color exture Rescri .tion of Soil Sam 91 — Other Indicators: Hydric Soil Criterion: Basis: • Vegetation Community Description: Vegetation Disturbed? / Remarks &i Dominant Plant Species find Indicator Status: Herbs: Li ir e • i4,44.444: •••■■■••■•■ 44.444444.1■44,4.4■4■444 Shrubs/Small Trees: I w lakitSti. *0 .6 thpab t5 Trees: • Percent OBL,FAOWJFAC: b (i0 Hydrophytic Vegetation? 0,) Basb Wetland Determination: Wetland Nonwetiand detriments: t-t/tr-tex-2, 1)etertnineci byt 3.1s.j> OTNKt ttivitohhiaittd. Team WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Project :..(. c _ gatasE County: IA1OtsN. GT O'J State: Client : . R.- bevet.oNik Township/Range /Section: Date: %.Site Description: ,. ? .' _, .�.. Plot Number: Z. Hydrology • &r aF C)L E - � P• Topograph? • _ Sur ace Water Depth:.. Inundated? �� _____�.�_ Soil Saturation Depth:-°_ Other Indicators: Disturbed Situation? Remarks: Wetland Hydrology: Basis: Soils Series/Description: Hydric Soil? A) Histosoil? Sample Matrix Depth 40 A: 4 Color Mottle Color exture I escri • Lion of Soil Sam •le /t4 H dric Soil Criterion: B Other Indicators: Hydric ' Weis: zo-i) r b et r ''T +► Vegetation Community Description: $ Vegetation Disturbed? n1 Remarks: Dominant Plant Species and Indicator Status: Herbs: Shrubs %Small Trees: d U sus 1lluii.c „AUK Percent OBL,FACW,FAC :. 30 % Hydrophytic Vegetation ?,_,. hl Basis: Wetland Determination:__ Comments :__�:::. Trees: W 1/ . N l ,. etland oi�vetlac Determined by:_ OTAI : Eiiir ronmental Services Tear WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Project: _ R C2.1 ®6a- County: I v SN. N cn r o Client: Zwe sw.lca ttr e, r Township/I tinge /Section: Date:, 5 ff / Si .e Description: P. Hydrology Topography: h LLo) 1 G-P iv ay. At Inundated? Surface Water Depth: Soil Saturation Depth -yrs" Other Indicators State: �( Plot Number: Disturbed Situation? 4 Wetland Hydrology: _,_N Soils Series%Descriptio : K141 Hydric Sail? Histosoil? _ Sample Matrix Depth Color Remarks: Basis: Mot tle / Color / Texture /Descri tion_ of Soil Sample Other Indicators: Hydric Soil Criterion: Vegetation Community Description:. .5 Vegetation Disturbed? Remarks' Dominant Plant Species and Indicator Status: Herbst ,4 L. ■7"TS s T/ r4f A)4 Shrubs /Small Trees: P+1 35°12 Trees! Vii- ' 9 �i t i t� i• -T r . nr f r rAJ l U `lo Percent OBLiFACW,FAO: °a Hydrophytic Vegetation ? .. Basis:__ #, e.6,1& 'Je t . P"7 si 'vs!_ Wetland Determination: Continents :. W etlaiid ... .NoiiWetiaiid it teS Deteriiined OTAK: E itiVi.tititiiiitititta Services.ea% ................... cie WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Project: .11:LEA AoknI12, tbh,G County: _1,62:11&1_,_ Client: Itagoil,22eataTownship/Range/Section: Date:a/a_ag_Site Description: mteaste—A.Ledg Plot Number: 44 State: 101■•■■•MOCIaiVIS.■•■••■••■■••■■11 _ 71" itEAL-Axibtailba.g.6) Hydrology Topography: Inundated? Surface Water Depth: Soil Saturation Depth:A": Other Indicators: tt, Disturbed Situation? #4J Remarks: Basis: Wetland Hydrology: Soils Series/Description: Hydric Soil? Sample Depth I " atrix Color Mottletgolgigexture/Description of Soil Sample, / tL�O /S "1- rerrs met- ir,S, ea" Histosoil? Other indicators: Hydric Soil Criterion: Vegetation Community Description: iZANt. atitlitg0:40___ Vegetation Disturbed? Rernarks: s'- Dominant Plant Speci and Indicator Status: Herbst Shrubs/Small Trees: PticiNuNiaks AR.o.pap At.tot, pheto 40% ___gi,ves Basis: 11. b. • Percent 013LiFACWiFAO: 'h) % Hydrophytic Vegetation?, \/ Basis: Tree5: Wetland Determination: VWetiand Nonwetland Oormnenth: Determined bl> ,$1 a '4‘ 2, s '" • r Oel'AX: Environmental Service§ Tearn WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Plot Number: Project: .(�gA,fytA,. -C1Ea County: Ups st-t. 1 N U" erA State: ____1112 Client: (r-r. tTownship /Range /Section: `"T� Date :f //j..Site Description: t"xz .L. ..._ " �► r Hydrology Topography: Inundated? Surface Water Depth: Soil Saturation Depth: - ---`' Other Indicators: Disturbed Situation? Remarks. Wetland Hydrology:. Basis: Soils Series/Description Hydric Soil? , Histosoil? Sample Depth, Matrix Color Mottle Color exture escri • tion of Soil Sam • le vil Other Indicators Hydric Soil Criterion: _Basis: Vegetation Community Description: , r°'t�" Vegetation Disturbed? . Remarks: Dominant Plant Species and Indicator Status: Herbs: Percent OBL0FACW)FAO: % Hydrophytic Vegetation ?_._Basis:, Wetland Detei nination:_ Coinmen y x_ Shrubs /Small Trees: Trees: e.ta. E u � "M jAerf W i to Wetland Nonwetlai d Determined by :._._.. OTAK: Ei ' hdhinent tl Se ices Team } WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Plot Number :' Project: fc,,.. , Egat County: a ±al - N .D" State: y r , 14,6, Township/Range/Section: Date: J, •g2Site Description: : Hydrology Topography: h S . �a.. " . �, ► S fi NEc. y Inundated? of Surface Water Depth Soil Saturation Depth: *?'/C" Other Indicators: Disturbed Situation? _ A) Remarks: Wetland Hydrology: of Basis: Soils Series%Description: ._.__ , Hydric Soil? Histosoil? , Sample Matrix rix •tion of Soil Sam le Depth Color Mottle Color exture i escri s ti •, �iC'° _ Mirrr ces. 4 O% bra' Other Indicators: Hydric Soli Criterions Basis: Vegetation Community Description S I St l 5 Vegetation Disturbed? Al Remarks: Dominant Plant Species and Indicator Status: Herbs: Shrubs /Small Trees: h 5- Percent OBL; �FAC,�., FACW 3 C-% Iiydrophytic Vegetation ?_, Basis, ._ ..,,`.. Wetland Determination: Wetland Nonwetland Determined by OTAI: Environhienial Services Tea i r WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Project: jmigiu DsI2 County: L&LE.:Luagta0...,.....1 State: Client: Itigissagji2elinhcaNztaTownship/Range/Section: T Z. C. 14 DateLaja Ag_Site Description: - 4 A4. Hydrology Topography: et- G4 (4-64AN te. in) To 1:-.-="4 . LAJ` 1E-1'r Inundated? A/ Surface Water Depth: Soil Saturation Depth:_ hob Other Indicators: Disturbed Situation? ,A)9 Remarks: Wetland Hydrology: Basis: Soils M Series/Description: Vvl — 1.2 Hydric Soii?.._ '....) Histosoil? Sample Matrix Ruh Color Mottle Color exture escri tion of Soil Sam le Other Indicators: Hydric Soil Criterion: y___Basis: Vegetation Community Description: Se-ig- Vegetation Disturbed? 4L Remarks: Dominant Plant Species and Indicator Status: Herbs: Shrubs/Small Trees: 7.-05 Percent OBL,VACWIFACL liydtophytio Vegetatioh? 1/41 PasibL. Wetland beteriniiiation: Wetland NonwetlEind Oorrinients t WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Plot Number: (t la M County: _IN ss�. �� T 4n1 State: —OIL Project: Section' Client: Township/R.anpe% Site Description: p r Hydrology r,o v C.t� Topography: 1 ' c' -M b 2 k -A' Le" L ` 0 i — .-' Inundated'? Surface Water. Depth: Soil Saturation Depth: f " _.. Other Indicators: Disturbed Situation? Remarks: •r , Wetland Hydrology: . Basis: Soils Series/Description: Hydric Soil? Histosoil,? Sample Matrix D_ each. color ti,... „ o. 0 Mottle Color exture escri •tion_of Soil Sam le G! Other Indicators; Hydric Soil Criterion Basis: Vegetation Community Description Vegetation Disturbed? xi Remarks; Dominant Plant Species and Indicator Status: Herbs: Percent OBL,FACW; C :. (/0 + IA Hydrophytic Vegetation?_ ".1 Basis:�_, Shrubs /Small Trees: Trees: Wetland Detet , __ ._. x e i a Comment: /oiWettand OTAK: Eh ' rdhmental .SeMb&q eam A Ada %1 °''b+�'I tsN1':11 =r. WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Plot Number: Project: SIRANdAjlEata6,E- County: lAt stk. 1.1 TCP• State: Client: Agisteg32Eitmoki _Taal& Township/Rangaectioix. Date:aia_ag_Site Description: Pokozdt e,.. ii&Lrafi Hydrology Topography i S p tA.1. L, Inundat,ed? Surface Water Depth: Soil Saturation Depth: c9" Other Indicators: Disturbed Situation? Remarks: Wetland Hydrology: / Basis: Soils Series/Description: 1-6 Hydric Soil? A Histosoil? Sample Matrix Depth Color - I t wite- 5/ - 04,6''rTus" es_hitAP6kgtom Mottle Color l'exture escri ton of Soil Sam le Other Indicators: Hydric Soil Criterion: y Basis: Vegetation Community Description: Vegetation Disturbed? Remarks: Dominant Plant Species and Indicator Status: Herbs: vsLiot er-100.5Lts r-IttoW 4 Z04310 Shrubs/Small Trees: P441A.. % Trees: 3F,42.ikriiisti...4 A W Z�°0 p et cent oBL,F Acw IF Act 76 cto Hy dtophytia v esetatioh? ./ Basis: Wetland Detertination: Wetland Nonvvetland Comments: Determined by • OPAkt ftbvitotiotital Services , • .,„„„•„„, WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Plot Number: �a Project: tt a County: I 1 EQ'; State: _ O a Client; Township/Range /Section: Date: /9/Site Description: ►�v e� _... ►.• t . Hydrology Topography: Inundated? Ai Surface Water Depth: Soil Saturation Depth :� 32. Other Indicators: ----- Disturbed Situation? At Remarks: Wetland Hydrology: .- A1 Basis: Soils Series/Descriptio Hydric Soil? Sample Depth 1VIat,•i: Color Histosoil? Other Indicators: Hydric Soil Criterion: Basis: Vegetation Community Description: Vegetation Disturbed, Ai Remarks :. Dominant Plant Species and Indicator Status: Herbs: S hrubs /Small Trees: �► 1670 '� W 5 t-0 R. r /0 d a U g lrtot gi4U1, _ NI s' Mdc the / Color lTexture/Descriution of Soil Sam" le .} --(J, �� ' fit' N•� . L..a _ _ . _ Trees. ITiLittSet f4u4 114711=o Lk Os . &u) Z676 .- .. _. It e-f Po- +tt... t i 2e% �^- *-"'t'C.' o 614 6 ice: i 109, Percent OBL FACW,FAC:,� % Hydrophytic Vegetation ?.._ _. ]3asisa. Wetland termin ati o ns _Wetland_ No zwetla id Connients: . Deterinined by :. ; .ybt• - OTAKt Eiviroiinental Services Teen APPENDIX B WETLAND FUNCTION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OT Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology Funddon & condition summary sheet for the Oregon Method Wetland identification: Fish habitat ViPc5aTe.N11 r *L. tzve- ,tzsty �r e- r+.tea +b T>e a c-u0gd P S-C.' "-6Uy4..... VIM &?. w `✓0./,1/ i I!: 4. m 4,J ri .• J I� 10) ..L; , Lkf VC rthrAtAri 1,04 iT'ht Puri t rq '' W t 110 s+►J Water quality Hydrologic control Sensitivity to impact Enhancement potential Education Recreation Aesthetic quality e v e . 6 ' ` c i imov C ) Xers. a `r' s A L. n..t 6 • L4 eve-S. tel et.era 4 L PO -c `C l tl4 to CG Ni• • i°tr' GI. i,� 1� Pe2oPoSeto 0 Pt' (L'M rela. 0 . p � it44 7Dtu s +n`y 40. it,10 Append& c 10 9 �: Nov {'��,.• n. &regd.,: Freshwater Wetland Assessment itiethociology Watershed summary sheet for the Oregon Method Watershed or community identification: Physical characteristics of watershed or basin Water quality Land use . 156 A006nOik C • ' . . Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology ationsa �.- 0 4.O Wetland identification I . 1 3 A ment questions: wildlife habitat (Page 1 of 3) Question 1 How many Cowardin wetland classes are present? (Characterization: 22,23) 2. What is the dominant Cowardin wetland class? (Characterization 22) 3. What is the Cowardin wetland class and upland inclusion interspersion pattern? (Characterizations 24) 4. what is the area of open water associated with the wetland? (Characterization: 18,28) AnsWer Rural areas: a. Three or more. ()Two. c. One. Urban areas: a.. Two or more. b. One class with more than one plant species. c. Onneclass withonlyoneplantspecies. a. Forestedorscru 'o- shruberacomb1. nation of any two that includes forested or scrub- shrub. b. Emergent vegetation With open water or just open water. nne rgent vegetation with no open water: a. Flighly interspersed: diagram 7. oderately interspersed: diagram 4, 5 or 6. c. Low interspersion: diagrams 1,2or3. Murat areas: a. More than 3 acres or connected to a stream; lake or pond. b. Between 0.5 and 3 acres. c. Less than 0.5 acres. Urban areas: ore than 1 acre or connected to a stream, lake or pond b. Between 0.5 and 1 acre. c. Less than 0.5 acres. l tSn-- 1 w.4 C 1�, Oregon Freshwater Wetland AssesneerUMe1Mdalagy Wetland identification Assessment questions: wildlife habitat (Page 2 of 3) Question 5. How is the wetland hydrologically connected to other wetlands? (For western Oregon only.) (Qnatacteri' ation: 27) 6. When is there water at the wetland site and/or in a connected stream, lake or pond? (C iaractewinak on: 41) 7. `ghat is the water quality condition of water bodies in the watershed upstrean fromtheassessmentai a ?' (c1a+ cterization 8) Answer e wetland is connected to other wetlands within a 1 -mule radius by a perennial or intermittent stream, irrigation ditch, canal or lake. b. The wetland is connected to other wetlands within a 3-mile radius by a perennial or intent stream, irrigation ditch, canal or lake, or other unconnected Wends are present within a1 -mile radius. c. The wetland is not hydrologically connected to other wetlands within a 3 -mile radius, and no other un- connected wetlands lie within a 1 -mile radius. year. b. During fall, winter and/or spring. c. Only in winter. a No main stream reaches within the watershed or bodies of water upstream from the assessment area are listed as in severe water quality condition from nonpoint sources. b, Either main stream reaches within the Watershed or bodies of water upstream from the assessment area but not both, are listed as in severe water quality condition from nonpoint sources: c, Both main stream reaches within the watershed and bodies of wa- ter upstream from the assessment area are listed as in severe water quality condition from nonpoint sources, Notes Z e42" LAt-1 Append& c 133 Wetland identification Assessment questions: wildlife habitat (Page 3 of 3) Queskin Answer 8.Whatis the dorainantexistingland Rural areas: use sumunding the wetland? a. Forested lands or open space. (Charaderization: 15) b. Agriculture. c. 111061dentiatcoinnlercialorin' &Arial Urban areas: tik Open space or agriculture. UConarnercia' 1 or residential. c. Indu.striaL 9a. For rural areas, what percentage a. More than 40* . of the wetland's edge is bordered b. Between 10% and 409'0. byuplandwildrifehabitatthatis at c. Less than 10%. least 150 feet wide'? (Ch$rat erzation: 25) 9b. For urban areas, what is the aver- &Greater than 50 feet age width of the vegetativebuffer Between 25 and 50 feet. surrounding the wetland? c. Las than 25 feet, (Characterization: 26) A wetland provides diverse habitat for wildlife if: A wetland does not provide wildlife habitat or has limited use by Wildlife if: • Oregon Freshwater % etlandiAssessment Methodology Wetland identification _ �7 e . tt\.4) CC. Assessment questions: fish habitat (Page 1 of ) Quesfion Answer Part A. streams 1. What percentage of the stream as- sociated with the wetlands shaded • vegetation? by stream -side (ate) v (Char zon:31) Western Oregon: a. Grater than 75 %. Between 50% and 75%. c. Las t an50%. Eastern Oregon. a. Greater than 50%. b. Between 25% and 50 %. c. Less than 25%. Notes 2. What is the physical character of OThe stream is in a natural channel, the sugar channel? portions of the stream have natured to a natural cannel. (Characterization: 30) b. Only portions of the stream chan- nel have been modified, or extensive modification has been done in the past, the stream has regained some mural channel fea -. turesthrougihtheonsetofineauru lg there-gowthofin-streamVegetation ortheaddition of cover objects such as rocks or snags. 3, What percentage of the stteaam con- tainsaverobjects suuchassobme cd logs,overhang ngbanks,flo gsub= merged vegetation, large rocks or boulders? (Characterization! 32) c. Lxteusiverrnodificationsbavebeen made to the channel, or the stream isconnnedinanon- vegeta dcban- nel or pipe. More than 25%. etween 1O% and 2596. c, Less than 10 %. Appendix C 1 ,35 Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology Wetland identification __.- Assessment questions: fish habitat (Page 2 of 3) Question 4. What Ls the water quality condition of water bodies in the watershed upstream fromtheassessmentarea? (Characterization: 8) Answer a. b. No main stream reaches within the watershed or bodies of water up- stream from the assessment area are listed as in severe watex quality condition from nonpoint &nixes. Either main strum reaches within the watershed or bodies of water upstream from the assessment area, but not both, are listed as in severe water quality condition from nonpoint sources. Both main stream reaches within the watershed and bodies of water upstream from the a.ssessment area are listed as in severe water quality condition from nonpoint sources. Notes 5. Vitals the dominant, existing land a. Forested lands or open space. use surrounding the wetland? b. Agriculture. (racterization: 15) GResidential, commercial or indu Cha s- trial. 6 what species of fish are present in the strewn? (characterization: 29) Part 13: lakes and ponds HoW does the water depth vary in the lake or pond? .„ (Characterization ? pez% a. Salmon, trout or sensitive species = present a some time during the year. present at some time during the year. 24 What percentage of the entire 1 or pond contains coVer objects such as submerged logs, overhanging banks, floating subnierged Vegeta- tion, large rocks or boulders? (Charactedzationt 35) Species not covered in 'se are c. No specie.5 are pres,ent at any time during the year a. Thewaterhas morethan two depths, b, There is a mixture of two depth.s, All water is roughly of uniform depth or depth can' tbe determined, a More than ck, b, 'Between 100 and c, Less than 10%, 5 q Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology Wetland identification Assessment questions: fish habitat (Page 3 of 3) Question Answer 3. what percentage of the shoreline is vegetated to the water's edge (in- clude the wetland)? (Characterization: 34) 4. what is the water quality condition of water bodies in the watershed upstream from the assessinentarea? (Characterization: 8) 5 What is the dominant, existing land use surrounding the wetland? (Characterization: 1 5) 6. What species of fish are present in the pond or lake? (Characterization: 29) �itat: rise a. 100%. b. Between 50% and 100%. c. Less than 50 %. a. No main stream reaches within the watershed or bodies of water up- stream from the assessment area are listed as in severe water quality condition from nonpoint sources: b. Either main stream reaches within the watershed or bodies of water upstream from the assessment area, but not both, are listed as in severe water quality condition from nonpoint sources. c. Both main stream reaches within the watershed and bodies of water upstream from the assessment area are listed as in severe water quality condition from nonpoint sources: a. forested lands or open space, b. Agriculture. c• Residential, commercial or indus= trial, a, Salmon, trout or sensitive species are present at some time during the Seai otcoveced n`�a�'are r sent b, Species n p at some time during the year, c, No species are present at any time during the year Notes A wetland contributes to fish habitat if A Wetland does not contribute to • fish habitat ift A wetland potentially • contributes to fish • habitat if Any three questions are answered "a," and no more than one is answered "c” All. questions are answered "C: Answers do nots'atisfy the •above - listed criteria Append,' 1.37 Oregon Freshti xterWetlandAssessment Methodology Wetland identification Assessment questions: water quay ( 1 of 2) Question Answer 1. What is the wetland's primary a. Perennial orint&inittentstream (in source of water? eludes irrigation ditches). (Characterization: 39) ecipitation or overland flow. � P c Springs, seeps or cannot be deter- mined. 2. Is there evidence that the wetland Evidence of floo ding or ponding floods or ponds? exists.. (Characterization: 36) b, Unabletoobservebecwater level at time of observation. c. No evidence of flooding orpondng exists. 3, What percent of the wetland is cov- ered by vegetation? (Characterization: 22) he area covered by wetland veg- etation is greater than or equal to 70 %. b. The area covered by wetland veg- etation is less than 70%. 4. What is the wetland's area in acres? a. Greater than 5 acres. (CCharacterizaton 17,27) etween .5 and 5 acres, or the wet- land is connected by suxfaco water to another weland within a 3 -mile radius. c. Less than .5 are 5. What's the dominant, existing land Residential, commercial or indus use surrounding the wetland? trial. (Characterization: 15) b. Agriculture. c. Forested lands or open space. 138 Apperia�fx G Notes Oregon freshwater Vitetland Assessment MMthodolosy •H Wetland identification Assessment questions: water qua (Pugs 2 of 2) Question Answer 6. What is the water quality condition of water bodies in the watershed upstream from the assessmentarea? (Characterization: 8) a. Both main stream reaches within the watershed and bodies of water upstream from the assessment area are listed as in severewaterquality condition from nonpoint sources: b. Either main stream reaches within the watershed or bodies of water upstream from theassessment area, but not both, are listed as in severe water quality condition from nonponnt sources. 9omainstream reaches withinthe atershed or bodies of water up- stream strrean frrom the assessment area are listed as in severe Water quality condition from nonpoint sources. A wetland provides water- quality benefits if: A wetland has the potential to provide water quality benefits if: A wetland does not provide water - quafty benefits if Questions 1, 2 and 3 are answered "a," and any other question is answered `ta" or "b." Answers do not satisfy the above- or below -listed criteria, Five out of six questions are answered `'c:01 Notes '1 A`r.tr. L.. .- a.tli. Oregon Freshwater Wetland itssessritent Methodology Wetland identificatidn Assessment questions: hydrologic conitot functions (Page 1 of 2) Question 1. Is the wetland located within the 100-year floodplain? (Characterization: 19) 2. Is there evidence that the wetland floods or ponds? (Characterization: 36) Answer' es. No. ri.). Evidence of flooding or ponding exists. b. Unkletoobservebecauseofwater level at time of observation. c. No evidence of flooding or pond- ing exists. 3. Whatis thewetland's areain acres? a. Greater than 5 acres. (Characterization: 17) 5 Between .5 and 5 acres. c. Less than .5 acre. 4. Is waterflow out of the wetland restricted (e.go, by a beaver dmn or concrete structure)? (Characterization: 37) 5, What percentage of the wetland has forested or scrub-shnth vegeta- tion? (Characterization: 22) 6. What are the existing land uses within 500 feet downstream or down slope of the Wetland? (Characterization: 15) 7. What is the dominant comprehen- sive plan land-use designation tipistream from the assessment ama? (Characterization', 6) i4b Appehdbec a. Yes, the outlet is restricted or the wetland has no outlet . o, the outlet has unrestricted flow. Greater than 70% forested or scrub- sluub, b. Between 50%o and 70% forested or scrub-shrub, c. 50% or less is forestal or scrub- shrub. dustrial, residential and corm:ter- cL b. Agriculture. c. Forested land and open :space. dustrial, residential and commer- cial, b. Agriculture. co Forested land and open space, Notes Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology Wetland identification Assessment questions diol functions (Page 2 of 2) 4044' Question Answer A wetland provides hydrologic control if: A wetland has the potential to provide hydrologic control if A wetland does not provide hydrologic control if: Questions 1 and 6 are answered "a," and two or more other questions are answered "a." Answers do not satisfy the above- or below - listed criteria. Notes uk � s ��.•0 r.1 1 Ved L- Question 1 is answered `b," and three or more other questions are answered "c ?' )regon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology Wetland identification nt questions: sensitivity to impact 1 of 2) Quest On 1 Is the hydrologic system upstream of the wetland and assessment area modified? (Characterization: 4, 5, 40) Answer treamreacheswithinlmileabove ewetlanda �+Cgo or or leveed, an d g irrigation districts are active within the watershed upstream of the as- sessment Main u treazn of b. Mar stream reaches ps the assessment area are dammed, channelized or leveed, but no dik- ing, drainage e or irrigation districts are active within the watershed upstream of the assessment area c. Hydrologic mod ficattons don t fit criteria for responses a or b. Oh main stream reaches within the watershed and bodies of water upstream from the assessment area are listed as in severe water quality condition from nonpoint es. b. Either ma+n stream within the watershed or bodies of water upstream from the assessment area, but not both, are listed as in severe water quality condition from non- point s ources. ce No main stream reaches within the watershed or bodies of water up- stream from the assessment area are listed as in severe water quality condition from nonpoint sources. Residential, commercial or indus- trial. b. Agriculture, c. Forested land and /or open space. commercial or Indus- ' ... esdential, c al b. Agriculture: c. Forest land and/or open space, . quality condition 2. 'What is the water uality of water bodies in the watershed upstreanafrom the assessmentarea? (Characterization 8) 3, what is the dominant; existing land use surrounding the wetland? (Characterization: 15) 4, i/Jhat is the dominant zoned land use within 500 feet of the wetland? (tharadteritatiotg 6) 142 Appen &t C Notes Oregon Freshwater WetIa dAssessment Methodology ,.ter.: . ,.. :.. Wetland identifica.don r Ass ment questions: sensitivity to impact (Page 2 of 2) Quenon Answer 5. What is the dominant C:owardin_(!)Forested or scrub - shrub. wetland class? b. Emergent. (iiarcc.tetizatiion: 22) c. Open water. A wetland is sensitive to secondary effects if: A wetland is not sensitive to secondary effects if: A wetland is potentially sensitive to secondary effects if Question 1 is answered `ta" or "b," and all other questions are answered "a "; or question 2 is answered "a" or "b," and all other questions are answered "a." Question 1 and question 2 are answered "b" or "c," and no other questions are answered "a." above-listed fy the criteria. Notes Se- iof-Tiv A,peridbt C 143 Wetland identification G. Assessment questions: enhancement potential (Page 1 of 2) Question 1. 'What are the assessment results for wildlife habitat, fish habitat, water quality and hydrologic control? Answer e or more has potential to pro- vide a function. b. The wetland does not provide any of the functions listed. c. Thewetlandprovides tat for for wildlife. 2. What is the degree of tillage or compaction of the soils? (Characterization: 16) 4. Can a hydrologic connection be- tween the wetland and a source of water be restored or created? Characterization: 38439) Notes oils show tale orno sign of tillage or compaction. Soils show signs of tillage or com- paction. a. The wetland receives water from a rennial stream. )fhe wetland receives water from an intermittent stream, spring or seep, or precipitation or overland flow. c. Cannot determine. a. Unrestricted water flow into a wet- land exists or if blocked, can be removed or is limited and does not impede flow, b. Permanentblocicage odsts, but may be readily breached or a new floW channel created, ot determine source of water, or permanent blockage exists and alternative flow channels do not appear feasible. a. Greater than 10 acres. Between 1 and 10 acres. c. Less than 1 acre. space? (Characterilation: 21) 6, Is the Wetland sensitive to second- ary effects? a. The Wetland is not sensitiVe to sec- ondary effects. b. TheWetlandis potentially sensitive to secondary effects. The Wetland is sensitive to second,- arY effects, ' "•." •^. •• • • ,,,••■• • •• Oregon & &eshwater'Wetland Assessment Methodology Wetland identification Assessment questions (Page 2 of 2) Question Answer sessrn. n ' #criteria' Questions 1 and 2 are answered "a," and only one other question is answered "c." Question 1 is answered "c "; or question 2 is answered "b," and two or more other questions are answered "c." A wetland has some potential for enhancement if: Answers do not satisfy,the above -listed criteria. Oregon Freshwater Wetland Asst +ssrnent Methodology Wetland identification Assessment questions: education potential (Page 1 of 2) Quesiion 1. Is the wetland site open to the pub- lic for direct access or observation? (Characterization; 46) 2. Are there visible hazards to the public at the wetland site? (Characterization: 42) 3. What is the potential for fish and wildlife habitat study based on the Fish Habitat and Wildlife Habitat evaluation criteria? 4. Is there existing physical public access to other habitats, such as a stream, lake, pond, forest or agri- cultural land ?If not, can such other habitats be observed from the site? (Characterization: 43,44) Answer � . s ed only b a. Wetland access is Y y permission of the landowner or managing entity. he wetland is open to the public. c The site is not open to the public No visible safety hazards exist. e or two visible safety hazards exist. c. More than two visible safety haz- ards exist. a. The wetland provides' diverse habitat for wildlife or contributes to fish habitat. The wetland provides habitat for some wildlife species or poten- tially contributes to fish habitat. c. The wetland does not provide wildlife habitat and does not con- tribute to fish habitat. blic access exists or can be cre- ated easily. b. Publicaccessdoesn'texistandcan't be created easily, but observation of other features can be made from the site. c: Access doesn't exist and can't be created easily. obser- vation of ther�f creatures ncan't be made from the site 5. Is there apublic access point within a 'Yes, maintained access points exist. 250 feet of the wetland? . 'Yes, safe, unmiaintained access (Characterization. 47) p c. No access point exists, or access point is hazardous: Notes 146 append!X C Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessrnent Methodology Notaaaamansinammenzammliosesassaussumi Wetland identification �. A menf questions: education potential (Page 2 of 2) Question Answer 6. Does it appear th7t access tcoaview- ing spot or wetland edge is difficult for individuals with lim- ited mobility? (Characterization: 45) Notes a. No. es. (List physical barriers.). Questions 1 and 2 are answered "a," and at least one of questions 3* 4 and 5 is answered "a" or '$." A wetland has potential for educational use if: Answers do not satisfy the above- or below- listed criteria. A wetland site is not appropriate for educational use if The answer to 1 or 2 is "c" ipondt b 1•$e Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology Wetland identification Assessment questions: recreation (Page 1 of 2) Question Answer 1. Is there a public access point withhi 250 feet of the wetland? (Characterization: 47) 2. Is there a public boat launch or water-based access area in or near the wetland? (Characterization: 48) 3. Are there maintained trails, view- ing areas or otherstructures adjacent to or in the wetland that guide user movement to a pagticular area or areas? (Characterization: 49) 4. What is the opporttnity for noncon- sumptive uses such as wildlife observation and photography? 5. Is fishing allowed at the wetland or adjacent water body? (Characterization: 50) 6, Is hunting allowed at the wetland? (Characterization: 51) a. Yes, a maintainedaccesspointexists. Yes, a safe, urunaintained access point exists. c. No access points mdst, or access point is hazardous. a. Boat launching areas or access points exist on site or within 1/2 mile on a connected lake, river, bay or other body of water, b. Potential to developboat launching areas or access points exists or such features are more than 1/2 mile but less than 1 mile from the wetland, 0. No boat launching areas or access points exist. a. Developed or maintain' ed trails or viewing areas exist. Trail or viewing area opportunities exist that will not disrupt wildlife or plant habitat. c. No trails or viewing areas exist. The wetland provides diverse habi- tat for wildlife. The wetland provides habitat for some Wildlife species. c. The wetland does notprovide wild- life habitat or has limitecl use by AlloWed. b. Prohibited, AlloWeci, rohibited, 4111,' .t..2#1 tt'■`t'*,t .A," Notes NMI Oregon Freshwater Wetland Ass ssrnent Methodology. Wetland identification Assessment questions: recreation (Page 2 of 2) Question Answer The wetland provides recreational opportunities if Question 1 or 2. is answered "a," and the answer to 3, 4, 5 or 6 is The wetland has the potential to provide recreational activities if: The wetland is not appropriate for or does not provide recreational opportunities if: Answers do not satisfy the above- or below - listed criteria. Questions 1 and 2 are answered "c"; or questions 3 and 4 are answered `ac," and 5 and 6 are answered "b. " " Oregon Freshwater Wetland A4 sessnment Methodology , �I .. ... Wetland identification Assessment questions: aesthetic quality (Page 1of) Question 1. How many Cowardin classes are visible from the primary viewing location? (Characterization: 58, 59) Answer ere are two or more Cowardin classes visible from the viewpoint. b. One Cowardin class is visible, and the whole wetland or a large por- tion can be viewed. c. One Cowardin class is visible and only a small portion of the wetland can be viewed 2 What is the general appearance of the as visible from p�iimary ewetlan viewing location? (Characterization: 54, 55) 3. What is the visual character of the surrounding area? (Characterization: 52, 53) 4, What odors are present at the pri- mary viewing location? (Characterizations 56) a. No visual detractors. 9Visua1 detractors, if any, can be moved easily. c. Visual detractors cannot be moved easily. ,Rural a. Significant contrast with surround- ing landscape. b. Limited contnst with surrounding landscape. c. ]Little or no contrast with surround- ing landscape. Urban Open Space or naturally landscaped areas, b. Areas landscaped b op 1e. y people. c. Developed with no landscaping. Natural odors only. b. Unnatural odors such as automo- bile exhaust or stench from a sewage treatment plant are present at certain times= cs Unnatural odors are distinct and continuously present Oregon; Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology Wetland identification Assessment que 'ors aesffiefic qualm (Page g of 2) Q esfion 5. What noises are audible at the pri- mary viewing location? (Characterization: 57) �SSVSS ,TIei Answer Rural a. Bird and wildlife noises and other naturally occurring sounds. b. Some traffic and other similar back- ground sounds are audible in addition to nanurally occurring sounds. c. Continuous traffic or other intru- sive noise is audible in addition to naturally occurring sounds. Urban a. Some traffic and other similar back- ground sounds are audible in addition to naturally occurring sounds. ontinuous traffic or other intru- sive noise is audible in addition to naturally occurring sounds. c. Traffic or other intrusive noise is continuous throughout the day. A wetland is considered to be pleasing if A wetland is considered to be potentially pleasing if: A wetland is not pleasing if: Question 1 or 2 is answered it and all other questions are answered "a" or "b." Answers do not satisfy the above- or below- listed criteria. Two mure {questions are answered c. Notes (4,E. • el") L i.t..y t` 1.. `'"%r f /•-/4 Appel ddt C i Oregon Freshwater vV'etlandAssessment Methodology 'Wildlife habitat Question 1 uestion 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 uestion 6 Assessment descriptor Assessment descriptor Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology t +�� is �.,, ,•., a esst �swt r.s Wetland identifier Hydrologic control Question 1 uestion 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 uestion 6 Question 7 Assessment descriptor Sensitivity to impact Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 uestion 4 Question 5 Assessment descriptor Enhancement potential Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Assessment descriptor Education Question 1 ues . . Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 . . _. Assessmentdescriptot � '(( L Ap end& c 153 Oregon FreshWiter Wetland Assessment Methodology ses$rfl h 14Ve land identifier Recreation Question 1 uestion 2 Question 3 Assessment descriptor Aesthetic quality Question 1 Question 2 uestion 5 : N '" . A * '' ' -77 i 4 1 • ". * i , ,t' .. ' . • ,,' 't, '. , ' ' '' ,, ' ), ''' ' , '. .'1 *. . 1 , i * \ . '• . '' ,. , 1 ; ., . ' , ‘ '''' ‘ ' 1 # ,, • ‘ , .., ,'. ,', ' . ' '' „, ' ' , ', ' t'4 ^ • , " , ' " • • . 4 ., ., • 3 ,' t ,.. ,o• r^ ' ' ," . , . r . t '. , ', - ,i ' : :. • , ■ , ...c. „ ■ ,,, ,t '1rt t , t A' cl , n . " / ;\ , , f r D ) 11 7 . tti ;; • , ..d t.t ‘ i .,.,,,tii,,',• ^,' „,. , , , t '4 7777 tgar regon, Cro.ssrtg ifiannq Creek atA.sh.$:tivet a ' r / 4 , . " 77 '77 .1 / ‘1, 1, 0 t 77 '7777 A May 31 194 \ " ^ ; t Z44', , • i•••• 21,4 CitY,of Tigard Planning Department 13125 SW Hall Tigard, Or 97223 .1te: Sensitive Lands A lication for Pedestrian Bridge Project No. L4275.G05 Attached is a requ. est for a' Sensitive Lands Permi t to construct a pedestrian bridge over Fanno Creek at Ash Street, with connection paths. The bridge and paths are located in Fanno Creek Park, The application includes the application form, a narrative, drawings describing the work, a geotechnical investigation, , . wetlands delineation, and EEC-2 hydraulic analysis. 4. The Fans of Fahno Creek have reViewed and approved the bridge and path location, FEMA was contacted and informed us that they do not have a review function on this project unless the City of Tigard either ievisr..0 the existing floodway delineation or requests that FEMA assist the City with the review process. FEMA has a minimum requirement that any development within the floodway not cause a rise in the water surface. As will be seen in the attached application, this development does not cause a rise in the Water surface, The 'Unified Sewerage Agency was not contacted for this application, It is our understanding from City staff that the City handles this review function, The bridge is located within the floodway, There IS nothing in the ordinance than prohibits ,this, ,Section 18.84,015 D reqUires that a permit approval be obtained in areas of special flood hazard, All approval standards of the ordinance have been Met, 'The path and connecting bridge meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, Approval is therefore requested for the bridge and connecting paths, • 'nu/ph • i3t\project\dotiv1276\appileatalte TABLE OF CONTENTS EPICS 1 NARRATIVE DRAWINGS 3. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION WETLAND DELINEATION 5, HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS ;1 May 31, 1994 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE AT ASH STREET Tigard, Oregon Project No L4275 18:84:040, Ax_,,, nraval,att€�ndards A. The Hearings Officer shall approve or approve with conditions an application request within the 100 -year floodplain based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: 1. Land form alterations shall preserve or enhance the floodplain storage function and maintenance of the zero- foot rise floodway shall not result in any narrowing of the floodway boundary; The bridge is constructed of two (2) parallel Glu -Lam beam girders. Hand rails will be placed on top of these girders. The bike path is constructed between these girders. Concrete headwalls - set four (4) feet back from the top of the banks anchor the bridge girders. The dimensions of the bridge are 48 feet long and 5'•6" feet from the bottom of the beams to the hand rail top, The proposed bridge will occupy approximately 200 ft3 (less than 8 cubic yards) of floodplain storage, This volume will be offset by additional storage volume created when debris removal, minor earthwork and bike path grading occurs. The HEC2 model analysis of Fanno Creek at the proposed bridge location confirms the preservation of the zero -rise floodway and maintenance of the established floodway boundary. 2. Land form alterations or developments within the 100-year floodplain shall be allowed only in areas designated as commercial or industrial on the comprehensive plan land use map, except that alterations or developments associated with community recreation uses, utilities, or public support facilities as defined in Chapter 18.42 of the Community Development Code shall be allowed in areas designated residential subject to applicable zoning standards; This is a community recreation use, within an existing park and as such is allowed, `here a land form alteration or developinent is perMitted to occur within the floodplain it will not result in any increase in the water Surface elevation of the 100-year flood; ee A41, above: Xr ,'� �.'.:� . , s ,7�.',':. r1f .,..C': "... i�t i . .,, ....�i ., Jh l A t. , 4. The land form alteration or development plan includes a pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan, unless the construction of said pathway is deemed by the [eating Officer as untimely; This application is for a pedestrian/bicycle pathway, in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan, The plans for the pedestrian/bicycle pathway indicate that no pathway will be below the elevation of an average annual flood; The proposed pedestrian/bikeway pathway is set back from the top of creek banks, The bridge crosses Fanno Creek 1600 feet downstream from the Main Street bridge. 'Along this creek section the pathway elevation varies but at the bridge crossing it is expected to be 142 - 143 feet; The average annual flood flow (Le expected to occur once every year) is not established for Fanno Creek at this location. There are, however, methods for estimating the annual good water surface height using observable physical characteristics found on a stream or waterbody► One such technique, used for this situation, relies on the defined vegetation boundary occurring on the stream bank to approximate the annual flood height, This boundary exists where the flow depth in a creek occurs frequently enough that vegetative growth below this level is prevented from establishing a root system to support growth, At the proposed bridge crossing location this boundary occurs 2 -3 feet below the top of the bank and the proposed bike path elevation, Additional support for the claim that the proposed bike path is above the annual flood height is found by evaluating the local topography and the City's existing Bike Path system, The topography along this section of Fanno Creek is similar (Le, flat) on proposed the bexlstln sides bike that ends behind the elite path will connect to g , p e City shops, This existing bike path will be extended to Hall Boulevard, The local topography dictates that the proposed bike path must be built very near to the same elevation as the existing bike path, The City has approved the location of the new extended path, and this path is at the same elevations, 6 The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands approvals shall be obtained; and Y US Akin), of Engineers permit is not req tie due to the small scope of the work. The path on the west side of the creek passes through wetlands, The impacts, which are fill, need to be greater than 10 cubic yards to require a permit, The Corps calculates only the filled area, not excavation. The path is 498 square feet by 6 1/2" (.54') deep; or 9.96 cubic yards. DEQ was contacted as well. They stated that, for a project of this nature, an impact of less than 10 cubic yards was approved by policy and did not require a permit from DEQ. Additionally, rip rap on the creek banks is allowed without a permit by the US Army Corps of Engineers if it is no greater than one cubic yard per lineal frontage foot below the mean high water mark, for each side of the bank. The mean high water mark is idP *w± f ied in A.5, above, as 2 to 3 feet below the top of the bank. The sloping bank is approximately 12 feet at the bridge, less 2 feet to the mean high water mark. This is 10 feet, measured along the slope, The attached soils report recommends rip rap of 8 to 15 inches thick, two stones deep (page 4). This rip rap then is an average of two feet thick. Two feet thick by 10 feet high is twenty cubic feet per lineal foot, under the one cubic yard requirement (one cubic yard is twenty seven cubic feet). The Oregon Division of State Lands does not require a permit for wetlands work until the impacts exceed t30 cubic yards. The work in this project is less than 50 cubic yards. Where land form alterations and /or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100 -year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the comprehensive plan. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within thefloodplain accordance with the adopted p e r' nbieycle in pathway plan. This proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Volume 2, page 99, item G, The bridge is within existing open i This y .nd area . .:, and is in the active park area between Ash and Hall. 1 his proposed path is at a suitable elevation and is in accordance with . the adopted plan. B, The Director shall approve or approve with conditions an application q sensitive lands permit on slopes of 25 percent or greater or request for a lens p unstable ground based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied, is The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an ektent greater than that required for the use; The area of work on slopes greater than 259 is only on the creek k . , banks, The only alteration her is to accommodate the bridge at ' the top of the bank, and to provide rip rap on the bank, The disturbances are minimal, and are not greater than 'required, ;33 2. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on.site and off -site effects or hazards to life or property; Only the stream banks in the vicinity of the bridge occur at slopes greater than 25 percent. During construction erosion and sedimentation control will be accomplished through proper scheduling that limits activities during the "dry " months of the year and by implementing control measures (e,g, silt fences, etc,) as mandated by the Tualatin River Basin Plan. Ground instability and potential erosion and sedimentation in and around the bridge footings will be controlled by the placement of rip rap aprons on either side of the channel to protect the bridge footings and control scour. 3. `?'h structures are appropriately sited and designed to ensure structural stability and proper drainage of foundation and crawl space areaS for development with any of the following soil conditions; wet/high water table; high shrink - swell capability; compressible /organic; and shallow depth -to- bedrock; and The bridge footings are set 4 feet back from the top of bank, to avoid impacting the stability of the bank, The construction of the bridge will be in accordance with the attached geotechnical investigation from Dames and Moore, dated May 17, 1994, 4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 15.100, Landscaping and ►Screening. The loss of vegetation will be minimal, Areas disturbed by the construction will be hydroseeded, C, The Director shall approve or approve with conditions an application request for a sensitive lands permit within drainageways based upon findings that all of the following criteria for the user 1, The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development Will not create site disturbances to the extent greater than that required for the use; See 13,1 above, 2. The proposed land form alteration or development 'will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, grocind instability, or other adverse on -site and off -site effects or hazards to life or property; See B,2, above, w:, A 3. The water flow capacity of the drainageway is not decreased; The drainageway's flow capacity is not impaired by the bridge's construction, Annual floods will continue to pass freely under the proposed bridge. When flows greater than the annual flood occur water will leave the main channel, overtop the banks and pass around the bridge and flow over the bike path. These conditions have occurred and would continue to occur even if the bridge isn't built. 4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.100, Landscaping and Screening; See B.4 above. 5. The drainageway will be replaced by a public facility of adequate she to accommodate maximum flow in accordance with the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan. Doesn't apply' 6. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands approvals shall be obtained. See A,6 above. 7. Where landform alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplaln in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan: (Ord. 90-29; Ord, 90-22; Ord. 89-06; Ohl. 87.66; Ord. 87.32; Ord. 86-08; Ohio 84-29; Ord. 83-52) See A.7 above. D. The Director shall approve or approve with conditions an application request for sensitive lands permit within Wetlands baed Upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: 1. The proposed laridfOrm alteration or development is neither �i *etland in an are designated as significant wetland on the Comprehensive Plan IolOodplain and Wetland Map nor is Within 25 feet Of such a Wetland; This site is not designated as significant wetland on the Comprehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetland Map, nor is it within 25 feet of such a wetland. 2. The extent and nature of the proposed landform alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than the minimum required tor the use; See B.1 above. 3. Any encroachment or change in on -site or off-site drainage which would adversely impact wetland characteristics have been mitigated; This project does not change on -site or off-site drainage. 4 Where natural vegetation has been removed due to landform alteration or development, erosion control provisions of the Surface Water Management program of Washington County must be met and areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted in like or similar species in accordance with Chapter 18.100, Landscaping and Screening; See B,4 above, 5. All other sensitive lands requirements of this chapter have been met; This narrative responds to Section 18,84,40 Approval Standards in its entirety, 6 The provisions of Chapter 118.150, Tree Removal, shall be met; and No trees larger than six inches in diameter will be removed for this project, therefore this provision does not apply, 7. Physical Limitations and Natural Hazards, Floodplains and wetlands, Natural Areas, and Parks, Recreation and Open Space policies of the Comprehensive Plan have been satisfied. (Ord. 90.29; Ord. 89.06; Ord. 87.66; Ord. 87.32; Ord. 83,62) This project meets the intent of the domprehensive .Mari Linder Volume 2, page 1.99, item G The park ineetS the plain and the path is one of the intended itses of the park, P Aproj ect\d200\42/6 \bridemapp LEGIBILITY STRIP PATH: AT APARTMENTS FEDESTFRIAN E3RIDGE AT ASH ST. FANTh O° CREEK AFARTMENT5 PROJECT- NO 4215- SCALE r2 - 40' 5/31/94 17355 S.E. Bawls Fiery Rd. Iths Casesp, aR TAM (503) 535-341a 52D IQf'r:Y7d Wc)., Suva 100. Kraard. - : 4aa33: (209) 822 -4448 LEGIBILsre STRIP EX. ELEV.. 143.25÷ PATH- SURFACE SLOPE 120 MAX. r TOP DECK 14325 ± CUT BANK DOWN UNDER. BRIDGE - BRIDGE DECK - SLOPES 2 5t 4 RP RAP 9-O' ± 8' MIN, 1i MAX CREEK MATER SURF) - ±48=0"SPAN -FOOTING TO BE BELOW 21 SLOPE UP FROM BOTTOM, MN. SEE SOILS REPORT FROM TOP OF BANK PEDESTRIAN iBRIDGE AT ASH ST_ FANNO CREEK APARTMENTS Incorporated I75 SIL 8=Ica Flay Rd. Ws Omar. OR 67035 (03) 635—.161g • LEGIBILITY STRIP NOTES:. — PATH TO MATCH EXISTNG GRADE & CROSS SLOPE — DISTURBANCE TO EXISTING GROUND TO BE UMITED TO 12 WIDTH FOR PATH — PRUNE BRANCHES TO A HEIGHT OF 81 ABOVE AND Z BEYOND EDGE OF PAVEMENT — COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS: SUBGRADE — 90% (T99) BASEROCK — 90% CT99) — 90% OSHD TM306 irdr..r.r.AnrAw,wzdwv■vAw,r4v-zarvrr;e■zAr.r..r-tI-,n.,-n--tt 11- -11514W=.9. • - - • - • - = 1/4 =, PEDESTRIAN IBRIIDG,= AT ASH ST_ F,4NNO CREEK APARTMENT& Incorporated 1=5 S. Ewes arty 1111, talle Caw, C2 27035 (303) 635-33IS lartdcad 1;:y. ur MO, Mtn,/ E3033 *CO cm-444 DAMES & MOORE 1750 S.W. HARBOR WAY, SUITE 400, PORTLAND, OREGON 97201 (503) 228-7688 1AX: (503) 223-6083 Mr. David Copenhaver Gramor Development 9895 SE Sunnyside Road, Suite P Clackamas, Oregon 97015 Dear Mr. Copenhaver: May 17, 1994 Geotechnical Investigation Planned Pedestrian Bridge over Fanno Creek Main Street Village at Fanno Creek Park 'Tigard, Oregon In accordance with your request and authorization, Dames & Moore has completed a geotechnical investigation for foundation support of the planned pedestrian bridge over Fanno Creek at the Main Street Village project. Authorization for this study was provided by Mr. Tom Hamann of OTAK. This report documents our investigation and presents our findings, conclusions, and recommendations regarding the planned bridge. ect Description Based on drawings provided by OTAK, we understand that the planned construction consists of a 48-foot long, 10-foot wide wooden pedestrian bridge. Abutment loads are anticipated to be on the order of around 25 kips each, or 2.5 kips per lineal foot along the abutments. Lateral loads were not available at the time of this report, but standard UBC earthquake loads will likely govern lateral design. The bridge will span the relatively narrow channel of Fanno Creek near the east corner of the Main Street Village at Fanno Creek Park project, Current surface grades at the planned crossing are approximately 143 feet at the west abutment and 141.75 feet at the east abutment iodation. A MakirritiM slope of 2 percent is planned, indicating that almost no abutment fills will be required, Shallow foundation support is anticipated due to the relatively light abutment loads, SitecoditIons Surface The planned bridge site is surrounded by undeveloped land traverted by foot trals. Surface topography is rotatively flat except for the steep creek banks approximately 8 feet high on each side, Vegetation at the site congigtg primarily of high grasses and blackberries with a few stall trees. Mature trees are present Surrbunding the site, but not in the itrunediatt Site gra, A very 8oft, wet area was observed north of the west abutment along the construction access path. oPrlas \Volt LI*1 DAMES & M00RE £u face Subsurface conditions near the planned abutments were investigated by means of two test pits excavated with a rubber -tired backhoe using a 2 -foot wide bucket. The test pits were continuously logged by Dames & Moore's project engineer. Logs of the test pits are presented on Figures 1 and 2, attached. In general, the conditions observed in the two test pits were similar to the conditions observed throughout the Main Street Village site Specifically, the site is underlain by brown and gray silty soils to a depth of about 8 feet over a variable deposit of blue -gray very silty fine sand or silt extending to the maximum depth explored. The brown silty soils are soft to medium stiff at the planned bridge site The blue -gray soils are generally stiff, but are too deep to affect the planned construction. The upper soils were significantly softer on the west side compared to the east side. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of about 11 to 111/2 feet in Test Pit TP -2; groundwater was not encountered in TP -1, which terminated at a depth of 81/2 feet. 1 is likely that groundwater elevations at the site match the elevation in the nearby creek. However, the low permeability of the soils requires a long time for groundwater levels to rise in the pits. It is interesting to note that the contact between the upper brown and gray soils and the lower blue- gray materials is located very near the creek bed elevation. Based on the results of our subsurface exploration and our experience at the project site, it is our opinion that the planned construction is feasible from a geotechnical perspective provided the recomrnendations in this report are incorporated in design and construction. Significant conditions which could affect the planned construction include the following: Y The site is underlain b soft to medium stiff silty soils.. Conventional shallow foundation support is possible provided low bearing pressures are used. The upper 3 to 31/2 feet of soil at the west abutment is noticeably softer than other foundation soils at the site. The west abutment will require overexcavation or deepened footings as discussed below. Groundwater at the site is probably about 8 feet below present site grades. Groundwater will probably not affect the pima! construction. The native silty soils are highly sensitive to disturbance when wet, Foundation bearing surfaces should be protected from equipment and foot traffic loads during wet weather conditions. qL 1 LEGIBILITY STRIP , • A Gramor Development May 17, 1994 Page 3 Recommendations DAMES & MOORE Foundation Support We recommend that the planned pedestrian bridge be supported by conventional strip abutment foundations established on firm native soils or properly compacted granular fill soils. Foundations inay be proportioned using an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot for static vertical loads. This value may be increased by one -third when considering transient loads such as wind or seismic forces. We recommend that the east abutment foundation be established at least 2 feet beneath adjacent finished grades. Foundation conditions at the west abutment are less favorable, particularly in the upper 31/2 feet. In this view, we recommend that the west foundation 4.' established at least 3' feet beneath present grades, or that the foundation bearing area be overexcavated to a depth of at least 4 feet and brought back to grade with properly compacted granular fill soils. Clean sand acceptable l 1 crushed rock. Backfill materials d i5 an secs table fixl material as is � -and 1 /2 inch minus w We recommend that the Y , compacted as discussed should be selected, placed, and comps overexcavated area extend at least 2-feet beyond the foundation perimeter. Lateral Resistance We recommend that the bridg e abutments be designed to resist lateral loads using an allowable coefficient passive earth pressure of 350 pounds per square foot per foot of depth and. a friction tion c of the of 0.3. The passive resistance value should be reduced to 200 psf /ft on the inside faces Friction and passive earth e nearby creek slopes. p abutments due to the reduced resistance of the component does not exceed two-thirds of the pressure may be combined provided the passive comp total. Foundation vurtdation Settlement .. g planned, ; i relatively light foundation " understanding that abutment fills are not ]Due to the 1/2-inch or less... Any is our anticipate that foundation settlements will likely be about y loads, we settlement should generally enerall y occur within several weeks of load application, Site Preparation and Fill Compaction Site preparation Will likely be confined to constructing access roads and minor grading around the abutment areas. We recommend that the soft area north of the west abutment be excavated p and __g, grade . rushed rock. A woven to a depth th of at least 2 feet and brot► ht back to rade with compacted crushed g ,: � p. the excavation bottom prior backfilling eotextiie fabric irafi 500 should be rock on th .� rior roads should Drainage should be provided from the rock backf ill to the creek. Other access ,As li Gramor Development May 17, 1994 Page 4 be surfaced with at least 6 inches of crushed rock: This section assumes relatively light wheel loads and relatively dry conditions du ring construction. Thicker sections may be required. All structural fill and backfill, including abutment backfills, should consist of clean, durable crushed rock or sand with no more than 5 percent passing the No 200 sieve. Fill should be placed in uniform horizontal lifts and compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction as ` kness will vary depending on evaluated b�� ASTM Test Method D1557. The. optimum lift true. ary ° p g the compaction equipment used, but should generally not exceed 8 inches. It is our experience that the foundation soils are extremely sensitive to disturbance when wet: We recommend that all exposed footing subgrades be protected by a working blanket of compacted crushed rock at least 4 inches thick. Additional wet - weather construction recommendations can be provided if necessary: Slope Stability /Erosion Control We recommend that abutment foundations be established outside the area described by a plane rising from the toe of the channel bank at an,inclination of 2.1 (horizontal to vertical). We also recommend that interior abutment slopes be laid back to an inclination no steeper than 1',41. We recommend p protected from erosion with ri rap or other p i flow rate of 5 feet per . that the abutment slope maximum P second, we suitable erosion control system: Assuming p recommend that conventional stone riprap consist of 8-inch to 15 -inch diameter crushed or quarried stone placed stones thick on the interior abutment slopes. Riprap erosion ..,.., laced at least 2 stop be ond each side of the. bridge. A filter layer is not protection should extend at least 5 feet y g y considered necessary under the riprap. riprap layer 2 feet beneath the current creek bed may end-dumped and raked back into The toe of the rl ra la er should be established at be end -dum elevation, and. should be at least 2 stones wide. Rip rap y p nt Stones should adjusted to a place with v �1..p be J � bucket or other excavation equipment, + ` � � u1a layer has h a backhoe b stable configuration with at least 3-point contact on underlying stones after the riprap y been shaped: Construction Mon for ng nd T ". in The recommendations presented in this report are based on evaluation of conditions encountered in two test pits and correlation with our knowledge of conditions throughout the Main Street Village site Subsurface conditions may vary, and unanticipated conditions may be encountered during construction: xa , Grramor Development May 17, 1c' ^!4 Page We recommend that foundation bearing surfaces be observed by a Dames & Moore representative prior to placing the working blanket. We also recommend that all structural fill placed around the abutments be tested by Dames & Moore. We appreciate this opportunity to be of continued service. Please call if you have any questions . or if additional information is required. Yours very truly, DAMES & MOORE, INC. kE PRor•, Attachments: Test Pit Logs 21541=01.15 JWJ�D ,.., RSl1 h 21541 -0O7 -016 4' W 0. 0 1 7 9 LA80fATORY TEST DATA Test Reported Elsewhere Moisture Content (6) I Penetrometer I (tom 2.0 2.5 2.5 4.0 KEY: TEST PIT TP -1 Date Excavated: May 11, 1 994 Surface Elevation: 141 +/- foot Y ® Driven thinw&i dmmpie Disturbed oampiei+ Groundwater depth at time of einaVetinnr Blue -gray very silty fine sand, medium dense + Wet, minor pinhole porosity. NOTE: Teat pit completed at a depth of 8.5 feet, Groundwater not enoount ©red during oxoavaation. Backfiiled 5 -11.94 TEST IPIT LOG 21541 X007.016 °mss'°°'"" DAMES & =ME W .c Medium ray clayey SILT, soft to medium stiff, wet, rootlets in upper 6 ", moderate pinhole poroeity. Color grades to medium gray Consistency increases to °tiff Blum -gray clayey SILT With trace fine sand, stiff, moist, minor pinhole porosity, Color grades to light bltuo -gray Moisturo increases to saturated NOTE: Toot pit completed at a depth of 12•10 foot: GroundWater onoountorod at a depth of betWeon 11 and 11,5 feat during excavation. Baokfilled 5- 11.94. M Driven think/Vail oaiiiplo. El D1otiirbod samplo, Groundwater depth st tlnto of micaVationi TEST pi'T LOG .a 1: • 1 f 1 1 1- l.v I r l ,i• 1 r1�1 . ~�. '1 '/ xr•1i �: 1, 't YA 1, y' 1 µ I' PE • . , .,......N ,,.. o 'r - A. , .. .. .. J i 1% • • 1 , , ' I • , f r l' 1 ,Y ' I,f. . . 1/f ''f . . , ^` `1 1 . . ,�'., / • r - ' '` I • 4 f fir• ' ','.! • .∎ �.. 1`'1 '. �,J1I +r' / I � 1\ 1 • 1 1 l 1'i �.• -1• . — `•� i• ■ r f l f. . •, , •'•1.0 ' .1 . Y' • j , - •. ` r ,•- •l 1' .•w .. 1 r -) , • ' 1 ,.l +\� ' Y 1 / 1 , f` • - � e f . 1. +.....f {j � ` Y Delineation 1 ' , I le 1 . etland � Eval.iation ,f 1 _ /•' ; ,� ; r \ . 1 .'+ j •` ' �� •, . , • ✓ 1 ' 1 1° 1: , ` , 1 `' + �'• . ., • ,.. , • , '•. +a., l� , rr r 1 \I. a 1 (.i SUMMARY A wetland delineation was performed for the Village at Fanno Creek project specifically regarding two alternative locations for a bridge crossing of Fanno Creek, The delineation and evaluation was prepared based on several site visits during which data was collected on the hydrology, soil, and vegetative communities. The wetland mapping was prepared by OTAK staff based on the field data and measurements. This information will be used to evaluate potential impacts to wetlands from the proposed project design in the permit process. Two wetland types are present within the project site along Fanno Creek. These wetlands are located only on the west side of the creek and in the creek channel itself. To best avoid impacts to wetlands, the preferred location for the bridge crossing is on the northern most portion of the study site. •°:'; ° 4 4 47, 4.4 '1*" 4 4:t • Proposed bridge crossing location, east bank of Farm° Creek, '; ' View east along southern property boundary of Oramor Development, scrub Vegetatiori olotig east bank of Paritio. .0rook, ..Altottiativt bridgo. location jut this side of .agh troeg in center of photo,. r r' , „ . „ ,r, • " Narrow intermittent drainage along southern property boundary of Gramor Development. • Wetland •directly west of proposed bridge crossings INTRODUCTION As part of the off site improvements for the Village At Fanno Creek project, an assessment was required for the best location for a bridge crossing of Fenno Creek. It was determined during a preliminary site visit that a delineation of the wetlands associated with the creek would be necessary. Several alternative to the bridge crossing were examined and the presence of all wetlands were determined on both sides of the creek at each alternative crossing location. SITE DESCRIPTION The site is located south of the Right Of Way (ROM) for the S. W. Ash Street crossing of Fanno Creek in Tigard, Oregon (figure 1) The Village At Fanno Creek development project is located directly north of the proposed bridge crossing alternatives. On the east side of Fanno Creek, a primitive bike path now exists and improvements proposed by the city will allow the connection of a bike path network with the bridge crossing. The wetlands within this study site are located as part of the Fanno Creek corridor and a forests d/emergent wetland area directly west of the creek. (figure 2). METHOD Site information was collected by OTAK's wetland biologist, Jack D. Dalton, between March 1 and March 4, 1993. Two alternative crossings were considered in the preliminary planning phases and a determination of the presence of wetlands was made for Fanno Creek and any wetlands on both the east and west sides of the creek. Subsequent to the background research, Mr. Dalton completed the proposed determination, evaluation, and mapping of the wetland area. The following steps were included: • Project plans were reviewed; Appropriate topographic, NWI maps, and soil maps were consulted; Recent aerial photographs were reviewed, On -site vegetation, soils, and hydrology were characterited; and • A proposed delineation and evaluation was made: The delineation and evaluation report have been prepared in accordance with the Routine Method outlined in the 1987 Corps o rp f Engineers Wetland Delineation Marcum, The Routine method was used rather than the Intermediate Method) which uses transect lines) because the wetlands can be located relatively easily by analyzing the topography of the area along the riparian corridor, 4276 %vetiabd,rep od9dso7 t PilltICOffit SP E !c" 0s 4 a SW, tioniqtid coiwrite cam stoktott tTE yr-awry MAP.• • • soALE 1":240o' ptanner &Moni�aI�dbs hcop�rated ii35S SW tict4, oewe§6 620 WaVi OiOcilitirklaiid WA�ao ,„ „„ [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] WETLAND HYDROLOGY In order for the hydrologic criterion for a jurisdictional wetland determination to be satisfied, there must be enough water in the wetland area to saturate the soils within 12 inches of the surface for a duration of no less than 5% of the growing season. The growing season of the prevalent vegetation is loosely defined as the time in which a majority of the vegetation grows, generally between the months of Mareh through September in the Pacific Northwest. Essentially, this means that the ground m ,st be saturated between 12 and 15 consecutive days during this time. The hydrological regime of the site consists of Fanno Creek which follows a meandering path north to south at the alternative crossing locations. On the west side of the creek, an extensive forested wetland exists which is sustained hydrologically by both surface and ground water sources. These sources were not definitively identified for this study. Testing of the east side of the creek revealed no presence of ground inundation or saturation. A ground water connection exists between the forested wetland and Fanno Creek, and there are several areas where small surface water connections between the two wetlands exist, Within the .Ash Street R.O.W., a small drainage ditch exists between the forested wetland and the cretok, however, impacts from past sewerline construction have altered the direct surface water flow. A surface water connection is presumed in this area. SOILS The second criterion for a jurisdictional wetland determination is the classification of on y y soils . p s characteristics found in a reducing environment where rolon ed . .. site soils ash dr�wa � saturat possess prolonged saturation has caused the available oxygen in the soil to be removed. ` ved. The primary soil types found on the study area are listed as having hydric soil p characteristics in Washington County. c s s of is this listing, which revealed that the soils the wetland areas possess hydric soil ind icators such as soil mottling, low chrorna, and gleyed soil conditions. The Soil Conservation Service (SOS) of Washington County has identified the soil along this P ortion of Fanno Creek as McBee silty clay loam (Figure 3). McBee loam is only i. i _ Wapato and inclusions, nd Cove soil ncl series considered hydric by the SOS with Wap The McBee se consists of moderately well drained soil l m p ns. The soils that form in alluvium. on flood lay permeability is moderate and the available water capacity is 10 to 12 inches, l profile data ..,., P . Soil . � within ..., chroma value indicted by The t,.. ical soy file found. within the wetland lots has a the Mansell Soil Color Chart as grey (2.5Y 4/1) to yellow (2.5Y 4/2) gley mixed i. �' y.. r y /) g' � in a dark. brown (10YR 3/2) loam Mottling was samples, indicating saturation, but no saturation was 1 esent on an of the f lots on the east S deo t e creek, . ,. P any plots of he creek. ,,g grayish p the west side of Fanno Creek included a dark ra ish brown (�.QYR Soil sam 1es taken on 3/2) with dense rust- colored miottling(5YR 5/6) below 9 inches and a mixed sandy clay loam - with a grey - yellow coloring (2.5Y 4/2 3/2) at other data plot locations. Areas where surface water inundation was present were not tested for soils below the A- horizon. 4276/iivetiatafep 0404,07 •"t ••' VEGETATION The final criterion for a jurisdictional wetland determination states that a majority of the vegetative species found in an area must be characterized as hydrophytes, or plants adapted to life in saturated soil conditions. The vegetation covering timennajority of the delineated site is categorized as obligate wetland, fleet:et/re wetland, or facultative in the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands.. 1988 National Summary. Facultative vegetation, the minimal vegetational wetland classification, is defined as plants found in wetlands 33% to 67% of the time. Obligate wetland plants are those found in wetlands greater than 99% of the time Vegetation found at the individual data points is recorded on the data sheets. (See Appendix A). The vegetative community along Fanno Creek at the Ash Street R.O.W is a shrub/scrub consisting of primarily Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), scotchbroom (Cytisus scoparius), and hawthorne (Crateagus monogyna) in the shrub layers and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) and yarrow (Achillea millifoium) in the forb layer. Approximately 120 feet south of the RON., the shrub/scrub community ends and an extensive Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) forest begins. The forest community continues south beyond the southern edge of the site along Fanno Creek, Typical vegetation along the west side of the creek corridor is Oregon ash, reed canarygrass, slough sedge (carex obnupta), big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), and Himalayan blackberry. The vegetation along this edge was obviously influenced by the presence of the forested/emergent wetland hydrology further west. The east edge of the creek differs greatly from the west edge in its species composition. The drier conditions produce a greater density of species such as snowberry (Symphoricarpts albus), osoberry (Osmaria cerasiformis), hawthorne, big-leaf maple and Himalayan blackberry, The forested wetland west of the creek has a large emergent component containing species more adapted to deep water such as common cattail (Typha latifolia), Additionally, the reed canarygrass has formed a virtual monoculture of growth along the saturated edge of the inundated area Other emergent species such as soft rush (Juncus effusus), and slough sedge are present in isolated pods, UNCTION AND CONDITION ASSESSMtNT An assessment of the function and condition of the wetlands on site was conducted using the 1993 Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology (Oregon Method). This methodolov is intended to give an overall qualitative description of a wetland's functions and condition in the context of the surrounding land uses; it is not meant be an impact analysis, This method will provide the basic information to the local and state officials involved in the management and permitting decisions required for this project, This assessment inethodology provides criteria for evaluating 8ix wetland functions: Wildlife Habitat, Fish Habitat, Water Quality, Hydrologic Control, Education, and Recreation. It also assesses the following conditions related to wetlands: Sensitivity to Impact, Enhancement Potential, and Aesthetic Quality (See Appendix B), ‘1216/Attirthci.rep 0494,07 6 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Wetlands Inventory a tef States" ' scheme (Cowardin "Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the al., 1979), has identified wetlands on site (figure 4). Thes a include a palustrine emergent broadleaf deciduous wetland with a semipermanent /seasonal /saturated `hydrologic regime and an associated palustrine forested wetland with an emergent component. Since the stream itself will not be impacted directly from the proposed project design, the assessment was made for the forested wetland while regarding the wetland along the creek as an influencing factor. P } , but not all species due to residences. The wetland provides wildlife habitao� to some of the surrounding There is a diversity of wetland types and the cl proximity potential for the wetland to provide the following functions: Fish habitat, water} quality, education, and recreation. The rationale for this designation on these functions is the problem rating quality Creek in addition to the lack of severe roblem ratio on the water uali nd use surrounding the site, and the relatively forested cover along the creek, current land g small size of the site. Hydrological control is provided in the wetland and the importance of this is obvious due to the downstream structures within the 100-year floodplain. The location of the site makes it a sensitive wetland to impacts, since the surrounding land use designation is residential and the water quality of Fanno Creek is so poor. There is, riparian i a potential for enhancement if the ri Arian corridor of F anno Creek is preserved. quality site remains high according to this methodology which is The aesthetic il du o the accessibility of the present habitat along Fanno Creek. primarily due t Y p CONCLUSION edge the study site with the Wetlands exist along on the. northern the entire western ed a of Fanno berm within tthern ed a of the of a berm along the creek edge and a edge study site. The east side of Fanno Creek did not exhibit the necessary criteria for a jurisdictional wetland determination, primarily the lack of hydrology. The bridge abutments will not impact the Fanno Creek wetland, but to attain the goals of g p ' this edge of the creek may be impacted, The project) ' pro`ect a small area of wetland �� on large area and may avoid the wetlands construction is not anticipated q g altogether, To achieve minimal impacts, the bridge crossing location should be located as close to the northern edge of the study site as possible. X1275 /wetla.:rep 0494,07 OC:AT(ON. or IT Ploupte 3 oUFICE: SOS SoU Survey Map s0AL := 1 ':2000' eh§Iti6eft chVrontiibrttI Od101itt§ tuevevoit Iticoepoi'ated §W &sonde �iFV d. Lhko. (5tmo.b1:10654I (t06)65iti• 60 kitidtid Way rii.60,kildiiiid•WA 64655, (ZOO)itOti.1 . • • • '44'•;:•77:.• OOA 'ION OF SITE - 0 ongineeri R piennera ent�ronme fe n i specialists Incorporated 62bt{ariciriji41i100ti(�SpdA 8903308 8703,, f ObOi27.9577 LEGIBILI STRIP ru WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Plot Number: Project: 6 12,E li/ C- SCZtb6,E County: S . t DPI State: --0-(2- Client: t g r4u Al mold!, .Township/Range /Sect oni I 5 Bp_ Date:_ a_a_q_S to Description: /> t AG a IA Hydrology Topography: Inundated? �J Surfac- Water Depths --_ Soil Saturation Depths; 1 " _ Other Indicators: ts Disturbed Situation? Wetland Hydrology: Soils Series/Description: ° ' t%6 Hydric Soil? Histosoil? Sample atria Mottle /Color exture escri Depth Color _�T do /D n n of Soil Sample 4 L:n it is ti Remarks; Basis: Other Indicators:_,,_,, I ydr c Soil Criterion:},_] _Basis: Vegetation Community Description: Vegetation Disturbed? Remarks: -*rtg #, Dominant Plant Species ind Indicator Status: Herbs: A 4 441 i-t, =14 t\k't. t;t 4.0 3s Percent ofL,FACW,FACt �% Hydropl ytic \egetatiori? _Resist Wetland Dete rmination,:.Wetland .. Shrubs /Small Trees: ,^k , k.ice fir o r2 Pokg.► Trees: omments: Determined by! ... , ..)s., ..Nonwetlaid OTO:! Environmental Services Tean INZED146201611WhillINIMIESAIST WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Project: _r„,„g_abirria, aZilbt,,G- County: JL State: Client: ...61/15,112ZeitrjAkijblail, Township/Range/Section: 1" Plot Number: Date:aja J.2_q_Site Description: P Hydrology Topography:_zWILa_siff Inundated? Sur ace Water Depth: Soil Saturation Depth:iL.. Other Indicators: Disturbed Situation? Remarks: Wetland Hydrology: A) Basis: " . iL Sons Series/Description: Hydric Histosoil? Sample Matrix Depth Color " 1 jaDttle Color exture escription of Soil Sample • ow Other Indicators: Hydric Soil Criterion:__AL__Basist...a to. 41 C. "Tfaz.-. yifed_Ajj, ft t We-4%1'01;0N e 674 0 04 4, Vegetation Community Description: 5 Vegetation Disturbed? 44., Remarks. Dominant Plant Species and Indicator Status: ShNbs/Small Trees Herbs 56°70 ( tit ZS% r snomzitvi 7-6-% rirra...■.......roararrarroar■airoarm■■■■■;arriarrrarrrar Trees: Percent OBL,FACWIF'AC: 30 ck Hydrophytic 'Vegetation?, hi Basis: Wetland Determination: Wetland / Nonwetiand Comment Determined YIA gervi de§ Teain ) *sr* ; qr'■ .411•11,2•111111IMIMIIIIMMIMIY3MIZMINEAMIIMPIUM1 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Project: 4:a2,11acgezait2h,E-County: State: _Zia__ Client: Cratiownship/Range/Section: "1- Date:3_ jiSite Description: r: • . : • A. A ' M/6) Plot Number: 3 Hydrology Topography: P(ta-ss IO eta M Inundated? Ai Surface Water Depth: Soil Saturation Depth: --ets " Other Indicators: Disturbed Situation? .0 Remarks: _ 1.101■•■■ 000.61.......•■•■■.■•■••■• Wetland Hydrology: Basis: Soils Series/Desciiptio 14444 Hydric Sample Matrix Depth Color 0-15' mer`TS 5 rre-6--rwma) s Histosoir? Mottle Color exture lecri tion of Soil Sam aj e 75‘'..- t. Other Indicators: Hydric Soil Criterion: 4A Basis: Vegetation Community Description: 5 Vegetation Disturbed? Remarks: Dominant Plant Species and Indicator Status: Herbs: • A k:41IS grYtc- $c7o Percent OBL,PACVV,FAOt Hydrophytic Vegetation? Wetland Determination: Wetland Nonwetland Shrubs/Small Trees: Xtvl. uur, DISt-0E-6-ft- t 35,6 Trees: Pi. t4 *11 Po L.( 4). Commentht L 6 poor • II- lb. DeterMined 071A: EnvironinentEti ServiceS *Pearl% 9 Airoo c4e WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Project: County. __, � 4 51=� u State: Client: Ao . a g . ,12.. �14 - Town ship/Range /Section: Dae1 Site Description: /N`G, - • Plot Number: Hydrology Topography: Inundated? Soil Saturation Depth: 1� Surface Water Depths Other Indicators: Disturbed Situation? ----- Remarks: Wetland Hydrology: Basis: Soils Series/Description:._ ``` ec '5I 1.....-r Histosoil? Hydric Soil. ? Sample atria Depth Color Mottle Color/Texture i escri . tion of Soil Sam .le i 0 at _ '4 _1 i.6,4 . secs► .. d.. T rY01 f S .._. u S°�t ��y u RO. .. _ Other Indicators: Hydric Soil Criterion :, Basis:. Vegetation Community Descriptions Vegetation Disturbed? Dominant Plant Speci Herbst ZN A. / tA.3 el- OA elart'O (A) • Remarks ► '..:'' and Indicator Status: Percent OBL FACW,FACt. Hydrophytic Vegetation ?:.�.. Wetland Deterrininativri Wetland s,.. . Cominentst. m Shrubs /Snail Treeest qtr 1S%�ece Trees: wetlaPd Deterniined byt, t� O TAX t nititOititiehtbi Seiwices Team WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Plot Number: Project: 1,2116&02,212atgt,E" County: bv sAlasria-ikg_. State: () Client: -agjzugraDAL12tau. Township/Range/Section: Description:., 4.aL .0 .4eAttf11.6.... doel:LSAS/N6 Hydrology Topography: :52,44-49t.L.00 /LISS 1 bk) Inundated? Surface Water Depth: Soil Saturation Depth ---- Other Indicators: Disturbed Situation? 0Re71;117---- Wetland Hydrology: L.. Basis: Soils Series/Description:— Hydric Soil? Histosoil? Sample Matrix Depth Color mottle color rm.__ cttntoipjs. - c-vvl Other Indicators: Hydric Soil Criterion: Basis: Vegetation Community De.scription:_a0.1 eaktamr_ Vegetation Disturbed? Remarks: Dominant Plant Species and Indicator Status: Herbs: Shrubs/Small Trees: ?thA-L-etIP-4s AL'mb e&giaalah"12650 E.4) Prix-AAL Trees: Percent OBLXAOWiFAO: 6:3 . Rydrophytie Vog6tatiorie? B' 1t Cn E OP Wetla.nd beternlingtiOii: Wetland NonWettalid Continents: Determined byt OTAftt tto,frittititiontat fierVide. Teatn „ . = • • ,.* ; • .1..0.■ • , r A WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Project: _fi2_616.(_Egatztv.ECounty: "L Stte: Client: ._621.18.21-..agrA:cap_.1_,Dtaus, Township/Range/Section: 1". Date:al fig_Site Description: Hydrology Topography: Inundated? N.1 Soil Saturation Depth:__.t.C" Disturbed Situation? A) Remarks: Wetland Hydrology: A; Basis: Soils Series/Description: Hydric Histosoil? Sample Matrbc DeRth. Color &1 16 1g escri tion of Soil Sam ile rse ( L.6-04 itiAjs,A812._m_sY---_ ft_. s-13GAL_Drast Other Indicators:_____ Hydric Soil Criterion: A) Basis: Vegetation Community Description! S. er gu-f34 Qcitu-5 Vegetation Disturbed? At Remarks: Dominant Plant Species and Indicator Status: Herbs: Percent 01:31.4)FACWitoAth 5.-% 1-iycitophytid Vegetation? BatiS! Wetlan,d Deterniinationt Wetland Nonwetland doinmentst, -0. Determined by! A . . • • • • • • • • • , • , „ , - ii � it'd � k• 'u WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Plot Number: '' .J Project: i is County: U 1'°r SN. i N (n I D_ State: • Client: Ag t2.egmana TDvvnshipfRange /Section: `T 7...4 1 4 S 3R Date. ' f_Site Description: s yL. Hydrology °T � Topography: L Vin- e-o- N i> �- d- Inundated? Al Surface Water Depth: - Soil Saturation Depth: Other Indicators: Disturbed Situation? Ai Remarks Wetland Hydrology: Basis: • Soils Series/Description:f LT A C�L.,4 Hydric Soil? Histosoil? Sample Matrix Depth C of or Mottle /�olor/Texture/Desc7ripdon of Soil_Sample Other Indicators: Hydric Soil Criterion:_ Basis:_ Vegetation Community Description: ant Plant Species ks Vegetation Disturbed. ? Remarks: . Dornin p and Indicator Status: Herbs: Percent 0I31. FAOW,FAC: Hydro��° J't h is Ve etatior► ?, Basis: ___ �' P g Wetland Determination: Wetland.._ Comrtients :..__. Shrubs /Snyall Trees: Trees: A, Determined by! NoriWetland WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Project: ilknia. CST.Abti,g* County: IA) st.‘ 7/),J State: Client: jjogilagazammok.6.tat.Tovvnship/Range/Section: I Date: 3 LaIDISite Description: .• (13/art>6056.PAbs5//v6, Plot Number: Hydrology Topography:_ 41\10.1.4■..ID______Z8:0 to Inundated? 4 Surface Water Depth: Soil Saturation Depth:_,>2.,,,,,2L Other Indicators: Disturbed Situation? A/ Remarks: Wetland Hydrology: /s/ Basis: Soils Series/Description Hydric Soi9 J Histosoil? Sample Matrix Depth Ccapi g, 0 4 Z. Mottle Color Other Indicaf,ors: Hydric Soil Cliterion: /V Basis: Vegetation Community Description S Vegetation Disturbed? /4./ Remarks: Dominant Plant Species and Indicator Status: Herbs: exture OAP 1111, escri tion of Soil Sam le • • ....J1114 bar—, t t Percent OBLiFACWiFAO:._ Hydrophytic Vegetation? /J Basim_ Trees: -Cre-14-re146.1A-5-44Mbek!WA al 24% Wetland Determination: Wetland Nonwetland Comments! , Determined 'by: oTA froithehtd Services (9-65 pJJ WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Plot Number: Project: gleig&042.. 6{Z.,ttxth- County: JA) 16t. s1-4. wrr TL State: Client: Itogittglp.._ beast.646mttaTownshipalange/Section: Date:_afal2g_Site Description: P.7 . ? - . Hydrology Topography: ei.e'r t Le, (^). Inundated? Surface Water Depth: Soil Saturation Depth CD" Other Indicators NA/8 Disturbed. Situation? Wetland Hydrology: Basis: , Remarks: Soils Series/Description: Act- Hydric Soil? it.) Histosoil? Sample Matrix Depth Color Mottle Color exture of Soil Sam le 1 L-TY Other Indicators:_, Hydric Soil Criterion: Basis: Vegetation Community De,scription: Pr- Vegetation Disturbed? 7 Remarks: Dominant Plant Species and Indicator Status: Herbs: jC4 er-tr-ar-tvb 4 IC% dt.L. 670 )6671) Shrubs/Small Trees: iNkAirgiin rtS r441A_ to % 411. AA& L ePi5 Tree U3 1-44.-ri Tau 'FALtAi ZO% Percent OBL,FACWFAc 7� Itydrophydd vegetation? Wetland DeterniiriatiOrit. Wetland Nonwetiand Comments: Deterniined ()TAM, tivtii.ohttiohtal thn r".' • ..., • v, .. '•• . WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Plot Number: 16 Project: (g, Egkiz County _JAL4 sti. .Q n— State: 7. -- Client: Township/Range/Section: ..�a.�S�E'�.u�u�(� nacs�r: Date: 3 /. /9 �` ..Sits Description I�- ., ��/'� Hydrology Topography:L.- u' .- *� ► P �..o is Inundated? Soil Saturation Depth:, ,_,ZL 'L Other Indicators: J Surface Water Depth: Disturbed Situation? Al Remarks: Wetland Hydrology: ,J Basis: Soils Series/Descriptio • VA `- l3 `z , .. 1j._i_ c +!s Hydric Soil? Histosoil? Sample Matrix Depth Color M • the Color exture l escri s Lion of Soil. Sam -11" 1u`Re M Other Indicators:_______ : Hydric Soil Criterion - Basist_ Vegetation Community Description 4 I -P (=1.5 Vegetation Disturbed? .4 Remarks; Dominant Plant Species and Indicator Status: Herbs, Shrubs /Small Trees; Sri piPotre.L P44, A-t. a,u.s, r—AaL o i — Percent OBL FACWiFAC, C Z I % Hydrophytic \Tegetatio ? ..t Basis! Wetland Nonwetland Wetland Determination:...,...,__ Comments: Trees. P tset tAtAg7 L ua, i Pc 4~—� e t scA2i.1 ze% I . ) Determined by: OM. Eiivironix'ierital Services Teaiii APPENDIX B WETLAND FUNCTION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT gon Freshwater Wetland Assessmcnt,Me Methodology Wetland identification melt questions: wildlife habitat (Page 1 of 3) Question 1. How many Cowardin wetland classes are present? (Characterization; 22,23) Answer , Rural areas: a. Three ox.' more. Ofwo. c. One. Urban areas: a. Two or more. b. One class With more than one plant species c.Oneclassw1 onlyoneplantspecies• Forestedorscrub -shrub orac0m� s nation of any two that inc forested or scrub-shrub. b. Emergent vegetation with open water or just open ter. C>nergent vegetation with no open water: 3. ve► What is the Co n wetland class and upland inclusion interspersion pattern? (Characterization : 24) 4. What is the area of open water associated with the wetland? (Characterization18, ) Highly interspersal: diagram 7. oderately interspersed: diagram 4,5or6. Low intaspers on diagrams 1,2or3. Rural areas. a, More than 3 acres or connected to a stream, lake or pond. b. Between 0.5 and 3 acres, c. Less than 0.5 acres. Urban 1 acre or connected to a stream; lake or pond. b. BetWeen 0.5 and 1 acre. c. Les s than 0.5 acres. Oteson Freshwater Wetiand Assessment MethodoldgY ° postaimansFair esaasszennwiersaaolwa 0 Wetland identification Assessment questions: wildlife habitat (Page 2 of 3) 5. How is the wetland hythologically connected to other wetlands? (For western Oregon only.) (Characterization: 27) 6. When is there water at the wetland site and/or in a connected stream, lake or pond? (Characterization: 41) 7. What is the water quality condition of water bodies in the watershed upstre.am fromthe assessment area? (Characterization: 8) ,Answer he wetland is connected to other wetlands within a 1-mile radius by a perennial or intermittent stem, irrigation ditch, canal or lake. b. The wetland is connected to other wetlands within a 3-rnile radius by a perennial or intermittent stream, irrigatiofl ditch, canal or lake, or other unconnected wetlands are present within a 1-mile radius. c. The wetland is not hydrologically connected to other wetlands within a 3-mile radius, and no other un- connected wetlands lie within a 1-mile radius. year. b. During fall, winter and/or spring. c. Only in winter. a No main stream reaches within the watershed or bodies of water upstream from the assessment area are listed as in severe water quality condition from nonpoint sources. b. Eithermain stream reaches within the watershed or bodies of water upstream from the assessment area, but not both, are listed as in severe Water quality condition from nonpoint sources. ()Both main stream reaches within the watershed and bodies of wa- ter upstream from the a.ssessment area are listed as in seVere Water quality condition from nonpoint sources. Notes C.6 1\1‘,6=-CA" CAN4Idet Po.s.-"L ‘C.• F-A, SI Li -t le, Ap�hdbCC 13 1r. Wetland identification Assessment questions: wildlife habitat (Page 3 of 3) Answer �ueQuestion Answer .What thedorainantex .sting Rural areas: d a,. Forested lands or open space• wetland? use sun�aundn?g thew b. Agri- 1S) eal • C on : C, dal, bstrial- urban areas: a. Open space or agzicult OC.ommemial or reresidential. c. Industrial- 9 ' , what pe n e a For rural areas, e is bordered of the wetlands edg i by isat least 150 feet wide (C.a�o 25) 9b. Vorurbai areas, what Ls the aver- age width of the vegetativebuffer sung the Weld? (Characterization: 26) Notes A wetland does not rovde wildlife habitat or has limited use by wildlife if At least four questions are << " and no more than one is answered ``c." One is .. _ All questions are answered "c=" a) R. Wetland identification - fi'.,P\ t�i ._„ Assessment. quesiiorns: fish habitat (Page Answer Question Part A streams 1. What percentage of the stream as- sociated with the wetland is shaded by stream -side (riparian) vegetation? (. . ion31) 2. What is the physical character o the stream channel? (Characterization: 30) 3. What percentage of the stream con- tainscoverobjectssuichassubmerged lugs, overhanging banks, floating sub- merged vegetation; large rocks or boulders? (Caaracte ization 32) of 3) Western Oregon: a. Greater r than 75%. 0 Between 50% and 75%. c. Less than 50%. Eastern Oregon: a. Greater than 50%. b. Between 25% and 50%. c. Less than 254'©. One stream is in a natural channel, or modified d portions of the stream have returned to a natural channel. b. Only portions of the stream chan- n►el have been 'modified, or if extensive modification has been done in the past, the stream has regained some natural channel fea- tuces through theonsetofineandedng therergnvwthofmmstreamvegetation ortbeaddidonof cover objects such as rocks or snags. c. Extensivemodficafonshavebeen made to the channel,, or the stream is confined in a non - vegetated chan- nel or pipe. MYlore than 250. b. etWeen 10% and 25 %. c. Less than 10 %. Notes on Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology Wetland identification Assessment questioris: fish habitat (Page 2 of 3) Question Answer 4. What is the water quality condition of water bodies in the watershed upstreamfromtheassessmentarea? (Characterization: 8) a. No main stream reaches within the watershed or bodies of water up- stream from the assessment area ate listed as in severe water quality condition from nonpoint sources. b. Either main stream reaches within the watershed or bodies of water upsteam from theas.sessment area, but not both, are as in sevem water quality condition from nonpoint sources. eC)Both main stream reaches within the watershed and bodies of water upstream fxorn the assessment alea are listed as in severe water quality condition from nonpoint souttes. 5. Whatis the dominant, existing land a. Forested lands or open space. use surrounding the wetland? b. Agriculture. (Characterization: 15) Residential, commercial or Inds- u 6. What species of fish are present in a. Salmon, trout or sensitiVe species the stream? are present. a some time during the (C:haracterization: 29) year,. o . a b. Species not covered in a" are present at some time during the year c. No species' are present at an time during the year. Pat B: lakes anci L How does the water depth vary in the lake or pond? (Characterization', #15 2, Mid peicentage of the date kite orpondcontainSCOVerobjeCtS such as submerged iogti ovethaiging banks3 floating ttibmeted vegeta. doh; large road ot bouldert1 ((hatattetitaiotit 35) 13 AppOhdix C • 44, theWatethat hicothatitwoldpth: he 'Mete IS a mixture Of two depths. Aii. -void is roughly of ..ithifottit • depth of depth eadtbe detetttiiti.el a.. 'Mott thati..15 b. Between and 25%. 6, Lett thati 10%, Oregon Freshwater Wetlend Assessment Methodology ViraffeeennEMESIMMEMEMOMMIll Wetland identification Assessment questions: fish habitat (Page 3 of 3) Question Answer 3. What percentage of the shoreline is vegetated to the water's edge (in- clude the wetland)? (Characterization, 34) a. 100 %. b. Between 50% and 100%. c. Less than 50%. 4. what is the water quality condition a. of water bodies in the watershed upstream frorn theassessmentarea? (Characterization: 8) 5, what is the dominant; existing land use surrounding the Wetland? (Characterization: 15) 6: what "species of fish are present in the pond or lake? (Characterization: 29) i h a i#at 4 essme' t` , 9,, A •wetland contributes to fish habitat ifs b. No main stream reaches within the watershed or bodies of water up- stream from the assessment area are listed as in severe water quality condition from nonpoint sources. Either main stream reaches within the watershed or bodies of water upstream from the assessment area, but not both, are listed as in severe water quality condition from nonpoint sources. c. Both main stream reaches within the watershed and bodies of Water upstmam from the assessment area are listed as in severe water quality condition from nonpoint sources: a. Forested lands or open space, b. Agriculture. c, i .esidential, commercial or indus- trial. a. Salmon; trout or sensitive species are present at some time during the year b. Speciesnotcoveiedin a; =present at some time during the year. c. No species are present at any time during the year. is err Any three questions are answered "ai" and no more than one is answered c. Notes • A wetland does not contribute to • •fish habitat if • All questions ..,, ,. it... � are answered c= A Wetland pototialiy i contributes to fish habitat f AtisWers do not satisfy the. above4isted criteria. Abporid Oregon -Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology reinanalumfr Wetland identification Assessment questions: water r quark (Page 1 of 2) QuOStiot1 Answer 2. Is there evidence that the wetland floods or ponds? (Characterdzation 36) b. 3. what percent of the wetland is cov- ered by vegetation? (Characterization: 22) ,Notes PereEnial orintennittentstream (in- eludes irrigation ditches). ► ecipitation or overland flow. Springs, seeps or cannot be deter- mined. vidence of flooding or ponding exists. Unable to observebec - water level at time of observation. No evidence of flooding or ponding exists. e area covered by wetland veg- etation is greater than or equal to 70 %. b. The area covered by wetland veg- etation is less than 70 %. ■ 4. What is the wetland's areain acres? a Greater than 5 acres. (Characterization: 17,27) etween .5 and 5 acres, or the wet- land is connected by surface water to another weland within a 3-mile r radius. c. Less than .5 acre. 54 What is the dominant, existing land use surroun ding the Wetland? (Characterization: 15) Residential, commercial or indts- trial b. Agriculture: c. Forested lands or open space. 138 Appendix EaStillegaMONSIMMONCODM Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment 11 'ethoiplogy, lwasistionsemonamameemageitmem IssmassausgasspagmmasiMINEISMOSIOW Wetland identification Assessment cpeshions water qucirrlfy (Pcige 2 of 2) Question 6. What is the water quality condition of water bodies in the watershed upstream from the asses srnent area? (Characterization: 8) Answer a. Both main stream reaches within the watershed and bodies of water upstream from the assessment area are listed as in severe water quality condition from nonpoint sources. b. Either main stream reaches within the watershed or bodies of water npstreamfrom the assessment area butnotboth, are listed as in severe water quality condition from nonpoint sources. o mainstream reaches within the watershed or bodies of water up- stream from the assessment area are listed as in severe water quality condition from nonpoint sources. sessY�ri t f crIter'i� A wetland provides water - quality benefits if: A wetland has the potential to provide water quality benefits if: A wetland does not provide Water- quality benefits if: Questions 1, 2 and 3 are answered "a," and any other question is answered ``a'' or rib Answers do not satisfy the above- or below - listed criteria. Notes Five out of six questions are answered "co" ,ppend'1x C 139 w Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology • :,,•• • .a•••, • • 4•- .11 C Wetland identification Assessment questions: hydrologic control functions (Page 1 of 2) Question L Is the wetland located within the 100-year floodplain? (Characterization: 19) 2: Is there evidence that the wetland floods or ponds? (Characterization: 36), 1 what is the wetland' s amain acres? (Characterization: 17) 4. Is waterflow out of the wetland restricted (e,g„ by a beaver dam or concrete structure)? (Characterization: 37) 5, What percentage of the Wetland has forested or scrub-shmb vegeta- tion? (Characterization: 22) 64 What are the existing land uses within 500 feet doWnstreant or doWn slope of the wetland? (Characterization: 15) 7, What is the dominant comprehen- sive plan land-tise designation iipstreandrom thd assessment area? (Charactedtation: 6) 14 Append& c Answer es. . No. 0Evidence of flooding or ponding exists. b. Unableto observebecauseofwater level at time of observation. c. No evidence of flooding or pond- ing exists. a. Greater than 5 acres. Between ,5 and 5 acres. c. Less than .5 acre. a. Yes, the outlet is restricted or the wetland has no outlet. o, the outlet ha.s unrestricte,d flow, Greater than '70 % forested or scrub- shrub. b. Between 50% and 70% forested or scrub-4mb. c. 50% or less is forested or scrub- dustrial, residential and conuner- cial, b, Agriculture: c. Forested land and open 8pace4 du.strial,residentialancicommer- cial, b, Agriculture. c, Forested land and open space, \Totes *V. 4,4 1' • +' • hi .^ , , ' • 7:-,• •4„ • .^ .'!"` Oregon Freshwater Wetla zd Assessment Methodology Wetland identification Assessment questions hydrologic conho! functions (Page 2 of Question Answer A wetland provides hydrologic control if: A wetland has the potential to provide hydrologic control if: Notes Questions 1 and 6 are answered "a," and two or more other questions are answered "a." Answers do not satisfy the above - or below -listed criteria. A wetland does not provide hydrologic control if: Question 1 is answered "b," and three or more other questions are answered "c." Appehd C r4 Oregon Preshivater Wetland Assess,ment Methodology sannessmassezmustumewimmissuaromasemagener Wetland identification Assessment questions: sensitivity to impact (Page 1 of 2) Quesfion 1. Is the hydrologic system upstream of the wetland and assessment area modified? (Clfaracterization: 4, 5, 40) . What is the water quality condition of water bodies in the watershed upstream from the assessment area? (Characterization: 8) 3. What is the dominant, existing land use surrounding the Wetland? (Characterization: 15) Answer tream reaches within 1 mile above ewetlandaredammod, channelized or leveed, and dildng, drainage or irrigation districts are active within 'the watershed upstream of the as- sessment area. b. Main stream reaches upstream of the assessment area are dammed, channelized or leveed, but no dik- ing, drainage or irrigation districts are active within the watershed upstream of the assessment area. c. Hydrologic modifications don't fit criteria for responses "a" or "b." oth main stream reaches within the watershed and bodies of water upstream from the assessment area are listed as in severe water quality condition from nonpoint sources. b. Either main stream reaches Within the Watershed or bodies of water upstream from the assessment area, but not both, are listed as in severe water quality condition from non- point sources. c. No main stream reaches within the Watershed or bodies of water up- stream from the a.ssesment area are listed as in severe water quality condition from nonpoint sources. Q. Residential commercial or Indus- LI trial. b. AgricultUre. c. Forested land and/or open space, 4, What is the dotiduatit zoned land eSidential, COrrutiertial or indtit- use width), 500 feet of the wetland.? trial, (Chartcteriation! 6) b Agriculture, 6: Forest land and/or open §pgce, 1 42 Appendix Notes t f.P 1 .11 Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment lifetliaology isouswistinennassamula Wetland identification Assessment questions: sensiiivily to impact (Page 2 of 2) Question Answer 3, What is the dominant Cowardin &Forest or scrub - shrub. wetland class? b. Emergent. (Characterization: 22) c. Open water. Question 1 is answered `ta" or "b," and all other questions are answered "a "; or question 2 is answered "a" or "b," and all other questions are answered "a." Q re answered "b" or "c," s questions are answered t �; AnsWers do not satisfy the above -listed criteria. jl`1� `?► tiC Appond'ht c 1 Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology magemenuanshesegamtraimmc'el • Wetland identification G V-p,o-i-ocz- iaissessrnent questions: enhancement potential (Page 1 of 2) Question 1. What are the assessment results for wildlife habitat, fish habitat, water quality and hydrologic control? 2. What is the degree of tillage or compaction of the soils? (Characterization: 16) 3, What is the wetland's source of water? (Characterization: 39) 4, Can a hydrologic connection be- tween the wetland and a source of water be restored or created? Characterization: 38,39) I 5, What is the area in acres of the wetland and surrounding open space? (Characterization', 21) 6. Is the Wetland sensitiVe to second- arY effects? Answer e or more has potential to pro- vide a function. b. The wetland does not provide any of the functions listed. c. The wetland provide,s diverse habi- tat for wildlife. oils show little or no sign of tillage or compaction. b. Soils shoW signs of tillage or com- paction. a. ca a b. The Wetland receives water from a rennial strearn. e wetland receives water from an intermittent stream, spring or seep, or precipitation or overland flow. Cannot determine. Unrestricted water flow into a wet- land exists or, if blocked, can be removed or is limited and does not impede flow, Pennanentblockage exists; but may be readily breached or a new flow channel created. ot detennine source of water, or permanent blockage exists and alternatiVe flow channels do not appear feasible. a. Greater than 10 acres. Between 1 and 10 acres. c, Idess than 1 acre. a. 'rhe Wetland is not sensitive to sec- ondary effects. bi Tlie Wetland is potentiaty sensitiVe to SeCoricial effectt, The vi,,etland is sensitive to second. arY effects, Notes a.J 04 , 44 Appendix c 4 t}regon Pre intiater Wetland Assessnnent Methbdotogy Wetland identification g Assessment t q est onsa enhancement potenIial (Page 2 of 2) Question Answer once Notes A wetland has little enhancement potential if: Questions 1 and 2 are answered ``a;" and only one other question is answered "c." Question 1 is answered "c "; or question 2 is answered "b," and two or more other questions are answered "c." Answers do not satisfy the above -listed criteria. • Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessrnent Methodology • '44 Wetland identification Assessment questions: education potential (Page 1 of 2) Question 1. Is the wetland site open to the pub- lic for direct access or observation? (Characterization: 46) 2. Are there visible hazards to the public at the wetland site? (Characteii,zation: 42) 3. What is the potential for fish and wildlife habitat study based on the Fish Habitat and Wildlife Habitat evaluation criteria? 4, Is there existing physical public access to other habitats, such as a stream, lake, pond, forest or agri- cultural land?If not can such other habitats be observed from the site? (Characterization: 43,44) 5: Is there a public access point within 250 feet of the Wetland:, (Characterizations, 47) Notes Answer a# Wetland access is allowed only by permission of the landowner or managing entity. e wetland is open to the public. c. The site is not open to the public No visible safety hazArds exist. e or two visible safety hazards exist. c. More than two visible safety haz- ards exist. a. The wetland provides diverse habitat for wildlife or contributes to fish habitat. The wetland provides habitat for some wildlife species or poten- tially contribtites to fish habitat. c. The wetland does not provide Wildlife habitat and does not con- tribute to fish habitat. blic access exists or can be cre- ated easily. b, Public access doesn't eKist and can't be created easily, but observation of other feattires can be made from the site. c. Access doesn't exist and can't be created easily. hi addition, obser- vation of other features can't be made from the site C' Yes maintained access points exist. . Yes, safe, unrnaintained access points exist. c. No access point exists, or access point is hazardous. • Append& • *t. s , s , • ss ••• r " • A, - ,",, ,," 4-*„. " A s **4,, .7.: 4 4,44*!, ,„ 4,- inotammatarspitasems Wetland identification Assessment questonsa education potential (Page 2 of 2) Question 6. Does it appear that access to aview- ing spot or wetland edge is difficult for individuals with lim- ited mobility? (Characterization: 45) Oregon Freshwater WetLandAssessinent Methodology Answer a, No. es. (List physical barriers.). A wetland has educational uses if: A wetland has potential for educational use if: Quesoal�a o�A � tiered „ �d t eas n questions 3, 4 and 5 is answered "a" or "b." Answers do not satisfy the above- or below - listed criteria. A wetland site is not appropriate for educational use if: The answer to 1 or 2 is "c." Notes t4 j Nom - +ti1`Cr4iti T th L Appendix C 147 .;! 1 dry., f ! ,_.. +.. .�:A.�'a ?,r e•• {.. �.i,t,.. . �i..: �.'-.� �:lt��.4' Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology Wetland. identification Assessment questions: recreation (Page 1 of 2) Question Answer 1. Is there a public access point within 250 feet of the wetland? (Characterization: 47) 2. Is there a public .boat launch or water -based access area in or near the wetland? (Characterization: 48) 3. Are there maintained trails, View- ing areas orotherstructures adjacent to or in the wetland that guide user movement to a particular area or areas? (Characterization: 49) 4+ What is the opportunity for noncon- sumptive uses such as wildlife observation and photography? a. Yes ,amaintainedaccesspointexists. Yes, a safe, unmaintained access point exists. c. No access points exist, or access point is hazardous. a. Boat launching areas or access points exist on site or within 1/2 mile on a connected lake, river, bay or other body of water. b. Potential to develop boat launching areas or access points exists or such features are more than 1/2 mile but less than 1 mile from the wetland: c. No boat launching areas or access points exist. a. Developed or maintained trails or viewing areas exist. Trail or viewing area opportunities exist that will not disrupt wildlife or plant habitat. c. No trails or viewing areas exist. /a. The wetland provides diverse habi- tat for wildlife. The wetland provides habitat for some wildlife species. c. The wetland does net provide wild- life lif habitat or has limited use by dbfe, 5, Is fishing allowed at the wetland or Allowed, adjacent water body? b, Prohibited, (Characterization: 50) 5, Is hunting allowed at the wetland? a. Allowed, (Characterization: 51) ''rohbited: 140 Append& C Notes 9 y Oregon ,Freshwater tVetland Assessment Methodotog, • Wetland identification Assessment ions: recreation (Page 2 of 2) � u� Question Answer eatio is asses$r The wetland provides recreational opportunities if: Question 1 or 2 is answered "a," and the answer to 3, 4, 5 or 6 is The wetland has the potential to provide recreational activities if: Answers do not satisfy the above- or below- listed criteria. Notes 7cArr t >41, The wetland is not appropriate for or does not provide . recreational opportunities if: Questions 1 and 2 are answered c'°, or questions 3 and 4 are answered "c," and 5 and 6 are answered t`b." Appencii c • 149 ..n Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology Wetland identification Assessment questions: aesthetic quality (Page 1 of 2) Question 1. How many Cowardin classes are visible from the primary viewing location? (Characterization: 58, 59) 2. What is the general appearance of the wetland as visible from primary viewing location? (Characterization: 54, 55) 3, What is the visual character of the surrounding area? (Characterization: 52, 53) Answer ,+.ere are two or more Cowardin classes visible from the viewpoint. b. One Cowardin class is visible, and the whole wetland or a large por- tion can be viewed. c. One Cowardin class is visible and only a small portion of the wetland can be viewed. 4, What odors are present at the pr- Mary viewing location? (Characterization: 56) Appehdi r Notes a. No visual detractors. eVisual detractors, if any, can be re- moved easily. c. Visual detractors cannot be re- moved easily: Ritrcl a. Significant contrast with surround- ing landscape, b. Limited contrast with surrounding landscape. c. Little or no contrast with sir. round- ng landscape. Urban Open space or naturally landscaped areas, b. Areas landscaped by people. c: Developed with no landscaping. Natural odors only. b. Unnatural odors such as automo- bile exhaust or stench from a sewage treatment plant are present at certain times. c Unnatural odors are distinct and continuously present. 4 Wetland identification Assessment questions: aesthetic quality (Page 2 of 2) Question 5. What noises are audible at the primary viewing location? (Characterization: 57) Oregon Freshwater Weiland Assessment itletitodology "INGIONMUSWINEMI Answer Rural a. Bird and wildlife noises and other naturally occurring sounds. b. Some traffic and other similar bazk- ground sounds are mrdible in additi on to naturally occurring sounds. c. Continuous traffic or other intru- sive noise is audible in addition to naturally occurring sounds. Urban a. Some traffic and other sirai'lax back- ground sounds are audible in addition to naturally occurring sounds. C)Continuous traffic or other intru- sive noise is audible in addition to naturally occurring sounds. c. Traffic or other intrusive noise is continuous throughout the day. . Notes N. A wetland is considered to be potentially pleasing if Question 1 or 2 is answered "a," and all other questions are answered "a" or Answers do not satisfy the above- or below-listed criteria, • Oregon Freshwater Wetland ASses.sment Methodology ' liatittassessrrienutittestionsfAtit.--- ''''"• 1iee Wetland identifier 1 G, RP- -, Wildlife habitat Question 1 • uestion 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 • uestion 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Assessment descri tor tkis ---ce-41.1- t Fish habitat Streams and rivers. •uestion 1 Question 2, Question 3 Question 4 41 • uestion 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 •uestion 6 water quality 7 Appetidik C. • Oregon Fres4wOrer Wetland Assessment Methodology Wetland identifier Hydrologic control Question 1 •ue.stion 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 •uestion 6 Question 7 Assessment descriptor ■1 S-5 Enhancement potential Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 •uestiort 4 Question 5 Question 6 Assessment descriptor Vb7c t-V1"■I'N Otiestion 2 •liestion 3 • Qdestion , • QUestion 5 Qtiestion 6 Assessment deScri tor PC3-1,-t-ri Appohefix.0 Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology` i geSSIn e, nsw i uestion 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 tiestion 6 Assessment descriptor Aesthetic quality • 154 • Appe diz Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment McthodolOg)` Function Se condition summary sheet for the Oregon Method Wetland identification Wildlife habitat Yalu ti(10". SevA15 w I t atr� i =1 atior1a1�`. � cud wr7 ci',r ryr�'i`q.. L.t aa1 °rte tc V -f -S i may OP= w t- Y t, of -i-+b 7∎1 id-s ; st P Fish habitat Pc9i'� !it4t.. 1 s 1713,5 avvii-re-rt.. GuA tA- .t'ri) Water quality L S► -L S 1 `' d 56tv.e- r E4- L s.-r re- Hydrologic control Puy Sensitivity to impact Enhancement potential I ∎o t w t `.c' i.i' 're 1 "s 11 6`Nt r i A L f 'CO tai 6, 'C ( i'1r L 1 . l t)AA.c.xxp ," rj'7 C"tk / 71 L Education Recreation TILIYt 4-t f C6 Pr1 �—c.r trA 're) P✓O Pt Sirs 7-1?-14,1 t_. sA- f S tit /f" `C j C tr• Aesthetic quality p ors //,/o, jt tP ems er"1/4/ 1 /1/4A.° ritivvIsE 61W el' 10 6141+841a t400 �rrative description of overa1� reltand functions, a d cbndttions � r- -rte -r‘.:) �s Wit, Po Appendix C 165 Oregon Freshwater Wetland A$sessnent Methodology Watershed summary sheet for the Oregon Method Watershed or community identification: ' F Cri tic) Physical characteristics of watershed or basin Water quality X 56 Apperidi G • 1 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Tom Hamann, OTAK John Warinner, OTAK March 29, 1994 Village at Fanno Creek Bridge Analysis - Summary of Findings A printed copy of the existing nano, Creek FIS model was provided by the City �f' Tigard. We coded the pertinent section of this model into EEC-2 and verified our coding with the output of the existing model. The resulting water surface elevations are shown below in the column labeled Existing FIS. To evaluate the relative effect of the proposed bridge, it was necessary to develop a revised base condition. Two new channel cross sections (4.59 and 4.60) were added at the upstream and downstream face of the proposed bridge to represent existing conditions before construction of the bridge. Sections 4.59 and 4.60 were generated by transposing the data for section 4.50 to this location and adjusting it slightly to preserve the existing channel gradient, Comparing columns two and three below, it is apparent that inclusion of the new sections results in a new base water surface condition which is slightly higher than the existing PIS, The proposed bridge was analyzed two different ways: a worst case scenario, with the entire structure perpendicular to flow; and another scenario with the structure coded on a skew to the direction of flow, Though the second scenario resulted in less obstruction to flow, the results of the two runs were nearly identical. In summary, the bridge, appears to have a negligible impact on Fanno Creek, even under the worst case scenario. Cross Section New Base Model 145,22 146.44 146,95 146.99 4,64 147,25 4,67 147.52 147,85 148,46 1.4750 147:74 148,02 148,52 Worst Case Skewed Bridge Bridge i4522 146.44 146,95 146,99 147 80 148,02 148,02 148 52 148,52 'c HIT e CI'S; .P:C,, , ......,„.,*4.../. :,,,, ,.::.:' 404..0 011:P 0 R.A.YE'D ,.' :;:irbriciti...1117690,,..iNaol:v.:,1::tr::ii:1;. 1.t. • • 0 t• ',. , , i 74: ■''''....'. Y ,. 4 : I .' •%• , ' , 1,1•,1.:1" ; 4eClifte CtOr 0 3 •',;: .11, ‘,.' 15 , .„''. 4 4.1r, • • , ' . , 411.1. ;le i121)(iiiPitin:1114tt.PPile-tiirri571Pr9: :: '','• Trerisp6riallon , 4:.' e. .,, . . ,'ylianilloiltal Sertil. 6e's.',. s•..;...,..,...„. . Respu .„.... „...., ::',.Water rces .„-..: ..i.t....::y: '.. ''. : ' '' '!..., ,t, ; ' ' ,....'t..1...". 1, .. ..--... . 44'.*. 'e 't i 40 ',,‘ t, ' $4';:t. ',4,.,+ ' , ',',fy..,,,,, "., • 0`,,,,, ,.' ). f. ,44 .0 ...,.•‘ 4•,4 4{ ir ,, (I 4 , '' r • 4. 4. „: •' ' •• ; j'r t4or • ,I' , . ), , , . ' O 'Or; 1, . , •/,4 O' • ' 4, ., . t • r, • t r • • , 4 .', ; ..1 . , , , 1' • ,,., ,, . N' 1 • • A A V, • :1!•':'*!'l 'or , • ' ' • A ,..., • r 4 r r' •,/ Ar 1,„ , , r,••• •O ' I 4' •:. ■••‘ "4' ,, • ' 4'1 A •i • " r•O' '14 4'A:370.556.w, Boon Fer0 11010 (50 0.64816 • ,„. 1(16:Iliad WilV, 9100 • I1fktWd WOhitoti 94.63 • 0601322444e A ',Su; • , •, / A t.4 A 0. t4 4:‘4 • • LEGIBILITY STRIP irir.*** *A, +A, ********* * * * *f * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * - * * * ** HEG 2 WATER SURFACE PROFILES * U.S ARMY CORPS OF. ENGINEERS: * * HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING' CENTER *- * Version 4'6_2; May 1991 -Jr * 609' SECOND STREET, SUITE D * DAVIS,. CALIFORNIA. 95616 -4687 '° RUN DATE 29MAR.94 TIME I0:25:32; * * (9t 6) 756- 1104 * *} * * + * *t * * * * * **ir * * * * ** *fit -lr ** ir. * * # * *ir *AV * * *ir *********** *i * * * * * ** * * ** * * * ** * ** * * * * * ** Q, X x xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxl X x x x x x x x x x x X XX)CCCOC xxxx x >DC= xxxxx X x x x x X, x x x x x X x =QOM =CM xxxxxxx 29MAR94 10:25 :3L PAGE 1 THIS RUN` EXECUTED 29MAR94 10 :25:32 ****** * *** ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * + ** HEC-2 WATER SUF:FACE. PROFILES: Version: 4.6.2; May- 1991 FANNO CREEK HEC2 MODEL.. BRIDGE MODEL UPDATED `° BY OTAK (3/24/94) ., FILENAME: FANNO B1..DAT' SAME:: AS FANNO= N1..DAT OTHER THAN THE FOLLOWING REVISIONS REVISED HEADER: AND TITLE CARDS.. SECTION 4'...60 COPIED AT BRIDGE LOCATION I. COPIED< SECTION NAMED 4_59.. BRIDGE TO LIE= BETWEEN 4' -59' AND 4:.:60 ADDED BT CARDS TO= DEFINE; BRIDGE STRUCTURE ADDED GR POINTS TO. CORRESPOND WITH BT POINTS` T1 NEW = BASE ( FANNO= BI..DAT) T2 100: YEAR BASE FLOOD: PROFILE T3 FANNO CKr WORST BRIDGE JL 'CHECK INQ NINV IDIR STRT METRIC HVINS- ¢ WSEL FQ -I 2 0 0 0 0 0= 145.22 1 JZ NPROE IPLOT PREYS- XSECV XSECH ALLDC C IBW HNIM: ITRACE T 0- -1 J3= VARIABLE: CODES; FOR SUMMARY PRINTOUT I50' 200- 38; ?2` 26 ; 54 52 34: 61 53 27 2L LEGIBILITY STRIP QT 2 4063 4063- E7 4_160° 0-' 4.1 1240 1730 X1 4_160 26 1520` 1565 580 510 1090' GR 157_7 580 156 582 155..8: 700 153`- 800 151 875 GR 147.,7 975 147.5 1015 147.:2 1100 145.;6 1200 144.3 1300 GR 140;, 1390 138= 1520 136 1540 133..6 1544 532..4 1547 GR 132 1550 1324 1554 133_7 1557` 136 1565 140' 1575 GR 142 1715 144 1730 146 1750 150 1835 152 1855 GR. 154 1900' 29MAR94 10:25:32 PAGE' NC ..085 .085 -047 _3- .5 ET 4..5 0 4-1. 1560 1930 XL 4.5 30 1717 1760_ 800 1410 1730 GR 154.4 900: 153.5 1000 152-4 1100 152.0 1200! 152 1300 GR 150 -3= 1400'; 148- 1500 147 1545 14 -..5 1590 141.2 1664 GR 141..9° 1717 141.7 1725 136..8 1731 135.7 1733 133.4' 1738 GR 132..2 1741 132.7 1745: 135.7 1751 138.1 1752 141.7 1760 GR. 142.s3 1817 143..3 1900 145.5 1965 150 2035 151 2100 GR. 1"53..3 2200° 154.7 2280 156 2330 159.3 2400 159.6 2435 DOWNSTREAM FACE` OF PROPOSED, BRIDGE COPY OF SECTION' 4.60. ET' 4.59 0 4.1 1560: 1930 X1 4.59 34 1717 1760 300 325 375 GR 155.3- 900` 154.4 1000 153. <3 1100- 152..9 1200 152.9 1300 GR 151.2 1400- 148..9 1500 147_,9- 1545 143. -4 1590 142.1 1664 GR: 1 4 .4 1675- 142_9 1717 142.,8 1718 142._6 1725 137.7` 1731 GR 1=•::.6 1733 134.3 1738 133.,1 1741 133 .6 1745 136.6_ 1751 GR 139.0 1752 142.6 1760 142.8 1761 142. .9 1780 143.2 1817 GR 144_2 1900 146_4- 1965 150.9 2035 151...9' 2100 154.2 2200 GR 155.6 2280; 156..9 2330- 160.2 2400 160`..5 2435 BT 14 1675 142_41 142.4 1717" 144..8' 142..8 1718 148.1 142.8 BT 1725 149..1. 142.8- 1731 14 6..1 142.8+ 1733- 148.1 142..8 B'1 1738. 148.1 142..8 1741 148.1 142.8 1745 148.1 142.8 BT 1751 148 _1 142..8 1752 148.1 142..8` 1760 148_1 142.8 BT° 1761 144_9 142..8' 1780` 142_.9- 142.9 UPSTREAM` FACE, OF PROPOSED: BRIDGE ET 4 -60' 0 4:..1 1560: XL 460 Xz 1930 20 20 20 1 Q1 z 4042 4042 ET' 4.64- 0 4.1 515 975 XL 4.:64 22 530 575 280 305 355 GR. 156 0 154 60 152 245 150 380 150, 490 GR 148; 510 140 530 138.8 533' 137.5 535 135.2 540 GR 134 543 134,5 547 137.,5 553 139..9 554 140 575 GE:. 142 615 142 740 144 895 146 945 143 1015 GR 152 126Q 158- 1490: LEGIBILITY STRIP ET' 4.6T a 4..1. 560 XI 4-67 26 1005 1030- GR 160 0: 158: 150 GR 150; 455 148"- 520; - GR 146 905. 144 960- GR 134.:7 1015 135 1018 1 29MAR94 10:25=32 1235 340 156 146 140` 135.8 170 175 645 1005 1021 500 154: 144. 135.8!- 140 255 680 1008 1030 152 144 134.8 142 GR 142 1190'- 1441 1205 GR 160 1395 1230 1250 150 310 810 1011 1055 PAGE` 1270 ET' 4,73 0' 4_1 I100 xi_ 4-73 25: 1347 1375: GR 160' 500: 160 525; GR 152 840 150 978` GR 143=..2 1324 143.2: 1339= GR 136.5; 1358` 136 ;8= 1361 GR 144 1435 146 1720 1730; 100 158 148 1` 42.6 137..6 148` 360 680'" 1045= 1347 1364 174.0 620 155 146 137.6 140 150 715 1105. 1351 1 370 1785 154; 144 136..6 142 154 803: 1275 1354 1375 1865 NC -08.0= ..080- .050 QT 1 4038= 4038: ET 4:..77 0 4.1. 780 XI 4:.,77 IT 780 855, GR 160= 0 158. 195 GR 140 800= 138= 805- GR 150: 8551 154 1025+ GR'. 168= 1540: 1701 1660` 1. 29MAR94 I0 =25::32 855 430 154 137.5 156...5 250 370 815 1100 485 152 138 160' 610 825 1165 150 140 164 780 830 1400 SECNO? DEPTH:- CWSEL CR'WS Q QLOB QCH1 QROB TIME VLOB= VCEi VROB= SLOP: XLOBL_ XLCH XLOBR *PROF '1 0 WSELK ALOB XNL ITRIAL. EG ACE X,ECF IDC RV AROB XNR ICONT HL VOL WTN CORAR GLOSS' TWA. ELMIN TOPWID L -BANK ELEV R -BANK ELEV SSTA ENDST CCHV.= _100 CEHV *SECNO 4.1601 4:_160` 13.22 4063 -.;0 1504..2 ..001 1_.35 .000665 580'- CCHV _300:" CERV =- *SECNO 4.500; 3302 WARNING= ..300: 145.22 1719'=-9 3-_79= 1090'. -500- .11 703.7 .085 0 .00 .0 .000 .00 ..00 138.00 ..0' 136.00' 132-00 1229.23 512.97 1742.20 CONVEYANCE CHANGE: OUTSIDE OF ACCEPTABLE- RANGE, KRATIO ` ..69 4.500= 4063'.0 .12: 14.24 1170...8: 1.=73' 146.44 1845.2 4-71 .00` 1046-9 1.51 .,00 675_6. .,085 146.61 392..1 .047 .18 693.6 ..085 1.25 55-9 .000 .03. 141.90 12.4: 141-70 132.20 1550.65 LEGIBILITY `STRIP` - 001380 800- 1730.. 1410., 2 0 0 _00 428..89 1979_54' *SECNO= 4.,5590: 4_590 13.85 146_95 ..00 .00 147.:1T -23: .54 .02 142..80 4063..0_ 1134_9: 1958.2 969-9` 607 ".,6 375 _2 605..0; 68.4 15_5 142..60; ..15 1..87 5..22 1_.60' _085 ..047` .085 _000 133.10 1554.54 .001799 300.. 375_ 325. 2 0 0 .00 418.96 1973.50 *SECNO: 4..600 4..600 13.89 146..99 .00 _.00 147.21 .22 .04 .00 142.80 4063 _0 1137 -6 1949.4 976_0 612..8 376.,6 611..8 69.2 15.7 142..60 _15 1.86 5_18 1..60' _085 .047 .:085 ..000' 133.10 1554 -22 ..001761 20`.. 20.. 20.. 0 0 0 ..00 419.77 1973_99 *SECNO 4_.640-- 3302 WARNING: CONVEYANCE` CHANGE OUTSIDE OF ACCEPTABLE RANGE, KRATIO = 1..56 T •, 4..640; 13_.50_ 147.50 ._00' _00 147 .60 .09 .34 .04; 140.00 4042_0 75-5= 1532.4 2434.1 70.3 426-9 1810..2 83. -1 18..8` 140.00 ..19 1_OT 3.59 1_34. .085 ..047 .085 _OOJ- 134.00 511.25 .000713 280. 355. 305.. 2 0 0 -00 486..32 997.57 29MAR94 10.25 :32 PAGE SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EC- HIT HL OLOSS L -BANK ELEV Q. QLOB= QM QROB ALOB ACE AROB VOL TWA R -BANK ELEV TIME VLOB= VCH VROB'. XNL XNCK XNR WTN ELMIN SSTA SLOPE XLOBL XLCIT XLOBR ITRIAL IDC ICONT CORAR TOPWID ENDST {SECNO 4..670:' 4.670 13 .04_ 147.74 -00 .00 147.81 ..08! .21 .00 140.00 4042_0 1399-1 1080.8 1562.2 1343..8 282..9 1097..1 98..4? 22 -4' 140..00 _24 1 04 3.82 1 -42 ..085 .. -047 .085 .000 134.70 536.54' _000680: 340.. 500.- 170. 2 0 0 ..00 710.81 1247.35 *SECNO 4..730- 4-730 11.52 14 a _O2 .:00 ..00 148.14 8.14 ._11 .31 .02. 142.60 4042.o 1224.0: 1201..4 1616_5. 905.4 267 -4 1183_.5 114.3 26.1 142.00 .28= 1_35 4-49 1._37' .085 ..047 .085 .;000; 136. i0 1044.22' .001168 100.. 620. 360. 2 0 0 .00 696.30 1.740`.52 *SECNO 4..770 3301 WT CHANGED MORE: THAN WINS' 3302 WARNING: CONVEYANCE: CHANGE OUTSIDE OE ACCEPTABLE RANGE, KRATIO = _42 4_770 11-02 148`.,52 .00 .00 149.65 1.13 1.00` .51 150.00 4038.0- ..0 4038..0> ..0 .0 473.7 .0 126.3` 29. -1. 150.00 -29 .00' 8'.52 .00 -000 .050 -000' .,000? 137..50° 782.97 .006766 430:. 485.. 250.. 2 0 0 ` _00` 68.33 851.29 T1 TZ T3: LEGIBILITY STRIP 29MAR94 10:25:32 NEWT BASE MODEL (EANNO B1..DAT) 100 -YEAR METHOD ONE FLOODWAY PROFILE FANNO CK: WORST BRIDGE=. J1 ICHECK INQ NINV IDIR: STRT' 0= J2 NPROF 15 1 3 0 IPLOT PREVS XSECV XSECf 29MAR94 10:25:32 SECNO:- DEPTH QEOB`- TINE. VLOB- SLOPE XLOBL> *P ROE' 2 0 CWSEL QCH vCH. XLCH CCRV ..100= CEHV _300 #SECNO :4-160 34701 - ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 4_160. 13_24- 145.24 4063'.a 1507,8' 17175- 00 1.34: 3.78: _000658- 580. 1090.. CRIWS QROS'- VROB= XLOBR WSELIC ALOB XNL ITRIAL METRIC' HVINS Q WSEL- 145_24 ALLDC IBW' CHNIM' EG ACH INCH IDC 1240 -0 1730.0: TYPE= _00 145..22 145-35 837-6 1122.3 454.3 1.20 .085 510;.. 0 HIT AROB XNR ICONT'' 1 TARGET= .11 699. -6 .046 -085 0 0 CCKV -300 CERV- -500` *SECNO 4..500 - 3302 WARNING: CONVEYANCE. CHANGE OUTSIDE OF ACCEPTABLE RANGE', 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 4-500 14..25- 146.45 4063 -0 1189-7 1861.3 .12 1.,77` 4_ -74; ..001396 800 1730.. 1560.0 1930 -0 TYPE= ?` .00 146-44 146-63 1012 -0' 673_61 392..7 1..59' .085- -047 1410.: 2 a *SECNC° 4..590' 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS 1560.0 1930..0 TYPE= 1 4-590 13-87 146.97 .00' 146.95 143-20 4063.=0 1148'.2 1965..2 949=_6 609. Z. 376.1 HL VOL; WTN CORAR OLOSS TWA ELMIN TOPWID 490.000? _00' -0 ..000` _00 KRATIO = .69 TARGET= .18 635_ -9 -085 0 TARGET= .23 566.2 .00 .0 132.00 490-00 370..000 1.25 .:04' 54 -.9' 11.2: .000 132.20 -00° 370-00' ITRACE L-BANK ELEV R-BANK ELEV SSTA ENDST 138.00' 136_.00 1240.00 1730.00 141.90 141.70 1560.00 1930.00 370.000 -54 .02 142_80 67.1 13.9 142_60 PAGE 6 PAGE LEGIBILITY- STRIP 1-68; _085: .047 .085 .000 133.10 1560.00 325. *SECNO 4..600: 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 4..600 13.91 147_01 4063.0- 1151.5 1957.0 .15 1..87 5.18: 001761 20. 20. 1560_0' 1930.0" TYPE= 1 .00 146.99 147..23 954..5 614.2 377.50 1.67 .085 .047 20. 0 0 TARGET= .23 571.6 .085 0 370.000 .04 .00 67.8 14.1 .000 133.10 .00 370.00 142.80 142.60 1560.00 1930.00 29MAR94 I0 :25:32 PAGE SECNO DEPTH Q QLOB TIME VLOB' SLOPE XLOBL CWSEL QCH[: VCR XLCR CRIWS QROB VROB! XLOBR WSELK ALOBI XNL; ITRIAL; EG ACR XNCH IDC HV AROB XNR ICONT HL VOL WTN CORAR. *SECNO- 4.640 3302 WARNING CONVEYANCE CHANGE. OUTSIDE OE ACCEPTABLE RANGE, KRATIO = 1.57' 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 4..640: 13_52 147.52: 4042.0- 77.1 1528..3 .19! 1.1.4 3.57 .000704 280_. 355. *SECNO: 4.670 515.0 .00 2436.6 1.35 305. 975.:0 TYPE= 1 147..50 14762 67.9 427..9' -085 .047' TARGET= . 09 1811.5 .:085 0 )LOSS TWA. ELMIN TOPWID L -BANK ELEV R -BANK ELEV SSTA ENDST 460.000 .34 .04 81„7 17.0' .000 134.00 .00 460.00 14.0_00 140.00 515.00 975.00 347a ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 4.670 13.05 14775 4042.0 1406.3 1077.0 .24 1.04 3.80' .000672 340=.. 500. 560.0 1235 -0 TYPE= 1 .00 147.74 147.83 1558.7 1347.6 283.4 1..43' ..085° .047 170.. 2 0 TARGET= .08. 1023.3 ..085. 0 675.000 e .21. .00 96.9 20.4 .000 134.70 .00' 675.00 140.00 140.00 560.00 1235.00 3470 ENCROACHMENT' STATIONS= 13100.0 1730.0 TYPE= 1 4.730; 11.54 148.04 .;00 148..02 148.15 4042.0 1204-9 1206.7 1630.4 857.6 267.8 .28 1.40 4.51 1.38 .085 .047 .001171 100. 620. 360. 2` 0 TARGET .12 1183.8 .085 0 630.000 .30` .02: 112.8 23.8 .000 136 -50` .00 630.90 3302: WARNING: CONVEYANCE CHANGE: OUTSIDE OF ACCEPTABLE. RANGE, KRATIO = 34170^ ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 780.0 855.0, TYPE .42 1 TARGET= 75.000 --A LEGIBILITY STRIP 4.7710 11.0:41 148_54 .00 148_52 149.66 1.12 1_00 .50 150_00 4038_0 .0 4038_0 _0 _0 475_1 -0 124-6 26_6 100000.00 _29 -00 8_50 _00 _000 _050 _000 .000 137-50 782.93 -006715 430_ 4E5_ 250. 2 0 0 .00 6a.41 851.34 1 PROFILE FOR STREAM FANNO CK: WORST BRIDGE PLOTTED POINTS (BY PRIORITY): E-ENERGY,W-VsTATER SURFACE,I-INVERT,C-CRITICAL W.S.,L-LEFT BANK,R.-RIGHT BANK,M-LOWER END STA ELEVATION 132. 137- 142. 147. 152. 157. 162. 167. 172- 177. SECNO CUMDIS 4.16: 0. I R - I. WE. . 11 IGO- I R. L: E K 2001. I R. L E . n 300. I RI. E . 11 400- 1 .R L S . K 500. I .R L S. K. 600. r .R I. WE: _ K. 70G. 1 _ RI. WE. 11. 800-- I - R I. . S. M. 900.. 1 . RI. . S. 11 1000. 1 RI. . El. K 1100. I RI. . El. .11. Ina_ I RI. . 5' . . M 11300. 1 RL - WE. . n 1400. I RI.. WE. .. M 1500. 1 RL. E. . M. 1600. 1 L. E. M 1700. 1 RL. E. M 41_50. law_ 1 RL. E. M 1900'. CI I. WE M 2000... CI RI. WE K 2100. C 1 .L. E 11 41.59- 22001- C 1 .RL, S K 4.60 2300 . C 1 .RL E MI 2400. C 1 I. WE . K 4.64 2500. C 1 I. . .E . II 2600. C 1 I. .5 FL 2700. C 1 L .5 n 280G. C I L .5 It 2900. C 1 I. -WE I 11 4.67 3000. C I I. _ . E. - 14 3100- C I . L. . . E - K 3200. C I .. RI.. . S - M 3300. C I Rt.; - E 11 3400., C r - L. _ E M . 350G. C 1. RI. .. a 11 . 4.73 3600-. C I. RL - E K 37001_ C I. . L .WS .11 3800:. C 1 . I. - 1,T E_ 3900.0 1 L WE /ow_ C _1 _ WE 4,-77 4100. C -I - W" EL 2914AR94 102532 PAGE LEGIBILITY STRIP HEC =2 WATER SURFACE PROh'ILES Version 4-6.2; 1991 THIS RUN EXECUTED 29MAR94 :.0:25 :37" NOTE ASTERISK (" *1 AT LEFT OF CROSS- SECTION NUMBER INDICATES MESSAGE. IN SUMMARY OF ERRORS LIST FANNO: CK WORSTl? BRIDGE STASIARY PRINTOUT SECNO CWSEL: DIFKWS EG DIFEG SSTA: STENCL STCHL STCHR STENCR ENDST TOPWID .01K 4_160: 145.22 .00 145.33 .00 1229..23 .00 1520.00 1565.00 .00 1742.20 512.97 1575.95 4.160 145.24 _02 145.35 .02 1240..00 124.0.00 1520.00 1565.00 1730.00 1730.00 490.00 1583.35 4.500 146 -44: -00 146_61 .00 1550.65 ..00 1717.00' 1760.00 .00 1979.54. 428.89 1093.73 4.500 14645 .02 146..63 -02 1560.00 1560.00 1717.00! 1760.00 1930.00 1930.00 370.00 1087.29 4.590: 146.95 ..00 14.7..17 .00 1554.54 .00 1717..00 1760.00 .00 1973.50: 418..96 958.02 4..590: 146-97 .02 147 -20! .02 1560.00 1560.00 1717.00 1760.00 1930.00 1930.00 370.00 958.21 4.•.600: 146.99 .00 147 -21 ..00` .1554..22 .00 1717..00 1760.00 .00 1973_99 419.77' 968.19 4 -600`• 147_01 ..02 147 -23 .02 1560.00 1560.00 1717.00 1760.00 1930.00 1930.00 370.00 968.10 4.640. 147..50' .00 147.60 .00 511.25 .00 530.00 575.00 .00 997.57 486.32 1513.78 4-640 147.52 .02 147.62 _02 515 -00' 515.00` 530.00: 575.00 975..00 975.00 460.00 1523.59 4..670': 147.74 .00 147.81 .00 536.54 .00 1005.00 1030.00 .00 1247.35 710.81 1549.97 4.670 147.75 .02 147.83 .02 560-00 560..00 1005.00 1030.00 1235.00 1235.00 675.00 1559.61 4.730= 148.02 .00 148-14 .00 1044.22 ..00 1347.00 1375.00 .00 1740.52. 696.30 1182.83 4.730 148.04 .02 148.15 ..02 1100 -00 1100.00 1347.00' 1375.00 1730.00 1730.00 630.00 1180.93 4.770: 14`8 -52 ..00 149..65 .00 782.97 _.00 780.00 855.00 .00 851.29 68.33 490.91 4-770: 148.54: .02 14 9.66 .01 782.93- 780.00 780_.00' 855.00 855.00 851.34 68-41 492.76 29MAR94 10`25:32 PAGE; 10 EANNO Cif: WORST BRIDGE SUMMARY PRINTOUT` TABLE, 150 SECNO XLCK ELTRf ELLC ELMIN Q CWSEL CRIWS EG 10 *KS VCH AREA .01K 4.160 .00 .00 .00` 132..00- 4063.00 145.22 .00 145.33 6.65 3.79 2274.55 1575.95 4.160' .00 .00' .00 132.,00 4063.00: 145.24 .00 145.35 6.58 3.78 2276.15 1583.35 4.500 1730.00 .00 .00: 132.20 4063.00' 146.44 .00 146.61 13.80 4.:71 1761.22 1093.73 4.500- 1730-00: -00' ..00 132..20? 4063.00? 146.:4'5 .00 146.63 13.96 4..74: 1702.18 1087.29 LEGIBILITY STRIP 0 4_590: 375_00 _00 _00 133_10 4063_00 146..95 .00 147_17 17.99 5..22 1587.89 958.02 4..590'' 375_00: _00 _00 133_10' 4063.00 146..97 .00 147_20 17.98 5.23 1551.54 958.21 4..600 20_00` .00` _00 133 -10 4063..00 14.6.99 .00 147.21 17.61 5.18 1601.18 968.19 4..600 20..00 ..00? .,00 133 -10 4063.00 147_01 -00 147.23 17_61 5.18 1563.34 968.10 } 4..640 355..00 _00- ..00 134.00' 4042.00 147.50 .00 147.60 7.13 3.59 2307 -45 1513.78 * 4.,640: 355.00 ..00 .00 134.00; 4042_00 147.52 .00 147.62 7_04' 3.57 2307.19 1523.59 4.670 500..00. ..00! .00 134.70 4042.00 147.74 .00 147.81 6.80 3.82 2723.86 1549.97 4.670 500 .00 _00 ..00 134..70! 4042 -00' 147..75 .00 147_.83 6.72 3.80 2724.28 1559.61 4..730 620_00 _00 .00 136.50 4042.:00' 148.02 .00 14.8.14: 11.68 4.49 2356.25 1182.83 4..7301 620.00 .00 .00 136.50 4042.00: 148_04' -.00: 148.15 11.71 4.51 2309.30 1180.93 f 4..770 485.00 .00` -00 137.50 4038.00' 148.52 -00 149.65 67.66 8.52 473.75 490.91 4 r 4.770 485.00 ..00' .00 137..50' 4038.00 148..54 .00 1491.66 67.15 3.50 475.06 492.76• 29MAR94 10«25:32 PAGE 11 EANNO' Cif= WORST BRIDGE' SUMMARY PRINTOUT- TABLE 150 SECNO Q CWSEL, DIE'WSP` DIEWSX DIEKWS`= TOPWID XLCFL 4..160: 4063.00' 145.22 .00 .0a ..00: 512..97 4..160 4063..001 145.24 ..02 _00' -02 4.90..00' .00 4.5001 4063..00. 14.6_44 ..00 1.22 .00 428_89 1730.00 41..500 4.063..00' 14 ".6-45 _02 1 -.21 .02 370.00' 1730_.00 4..590 4.0631..00 146_95 .00 _51 .00 418.96 375_.00 4..590 4063..00: 146..97 _02 ..52 .02 370..00! 375..00 4.:600' 4063.00 146.99 ..00? ..04: .00 419..77 20..00 4..600= 4063 -00' 147.01 -02 _04 .02 370.00 20.00 4-640^ 4042_00 147.50= -001 _51 .00 486_32 355.00 4.640 4042.,00: 14752 ..02 .52 -02 460.00 355.00 4_670 4042.00 147.74_ .00 .23 .00 710.81 500.00: 41..670 4.042_00 147_75- .02 ..23 _02 675.00 500.00 4 -730; 4042.001 14.8..02 .00 -29 -00 696.30 620.00 4_730° 4042.00 148.04 .02 ..29 .02 630..00 620.00 4. 4-770 4038.00 14.8..52 -00 .49 .-00 68..33 485.00 41_770 4038..00' 148.54 .02 .50` .02 68..41 485.00 29M R94 10:25:32 PAGE 12 SUM MRY OE ERRORS AND SPECIAL: NOTES LEGIBILITYSTRIP WARNING SECNO= 4_500' PROFILE= 1 CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE ACCEPTABLE RANGE. WARNING SECNO= 4.500 PROFILE= 2 CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE ACCEPTABLE RANGE WARNING SECNO= 4_64G PROFILE= 1 CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE ACCEPTABLE RANGE WARNING SECNO= 4-640 PROFILE= 2 CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE ACCEPTABLE RANGE WARNING SECNO= 4-770 PROFILE= 1 CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE ACCEPTABLE RANGE WARNING.SECNC 4..770- PROFILE= 2 CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE ACCEPTABLE RANGE 29MAR94 10:25 =32 PAGE 13 ELOODWAY DATA, FANNO CKQ WORST' BRIDGE PROFILE NO- 2 ELOODWAY WATER SURFACE ELEVATION STATION WIDTH SECTION'- MEAN WITH WITHOUT DIFFERENCE AREA. VELOCITY FLOODWAY FLOODWAY 4_160 490- 2276.. 1..8 145..2 145_2 .0 4_500 370.. 1702_ 2..4 146..4 146..4 -0 4-590 37G- 1552_ 2-6 146..9 146..91 _0 4..600 370.. 1563.: 2..6 147-0 147-0 0 4-640:° 460.. 2307'. 5..8 147.,5 147..5 _0' 4..670 675.: 2724 1..5 147.7 147.7 .0 4:730; 630- 2309 1t8- 148 -G 148..0' _0= 4..770` 68.. 475 _ 8_5 148_5 148_5 -0 LEGIBILITY STRIP '° HEC-Z WATER SURFACE PROFILES * * U.S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS * -} * * HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER * '" VVPr ion 446.:2;. May 1991 * * 609 SECOND STREET, SUITE D * * * * DAVIS,. CALIFORNIA 95616 -4687 * * RUN DATE 29MAR94 TINE 10~25x43 * * (916) 756- 1104' x x xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxc x x x x x X X x x x x x xxxx x xxxxx: xxxxx x x X x X x X x X X x x x XXXXXXX xxxxX XXXY.XXX 29MAR94 10:25x44 ****** * * * *ie * * * *: *ir * * ** * * ** * * * ** # * ** HEC-2 WATER SURFACE PROELLES Version 4..6.2; May 1991 FANNO• CREEK HECZ MODEL., BRIDGE MODEL UPDATED BY OTAK (3129194) .. FILENAME: EANNO: BZ.DAT SAME. AS FANNO B1_DAT OTHER THAN THE FOLLOWING REVISIONS: REVISED HEADER. AND TITLE, CARDS-. REVISED BRIDGE TABLE CARDS' TO REELECT' SKEW NOTE:: SKEW ANGLE: ON X2 FIELD 9 DID NOT POSITION ACROSS CHANNEL PAGE 1 THIS RUN EXECUTED 29MAR94 10x25 :44 Ti NEW BASE CFANNO BZ.DAT): TZ 100- YEAR BASE FLOOD PROFILE T3 FANNO= CREEK SKEWED BRIDGE JI ICHECK INQ MIN' IDIR STRT METRIC HVINS Q WSEL. FQ -I 2 0 0. 0 0 0 145.22 1 JZ NPROE` IPLOT PREYS' XSECY XSECFL EN ALLDC IBlf CHNIM I_TRACE 1 a -I J3 VARIABLE CODES FOR SUMMARY PRINTOUT 150 200 38 52 22 28_ 54 4: 34: NC ..085 .085- -046 .1 .3! 61 53 27 21 QT E XT GR GR. GR. GR GR GR LEGIBILITY STRIP 2 4063 4. _160 0 4.160 26 157_7 580' 14T_7 975 140 1390 132 1550; 142: 1715. 154. 1900 4063 4.1 1240 1730 1520 1565 580 156 582 155_8 147.5 1015 147-2 138 1520 136 132.4 1554 133.7 144 1730 146 510 1090 700 153` 800 151 875 1100 145_6 1200. 144.3 1300 1540 133.6 1544 132.4 1547 1557 136 1565 140 1575 1750 150 1835 152 1855 NC _085 .085 _047 ..3` ..5 57 4-5 0: 4_1 1560` 1930 X1 4e5 3Q: 1717 1760' 800`. 1410 1730 GR 154.,4 900 153_5 1000 152..4 1100 152_0 1200 152 1300 GR 150_3 1400 148 1500 147 1545 142.5 1590 141.2 1664 GR 141_9 1717 141.7 1725 136..8 1731 135.7 1733 133-4 1738 GR 132.2. 1741 132..7 1745. 135.7 1751 138.1 1752 141_7 1760 1 29MAR94 10:25 :44 PAGE 2 GR 142_3 1817 143_3 1900 14 5_.5. 1965 150 2035- 151 2100 GR 153_3 2200' 154_7 2280 156 2330` 159.3 2400 159.6 2435 DOWNSTREAM FACE OF PROPOSED: BRIDGE BRIDGE TABLE ADJUSTED: FOR SKEW OF BRIDGE WITH OVERBANK FLOW E7 4.59 0 4_1 1560 1930 X1. 4..59: 34 1717 1760 300 325 375 GR 155.3 500` 154..4 1000 153 -3 1100 152_9 1200 152.9 1300 GR 151.2 1400 148..9` 1500 147.9 1545 143.4 1590 142..1 1664 GR 142-4: 1675 142.8: 1717' 142.8 1718 142.6 1725 137.7 1731 GR 136-6 1733 134.3! 1738 133_1 1741 133.6 1745 136.6 1751 GR 139..0 1752. 142.,6 1760 142_8 1761 142..9 1780 143.2 1817 GR 144.2. 1900 146-4 1965 150.9` 2035 151_9 2100 154.2: 2200 GR 155..6 22.80 156..9! 2330 160.2 2400 160.:5 2435 BT -11 1717 142_8: 142.8 1718 148.1 142.8! 1725 148.1 142.8` BT 1751 148.1 142.8 1733 148.1 142.8' 1738 148.1 142.8 7 1741 142-8 142.8: 1745 142.8 142.8 1751 142.8 142.8 BT' 1752 142..8; 142 -8 1760 142_8' 142_8 UPSTREAM FACE OF PROEOSED: BRIDGE ET 4..6a Xl 4_60: X2 1560 1930 0; 0 20 20 20 i QT' 2 4042 4042 ET- 4 -64 0 4:_1 515 975 Xl 4.64:= 22 530 575 280 305 355 GR 156 0 154 60 152 245 150 380 150 490 GR. 148 510 140 530 138_8 533 137.5 535 135-2 540 GR 134 543 134.,5 547 137_5 553 139_9 554 140 575 GR 142. 615 142 740 144 895 146 945 148 1015 GR 152 12.60 158; 1490 F LEGIBILITY STRIP ET X1 4.. 67 GR 160 GR 150 GR - 146 GR 134.7 GR 142 GR 160 29MAR94 0 26 0' 455 905, 1015 1190: 1395 10 :25 :44 4- _1' 1005 158, 148 144: 135 14'4` ET 4.73 0 4..1 X1 4_73 25- 1347 GR 160 500: 160: GR 152 840 150 GR 143.2 1324 143.2 GR 136.5 1358- 136.8 GR 144: 1435 146 NC .080 .080: ..050 Of 2 4038 4038 Er 4.77 a 4_1 XI 4.77 17 780' GR 160Q 0 158' GR 140 800. 138: GF2° 150 855 154 GR 168 1540 170 I. 29MAR94 10:25:44 SEMI DEPTH CWSEL, QLOB QCH TIME- VLOB- VCR SLOPE XLOBL XLCH *PROF 1 a CCHV= .100 CEHV= .300': *SECNO 40160` 4.160 13.22 40630 1504.2 -00 1.35 .000665- 580.. 145.22 1719..9' 3.79. 1090. CCHV .300 CEHV= ..500 *SECNO' 4.500 3302 WARNING= 4:..:500 4063.0 .001380 560 1030 150 520 960' 1018' 1205 1100= 1375- 525: 978: 1339 1361 1720 780 855 - 195 805 1025 1660 CRIWS QROB VROB? XLOBR .00 838..9? 1..19. 510. WSELK ALOB XNL ITR�AL 145.22 1117.5 ..085 0 1235= 340 156 146• 140 135. .8 145 1730 100 158 148 142.6 137.6 148 855 430: 154 137.5 156.5 EG ACH XNCH' IDC 145.33 453.4 ..04.6 0 170' 175 645 1005 1021 1230 350 680 1045 134.7 1364 1740 250 370 815 1100 HV AROB` XNR ICONT .11 703.7 .085 0 500 154, 144 135.8 140 148 620 156 146 137.6 140 150 485 152 138 160 HL VOL WIN CORAR .00 .,0 .000 .00 CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE OF ACCEPTABLE RANGE, KRATIO = ..69 1.4_24: 11708 I -73 8.00 146.44 1845.2 4:.71 1730. .00 1046.9 1.51 1410. .00 146.61 675.6 392.1 .085 .047 2 0` .18: 1.25 693..6 55.9 _ 085 .:000 0 .00 255 680 1008 1030 1250 715 1105 1351 1370 1785 610 825 1165 GLOSS TWA. ELMIN TOPWID .00 ..0 132.00 512.97 152 144 134.8 142 150 154: 144- 136_5 142. 154 150 140 164 L -BANK ELEV R -BANK ELEV SSTA EN DST 138.00 136.00 1229.23 1742.20 .03 141.90 12.4 141.70 132.20 1550.65 428.89 1979.54 310 810 1011 1055 1270 PAGE'. 3 803 1275 1354 1375 1865 780 830 1400 PAGE LEGIBILITY STRIP *sEGTEQ. 4.590: 4-590 13..85 14695 .00 .00 147.17 .23 - 5: .02 142.80 40630 1134..9 1958-.2 969-_9 607.6 375..2 605_0' 68.4. 15-5 142.60 _15 1_87 5..22 1.60 .085 .047 _085 .000 133.10 1554.54 _001799 300. 375. 325.. 2 0' 0 .00 418.96 1973.50 * SECNO 4.600: 4.600 13.89 146.99 .00 ..00 147.21 .22 .04 .00 142..80 4063.0 1137_.6 1949.4 97 6_0 612..8' 376..6 611..8! 69.2 15.7 142`.60` .15 1.86 5.1a 1.60 .085 .047 .085 .000` 133.10 1554.22.' .001761 20.. 20.. 20 0: 0 0 .00 419.77 1973.99 * SECNO 4.640 3302 WARNING= CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE: OE ACCEPTABLE". RANGE, KRATIO = 1.56 4..640 13-50 147_50 .00 .00 147.60 .09 .34 .04 140.00. 40 42..0- 75.5 1532.4 2434.1 70.3: 426.9 1810..2 83.1 18`..8 140..00 ..19 1.07 3..59 1.34'. ..085 .047 .085 _00.0 134.00 511.25 .000713: 280 355- 305. 2 0 0: .00 486.32 997.57 29MAR94 10:25 :14 PAGE SECNO- DEPTH CWSEI CRIWS WSELK EG HV HL GLOSS` L -BANK ELEV Q QLOB;, QCEK QROB: ALOB' ACH AROB'. VOL TWA R -BANK ELEV' TIME VLOB VCH VROB: XNL XNCH XNR WTN ELMIN SSTA. SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR ITRIAL IDC ICONT CORAR. TO2WID ENDST * SECNO 4_670 4.670 13_04 147.74: .00 ..00 147`.81 -08! .21 .00 140.00 4042..0 1399.1 1080.8 1562.2 1343.8' 282_9 1097..1 98..4 22_4 140..00 .24` 1.04 3-82 1..42 ..085 .047 .085 ..000 134.70 536..54 - 000680 340- 500. 170- 2 0 0 .00 710.81 1247.35 * SECNO 4..730 4.730 11.52 148"_02 .00' _00' 148.,14: .11 ..31 .02 142.60 4042.0 1224.0 1201.4 1616.5 905_.4. 267.4 1183.5 114 -3 26.1 142.00 .28 1.35 4.49' 1.37 ..085 .047 ..085 .000 136.50 1044.22 .00116a 100. 620. 360. 2 0 0 .00 696.30 174.0.52 3302 WARNING= CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE OF ACCEPTABLE RANGE,- KRATIO = .42 4.770. 11.02 148:.52 .00 _00' 149.65 1.13- 1.00 .:51 150.00 4038..0 .0 4038.0 .0 .0' 473.7 .,0 126.3 29.1 150..00 .29 .00 8.52 .00; .000' .050 .000 .000 137.50 782.97 .006766 430. 485- 250. 2 0 0 ' .00 68.33 851.29 LEGIBILITY STRIP 29MAR9 4 10:25:44 PAGE T1 NEW BASE MODEL (FANNO B2.DAT) TZ 100-YEAR METHOD ONE ELOODWAY PROhL:,E: T3= EANNO CREEK SKEWED BRIDGE: JI. ICHECK INQ NINV IDIR STRT METRIC HVINS Q WSEL EQ 0 3 0 145.24 J2 NPROE' IPLOT PREYS XSECV XSECE E!4 ALLDC IBW CHNDL ITRACE' 29MAR94 10 :25:44: PAGE SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG RV HL: OLOSS L -BANK ELEV Q QLOB QCFL QROB ALOE' ACFT. AROB VOL TWA R -BANK ELEV TIME VLOB. VCH VROB! XNL XNCH XNR WTN ELMIN SSTA. SLOPE XLOBL; XLCH XLOBR: ITRIAL IDC ICONT CORAR TOPWID ENDST -4-PROF 2 a:• CCEV= ..100 CEHV= ..300: i'SECNO: 4..160 3470: ENCROACHMENT` STATIONS= 1240.0; 1730.0 TYPE= 1 TARGET= 490.000 1..160 13.24 145..24- .00 145.22 145.35 ..11 .00 .00 138'. -00` 4063' -0 1507..8 1717.5 837.6 1122.,3= 454..3 699.6 .0 .0: 136.00 .00 1.34 3.78 1_20 .085 .04'6 _085 .000 132.00 1240..00 .000658: 580. 1090.. 510.. 0 0 0 .00 490.00 1730_00 caw-- .300 CE HV= _500 4SECNO 4.500 3302 WARNINGS CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE OF ACCEPTABLE RANGE, KRATIO = ..69` 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 1560.0 1930..0` TYPE= 1 TARGET= 370. 000 4_500: 14?.225: 146.45. .;00 146.44 14 6.63 .18 1.25 .04 141.90 4063.0 1189.7 1861.3 1012.0 673.6 392.7 635.9' 54_..9' 11.2 141.70 ..12` 1.:77 4:.74: 1.59 .085 .047 .085 .000 132_20' 1560.00 .4001396 800 . 1730 1410.. 2 0 0 _00 370_00' 1930.00 *SECNO' 45.90 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 1560.0 1930'.0' TYPE= 1 TARGET= 370.000 4:.590 13.87 146.97 .00 14.6 -95 147 -20 .:23' .54 .02 142.80 4063.0 1148'.2 1965.2 949..6 609x2 37'6..1 566_2 67_1 13.9 142..60 .15 1.8a 5.23 1168' .085 .047' -085 .000; 131-..10 1560.00 .001798' 300.= 375. 325. 2 0 ' 0 _.00. 370.00 1930.00 *SECNO 4..600 LEGIBILITY STRIP 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 1560.0 1930.0 TYPE= 1 TARGET= 370.000' 4_600 13.91 147.01 .00 146.99 147.23 .23' .04' .00 142.80 4063.0 1151.5 1957.0' 954.5 614_2 377_5 571.6 67.8' 14..1 142.60 .15 1.87 5.18 1.67 .085 ..047` .:085 .000 133.10 1560..00 .001761 20 20. 20 0 0 0- .00 370.00 1930.00 29MAR94 10:25:44 SECNO: DEPTH CWSEL, CRIWS WSELK EGG HV HL OLOSS L -BANK ELEV QLOB QCH- QROB` ALOB`- ACH AROB VOL TWA R -BANK ELEV TIME VLOB VCH VROB NL: XNCK XNR: WTN ELMIN SSTA SLOPE XLOBL XL,C11 XLOBR ITRIAL IDC ICONT CORAR TOPWID ENDST *SECNQ 4.640 3302 WARNING: CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE OE ACCEPTABLE RANGE, KRATIO`= 1.57 3470 ENCROACHMENT' STATIONS= 515.0 975.0 TYPE= 1 TARGET= 460.000 4.640: 13.52 147.52 .00 147_50 147.62 .09' .34 .04' 140.00 4042.,0' 77.1 1528.3 2436.6 67,.9' 427.9 1811_5 81.7 17.0 140.00 .19 1.14'- 31_57 1.35 .085 .047` .085 .000 134.00 515.00 .000704 280. 355_ 305. 2 0 0 .00 460.00 975.00 *SECNO= 4.670' 34709 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 560.0': 1235..0 TYPE= 1 TARGET= 675.000 4.670 13 +.05 147_75 .00 147 .74: 147.83 .08 .21 .00 140..00 4042.0 1406.3 1077=..4 1558`.7' 1347.6 283..4' 1093.3 96.9 20.4 140.00 .24 1.04 3.80` 1.43 ..085 .047 .085 .:000 134.70: 560.00 .000672 340 500. 170.. 2 0- 0' .00 675.00 1235.00 *-SECNO' 4:.730= 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 1100.0 1730.0 TYPE= 1 TARGET= 630.000 4.730 11.54 148.04 .00 148.02 148.15= ..12 .30 .02 142..60 4042.0 1204.9 1206.7 1630`..4: 857.6 267.8 1183..8` 112..8' 23.8 142..00 _28 1.40 4.:51 1.38 .085 .,047` _.085 .000 136.50 1100.00 .001171 100. 620. 360. 2 0 0 .00 630.00 1730.00 *SECNO4.77Q 3301 HV CHANGED: MORE THAN }WINS 3302 WARNING - -t CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE OF ACCEPTABLE RANGE, KRATIO = .42 3470 _'ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 780.0 855.0' TYPE= 1 TARGET= 75.000 4.770 11.04 148G.54 .00 148.52 149.66 1.12 1.00 .50 150.00. 4038.0 .0 4038.0 .0 ..0 47 5.1 ..0 124.6 26.6 100000.00 PAGE LEGIBILITY STRIP 137_50 68.41 PLOTTED POINTS (BY PRIORI.TY) E-ENERGY,W-WATER SURFACE,I-INVERT,C-CRITICAL W.S.,L-LEFT BANK,R-RIGHT BANK,M-LOWER END STA ELEVATION:. 132.. SECNO, CUMDIS f-; r 0.. I R - 1. WE 100_ I R. L E - M. ZOO- I R.. L E - 14. 300.. I R L • E - K 400.1 E . m_ 500.1 E.. K.. 603.1 ..RL WE.. K.. 700.1 R L WE.. M. 800.1 .RL - E.. M. 900- I RL . E.. M 1D00- 1 RL - E. M 1100., I RL - E - -11 1200-.. I RI. - E .. .M 1300- I RL.. WE_ - M 1400.. I RL - WE_ - 1500- I RL- E.- 11 1600.. 1 L. E. 21 1700. I RL E., M (.50 1800.. I RL E.. - M. 1900. CI L WE M- 2000- CI RL, WE If . 2100- C I ..L. E M . 4-59 2200-- C I -RL E M 4..60 2300- CI -RL E- M . 2400- C I L WE M - 4-64 2500. C I L - ..E DI 2600.0 I L. -E 14 2700.. C 1 L. -5 14 2800- C I L .5 M 2900..0 I L -WE M- 4.67 3000- C I I. S M. 3100..0 I L . E. - M 3200_ C I RL.. E - M 3300- C 1 RL.. E M 3400. C I L. E K.. 3500- C 1.. RL. E M 4-73 3600- C I_ RI. E 3700..0 I.. _ WE 3800- C I ..WE 3900..0 I L WE 4000.- C ...I - WE 4100., C -I _ W EL 29MAR94: 10:2544. LEGIBILITY STRIP HEC -2 WATER SURFACE PROFILES: Version 4_6_2; May 1991 THIS RUN EXECUTED 29MAR94 10:25:48 NOTE- ASTERISK (*) AT LEFT- OF CROSE-SECTIOM NUMBER INDICATES MESSAGE IN SUMMARY OF ERRORS LIST FANNO CREEK SKEWED BRIDG SUMMARY PRINTOUT SECNO CWSEL DIFKWS EG DIFEG` SSTA STENCL. STCHL STCHR STENCR ENDST TOPWID .01K 4.160 145.22 .00 145.33`- .00 1229.23 .00 1520.00 1565.00 .00 1742.20 512.97 1575.95 4.560; 145 -.24 .02 14.5.35- .02 1240.00 1240_00 1520.00 1565.00 1730.00 1730.00 490.00 1583.35 4.500 146.44 .00 146.61 .00 1550.65 _00 1717..00 1760.00 .00 1979.54 428.89 1093.73 4.500 146-45 .602 146.63 .02 1560.00 1560.00 1717.00 1760.00 1930.00 1930.00 370.00 1087.29 4.590- 146.95 .00 147.17' ..00' 1554.54 .00 1717.00 1760.00 .00 1973.50 418.96 958.02 4.590: 146.97 .02 14.7.20: .02 1560.00 1560.00 1717.00 1760.00 1930.00 1930.00 370.00 958.21 4.600` 146.99 .00 147.21 .00 1554.22 ..00: 1717.00 1760.00 .00 1973.99 419.77 968.19 4.600- 147.01 .02 147.23- .02 1560.00 1560.00 1717.00 1760.00 1930.00 1930.00 370.00 968.10 4„640: 147`50! ..00- 147.60 .00 511.25 .00 530.00' 575..00 .00 997.57 486.32. 1513.78 t 4.640 147.52 .02 147-62 .02 515.00 515.00 530.00 575.00 975.00 975.00 460_00` 1523.59 4..670: 147.74 .00- 147_.81 .00 536.54 .00 1005.00 1030.00 .00 1247.35 4.67U 147_75: .02 147.83 .02 560.00 560.00 1005.00 1030.00 1235.00 1235.00 4_730 148...02 .00 148.14 _.00` 1044.22 .00 1347.00 1375_00 _00- 1740.52. 4.730 148.04 .02 148 .15 .02 1100..00 1100`..00 1347.00 1375.00. 1730.00 1730.00 154197 1559.61 696.30 630.00" 1182.83 1180.93 4.770 148.52 ..00 149.65 .00- 782.97 .00 780.00' 855.00 .00 851.29 68.33. 490.91 4..770 1.48.5€ .02 149.66 ..01 782_93 780.00 760.00 855.00 855.00 851.34: 68.41 492.76 29MAR94 10:25:44 FANNO CREEK SKEWED BRIDG PAGE 10 SUMMARY PRINTOUT TABLE 150 SECNO' XLCH. ELTRD ELLC ELMIN Q CWSEL CRIWS EG 10 *KS VCR AREA .01K 4.160 .00 .00 ..00 132..00 4063.00: 145.22 .00 145.33 6.65 3.79 2274.55 1575.95 4.160 .00: .00 ..00 132.00 4063.00 145.24 .00 145.35 6.58 3.78 2276.15 1583.35 4..500 1730.00 .00 .00 132.20: 4063.00 146.44 .00 146.61 13.80 4.71 1761.22 1093.73 4.500 1730.00 .00 .;00 132.20 4063.00'• 146.45 .00 146.,63 13.96 4.74 1702..18 1087_29 4.590= 375.00: .00- .00 133.,10 4063..00 146.95 .00 147.17 17.99 5.22 1587.89 958.02 LEGIBILITY STRIP` 4.590 375.00 .00 _00 133.10 4063.00 146.97 .00 147.20 17.98 5.23 1551.54 958.21 4.600 20.00 -.00' .00' 133.10 4063.00 146.99 ..00 147.21 17.61 5.18 1601.18 968.19 4..600 20.00 .00 .00 133.10 4063.00 147_01 .00 147.23 17.61 5.18 1563.34 968.10 4..640: 355..00 ..00 ..00' 134..00' 4042_00' 147.50 .00 147.60 7.13 3_59 2307.45 1513.78 4,- 4-640 355_00- .00 .00 134.00 4042_00 147.52 .00 147_62 7.04 3.57 2307.19 1523.59 4.670' 500.00 ..00' .00 134_70 4042_00' 147.74' .00 147.81 6.80 3.82' 2724.28 1549.91. 4.670 500.00 ..00 ..00- 134.70 4042.00 147.75 4.730 620.00 .00 .00 136.50 4042.00 148.02 _00 148.15 11.71. 4.51 2309.30 1180.93 4.130 620.00 .00 -00 136..50 4042.00 148. 04 4..770= 485.00 .00 .00` 137_50- 4038.00 148.54 _00 149.66 67.15 8.50 475.06 492.76 ,.. 4_770: 485..00 ..00 .00 137-50 4038-00 1" 29MAR94; 10:25x44 E'ANNO. CREEK SKEWED 9RIDG- SUMMARY PRINTOUT TABLE', 150 SECNO Q CWSEL DIEFTSa DIEWSX DIEKWS TOPWID XLrzt 4..160: 4063 .00 512.97 .00 00: 145.22 =00' .00 .02 490_00. .00 4_1.60 4063.00: 145.24 .02 .00 4. 4_500- 4063..00 146..441 -00 1.22 .00 428.89 1730.00 4..500'• 4063.00 146.45: .02 1.:21 .02 370_00' 1730..00 4.590; 4063.00 146.95- .00 -.51 .00 418.96 375.00 4_590 ' 4063.001 146.97" .02 _52 .02 370.00 375.00 a04 .. ' 00 419.77 20.00 4..600_ 406300 1.46..99: .00' µQ4 .02 370.00 20.00 4.600_ 4063.00 147.01 .02 4.640 4042_00= 147_.50 -00' .51 .00 486.32 355.00 4..640? 4042.00 1.47.52 .02 .52 .02 460.00 355_00 4..670= 4042_00' 147.74': .00: .23 .00' 710.81 500.00 4.670: 4.042..00:: 147.75; .02 ..23 .,02 675.00 500_00 29 .00 696.30 620.00' 4.730 4042.00- 148.02 -00 ...29, .02 630.00 620.00 4.730 4042.00 148.04 .02 .49 .00 68.33. 485.00 4..770.: 4.039.:00`. 14852 _00` .50 .02 68.41 485.00 4. 4.770- 4038.00- 148.54; .02' 29MAR9'4 10 :25.44 SUMMARY OF ERRORS AND- SPECIAL. NOTES 4..500: PROFILE= 1 CONVEYANCE CHANGE: OUTSIDE ACCEPTABLE: RANGE, WARN NGI SECNO PAGE 11 PAGE 12 LEGIEIUTY STRIP WARNING SECNO= WARNING SECNO= WARNING SECNO= WARNING SECNO= WARNING SECNO= 29MAR94 FLOODWAY DATA,. PROFILE NO. 2 4_500 PROFILE= 2 CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE 4.:640' PRO1c.0 E.= I. CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE: 4.640 PROFILE: 2 CONVEYANCE CHANGE: OUTSIDE: 4_770+ PROFILE= I. CONVEYANCE :: CHANGE' OUTSIDE 47_770 PROFILE= 2 CONVEYANCE= CHANGE OUTSIDE. 10:25 :44 FANMO: CREEK SKEWED: BRIDG STATION: WIDTHI ACCEPTABLE: RANGE: ACCEPTABLE RANGE. ACCEPTABLE RANGE: ACCEPTABLE. RANGE ACCEPTABLE RANGE: FLOODWAY _— WATER SURFACE ELEVATION SECTION MEAN: WITH WITHOUT DIFFERENCE: AREA VELOCITY FLOODWAY FLOODWAY 4-160 490`.. 227`6.: 1.8' 145..2 145.2 4: -500 370 1702. 2.4 14 6.4_ 146..4 4.590 370. 1552.: 2.6 146..9` 146.:9 4_600 : 370_ 1563`__ 2.6 147-0 147..0 4.,640 460., 2307_ 1.8 147.5 147'.5 4'670 675. 2724.: 1.5 147.7 147..7 4-730. 630. 2309 _ 1.8: 148.0 148 _0 4..770: 68`.. 475. 8'_5= 148 -5 148'_5 _0 .0 .0 0 .0 .0 _0 ..0 _0 PAGE 13 C.r s l 'a no brek tt ash +Street`. Tzgard Ore o • City of Tigard Planning Department 13125 'SW Half Tigard, Or 97223 Re: Sensitive ' ' Lands Aioplicaiion for T'edestrlan ldrida'e Project No L4275.G05 Attached is a regiiest for a Sensitive Lands Pernut to construct a pedestrian bridge over Fanno ,Creek at Ash Street, with connection paths. The bridge and paths w , The application includes the application form, a na�-ratie,�drawings describing the work, a geotechnical investigation, wetlands delineation, and, HEC -2 hydraulic analysis.. The Fans of Fanno Creek have reviewed and approved the bridge and path location, FEMA was contacted and informed us that they do not have a review function on this project unless the City of Tigard either revises the existing floodway delineation or reque.Sts that FEMA assist the City with the review' process, FEMA has a minirnum requirement that any development within the floodway not cause a rise in the water surface, As will be seen in the attached application, this development does not cause a rise in the water surface, The Unified Sewerage Agency was not contacted for this application It is our understanding from Cit t g City staff that the City handles this review function, The bridge is located `within the floodway, There is nothing in the ordinance than bridge ordi ' prohibits ,,this, ,Section 18.84:015 D requires that a permit approval be obtained in areas special flood ,`_ app r t of the ordinance have been met The path and connect n g bridge meet the standards oo the ,Comprehensive Plan, p g g Approval is therefore requested for the `bridge and connecting paths: If there'are,further questions, please give ine a call, Thomas W. Hamann Principal, OTAK Architects P +C, TWH/ b p P:\project\4200 \4275 4i3plihat,itr , 1. NARRATIVE 2. DRAWINGS 3. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION WETLAND DELINEATION 5. HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS 011111.1.1M110911191711i May 31, 1994 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE AT ASH STREET Tigard, Oregon Project No. L4275 18.84.040 Approval Standards A. The Hearings Officer shall approve or approve with conditions an application request within the 100-year floodplain based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: 1. Land form alterations shall preserve or enhance the floodplain storage function and maintenance of the zero. foot rise floodway shall not result in any narrowing of the floodway boundary; 44, The bridge is constructed of two (2) parallel Glu-Lam beam girders. Hand rails will be placed on top of these girders. The bike path is constructed between these girders. Concrete headwalls - set four (4) feet back from the top of the banks - anchor the bridge girders. The dimensions of the bridge are 48 feet long and 5'-6" feet from the bottom of the beams to the hand rail top. The proposed bridge will occupy approximately 200 ft3 (less than 8 cubic yards) of floodplain storage. This volume will be offset by additional storage volume created when debris removal, miner earthwork and bike path grading occurs. The HEC2 model analysis of Fenno Creek at the proposed bridge location confirms the preservation of the zero rise floodway and maintenance of the established floodway boundary. 2. Land form alterations or developments within the 100-year floodplain shall be allowed only in area designated as commercial or industrial on the comprehensive plan land use map, except that alterations or developments associated with community recreation uses, utilities, or public support facilities as defined in Chapter 18,42 of the Community Development Code shall be allowed in areas designated residential subject to applicable zoning standards; This is a community recreation ttae, within an existing park and as such is allowed, go Where a land form alteration or development IS perm itted to beetir within the floodplain it 'will not result in any increase in the Water surface elevation of the 100 year heed; 86e A.1. above, "", , i ....." . r ....i„�. 4. The land fors i alteration or development plzi.n includes a pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan, unless the constiruction of said pathway is deemed by the Hearing Officer as untimely; This application is for a pedestrian/bicycle pathway, in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. 5. The plans for the pedestrian/bicycle pathway indicate that no athwa y will be below the elevation of an average annual flood; Tho proposed pedestrian/bikeway pathway is set back from the top of creek banks. The bridge crosses Fanno Creek 1600 feet downstream from the Main Street bridge. 'Along this creek section the pathway elevation varies but at the bridge crossing it is expected to be 142 143 feet. The average . flow (i.e expected to occur once every year) is not established for Fanno Creek at this location. There are , however , methods for estimating the annual flood water surface height using observable physical characteristics found on a stream or wateYbocly. One such technique, used for this situation, relies on the defined boundary occurring on . vegetation bounds o on the stream bank to approximate flood height. This boundary exists where the flow the annual depth in a creek occurs frequently enough that vegetative growth below this level is prevented from establishing a root system to support growth, At the proposed bridge crossing location this boundary occurs 2 -3 feet below the top of the bank and the proposed bike path elevation. Additional nal support for the claim that the proposed bike path is above the annual flood height is found by evaluating the local topography a p h y and the City s existing BikePath system, The topography alon g this section of Fanno Creek similar (i.e . flat) on both sides of the Creek. The proposed bike path will connect to the existing bike path that ends behind the City shops. This existing bike path will be extended to Hall Boulevard, The local topography dictates that the proposed bike path must be built very near to the same elevation as the existing bike path, The City has approved the location of the new extended path, and this path is at the same elevations, The necess; aryUS: Ar my Corps of tn gineers and State of Oregon Land hoard, Division ogtate La p provals shall be obtained; and US Arm.. Cor ps of Ln. neers p..' . .. y p . + gi , ermit is not required due to the Small scope of the work. The path on the west side of the creek P ester than 10 cubic. "�ards to require a etch are fill,. need to be asses throw h wetlands. The im acts Which yards q permit, The Corps �� ':i .w �' i,. ♦��) 'M i ✓t� r�� ., . �i� 5 .y,. i...,aV u',° xl., k'�'. � .�r-x . calculates only the filled area, not excavation. The path is 498 square feet by 6 1/2" (.54') deep, or 9.96 cubic yards. DEQ was contacted as well They stated that, for a project of this nature, an impact of less than 10 cubic yards was approved by policy and did not require a permit from DEQ. Additionally, rip rap on the creek banks is allowed without a permit by the US Army Corps of Engineers if it is no greater than one cubic yard per lineal frontage foot below the mean high water mark, for each side of the bank. The mean high water mark is identified in A.5, above, as 2 to 3 feet below the top of the bank. The sloping bank is approximately 12 feet at the bridge, less 2 feet to the mean high water mark. This is 10 feet, measured along the slope. The attached soils report recommends rip rap of 8 to 15 inches thick, two stones deep (page 4). This rip rap then is an average of two feet thick, Two feet thick by 10 feet high is twenty cubic feet per lineal foot, under the one cubic yard requirement (one cubic yard is twenty seven cubic feet), The Oregon Division of State Lands does not require a permit for wetlands work until the impacts exceed 50 cubic yards. The work in this project is less than 50 cubic yards, Where land form alterations and /or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100 -year floodplain, the City C�it shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the comprehensive plan, This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian /bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. This proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Volume 2, page 99, item G, The bridge is within existing open land area and is in the active park area between Ash and Hall. This proposed path is at a suitable elevation and is in accordance with the adopted plan, The Director' shall approve or approve with conditions an application request for a sensitive lands permit on slopes of 25 percent or greater or unstable ground based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied; , The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greate4 than that required for the use; l p " greater ater than 2b /o iS only on the The only alteration here r elf y e is to accommodate the bridge a The, area of work on ale es a he creek the top of the bank, and to provide rip rap on the batik, The disturbances are minimal, and are not greater than required, ,�k'• °�"t• . '� r,, A+ i. ;.II,f M_a'7^ r w _,. «. !n 1'JZ m. � � �'l`.�`lr b > -. .� «J 2. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on -site and off -site effects or hazards to life or property; Only the stream banks in the vicinity of the bridge occur at slopes greater than 25 percent. During construction erosion and sedimentation control will be accomplished through proper scheduling that limits activities during the "dry " months of the year and by implementing control measures (e.g, silt fences, etc,) as mandated by the Tualatin River Basin Plan. Ground instability and potential erosion and sedimentation in and around the bridge footings will be controlled by the placement of rip rap aprons on either side of the channel to protect the bridge footings and control scour. 3. The structures are appropriately sited and designed to ensure structural stability and proper drainage of foundation and crawl space areas for development with any of the following soil conditions: wet/high water table,. high shrink -swell capability; compressible /organic; and shallow depth -to- bedrock; and ' bridge footings are set 4 feet back from the top of bank, to avoid impacting the stability of the bank The construction of the bridge will be in accordance with the attached geotechnical investigation from Dames and Moore, dated May 17, 1994. 4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.100, Landscaping and Screening. The loss of vegetation will be minimal, Areas disturbed by the construction will be hydroseeded: G. The Director shall approve or approve with conditions an application request for a sensitive lands permit within drainageways based upon findings that all of the following criteria for the use: 1. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to the extent greater than that required for the use; See B e i above, 2. The proposed lard fora alteration or development will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground In tability, or other adverse ori.site and off.Site effects or hazards to life or property; See B,2. above, °'�i � *VII,' �`•� ,p ae" °} "` �'�• ;y • � a• 3. The water flow capacity of the drainageway is not decreased; The drainageway's flow capacity is not impaired by the bridge's construction. Annual floods will continue to pass freely under the proposed bridge. When flows greater than the annual flood occur water will leave the main channel, overtop the banks and pass around the bridge and flow over the bike path. These conditions have occurred and would continue to occur even if the bridge isn't built. 4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.100, Landscaping and Screening; See B.4 above. 5. The drainageway will be replaced by a public facility of adequate size to acconimodate maximum flow in accordance with the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan. Doesn't apply. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands approvals shall be obtained. See A.6 above. Where landform alterations and /or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance . he with the Comprehensive Plan. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the f. l000 d plain in a ccordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway hway « :-2 ;Ord. 90 -22; Ord. 89.06; Ord. 87 -66; Ord plan. (Ord. 90-29; Ord, 90 22 87 -32; Ord. 86 ; 84-29; Ord. S3�52) See A.7 above. The Director shall approve or approve with conditions an application permit all " t s based upon findings PP request for sensitive lands ermat within wetland that all of the following criteria have been satisfied. 1 The proposed landform alteration or development is neither on wetland in an area designated as significant on the o_ prehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetland Map nor is within 25 feet of such a wetland} 4 . .r��. �'.�w?W This site is not designated as significant wetland on the Comprehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetland Map, nor is it within 25 feet of such a wetland. The extent and nature of the proposed landform alteration or develsigingrwill not create site disturbances to an extent greater than the minimum required for the use; See B.1 above. Any encroachment or change in on-site or off-site drainage which would adversely impact wetland characteristics have been mitigated; This project does not change on-site or off-site drainage. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to landform alteration or development, erosion control provisions of the Surface Water Management program of Washington County must be met and areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted in like or similar species in accordance with Chapter 18.100, Landscaping and Screening; See B,4 above. All other sensitive lands requirements of this chapter have been met; This narrative responds to Section 18.84.40 Approval Standards in its entirety. 6. The provisions of Chapter 118.150, Tree Removal, shall be met; and No trees larger than six inches in diameter will be removed for this project) therefore this provision does not apply. Physical Limitations and Natural Ha2ards, Floodplams and Wetlands, Natural Areas, and Parks, Recreation and Open Space policies of the Comprehensive Plan have been satisfied. (Ord. 90.29; Ord. 89.06; Ord. 87-66; Ord. 87-32; Ord. 83-52) MIS project meets the intent of the doniprehensive Plan under Volume 2, page 1-99, Item d The park meets the plani and the path is one of the intended uses of the park. PAi3roJect\000■4016\idge,apo PATH: AT APARTMENTS: PEDESTRIAN E3R1 EG AT ASH ST_ FAN NO GREEK AP RTMENTS- LEGII3ILTTY STRIP EX. ELEV 14325+ PATH SURFACE SLOPE 120 MAX TOP` DECD 14325 ±+ - CUT BAN:; DOWN UNDER: BRIDGE RAL, 11 TOP DECD 142.0+ EX ELEV. 14175+ PATH SURFACE BRIDGE DECK SLOPES 2% 11 136 + ASSUME` BOTTOM 8' MIN, Tr MAX CREE (WATER SURF.) 40`-0 L FOOTING' TO BE BELOW 2:1 SLOPE UP FROM BOTTOM, MIN.. SEE SOILS REPORT ±48- O"SPAN EFARIDGE SECTION 1/8' - 1t_01 ° 4-0" FROM TOP OF BANK PEDESTRIAN 1 F1 GE AT ASH St FANNO CREEK: APARTMENTS PROJECT NO.. 4215 LEGISILITYSTRIP NOTES: — PATH TO MATCH EXISTIIG GRADE B CROSS SLOPE — DISTURBANCE TO EXISTING GROUND TO BE LIMITED TO 12' WIDTH FOR PATH — PRUNE BRANCHES TO A i= IGFIT OF 8" ABOVE AND 7` BEYOND EDGE OF PAVEMENT — COMPACTION REQUREMENTS: SUBGRADE — 90% (T99) BASE ROCK — 90% (T99) A.C. 90%' OSHD TM306 8-0'° 2 MAX: 2 117. GROtT,f ►s . If-n11 11_+!lt le l/ / ,../I■•/I/ //S/I1 //Alr./41W/ / AI / /// °r_l1--- It ^IL= �k—a -11=x' •. O•^. •, O� O. O� • O • O�. •. Off- • jL 1 /4U ! II -01 PEDESTRIAN IR.CDGE. AT ASIA ST.. FANNQ CREEK APARTMENTS DAMES & MOORE 1750 S.W. HARBOR WAY, SUITE 400, PORTLAND, OREGON 97201 (503) 228 -7688 FAX: (503) 223 -6083 Mr. David Copenhaver Gramor Development 9895 SE Sunnyside Road, Suite P Clackamas, Oregon 97015 May 17, 1994 Geotechnical Investigation Planned Pedestrian Bridge over Fanno Creek Main Street Village at Fanno Creek Park Tigard, Oregon Dear Mr. Copenhaver: In accordance with y our request and authorization, Dames & Moore has completed a geotechnical investigation for foundation support o the planned pedestrian bridge over Fanno this study was provided Creek at the Main Street Village project. Authorization for th` y p by Mr. ToIn Hamann of OTAK. This report documents our investigation and presents our findings, conclusions, and recommendations regarding the planned bridge. Project Description l3ased on drawings provided by OTAK, we understand that the planned construction consists of a 48 -foot long, 10 -foot wide wooden pedestrian bridge. Abutment loads are anticipated to be on the order of around 25 kips each, or 2.5 kips per lineal foot along the abutments. L�itcial each, were not available at the time of this report, but standard UBC earthquake loads will likely govern lateral design. The brig will relatively y . of the crossing e 'Well span the rel�tivel narrow channel of Fanno Creek near the the planned ossin Street Village at Fanno Creek Park project. Current surface grades at p g Main abutment location. are approximately 143 feet at the west abutment and 1.41.75 feet t os • no abutment that almost east a u fills will.. be A slope of 2 percent is planned, indicating t aximum slo required. Shallow foundation support is anticipated due to the relatively light abutment loads. Site Conditions Surface The, planned d bridg e site is surrounded un ded by undeveloped land traversed erse d by foot trails Surface ce topography is relatively flat except for the steep creek banks approximately 8 feet high on each side: Vegetation at the site consists primarily of high grasses and blackberries with a few small trees: Mature trees are e rsent surrounding site, p ' g the s ate; but not in the immediate site area.. A very soft, Wet area Was observed north of the West abutment along the construction access path. LII Ici:s1k'tMRL[7Wit t Gramor Development May 17, 1994 Page 2 Subsurface DAMES & MOORE Subsurface conditions near the P lanned abutments were investigated by means of two test pits excavated with a rubber -tired backhoe using a 2 -foot wide bucket. The test pits were continuously uous y l to gg b y Dames & Moore's project engineer. Logs of the test pits are presented y on Figures 1 and 2, attached. In general, the conditions observed in the two test pits . conditions observed test were similar to the o throughout the Main Street Village site. Specifically, the site is underlain by , gray throug g n b brown and or silty soils to a depth of about 8 feet over a variable deposit of blue -gray very silty fine sand p p silt extending to the maximum de th explored. The brown silty soils are soft to medium stiff , generally stiff, but are too deep to affect the g The blue grays soil�l ne�cantl softer on the west side compared to planned bridge site. at the fanned planned construction. The upper soils were significantly the east side. 4r ,. in Test Pit TP -2; groundwater encountered at a depth of about 11 to 11.'la feet Groundwater not encountered unt red in TP -1, which terminated at a depth of 8' /z feet: It is likely that was not encou r nearby creek However, the low groundwater . in the y rountlwater elevations at the site match the elevation in levels to rise in the pits:. It is permeability s requires a long time for upper brown and gray soils and g + the soils the lower blue- gray i ter interesting note that the contact between the interesting to gray materials is located very near the creek bed elevation: Conclusions Based on the results of our subsurface exploration and our experience at the project site, it is planned from a geotechnical perspective provided P , our opinion that the fanned construction is feasible in design and construction. Significant incorporated g the recoinmendationsldi effect the fanned construction include the following: conditions which coo A silty The site is underlain by soft to medium stiff s ty soils: Conventional shallow foundation support is possible provided low bearing pressures are used. Theoupper 3 to 3'/z feet of soil at the west abutment is noticeably softer than other foundation soils at the site This west abutment will require oVerexcavation or deepened footings as discussed below. nN Groundwater at the Site IS probably about 8 feet below present site grades. Groundwater will probably not affect the planned construction: The native silty Soils are highly sensiti ie to disturbance When Wet. foundation bearing surfaces should be protected from equipment and foot traffic loads du ring wet weather conditions Gramor Development May 17, 1994 Page 3 ec mme1TdatLQfls DAMES & MooRE Foundation Support We recommend that the planned pedestrian bridge b, supported by conventional strip abutment foundations established on firm native soils or properly compacted granular fill soils. pounds Foundations may be proportioned using an allowable bearing p P oun per pressure of 2,000 • square foot for static vertical loads. This value may be increased by one-third when considering transient Toads such as wind or seismic forces. We recommend that the east abutment foundation be established at least 2 feet beneath adjacent finished grades. Foundation conditions at the west abutment are less favorable, particularly in the upper 31/2 feet. In this view, we recommend that the west foundation be established at least present grades, feet beneath or that. the foundation 3 p g ndation be1/2 aring area be overexcavated to a depth '� of at least 4 feet and brought back to grade with properly compacted granular fill soils. Clean p fill is a crushed rock. E tckfill materials sand is material, as is �/ -and 1 /Z inc� � below We recommend that the s an acceptable rill ma , _ compacted as discuss . Should be selected, placed, and Eompac overexcavated area extend at least 2 feet beyond the foundation perimeter. Lateral Resistance g designed sing an allowable bridge , _. e abutments be deli ned to resist lateral to We recommend that the square foot. per foot of depth and. a friction coefficient of 3. The passive resistance value passive earth pressure of X50 po shouldbe reduced to 200 psfift on the inside faces of the abutments due to the reduced resistance of the nearby creek slopes. Friction and passive earth pressure may be combined provided the passive component does not exceed two- thirds of the total. Foundation Settlement It is our understanding that abutment fills are not planned. Due to the relatively light foundation .. 1 to that foundation settlements will likely be about i/2 -inch or less: Any loads, we antic a ._._ : � . � Pp psettlement should generally occur within several weeks of load application. Site Preparation and Fill Compaction Site preparation will likely be confined to constructing access roads and r tenor grading around the abutment areas: We recommend that the soft area north of the west abutment be excavated .,.... grade i. ., k, A woven e brought ,...p. pth of at least 2 feet and brou ht back to rade with toad compacted crushed roc at, on geotextile fabric (Ndirafi 500X) should be placed. on the excavate bottom prior to backfilling Drainage should be provided front the rock backfill to the creek: Other access roads should iy�2gY xku�,i�� "k %r�� .. _ rP•Y.oj �'� 1�1'. DAMES ez MooRE Gramor Development May 17, 1994 Page 4 be surfaced with at least 6 inches of crushed rock. This section assumes relatively light wheel loads and relatively dry conditions during construction. Thicker sections may be required. All structural fill and backfill, including abutment backfills, should consist of clean, durable crushed rock or sand with no more than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. Fill should be placed in uniform horizontal lifts and compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction as evaluated by ASTM Test Method D1557. The optimum lift thickness will vary depending on the compaction equipment used, but should generally not exceed 8 inches. It is our experience that the foundation soils are extremely sensitive to disturbance when wet. We recommend that all exposed footing subgrades be protected by a working blanket of compacted crushed rock at least 4 inches thick. Additional wet - weather construction recommendations can be provided if necessary: Slope Stability /Erosion Control We recommend that abutment foundations be established outside the area described by a plane rising from the toe of the channel bank at an,inclination of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). We also recommend that interior abutment slopes be laid back to an inclination no steeper than 11/2:1. We recommend that the abutment slope areas be protected from erosion with riprap or other suitable erosion control system. Assuming a maximum flow rate of 5 feet per second, we recommend that conventional stone riprap consist of 8-inch to 15 -inch diameter crushed or quarried placed i i . Riprap erosion warned stone laced at least 2 stones thick on the intenor abutment slo h 1 x end a least 5 feet be.. and each side of the bride. A filter layer isnot protection s ou d e t at beyond g considered necessary under the riprap. .. . riprap layer `shed at least 2 feet beneath the current creek bed The toe of the ri ra la er should be established elevation, and should be at least 2 stones wide. Riprap may be end - dumped and raked back into place with a backhoe bucket or other excavation equipment. Stones should be adjusted to a stable configuration with at least 3 -point contact on underlying stones after the riprap layer has been shaped. Construction Monitoring. ' nd Testing The recommendations presented in this report are based on evaluation of conditions encountered in two test its and correlation our pits lation wi knowled..e of conditions throw out the Main Street ` . :m Village site: Subsurface conditions may v and unanticipated conditions may. be encountered g Y �'YS p y during construction: y�. ., .. c.... ,.. a ,. ..r Gramor Development May 17, 1994 Page 5 We recommend that foundation bearing surfaces be observed by a Dames & Moore representative prior to placing the working blanket. We also recommend that all structural fill placed around the abutments be tested by Dames & Moore. We a pp reciate this opportunity to be of continued service. Please call if you have any questions i or if additional information is required. Yours very truly, DAMES & MOORE, INC. James W. ohnson, P.E. Associate OREO glas R Schw,arm P.E. Project Engineer Attachments: Test Pit Logs cc 11iir Tom Hamann, OTAK 2154i-01:15 ORS;i 2i54i-0o7 -0i6 . w 4 . - �_ ; per'r . -r - e .: • -".: « ri n-`.' _s ,x _ .z-'i.. ' . _. - K - L . .ar Y. ; _ � s D � r 3.`,,:,":..-::7 -...[ r ti 'r r _ .l : 4 1 t t , '.c 4`' at . i.' x 'i = ` s. rs - S teayt„= r +, r '`Y '`" i. r . � k s ' � T s t O 1 . ,. L 'te >r: _ ;i' ,. _ :_ -. . a<;. � -i...!• 'L s T :� : t *... i - �? " _f, `� .rte -: t. _. � - c y,♦-_,.. . ., :e.l.' ~. y- y .«[ rc «. = ` y w.�.. _ �T" Y ..y a'S _ :, ...3 �'. ■ a Bp I�� , f... k . t __ .,- � _F .. :. n - ,, _ „F t • . e k i s 1 - .. -t - .r TRIP' 5w .. .- . s k x•= . - .4e:u -_ y: + a. LABORATORY TEST DATA pIbt •p 6 2.0 2.6 2.5 kEYt 4.0 TEST RgT TP -1 Date Excavated: May 11 , 1994 Surface Elevation: 141 +1- feet Brown to gray- brown clayey SILT, stiff, moist to wet, moderate pinhole porosity. Color grades lighter gray Gray and olive brown mottled clayey SILT, stiff, moist, trace fine AAnd, moderato manganese staining, minor pinhole porosity. Color grades light gray with brown mottling: Drivan tliknWetl miimpk El DletUii3ed emnple4 oroUndvater depth it time of e�tdiVrition, BlUe -gray Vey silty fine sand, medium dense, Wet minor pinhole porosity: NOTE: Test pit completed at a depth of 8:5 feet. Groundwator not encountered during exoaVation.. Backfilled 5.11.94 21541,007 -016 TEST PIT LOG D AMES d MOORS gure A -1 Medium gray- brown clayey SILT, soft to medium stiff, wet, rootlets in upper 6 ", moderato pinhole porosity. Color grades to medium gray Consistency increases to stiff Blue -gray olayo y SILT with trace fine send} stifr; moist; minor pinhole porosity. Moisturo inoreesea to saturat ©d NOTE:. Test pit oo d elt a ®� pth of depth betWeen 1.1 fand Gr � f dtNetsr encountorE eet during • egceVotiOn. Baokfilled 5,11.94 brW� h thln lall sernpls+ Dlrturbod amplo� ' FoundwAtbi del th tit time of a aiv tlona „...° .s . +:•�.'r, 4'•* ''A. ',w i .�a r ,{ J iw'.. . :1 t.:r • YV Y •Y '• • y / •. ” 1.,� i, • Y I 1 • 1 , r .•i , �I' i 111 ,1 'Y • . . . , .4.., ,„ , .... .... i. ,i ,,,, .r . 1 .. 4, +� ,. ' Wetland Dlineation t� Eva fliatio i ... 1 . .... • • . !a , • 'a• ' • tf 1. ,,, r. ► ,1 , 1 • • A. kAt Y � , , .. I ,, I, , • ' 1' f ! / Y ! "i a 1 L` < ` ! it * v ■ ° , ' 4 ' ,' !'fir . `'', ` 11 y . •r_'- " . `' '� ,.' `, Prepared. y i. t ` i pp ,' th i1l�I i r . , , '.) .Y, r. �+ 1•w 1 , 3 '1 •. i, , . w ' �, \, r 4 • i 1 , ,,� 'mow 1 i'�i,. `�{A.V ` Dalton ' ` • 1 .�' � 1 r , ' •»r ` , ' } � ) `! ` y '1 t f •• r . t i ( 'u. ...11, i 1 •• 1 ,/, !; ■ 1 I c �. 'a .c. ' \% 1, '% . ;, . "w , ' 1. ,1., ' 'L , .i ' y,�• f .kL ,_• \r r 1\ , 1, ya''i+ V1` '{ ryry, 1 ' ',�.. J +, ! , .` �41 , ' 1 • r ,. l+. i • ,,/,/ f • '• f. • 1 ,��,1 i' •1 w.•• ! i 'I ., / 1 1'i .III I• a, 1 / . 1 , f\ ` i ` ., • 1 tt Ual ,; " ',� i . is . II 1 I 5 • '4 r, . C�4 Y� . w ` ■ 1 ., , rri Y- ,Y '„w, .{r . I 1 +I 1w ''�E , w 'I 1 . i i ^� '` Lls.. 1 !'. )'II I' ` • 1,`• ` 'I` , ti •,. 1 ,; �. A .,f I `' J' I ', `• . , ,i + •� 1^ ,' ` IS . + y �'� ` AO' w N w, 'r 'Ir • ..�," ■ 1 + 'awl +,,F, y/ +• ,1 4 , ' �, ' � • .! 'y + i 1 • i,', �• 4e , -.IC , I}r y . u., t s.� Y r 1, , 1 • I f ~ ay r µi ■ ` 1 , 1' ,,, .,.. 1 %+ ' c+ f, 4 x • • 7� ' +:�a = "e''��G � �0x',.'� � �r� G % -n 4f ��,$. x;Wi, � � • � e• .... w � SM 8Y A wetland delineation was performed for the Village at Fanno Creek project specifically g for a bridge crossing of Fanno Creek. The delineation regarding two alternative based visits during collected on g was c, and evaluation was prepared on several site vESAts Burin which data prepared b the hydrology, soil, and vegetative communities. The wetland mapping p p by OTAK staff based on the field data and measurements. This information will be used to evaluate potential impacts to wetlands from the proposed project design in the permit process. j g Creek. wetlands p site itself. To best avoid Two wetland. types are regent within the project sAte along Fanno Cre ik These wet ano�d Y bridge crossing is o the bri are located only on the west side of the creekor and in the creek channel on the northern most impacts to wetlands, the preferred location for g g portion of the study site. Proposed bridge crossing location, east bank of Fanno Creek: r ",`.••fir s �- � »;;`+ rt *`il zsr.. .. L 'sue_ kr„.r Vegetation on west bank of Fanno Creek at proposed bridge crossing, View east along southern property boundary of Gramor Development, Shrub I scrub Vegetation along east bank •of Fannb Creep` • Alterbative bi-id location is . ust t .. r ` ' .... " ` �� g � j lus side of asli trees. in center of photon Narrow intermittent drainage along southern property boundary of Gramor Development. wetland &reetdy we'd of proposed bridge crossing,. • INTRODUCTION As part of the off site improvements for the Village At Fanno Creek project, an assessment was required for the best location for a bridge crossing of Fanno .Creek. It was determined during a preliminary site visit that a delineation of the wetlands associated with the creek . would be necessary. Several alternative to the bridge crossing were examined and the presence of all wetlands were determined on both sides of the creek at each alternative crossing location. SITE DESCRIPTION The site is located south of the Right Of Way (R.O.W) for the S. W. Ash Street crossing of Fanno Creek in Tigard, Oregon (figure 1). The Village At Fanno Creek development project is located directly north of the proposed bridge crossing alternatives. On the east side of Fanno Creek, a primitive bike path now exists and improvements proposed by the city will allow the connection of a bike path network with the bridge crossing. The wetlands within this study site are located as part of the Fanno Creek corridor and a forested/emergent wetland area directly west of the creek (figure 2). METHOD by biologist, Site information was collected b OTAK s wetland Jack D. Dalton, between March 1 and March 4, 1993. Two alternative crossings were considered in the preliminary planning phases and a determination of the presence of wetlands was made for Fanno Creek and any wetlands on both the east and west sides of the creek. Subsequent to the background research, Mr. Dalton completed the proposed determination, evaluation, and mapping of the wetland area The following steps were included: Project plans were reviewed; Appropriate P gx p ® Recent aer a1 photographs i Nwe maps, and soil maps were consulted; • ' re reviewed; On -site vegetation, soils, and hydrology were characterized; and A proposed delineation and evaluation was made: The delineation and report prepared are d in a ccor dance with th the Routine Method outlined in 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. The Routine e. method ,. was used rather than the Intermediate Method, which uses transect lines, because the wetlands can be located relatively easily b Y y analyzing the topography of the e area along the riparian corridor. 427tAvetlanctrep 4494 +07 416111MOMV haitlited,MCIENIA111.112MUMINAMEM MEN 1112=1119E a `r-1-• .,.........„_,7 sq..1-71-0, iG . VI I .. , ' • l'ShVAS:PPIT • cp, ,.'c'l.r4' 4. 44444T 4'24P 1 4CESCIJANTERRE a 4: CID °0,. lAg,'. , ISI1 /LEL CroCvrtifro N. e, Exam:7 CM Lk, ' ... te SO ,71 CORRAL sou,.,TA0mGril ST ' a 1..41. j ■ 'i diriti - / Cat.51*-;--1, 0.0___SW LS'ILDAR-. CRES" " " ' l'•‘!4'..1'.•1'"...1•.-i ST 25 ' -1 • -fgo 4 G II A ... 4 .„, , r, , ., y *6 i:i4Itt ' '4 s'd . ' 28 ' t-I,"' "w 4.' ), I ' , L , Ri?; I' il.'"• ir : Sg CII.STNUT 0 i Eidig . ST - syl ILO LN p, ukuutc fisix)H 5 Num', 0 a ' R wt..; , rt.'ac f rametid. 27 i's e' r • ,';',carrai:1 A t , ''' . ....,•..0.1.. 1.7 „aie i,;: I c; BORDERS 6? / -1143rst sw cl)4,4coo • su °_, .., P-• a .• sw ti sW VENTU' • c . . vtIou ...14 t•I rtrit I STOGA - st ,a, sIttoc,. o,::::, 1 ST VENT e - • • , ::', sw mat a :le 7 . ' DLO - ' ',re°. 4 .......4,, 4. i N.)• • ” sw 'II , Z - 8? GAK * .11111111111 ST iv' RI ... • • 41 - NC4 scHot.t.s : ' I,. ' ; 4'.104 5 4 ■ 7.0 .6 s- r'll SW 141PLELEAF ST. WA/ Ifil; / 4 Illiii!iiiii ST s# a PINE Illg.IST ., wimA g a Z ST 14 - ' 4 • - (14.-,,„ au rtj .1 FS ".... 411. 4i1,-,C - ' •• g °17'140'1r * X cora 2' td 4..40. ',1,1 2,4s- 44i, '' , , r, 41:' , l'A a .ibe e:). w" e 4 '• i . . e le ,•;,' att.4 12 °:.* v , 8 : e• \ ' g 1,1, 10:04 ci L, ; .. I, A94. StIADJ'e L" e-- -I I. 04, SR NGSTAF SP E yr a 'i\\41'.‘‘ ..4i ; is rusk's sr :I, 11;7574 TWO ig n P, SUMMI7,4a , usEnZipw, -4armaliiikris . • Ibis?, wt. 4$1 tot vino 115, -..i.,—,, ,. 0:3 4 DAKOTA • fleiralliallil ..... e .. 4 r.--4. r fi v ..!IL ti ' 12SU SNIS . im. se g■ i 44Ctt. . ' 4 a.. - A e a m 11 0 Di • 11 iiis PO ,. .0 cl'a .. K e Ul 4 T Moo !gbil411 g ... . AT .r... , 4J•t o.„,.... Kri 0 YMallIrats A tr, sir mom( A A a Sji PFAFFLE ". 41C . irrAt0:14 it OR . -1 pi i t G A Vac it SA i'-4 R - SW MALL row , sq citta ;"! Ili 4z P D ,4.'-' 4. t REAM/ ST lal'i• 1 , IN CIIIDAND .-Etrime IlliVr , irse. ..._ .,,,., Al g um L; t 44, ° t k 21 fA7CK .1 "4 8. sir .c• - a, a ' n f4 - 941, . . >. sv suer s LI gar, --i 1 T sr ino4 I° . ERROL * iroa4 .., n """NuN, ■.,-.4..‘-, ., 0 II N ST it.5:,...0.0. 4 -tea , i--■ . ' Jj. ,,, ' -r ttL 9 ittP„' ,k41# l''' 'k 4,- *. . . . .... 44. alipilli, ‘' imo. cl.).' ,.p. n'tt.vims, Eu7:10)FtsT '''.:4J, DIO 4 sliSil itiN3S° Ve Sw .4.141. 0- i ." r 'illia , - I s ..., • „,,,igi;t , , -WA WALNUT %%1' 27 0 /' T to 1 ' „.,,,,,:r " . et j. sr min .40' Nowak), 1.01Pntj N• 2/ )lANT, Yr L ......• . SW ...,• ALBETiTA 57 3. p .4.?: sv wArKtas h 6 • I I ..-s....; _RD tt sW lO,Rioll st '- . ' I, ,t`it't4 4,4 A ' Wars 1 ■ 1.3 c-, ,,,iv +. , su 1... _._ m v, s ie, 1 r• 4,444, + ‘b Ad Xilg s. „ri t I' :Tag i ' i31 Q * is g 2 t ; 7 iAi; !MIMI. ' a ‘ gill W s4 ', sv. L VA" 5 1 v, , *4 M 40 (., —ma iktgo kk' -e6 --N,., YIN Si T Fill ST ' , ,,s. sW EittWOcto ST sW CriERR SW f, 1. 0, SARoaliRO • e'...1 , . .9 sr •+, "1, TS14 E II CENTER Row hjavitii r-McboNALD et. „, 4e,iii -"ii si4 a Lir4 4' AlF3' cmoo mmsaminarminencsm........ SW I mx.s GA 0E ST I ....: '. Li" 4 ii5 1 W 21'4 ... iwitiii 4:, • .... i.. ; : !t ; . .i.. , . .-• . ttO .e- ,,,,N, 4' .i, w 0 e 7.: ' rE., dose v Sli (LSE CT 14°WITAltilli ,.., 021SYPt a 9. . til < 4 '1.„--, °°4111 k° ....,L i 43Ui. 2 gb tit 1 VIDI rERO . .' sw .., tr ti., . aim Sil GRECIISike ' ill ■ 4.1Carti 8 l000 y n,... tuAlizi srg . . , ,,,, (.>,. Al. t1tr woo e ca 4. ,, "4J iitt t . — . . 7, , id S MSS sii ' ACTOI • .4. •■•■1A / et. -,, ..,t -- i )i ..,.. ' t RilaiR 14'1 ci K i 1,41,454i. itiAL,14It ci 54 pri),_ t.ri .. . Ww,-"Eri 0 ti,o. 4' 6. .i ,t). cot .■ 4 . ' A...I- Ai., , d aa_______________w . :•:14 •rOU#J444 SI, tiocoVihr ' ' 11111811IMMZUMILM' 040, 4 cotirrit cltx , J sotn, ,, t „, 0 d • -ti 4• It vi,,,,, eR .,, At trAlflt113 Li 91 kik 00., , ■ . 0 . . a M . tourcri 44 RE040 LH A . , \) . . ,j. 4‘ • 4 , ...A i Or t: '' • 4 . 4citr.0 ' rgt 1 ' ' . s. ST i Avow ,ii 45 , a . il a 2 XI b , ,. _ sr # , er L'..t. ,...: O. il ... ' . v .4 t7 ti, 1., , • V.<I 01 :. b e 6" A ' 'La"' it4lAit.'" 3. .ill aid I / ' -iiiiiiiiiimanaLiiiiimiwm•1111111111ZOMi. 1121 eeses ft FIGURE *I EVI VIOINV MA SCALE -- 1"240o` engir■ee rs 0 ' *.,, ', ' :.4 ' , . : ':', planners ': ,' ,40,.. : ,. enViniiimenlai ipodellati ',-. n, ' ~ ,' , ,., .., ,. ' stinieVots iticoepottited Party hd,, La6 diVoi,§6 OR 97035. „T 620 kiiidatid Way, # fdridirid WA 066.:i5, of [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] WETLAND HYDROLOGY In order for the hydrologic criterion for a jurisdictional wetland determination to be satisfied, there must be enough water in the wetland area to saturate the soils within 12 inches of the surface for a duration of no less than 5% of the growing season. The growing season of the prevalent vegetation is loosely defined as the time in which a majority of the vegetation grows, generally between the months of March through September in the Pacific Northwest. Essentially, this means that the ground must be saturated between 12 and 15 consecutive days during this time. ' i . , follows a meandering path north to The hydrological re me of the site `°encr crossing regime of Fanno Creek which alternative in locations': On the west side of the creek, an g extet� a forested twetland exists which is sustained hydrologically b both surface and. Y ground water sources. These sources were not definitively identified for this study. Testing of the east side of the creek revealed no presence of ground inundation or saturation. A ground water connection exists between the forested wetland and Fanno Creek, and there are several areas where small surface water connections between the two wetlands exist. Within the Ash Street Z.O.W. a small drainage ditch exists between the forested wetland and the creek, however, impacts from past sewerline construction have altered the direct surface water flow. A surface water connection is presumed in this areas SOILS The second criterion for a jurisdictional wetland determination is the classification of on site soils as hydric, Hydric soils possess characteristics found in a reducing environment where prolonged water saturation has caused the available oxygen in the soil to he removed. o The �primary soil types es found on the study area are listed as having hydric soil characteristics in Washington County, Field data collected supports this listing, which revealed that the soils found in the wetland areas possess hydric soil indicators such as soil mottling, low chroma, and gleyed soil conditions, The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) of Washington County has identified the soil along this portion of Fanno Creek as McBee silty clay loam (Figure 3) McBee loam is only considered hydric by the SOS with Wapato and Cove. soil inclusions, The McBee series consists of moderately soils that form in alluvium on floodplains. The moderatel well drained so m permeability is moderate and the available water capacity aci . is 10 to 12 inches, P t3' P tY T plots , value in . grey 2 5�' 2 chroma mixed in indicted by asac�' The typical soil profile found within t 2 5Y 4 1n�o yellow ,h � a dark the Munsell Soil Color Char as ( 4/1) y /) gley brown Mottling p nt in p , , ating past , present on ,, saturationbut/no lsatura nwas res . present ari of the of plots on the east side of `she creek, i P any .. included Soil samples taken on the west side of Fanno Creek included a dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) with dense Y ust colored mottling , i with ling (5YR 5/6) below 9 inches and a mixed sandy clay loam With a grey yellow coloring (245Y 4/2 - 3/2) at other data plot where ot loca'�ions, teas wh surface water inundation was present were not tested for soils below the A -hori 0n, 4275 /wet the +rep 0494;0'7 d �.�' yq�.�' '�% 4 a yk4�Si 0.t + .': N 2k' iii: .a .,c' + !': '• � i.:�. • VEGETATION The final criterion for a jurisdictional wetland determination states that a majority of the vegetative species found in an area must be characterized as hydrophytes, or plants adapted to life in saturated soil conditions. The vegetation covering the majority of the delineated site is categorized as obligate wetland, facultative wetland, or facultative in the National List of .Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands; 1988 National Summary. Facultative vegetation, the minimal vegetational wetland classification, is defined as plants found in wetlands 33% to 67% of the time. Obligate wetland plants are those found in wetlands greater than 99% of the time Vegetation found at .the individual data points is recorded on the data sheets. (See Appendix A). The vegetative community along Fanno Creek at the Ash Street R,O.W is a shrub /scrub consisting of primarily Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), scotchbroom (Cytisus scoparius), and hawthorne (Crateagus monogyna) in the shrub layers and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) and yarrow (Achillea millifolum) in the forb layer, Approximately 120 feet south of the R,O.W., the shrub /scrub community ends and an extensive Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) forest begins. The forest community continues south beyond the southern edge of the site along Fanno Creek. Typical vegetation along the west side of the creek corridor is Oregon ash, reed canarygrass, slough sedge (carex obnupta), big-leaf male (Acer macro h llum), and Himalayan blackberry. The vegetation p � g P P Y Y r3'' g along this edge was obviously influenced by the presence of the forested /emergent wetland hydrology further west: The east edge of the creek differs greatly from the west edge in its species composition. The drier conditions pr oduce a gr eater densit y of s p ecies such as snowberry (Symphoricarpus albus), osoberry (Osmaria cerasiformis), hawthorne, big -le af maple and Himalayan blackberry. The forested wetland west of the creek has a large emergent component containing species More adapted to deep water such as common cattail (Typha latifolia). Additionally, the reed canarygrass has formed a virtual monoculture of growth along the saturated edge of the � isolated emergent. species such as soft rush (Juncos pffusus), and slough sedge are aesen in solated sedge P P FUNCTION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT the .1993 Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment the vvetlan� s on site was conducted using An assessment of the function and condition of g r W A ssment Methodo ogy (Oregon Method), This methodology rs intended to give an overall qualitative ` ` give � description of a wetland's functions and condition context of the surrounding land ► .�, it is impact d uses it is not meant be an anal sisi i This will t provide the basic information to the local and state officials Y P involved ` in the management .., ► .... ► ► .., ..... �► This e and permitting decisions re � p g quired for this project, assessment methodology provides criteria for evaluating six wetland functions 'Wildlife Habitat) Fish. Habitat Water Quality) Hydrologic Education) ' .. ,n f�11 ��.,::- �. ondit�lons� rel � , ►f ► ►' ► , .. R`,ecreation► Zt c" also assesses tl,., � ,o r,,ri c aced to wetle.nds. Sensi vit to and w Sensitivity Impact, Enhancement ]Potential, and Aesthetic Quality (See Appendix B). 4275 /wetiarid:rep 0404,07 • The U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Wetlands Inventory (NWT), following the 'Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States" scheme (Cowardin et al., 1979), has identified wetlands on site (figure 4). These include a palustrine emergent broadleaf deciduous wetland with a semipermanent/seasonallsaturated hydrologic regime and an associated palustrine forested wetland with an emergent component. Sine the stream itself will not be impacted directly from the proposed project design, the assessment was made for the forested wetland while regarding the wetland along the creek as an influencing factor. The wetland provides wildlife habitat to some but not all species due to the limited diversity of wetland types and the clime proximity of the surrounding residences. There is a potential for the wetland to provide the following functions: Fish habitat, water quality, education, and recreation. The rationale for this designation on these functions is the severe problem rating on the water quality of Fanno Creek in addition to the lack of forested cover along the creek, current land use surrounding the site and the relatively small size of the site. Hydrological control is provided in the wetland and the importance of this is obvious due to the downstream structu.:„'es within the 100-year floodplain. The location of the site makes it a sensitive wetland to impacts, since the surrounding land use designation is residential and the water quality of Fanno Creek is so poor. There is however, a potential for enhancement if the riparian corridor of Fanno Creek is preserved. The aesthetic quality of the site remains high according to this methodology which is primarily due to the accessibility of the present habitat along Fanno Creek. CONCLUSION Wetlands exist along the entire western edge of Fanno Creek within the study site with the exception of a berm along the creek edge and a small berm on the northern edge of the study site. The east side of Fanno Creek did not exhibit the necessary criteria for a jurisdictional wetland determination, primarily the lack of bydrolo gy, The bridge abutments will not impact the Fanno Creek wetland) but to attain the goals of this project, a small area of wetland on the west edge of the creek may be impacted. The construction is not anticipated to require a large area and may avoid the wetlands altogether, To achioe minimal impacts, the bridge crossing location should be located as close to the northern edge of the study site as possible, 4275/wetiancisep 0494,07 6 ; SCALE = 1":20001 d 17 'att SW �h� b§m§6 OFI 97o3. th •66 kir1ddnd WV liIbO RAlkilid WA 66656, ehdlnecift ththir�hLl ipadaholi iinveyoti .;,., v,•••••i...t . , 1y• 't: r •1 011. 11,1•1 a 4 I 1 6 I ........ i • 66 • • 66 , . . "' 7:'' '-':: ',.. pi . '41.,, I ii,1,1,1 fy ...,.. ,,,..o.,- • ,. :,t i 01 ,g, t il.:, i .."'"‘ .1:‘ 'S' 4 ... 11.- ■ ':4. ' :j 11-, t ....1-1,..N , 1 ti teibei .,$I . , t • I "At • .. . •;:,..1."... . , • ,, .' „I )C7 . • • • • • • :,,,414 4 . 1 d / :10, Wttzh ::-.,, . .e: i Cirt,olikii • , • '.1 .....,...—) 4 ' POW416'. 1, . • .. • . . .:, 1 6.7--. 1 , • ti . , • . . )'‘e • ( . powK74c 4,. : 1.4 1 • • • • % ' e '. *tr ', .,%. : , t 1, :1: : I g • •- .::•:, *. t .,iti. 0, 1 s% •I'VettA(`fn I' 'PEW ' • ' • • , ... 1 • 0 0 44 6 6 • • • e' t 1 '6 0 i i f • • 6 46.,: • ; a • i I ri till wpitiyx41.• ..4. . - • .t; , A A :4; • • ..... • 6 • i t A , 4 A 6 4 6 , . . . : y■\:. ' •t• 0 . *. • . • :: ... • • 0 1 . '. • • .• : • ..1.7 • , , • • , 0.... ,•4 1.4. • I , :.i 4.., 0,6.. 4 • ‘i ) . 4 WTI I .. .."4: • 41: ' : ■ : : .. . • :•: 1 1 . i .■ •,. 4, i • • ' 1 C. :RE.V.IY1. ‘.4.eiti.:4147:,:',,, •• . PqmlY " .:, 14 .4;k., , ,,, , " ..: : : ! 1 : .4.. i .., . a 4. I , ' I it i .• 4, i 4. 7--'13ENinf •.4.4 44,, I, • 1 t V A* :., . 0 y 6 y 4 „ „ , .., 6 61 • o • 1 ti ••• 9 )66 66 16 4. *446 0p.F..94);;11.66:of 6,:. 1,14 t : 11. 6 a 6 61 . 6 61. 6 .t' • • t t • • e , . , ' ., . ,,,,,,,, : 4, : d' ..7.0.i, • ' .powz, -4,- •• ,, : •-,..,‘.e., .., -, • , ,, ........ e, i„ , ,... 4 .64 . la."'olSt.,:: .1‘„P.14:: • • • .0, •:,.. ,, .• 4, ,,,, - •• • •it • : 'poi (,•( i.. e. ..). '.:'.o.''''• • --,....._ ...,,, , :, ,.-.ere.,,•--,)t- t -..- 4,4, .. • .4 • : ,• ., Em. . • a • • • • • , • • A; .44, A.,... ... „,.:, i,•:,,,..,!'4 , •:“44,4"--4Y .* • % . 1' A .. , '4' .••• ,... .1,:";,11.zylii ..," • . _ • ":., 4 ' 4, • ,PF 01W 4 4 PEM1W ,, •,,,,,,,..i...4,;14 6 6116 '• , ' 6; • . a I . ' Psol.Y"r•Pi .. ........ 4 .4, • . ill. . • ' :6 a " i • ' 1 .6 t+61 /10j t ' : . .,,, i • • ..• “ .• ....' • 61.. ' . •42..‘....E....::/. l'ittitti i•'" 6 16 • • 4. 4-.....-, . 6 . • .....16. 4 ,,i.• ..,,, .11. ..../..*: i. ly `...I1 LW, e • , . :•,, RSOWZt. ,i '.. ' '',...1:."! ij:14: .;,./7i—iF, 4 ..1,i.. ; ,.. , .....,....„0 .. ...o.o. .01,.. ' VI , .,P.Emir r4 l'Ito 4 ., oi ..,..til)..F:1o*:,■:1.1.:1;.•■,...‘1.4,>:.:.:::fr K . . %:4.4.44,.....e: . '''s 44' i' , 'a ', ' • • - k... .....4 74;4.4 4 :0 14,1/44, .4; .••••;■••• .:.."; .• :7414 • • • • .. I. ..,.. • ...., il:11%.,...:...; 560,1 .• . ,:••••47::•". \ .,,• . • . ' • ‘:.• • .1. ... ". . .41; ' 't:t'e ' 40' •:. ' 6'• *,,.•:, ••• • ''' • • .• 1...r ; :04 . • • ! ''' • • : : ' '' : r ,. • iNt . t, , , : • ei : , ' • r . . „,. w"..., )2 ,,, ., ......,..... ik. .:.:,..,..,. , .- . 4411.14' e •„,.. • . I. 0. :: . ,i •,,.' , • i • • • . • .06 . „ . ., 466 it •,,, . .16, • • • • Le^ . 444 Z6 . VEM 3 ! a":::.g :4 ..1 •/;.) . . .4 i a 4$1.11‘t Yt.t 46. Trovo ...,,, iettell • 3 ...., tk, • . • . 10: • , o • • i i . ti • • ji• POWKZAN • ........ **ii ..k• EmlY; 0 ■ : I 6 - • Pik . ' i I ) I \\.,., 1 ,. 77........s, \:\ • lo • •••••:•41.! • • • • .• • • , • • ■••••• •••li • d • i ••••••:', , 141 /et."..'''''*...'' ,,,,,, • ' ,. ,,,.. , , , a, :;,, • 6 , 400, 00\ev kEh i r , ,.., . . 4 ' .4 . 4,) .4,,,' 4.t■i :. i -F0k1/4(13:c' ! io-,....,--- • • - 'i. nhoi:tor. -r.i 4 T:.: I i ell t :41 . , 4. . .1 , .1: e eIPEMtze i , ..,„ , e ,, • • . ,,, , • I k ':4:111.•& 1 ' „:1. 4 ' , I." :••• , 4,4 •:.:',6 , •.,,446:16 '1:4 .. ,.40, ,16,41,:. . ' , • , ,. • . . , 1.•• ' it ., •,....,i . i ■ , "P ,e1;• . 6 `i • , 4 . • •Pr0 i * “ % • .....,.........••••.? \<". ( ''. 6' • • • • c..) •,1:44: 4 •1' , , • ,1h . ,i4loilitIti. ., :„.............. ,,...)„,......, ,..„ ; 1. ,..,........ t ,.., , . ‘ '—'. , , „, ''..:, i . ' t +A 14111 k.!!t‘, 0 • '' ''.4 7:4 I „4":‘, i'; ':..:•, : 4t4 ■, , ' : 't:4 ' 4 9° ly a'?"11:—.51:1.-::i "'.;":sl'!'i ,e'r r,ir,!'"' _2, .r. ,:,•, ‘. ,;-• , i . 1 , ... a , "i ) i::: 0,,,..0:14f,I.: 017:)) ■il• .',..,......r,„2:,;,:•- i.b- .. , , r .1 6 i , V 1 1 , .• i • 6 4 ii.: : 4 ••• A i• ., • ••6' firG•44• •■•••••• P' •' • , • 04414_.c.‘ ,e...—,.---fl.r. t r„" , dr","''' 4'9: ,...:::4‘ I. 611•1'.% (:'...- 1 E‘'.f."\..11J+1••,b% '4" , int . .. . / i 6 J41 fr-jq ■ 6' . ("••• . . . . pow fli. , .4 7 •kialt,'Iv , . a .:.., ,. 1 i . . ....;,,'..7.f,14::',:eiz6.WICS$(."+‘ ' '1‘."'. ' ' I I P '.?:"t11: . r • \o, ..... 5 4 t . R3OWZ.' , .1•:•,.., , it,,,, _ • • () • , I . •• ,, ••••••,•6•1 • 411 . h .: J2 . , ! , 1 - 4 , )ii, ) 44 • il ( I' . .104fiRni, 4 ii . 44 ,i i 4 , • / " 1.10i 6t 6 it t , 11 i c• ' „ , ,,■••• ••• .6 •••• 4 A • ...• •••■• 40 .4 640 • • • a' a • •' • • • ,, 6.. 6 • ,, i 1",,,1 V 6 , ' • I 4 t 6 I t t. ( ., kirlh., 1 %I , "17PF I. PF014? , :,',' • ''4 , 'ill.'Iti If ,) .V ,,,,4 ' (LL or- 4 4 _., 1 . . ' 1 : 4 1 ' '1' 4 001 611/41 't ' " 4" tiOV4kit 1) `C6 ''''' . , 4 ,i; ' \ ' 4 • el • j 14 .1 Pi i 141 ' • . i< 4, k ., 0 . . 4 \‘,N.kPro14/1 . POWKIX • 1. .44.)' :I ,,, • J ;.914!... • bUt1dL USFW National Wetlands InVento 8OAL4 I 2b �irs panor� SUNOVO ' ' tid 00.3Ai i 735 s FOP et 6i6 <hidand Wav, 4i��, Wrkbild WA 15, (Zodyitt.Otn LEGIBILITY STRIP WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Plot Number: L Project: VAINte:612., EZAk6zECounty: u1/4)6s14,1m 6,Toe.1 State: _C/J2- Client: fugii.1122eatra„teNbtaTovvnship/Range/Section: Date:jjtq_Site Description: IC; Hydrology Topography: Inundated? Surfac Water Depth: _- Soil Saturation Depth:, Other Indicators: Disturbed Situation? its) Remarks: Wetland Hydrology: N Basis: Histosoil? Matrix Color Mottle Color exture escri stion of Soil Sam sle s?. Other Indicators: Hydric Soil Criterion: y Basis: Vegetation Community Description; 5i4-iikAe: J SCRutil_ Vegetation Disturbed? y Remarks: Dominant Plant Species find Indicator Status: Herbs: ialkgsr: .11.1 Trees: Percent OBLACWFACt % Hydrophytic Vegetation? Bit Wetland Deterrninationt Wetland Nonwetland Continents: „ tj ' WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Project: ..Lejstiolfgatat2E County: Client: A0AMZ... beu mt.e.(4 ',Awl- Township/Range/Section: Date: 3 LaiY....Site Description: r-ft Hydrology Topography:W_ Clite 4:1*. Inundated? Surface Water Depth: Soil Saturation Depth:_>/s" Other Indicators: Disturbed Situation? eti Remarks: Wetland Hydrology: A) Basis: Soils Series/Description: Hydric Histosoil? Sample Matrix Depth Color Other Indicators: Indicators: Hydric Soil uriterion:_kj_Basise. a- CS-A6 vt"tie., " 12.0. kw, h *11-1--t-feriTtrzoAt per-tot:4 Vegetation Community Community Description: S Vegetation Disturbed? A/ Remarks: Dominant Plant Species and Indicator Status: Herbs: SO% Shrtibs/Small Trees: ..4,AgItAS obt,Awr... PA. 4 - ZS% s 2..s% 'Frees: Percent OBLFACAFAC 30 9;2 Hydrophytic Veget.ation? Wetland Determination: Wetland t//d .Nonwetiafici Comments: „ r • . r • r .'■ 4%4 to,•■ ma4 , . , WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Plot Number: Project: ftalectl_aRatt..E"County: "-2-1— State: C) Client: .0.?:.t.staLAk Tomnship/Range/Section: Date:J2Ji.±LSite Description:. 4 7: ■ ' .. r A • Hydrology Topography:.. .51.Per t.4tX.0 ) 7P(-3I /,/ Peqa-PU PJ bt.- "CO (-11--ti Inundated? 9 Surface Water Depth: Soil Saturation Deptht=is " Other Indicators: Disturbed Situation? 4 Remarks: Wetland Hydrology: Soils ;g S.t SeriesiDescliptio : Ws Hydric Histosoil? Sample Matrix Depth Color cp– 13 u Mot/Coi/r_ecrjpJ;iqnpf Soil Other Indicators: Hydric Soil Criterion: Vegetation Community Description: 5 Vegetation Disturbed? • Remarks: Dominant Plant Species and Indicator Status: Herb: i..t.s. 4 Pi xi . i ....... -74 mil A 4) 55% h. ttge-s•rtZ...t IPSf.4*CAAiriy) O Mist ±_,19.2 WO) "r" 0775 5 Trtk-del Shrubs/Small Trees: ts Trees: • Pit•Pi* X 't t:t+Ti Po LA th. Percent OBLiFAOW;FA0t EY° Hydrophytic Vegetation? .6 • Basis:___1616vtrri Or,7tS4i Wetland etetininationt et.tiaLit.d; Nonvietianci Cotninente: b=41.66t-0 Determined by! OTAXt WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Project: _ .1,2_811042., exreAbibg. County: i s4 sg. 01-0"J State: 1 i2 Client: . r= ltzt Township%Range /Section: Date 3 Jj Site Description ; y► .. _- i b& SSA/ Hydrology Topography: Inundated? Soil Saturation Depth:__ Disturbed Situation? . _ Remarks: Soils ` s/D ri Lion: ttA' ° mac: `'I i� -y G c.r4 ,g2Iml l t as l Serle.� esc Hydric Soil? Histosoil? Sample atrix Depth Color Mottle /Color/l'exture/Description of Soil Sample --i0`A 7..c/ 4 1 5"i-tc4,4..81t0 C.t.r�4-i /Si La .. L,.. "r rti.oT rS 10'1 - 1 h Z. t, . .` u i -- x tf Vii► J y. b,e aga c.,ri A M Vegetation Community Description: w Vegetation Disturbed? Remarks; s 7=-P--o 50;i ,tt-. W w Dominant Plant Sped and Indicator Status: Herbs: Shrubs /Small Trees: 4c)c\-6(.44,42A5 114 , i N t riscLAD 40% tti 5 61 c-t .- i ll ILA x:...01 Trees: Percent O$L;FAC FACa T-v % y p �I dro h lc Wetlaind Determination:. ,VV'etland ;Noiwetiaid Comments :` CAT AK: EtZvironzriei tai Services Team . • n " , . , . WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Project: ft2Atog___Eall2thE County: ....j,„61.L&AIESt. State: Client: jogisealzes.Township/Range/Section: 310 Date:a/a_a_q_Site Description: Plot Number: Hydrology Topography: Stke)LIZO 1• EP [Less I on.] Inundated? y Surface Water Depth: Soil Saturation Depth: ---- Other Indicators: Disturbed Situation? .‘) Remarks: Wetland Hydrology: \/ Basis: Soils Series/Description. Hydric Soil? Histosoil? Sample Matrix p e p th Color ra-d' Vegetation Community Description:t Vegetation Disturbed? Remarks: l Dominant Pa Herbs Species and Indicator Status: Shrubs/Small Trees: rt-fift-i-4%eA A-PLAN b ttie&PEL_Eikaz./.265,0 L Le liydtophytic Vegetatioril_st33a§ist L.: Cs. E 6 .. . ?1 Percent 013L,PACW,FAC: 26 lb r._.b itiret.t.ii 19.iz Wetland ii etethiinatiotit ‘/Wetelaild Wohwetlaild Oditatiehts: Determined byt WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA. FORM Plot Number: Project: (.... Ro PA.c R, lkIDag County: _ l s 1 State: () (2.. (2.. C lie t: J to st � r Township/Range /Section: —r ' 3 Date :_af a jig_. Site Description: & 4- m - Hydrology Topography:___ '� s''d�'1 - .a`'�.tc� to h�, Inundated'? Surface Water Depth: Soil Saturation Depth: T/C'" Other Indicators: Disturbed Situation? A Remarks: Wetland Hydrology: ) Basis: Soils • �.ierry CtA'( L.04e1 Series/Description: liydric Soil? A) Histosoil? Sample Matrix Depth Color ti 0y Mottle Color extiire $4671. 4..0.5 t�s % b, t escri : lion of Soil Sample Other Indic toffs: Hydric Soil Criterion: /__Basis:---- ------ Vegetation Community Description :„ _�_- -- ed? L : Remarks: Vegetation Disturb Dominant Plant Species and Indicator Status: Herbs: Shrubs /Small Trees: S br • Coo. P��-�7 Percent OBL FACVJiBAC : C-cto Hydrophytic Vegetation? Basis: _... Wetland x .... GA Tart_ _.Nonwetla d Comments: titer Ana i ont . _: �' b Determined by: 1 " h Trees: (MKtn vii °ortmeiital Services Team ort e WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Plot Number: ... sa ,fa*Z Set-k. eSttai t e: c,_L-tjaLIR Datea/aa_Sis Descriptionae-eg. iPaProject: “lKEgtCounty: Client j Township/Rnge/Section: =_ _..5,32 Hydrology Topography: LL e-tyu t-4 i> - 1-- 1 IQ 14., Inundated? /../ Surface Water Depth: :on.. ..4......r Soil Saturation Depth j_ Other Indicators: ils-m &Tie . Disturbed Situation? 1.161.-narks; Wetland Hydrology: Basis; Soils Seriesi.oescription: .1 ca / L-T/ LJ L�MM Hydric Histosoil? Sample Matrix Depth, Color Mottle escri tion ' 1?--1-06t Mirrr t-tr1/4/ Other Indicators: Hydric Soil Criterion: Vegetation Community Description: Se-0-t.A. 6-b6, 6 Oln 648. P0-9-8s7 ....•••••••••••••• 'Vegetation Disturbed? /0 Remarks: Dominant Plant Species and Indicator Status: Herbs: 64r-tAl 1 Percent OBLiFACW)FAC: Hydrophytic Vegetation? Basis!,, Shrubs/Small Trees; -S3b—U42 t L8t ----:"— 144 Treet: 1=-Ike-03 za pa 61LA. p-oLt A i 1 e) . 0 • %. 6 wetland Deterininatiori: Wetland . NOnwetland „ CoininentS; Determined ()TAX! thi i�hth�nt1 8etvioti Peam •,g , t, ,1„ WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Plot Number: Project: j4imgflairatIzE County: State: Client: ItighLig.2.2altr.w:Aucttau. Township/Range/Section: Date:a/a_a_q_Site Description: a WC5 Hydrology Topography: sP&o,,..Lik.I ro Inundated? 9 Surface Water Depth: Soil Saturation Depth: /S. " Other Lidicators: Disturbed Situation? Al Remarks: Wetland Hydrology: _Js Basis: Soils Series/Description: IA"' Ge'rri si Hydric Soil? Histosoil? Sample Matrix Depth Color Mottle/ColprfPSriPiOfl of Soil Samph -4 Z. 0/1111. •' • Other Indicators: Hydric Soil CrionALBaSisL Vegetation Community Description: G. Vegetation Disturbed? A) Remarks: Dominant Plant Species and Indicator Status: Herbst UI .11 • .4.11.11 Shrubs/Small Trees: Trees: r • # Percent OBVACVviFAth V.) ilydrophytic vegete.tion? 7Piietiet Wetland neterininatioii: Wetland „ VNonwettaiid Ootrittierith! Determined 'by: °TAX: Environmental Service.s Team 4,*( '• yr. . WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Project: !Cs.£+A ,M _ eaal12i- County: j art a ,o .6 State: t'') e.. Client: j olew.+o g, . �etrr�t.c,(4�t�rr Township/Range /Section: _ "`?r I 3R Date:.. ./ 2'' Sate Descriptions • lAtt) Piot Number: Hydrology Topography: t4--seLL Lb v3 Inundated? Surface Water Depth: Soil Saturation Depth:__ C9" Other Indicators: ._. MAIL Disturbed Situation? Remarks: Wetland Hydrology: Basis: Soils / r iption! % i �Tf U Hydric Series/Description! Soil'? Ai Histosoil? Sample Matrix Depth Color Mott le /Color/Texture/Description of Soil Sample ,_._. - 1 t:'� 1,0. -t a. z -- __ s ..„,. `rT1- t rAir Other Indicators:^,_„ -- Hydric Soil Criterion: Basis: Vegetation Community Descriptions Vegetation Disturbed ?"_ Remarks:,_ Dominant Plant Species and Indicator Status: Herbs: 4 2,617 +• ., tea' }vV'C,`..L�':' • e- tip,'► .. r1k�. __ _°� Percent OBL,FAdVtWfrAC: 9'o Hydrophytic Vegetation? / Basis: Shrubs/Small Trees: rilra,k. 1,0 % \R-`. Trees: 1ts`4t BJ' 1i. 1 -14-`r t Sro L ► . AGW _. ZQ` p Wetland Deterix inatiorii... _ Wetlaile . Not wetiat d Comments: ....... ... ,. Determined by:.. OTAR: • nvrronmenta� . ervices earn WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Plot Number: 16 Project: r R ,Mc Eat iTh County: L 1 J E 01 State: r• 2. Client: f„d, ��12aurlel��+. �anfr Tawnship/Range /Section: --r Date: f .q-. /jSite Description: r- • Hydrology Topography: _ r 2 ..t 640 Ps' LO 1.1 Inundated? / Surface Water Depth: Soil Saturation Depth :_ L., Other Indicators: Disturbed Situation? Al Remarks: Wetland Hydrology: Al _ Basis: Series/Description Hydric oil ?„_ AU Histosoil? Sample Matrix Depth Color A L4 W1 M • tale Color/Texture/Description of Soil Sample Other rs: Hydric Sol Criterion: /) Basis: Vegetation Community Description :. Vegetation Disturbea? �! Dominant Plant Species and Herbs: ^D �u. Remarks: Indicator Status: Shrubs /Small Trees: a R> 17)154,0c-6 R. . t-t- ►i 0 l'Otcure 111.10 ✓J .. i►h SAL Trees: FULA V:170 IBC =i?- -iRo Pc4-htt. , i. t it .iri 2e% l i 090 Percent OBL,FACW,FAC:,4 Hydrophytic Vegetation ?. 0 ,..Basis :. Wetland Determination: Noi wetlai cl Comments: Determined by! ,') t).t OTAt i EnWir'onmental. Services Tea APPENDIX WETLAND FUNCTION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT gbn Freshwater Wetland Assessinerct Methodology Wetland identification 12,4.0A-01g--- A ssessment questions: wildlife habitat (Page 1 of 3) Quesiiort 1. How many Cowardin wetland classes are present? (Characterization: 22,23) 2. What is the dominant Cowardin wetlandterization: 22 (Characterization: 22) 3. What is the Cowardin wetland class and upland inclusion interspersion pattern? (Characterization: 24) 4. What is the area of open ,water associated with the wetted? (Characterization 18,28) ,answer Rural areas: a. Three or more. C)Two. c. ,Pne. Urban areas: a. Two or more. b. One class with more than one plant species. c. Oneclass withon1yoneplantspec es, a. Forested orscrub-shrub oracombi- nation of any two that includes forested or scrub - shrub. b. Emergent vegetation wy th open water or just open water. Emergent vegetation with no open water. a. Highly interspersed: diagram 7. oderately interspersed diagram 4, 5 or 6. c. Lowintetspersion: diagrams 1,2 or 3, Rural areas: a. More than 3 acres or connected to a stream, lake or pond; b. Between 0.5 and 3 acres. c. Bess than 0.5 acres. Urban' areas: ore than 1 acre or connected to a stream, lake or pond. b. Between 0.5 and l acre. c. Less than 0$ acres. tx.0 rtn - w.4 132 Appetidv& G • I f: ..NHS Wetland identification Assessment questions: wildlife habitat (Page 2 of 3) Question How is the wetland hydrologically connected to other wetlands? (For western Oregon only) (Characterization; 27) t:. When is there water at the wetland site and/or in a connected stream, lake or pond? (Characterization: 41) Answer he wetlana is connected to other wetlands within a 1 -mile radius by a perennial or intermittent stream, irrigation ditch, canal or lake. b. The wetland is connected to other wetlands within a 3-mile radius by a perennial or rxitennittent stream, irrigation ditch, canal or lake, or other unconnected wetland ► are present within a 1 -mile radius. c. The wetland is not hydrologically connected to other wetlands within a 3 -mile radius, and no other un- connected wetlands lie within a 1-mile radius. yam`• b. i3n "ring fall, winter and/or spring: c. Only in winter. 7. What is the water gaality condition a No main stream reaches within of water bodies in the watershed the watershed or bodies of water upstream from the assessment upsttr .�aafrorntheass�ssmentanea. p (Characterization: 8) area are listed as in severe water quality condition from nonpoint sources. b. Eithermain stream reaches within the watershed or bodies of water upstream s s trean from the assessment u ea, but not both, are listed as in severe water quality condition from nonpoint sources, Both main stream reaches within the watershed and bodies of Wa- ter upstream from the assessment area are listed as in severe water qtiality condition from nonpoint sources Notes Cob CM4Ldr.'d 4°A X1,1• Append& Freshwater Wetland ILSsessinent M`edzadblogy Wetland identification -- Assessment (Page 3 o f ss m e ■ t c ue�O M 3) Question 8. What is the dominant existing land use surrounding the wetland? (Characterization: 15) wildlife habitat 9a. For rural areas, what percentage of the wetland's edge is ered byuplandwxldlif ehabitatthat is at least 150 feet wide? (Characterization: 25) 9b. For urban areas, what is the aver- age width of the vegetative buffer surrounding the wetland? (Characterization! 26) 1 Y�? ss, ss A wetland provides divase habitat for vc ildiife if A wetland does not provide wildlife habitat or has limited use by wildlife if: Answer .Rural areas; a. Forested lands or open space. ' b. Agriculture. c. Residendatcommercialorindustrial. Urban areas: it Open space or agnculture. OCOmmercial or residentiaL c. Industrial a. More than 40% h. Between 10% and 40%. c. Less than 10%. Greater than 50 feet LsdBetween 25 and 50 feet. c. Less than 25 feet. iterI At least four questions are a, answered ' " and no more than one is answered c. 9 All questions are answered "c A wetland provides habitat for some wildlife species ift Answers do not satisfy the abo'Ve- listed criteria Notes 'bet? #;-"t Assessment questions: fish habitat (Page 1 of 3 Question Answer Pad A streams 1. What percentage of the stream as Western Oregon: sociated with the wetland is shaded a. Gmater than 75%. by stream-side (riparian) vegetation? 0 Between 509 and 75% (t naia term anon 31) c. Less than 500. Eastern Oregon.' a. Greater than 50%. b. Between 25% and 50 %. c. Lm than 25%. 2. What is the physical character of One stream is in a natural channel, the stream channel? or modified portions of the stream (Characteritztion: 30) have ed to anat urg channel.' b. Only rtions of the stream chan- nel have been modified, or if extensive modification has been done in the past, the stream has regained some natural channel fea- tnresthroughtheonsetormeandering, there- growthofirn -stream vegetation ortheadditionof cover objects such as rocks or snags. c. Extensive modifie9tions havebeen made to the channel, or the stream is confined inanon vegetatedchan- nel or pipe. 1 What percentage of the sham con- More than 25%. 25 t in ooverobjectssuehassubtnesged b. etween 109 � %. log Overhangingt s,float ngtub, c Less than 10% triaged vegetatioin, large rocs or boulders? (Charactetizationt 32) A ,ppend& C 135 4t,„, •)" ""'44."A , ••• ' • • • 4 on Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology Wetlail identification Assessment questions; fish hctbitat (Page 2 of 3) Question Answer a. No main stream reaches within the watershed or bodies of water up- stream from the assessment area are listed as in severe water quality condition from nonpoint sources, b. Either main stream reaches within the watershed or bodies of water upstreatnfrom theasselsment area, but not both, are listed as in severe water quality condition from nonpoint sources. (C)Both main stream reaches within the watershed and bodies of water upstream from the assessment area are listed as in sevete water quality condition from nonpoint sources. 4. What is the water quality condition of water bodies in the watershed upstream.fromtheassessmentarea? (Characterization: 8) Notes .J. 5. Whatis the dominant, existingland a. Forested lands ox open space. (Characterization: 15) ()Residential commercial or indus trial, use surrounding the wetland? b. Agriculture. 6. What species of fish are present in the stream? (C:haracterizationt 29) a. Salmon, trout or sensitive species are present at some time dunng the year. it Species not covered in a are present at some time during the year. ca No species are present at any time 4 • (Luring the year. Part B: lakes and ponds 1, How does the Water depth VarY TheWaterhasmoretharitWodepths. the lake or pond? (Characteritatinit All Wald is toughly of unifotru depth Ot depth cad' the; dettinined. 2, What percentage Of the entire' lake a. More tha'n 25 4), orponcicOriWnscOVerobject.S.Stich b. Eetween 10% and 25*). submerged togs, overhanging C. Lest than 10%, „ batiks floating Stibiterged Vegeta- doh., latgd �c itS Or botilciers? (Cbatadteritationt 35) b. There is a mixture of two depths. .'.App:oridix C • Wetland identification Assessment questions: fish habitat (Page 3 of 3) Question Answer 3. What percentage of the shoreline is vegetated to the water's edge (in- chide the wetland)? (Characterization: 34) Notes 4. What is the water quality condition of water bodies in the watershed upstream from the assessment area? (Characterization: 8) a. No main stream reaches within the watershed or bodies of water up- stream from the assessment area are listed as in severe water quality condition from nonpoint sources. b. Either main stream reaches within the watershed or bodies of water upstream from the assessment area, buts not both, are listed as in severe water quality condition from nonpoint sources. c. Both main stream reaches within the watershed and bodies of water upstream from the assessment area are listed as in severe water quality condition from nonpoint sources: 5. What is the dominant, existing land a Forested lands or open space: use surrounding the wetland? b. Agriculture: Residential, commercial or indus.. trial. (Characterization: 15) c, 6, What species of fish are present in the pond or lake? (Characterizations 29) a. Saltttion, trout or sensitive species are present at some tirrie during the year, b. Species notc:overed lea" =present at some time during the year c. No species are present at any time during the year: Any three questions are answered "a,;' and no more than one is answered "c.'' A wetland does not contribute to fish habitat if: A wetland potentially contributes to fish habitat if! Answers do not satisfy t e above- listed criteria. Appehdbc C 137 Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology Wetland identification Assessment ciuesfions: water quality (Rage 1 of 2) Question Answer Notes' 1. What is the wetland's primary a. perennial orintermittentstrearri (in- source of water? eludes irrigation ditches). (Characterization: 39) � " ecipitation or overland flow. c. Springs, seeps or cannot be deter ,mined. 2. IS there evidence that the wetland floods or ponds? (Characterization: 36) 3. what percent of the wetland is cov- ered by vegetation? (Characterization: 22) 4. what is the wetland's area in acres? (Characterization: 17,27) 5. What is the dominant, existing land use surroun ding the Wetland? (Characterization: 15) vidence of flooding or ponding exists. b. J'nable to observebecau a water level at time of observation. c. No evidence of flooding orponding exists. e area covered by wetland veg- etation is greater than or equal to 70%. b. The area covered by wetland veg- etation is less than 70 %. a Greater than 5 acres. etween .5 and 5 acres, or the wet- land is connected by surface water to another weland within a 3-mile radius. c. Less than .5 acre. a: Residential, commercial or indus- trial. b. Agriculture. c. Forested lands or open space. • 138 Appendix' C Orcgon Freshwater Wetland,Assessment Methodology Wetland identification Assessment questions: water quay (Page 2 of 2) Question Answer 6. 'What is the water quality condition of water bodies in the watershed upstreamfromtheassessmentarea? (Characterization: 8) a. b. Both main stream reaches within the watershed and bodies of water upstream from the assessment area are listed as in severe vvater quality ' condition from nonpoint sources. Either main stream reaches within the watershed or bodies of water upstreamfrom the assessment area, but not both, are listed as in severe water quality condition from nonpoint sources. o main stream reaches within the Watershed or bodies of water lip- stream from the assessment area are listed as in severe water quality condition from nonpoint sources. A wetland provides water-quality benefits if Questions 1, 2 and 3 are answered "a," and any other qUestion is answered a' or A Wetland has the potential to provide water quality benefits if AnsWers do not satisfy the above- or beloW-listed criteria. A wetland does not provide i 4 water-qua.lity benefits f: Five out of siX questions are answered "c." Notes G.; Arr • : •Appotiellx,O.: • ..1.10 6 Oregon Freshwater Weacm3ammaseina,nageaZ4csesiwfairmAs ment Methodology monsew a 11WD 51 NU MO a 252 11.1141114 111 1143 112 Malal BS= ISM Wetland identification Assessment questions: hydrologic control functions (Page 1 of 2) Question 1. Is the wetland located within the 100-year floodplain? (Characterization: 19) 2. Is there evidence that the wetland floods or ponds? ((haractefization: 36) 3. What is the wetland's area in acres? (Characterization.: 17) 4. Is waterflow out of the wetland restricted (e.g., by a beaver dam or concrete structure)? (Characterization: 37) 5. What percentage of the wetland has forested or scrub-shrub vegeta- tion? (Characterization'. 22) Answer es, . No. 6. What are the existing land uses within 500 feet downstream or down slope of the wetland? (Charactedzation: 15) 7. What is the doMmant comprehen- sive plan land-use designation upstream from the assessment area? (Characterizationt 6) t46 .Appopelbe• • Evidence of flooding or ponding exists. b. Unableto observebecauseof water level at time of observation. c. No evidence of flooding or pond- ing exists. a. Greater than 5 acres. Between .5 and 5 acres. c. Less than .5 acre. a. Yes, the outlet is restricted or the wetland has no outlet. o, the outlet has unresuicted flow. Greater than 70% forested or scrub- shrub. b. Between 50% and 70% forested or scrub-shmb. c. 50% or less is forested or scrub- shrub. residential and corruner- cial. b. Agtictilture. c, Orested land and open space. 4 dustriaL reSidential and commer- ciais b. AgriCUlture. . c. Forested land and open space. Notes 1 i • Oregon Friihwater Wetland Assessnwnr Methodology Wetland identification Assessment questions: hydrologic conk)! functions (Page 2 of 2) Question Answer A wetland provides hydrologic control if: Questions 1 and 6 are answered "a," and two or more other questions are answered "a." rrc�ide hydrologic droio is cont��ol�ifo Answers do not satisfy the potential p y g above- or below- listed criteria. A wetland does not provide hydrologic control if: Question 1 is answered "b," and three or more other questions are answered 'tic." 0 rk: Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology vamanazuwasnancnaenassammainengsacamsesearmaleaseamisummenumusassasemi memermasesiffinsmismentwostim Wetland identification Assessment queshbns: sensitivity to impact (Page 1 of 2) Question • Answer 1. Is the hydrologic system upstream of the wetland and assessment area modified? (Characterization: 4, 5, 40) a. treamreaches within 1 mile above ewetlandaredammed, channelited or leveed, and &Icing, drainage or • irrigation districts are active within the watershed upstream of the as- sessment area. b. Main stream reaches upstream of the assessment area are dammed, channelized or leveed, but no dik- ing, drainage or irrigation districts are active within the watershed upstream of the assessment area. co Hydrologic modifications don't fit criteria for responses "a" or 2. What is the water quality condition of water bodies in the watershed upstream from the assessment area? (Characterization: 8) 3. What is the dominant, exiting land use surrounding the wetland? (Characterization: 15) oth main stream reaches within the watershed and bodies of water upstream from the assessment area are listed as in severe water quality condition from nonpoint sources. b. Either main stream reaches within the watershed or bodies of water upstream from the assessment area, but not both, are listed as in severe water quality condition from non- point sources, co No main stream reaches within the watershed or bodies of water up- stream from the assessment area are listed as in seVere water quality condition from nonpoint sources. 4, What is the dominant zoned land use within 500 feet of the wetland? (Chaliacteritation: 6) Residential., commercial or indus- trial, b. Apiculture. c, Forestal land and /or open space. coniniercial or indus- trial. b, Agriculture. c, Forest land nd/or open space, Oregan Freshwater SW'`etl€rad Assessmedt M tho falogy Wetland identification Assessment questions: sensitivity to impact (Page 2 of 2) Question Answer 5. What is the dominant Cowardin Forested or scrub - shrub. wetland class? b. Emergent. (Characterization: 22) c. Open water. A wetland is sensitive to secondary effects if: A wetland is not sensitive to secondary effects ifs A wetland is potentially sensitive to secondary effects if Question 1 is answered "a" or "b," and all other questions are answered "a"; or question 2 is answered "a" or "b," and all other questions are answered "a." Question 1 and question 2 are answered "b" or "c,'= and no other questions are answered "a: Answers do not satisfy the above -listed criteria. Notes 5eW s► tvC e Append& C 1` ' Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology IIIIMEMOSOMONEMEN Wetland identification G Assessment questions: enhcinceme t potential (Page 1 of 2) Question 1. What are the assessment results for wildlife habitat, fish habitat, water quality and hydrologic control? 2. What the degree of tillage or compaction the soi�is? (Characterization: 16) 3. What is the wetland's source of water? ( Characterization: 39) Answer e or more has potential to pro- vide a function. b. The wetland does not provide any of the functions listed. c:: The wetland provides diverse habi- tat fa wildlife. oils show little orno sign of tillage or compaction. b. Soils show signs of tillage or com- paction. a. The wetland receives water from a perennial stream. • e wetland receives water from an intermittent stream, spring or seep, or precipitation or overland flow, c. Cannot determine. 4, Can a hydrologic connection be- tween the wetland and a source of water be restored or created? Characterization: 38,39) a. Unrestricted water flow into a wet- land exists or, if blocked, can be removed or is limited and does not impede flow. b. Penmanentblockageexists, btitmay be readily breached or a new flow channel created: °t d.. e. ter mine s ource of water, permanent blockage exists and alternative flow c hannels do not appear feasible 5, What is the area in acres of the wetland and surrounding open space? (Characterihatione, 21) a. Greater than 10 acres, Between 1 and 10 acres. c, Less than 1 acre. a The wetland is not sensitive to sec- ondary effects. b, The wetland is potentially sensitive to secondary effects, (' c The wetland is sensitive to second- ary effects. 444 A pehtiix C Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology Wetland identification _____ Assessment questions: enhancement potential (Page 2 of 2) Question Answer Notes A wetland can be enhanced if: A wetland has little enhancement potential if: Questions 1 and 2 are answered `!a;" and only one other question is answered "c." Question 1 is answered "c"; or question 2 is answered "b," and two or more other questions are answered "c." A wetland has some potential for enhancement if Answers do not satisfy the above-listed criteria. Apetd&C i4 Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology tenoramslowsumsassmansusemeswer Wetland identification Assessment questr° : education potential (Page 1 of 2) • Question 1. Is the wetland site open to the pub- lic for direct access or observation? (Characterization; 46) 21 Are there visible hazards to the public at the wetland site? (Characterization: 42) 3, What is the potential for fish and wildlife habitat study based on the Fish Habitat and Wildlife Habitat evaluation criteria? Answer a. Wetland access is allowed only by permission of the landowner or managing entity e wetland is open to the public. c. The site is not open to the public No visible safety hazards exist, e or two visible safety hazards exist. c. More than two visible safety haz- ards exist. 4, Is there existing physical public access to other habitats, such as a stream, lakes pond, forest or agri- cultural land ?If not, can such other habitats be observed from the site? (Characterization. 43,44) a. The Wetland provides diverse habitat for wildlife or contributes to fish habitat. The wetland provides habitat for some wildlife species or poten- tially contributes to fish habitat. c. The wetland does not provide wildlife habitat and does not con- tribute to fish habitat. blic access exists or can be cre- ated easily. b Public access doesn 't exist and can't be created easily, but observation of other features can be made from the site c. Access doesn't exist and can't be created easily. in addition, obser- vation of other features can't be made from the Site. 5, is there a public access point within a 'Yes, maintained access points exist 250 feet of the wetland? Yes, safe, unmaintain,ed access (Characterization: 47) points exist c, No access point exists, or access point is hazardous. Notes • • 1 Appendix Wetland identification Assessment (questions: education pofenfic f (Page 2 of 2) Question 6. Does it appear that access to aview- ing spot or wetland edge is difficult for individuals with lim- ited mobility? (Characterization: 45) Oregon Freshwater Wetlsuid Mscssr-teat Methodology Answer a. No. es. (List physical barriers. A wetland has educational uses if: Questions 1 and 2 are answered "a," and at least one of questions 3, 4 and 5 is answered "a" or "b." Answers do not satisfy the above- or below -listed criteria. A wetland site is not appropriate for educational use if: App►ei d&t c 147 4.. Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology Wetland identification Assessment questions: recreation (Page 1 of 2) Answer - Question 1. Is there apublic access point within 250 feet of the wetland? (Characterization: 47) a Yes, amaintainedaccess point exists. Yes, a safe, unmaintained access point exists. c. No access points exist, or access point is hazardous. 2. Is there a public boat launch or a. water -based access area in or near the wetland? (Characterization 48) b. 3. Are there ariaintained trails, view- ing areas or other structures adjacent to or in the wetland that guide user movement to a particular area or areas? (Characterization: 49) 4. What is the o oxtunity for noncon- sumptive uses such as wildlife observation and photography? 5, Is fishing allowed at the wetland or . adjacent water bod y? (Ciaacterizationi 50) 6. Is hunting allowed at the wetland? (Characterization: 51) Boat launching areas or access points exist on site or within 1/2 mile on a connected lake, river, bay or other body of water. Potential to develop boat launching areas or access points exists or such features are more than 1/2 mile but less than 1 trifle from the wetland. No boat late ping areas or access points exist. a. Developed or maintained trails or c. viewing areas exist. Trail or viewing area opportunities exist that will not disrupt wildlife or plant habitat. No trails or viewing areas exist The wetland provides diversehabi- t for wildlife. The wetland provides habitat for some wildlife species. c» The wetland does not provide wild- life habitat or has limited use by wildlife, Allowed b. Prohibited. Allowed. rohibited, Notes t dit Appendix • Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology Wetland identification Assessment questions: recreation Page 2 of 2) Question owes Answer The wetland provides recreational opportunities if: Question 1 or 2 is answered "a," and the answer to 3, 4, 5 or 6 is The wetland has the potential to provide recreational activities if: The wetland is not appropriate for or does not rovide recreational opportunities if: Answers do not satisfy the above- or below- listed criteria. Pkt.-r-.. t, Questions 1 and 2 are answered c" or questions 3 and 4 are answered ``c9" and 5 and 6 are answered "b." Append x C 14p Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology Wetland identification Assessment questions: aesthetic quality (Pcige 1 of 2) Question 1. How many Cowardin classes are visible from the primary viewing location? (Characterization: 58, 59) Notes Answer ere are two or more Cowardin classes visible from the viewpoint. b. One Cowardin class is visible, and the whole wetland or a large por= tion can be viewed. c. One Cowardin class is visible and only a small portion of the wetland can be viewed. 2. What is the general appearance of a. No visual detractors. the wetland as visible from primary viewing location? (Characterizations 54, 55) 3. What is the visual character of the surrounding area? (Characterization: 52, 53) 4. What odors are present at the pri- mary viewing location? (Characterization'. 56) Visual detractors, if any, can be re- moved easily. c. Visual detractors cannot be re- moved easily. Rural a Significant contrast with surround ing landscape. b. Limited contrast with surrounding landscape. c. Little or no contrast with surround- ing landscape. Urban C)Open space or naturally landscaped areas. b, Areas landscaped by people. c. Developed with no landscaping. Natural odors only. b. Unnatural odors such as automo- bile exhaust or stench from a sewage treatment plant are present at certain times. c. Unnatural odot's are distinct and continuously present. 50' Appohd e C. ckl Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology 7, • Wetland identification Assessment questions: aesthetic quality (Page 2 0( 2) Question 5. What noises are audible at the pri- mary viewing location? (Characterization: 57) Answer Rural a. Bird and wildlife noises and other naturally occurring sounds. b. Some traffic and other similar back- . 'ground sounds are andiblein acklition to naturally occurring sounds. c. Continuous traffic or other intru- sive noise is audible in addition to naturally occurring sounds. Urban a. Some traffic and other similar back- ground sounds are audible in addition to naturally occurring sounds. )Continuous traffic or other intru- sive noise is audible in addition to naturally occurring sounds. c. Traffic or other intrusive noise is continuous throughout the day. A Wetland is considered to be potentially pleasing if Question 1 or 2 is answered "a," and all other questions are answered "a" or Answers do not satisfy the above- or below-listed criteria, Appendix C., 151 - , • ' , • , , , . ' • „ , , , , , , , Oregon Freshwater Wetland 'Assessment Methodology Assessment descri 14.0 t Fish habitat Streams and rivers _Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Lakes and ponds Question Question 2 Question 6 Assessment descriptor Water quality Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Assessment descriptor 61'61-(Lt" PL k " ' ',2r*'; CA' ,• '11,^••tt;4! , • ,0,;; Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology maileseemmummuesszosz Wetland identifier Hydrologic control Question Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 • uestion 6 Question 4 Question 5 Assessment descriptor Enhancement potential Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question Question 5 Question 6 Assessment descriptor Education Question Append& G 153 Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology 5e $S• t giaestiO,n •' °raris 41 � J �'i. l�f'�•. L h t._ �� y Recreation Question 1 uestion 2 Question 3 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 r 1 Appendix C Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology Function & condition summary sheet fcrthe Oregon Method Wetland identification: Wildlife habitat Fish habitat Water quality a�uation 'le tr W ILbL I 1stV (DP e"'r - ►1-I.1 p TN 1>ms's ; PieJt t�G"1 -EN 7 t Stir: •Py -wt 1-0 .t4 (J . CA5 J x`7t N I S %So Ct kid i 7t 7t CAA. e4-ta r./ . t .Ip s`t re. -tti,“ Hydrologic control Sensitivity to impact Enhancement potential Education Recreation SC/ki 'w to tc.rart a fq -0- 1% R:.J w `t- --,off. eS)- -fe - /x.1;",5• i r) lA tr ! aJ Of t W `K ■ L _ �'`f iC`'rit 7d +� `r �� "\--t Y t 14- L Aesthetic quality Pd 6-/qtt dosses --s ie, Air4. . i k) re9 Sw+.et LL: 7S. I a OP + —`^ - - I yr • t p 4 ?Di t} s i`t-` t‘k0IS awe-r 6-1 414-4.64 1464 i ntr{ arrat��'e �esc�ript�win o ocrall e0,G a4d "c �',� � � r'..4 � � '�,� � ., 4 . � �. � • , ,fir u S . < i.�,� a� � w�riA } a f � ��"i , �; .�.�� : ��! < il�ons co Appendix r 4 t�:ak 4. .4.;I Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology Watershed summary sheet for the Oregon Method Watershed or community identification: Physical characteristics of watershed or basin Biological information Water quality Land use r; ., , oh • ' „ • ". • t56. • Appehdt4C 7‘"r ; ,•th," "4 4 • "' `IL TO: FROM: DATE: EivionANimm. Tom Hamann, OTAK John Warinner, OTAK March 29, 1994 SUBJECT: Village at Fenno Creek Bridge Analysis -- Summary of Findings 04.40own A printed copy of the existing Fanno, Creek FIS model was provided by the City of ' Tigard. We coded the pertinent section of this model into FIEC-2 and verified our coding with the output of the existing model. The resulting water surface elevations are shown below in the column labeled Existing FIS. To evaluate the relative effect of the proposed bridge, it was necessary to develop a revised base condition, Two new channel cross sections (4.59 and 4.60) were added at the upstream and downstream face of the proposed bridge to represent existing conditions before construction of the bridge. Sections 4.59 and 4.60 were generated by transposing the data for section 4.50 to this location and adjusting it slightly to preserve the existing channel gradient. Comparing columns two and three below, it is apparent that inclusion of the new sections results in a new base water surface condition which is slightly higher than the existing FIS. The proposed bridge was analyzed two different ways: a worst case scenario, with the entire structure perpendicular to flow; and another scenario with the structure coded on a skew to the direction of flow, Though the second scenario resulted in less obstruction to flow, the results of the two runs were nearly identical, In summary, the bridge appears to have a negligible impact on Fanno Creek, even under the worst case scenario. New Base Worst Case Skewed Model Bridge Bridge 146.22 14522 146,22 146,95 146,95 146,96 146.99 146,99 146.99 147,74 147,74 147:74 148.46 148,62 148.02 148,02 148 62 148,52 4. i V•••." .7;‘"4'te • . ''' I ' '" , •••• ,,:, ■.,•,...c..,;., • , .,,•, • . •,. ' ' ' . .• , . 1 .,. 5". , . .,. , . ■-.4.,,. ...J.,1 . , ' .,4. ■ I . .1 01.C.0 II, P.0 R A irj.E D , t.01,AffC H IT E CT 8 ,. P : 0,„ :6e0,. iaitrbotzph.6tellnii.:17:pgm01.1,..,i...sii:.,..;.9.::,:;,,i,',1:,;,,.P..z.i.'7.,,, :,... .N. :j..on,. aRe:1,rtrchit..,e11,uinre 1 -41it. betviCes .4:,... r , .'.41,J tiOtt110.111Cter,11.11?...A, .... i..■`"",', ..:"C.f.,4 t.„.......`: :,:.',.:. -4 . ., -.. ,,, ... '1Vrati_SPO.plial. 10,9, ‘,` iitirstilerital Sertribes .I ,. 4 A'. ' ', • , . ••■";".'.... Water Resources irm,,... !,:,,,..,.....,. 1:.4, l, . 1. ,.• A , • • rirTr14:::1::44.,:,;%,„411*;,.. 4.t.• 0.,,7,, 'I - A. ' ' * 4'.4. ,i• 4 • '' ,.::....,:stt.4%:■••':::, Z:1',,,I.;.; .:Ii ... .•::,:.1 .....: ,4 .4.14:.4,5 . . ; •,, 4, . ,..:;,..,5•:,:, . . ';,..,:•:4,. '..... 4., ,,::,...;,:,,,,,,s.., 4,.. I , ,,, .. , .. 1 4 4 .1.• t , ''''%'• f 0 i, i , '0.• k ,, , , j4. •••.■ • , . , • = t• ••■•4:. . t tO,;10, • • .04 4 • • r I • -1 p p 6 14 I. •■ ‘4,■ 51/4 00, f . , , :, . , i . t:..'10:0 ; . ::0 '. ..,k, ',. ' • " . if 444 i ttori.1. 4.: :: ' il.•:''.4,,,, 1 1:11,';'.4.1.•e" , . ' ", ' "•41 . 40,.?,,,,,'...,;•'.1),„,,,,,Aioril, i o.: .,, .. :. `:`, . ;,"/+•,'.V:',:,,, , ' , ,•.t le,, o., ,, 1, •,,,, ,.. , s tr . , ;t: LEGIBIL T STRIP' 1.** * * * * ** * * ** -** ** * * ** ,. ** }3,*lei * * ** * * * * *. HEC -Z WATER SURFACE PROFILES • Version 4_6.2: May, 1.991 • RUN' DATE 29MAR94 TIME 10:25:32 ** ***** ,*- * * * * * * * * * * *ss * * * * ** *•rte * * * * * * * * * * * * *** - * * 29MAR94 10:25:32 HEC-Z WATER SURFACE PROFILES: Version. 4;.6_2;= May 1991 Tl TZ T3 X x =DOOM P xx X x x x x x x x x xxxxxxx MIX x X x x x X x. x x X x x xxxxxxx xxxx FANNO CREEK HEC2 MODEL.. BRIDGE' MODEL UPDATED BY OTAK (3/24/94).: FLLENAME: FANNO B1..:DAT SA ME AS FANNO NI...DAT` OTHER, THAN THE FOLLOWING REVISIONS: REVISED HEADER. AND TITLE CARDS., SECTION 4..60= COPIED'' AT BRIDGE LOCATION 1., COPIED'. SECTION NAMED 4-59. TO LIE BETWEEN 4..59 AND 4.60 ADDED --Br CARDS TO DEFINE BRIDGE STRUCTURE ADDED GR POINTS- TO CORRESPOND: WITH' BT POINTS' NEW BASE (:FANNO B1-DAT) 100- YEAR: BASE; FLOOD_ PROLLE> FRNNO CK: WORST BRIDGE JL ICHECY -1 JZ NPROE 1` INQ NINV_ 2 0 IPLOT PRFVS 0' L IDIR 0 xSECV STRT METRIC 0 0 XSECH r HVINS 0 ALLDC MG. • U.S. ARMY CORPS' OF ENGINEERS * HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER * * 609 SECOND STREET, SUITE D *` DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 -4687 * (916) 756-1104 * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * *; PAGE 1 THIS RUN EXECUTED 29MAR94 10:25:32 Q WSEL FQ. 145..22 1. IBW CHNIM ITRACE, VARIABLE'; CODES FOR SUMARY PRINTOUT' 150- 200a 38 1 52 22 28' 54 4 34 61 53 27' 21 LEGIBILITY STRIP NC ,_085 _085: ..046 .I ..3; Q.. _ 2 4063 4063 ET' 4.160 0 4_1 1240' 1730 XL 4..16^ 26 1520 1565 580 510 1090 GR.. 157_7 580 156 582 155.,8= 70.0 153 800 151 875 GR 147.7 975 147..5_ 1015 147.2 1100 145.6 1200 144..3 1300 GR. 140 1390 138 1520 136 1540 133.6 1544 132.,4' 1547 GR. 132 .1550 132. -4: 1554 133.:7 1557 136 1565. 140 1575 GR 142 1715 144 1730 146 1750 150 1635 152 1855 GR 154 1900' L 29MAR94 10:25:32: PAGE NC .085 ..085 -047 .3 .5 £T 4..5 0 4..1 1560 1930 XL 4...5- 30 1.717 1760 800 1410 1730 GR 154.4 900 153_5 1004 152-4; 1100 152..0 1200 152 1300 GR 150 =..3 1400 148 1500 147 1545 142.5 1590 141.2 1664 141.9> 1717 141.7 1725 136.8! 1731 135.7 1733 133.4 1738 GR 132 -2 1741 132.7 1745 135..7 1751 138!_1 1752 141.7 1760 GR 142..3 1817 143_3: 1900 145.5 1965 150 2035 151 2100 GR 153.3 2200 154.7 2280 156 2330 159. -3 2400 159.6 2435 DOWNSTREAM FACE: OF PROPOSED BRIDGE`• COPY OF SECTION` 4.360` 459: 0 4..1. 1560 1930 1tI 4.59' 34? 1717 1760 300 325 375 GR 155.3` 900 154.4' 5000; 153.3 ' 1100 : 152.9 1208 152.9' 1300 GR. 151_,2 1400 148 _9 1.500' 147 ..9 154S 143.4 1590 I42.1 1664' GR 142-4_ 1675 142..8: 1717 142.8- 1718 142.6 1725 137_7 1731 GR 136..6 1733 1343' 1738 133.1 17 41 133..6 1745 336.6 1751 CR. 13.9 -0 1752 142_6 1760 142.8 1761. 142..9 178.0' 143.2 18107 GR 144..2 1900 146.4 1965 150..9' 2035 151...9 2100 154-2 2200 GR 155..6 2280% 156.9 2330 160.2 2400 160_5- 2435 BT -It 1675 142-4 1.42..4 1717 144.8 142.8 1713 148..1 T42.8 BT` 1725 148.1 142_8' 1731 148.1 142.8 1733 148.1 142.8 BT 1738 14821 142.8: 1741 148.1 142_8 1745 148.1 142.8 B1 1751 148.1 142.8 1752 148.1 142.8' 1760 148.1 142.8 BT` 1761 144-8' 142.8" 1780 142.9' 142.9 UPSTREAM: FACE OF PROPOSED: BRIDGE`. FT 4.60= XL 4..60s X2 4.1 1560 1930 0 0 20 2G Sr 2. 4042 4042 ET 4 -64 0 4.:1 515 975 XL 4..64 22 530 575 280 305 355 GR 156 0 154 60 152 245 150 380 150 490 GR 148 510 144 530 138 -8 533 137..5 535 135.2 540 GR 134. 543 134.5 547 137..5 553 139..9 554 140 575 GR 142 615 142. 740 144 895 146 945 148 1015 2.0 1 GR 152 1260` 158 - 1490 a a __ 3.- 11.46 • S. � } �. � �►`"� � ., _. .. LEGIBILITY STRIP ET 4..67 a X1 4.67 26 GR L60 0' GR 150: 455 GR 1.46 905• GR. 134-7, 1015 1 4.1 1005= 158: 148' 144 135, 560 1030 150 520'' 960 1018 1235 340 156 146 140 135.8 170 175 645 1005 1021 500'. 154 144' 135.8 140 255- 680 1008 1030 152 144 134.8- 142 29MAR9.4 10" :25:32 GR 142 1190 144 GR 160; 1395 1205 146 1230 148 1250 150 310 810 1011 1055 PAGE 1270 ET 4.-73 0 4_1 X1 4.x.73 25- 1347 GR 160. 500 160' GR 152 84:0= 150 GR. 3:43-..,2 1324 143.2 GR 136..5 1358' 136_8`. GR 144 1435: 146 NC .080 -080 -050: QT' 2 4038' 4038: ET 4..77 0: 4..1. XI 4.7T IT 780 GR. 160 0 158: GR. 140= 800 138: GR 150= 855 154 GR. 168: 1540 170' 1 29MAR94_ I0 :25F32: SECNO DEPTH CWSEL, ¢ QLOB QCH TIME VLOB VCH SLOPE: XLOBL XLCH *-2ROF 1 0 1100 1375 525 978- 1339- 1361 1720': 1730` 100` 158 148 142.6 137-6 148 360 680 1045 1347` 1364 1740 620 156 146 137'..6- 140- 150: 715 - 1105 1351 1370 1785- 803 1275 1354 1375. 1865: 780 855 195 805 1025 1660 855_ 430 154 137..5: 156_5- 250 370 815. 1100 485 152 138 160 610 825 1165 150 140 164 780 830 1400 PAGE. CRIWS QROB VROB WS ELK ALOB- XNL; ITRIAL ES ACHI XNCK IDC HV AROB' XNR ICONT' HL VOL WTM CORAR GLOSS TWA ELMIK TOPWID L -BANK ELEV R -BANK ELEV SSTA ENDST CCEHV .,100' CEAV= *SECNO- 4-160 4.160 4063.00: 1504`.2 .00 1-35- - 000665 580`.. .300 145:.:22 1719.9 3.79 1090-. CCHV .300: CEHV .500: ''''SECNO' 4.500' .00: 838.9: 1_19 510.: 145.22 1117.5 .085 0 145..33- 453'. 4 ..04:6 0- .11 703-7 .085- 0- .00 .,0 . -000 .00 .00 .0 132.00 512.97 138.00 136.00 1229.23 1742.20 3302 WARNING: CONVEYANCE 'CHANGE: OUTSIDE= OE ACCEPTABLE: RANGE,. KRATIO = -69 4.500: 4063.0: .12 14..24 1170'._8- 1.73 146.44 1845.2 4:.,71 .00 1046.9 1.51 .00` 675..6 .085 146. G 392.1 .047 1.25 55..9 _000- .03 1.41..80.'- 12.4 141.70 132. 20` 1550.65 LEGIBILITY STRIP - 001380 800.. 1730.. 1410 :•_ 2 0 _00' 428.89 1979_54 *SECNO.= 4..590 4590 13.85 146_95 _00 -00' 147..17 .23 _54: ..02 142.80 4063.0 TT34_9'- 1958.2 969.9: 607.6 375. -2 605..0` 68-..4 15.5 142.60 .15 1..87 5.22 1..60 .085 .047 .085 .000 133..10 1554.54 .001799, 300.: 375. 325.. 2 0 0 ..00 418..96 1973.50 *SECNO 4..600 4_600` 13..89 146..99 .00 .00 147.21 ..22 .04 . 00 142.80 4063_0: 1137.:6 1949.4 976..0 612.8 376.6 611..8 69.2 15..7' 342..60 ..15 1.86 5..18= 1 -50 .085 ..047 ..085 .000 133.10 1554.22 .001761 20'.. 20'.. 20. 0 0 0 .00 419.77 1973..99 *SECNO 4. -640. 3302 WARNING: CONVEYANCE; CHANGE OUTSIDE. OF ACCEPTABLE RANGE,, KRATIO 1.56 4 -.640= 13.50 5.4750: .00 .00 147.60 .09 .34 .04 140.00 4042_0' 75.5= 1532.4 2434..1 70.3 426.9 1810.2 83.1 18.8 140.00` .19 1_07' 3 °.59 1-34- .085 .047` _085. .000 134..00 511.25- _000713 280.. 355 305., 2 0 0 .00 486.32 997.57 1` 29MAR94 10:25:32 PAGE- SECNO' DEPTH:: CWSEL: CRIWS WSELK EG RV HL OLOSS L -BANK' ELEV Q QLOB QCK QROB: ALOE ACE AROB VOL TWA. R -HANK ELEV TIME VLOB: VCK VROB` XNL XNCF XNR. WIN ' ELMIN SSTA SLOPE: XLOBL- XLCH XLOBR "TRIAL- IDC: ICONT CORAR TOPWID. ENDST *SECNO:4..670= 4..670 13.04 147..74 .00 .00 147..81 .:08' .21 ..00 140.00 4042.0 1399.1 1080.8 1562.2. 1343.8 282.9 1097.1 98.,4 22..4 140.00` ..2.4. 1.04 3.82 1.42 .085 .047 .:085 .000 134.70 536.54 .000680 340;. 500'.. 170., 2 0 0 .00 710.81 1247.35 *SECNO 4.330_ 4_730 11.52 148.02 .00 .00 148.14 .11 .31 .09 142.60 4042..0 1224.0 1201.4 1616.5 905..4; 267`_4: 1183..5 114.3 26.1 142..00 .28 1.35 4-49` 1.37 .085 .047 .085 ..000 136.50' 1044.22 .001168: 100?.. 620. 360.. 2 0 0: .00 696.30 1740.52 *SECNO 4.770: 3301 EjV CHANGED ? MORE THAN FLVINS 3302 Y NINE CONVEYANCE; CHANGE OUTSIDE OF ACCEPTABLE RANGE, KRATIO °= .42 4-770. 11 .02 148-52 .00 .00 149.65 1..13' 1.00 .51 150.00 4.038.0. .0 4038.0 .0 .0 473.: <; .0 126.3! 29.1 150.00 -29> X00- 8.52 .00 ..000 .050 .000' .000: 137.50 782.,97 _006766 430.. 485._ 250. 2. 0 0 ` .00 68.33 851..29 LEGIBILITY STRIP' 29MAR9:4 10:-.25:32 TI TZ T3; PAGE NEW BASE MODEL { FANNO: BL. DATy 1.00 -YEAR: METHOD? ONE FLOODWAY PROFILE FANNO? CK . WORST- BRIDGE J1, 'CHECK 0 J2 NPROF INQ NINV 3' 0` 'PLOT- PREYS IDIR STRT METRIC HVINS XSECV XSECH FN ALLDC IBW WSEL FQ 145_24 CHNIM ITRACE. 29MAR94 102532 PAGE. SECNO, Q TIME SLOPE lrPROE 2 0` DEPTH QLOB`: VLOB XLOBL CWSEL QC}[ VC}[ XLCE WSELK P1LOB XNL: ITRL L:. EC ACE XNCH IDC HV AROB XNR ICONT HL VOL WTN CORAR. OLOSS TWA ELMIN TOPWID L -BANK ELEV R -BANK ELEV SSTA ENDST CCHV -100 CEHV -- _.300' }SECNO 4-160` 3'.470= ENCROACHMENT` STATIONS= 4.,160 13.24- 145.24: 4063.0: 1507.8' 1717.5- _00: 1.34 3.78- - 000658' 580_ 1090 -., 1240.0 1730-0; TYPE= 1 ..00 145.22 145..35 837.6 1122 -3 454.3 1.20 ..085 ..046- 510. 0 0 TARGET= 490.000 .11 . 00' 699.6 .0 ..085 . -000. 0, _00` . 00' .ii 132,.00 490.00 3302 WARNING:: CONVEYANCE - CHANGE OUTSIDE OF ACCEPTABLE RANGE, KRATIO -69' 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 4:_500 14.25 146-45 4063" -.01 1189-7 1861 _ 3 -12 I_7'7 4. -74: - 001396' 800`- 1730'. *SECNO' 1.590 1560-0: .00+ 1012.0: 1.59- 141.0`.. 1930 -0 TYPE= 1 146 -44 14 -6-63 673 -6 392.7 -085 ..047 2 0 TARGET= .18 635.9 ..085 0 370..000 1.25 .04' 54.9. 11.2 .000 132_ -20 ..00 370_00 3470= ENCROACHMENT' STATIONS= 4.590; 13.87 146 -97 4063`.•0' 1148.2 19.65.2 1560..0' 1930 -0 TYPE= 1 .00' 146.95 147...20 949 -6 609.2 376.1 TARGET= _23 566-2 370.000 .54 67..1 .02 142.80 13.9 142_60 LEGIBILITY STRIP` _15 1..88; 5.23 1.:68s _.085 _047 .085 _000 133.10 1560.00 ..001798 300'.. 375. 325.. 2 0` -0 .00 370-00 1930.00 ±SECNO 4..600'- 3470- ENCROACHMENT STATIONS 1560.0` 1930..0 TYPE= 1 TARGET= 370.000 4.600 13..91 147.01 .00 146.99 147.23 .23 .,04: .00 142.80 4.0.63.0` 1151..5. 1957.0 954_5 614.2. 377.5 571..6 67.8 14.1 1.42.60 .15 1.:87 5.18 1.67 ..085 .047- .000 133.10 1560..00 .001761 20 "- 20. 20'. 0 0 0 .00 370.00 1930.00 PAGE 29MAR94 10 :25 =32' SECNO DEETW CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG HV HL OLOSS' L-BANK ELEV Q QLOB= QM{ QROB ALOB' ACH AROB' VOL TWA. R -BANK ELEV TIME VLOB VCR VROB'. XNL XNCH XNR WTN ELMIN SSTA. SLOPE XLOBL XLCE XLOBR, 'TRIAL IDC ICONT CORAR TOPWID ENDST *SECNO= 4_640 3302 WARNING: CONVEYANCE CHANGE: OUTSIDE OF ACCEPTABLE RANGE,- KRATIO = 1.57 3470: ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 515.0: 975.0 TYPE= 1 TARGET= 460.000 4.640 13.52. 147.52 ..00 147.50 147.62 .09' .34 -04 140..00 4.042 -0? 77.sL 1528.3 2436.6 67 -9> 427-9 1811.5 81..7' 17.0 14 .19 1.14 3..57 1.:35 .085 .:047" .:085 .000 134_00: 510`00 .000704 280_ 355 -- 305. 2 0 0 .-00 460.00 975.00 *SECNO 4.:.670- 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS = 560 -0 1235.0 TYPE= 1 TARGET= 675.000 4.670 13..05; 147.75 .,00' 1.47_74 147 -83' .08 -21 .00` 140.00 4042.0' 1406.3 1077_0` 1558.7 1347..6 283..4 1093.3' 96.9 20.4 140..00 -24 1.04 3.80 1.43 .085 .047 .085 .000 134.70 560.00 ..000672 340_ 500. 170. 2 0 0 .00 675.00 1235.00 *SECNO- 4..730 3470 ENCROACHMENT' STATIONS= 1100 _0 1730..0 TYPE= 1 TARGET= 630.000- 4 -730_ 11.54 148.04 .00' 148.02 148.15 .12 .30 .02 142.60 4042.0 12049= 1206.7 1630.4 857-6 267..3= 1183.:8' 1.12.8' 23.8 142..00 _28' 1.40. 4..51. 1.38 .085 .047 _085 -000 136.50' 1100.00 ..001171 100- 620. 360. 2 0 0 ..00 630.00 1730.00 }SECNO 4..770- 3301 HI CHANGED; MORE THAN HVINS 3302. WARNING:. CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE OE ACCEPTABLE RANGE, KRATIO - .42 3470= ENCROACHMENT` STATIONS= 780.0 855.0 TYPE= 1 TARGET= 75.000 LEGISILiTi YSTRIP 4 _77-0 11_04 148..54 ..00 148-52 149 - 66 1.12 1.00 ..50 150.00 4038.0- _ - -0 4038..0 .,0• -0 475_1 ._0 124.6 26 -.6 100000.00 .29= _.00 8_50' _00 _000 -050 .000 - 000' 137.50 782..93' 006715 430.. 485- 250.. 2 0 0 -00 68.41 851.34 PLOTTED- POINTS= (BY PRIORITY); E- ENERGY,W WATER SURFACE 'rI INVERT,C= CRITICAL W.S'_,L -LEFT' BANK,R- RIGHT BRNK,M- LOWER. END STA ELEVATION' 132.. 137- 142.: 147'.- 152.: 157`.. 16Z.. 167_. 172. 177 . SECNO CUMDIS= 4.16 0.. R .. L; WE - M • . 100. I R. L _ E, .. _ M 200.. I R. L E .. - NI 300. I R: L E, _ _ M _ 400_, I _R L E 14 .. 500.4 I .,R L. .. E _ K _ 600.. I .. R E, WE .. .. M .. . 700.. Z R L. WE - - M- 800;_ 1 o A: L: _ E, M., - 900 - I .. R. L. E .- _ M' V 1000.: 1 _ R L. E - - N: , 11.00.. Z R L E -. .M 1200« I _ RL .. E . M 1300-., I RL. .. WE.. . . M 1400. 1 .. RL, .. WE. 14 _. 1500.. RL., E. _ M - 1600_ 1 _ L. E . M 1700. 1 RL E. .. M Y , ' 4..50' 1800.. 1 RL. E. M ., M 1900. CI L. WE .. WE M . = 2000`e CI -� RL M 2100.. C I .. ...L- E 4.59 2200 C I .. ...RL, E: M - 4_601 2300. C I ..RL E - ` M 2400. C I L WE . M . . .. 4.64. 2500 ,. G _ - _ L. _E _ M 2600. C I _ L -E° 2700 C 1 .. L ..E. .. _ K 2800.. C I .. L. ..E . M 2900- C I - L .WE; -M' ` 4..6T 3000.. C I L. - E 100 E, M 3.:. C _ _ L - � 1'1_ . 3200- C I RL, _ E - _ 3300`.. C 1 _ RL- - E. M 3400 C 1 L. - E M 3500'. C 1 - RL. .: E° M - RL: - E M' ' R 4.:73 3600.. Cl I. ..M w _ - 3700.t C I.. L ., WE: R L .. W E; - M' 3800F C _ '� M 3900 C I L WE _ - R R .1 M' 4.000 C � � W' 'E M . 4..77' 4100 R - C .1 • _ W. EL _ PAGE. 29MAR94 10:25:32: LEGIBILITY STRIP THIS RUN EXECUTED 29MAR94 10:25:37 HEC-Z WATER SURFACE; PROFILES: Version 4.6.2; May-1991 NOTE- ASTERISK: ( *) AT- LEFT` OF CROSS- SECTION NUMBER INDICATES MESSAGE INS SUMMARY.' OF ERRORS 'LIST' FANNO CK WORST BRIDGE SUMMARY PRINTOUT SECNO CWSEL DIFKWS EG DIEEG- SSTA. STENCL STCHL STCHR STENCR ENDST TOPWID .01K 4..160: 145.22 .00; 145..33' _00 1229.23 .00 1520.00 1565.00 .00 1742.20 512.97 1575.95 4.160? 145.2.4 1 .02 145._35 .02 1240_00: 1240.00 1520.00 1565._00 1730_00 1730.00 490.00 1583.35 4_500- 146..44 .00 146-61 .00 1550.65 ..00 1717.00 1760.00 .00 1979.54 428.89 1093. 4.500 146_4.5 .02 146.,63 ..02 1560'.-00- 1560.00 1717.00' 1760..00' 1930_00° 1930.00 370.00: 1087.2 ' 4 ®590 146.95 .00 147.17 ..00 1554.54 . .00 1717.00 1760.00 .00 1973.50 418.96 958.02. 4_590 146.97 .02 147..20= .02 1560_00 1560.00 1717.00 1760.00 1930.00 1930.00' 370.00 958,21. 4600:. 146.99 .00 14721 .00 155422 .00 1717.00 1760.00 .00 1973.99 419.77 968.19 4-.600 147.01 .02 147.23, .02 1560.00 1560.00 1717.00 1760.00 1930.00 1930.00 370.00 968.10 4..640' 147_50' ..00: 147.,60 .00: 511.25 .00 530.00 575.00 .00 997.57 486.32 1513.78 4_640: 147_.52 ..02 147..62 _02 515.00 515.00 530.00 575.00 975.00 975.00. 460.00 1523.59 4-670 147.74` .00 147..81 .00 536.54 .00 1005.00 1030.00 .00 1247.35 710.81 1549.97 4..670 147.75 _02 147..83: .02. 560.00 560.00` 1005.00 1030.00 1235.00 1235.00 675.00 1559.61. 4.730: 148 -.02 ..00= 148..11 ..00= 1044.22 .00 1347.00 1375.00 .00 1740.52 696.30 1182.83 1..730: 148.04. _02 148.15 .02. 1100.00 1100.00 1347.00 1375.00 1730.00 1730.00 630.00 1180.93 4 :.5770= 148`.52 _00- 149_.65- .00 782.97 .00 780.00 855.00 .00 851.29 68.33 490.91 4.770' 148-54 .02 149.66 .01 782.93- 780.00 780.00 855.00 855.00 851.34 68.41 492.76 29MAR94 10:25 :32 PAGE. 10 FRNNG' C}C:: WORST BRIDGE SUMMARY" PRINTOUT TABLE 150` SECNO XLCH: ELTRD° ELL ELMIN Q CWSEL, CRIWS EG? 10 *KS VCH AREA .01K 4.x60_- ..0o- ..00= ..00 132.00 4063.00: 145.22 .00 145.33 6.65 3.79 2274.55 1575.95 4.160: ..00: ..00 -00 132.00 4063.00 145.24 .00 145.35 6.58 3.78 2276.15 1583.35 4..500: 1730..00 .00 .00 132..20: 4063.00 146..44 .00 146.61 13.80 4.71 1761.22 1093.73 4.500 1730..00' .00 ..00 132_20: 4063'..00- 146._45 .00 14.6..63 13'.96 4'.•74 1702:.18 1087.29 LEGIBILITY STRIP. 4-590 375 -00 _00 -00 133.10 4063.00: 146.95 .00 147.17 17.99 5.22 1587.89 958.02 4.590 375.00 -00 _00 133.10: 4063..00' 1461..97 .00 147.20 17.98 5.23 1551.54 958.21 4_6001 20..00 .00 .00' 133.10 4063 -00 14 -6.99 .00 147.21 17.61 5.18 1601.18 968.19 4.6001 20.00 _00` ..00: 133..10 4063.00 147.01 -00 147.23 17.61 5.18 1563.34 968.10 } 41.640% 355.00 .00` .00 134.00 4042_00 147.50 .00 147.60 7.13 3.59 2307.45 1513.78 4-640 355.00` ..00` .00 134.00 4042.00 147..52 .00 147.62 7.04 3.57 2307.19 1523.59 4_670 500.00 .00 .00 134 -70' 4042.00 147.74 .00 147.81 6.80 3.82 2723.86 1549.97 4..670: 500.00" _00 ..00 134.70 4042.00 147.75 .00 147.83- 6.72 3.80 2724.28 1559.61 4 .730:. 620 -00 -00 _00. 136.50` 4042..00': 148.02 ..00 148.14 11.68 4.49 2356.25 1182.83 4..730; 620.00 ..00 .00 136.=50= 4042.00 148.04 .00 148.15 11.71 4.51. 2309.30 1180.93 4..710' 485.00- .00 -00 137.50- 4038.00 148 -52 _00 149.65 67.66 8.52 473.75 490.91 4_770- 485..00 .00 .00 137.50 4038_00 148_54: .00 149.66 67.15- 8.50 475.06 492.76 1 PAGE 11 29LAR94, 10- :25:32 FANNO CK: WORST BRIDGE SECNO Q CWSEL DIEWSE DIEWSC DIFKWS TOPWID XLCH 4.160 4063...00 145_22 ..00 .00 -00= 512. -97` .00 4..160: 4063 -00` 145.24 .02 .00: .02 490.00 .00 4 4-500= 4063..00 146.44 .00 1.22 ..00 428_89'- 1730.00 4.500; 4063 -00" 146.45 .02 1.21 .02 370.00 1730..00: 4-590 4063_00 146.95 .00 _51 .00 418..96 375.00 4..590 4063.00: 14.6..97 _02 .52 .02 370.00 375.00 4-600 4063 -00- 14699 .00 .04 .00 419.77 20.00 4-.600 4063..001 147-01 ..02 .04 _02 370.00 20..00 4_640 4042.00 14`7..50' _00' .51 _00 486.32 355..00 4.640 4042.00 147.52 .02 -52 -02 460_.00 355.00 4.670 4042..00' 147..74 .00= .23; .. -00 710..81 500.00 4_670 4042.00` 147..75- .02 .23 .02 675.00: 500.00 41..730- 4042 -00 148.02 .00 -25 .00 696_30 620.00 4.730" 4042.00 148.04 .02 .29: ..02 630.00 620.00 4..770` 4038.00 148.52 .00 .49 ..00 68.33 485.00 4.770- 4038.00 148..54` .02 -50' .02 68.41 485.00 PAGE 12 29MAR94 10 25:32 SUMMARY OF :ERRORS AND SPECIAL NOTES LEGIBILITY STRIP' WARNING SECNO WARNING SECNO= WARNING SECNO= WARNING SECNO= WARNING SECNO= WARNING SECNC=- 4..500 PROFILE= 1 CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE ACCEPTABLE RANGE'. 4..500 PROElLE= 2 CONVEYANCE. CHANGE. OUTSIDE ACCEPTABLE RANGE 4.640 PROFILE= 1 CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE': ACCEPTABLE. RANGE. 4..640 PROFILE= 2. CONVEYANCE CHANGE: OUTSIDE: ACCEPTABLE RANGE 4-770` PROFILE= 1 CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE ACCEPTABLE' RANGE, 4..770 PROFILE= 2 CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE- RANGE'. PAGE 13 10 :25 ~32 FLOODWAY DATA, FANNO? CK WORST` BRIDGE PROE'ILE NO.. 2 FLOODWAY — WATER SURFACE ELEVATION STATION WIDTH: SECTION MEAN WITH WITHOUT DIFFERENCE- AREA VELOCITY FLOODWAY FLOODWAY 4.160= 490- 18s 145.2 145..2 4.500 370.. 1702.. 2..4 146..4'+ 146..4 4-590 370. 1552.. 2.6 146.9 146..9 4 .. 600 370 _ 1563'.: 2.. 6 147..0 147..0' 4..640? 4: 6 0.. 230T. 1.8 147-.5 147.5 4..670 675_ 2724;.. 1.5: 147-7 147..7 4..730` 630 2309`. 1..8= 148.0; 148..0 4.770; 68'.. 475 8.5 148-5 148.5 LEG !LITY STRIP HEC-2 WATER SURFACE PROFILES *- Version 4_6.2; May 1991 RUN: DATE 29MAR94 TIME 1025:43 * * * U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS * HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER * 609 SECOND STREET, SUITE D * DAVIS,- CALIFORNIA 95616- 4687' * * (916) 756-1104 * x X= XXXXXXX XXx. x x x x x x x x x XXXXXXX XXXX. x x x x x x x x x x X x xxxxxxC xxxx PAGE 29MAR94- 10 :25::44 THIS' RUN EXECUTED 29MAR94 10 :25 :44: HEC-2: WATER SURFACE PROFILES Version 4.6-2; May 1991 FANNO CREEK HEC2 MODEL.. BRIDGE MODEL UPDATED BY OTAIC (3129194).. FILENAME` FANNO B2..DAT SAME: AS EANNO B17..DAT" OTHER THAN THE FOLLOWING RE1ISIONS: REVISED= HEADER AND TITLE CARDS". REVISED BRIDGE TABLE CARDS TO REFLECT SKEW NOTE: SKEW: ANGLE Ott X2 FIELD= 9 DID` NOT POSITION ACROSS CHANNEL- NEW: BASE (FANNO BZ.DAT) 100 -YEAR BASE FLOOD PROFILE'. FANNO CREEK SKEWED BRIDGE Ti s2 ¶3 'CHECK INQ NINV' IDIR - J2 NPROE' 1 IPLOT PREYS XSECV 0- L J3`- VARIABLE CODES FOR SUMMARY PRINTOUT 150; 200' 38 22 2S 54 NC .:055 .085 -04;6 STRT METRIC HVINS 0 0 0' XSECli ALLDC Q WSEL 145.22 IBW CHNIM:. 'TRACE LEGIBILITY-STRIP QT- Z 4063 4063- ET 4..160: 0 4.:1 1240: 1730 X1 4..160 26 1520 1565: 5801 510- 1090 GR 157.3 580 156 582 155_8 700 153 300- , 151 875 GEL 147_7 975 147_5 1015 147.2 1100 145.6 1200 144.3` 1300 GR 140: 1390 138 1520 136 1540 133_6 1544 132.4_ 1547' GR 132 1550: 132.,4 1554 133..7 1557 136 1565 140' 1575- GR 142 1715 144 1730 14.6 1750 150 1835 152 1855 GR. 154 1900 NC ..085 .085 _047` .3 .5 ET 4.5; 0 4_I 1560 1930 X1 4 -5; 30 1717 1760 800? 1410 1730 GR 154.=4 900 153.5 1000 152..4 1100 152.0 _ 1200 152 1300 GE 150-3 1400 148! 1500 147 1545 142.5: 1590 141.2 1664 GR 141..9' 1717 141..7° 1725 136.8 1731 135_7 ' 1733 133.4' 1738 GR 132.2 1741 132..7 1745 135..7 1751 138_,1 1752 141.-7 1760 1 29MAR94 10:25 :44 PAGE 2 GR. 142-3 1817 143_3`: 1900. 145.5 1965 150 2035 151 2100 GR 153.3 = 2200? 154.7 2280 156 2330 159.3 2400 159.6 2435 DOWNSTREAM FACE OF PROPOSED: BRIDGE BRIDGE TiABLE ADJUSTED: FOR SKEW OF BRIDGE WITH- OVERBANK FLOW ET 4..59 0` 4..1 1560 1930 X1 4-59 34 1717` 1760 300 325. 375 GR 155..3;= 900 154..4 1000- 153.3 1100 152.9 1200 152.9 1300 GR. 151.2 1400 148-9 1500 147-9" 1545 143.4 1590 142.1 1664 GR 142..4 1675: 142-8 1717 142..8; 1718 142.6 1725 137..7' 1731 GR 136..6 1733 134_3 1738 133.1 1741 133.6 1745 136.6 1751 GR 139.0 1752 142 -6 1760 142..8? 1761 142.9 1780 143.2' 1817 GR> 144;_2 1900 146..4 1965 150.9 2035 151.9 2100' 154.2' 2200 GR. 155.6 2280 156.9 2330 160.2 2400 160 -5 2435 BT 11 1717 142_8: 142.8 1718 148..1 142_8 1725 148.1 142.8 BT 1731 14.8..1 142..8- 1733 148.1 142..8 1738 148.1 142.8: BT 1741 142.8 142.8 1745 142.8 142.8 1751 142.8 142.8` BT 1752 142.8; 142..8' 1760 142..8' 142.8'- • UPSTREAM: FACE; OE PROPOSED= BRIDGE: ET' 4..60; 0 4.1 1560 1930' XL 4..60: 0 o- 0 20 20 X2 20? 1 QT 2 4042 4042 ET 4:..64 0` 4.,1 515 975; XI 4..64 22 530 575 280 305. 355 GR. 156' 0 154 60 152 245 150 380? 150 490 GR. 148 510 140 530 138.8 533 137..5 535 135.2' 540 GR 134 543 134.5= 547 137.5 553 139 -9 554 140 575 GR 142 615 142 740 144 895 146 945 148 1015. GR. 152 1260; 158 ": 1490 LIEGIBILITY STRIP ET 4_67 0 X1 4:.67` 26 GR L60 0: GR 150 455 GR ' 146 905 GR 134_7 1015 GR 142 1190: GR 160: 1395 29MAR94 10:25:44 4 -1 560 1235 1005 1030 340 :: 170 500 158. 150= 156 175. 154! 255 152 310 148 520 146 645 144 680 144 810 144 960 140 1005 135.8 1008! 134.8 1011 135 1018: 135.8: 1021 140 1030 142 1055 144 1205 146 1230 148': 1250 150 1270 PAGE- ET 4..73? 0 4-1 1100 1730 X1 4_73 25 1347 1375 100 360 620! GR. 160 500 160 525 158 680- 156 715 154 803 GR 152 840 150 978 148 1045 146 1105 144', 1275 GR 143.2 1324 143..2. 1339- 142.6 1347 137.6 1351 136.6 1354 GR 136_5, 1358= 136..8' 1361 137'.6 1364 140 1370 142 1375 GR 144 1435 14.6 1720- 148` 1740 150` 1785: 154 1865 NC .080 .080: .050 QT 2 4038 4 • 4.77 0 4:.1 780' 855 XI. 4.77 17 780 855: 430 250` 485 GR 160> 0' 158 195 154 370 152. 610 150 780 GR 140: 800: 138; 805 137. ,5 815 138 825 140 830 GR 150 855 154 1025. 156.5 1100 160 1165 164 14100 GR 168 1540 170:- 1660 1 PAGE 4 29MAR94 10:25 :44 SECNO= DEPTK CWSEL- CRIWS WSELK EGG RV ML. GLOSS L -BANK ELEV Q QLOB= SiCIL QROB- ALOB ACR AROB VOL: TWA. R -BANK ELEV TIME, VLOB VCR VROB= XNL XNCR XNR WTN' ELMIN SSTA; SLOPE XLOBL XLCIT XLOBR ITRIAL: IDC` ICONT` CORAR TOPWID EN DST ''EROS' I OE CCHV= _100_ CEHY .300 , *SECNO. 4.160; 4.160 13_.22 145.22 _00 145-.22 145-_33' .11 .00 .00 138 -00 40.63,'.0 1504.-2. 1719.9 838 -9' 1117.5. 453'.:41 703-7 .0; .0 136.00 _00° 1,:35 3_79= 1_19. ..085 .046 .085 .000 132_00 1229.:23 .:000665 580,. 1090- 510 0 0 0 .00 512.97 1742.20 CCFHV = _300 CET -500: *SECNO' 4.500 3302 WARNING: CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE OF' ACCEPTABLE' 'RANGE,. KRATIO .:69' 4..500 It -24 146.44 .00 ..00 146_61 -18 1.25 . -03 141.90 4063..0= 1170-_8- 1845.2 1046..9 675_.6 392.1 693-.6 55..9- 12..4 141.70 «12 1 .-7a 4;.71 1.51 .-085 _047' .085 .000 132.20 1550.65 _001350 8..002.. 1730. 14102.. 2 0' 0 ..00 428.89' 1979.54 LEGIBILITY STRIP 'SECNO ° 4..590` 4.590 13 =.,85 146.,95• -00: .00 147.17 .23` _54 -02 142.80 4063 -0 1134..9 1958.2 969_9: 607-6 375..2 605.0 68..4 15.5, 142.60 _15 1.8T 5 -22 .1_60` -- ..085; .047 .085 .000 133..10 1554.54 .001799 300- 375_ 325. 2 0 0 .00 418..96 1973.50 * SECNO 4..600_ 4_600'= 13.89 146_99 .00 .00` 147.21 . 22 . 04 .A0 142..80 4063..0' 1137.6 1949..4'; 976.0 612x.8' 376.,6 611.8 69.2 15.7 142.60` .15 1.86 5.18 1.60 .;085 ..047` .085 .000 133.10 1554.22 - 001761 20.e 20.. 20- 0 0 0 .00 419_77' 1973.99 * SECNO- 4_640 3302 WARNINGS CONVEYANCE CHANGE. OUTSIDE: OE ACCEPTABLE. RANGE,: KRATIO 1.56 4.640 13 -50'' 141..50: ..00 .00 147.60 .09 .34 .04 140.00 4 042 -0 75.5 1532.4 2434 -1 70.3 426_9' 1.810.2 83.1 18_8 140.00! .19 1.07 3 -59 1.3 4! .085 .047 .085 .000 134.00 511.25 .000713 280. 355 -. 305- 2 0 0 .00 486.32 997.57 1 29MAR94 10:25 :44 PAGE SECNO DEPTH' CWSEL; CRIWS: WSELK EGG HV HL OLOSS L-BANK ELEV Q QLOB QCK QROB ALOB ACH AROB VOL, TWA R -BANK ELEV TIME VLO$ Val VROB XNL: XNCK XNR, WTN ELMIN. SSTA SLOPE XLOBL, XLCH XLOBR ITRIAL IDC ICONT' CORAR TOPWID ENDST } SECNO: 4-670 4..670 13..04 14 T-74 .00 ..00' 147.81. ..08 _21 ..00 140..00` 4642.0= 1399_1 1080.8; 1562.2 1343.8 282.9 1097.1 98.4 22.4 140 -00 ..24 1_04. 3.82 1.42 .085 .047 .085 .000 134.70 536..54 .000680 340. 500 - 170. 2: a 0 ..00' 710.81 1247.35 * SECNO 4..730 4.-730 11..52 148..02 ..00 .00 148.14_ .11 .31 .02 14 2.60 4042.0 T274..0 1201.4 1616.5 905.4 267.4 1183.5 114.3'= 26. -1 142.00 .28 1.:35 4.49 1.37 ..085 .047 . -085 .000 136.50° 1044.22 ..001168 100. 620.. 360. 2 0 0 .00 696..30 1740`-52 3301 IBT CHANGED MORE THAW HM IS 3302 WARNING:. CONVEYANCE CHANGE: OU'TSTDE OE ACCEPTABLE RANGE,. KRAT:IO = .42 4.770' 11.02 148.52 ..00' .00 149.65 1. 13 1.00 .51 150.00 4038.0 .0 4038-0 .0 .-0 473 -7 .0 126.3 29..1 150`.00' .29 .00 8.52 ..00: .000 .050 .000 .000 137.50 782.97` .006766 430`.- 485. 250. 2 0 0 .00° 68.33` 851..29 LEGIBILITY-STRIP` 1 T1 TZ T3 29MAR54 10 2 s:44 NEW BASE MODEL. (':PANNO- B2.DAT)` I00--YEAR METHOD ONE ELOODWAY 2ROEILE EANNO CREEK SKEWED- BRIDGE J1. ICHECK INQ 0 3 J2 NPROF IPLOT PREYS' NINV 15 29MAR94 I,0r25:44 SECNO DEPTH; QLOB TIME VLOE SLOPE XLOBL *EROE'Z 0 CWSEL: QCK: VCR XLCH CCiV .100` CEHV= .300; *SECNO 3470 'ENCROACHMENT' STATIONS- 4.160- 13.2 4 145.24: 41063� 1507..81 1717`.5 ..00 1_34; 3`.78 ..000658- 580.. 1090., CCHV .300 CEHV ..500` *SECNO: 4.500 IDIR STRT METRIC HVINS Q WSEL EQ 145.24 XSECV XSECH: Et ALLDC IBW CHNIM'- ITRACE CRIWS QROB VROB XLOBR. WSELK ALOB XNL, ITRIAL: EG- ACK XNCHr IDC 1240.0; 1730.0 TYPF,= ..00 145.,22 145.35 837.6 1122.3` 4541.3' 1. -20` .085 .046 510`.. 0 0: HV AROB XNR. ICONT' HL- VOL WTN CORAR OLOSS L -BANK ELEV TWA R- -BANK ELEV ELMIN SSTA TOPWID' ENDST TARGET= 490.000 .11 _00 699'.6 ..0` ..085 .000 0 _00. 3302 WARNING:: CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE OE ACCEPTABLE RANGE, KRATIO =' .69 341701 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 4.500 14.25 1464.5 4063..0: 1189,.7.' 1861.1 .12 1..77 4.741 ..0013961 800.. 1730.. *SECNO' 4..5901 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 4 x590: 13.87 146.97 4063..0; 1148-.2 1965.2 .15 1..88: 5.23. .001798 300.. 375.. 1560.0 .00 1012.0 1.59: 1410., 1930..0 TYPE= 14 6.4.4 146.6a 673.6 392.7 .085 .047 2 0: 1560.0 1930.0 TYPE= 1 _00` 146_95 14.7.20' 949.6 609.2 376 -1 1.68 .085 .047 325. 2 0' TARGET= .18 635.9 .085 0 TARGET= _23' 566.2 .085 0 .00 .0 132.00 490.00 370.,000 1.25 .04 54.9 11.2 .000 132..20 .,00 370.00` 370.000 .54 .02 67 .1 13.9 .:000 133.10 .00' 370.00 138.00 136.00 1240.00' 1730.00 141.:90 141.70 1560.00` 1930.00 142_80' 1.42.60 1560.00 1930.00 PAGE 6 PAGE' LEGIBILITY STRIP *SECNO 4..600`• - 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 1560'_0: 1930.0 TYPE= 1 TARGET= 370.000 4..600 13..91 147.,01 -00 146..99- 147.23 ..23 _04 .00 142.80, 4063_0 1151.5: 1957_0 954-5 614 ..Z 377.5 571..6 67-8 14..1 142.60 ..15 1_87 5..18- 1.67 -085 _047 _085 -000' 133_10" 1560.00 _001761 20:'.. 20.. 20. 0 0 0 .00 370..00 1930.00 1 2.9MAR94'- 10:25 44: SECNO DEPTH CWSEL. CRIWS WSELK EG HV HL OLOSS L -BANK ELEV Q QLOB: QCH QROB ALOB'. ACH AROB VOL TWA R -BANK ELEV TIME VLOB VCH: VROB XNL XNCF£ XNR WTN ELMIN SSTA SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR ITRIAL: IDC ICONT CORAR TOPWID ENDST *SECNO .• 4.640; 3302 WARNING: CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE; OF ACCEPTABLE RANGE, KRATIO = 1.57 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 515.0 975..0: TYPE= I TARGET= 460.000 4_640: 13_52 147-52 -00 147.50 147..62 .09` .34: .04' 140.00 4042_n 77.1 1528`3; 2436.6 67.9 427-9; 1811.5 81.7 17_0 140_00 _19_ 1..14 3..57 1.35 -085 .E047 ..085 .000 134.00 515.00 - 000704 280. 355- 305_ 2 0 0 _00 460 -00 975.00 *SECNO 4.670'- 3470: ENCROACHMENT' STATIONS= 560..0= 1235.0 TYPE= 1 TARGET= 675.000 4.670 13.05: 147..75 .00 147.74 147.83 .08! .21 .00 140.00 404.2.0 1406.3 1077 -0: 1558..7 1347-6 283 _4 1093.3 96.9 20.4 140.00 .24 1-.04 3 -80= 1.43's .085 ..047 .085 .000 134.70 560..00 .000672 340. 500`.- 170;. 2 10 0 .00 675.00 1235.00 *SECNO 4..730 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS = 1100 .0= 1730..0 TYPE= 1 TARGET 630.000 4..730 11-54 148..04, .00 148.02 148.,15 .12: .30 _02 142.60` 4042 -0 1204-9 1206 -7 1630..4_ 857..6 267.8 1183.8 112..8 23.8 142..00 .28 1..40 4.51 1..38: _085; _047 ..085 ..000 136_50 1100. 00 .001171.. 100.; 620'. 360. 2 0 0 .00 630.00 1730..00 *SECNO 4..770: 3301 }W CHANGED: MORE THAN }WINS 3302 WARNING: CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE OF ACCEPTABLE RANGE,- KRATIO = .42 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS 780.0 855.0 TYPE= 1 TARGET 75.000 4-770 11.04 148.54 ..00` 148-52 149 -66 1..12 1.00; . -50 150..00; 4038 -0`! .0: 4038_.0: .0: .0 475.1 .0 124.6 26.6 100000.00 PAGE LEGIBILITY STRIP -29 _00 8` -50= -00 -000'` -050` -000 -000 137.50 782.93 - 006715 430' 485- 250':.. 2 0 0 -00 68.41 851 -34' 1 PROFILE FOR: STREAM FANNO- CREEK SKEWED BRIDG PLOTTED- POINTS= (BY PRIORITY) E= ENERGY,W= WATER: SURFACE,-I -IN ERT C=CRITICAL W,S.,L -LEFT BANK,R - RIGHT BANK,M -LOWER END STA ELEVATION 132.. 137'., 142.. 147. 152. 157.. 162- 167'.: 172.. 177., SECNO: CUMDIS` 4 -16 0'.. 1 R - L< WE K 100'... I R.. L. E. „ M 200.-- 1 R.: r, - E R M 300.= 1 R L. a - K 400. 1 .R L a .. M; . 500.. I ..R L a_ _ M - • 600_ 1 R L; WE M K. 700. 1 - R L WE . M. 800,- 1 - R. L _ E E. M. . 900`. 1 .. R L E- K 1000 _ 1 R L, E. .. M 11.00. I .. R: L. E .. .. .M 1200- I RL, _ a . M • 1300 I - RL. trio'.. M 1400- I - RL -. WE. M 1500- 1 .. RL- E`_ K 1600`.. I L.. E. . K 1700.. I RI„ R- - M - 4-50 1800`- I .. RL. E_ . M 1900- CI I WE . M 2000_ CI RL: WE M • 21C0:.. a I ..L. a - K 4-59- 2200- C I -RI., E - K 4..60 2300.. C 1 ..RL a K 24 00.. C I _ I WE - M ._ 4..64 2500`.. C I I a .E' t M 2600. C 1 1,, _E K 2700.. C _ L. .. -E K 2800- C I - I .E - M. 2900 G 1 . L -WE, K 4:.,67 3000- C I I a K 3100'- C I .. I .. E- .. M: 3200.4 C I a RI; .- . a M 3300.. C I .. RL.. p E K • 3400-.. C I . L. - E K - 3500.. C I . RL. - R K ' t.73: 3600 C I.. RL - E K 3700°.. C I- L. _ WE .M R 3800'. C I I. W E K . . R 3900.. C I L- WE M R 4000- C ..1 W E - M R 4..77 4100!.> C ..I .. W EL R ZSMAR94 10`25:44 PAGE LEGIBILITY STROP THIS RUN EXECUTED 29MAR94 10:25:48 HEC: 2 WATER SURFACE PROFILES Version_ 4:_6.,2; May 1991 NOTE: ASTERISK (*) A`I LEFT` OF CROSS - SECTION: NUMBER INDICATES MESSAGE. IN SUMMARY OF ERRORS LIST' FANNO CREEK SKEWED` BRIDE: SUMMARY PRINTOUT SECNO CWSEL DIEKWS EG DIFEG SSTA STENCL STCHL, STCHR STENCR ENDST TOPWID .01K 4.160: 145-22 .00 145..33: .00 1229.23 .00 1520.00! 1565.00 .00 1742.20 512:97 1575.95 4..160 14 5_24 .02 145_35 .02 1240.00 1240.00 1520..00 1565.00 1730.00 1730.00 490.00 1583.35 4.500 145.44 .00 146. -61 .00 1550.65 .00 1717.00 1760 -00 .00 1979.54 428.89 1093.73 4.500 146.45 .02 146..63= -.02 1560.00 1560 -00 1717..00 1760.00 1930.00 1930.00 _ 370.00 1087.29 4.5501 146.95s .00 147.17 .00 1554.54 .00 1717.00 1760.00 .00 1973.50 418.96 958.02 - 4..590 14 6_97 .02 147.20 -02 1560.00 1560.00 1717.00' 1760.00 1930.00 1930.00 370.00 958.21 4.600= 146.99; .00 147.21 .00 1554.22 .00 1717.00 1760.00 .00 1973.99 419.77 968.19 41.600` 147.01 -02 147-.23` _02 1560.00 1560.00 1717..00 1760.00 1930.00 1930.00 370.615 968.10 t 41.640`= 141.50 _00' 147.60 _00 511.25 .00 530.00 575.00 .00 997_57 486.32 1513.78 * 4_.,640 147.52 .02 147.62 .02 515..00` 515.00 530.00 575.00 975.00 975.00 460.00 1523.59 4.670, 141.74 .00 14T.81 .00 536.54 .00 1005.00 1030.00 .00 1247.35 710.81 1549.97 4.670 147..75: .02 147..83 _02 560.00 560.00 1005.00 1030.00 1235.00 1235.00 675.00 1559.61. 4.730 148.02 .00 148.14 .00 1044.22 .00 1347.00 1375.00 .00 1740.52 696.30 1182.83 4..730. 148.04 _02 148.15 .02 1100.00 1100.00 1347.00 1375.00 1730.00 1730.00 630.00 1180.93 4..770 148.52 .00 149.65. .00 782-97 _00 7&0.00 855..00 .00 851.29 68.33 450.91 4.770: 148.54 .02 149.66 _01 782.93 780.00 780.00? 855.00 855.00 851.34 68.41 492.76 29MAR94 10:25 :44 PAGE 10 £ANNO- CREEK SKEWED BRIDG SUMMARY PRINTOUT' TABLE' 150; SECNO= XLCR ELTRD ELLC ELMIN Q CWSEL CRIWS EG 10* XS RICH AREA .'O1K 4.160-. .00 .00 .00 132.00; 1063.00 145.22 .00 145_33' 6.65 3.79 2274.55 1575.95 4.160< .00 .00 .00 132.00 4063.00 145.24 .00 145.35 6.58 3.78 2276.15 1583.35 4.500? 1730.00 .00 .00 132.20 4063.00 146.44 .00 146.61 13.80 4.71 .1761.22' 1093.73 4.500- 173000' .00 .00 132.20 4063.00 146.45 ..00 146.63 13.96 4.74 1702.18 1087.29 4.590 375..00 .00 .00_ 133.10 4063.00 146.95 .00 147.17 17.99 5.22 1587.89 958'.02. LEGIBury STRIP` 4 ". -590: 375.00; .00 _00 133_10: 4063.00 146.97 .00 147.20 17.98 5_23 1551.54' 958.21 4_600' 201.00` _00` .00 133.10 4063..00: 146_99 .00 147.21 17.61 5.18 1601.18 968.19' 4_600 20_00 .00' .00` 133_10' 4063..00_ 147_.01 -00 147.23: 17.61 5.18 1563.34 966.10: 4.640: 355 -00; .00 - .00 134.00 4042_.00' 147_50 .00 147.60 7.13 3.59 2307..45 1513.76 * 4..640° 355_00:: .00 .00 134..00: 4042..00 147.52 .00 147..62 7.04 3.57 2307.19 1523.59 4..670 500.00; ..00' .-00' 134.70: 4042 -00 147.741 .00- 147.81 6.80 3.82 2723.86 1549.97 4:. -670 500.00 _00: .00 134 .70 4042.00 147'.75 .00 147.83 6.72 3.80 2724.28 1559.61. 4..730 62000 ..00; . 00 136.50 4042 -00 146..02 .00? 148_14. 11.68 4.49 2356.25 1182.83 4_730= 620.00` ..00 ..00 136.50 4042_00, 148_04 .00 148.15 11.71 4.51 2309.30 1180.93 4..770 485.,00° _00` .00 137.50'- 4038_00 148.52 .00 149.65 67.66 8.52 473.75 490.91 4.770 485_G0 _00 .00 137.50 4038.00 148.54; .:00 149.66 67.15 8.50 475.06 492.76 29MAR94 10 :25:44 PAGE 11 EANNO- CREEK SKEWED BRIDG SUMMARY PRINTOUT TABLE' 150' SECNO-- Q CWSEL_ DIEWS2• D£EWSK DIFKWS` TOPWID XLCH. 4..160; 4063.00 145.22 .00' ..00 -00: 51297 _00 1.:160 4063.00; 145..24 ..02 ..00 _02 490_.00 .00 4•° 4.. .500'° 4063...00- 146-44 .00 1_22 .00 428.89? 1730.00 4_ - -500' 4063.00- 14.6.,45: .02 1-21 .02 376_00 1730_00: 4.590 4063..00= 14.6 -95 _00' .51 -00 418.96 375..00 4.590 4063.00€ 146.97 .02' .52 ..02 370..00 375.00 . 4..600 4063..00 146..99' _00' .04 ..00 419.77 20`.00 4..600- 40631..001 147.01 ..02 ..041 _02 370..00 20.00 4.640: 4042..00 147_50 .00 .51` .00 486.32 355..00! 4.640; 4042 -06 147-52 ..02 -52 _02 4.60_00` 355.00 4 ..670; 4042.00': 147-74 .00 .23 .00 710.81 500.00 4-670 4042..00'- 147.75: .02 ..23 .02 675.00 500.00 4.7301 4042.,00. 148.02 .00 .29 ..00' 696..30' 620.00 4.730 4042..004 146..04 ..02 _29' ..02 630.00 620.00 4 -770 4038..00 146.52 -00 -49 .00 68.33 485.00 4..770= 40381 -00' 148.54 .02 _50 _.02 68_41 485.00; 29MAR94 10 :25:414:: PAGE 12 SUMMARY OF ERRORS AND SPECIAL:: NOTES' WARNING SECNO= 4..500 PROFILE= 1 CONVEYANCE: CHANGE OUTSIDE ACCEPTABLE RANGE- t=c WARNING SECNO= LEGIBILITY STRIP 4.500 PROk.u..E= 2 CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE ACCEPTABLE RANGE WARNING SECNO= 464O , PRO ELLE= WARNING SECNO= 4-64a PRO WARNING SECNO= 4..770 PRCELLE= WARNING SECNO= 4-77D PROh,..LLE= 29MAR94 10-t.25:.414 1 CONVEYANCE CHANGE- OUTSIDE ACCEPTABLE- RANGE Z CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE ACCEPTAI3LE-. RANGE 1 CONVEYANCE.; CHANGE, OUTSIDE- ACCEPTABLE RANGE 2 CONVEYANCE CHANGE- OUTSIDE ACCEPTABLE- RANGE ELOODWAY DATA, EANNO CREEK SKFAIED BRIDG PROh'i_LE NO 2 ELOODWAY WATER SURFACE. ELElaTIO STATION wiratt SECTION: MEAN WITH_ WITHOUT- DIFFERENCE AREA VELOCITY ELOODWAY FLOODWAY 4-160, 490.. 2276.. 4-500 370.. 170 2.. 4-59D 370.. 1552.. 4-600 370_ 1563- 41..640 460- 2307.. -670: 675.. 2724- 4,730, 630- 2309.. 475- I..8 2.4 6 2.6 1.8- L.5 5 1_8 8.5 145-2 145.2 146.4: 146.4 146.9 146.9 147_0 147.0 147_5 147_5 147_7 147.7 148.0 148.0 148.5 148.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o PAGE 13 [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing] [Page Too Large for OCR Processing]