Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Hearings Officer Packet - 04/20/1998
CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A. Better Community CITY OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER APRIL 20,1998 - 7:00 P.M. AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC HEARING 2.1 METZGER SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 98-0001 LOCATION: The sanitary sewer line is located within the Ash Creek Corridor between SW Hall Boulevard and SW Spruce Street. WCTM 1S135AA, Tax Lots 01901, 02000, 02500, 02600 and 03600; and WCTM 1 S135AD, Tax Lots 00900, 01200 and 01300. PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested Sensitive Land Review approval to perform landform alterations and related construction work within a Sensitive Lands/Wetlands areas in the Ash Creek Corridor in order to replace an existing 24-inch sewer line with a 30-inch sewer line. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS: Low Density Residential, R-4.5 (1-5 dwelling units per acre); Medium Density Residential, R-12 (6-12 dwelling units per acre); General Commercial, C-G; Neighborhood Commercial, C-N; and Commercial Professional, C-P. ZONING DESIGNATIONS: R-4.5; Residential. The R-4.5 Zoning District permits standard urban, low density residential home sites and related utilities. R- 12; Residential. The R-12 Zoning District permits standard medium density residential single-family attached, multiple-family residential units and related utilities. C-G; General Commercial. The C-G Zoning District permits the provision of a wide range of commercial goods and services. C-N; Neighborhood Commercial. The C-N Zoning District provides sites for the provision of convenience goods and services for residents within a limited trade area. C-P; Commercial Professional. The C-P Zoning District provides opportunities for employment and for business and professional services in close proximity to residential neighborhoods and major transportation facilities. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.50, 18.60, 18.62, 18.64, 18.84, 18.85, 18.100 and 18.164. 3. OTHER BUSINESS 4. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF TIGARD HEARING's OFFICER PAGE 2 OF 2 4/20/98 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA • CITY OF TIGARD HEARING'S OFFICER APRIL 20,1998 - 7:00 P.M. TOWN HALL TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OR 97223 ----_?j)? CAnyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-in sheet(s). PUBLIC NOTICE: Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Hearings Officer meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the meeting. Please call (503) 639-4171, Ext. 320 (voice) or (503) 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: ? Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and ? Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of Tigard of your need(s) by 5:00 p.m. on the Wednesday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above if you are requesting such services. (OVER FOR HEARING AGENDA ITEM(S) CITY OF TIGARD HEARING'S OFFICER PAGE 1 OF 2 4/20/98 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA • COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.036 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. *Tigard,Oregon 97223 'Accounts Payable ? Tearsheet Notice ? Duplicate Affidav AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. 1, Katy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising -Director, or his principal clerk, of theTi gartl-Ti,a 1 at i n min a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Ti Bard in the aforesaid county and state; that the a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and consecutive in the following issues: Subscribed and sworn before me this 9th_day ofApri _1 N a Pu lic for Oregon My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT The following will be considered by the Tigard Hearings Officer on Monday, April 20, 1998, at 7 P.M., at Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, 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 accompanied by statements or evidence suffi- cient to allow the hearings authority and all parties to respond 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 Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling (503) 639-4171. PUBLIC HEARING: SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW [SLR198.0001 > METZGER SANITARY SEWER TRUNK LINE #1577 REHABILITATION < A request for Sensitive Lands Review approval to replace and upsize an existing 24-inch sanitary sewer trunk line to a 30-inch line. LOCATION: The portion of sanitary sewer trunk line #1577 that is located in the city limits of Tigard is within the Ash Creek Corridor and runs between SW Hall Boulevard and SW Spruce Street. There are eight (8) directly af- fected parcels that include: ISI35AA, Tax Lots 01901, 02000, 02500, 02600 and 03600; and WCTM IS 135AD, Tax Lots 00900, 01200 and 01300. ZONES: R-4.5, R-12, C-G, C-P AND C-N. R-4.5; Residential, 4.5 Units Per Acre. The R-4.5 zoning district permits standard urban low density residential home sites and related utilities. R-12; Multiple-Family Residential, 12 Units Per Acre. The purpose of the R-12 zoning district is to provide for single-family attached and multiple-family residential units for medium density residential development and related utilities. C- G; General Commercial. The C-G zoning district provides for the provision of a wide range of commercial goods and services. C-P; Com- mercial Professional. The C-P zoning district provides sites for groups of businesses and offices within centers. C-N; Neighborhood Commercial. The C-N zoning district provides for convenience goods and services which can be sustained by a limited trade area. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.50, 18.54, 18.60, 18.62, 18.64, 18.84, 18.85, 18.100, 18.150 and 18.164. ? :Jn rr'r 11 ? ba..??. , L ' T79083 - Publish April 9, 1998. • AGENDA ITEM N0. 2.1 [PAGE 1 OF 1 l • DATE: 4/20/98 PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND INCLUDE YOUR DP CODE Prooonent - (Soeakina In Favor) Onnnnant - Mnankinn Annint-n+% Name, Address and Phone No. 5-03 3 Cl0S834 ' SgNdrq S-1-uaf5 f'o .3Ox' 0007 tGe z .e i© jz q? 3 a Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Ad ress and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. • • BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding an application for sensitive lands review for ) FINAL ORDER approval of landform alterations for sewer trunkline ) rehabilitation within a Sensitive Lands/Wetlands area in ) SLR 98-0001 the Ash Creek corridor in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) (Metzger Sanitary Sewer) 1. SUMMARY The applicant requests sensitive lands review approval for landform alterations and related construction work within a Sensitive Lands/Wetlands areas in the Ash Creek corridor. The applicant, Unified Sewerage Agency ("USA"), proposes to replace an existing 24-inch sewer line with a 30-inch sewer line in the same location and alignment. The project will affect eight (8) properties within the City of Tigard. The sewer line also crosses public street rights of way at SW Oak Street and SW Hall Boulevard. A duly noticed public hearing was held to review the application on April 20, 1998. City staff recommended approval. The applicant accepted the staff recommendation without objections. One area resident testified with questions about the project. The hearings officer approves the sensitive lands review as provided herein. 11. FINDINGS ABOUT SITE, SURROUNDINGS AND PUBLIC FACILITIES The hearings officer incorporates by reference the findings about the site and surroundings in Section III of the City of Tigard Staff Reported dated April 10, 1998 (the "Staff Report"), and the City Staff and agency comments in Sections V and VI of the Staff Report. III. APPLICABLE APPROVAL STANDARDS The hearings officer incorporates by reference the approval standards in Section IV of the Staff Report. IV. HEARINGS AND RECORD 1. Hearings Officer Larry Epstein (the "hearings officer") received testimony at the public hearing about this application on April 20, 1998. The record closed at the conclusion of the hearing. The testimony is included herein as Exhibit A (Parties of Record), Exhibit B (Taped Proceedings), and Exhibit C (Written Testimony). These exhibits are filed at the Tigard City Hall. 2. At the hearing, city planner Mark Roberts summarized the Staff Report and the applicable approval criteria. He noted that the shaded text under the "Conditions of Approval" on page 2 of the Staff Report should read "Prior to Construction, the following Conditions Shall Be Satisfied:". He noted that condition of approval 4 requires the applicant to provide a copy of the required wetlands permit from the Corps or DSL. 3. The applicant's representatives, Terry Chamberlain and Brent Davis, accepted the Staff Report without objections or corrections. The applicant plans to begin construction on July 1, 1998. 4. Area resident Hazel Lyon questioned the extent of wetlands at the northwest corner of the intersection of SW Oak Street and SW Hall Boulevard. The applicant responded that there are about 2.65 acres of wetlands. Hearings Officer Final Order SLR 98-0001 (Metzger Sanitary Sewer) Page 1 V. EVALUATION OF REQUEST City staff recommended approval of the sensitive lands review based on the findings in section IV of the Staff Report. No one disputed those findings. The hearings officer concludes the findings in section IV of the Staff Report accurately reflect the law and the facts. The hearings officer adopts and incorporates those findings as his own. VI. CONCLUSION AND DECISION 1. Based on the findings adopted and incorporated herein, the hearings officer concludes that the proposed sensitive lands review complies with the applicable criteria and standards of the Community Development Code, provided development that occurs after this decision complies with applicable local, state, and federal laws. 2. In recognition of the findings and conclusions contained herein, and incorporating the Staff Report and other reports of affected public agencies and testimony and exhibits received in this matter, the hearings officer hereby approves SLR 98-0001, subject to the conditions of approval in Section II of the Staff Report; provided, the introduction to those conditions shall read as follows: PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: [remainder unchanged] DATEDAhis 30th day of April, 1998. Larry ste' , City of Tigard 'ngs Officer Hearings Officer Final Order SLR 98-0001 (Metzger Sanitary Sewer) Page 2 0 0 Agenda Item: 2.1 Hearing Date: April 20,1998 7:00 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING'S OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD OREGON i CITY OF TI(3ARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community 120 DAYS = 7/16/98 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY CASE: FILE NAME: METZGER SANITARY SEWER TRUNKLINE REHABILITATION Sensitive Lands Review SLR 98-0001 PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested Sensitive Land Review approval to perform landform alterations and related construction work within a Sensitive Lands/Wetlands areas in the Ash Creek Corridor in order to replace an existing 24-inch sewer line with a 30-inch sewer line. APPLICANTS: Unified Sewerage Agency OWNERS: Various Owners Lee Walker, Project Manager (Avail. Upon Request) 155 N. First Street Suite 270, MS 10 Hillsboro, OR 97214 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS: Low Density Residential; R-4.5 (1-5 dwelling units per acre) Medium Density Residential; R-12 (6-12 dwelling units per acre) General Commercial; C-G Neighborhood Commercial; C-N Commercial Professional; C-P ZONING DESIGNATIONS: R-4.5; Residential. The R-4.5 Zoning District permits standard urban, low density residential home sites and related utilities; R-12; Residential. The R-12 Zoning District permits standard medium density residential single-family attached, multiple-family residential units and related utilities; C-G; General Commercial. The C-G Zoning District permits the provision of a wide range of commercial goods and services; STAFF REPORT FOR 4/20/98 HEARING'S OFFICER SLR 98-0001 - USA/City of Tigard Sewer Trunkline Rehab. Page 1 of 9 • 0 C-N; Neighborhood Commercial. The C-N Zoning District provides sites for the provision of convenience goods and services for residents within a limited trade area; and C-P; Commercial Professional. The C-P Zoning District provides opportunities for employment and for business and professional services in close proximity to residential neighborhoods and major transportation facilities. LOCATION: The sanitary sewer line is located within the Ash Creek Corridor between SW Hall Boulevard and SW Spruce Street. WCTM 1 S135AA, Tax Lots 01901, 02000, 02500, 02600 and 03600; and WCTM 1 S135AD, Tax Lots 00900, 01200 and 01300. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.50, 18.60, 18.62, 18.64, 18.84, 18.85, 18.100 and 18.164. SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division recommends that the Hearing's Officer should find that the proposed project will promote the general welfare of the City and will not be significantly detrimental nor injurious to surrounding properties provided that development which occurs after this decision complies with applicable local, state and federal laws. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL subject to the following recommended conditions of approval: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE TO CONSTRUCTION, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: (Unless otherwise noted, the staff contact shall be Brian Rager, Engineering Department (503) 639-4171.) 1. Prior to construction, a Street Opening Permit will be required for this project to cover the sanitary sewer work in SW Oak Street. The applicant will need to submit five (5) copies of a proposed public improvement plan for review and approval. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include information relevant to the public improvements. 2. As a part of the public improvement plan submittal, the Engineering Department shall be provided with the name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. STAFF REPORT FOR 4/20/98 HEARING'S OFFICER SLR 98-0001 - USA/City of Tigard Sewer Trunkline Rehab. Page 2 of 9 • • 3. The applicant shall obtain a tree removal permit prior to removal of any trees that are located within Sensitive Lands Areas as required by Section 18.150.030. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 4. The applicant shall provide a copy of the required permit to the City prior tc construction of the replacement sewer line. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 5. Any temporary erosion control methods shall be removed upon completion of the project. Work areas on the immediate site shall be carefully identified and marked to avoid potential damage to trees and vegetation. Trees shall not be used as anchors for stabilizing working equipment. During clearing operations trees and vegetation shall not be permitted to fall or be placed outside the work area. In areas designated for selective cutting or clearing, care in falling and removing trees shall be undertaken to avoid injuring trees and shrubs to be left in place. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR EIGHTEEN (18) MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: The application did not include the speck date the current sewer line was constructed. The Metzger Area is largely developed. Within recent years, infill development in the area has lead to sewer system capacity constraints during periods of rainy seasons. Vicinity Information: The subject sewer line is within the Ash Creek Corridor. The eight (8) affected properties located within the City of Tigard are presently developed with a mixture of detached single-family residences and commercial uses. Within the vicinity of the City's portion of the sanitary sewer rehabilitation project, the sewer line also crosses public street right-of-ways (ROW) at SW Oak Street and SW Hall Boulevard. Site Information and Proposal Description: The sewer replacement has been proposed because of during very wet weather, the existing sewer line is presently at capacity and overflows. The project area is a narrow lineal corridor that generally parallels Ash Creek between SW Hall Boulevard and SW Spruce Street in the Metzger Area. The Unified Sewerage Agency is proposing to replace the existing 24-inch sewer line with a 30-inch sewer line. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: Underlying Zoning: The proposed sewer line replacement crosses eight (8) properties with a total of five (5) zoning designations. The affected zoning STAFF REPORT FOR 4/20/98 HEARING'S OFFICER SLR 98-0001 - USA/City of Tigard Sewer Trunkline Rehab. Page 3 of 9 L? • designations are as follows R-4.5; Residential, R-12; Residential, General Commercial (C-G), Neighborhood Commercial (C-P), the C-N Zoning District. Within all of these zoning districts, a utility is designated as a Conditional Use Permit, however, a sanitary sewer line has not previously been defined as a utility requiring Conditional Use Permit approval. Sensitive Lands: Section 18.84 contains regulations for lands within 100 year floodplains, wetlands and drainageways that are subject to Sensitive Lands Review. Sensitive Lands Review of proposed developments in these areas is intended to implement 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. Floodplain: Section 18.84.040(A) states that the Hearings Officer shall approve or approve with conditions an application for landform alterations within the 100-year floodplain based upon findings that the applicable criteria have been satisfied. The 100-year floodplain is impacted by the proposed sewer rehabilitation project as shown within the application materials. The following findings are applicable to address impacts of this proposal on the 100-year floodplain: 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. Upon completion of the project, the Unified Sewerage Agency has proposed to re-establish existing contours such that, no rise in the floodway would occur as a result of the sewer line replacement. 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. Although several of the affected properties are' designated for residential use, the proposed land form alterations are not for the purpose of reclaiming current floodplain areas and replace this with other newly established floodplain areas. Where a land form alteration or development is permitted to occur within the floodplain it will not result in any increase in the water surface elevation of the 100- year flood. Upon completion of this project the applicant has proposed to re-establish the current floodplain elevations through the affected properties. 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. Dedication of areas for a bicycle and pedestrian pathway does not appear appropriate because of the nature of the proposed landform alteration. Neither the Unified Sewerage Agency or the City of Tigard own the subject properties. Neither applicant has proposed to redevelop the subject property's where more intense land use activity would occur that may make dedication roughly proportional to the increased land use impact. STAFF REPORT FOR 4/20/98 HEARING'S OFFICER SLR 98-0001 - USA/City of Tigard Sewer Trunkline Rehab. Page 4 of 9 • • The plans for the pedestrian/bicycle pathway indicate that no pathway will be below the elevation of an average annual flood. For the reason mentioned above, it does not appear appropriate to require dedication and construction of a pathway as a part of the sewer line replacement. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands approvals shall be obtained. Application has been made for these permits. It is recommended that a copy of the required permit be provided to the City prior to construction of the replacement sanitary sewer line. 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. For the reason mentioned above, it does not appear appropriate to require dedication and construction of a pathway as a part of the sewer line replacement. Drainageway: Section 18.84.040(C) states that the appropriate authority shall approve or approve with conditions an application request for a sensitive lands permit within the drainageways. The following criteria must be satisfied: The extent and mature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to the extent greater than that required for the use; The applicant has proposed to construct the replacement sewer line largely within the current alignment of the existing sewer line. For this reason, the applicant appears to be minimizing impacts to other adjoining sensitive lands areas to the extent possible. The final northerly portion of the segment to be reconstructed within the City limits would parallel SW Hall Boulevard and would minimize the need to reconstruct existing street improvements. This area was not shown to be within a wetlands area. The applicant states that the proposed work will not alter the existing land form contours and, therefore, does not meet the definition of a landform alteration and views this standard as inapplicable. The Community Development Code defines a landform alteration in part as, "any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to the following: the addition of buildings or other structures, mining quarrying, dredging, filing, grading ...(ect.)....... within an area of special flood hazard". Based on this definition, this standard applies to this proposal but is found to be met because the applicant will restore existing contour elevations. It should be noted that the purpose for reconstructing the replacement line is to minimize existing environmental impacts that presently occur during the wettest portions of the rainy season when the current facility overflows due to lack of capacity. 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 of hazards to life of property; As required by the Joint Division of State Lands and Army Corps of Engineers Permit, the applicant has proposed to conform with seasonal project timing issues and with the Unified Sewerage Agency's own Erosion Control standards. STAFF REPORT FOR 4/20/98 HEARING'S OFFICER SLR 98-0001 - USA/City of Tigard Sewer Trunkline Rehab. Page 5 of 9 • • The water flow capacity of the Drainageway is not decreased; The applicant has proposed to reestablish existing water flow capacity of the drainageway to the pre-existing condition. 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 applicant has provided a re-vegetation plan that is designed to re-establish native species. The drainageway will be replaced by a public facility of adequate size to accommodate maximum flow in accordance with the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan. The applicant has proposed to replace the existing sewer facility with a larger size pipe to handle increased capacity demands. The 1981 CH2M Hill Master Drainage Plan does not specify sewer facility sizing, instead this review focused on existing and needed improvements to Citywide storm drainage facilities. For this reason, this criteria is not applicable to this proposal. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands approvals shall be obtained. The applicant is currently in the process of obtaining the necessary permits. A Condition of Approval has been recommended requiring a copy of the permit prior to commencement of construction activity. 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 with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. Because neither applicant owns the subject properties and the properties are not being redeveloped for more intensive land uses, requirements for dedication and construction of a pathway and bicycleway do not appear to be appropriate at this time. Wetlands: Section 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: 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 proposed landform alteration is within 25 feet of wetlands designated as significant within the City's Water Resources Overlay which designates significant wetlands within the Comprehensive Plan. However, the Water Resources Overlay provisions permit work within these areas for underground utility purposes, subject to the Sensitive Lands Review process. 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 applicant has proposed to reconstruct the sewer line largely within the existing alignment. In one area along SW Hall Boulevard, the applicant has proposed to construct STAFF REPORT FOR 4/20/98 HEARING'S OFFICER SLR 98-0001 - USA/City of Tigard Sewer Trunkline Rehab. Page 6 of 9 • • the line in an alignment parallel to SW Hall Boulevard to avoid reconstruction of the street, however, this area was not shown to contain sensitive lands. For these reasons, no additional disturbance has been proposed beyond what is necessary. Any encroachment or change in on-site or off-site drainage which would adversely impact wetland characteristics have been mitigated. Upon completion of this project the applicant has proposed to reestablish the existing 2.65 wetlands acreage that are impacted by this replacement work and to enhance an additional .68 acres of adjoining wetlands. 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. The Unified Sewerage Agency has agreed to comply with these requirements and provided a replacement planting list for areas currently delineated as wetlands. All other sensitive lands requirements of this chapter have been met. The applicable sensitive lands requirements have been addressed elsewhere within this report. The provisions of Chapter 18.150, Tree Removal, shall be met. The applicant has proposed to provide an arborist on-site periodically to work with the contractor to minimize disruption to the existing trees. The applicants narrative states that although close in several instances upon preliminary review it did not appear necessary to remove any existing trees. It is recommended that the applicant obtain a tree removal permit prior to removal of any trees that are located within Sensitive Lands Areas as required by Section 18.150.030. Physical Limitations and Natural Hazards, Floodplains and Wetlands, Natural Areas, and Parks, Recreation and Open Space policies of the Comprehensive Plan have been satisfied. These policies are implemented by the applicable standards of the Community Development Code that are addressed elsewhere within this -staff report. Water Resources Overlay: Section 18.85.070 requires the following criteria to be addressed for the proposed underground utility use because this area is designated a Water Resource Area: Alternatives Considered - This section requires the examination of upland alternatives for the proposed use, and explain why the proposed development cannot reasonably occur outside of the water resource and riparian setback area. Based on the largely developed nature of this area, relocating the sewer line within a new alignment would be difficult. Because the sewer system is largely a gravity system other alignments may not adequately serve the entire service area, therefore, other alignments do not appear feasible. Minimizing Siting Impacts - The applicant provided a site plan with sewer line alignments, profile plans and discussed the extent of the grading within the narrative report. The applicant does not believe that any existing trees will need to be removed as a result of this proposal but will closely monitor the work. The applicant also proposes to STAFF REPORT FOR 4/20/98 HEARING'S OFFICER SLR 98-0001 - USA/City of Tigard Sewer Trunkline Rehab. Page 7 of 9 • • enhance nearby wetlands areas so that the finished project should improve degraded wetlands quality. Construction Materials and Methods - Where development within the riparian area is unavoidable, construction materials or methods used within the riparian setback area shall minimize damage to water quality and native vegetation. The applicant proposes to comply with Unified Sewerage Agency construction standards and obtain all necessary agency permits which would address any required construction methods beyond those set forth in the recommended Conditions of Approval. Minimize Flood Damage - On-site flood storage shall not decrease as a result of development. The applicant has proposed to restore existing contour elevations to their previous elevations so that no net increase of fill will occur in the floodplain. Avoid Steep Slopes - The existing and proposed sewer alignment areas do not contain slopes in excess of 25%. Minimize Impacts on Existing Vegetation - To address this standard a Condition of Approval has been required so that the following construction standards are met: 1. Any temporary erosion control methods shall be removed upon completion of the project; 2. Work areas on the immediate site shall be carefully identified and marked to avoid potential damage to trees and vegetation; 3. Trees shall not be used as anchors for stabilizing working equipment; 4. During clearing operations, trees and vegetation shall not be permitted to fall or be placed outside the work area; 5. In areas designated for selective cutting or clearing, care in falling and removing trees shall be undertaken to avoid injuring trees and shrubs to be left in place; and 6. The applicant does not believe that any existing trees will need to be removed in order to complete this project. SECTION V. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The Engineering Department reviewed this proposal and offered the following comments: This project will cross SW Oak Street, west of SW Hall Boulevard, as a part of this project. The applicant will need to obtain a Street Opening Permit from the City for work within this street. The Building Division reviewed this proposal and offered the following comments: This project shall be constructed to Unified Sewerage Agency standards. STAFF REPORT FOR 4/20/98 HEARING'S OFFICER SLR 98-0001 - USA/City of Tigard Sewer Trunkline Rehab. Page 8 of 9 • 0 SECTION VI. AGENCY COMMENTS Tualatin Valley Water District has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: Sanitary Sewer appears to be 7-10 feet below surface to the top of pipe. Normal depth of bury for district water lines is 3 feet. Therefore, conflicts with crossings are unlikely. Verify depth of water line prior to crossing with sanitary sewer. The United States Army Corps of Engineer reviewed this application and offered the following comment: A Department of the Army Permit is required and has been applied for under file number 97-1448. PREPARED BY: Mark Roberts Associate Planner APPROVED BY: I:\CU RPLN\MARKR\SLR98-01. DEC V-d C-V ichard Bewersdorff Planning Manager April 10, 1998 DATE April 10, 1998 DATE STAFF REPORT FOR 4/20/98 HEARING'S OFFICER SLR 98-0001 - USA/City of Tigard Sewer Trunkline Rehab. Page 9 of 9 • I t TAIL LOT 7707 TAX LOT 7705 TAi LOT "0' 1 I.. LOT WOO I i TL 7707 TL 7701 +¢1 drr S?bjtCCV -'1 J ar w W7?7W0 .OU[I. NR ?011M , +? r ar0 i ---------------------- r I I J II dr x l ? < I ? y I I ?'3 CO h ' i II ? f SW Oak Street dr I 1 rf ?eo r e w?? 4? ?W dr`d drA • ..» I SW Spruce Street Z 0 Cl) `V z z z Q (L ?Q VL_ LL 0 H V SITE PLAN 1 EXHIBIT MAP A ? L -- =-- SW Oak Street ?. 901 f' I f! i 0 dr SW Pine Street 'CASE NCO. • USAXITY OF TIGARD SEWER REPLACEMENT SLR 98-0001 16 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM VICINITY MAP ------------------- U1 11 1 1 1 l // I I SLR 98-0001 - ------ / CORAL. UATIq R I I? ST Metzger Sanitary Sewer Trunk Line 11B fff I Rehabilitation I I I I LOCUST O J m LELEAF > •? Q MAPLELEAF (8) SUBJEC PARCELS LEGEND: - - -------------- IT (8) Subject Parcels Directly Involved in PINE ST the Project are indicated ' with Cross-Hatch Marks A SHADY LN N E S SRRUCMVE 0 100 800 Feat w t•= 504 feet r City of Tigard > w ommbon on Gds map is for general location ony and Sjr shoo - be verified vft ft Develaprnerd Ser Aces Division. Y 13125 SW Ha0 Blvd 71gard• OR 97223 (503) 6394171 htolAw A.Ugard.or.us ommunitty Development Plot date: Mar 31, 1998; c:lmagicVmagic01.apr 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • Metzger Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Tigard, Oregon For The Unified Sewerage Agency 155 N First Street, Suite 270 Hillsboro, OR 97124 Prepared By: r W KLJRAHA S HI vim' ASSOG[ATES, ING_ DECEMBER 1997 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 • • Fact Sheet Summary Applicant Unified Sewerage Agency 155 N First Street, Suite 270 Hillsboro, OR 97124 Attn: Lee Walker (503) 648-8621 Authorized Agent Kurahashi & Associates, Inc. 12600 SW 72nd Avenue, Suite 100 Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 968-1605 Contact: Brent Davis, Environmental Scientist Project Area Ash Creek Corridor SW Taylor's Ferry Road to SW Spruce Street Request Sensitive Lands Approval Proposed Use Sanitary Sewer Trunk Line Upgrade • • Table of Contents 1.00 SUMMARY 1 2.00 CONCLUSION 1 3.00 APPLICABLE APPLICATION REVIEW CRITERIA 1 3.10 CITY OF TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK PLAN 3.20 CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE 3.21 CHAPTER II, PROCEDURES AND DECISION MAKING 3.22 CHAPTER IV, OVERLAY DISTRICTS 3.23 3.24 CHAPTER V, SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS CHAPTER VI, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 3.25 CHAPTER VII, DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION 1 1 1 1 1 1 4.00 AFFECTED JURISDICTIONS 2 4.10 DEVELOPMENT PERMITS 2 ' 4.20 WATERWAYS AND WETLANDS 2 4.30 ROADS AND STREETS 2 5.00 INTRODUCTION 2 6.00 SITE ANALYSIS 2 6.10 ON-SITE ANALYSIS 6.20 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS 2 6 1 7.00 THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL 6 7.10 SANITARY SEWER CONSTRUCTION 7.20 WETLAND MITIGATION ?J 1 6 I? J 1 1 1 r • • 8.00 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE APPLICATION REVIEW CRITERIA 6 8.10 CITY OF TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 6 8.20 CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE 7 8.21 CHAPTER II, PROCEDURES FOR DECISION MAKING 7 8.22 CHAPTER IV, OVERLAY DISTRICTS 7 8.23 CHAPTER V, SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS 8 8.24 CHAPTER VI, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 9 8.25 CHAPTER VII, DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION 9 EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A VICINITY MAP EXHIBIT B AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH EXHIBIT C LOCAL WETLAND INVENTORY SUMMARY SHEET EXHIBIT D WETLAND IMPACT MAP 3 5 4 11 TABLES TABLE I WETLAND MITIGATION PLANT LIST 10 APPENDIX APPENDIX A PRE-APPLICATION MEETING NOTES APPENDIX B NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING DOCUMENTATION APPENDIX C RAPID STREAM ASSESSMENT APPENDIX D WETLAND REPORT APPENDIX E FLOODPLAIN CERTIFICATION ATTACHMENTS PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION PLANS 1 • • Metzger Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Unified Sewerage Agency 1.00 Summary The existing Metzger sanitary sewer trunk line has been determined by the Unified Sewerage Agency to be significantly undersized between SW Taylor's Ferry Road and SW Spruce Street. The Unified Sewerage ' Agency proposes to replace the existing 24" gravity line with a 30" gravity line. The replacement will occur predominantly along the existing alignment with some modifications, intended to reduce impact to existing roadways and natural features. The project will cover a linear temporary construction easement, varying between 60 and 40 feet in width, with a permanent easement of 15 feet for maintenance of the sewer line. The alignment generally follows Ash Creek and thus will be placed within Significant Natural Resource and floodplain areas. Due to the possible presence of significant trees and the locatio and floodplain, the development proposal will be subject to Sensitive Lands and Tree Removal review criteria. The project area was subject to a Rapid Stream Assessment (RSAT) and wetland delineation, both conducted by Kurahashi & Associates, Inc. in the summer of 1997. The field investigations looked at the Sensitive Lands noted in the Meztger/Progress Community Plan. 2.00 Conclusion Based on the analysis of the Sensitive Lands and Tree Removal issues, The City of Tigard's development goals, and the applicant's objective, this proposal is in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and statewide planning goals. 3.00 Applicable Application Review Criteria 3.10 City of Tigard Comprehensive Framework Plan 3.20 City of Tigard Community Development Code ' 3.21 Chapter II, Procedures and Decision Making Section 18.32 Quasi-Jurisdictional 3.22 Chapter IV, Overlay Districts Section 18.84 Sensitive Lands 3.23 Chapter V, Supplemental Provisions Section 18.100 Landscaping and Screening 3.24 Chapter VI, Site Development Review Section 18.120 Site Development Review 3.25 Chapter VII, Development and Administration Section 18.150 Tree Removal 1 Kurahashi & Associates, Inc. November 20, 1997 Metzger Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Unified Sewerage Agency 1 1 4.00 Affected Jurisdictions The Applicant is working with the following Jurisdictions to obtain Local, State and. Federal permits for the proposed development. 4.10 Development Permits 1. Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation 2. City of Tigard Planning Department 4.20 Waterways and Wetlands 1. Oregon Division of State Lands 2. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 3. US Army Corps of Engineers 4.30 Roads and Streets 1. Oregon Department of Transportation 2. Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation 3. City of Tigard 5.00 Introduction The project area is a narrow linear corridor that generally parallels Ash Creek between SW Taylor's Ferry Road and SW Spruce Street in the Metzger area (see Vicinity Map, Exhibit A). This area is approximately 6,200 feet in length and spans the jurisdictional limits of the City of Tigard and Washington County. The corridor crosses Ash Creek in three locations as well as numerous public and private properties. The applicant has conducted several neighborhood meetings and is in the process of negotiating easements with all effected property owners. A portion of the project area is located within the City of Tigard's Sensitive Lands Overlay. M The application requests development approval for the upgrade of the existing sanitary sewer trunk line. 6.00 Site Analysis 6.10 On-Site Analysis Refer to the provided preliminary construction plans, Appendix C, Rapid Stream Assessment (RSAT) of Ash Creek, and Appendix D, Wetland Delineation. The RSAT describes the existing condition of the reach of Ash Creek that coincides with the project area. The wetland report locates jurisdictional wetland boundaries and describes soil and vegetation conditions within the project area. The topography was generated by ground survey in the spring of 1997. Contours area mapped at I foot intervals. The project area generally follows the gradient of Ash Creek. Current Use of the project area is mixed residential, commercial, open space, and public road right-of-way. Significant Natural Resources are generally located in open space tracts in the project area. The wetland delineation report identifies 2.65 acres of wetland within the project area, 0.47 acres of this are within the City of Tigard. I Kurahashi & Associates, Inc. November 20, 1997 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 1:24000 0.5 0 0.5 1 Miles Street Major Arterial Stream KURAHA S HI ASSC7CIATES, INC_ EXHIBIT A Vicinity Map Metzger Trunk (1577) Unified Sewerage Agency August 1997 -•al'^a~ _ f<. 'Y, - '7c'«";5~;°K.y -v - yr-^;'; wa-^?,.'.T~;:r;",t r;:.F .#•.;iv rr"", ;;L`~a f(; S~°^,s;~o-s~ y a < ray"^ y 7".y/ R , ON n rF' • it ; 's d9a~;-, i , F';-'- w.G•, f r YIP3' , 6. a r~~ yQ `,T,a~,+;,-i a ~ rA~',r nt p~, r,•z ~ SL' •.S fk,....""w.'✓// / "✓1i`f ^n fi» .»S.:+ Y , . { ryf !k "d ~ F '~V„/' ,,,.r< ' A ~ ~'.~';r a ^'v/c -r-.•Yw. , x., ~n is -w I'mof - al ° V~k i7mv Mal MON VAU n p"A .S . 'rA y , fill `S a `/rli''r ~ y y~. ' S / Z~ 9 r, ! , i^{, ~ 6. h L r; :yv M Na $4 fy '"s~ nr.,, .,.Y r to 4 -51 r , ,v; Pw s'. „ N / 'N< eH.xskai'' b/,d ~,.~r , C r .ut r t t. ;Y°,~,~ +,f 1r, :x4 ':r ',rte.,.. 'i; r- n- r ; '14 i' ~ / >^~32: ash' , r ✓ :rY. "k-Cj,"„~..,. ro` ~1 `~a 2"''at.. 72U. ~ «.1 yNK ft, µF 3",, K ~ cZ"' "A_`•i's"I' .:i@', i'.;'1' R 8 a t s x,,y~y~pp ~."V~4r'~~ xa? n . as , F r q` 02 q a ¢7 ~ ? Q 1 b k. S a I x3i ;~3 P 1 F r ys MR, OR, t w W, ' r • . x °,*„~;r. tea. -k s#n ~ 2t ~ k``'x £ ~ ~t~i ,a n ~ a.r ~.~id ~ ~ s,' 'tC,n, ~ ~ yy~~ x..-~ .Y ro" i"n' yn 7 / t r a ( >r r £ £ r , o, gy .A: x v wr f >d: 4,~ r. ~ a k, ~t z `s .snl r w. ~ uA. a nr ~ 17~* ' 9 t"~ • / " P ri' T y nb , < s, ws i isr "dr. 5 N M"i 0 81181HX3 x nar, ?v H r q r' Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory - Ofj`site Option WETLAND SUMMARY SHEET LxHerr L UNIT: 2 WETLAND: B-6, 7 Wetland Acreage: 9.5 Field Verified Date: 8/29/94 (8ac PEM, 1.5ac POW) Location: SW of Hall Blvd./Oak St. Beaverton Quadrangle T1S R1W Sec. 35 ITax Map: 15135 AC, AD Zoning: R-4.5 NWI Classification: R, POW, PEM Mapped Soils: 13 Cove SCL Hydrologic Basin: Fanno Creek Sub-basin: Ash Creek Hydrologic Source/Comments: precipitation; Ash Creek Dominant Vegetation: Trees Fraxinus lati}olia Populus trichocarpa Shrubs Sa x sp. Rosa nur ana Crataegus douglasi WWHA Score: 54 Herbs/Emereents grass (grazed) luncus efusus Boundary Information: Topographic break - (fill); vegetation changes to snowberry, white oak Buffer Information: Standard 25ft min. Comments: Ash Creek, perennial stream, pond, agricultural wetlands; disturbed by till. Diverse group of raptors (merlin, RT, kestrel, sharp-shinned) observed by SRI; adjacent woodland. North of noisy Highway 217. Fishman Environmental Services Metzger Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Unified Sewerage Agency Soils in the project area are mapped had hydric soil types in the SCS Washington County Soil Survey (see soils map in the wetland report, Appendix D). 6.20 Off-site Analysis Refer to the provided preliminary construction plans and grayscale aerial photo (Exhibit B). These show the relationship of the project area to the Ash Creek corridor and surrounding uses. The aerial photograph shows the vegetative cover in the creek corridor and indicates the extent of riparian coverage of the creek and associated significant natural resource areas. Exhibit C is the Wetland Summary Sheet for Wetlands B6 and B7 of Unit 2 in Tigard's Local Wetland Inventory (1994) that describes the wetlands along Ash creek at the downstream end of the project area. 1 7.00 The Development Proposal ' Refer to the provided preliminary construction plans. 7.10 Sanitary Sewer Construction The replacement sewer line will follow the alignment and profile shown in the plans. No alteration of existing grades is proposed. The sewer will be constructed to Unified Sewerage Agency General and Technical Specifications and will include bentonite barriers at the downstream side of creek crossings to eliminate capture of stream flow into the trench. Additional barriers may be placed in wetlands to reduce the potential for the loss of wetland hydrology. The construction corridor will be revegetated either with native grasses and forbs, "in-kind" of landscaping per owner request, "in-kind" replacement of significant trees that cannot be avoided during construction, or according to the attached Wetland Mitigation Plan. 7.20 Wetland Mitigation The wetland mitigation is designed to restore all wetland impacted by construction with "in-kind" replacement of vegetation lost (2.65 acre). The plan will also enhance degraded wetlands and riparian areas outside the construction limits (0.68 acre) in order to meet mitigation requirements set by the Division of State Lands (DSL). No grading outside of the sewer line trench excavation and backfill will be required to complete the proposed wetland mitigation. The proposed plan is based on a site meeting with representatives from DSL, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the US army Corps of Engineers. However, The Joint 404/DSL Removal/Fill Permit application for the project will be subject to DSL review, thus the proposed mitigation plan may have to be modified to address reviewer comments. Changes will be limited to the enhancement of additional wetlands within the immediate vicinity of the project area and will not include excavation to create new wetlands. 8.00 Compliance with Applicable Application Review Criteria 8.10 City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan The Community Development Code states that: "All provisions of this title shall be construed in conformity with the adopted comprehensive plan," therefore, it is not necessary to address specific policies of the Comprehensive Plan. iJ Kurahashi & Associates, Inc. November 20, 1997 Metzger Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Unified Sewerage Agency 8.20 City of Tigard Community Development Code 8.21 Chapter II, Procedures for Decision Making Section 18.32 Procedures for Decision Making: Quasi-Jurisdictional 18.32.040 Preapplication Conference Required ' The applicant attended a preapplication conference on July 31, 1997. Preapplication notes are included in Appendix A. 18.32.050 Application Submittal Requirements This application includes the required forms, a list of names and addresses of all surrounding property owners, and addresses all of the criteria identified in the preapplication notes. ' 8.22 Chapter IV, Overlay Districts Section 18.84 Sensitive Lands ' 18.84.015 Applicability of Uses The applicant acknowledges that the City Engineer will review the installation of the proposed sanitary sewer. The applicant acknowledges that a Joint 404\DSL Removal Fill Permit will be required to perform the proposed work within jurisdictional wetlands. The proposed wetland mitigation plan was developed 1 to address concerns identified by the Corps, DSL, and ODFW at an on-site preapplication meeting. An application for the permit will be submitted to the appropriate agencies concurrent with this application. 18.84.026 General Provisions for Floodplain Areas The proposed sanitary sewer has been designed to minimize infiltration of and discharge to floodwaters per Unified Sewerage Agency General and Technical Specifications. 18.84.028 General Provisions for Wetlands ' See the Wetland Report (Appendix D) for the location of jurisdictional wetland boundaries. 18.84.040 Approval Standards A. Floodplain Findings: 1) Since the replacement of the sanitary sewer will not alter existing grade, the project does not constitute a landform alteration. floodplain storage function will therefore be preserved. 2) The proposed sanitary sewer is a utility use, and thus is allowed within the 100-year floodplain. 3) No change from existing grade is proposed. Therefore no change in the water surface elevation of the 100-year flood is anticipated. 4) Not applicable 5) Not applicable 6) As mentioned previously, a Joint 404 DSL Removal/Fill permit application will be submitted. ' 7) Not applicable I Kurahashi & Associates, Inc. November 20, 1997 7 Metzger Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Unified Sewerage Agency B. No slopes 25% or greater are within the proposed project area. C. No work is proposed within drainageways. D. Wetlands Findings: ' 1) Since the replacement of the sanitary sewer will not alter existing grade, the project does not constitute a landform alteration. Furthermore development of wetlands identified as sensitive lands is proposed. 2) Permanent disturbance of wetlands will be limited to a 15' wide permanent sanitary sewer easement within a 40' wide construction easement. The existing topography will not be altered, but the excavation may alter soils and hydrology. DSL will require mitigation for the ' wetlands impacted by the excavation. 3) There will be no alteration of existing on-site or off-site drainage. 4) During construction, all applicable erosion control standards will be met or exceeded. Vegetation within disturbed wetlands will be restored according the proposed Wetland Mitigation Plan. 5) All applicable sensitive land requirements have been met. 6) Tree Removal conditions will be met as described in Section 8.25 of this document. 7) Per Section 18.84.010, Item D of the Community Development Code, this proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 18.84.050 Application Submission Requirements The required maps and plans have been attached A list of names and addresses of all surrounding property owners within 250 feet has been provided. 18.84.070 Site Conditions If requested site conditions are not indicated on the attached Site Analysis Drawings, they have not been observed to exist within the project area. 18.84.080 The Site Plan If required site elements not indicated on the attached Site Plan, they do not apply to this proposal. 18.84.090 Grading Plan ' If required grading elements are not indicated on the attached Grading Plan, they do not apply to this proposal. 18.84.100 Landscape Plan If required landscape elements are not indicated on the attached Landscape Plan, they do not apply to this proposal. ' 8.23 Chapter V, Supplemental Provisions Section 18.100 Landscaping and Screening 18.100.120 Revegetation All area's disturbed by construction will be revegetated either as specified in the wetland mitigation plan, a mix of native grasses and forbs for erosion control, or per land owner specification (e.g. I Kurahashi & Associates, Inc. November 20, 1997 8 Metzger Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Unified Sewerage Agency replacement of lawn or turf grasses). Significant trees unavoidably removed will be replaced "in- kind" per the Tree Plan provided. 8.24 Chapter VI, Site Development Review ' Section 18.120 Site Development Review Requirements of this section have been satisfied as outlined in Section 8.22 of this application. ' 8.25 Chapter VII, Development and Administration Section 18.150 Tree Removal ' Refer to the attached Tree Plan for tree locations and general notes on removal. No trees greater than 6" diameter are proposed to be removed at this time. Nine trees between 7" and 18" in diameter are close to the excavation limits and may be damaged by trench excavation. A professional arborist will be on site when excavation adjacent to these trees commences. The arborist will determine whether or not lethal impact can be avoided and what steps are necessary to preserve the trees. No lethal impact to existing trees greater than 6" diameter is anticipated. Any trees that are removed will be replaced "in-kind" with an appropriate quantity of replacement trees per Section 18.150.070D of Tigard's Community Development Code. The use of smaller stock (bareroot or container no larger than 5 gallon size) is proposed for replacement trees due to the nature of the project area and the difficulty anticipated in providing the irrigation and maintenance required to ensure the survival of larger trees. i LI LJ u I Kurahashi & Associates, Inc. November 20, 1997 9 Metzger Sanitary Sewer Reh*tation Onified Sewerage Agency ' Wetland Mitigation Plant List (see Planting Plan for zone locations and quantities) Forested Wetland Zone Grass Mix 1 ' Oregon Ash Pacific Ninebark Western Manna Grass Native Red Fescue Slough Sedge Blue Wildrye Grass Mix 1 Meadow Barley Pole Cuttings Grass Mix 2 Upland Forest Zone Blue Wildrye Douglas Fir Native Red Fescue ' Western Red Cedar California Brome Red Alder Sword Fern Pole Cuttings Dull Oregon Grape 70% Willows consisting of two or more of the following: Pacific Willow Wetland Riparian Zone Scouler's Willow Black Hawthorn Hooker's Willow Black Cottonwood Sitka Willow Clustered Rose Northwest Willow Pole Cuttings 30 % Red Osier Dogwood Grass Mix 1 Upland Riparian Zone Red Alder Western Red Cedar Serviceberry Osoberry Snowberry Grass Mix 2 Shrub/Scrub Wetland Zone ' Pole Cuttings Douglas Spiraea Clustered Rose Serviceberry ' Grass Mix 1 Wet Meadow Zone Sawbeak Sedge Grass Mix 1 Upland Meadow Zone Grass Mix 2 Pole Cuttings Zone ' Pole Cuttings Lawn Replacement Zone Turf grasses per owner specification Kurahashi 8 Associates, Inc. November 20, 1997 10 • \r -.re? X NOT TO SCALE • Nr? PP r ra\ I tft P Nr? PP r TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACT PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT APPROX. 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN 182 i f ? -lea ¢aeo o / L1 / lea i EXISTING SANITARY \?r ALIGNMENT zl? PP r PROPOSED SANITARY PP ALIGNMENT r NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1 1 1 Appendix A Pre-Application Meeting Notes 1 11 u • ? CITY OF TIGARD PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES .?rt.tary 4-Am r?.ommun:rv y y?,? o??' Gre 13. NON-RESIDENTIAL ILICANT: 0 fj AGENT' ,?Q r?r ?/?? I ne: ( l Phone: ( l 'ROPERTYIOCATION: DRESS: wcc-, .v AX MAP/TAX LOT: #ESSARYAPPLICATIONISJ:?5f?'yc 1POSAL OESCRIF i ION: ?PREHERSIVE DESIGNATION: ZING DESIGNATION: ITIZEN INVOLVEMENT 1 AREA R 4115, #? yS FACILITATOR: Su /, PHONE: 15031 I NINE DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Minimum lot size: sq. ft. Average lot width: ft. icks. Front ft. Side ft. Rear Maximum site coverage: % andscapec Max' um-tr Ing height: ft. Corner ft. from street. or natural vegetation area: (Refer to ) DITIONAL LOT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Minimum lot frontage: 25 feet unless lot is created throigh the minor land partiti ess- Lots created as part of a partition must have a minimum of 15 feet of front ave a minimum 15 foot wide access easement. ' The depth of all lots shall not exceed a average width, unless the parcel is less than 1;. times the o e applicable zoning district. [Refer to Code Section 18.164.060 - Lots) "Unnu F19'0W1JnGdUUH cumertnce holes local u/11CMI/?1f21111 Onannalt SACd11 Page 1 of 8 ; JIAl SETBACKS Streets: feet from the centerline of Established areas: feet from Lower intensity zones: Flag lot: 104oot r setback. (Referto ode Section and 18.961 the site's boundary. YJIAL BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS Building Height Exceptions - Buildings located in a non-residential zon provided that: A maximum building floor area i e area ratio (FAR) of 1.5 to 1 will exist; •- All actual buildin asks will be at least half (Vi) of the building's height: and The s e will not abut a residential zoned district. efer to Code Section 18.98.0201 I NG AND ACCESS Required parking for this type of use: Parking shown on preliminary plan(s): a height of 75 feet Secondary use required parking: Parking shown on preliminary plan(s): ' No more than 40% of required spaces may be designated and/or dimensioned as compact spaces. ' Parking Stalls shall be dimensioned as follows: Standard parking space dimensions: 8 feet, 8 inches x Compact parking space dimensions: 8 feet x 15 feet. (Refer to Code Section 18.106.020) ' Handicapped Parking: All parking areas shall provide approp ' tely located and dimensioned disabled person parking spaces, The minimum number of disabled erson parking spaces to be provided, as well as the parking stall ' dimensions. are mandated by t Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A handout is available upon request. A handicapped pa ing space symbol shall be painted on the parking space surface and an appropriate sign shall be posted. Bicycle racks are required for multi-family, commercial and industrial developments. Bicycle racks shall be located in areas protected from automobile traffic and in convenient locations. Bicycle parking spaces shall be provided on the,basis of one space for every fifteen (15) required vehicular parking spaces. Minimum number of accesses: Minimum access width: Minimum pavement width: All driveways and parking areas, except for some fleet storage parking areas, must be paved. Drive-in use queuing areas: (Refer to Code Section 18.106 and 18.108) -..aa.u.Y Is W-Havu6YYY1114Y1110ITr116o 1WICi Page 2 of 8 1ssidesual ??ollatl?U?l?ul?? ossinant Sutlu !MAIMAY REQUIREMENTS Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor la of stairs, ramps. or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient c ions between buildings in multi-building ' commercial, institutional, and industrial corn I nless impractical, walkways should be constructed between a new development and nei ring developments. [Refer to Code Section 18.1 1 LING AREA REQ Ev2e?-TT mmercial or industrial building in excess of 10.000 square feet shall be provided with a loading s h e space size and location shall be as approved by the City Engineer. (Refer to Code Section 18.106.070-0901 JAR VISION AREA The City requires that clear vision areas be maintained roe and eight feet in height at ' road/driveway, road/railroad, and roa c ions. The size of the required clear vision area depends upon th reet's functional classification. [ ode Section 18.1021 1IRRING AND SCREENING In order to increase privacy and to either reduce or eliminate adverse noise or visual impacts be en ' adjacent developments, especially between different land uses, the City requires landscaped b r areas along certain site perimeters. Required buffer areas are described by the Code in to width. Buffer areas must be occupied by a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shr nd must also achieve ' a balance between vertical and horizontal plantings. Site obscurin eens or fences may also be required: these are often advisable even if not required by the C . The required buffer areas may gDly be occupied by vegetation, fences, utilities. and walkwa dditional information on required buffer area materials and sizes may be found in the Develop ode. [Refer to Code Chapter 18.1001 The required buffer widt ns-wh ich are applicable to your proposal area are as follows: 1 along north boundary. feet along south boundary. In addition, sight obscuring screening is required along feet along east boundary. feet along west boundary. IDSCAPING Street trees are required for all developments fronting on a public or private street as well as dri ays which are more than 100 feet in length. Street trees must be placed either within the public -of-way or on private property within six (6) feet of the right-of-way boundary. Street trees ave a minimum caliper of a leas two (2) inches when measured four (4) feet above grad et trees should be spaced 20 to 40 feet apart depending on the branching width of the r ed tree species at maturity. Further information on regulations affecting street trees may be ned from the Planning Division. A minimum of one (1) tree for every seve parking spaces must be planted in and around all parking areas in order to provide a ve a canopy effect. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which ively screen the parking lot areas from view. These design features may include the use -t"andscaped berms. decorative walls. and raised planters. For detailed information on ' design reg ments for parking areas and accesses. Mir to Code Chapters 18.100. 18.106 and 18.1081 ¦ OF TIURD Pre-Uplicanon Conference Notes Page 3 of 8 Aesidnuai orpliausunnoiu osputment sacbee SIGNS Sign permits must be obtained prior to installation of any sign in the City of Tigard. A " eti r Sign 1 Permits" handout is available upon request. Add -?igltill yond Code standards may be permitted if the sin viewed as part of a development review application. Alternatively, a Sign Coded ion application may be filed for review before the Hearings Officer. ' (Refer to Code Secdon 18.114) NSITIVE LANDS The Code provides regulations for lands which are potentially unsuitable for development due to areas within the 100-year floodplain, natural drainageways, wetland areas, on slopes in excess of 25 percent, or ' on unstable ground. Staff will attempt to preliminary identify sensitive lands areas at the pre-application conference based on available information. HOWEVER, the responsibif to precisely identify sensitive 1 lands areas, and their boundaries, is the responsibility of the applicant. Areas meeting the definitions of sensitive lands must be clearly indicated on plans submitted with the development Chapter 18.84 also provides regulations for the use, protection, or modification of sensitive lands areas. Residential development is prohibited within flood plains, JFEP SLOPES When steep slopes exist, prior to issuance of a final order, a geotechnical report must be submitted which addresses the approval standards of the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.84.040.6. The report shall be based upon field exploration and investigation and shall include specific recommendations for achieving the requirements of 18.84.040.B.2 and 18.84.040.8.3. 'MIRED SEWERAGE AGENCY (USA) BUFFER STANDARDS, R a 0 9644 Purpose: Land development adjacent to sensitive areas shall preserve and maintain or create a vegetated corridor for a buffer wide enough to protect the water quality functioning of the sensitive area. Design Criteria: The vegetated corridor shall be a minimum of 25 feet wide, measured horizontally, from the defined boundaries of the sensitive area, except where approval has been granted by the Agency or City to reduce the width of a portion of the corridor. If approval is granted by the Agency or City to reduce the width of a portion of the vegetated corridor, then the surface water in this area shall be directed to an area of the vegetated corridor that is a minimum of 25 feet wide. The maximum allowable encroachment shall be 15 feet, except as allowed in Section 3.11.4. No more than 25 percent of the length of the vegetated corridor within the development or project site can be less than 25 feet in width. In any case, the average width of the vegetated corridor shall be a minimum of 25 feet. Restrictions in the Veaetate Corridor: No structures, development, construction activities, gardens, lawns, application of chemicals, dumping of any materials of any kind, or other activities shall be permitted which otherwise detract from the water quality protection provided by the vegetated corridor, except as allowed below: A gravel walkway or bike path, not exceeding 8 feet in width. If the walkway or bike path is paved, then the vegetated corridor must be widened by the width to the path. A paved or gravel walkway or ' bike path may not be constructed closer than 10 feet from the boundary of the sensitive area, unless approved by the Agency or City. Walkways and bike paths shall be constructed so as to minimize disturbance to existing vegetation; and Water quality facilities may encroach into the vegetated corridor a maximum of 10 feet with the approval of the Agency or City. % OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Pape 4 of i r?8SIMUNi 8oruCIUSI/10i.2au1 Y.rarrM..rs• 081 Location of Vegetated Corridor: ' In any residential development which creates multiple parcels or lots intended for separate ownership. such as a subdivision, the vegetated corridor shall be contained in a separate tract, and shall not be a part of any parcel to be used for the construction of a dwelling unit. [Refer to R & 0 96-44/11SA Regulations - Chapter 3, Design for SWM1 &EE REMOVAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS A tree pan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided '? for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, I major partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal where possible. The tree plan shall include the following: Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as I significant by the City: ' j Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. i Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.150.070.D. according to the! following standards: I, ' Retainage of less than 25 percent of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a! mitigation program according to Section 18.150.070.D. of no net loss of trees; Retainage of from 25 to 50 percent of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that I two-thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.150.070.D; i I Retainage of from 50 to 75 percent of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 ' percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.150.070.D: I Retainage of 75 percent or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no ' mitigation; Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; and { A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect : trees during and after construction. Trees removed within the period of one (1) year prior to a development application listed above will be! ' inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to Section 18.150.070.D. [Refer to Code Section 18150.0251 ` ITIGATION Replacement of a tree shall take place according to the following guidelines: A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species considering site characteristics. If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damages is not reasonably available, the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value. 1 j % If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable. the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the following formula: • The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated caliper size ' of the tree removed or damaged. by the caliper size of the largest reasonably available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property, the Director may require one (1) or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the city, either . public property or, with the consent of the owner, private property. OF TIURO Pro-upillcatlon Coherence Notes Page 5-018 oa-Ualdaaael 28plleaaea/11822116 oeaartant seen.. 1 The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow ' growth to maturity. In lieu of tree replacement under Subsection D of this section, a party may, with the consent of the Director, ' elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree replacement. (Refer to Code Section 18.150.070 (0) BOIVISION PLAT NAME RESERVATION Prior to submitting a Subdivision land use application with the City of Tigard, applic equired to complete and file a subdivision plat naming request with the Washingto Surveyor's Office in order to obtain approval/reservation for any subdivision name. . ations will not be accepted as complete ' until the City receives the faxed confi approval from the County of the Subdivision Name Reservation. rveyof s Office: 648-88841 Ran The applicant shall submit a narrative which provides findings based on the applicable approval standards. Failure to provide a narrative or adequately address criteria would be reason to consider an application incomplete and delay review of the proposal. (Refer to Code Section 18.321 _? tOE SECTIONS 18.80 _ 18.92 = 18.100 _ 18.108 = 18.120 18.150 18.84 18.96 18.102 18.114 18.130 18.160 18.88 18.98 _ 18.106 _ 18.116 _ 18.134 18.162 SPACT STUDY 18.164 As a part of the application submittal requirements, applicants are required to include impact st ' with their submittal package. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the develo nt on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transp ion system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water syst , he sewer system and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility s and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City sta s, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities ms, and affected private property users. ' In situations where the Community Develo Code requires the dedication of real property interests. the applicant shall either sp ' ally concur with the dedication requirement, or provide evidence which supports the co sion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projec mpacts of the development. (Refer to Code er 18.32. Section .0501 ' Whea,alc'-ondition of approval requires transfer to the public of an interest in real property, the approval aufhority shall adopt findings which support the conclusion that the interest in real property to be transferred ?? is. roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. (Refer to Code Chapter 18.32, Section .2501 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING The applicant shall notify all property owners within 250 feet and the appropriate CIT Facilitator and tho.. members of any land use subcommittee(s) of their proposal. A minimum of 2 weeks between the mailing date and the meeting date is required. Please review the Land Use Notification handout concerning site posting and the meeting notice. Meeting is to be held prior to submittingyour application or the application will not be accepted. [[Refer to the Neighborhood Meeting HandouU MTV OF TIURD Pre-Anpllcatfon Conference Notes Page 6 of 8 fall-Astjoesuml sooncatles/Msesins OsNrtweet settler r ? VILDIN6 PERMITS Plans for building and other related permits will not be accepted for review until a land use appro as been issued. Final inspection approvals by the Building Division will not be granted there is compliance with all conditions of development approval. i YCLIN6 Applicant should contact franchise hauler for r and approval of site servicing compatibility with Pride ' Disposal's vehicles. CONTAC Lenny Hing with Pride Disposal at (503) 625-6177. [Refer to Cod .1161 LEOURE Administrative Staff Review. _ G IPLICATION SUBMITTAL PROCESS All applications must be accepted by a Planning Division staff member of the Community Development ' Department at Tigard City Hall offices. PLEASE NOTE: Applications submitted by mail or dropped off at the counter without Planning Division acceptance may be returned Applications will NOT be accepted after 3:00 P.M. on Fridays or 4.30 on other week days t Maps submitted with an application shall be folded IN ADVANCE to 8.5 by 11 inches One 1 81/," x 11" map of a proposed project should be submitted for attachment to the staff report or 1 administrative decision Application with unfolded maps shall not be accepted Of TIURD Pre-ballcadon Conference Notes Pape I of B IM-essmeodsl arrlludn/Flan1n Onsrtant Ssedn nd Use Hearings Officer. Public Council. hearing before the La Public hearing before the Planning Commission. Public hearing before the Planning Commission with the Commission making a recommendation on the proposal to the City Council. An additional public hearing shall be held by the City 1 ITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS: The Planning Division and Engineering Division will perform a preliminary review of the application and will determine whether an application is complete within 30 days of the counter submittal. Staff will notify the applicant if additional information or additional copies of the submitted materials are required. The administrative decision or public hearing will typically occur approximately 45 to 60 days after an application is accepted as being complete by the Planning Division. Applications involving difficult or protracted issues or requiring review by other jurisdictions may take additional time to review. Written recommendations from the Planning staff are issued seven (7) days prior to the public hearing. A 10, to 20 day public appeal period follows all land use decisions. An appeal on this matter would be heard by the Tigard G?. Cpvncl A basic flow chart which illustrates the review process is available from the Planning Division upon request. This pre-application conference and the notes of the conference are intended to inform the prospective applicant of the primary Community Development Code requirements applicable to the potential development of a particular site and to allow the City staff and prospective applicant to discuss the opportunities and constraints affecting development of the site. t 1 t PLEASE NOTE: _ The conference and notes cannot cover all Code requirements and aspects of good site planning that should apply to the development of your site plan. Failure of the staff to provide information required by the Code shall not constitute a waiver of the applicable standards or requirements. it is recommended that a prospective applicant either obtain and read the Community Development Code or ask any questions of City staff relative to Code requirements prior to submitting an application. An Additional pre-application fee and conference will be required if an application pertaining to thig pre-application conference is submitted after a period of more than six (6) months following this conference (unless deemed as unnecessary by the Planning Division). oboar\mssunttnaoo-c.nu :a nrlof sutlll: ao:un\Onooo-e.1191 91 PREPARED BY: `TUTA; A ial?C CITY OF TIGA)lb PLANNING DIVISION PHONE 15031639-4M FAX: 15031684-7297 0 OFTIGARO Pre-Upllcatlon Conference Notes page 8 of 8 Ir-i..uo¦nn noucmn/10183@111 9813rmuntsann a 1 1 1 I CITY OF TIGARD - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPLICATION CHECKLIST CIT2? Y OF TIGARD The items on the checklist below are required for the succesful completion of your application submission requirements. This checklist identifies what is required to be submitted with your application. This sheet MUST be returned and submitted with all other applicable materials at the time you submit your land use application. See your application for further explanation of these items or call the City of Tigard Planning Division at (503) 639-4171. staff: -T 14 v412 X 6 3 Date: -73 7 APPLICATION & RELATED DOCUMENT& SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE V MARKED ITEMS A) Application form (1 copy) B) Owner's signature/written authorization C) Title transfer instrumentlor grant deed D) Applicant's statement E) Filing Fee Q' No. of Copies ;-4 $ t 2-y o SITE-SPECIFIC MAP(S)/PLAN(S) SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE.' MARKED ITEMS A) Site Information showine: No. of Copies 20 1. Vicinity map t5 2. Site size & dimensions 3. Contour lines (2 ft at 0-10% or 5 ft for grades > 10%) 4. Drainage patterns, courses, and ponds e>' 5. Locations of natural hazard areas including: / (a) Floodplain areas ta' (b) Slopes in excess of 25% (c) Unstable ground (d) Areas with high seasonal water table (e) Areas with severe soil erosion potential (f) Areas having severely weak foundation soils 6. Location of resource areas as shown on the Comprehensive Map Inventory including: / (a) Wildlife habitats (b) Wetlands 7. Other site features: (a) Rock outcroppings (b) Trees with 6" + caliper measured 4 feet from ground level 8. Location of existing structures and their uses ? 9. Location and type of on and off-site noise sources . ? 10. Location of existing utilities and easements tz 11. Location of existing dedicated right-of-ways LAND USE APPLICATION,/ LIST r 6) Site Development Plan Indicating: No. of Copies 1 n L t 1 1. The proposed site and surrounding properties 0 2. Contour line intervals 0 3. The location, dimensions and names of all: (a) Existing & platted streets & other public ways and easements on the site and on adjoining properties ? (b) Proposed streets or other public ways & easements on the site 0 (c) Alternative routes of dead end or proposed streets that require future extension ? 4. The location and dimension of: (a) Entrances and exits on the site ? (b) Parking and circulation areas c (c) Loading and services area 0 (d) Pedestrian and bicycle circulation M (e) Outdoor common areas c (f) Above ground utilities 0 5. The location, dimensions & setback distances of all: (a) Existing permanent structures, improvements, utilities, and easements which are located on the site and on adjacent property within 25 feet of the site (b) Proposed structures, improvements, utilities and easements on the site p 6. Storm drainage facilities and analysis of downstream conditions 0 :. Sanitary sewer facilities ? 8. The location areas to be landscaped 0 9. The location and type of outdoor lighting considering crime prevention techniques 0 10. The location of mailboxes 0 11. The location of all structures and their orientation 0 12. Existing or proposed sewer reimbursement agreements 0 C) Grading Plan Indicating: No. of Copies %-J0 The site development plan shall include a grading plan at the same scale as the site analysis drawings and shall contain the following information: 1. The location and extent to which grading will take place indicating: (a) General contour lines (b) Slope ratios Q/ (c) Soil stabilization proposal(s) (d) Approximate time of year for the proposed site development c? 2. A statement from a registered engineer supported by data factual substantiating: (a) Subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering report o (b) The validity of sanitary sewer and storm drainage service proposals 0 (c) That all problems will be mitigated and how- they will be mitigated 0 LAND USE APPLICATION / LIST PAGE = OF ; 1 1 1 A 1 D) Architectural Drawings Indicating: • No. of Copies - The site development plan proposal shall include: 1. Floor plans indicating the square footage of all structures proposed for use on-site 2. Typical elevation drawings of each structure E) Landscape Plan Indicating: No. of Copies - ?2A The landscape plan shall be drawn at the same scale of the site analysis plan or a larger scale if necessary and shall indicate: 1. Description of the irrigation system where applicable ? 2. Location and height of fences, buffers and screenings ? 3. Location of terraces, decks, shelters, play areas, and common open spaces ? 4. Location, type, size and species of existing and proposed plant materials ? 5. Landscape narrative which also addresses: (a) Soil conditions tal (b) Erosion control measures that will be used M-1, F) Sign Drawings: ? Sign drawings shall be submitted in accordance with Chapter 18.114 of the Code as part of the Site Development Review or prior to obtaining a Building Permit to construct a sign. G) Traffic Generation Estimate: ? H) Preliminary Partition/Lot Line Adjustment Man Indicating: No. of Copies 1. The owner of the subject parcel ? 2. The owner's authorized agent ? 3. The map scale (20,50,100 or 200 feet-1) inch north arrow a date ? 4. Description of parcel location and boundaries ? 5. Location, width and names of streets, easements and er public ways within and adjacent to the parcel ? 6. Location of all permanent buildings on and ' in 25 feet of all property lines ? 7. Location and width of all water co s ? 8. Location of any trees within 6" greater caliper at 4 feet above ground level ? 9. All slopes greater than % ? 10. Location of existin tilities and utility easements ? 11. For major land rtition which creates a public street: (a) The pr osed right-of-way location and width ? (b) A s ed cross-section of the proposed street plus any reserve strip ? 12. Any a licable deed restrictions ? 13. Evi nce that land partition will not preclude efficient future land division where applicable LANO USE APPLICATION -4' LIST PAGE 3 OF 3 1) Subdivision Preliminarv Plat Mao and Data Indicating: No. of Copies I 1. Scale equaling 30,50,100 or 200 feet to the inch and limited to one phase per sheet 'o 2. The proposed name of the subdivision ' 3. Vicinity map showing property s relationship to arterial and collector streets / o 4. Names, addresses and telephone numbers of the owner, developer engineer surveyer and desi ner (as a li bl , g pp ca e) o 5. Date of application G 6. Boundary lines of tract to be subdivided 7 Names of adjacent subdivi i f o . s on or names o recorded owner of adjoining parcels of un-subdivided land o 8. Contour lines related to a City-established benchmark at -foot intervals for 0-10% grades greater than 10% o 9. The purpose, location, type and size of all the follow' g (within and adjacent to the proposed subdivision): (a) Public and private right-of-ways and easem is (b) Public and private sanitary and storm sew r lines (c) Domestic water mains including fire by ants _ (d) Major power telephone transmission Iii es (50,000 volts or greater) o (e) Watercourses o (f) Deed reservations for parks, open aces, pathways and other land encumbrances 0 10. Approximate plan and profiles of pr osed sanitary and storm sewers i h w t grades and pipe sizes indicat on the plans a 11. Plan of the proposed water distri tion system, showing pipe sizes and the location of valves and fire h drants , 12. Approximate centerline profii showing the finished grade of all streets including street extensions f a reasonable distance beyond the limits of the proposed subdivision o 13. Scaled cross sections of oposed street right-of-way(s) Q 14. The location of all are subject to inundation or storm water overflow o 15. Location, width & dir ion of flow of all water courses & drainage-ways 16 The pro osed lot i o . p co figurat ons, approximate lot dimensions and lot numbers. Wher lots are to be used for purposes other than residential, it shat a indicated upon such lots. o 17. The location of I trees with a diameter 6 inches or greater measured at 4 feet above gr and level, and the location of proposed tree plantings o 18. The existing es of the property, including the location of all structures and the pres nt uses of the structures, and a statement of which structures are to rem n after platting 19. Supplem tal information including: ( ) P d ? a r pose deed restrictions (if any) o (b) P oof of property ownership ' (c) /A proposed plan for provision of subdivision improvements o 20. Existing natural features including rock outcroppings, wetlands & marsh areas o 21. If any of the foregoing information cannot practicably be shown on the preliminary plat, it shall be incorporated into a narrative and submitted with the application 1 LAND USE APPLICATION/ LIST J) Solar Access Calculations: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IQ Other Information No. of Copies ?-V (A?et7g? dS o%,/h ?9t/? /00 vev- h:UoglMpattyUnastersUai?I at. ms? Mav 23. 1995 L,ND USE APPLICATION J LIST 1 1 P 1 Appendix B Neighborhood Meeting Documentation I UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY 1 Public Meeting Proposed Sanitary Sewer Upgrade In Metzger ' 7 p.m. Wednesday, July 23, 1997 Metzger Park Hall 8400 SW Hemlock The Unified Sewerage Agency is planning to upgrade the sanitary sewer system in your area, along Ash Creek from Taylors Ferry Road at 80th Avenue to Spruce Avenue near SW 89th Avenue. The system needs to be upgraded because it is at capacity and overflows during very wet weather. Last February, we held a public meeting to introduce the project to property owners. Now that the surveying, preliminary design, and environmental assessment of the project area are completed, it is time for another public meeting. At the meeting, USA staff will discuss the design and how the project will affect the neighborhood, and will ' ask for your comments and suggestions. We hope you can attend the meeting. If you are unable to attend, but have questions or comments, please feel free to call Project Manager Lee Walker or Public Involvement Coordinator Sheri Wantland at 648-8621. This project will be funded as a sanitary sewer capital improvement project. Property owners will not be assessed for the project. The actual construction of the new sewer would begin in summer of 1998 or 1999. The Agency is aware there have also been storm sewer and drainage problems in the area, but the funding for the proposed project is for sanitary sewer construction only. 155 North First Avenue, Suite 270, MS 10 W Phone: 503/648-8621 Hillsboro, Oregon 97124 FAX: 503/640-3525 i luf odSe 4 Unifi wera9eAgency SIGN-IN SHEET MEETING: (DATE: Address boo .?eJ. a ?? o _ y Sot,) A "7170 SW 7?YLoes r 4?`? ?+SZ-8S88 Sw forth 0`ta 5 w 5 Z Z `-l5 l 35 f,-.?' ?YS SCJ S ru.c,? S ylo - SY?3 . e: sign-inpmS ?1 Metzger Trunkline Upgrade Public Meeting #2 July 23, 1997 Staff attending: Terry Chamberlin, Lee Walker, Sheri Wantland Neighbors: Marjorie Flaman, Cathy Sowa, Gus Anderson, Gene and Nora Ray, Cliff Epler, Mark Meyers, and Jeanette Carter of Metzger Park staff 1. Introductions, project overview--Sheri 2. Preliminary design, permits, easements, schedule--Terry 3. Specific concerns--Lee All had attended previous meetings or talked with staff about the project. There were few concerns other than wanting to preserve landscaping and significant trees. The meeting was congenial, with attendees expressing strong support for the project and how USA staff was approaching it. Several requested watertight manhole lids, and were concerned about the elevation of manholes. (It was commented that Dr. Davis was at the Tigard city council the night before trying to get an amendment on a landuse issue.) Specific concerns: Gus Anderson 9153 SW 80th--bridge, mature landscaping Cliff Epler 8845 SW Spruce--fish pond, dam (he said the water was worse this year than it's ever been; has had several fish kills, might just "stop" the fish until after the project) Gene and Nora Ray 9090 SW 82nd--huge oak tree Marjorie Flaman 9365 SW 82nd--her son owns adjacent property and planted a tree on the easement, concerned about access. Mark Meyers 8408 SW Cedar Crest Drive--wants notice before workers on property, found dumped concrete on the property; is in process of developing. Lee spoke individually with all and will visit their property to see each concern. Ines: L. Mattila 9135 SW 80 Avenue Irtland OR 97223 1 25CB 01000 ta hard E. O'Neal nces J. O'Neal 00 SW 80 Avenue V and OR 97223 1 25CA 01301 rren T. Forsyth tricia S. Forsyth 2 50 Paradise Dr uron CA 94920 il 25CB 01400 Mark Meyers Janie Closs N08 SW Cedar Crest Dr. Portland OR 97223 fl 25CB 02100 rry B. Greisel 318 17 Avenue attle WA 98122 1 25CB 02300 1Milyn ard J. Freeman L. Freeman 22 SW Chestnut St. rtland OR 97223 1 1 25CC 01000 F rthwest Retirement using Income Fund III 8445 SW Hemlock St. rtland OR 97223 11 25CC 01302 L 11ard of Directors tzger Park Condos Po O. Box 6469 rtland OR 97228 t 1 26DD 90000 rray Pepper James Pepper Bank of America artland OR 97228 1S1 35AA 0500 lektherine E. Sowa 7970 SW Taylors Ferry Rd. Tigard OR 97223 1 S1 25CA-01102 William R. Strong Trust 9130 SW 80 Avenue Portland OR 97223 1 S1 25CA 01300 Olson Development Co. Inc. 13141 SW Tuefel Hill Rd. Beaverton OR 97007 1 S1 25CB 01500 Marjorie Flaman 9365 SW 82 Avenue Portland OR 97223 1 S1 25CB 02200 Darrell W. Donner Debbie J. Donner 9425 SW 82 Avenue Tigard OR 97223 1 S1 25CB 02400 Hall 33 Ltd. Partnership Dalton Company 8465A SW Hemlock Tigard OR 97223 1 S1 25CC 01300 Susan K. Peterson 8400 SW Elmwood Portland OR 97223 1 S1 25CC 01303 James Craytor Richard Craytor 16997 SE Blanton Milwaukie OR 97267 1 S1 26DD 01600 Metzger- Park Apartments; Inc.. Leon Laptook 1001 SW Baseline Hillsboro OR 97123 1 S l 35AA 00102 Walt Walp Cindy Walp 10207 SW 85 Avenue Portland OR 97223 1.S1.35AA 1601 illiam K. Nash Nancy A. Nash 9060 SW 80 Avenue Portland OR 97223 1 S l 25CA 01200 Eugene L Ray Nora G. Ray 9090 SW 82 Avenue Portland OR 97223 1 S1 25CB 00900 Gustava Anderson Lois Anderson 9135 SW 80 Avenue Portland OR 97223 1S1 25CB 01000 Michael J Flaman Linda Flaman 8280 SW Cedarcrest St. Portland OR 97223 1 S1 25CB 02201 Luther G. Gray Patricia H. Gray 8275 SW Chestnut St. Tigard OR 97223 1 S1 25 CB 02402 Arden L. Warrington 8405 Sw Elmwood St. Tigard OR 97223 1 S1 25CC 01301 Chris Wayland Washington County Facilities Management-Admin. 111 SE Washington St. MS 4 Hillsboro OR 97123 Joseph C. Carnig Gerald G. Mock 8900 SW Hall Blvd. Portland OR 97223 1 S1 26DD 01700 Kenneth Johannes Margaret Johannes 10 120 SW Hall Blvd. Ste 104 Portland OR 97223 1 S1 35AA 00200 Patricia S. Fries 10225 SW 85 Avenue Tigard OR 97223 1 S l 35AA 01600 tichai'J Taylor 10245 SW 85 Avenue ortland OR 97223 IS1 35AA 01602 orthland Homes Inc. E834 SW 58th #202 Portland OR 97201 S 1 35AA 02100 James L. Cain arlene L. Cain 4300 SW Pacific Hwy. Tigard OR 97223 S 1 35AA 0240OA 1 lohn R. Wright .1racy I. Wright 0575 SW Hall Tigard OR 97223 f S 1 35AA 03600 ice S. Juve 10655 SW Hall Blvd. ortland OR 97223 IS1 35AD 00900 ugene L. Davis ivian M. Davis 10875 SW 89 Avenue igard OR 97223 S I 35AD 01400 teve Aschenbrenner 425 SW Lombard Beaverton OR 97005 1 Wanda Weber, Trustee 040 SW Taylors Ferry Rd ortland OR 97223 Richard Williams ,2850 SW 80th Ave Wortland OR 97223 *Laszlo Szalvay *Helen Chavez Iren Szalvay 8407 SW Locust 14950 SW 144 Avenue Portland OR 97223 Tigard OR 97224 1S1 35AA 01800 1 S1 35AA 01701 Gary Kaufman State of Oregon 1295 Baxter Rd SE Dept. of Transportation Salem OR 97036 417 Transportation Bldg. IS 1 35AA 02000 Salem OR 97310 1 S 1 35AA 02001 Donald J. Lyon Theodore S. Peterson Hazel J. Lyon Virginia J. Dean 10440 SW 87 Avenue 8686 SW Oak Portland OR 97223 Tigard OR 97223 IS 1 35AA 02500 1 S1 35AA 02600 Thelma Crouch Estate Thelma Crouch Estate c/o Eugene L. Davis c/o Eugene L. Davis 10875 SW 89 Avenue 10875 SW 89 Avenue Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97223 1 S1 35AD 01200 1 S1 35AD 01300 Eugene L. Davis Clifford Epler 10875 SW 89 Avenue Kay Epler Tigard OR 97223 8845 SW Spruce St. 1 S1 35AD 01130 Tigard OR 97223 1 S1 35AD 01101 Metzger Park Board of Directors c/o Jeanette Carter Larry Eisenberg 8400 SW Hemlock Wash. Co. Facilities Maint. Portland OR 97223 Mailstop 29 Adjacent Property OWners Theodore Peterson Virginia Dean 8686 SW Oak Tigard OR 97223 Edgar Stebbins 8003 SW Taylors Ferry Rd Portland OR 97223 John and Susan Weber 8009 SW Taylors Ferry Rd Portland OR 97223 Mark Barnes 8815 SW Spruce St Tigard OR 97223 Vincent Bernabei 8120 SW Cedarcrest Portland OR 97223 Reynold and Patricia Meyer 8980 SW 80th Ave Portland OR 97223 Other Interested Parties gat Whiting PO 4M 122 SW Spruce igard OR 97223 ugene Shirley 630 SW Greenwood Dr ?ortland OR 97223 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pat McCarthy 7860 SW Elmwood Portland OR 97223 Sure ssk -7& 61 • Brian Selman 8667 Sw Florence Tigard OR 97223 Frank Portwood 7930 SW Elmwood Portland OR 97223 1 1 i i 1 1 Appendix C Rapid Stream Assessment 1 I? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • METZGER TRUNK PROJECT Rapid Stream Assessment of Ash Creek Taylor's Ferry Road to Spruce Street Prepared for: Unified Sewerage Agency Washington County, Oregon Prepared by: KURAHASkill f? A?SUC:lAT6S, INC'. DRAFT 1 1 1 METZGER TRUNK PROJECT Rapid Stream Assessment of Ash Creek Taylor's Ferry Road to Spruce Street INTRODUCTION The Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) is planning to replace the trunk line that more or less paralells Ash Creek through the Metzger area. As part of the preliminary analysis for the Metzger Trunk Project, approximately 6,200 linear feet of Ash Creek located between Taylor's Ferry Road and Spruce Street (the "Metzger Reach")has been assessed for channel stability and general stream health using an adaptation of the Rapid Stream Assessment Technique (RSAT) developed by John Galli (1996). ' This technical memorandum documents the methodology, data, and results of the RSAT and provides a discussion of the general condition of the study reach based on the observations and results of the assessment. The remainder of this document is organized into the following sections: 11 Summary of Results Adaptation of the RSAT Methodology Study Reach Map RSAT Data Forms Detailed Results References Appendix: Photographic Record RSAT Source Paper (Galli, 1996) SUMMARY OF RESULTS Nine transects at approximately 750 L.F. intervals were sampled for 24 physical parameters. Evaluation Categories and a summary of the scoring are indicated below. Specific information regarding major scoring parameters are provided in the Detailed Results section. 1 TABLE I: RSAT Category Scores for the Metzger Reach of Ash Creek Catagory Excellent Good Fair Poor Score Bank Stability 9-11 6-8 3-5 0-2 8 Channel Scouring/Deposition 7-8 5-6 3-4 0-2 5 Physical Instream Habitat 7-8 5-6 3-4 0-2 4 Water Quality 7-8 5-6 3-4 0-2 4 Riparian Habitat Conditions 6-7 4-5 2-3 0-1 1 IBiological Indicators 7-8 5-6 3-4 0-2 3 This adds up to a total score of 25 out of a possible 50, an overall verbal rating of "fair". Metzger Trunk Project RSAT of Ash Creek ADAPTATION OF THE RSAT METHODOLOGY ' Evaluation Categories All categories identified by Galli were used. Modifications to Galli's methodology are discussed below. Evaluation Intervals The evaluation interval was approximately. 750 L.F. as indicated on the Study Reach Map. Nine transects were used over the study reach. Transects were generally taken at riffles, Riffles nearest to pre-selected areas were used, however, Transect 2 was not at a riffle because no riffles were present within several hundred feet of the pre-selected transect location. Photographic Record The photographic record shows upstream and downstream conditions at each transect. The photos also show major outfalls, in-creek structures, and wetland areas observed during field sampling. The Photo Log included in the RSAT Data Form describes the photos provided by photo number. Reference Reach No appropriate reference reach was available for this study. All of the tributaries of the Tualatin ' River that are headwatered in the West Hills of Portland are heavily urbanized and are in similar condition to the study reach. Methodology Methodology will follow Galli except as follows: Water Quality ' Physical/Chemical Parameters-existing USA data collected at the Locust St. monitoring site were used for the entire study area. ' Clarity and Odor-observations will be noted at riffle transects. Fouling-per Galli with 5 to 7 samples per transect. ' Biological Indicators Kick Samples-a 6" dipnet was used. Scoring/Ranking Tables 1 and 2 in Galli, including weighting of Channel Stability and Riparian Habitat Conditions to reflect the urban nature of the stream, will be used to score assessment parameters (see Appendix B). Data forms Separate transect and assessment summary forms were adaptred from examples in Galli to accommodate collection of the field and research data required to complete the assessment. The forms and data collected for this study are provided in the Data Forms section. 1 Metzger Trunk Project 1 u 1 C • • NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION • 0 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1 • • NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION n Z,-- 1"- 120' ^4 ?? \ , $-? '? \ RSAT TRANSECT LOCATION 102 too MG va b / 192 -192 Z- ?-?a?' \\ S EXISTINC SANITARY UP" a- f \ p,/? \ \\+ra ALIGNMENT / PROPOSED SANITARY y"\ " \ \\ \$ ALIGNMENT t1? f Po \ b8 204 fib- -in i Sao \ \ \ PQQ \?PC .? r P room / KURAHASHI & A990CLTE3, INC. am acomaac nm ma°un wmC P[ a®IGGm?E PUVat c nnmuc !?W ae-iem °E5 we Unified Sewerage kency R-004 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION . °° V A 4 °r r°,e;ngt°, w- : METZGER SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION RSAT TRANSECT LOCATIONS E°" °-i RAPID STREAM ASSESSMENT "?' NO GCE PEVISg11 15 ?. F t ArMUe --: :'+Sm ° 1377 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • RSAT Data Form • General Basin Ash Creek Drainage Area 2,740 ac. (4.28 sq. mi.) Reach Taylors Ferry to Spruce Reach Length 6,200 L.F. Gradient 0.40% Investigator(s) Brent Davis Field Dates 6/24 to 6/25, 1997 Estimated EIA 17% (Fanno Study) Last Precipitation Event 6/22 Baseflow (cfs) 2.0 cfs DS, 0.6 cfs US Weather Notes 6/24 - Sunny, 72 F at 9:15 AM, 80 F after 12:00 PM 6/25 - Overcast, 73 F at 10:30 AM Accessibility Notes Transect 1 located on Davis Property (See Map) Photo Log Exposure(s) Description 1,2 US/DS at T1 3,4 US/DS at T2 5,6 US/DS at T3 7,8 US/DS at T4 9 6" outfall near T5 10,11 US/DS at T5 12 Tributary Crossing US of Hemlock 13,14 US/DS at T6 15-18 In-stream pond behind retirement complex 19,20 US/DS at T7 21-26 Forested wetland near T7 (right bank) 27,28 US/DS at T8 29 Outfall near T8 30,31 Mixed wetland and upland meadow near T8 32,33 US/DS at T9 34 Large outfall near T9 35 Small outfall near T9 36 Retaining wall on left bank near T9 37 Riprap DS t9 (left bank) Kurahashi & Associates, Inc. RSAT Data Form Channel Total Tree Falls: Total 8 Recent Tree Falls: Total 1 Trash and Dumping: Misc. trash scattered throughout reach (tires, bottles, various metallic objects, kitty litter, etc.) Yard Debris: Grass and leaves near T2 (left bank) Fish Barriers: Partial: Total: Exposed Sewer Lines: Riffles Pools Channel Modification/Stom Drain Outfalls Total 4 Total 1 Total 0 Total 18 Total 27 Ratio 67% Bank Location Dim. Bank Location Dim. Gabions R, L T4 5'h x 15'1 Rip-rap Bioenginnering Revegetation Concrete R, L T1 2'h wier Other wood R US T4 4'h x 40'1 R US T5 6'h x 1001 Outfalls R T4 15" L T9 12" R T5 6" L T8 8" L T9 24" Kurahashi & Associates, Inc. M= M M MM m twim MM M=w M M M M= M RSAT Data Form Stream: Ash Creek Date: 6/24 (T1-6), 6/25 (T7-9) Project: Metzger Trunk Project #: 1577 Investigator: Brent Davis Sheet 1 of 2 Transect, Sheet I Transect Reach Length (ft') Top Channel Width (ftJ Bottom Channel Width (ftJ Wetted Parameter (ft) Avg. Riffle Depth (in.) Avg. Bank Height (ft.) Bank Stability (%) Bank Material Type Riffle Substrate Material Composition Embedded- ness (/o) Substrate Fouling (%) Riparian Vegetation Buffer Width (ft.) Pool Habitat R L R L Avg. R L R L R L Max. Depth (ft.) Qual. 1 50 19 8 6 5 6 6 65 95 80 C C G,C,CONC 10 40 TS SH 20 0 1.5 F 2 50 14 10 10 - 4 8 85 70 78 SCL SCL S,SL 100 - TS TS 20 5 2 F 3 50 14 8 8 5 6 5 60 60 60 SCL SCL G,S,SL,W 30 20 TS TS 50 50 1.5 P 4 50 20 10 6 4 6 4 90 75 83 SCL SCL G,CO,S,SL 20 20 S H 10 0 1.5 F 5 50 18 11 5 3 4 5 60 90 75 SCL SCL B,G,CO,SL 10 10 TS TS 25 50 2 F 6 50 25 6 3 6 9 5 70 80 75 SCL SCL B,CO,SL,G 40 30 H TH 20 20 1 F 7 50 15 14 3 3 1 3 75 75 75 SCL SCL G,SL,S,C 30 30 TS TS 100 20 1 F 8 50 12 6 4 4 4 4 75 50 63 SCL SCL G,SL,S,C 80 30 TH TS 100 15 0.5 GO 9 50 10 7 4 2 4 6 80 100 90 SCL SCL G,CO,SI.,S 20 30 TH - 2 0 0.75 GO Avg. 50 16 9 5 4 5 5 73 77 75 SCL SCL G,SL,S,C,CO 38 26 TS TS 39 18 1 F E • Kurahashi & Associates, Inc. ? M IM -M MW- M M? fm I MM M IM M M M M M M RSAT Data Form Stream: Ash Creek Date: 6/24 (T1-6), 6/25 (T7-9) Project: Metzger Trunk Project #: 1577 Investigator: Brent Davis Sheet 2 of 2 Transect, Sheet 2 Transect Time Odor Color Clarity Temp (°F) Canop (o Coverage Notes Tree Shrub 1 9:15 N Slight YG Slight 57 10 30 Clarity is normal for basin 2 10:15 N Slight YG Slight 57 40 40 No riffle in vicinity due to wier at T1 3 11:00 N N Slight 56 30 40 Tires, bicycle, pipe, and woody debris in riffle 4 1:40 N N Slight 60 0 10 Algea on top of cobbles 5 2:10 N Slight GR Slight 61 50 10 Algea in sunny spots 6 2:40 N N Slight 66 20 0 Algea, nutria in US pool 7 10:30 N N Slight 58 40 80 Gravel point bar in transect 8 11:10 N N Slight 58 40 10 Deep, slower riffle 9 11:30 N N Slight 61 20 0 Sackcrete wall supports 82nd Ave (left bank) Avg. - N N Slight 59 28 24 • • Kurahashi & Associates, Inc. 1 1 1 11 r 1 1 r I 1 • . • RSAT Data Form Macro Invertebrates Transect Stoneflies Mayflies Caddisflies Dragonflies Damselflies Dobsonflies Black Flies Darners Whirligig Beetles Diving Beetles 5,6,8 Midges Mosquitos 8 Snails 1,3,4,5,6,8,9 Crayfish 1,3,4,5,6,9 Leeches Earthworms 4,5,7,9 Other worms 3,4,5,6,7,9 Sculpin 1,3,4,5,6,8,9 Biological and Misc. Notes: T1 - Snails highly visible on clay surfaces T1 - Water striders present T2 - Water striders common on pool surface T2 - Unidentified minnows present T3 -'Other worms include unidentified tiny worm approx. 3-4 mm in length. T3 - Nutria observed in pool DS of Hall Blvd. crossing T6 - Nutria in US pool Ponds, Wetlands, etc: Pond on Davis property to be investigated when permission is granted by owner. In-stream pond at retirement home lacks vegetation and is degraded (see photos). T3 - Ash forest between creek and Hall Blvd. may contain forested wetland. T7 - Ash/Sedge forested wetland within floodplain (mainly on right bank). T8 - Floodplain contains wetland/upland mosaic of meadow and includes a wetland swale (dominated by Reed Canarygrass). Kurahashi & Associates, Inc. i 1 1 1 r RSAT Data Form Base Flow Data DS end (T1): 7' in 5.5 s 5.5 (s) / 7 (ft) x 6 (ft) x [5 (in) / 12 (in/ft)] = 2 cfs US end (T9): 8' in 9.5 s 9.5 (s) / 8 (ft) x 4 (ft) x [2 (in) / 12 (in/ft)] = 0.6 cfs Landmarks for transect locations See map for approximate transect locations T1 - No iron, located between foot bridge (US) and steel beam (DS) on Davis property T2 - Iron set near property corner on left bank T3 - Iron set under large Douglas Fir on left bank T4 - No iron, located directly US from Locust St. crossing T5 - Iron set on left bank across from property corner on right bank T6 - Iron set on left bank at the base of an Ash T7 - Iron set on right bank under tree fort (tree crosses from the left bank) T8 - Iron set under solitary Oak on left bank T9 - No iron, located approximately 40' DS from Taylor's Ferry crossing Abbreviations C = clay; SL = silt; S = sand; G = gravel, CO = cobble; R = rubble; B = boulder; T = tree; S = shrub; H = herbaceous; ' = highly erodable bank material present; BR = bed rock; CONC = concrete; GAB = gabion; US = upstream; DS = downstream; N = none; P = poor; F = fair; GO = good; E = excellent; SCL = silty clay loam, YG = yellow-green; GR = gray Additional Water Quality Data Existing TDS Data collected by USA at the Locust St. crossing was used to assess water quality. Data was collected throught the summer of 1991. TDS values consistently exceeded 150 mg/I throught the sampling period, thus a rating of poor (1 out of 8) was used for this parameter. Kurahashi & Associates, Inc. Notes t t 1 e r r i w r t • • RSAT Data Form Score Sheet Catagory Excellent Good Fair Poor Score Bank Stability 9-11 6-8 3-5 0-2 8 Channel Scouring/Deposition 7-8 5-6 3-4 0-2 5 Physical Instream Habitat 7-8 5-6 3-4 0-2 4 Water Quality 7-8 5-6 3-4 0-2 4 Riparian Habitat Conditions 6-7 4-5 2-3 0-1 1 Biological Indicators 7-8 5-6 3-4 0-2 3 Total Points Rating 42-50 Excellent 30-41 Good 16-29 Fair <16 Poor Total Score: Verbal Rating: 25 Fair Note: See appendix for criteria used to evaluate catagory scores Kurahashi & Associates, Inc. RSAT of Ash Creek DETAILED RESULTS General The Metzger Reach of Ash Creek (between Taylor's Ferry Road and Spruce Street) scored 25 points out of a possible of 50. This translates to an overall verbal rating of "fair". Results are based on cross- referencing recorded transect data averages for 24 measured parameters (see the data forms) with ratings in Table 2 of Galli. Scores were assigned to each sub-category in Table 2 and averaged to derive a score for each category. Category scores are shown on the Score Sheet in the RSAT data form. Specific results for each Evaluation Category are discussed below. Channel Stability Channel stability scored 8 out of a possible of 11, a verbal rating of "good". The bank material is generally erosion resistant silty clay loam with an estimated average stability of 75%. Minor sloughing was observed in some areas, but was not common. New root exposure was observed to be limited to older roots and shallow rooted vines and shrubs. Only one recent tree fall was observed in the study reach. Cross-sections were generally U-shaped. Channel Scouring/Deposition Channel scouring and deposition scored 5 out of a possible of 8, a verbal rating of "good". The embededness of the riffles was 38%. The study reach has a low number of deep pools with the typical pool substrate being predominantly silt. Few point bars and fresh sand deposits in the stream or the overbank. Point bars were generally stable and vegetated. Physical Instream habitat Physical instream habitat scored 4 out of a possible of 8, a verbal rating of "fair". The wetted parameter (the width of the water) averages 56% of the bottom channel width. The sreach is dominated by runs with few pools present with the stream generally having slow velocity and shallow depths. Pools tend to be small and shallow. The riffle to pool ratio is greater than 1.51. Riffle substrate composition is predominantly gravel and small cobble. At some transects the cobbles are asphalt fragments. The average riffle depth is approximately 5 inches. The afternoon temperature averaged 60 degrees Fahrenheit during the study. Water Quality Water Quality scored 4 out of a possible of 8, a verbal rating of "fair". Total dissolved solids (TDS) data from the USA data point located at Locust Street were used in the evaluation. This data was most recently collected in 1991, however, there have been no major changes in impervious surface or implementation of new best management practices in the upstream basin area since that time. TDS values averaged greater that 150 mg/L over the entire summer of 1991. Additional data was collected at each transect with no notable observations of odor or discoloration. Turbidity was generally slight with visibility between 1.5 to 3 feet. Substrate fouling varied from slight to moderate and averaged 26%. Algae was frequently observed in the upper half of the Metzger Reach. Riparian Habitat Conditions Riparian Habitat Conditions scored 1 out of a possible of 7, a verbal rating of "poor". The riparian area consists of a mix of narrow ash forest zones, blackberry mats, open meadow, lawn, and structures. There are a few large woody areas on undeveloped parcels as indicated in the transect notes. Tree and shrub canopy coverage averages 23% shading. Metzger Trunk Project 1 n 1 1 t RSAT of Ash Creek Biological Indicators Biological indicators scored 3 out of a possible of 8, a verbal rating of "fair". The macro invertebrate community has low diversity. Snails, crayfish, and worms were abundant in kick samples, but very few insect larvae and nymphs were observed. Sculpin were also abundant in kick samples Adult water- striders and mosquitoes were present at most transect locations. A small number of adult dragonflies were observed throughout the Metzger Reach. REFERENCES Galli, John Sr., 1996, Appendix A Final Technical Memorandum: Rapid Stream Assessment Technique (RSA T) Field Methods, Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection Division of Water Resources Management, Montgomery County, MD. Miline, Lorus and Margery Miline, 1980, National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Insects and Spiders, Alfered A. Knopf, Inc., New York, 988 pp. r i Metzger Trunk Project A I A I L 1 1 1 1 t • • Appendix A. PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD B. RSAT SOURCE PAPER (GALLI, 1996) 1 1 Metzger Trunk Project w ml ow m o mwomm om o omm qmm m. lm *am" m ` t9f r? J R6 a P r , e' OR m ?, No m Mt. "M ? -9-M so M, Out m m m mjm wo -mo on ?t ?s it l Im. - m M M r m raa 0 mows mum' m -MM M O M r &WM. ? 'M otl m Mao an MOM mom so mom r• m r m so"m 10 ?. MI SM r= w r mom i an M ter. M MOr IM woman,= m mm mm m it m w mm M" M m mmi m m w w m! w m m m m i m m m m m m w" m w m w m w ! m w w m m m m m m m w m 3 ?? Appendix A Final Technical Memorandum: Rapid Stream Assessment Technique (RSAT) Field Methods Prepared For: Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection Division of Water Resources Management - Montgomery County, Maryland Prepared By: John Galli, Sr. Environmental Engineer Department of Environmental Programs Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments 777 North Capitol St, NE Washington, DC 20002 July, 1996 ? r Table of Contents Page Acknowledgements List of Figures ................................................................ i List of Tables ............................................................... ii Introduction .................................................................1 1. RSAT Evaluation Factors and Scoring System ............................... 2 II. RSAT Field Protocols .................................................. 10 Background ...........................................................10 1. Pre-Stream Survey Map Preparation and Planning ....................... 13 2. Stream Channel Cross-Sectional Characterization ....................... 13 3. Channel Stability ................................................. 16 A. Bank/Lateral Stability ....................................... 16 B. Channel Downcutting/Degradation ...... :...................... 17 C. Bank Material Type (Soil Sampling) ............................ 17 4. Channel Scouring/Sediment Deposition ............................... 19 A. Embeddedness .............................................19 B. Point Bars .................................................21 C. Streambed Sediment Deposits and Streak Marks ................... 21 5. Physical Instream Habitat .......................................... 21 A. . Riffle Substrate Material Size Distribution ....................... 21 B. Riffle/Pool Ratio ............................................ 22 C. Pool Quality ...............................................22 D. Baseflow Discharge .........................................22 6. Water. Quality .................................................... 23 A. Substrate Fouling ........................................... 23 B. Water Quality Meter Readings, Clarity, Color and Odor ............ 24 7. ' Riparian Habitat Conditions ........................................ 27 A. Canopy Coverage ...........................................27 B. Vegetation Type ............................................27 C. Buffer Width .............................................. 27 r ? Table of Contents (cont'd.) Page III. 8. Biological Condition - Benthic Macro invertebrate Biosurvey .............. 27 A. Macroinvertebrate Sampling .................................. 28 General Remedial Measures Guide and Restoration Project Prioritization .......' ..................................................28 1. General Remedial Measures Guide ................................... 28 2. Project Prioritization .............................................. 29 References ..................................................................33 List of Figures ' Page Figure 1. Riffle Transect Spacing and Numbering System ..................... .... 14 Figure 2. Riffle Transect: Channel Cross-Sectional Measurements ............. .... 15 Figure I Relative Levels of Riffle Substrate Embeddedness ................... .... 20 Figure 4. Representative Substrate Fouling Levels ........................... .... 25 Figure 5. General Remedial Measures Guide ............................... .... 30 i List of Tables Page Table 1. Example of RSAT Scoring for Brooke Manor Country Club Branch ........ :. 2 Table 2. HAT Evaluation Method - Representative Stream Characteristics ........... 3 Table 3. Example RSAT Stream Survey Form ................................. 11 Table 4. Soil Texture Classification by Feel ................................... 18 Table 5. General RSAT Substrate Size Classes ................................. 22 Table 6. List of RSAT Water Clarity and Color Terms ........................... 26 Table 7. List of RSAT Odor Terms .......................................... 27 Table 8. Project Prioritization (Dawson Farm Creek) ............................ 31 11 Acknowledgements The author would like to thank a number of individuals whose support, cooperation and patience were instrumental to the completion of this document. In particular, the input and patience of Mr. Daniel Harper (DEP Project Manager), Mr. Cameron Wiegand and Mr. Stan Wong (all DEP) was appreciated. The author would also like to extend his appreciation to Mr. James Shell and Mr. Stuart Freudberg (both COG) for their support. Last, the author wishes to extend his many thanks to Ms. Kathy Corish and Ms. Earline Simons (both COG) for their assistance in the preparation of this document. 1 Introduction Recognizing a growing need to both quickly identify existing channel erosion problem areas and systematically evaluate general stream quality conditions on a watershed-wide scale, the Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) contracted the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) to develop a set of rapid stream assessment protocols. In response, the Rapid Stream Assessment Technique (RSAT) was developed for Montgomery County, Maryland by COG in 1992. RSAT has been intentionally designed to provide a simple, rapid reconnaissance-level assessment of stream quality conditions. The RSAT system represents a synthesis of US Environmental Protection Agency's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (Plafkin, et.al. 1989), the Izaak Walton League and Save Our Streams stream survey techniques (Kellog, 1992), US Department of Agriculture, Water Quality Indicators Guide: Surface Waters (Terrell and Perfetti, 1989), together with COG staffs many years of local stream survey experience. Presently, the intended use and applicability of RSAT is limited to non- limestone Piedmont streams with drainage areas less than approximately 100-150 square miles. RSAT employs both a reference stream and an integrated numerical scoring and verbal ranking approach.` Major abiotic and biotic factors which influence overall stream quality have been streamlined, weighed and placed into the six following general RSAT evaluation categories: 1. Channel Stability; - 2. Channel Scouring/Sediment Deposition; 3. Physical Instream Habitat; 4. Water Quality; 5. Riparian Habitat Conditions; and 6. Biological Indicators (macroinvertebrates). In order to provide a quantitative measurement of the six preceding evaluation factors, the RSAT system employs a rigorous field evaluation protocol in which over 30 physical, chemical and biological parameters are measured at approximately 400 foot intervals along the stream (typically, 12-13 riffle transects per stream mile for smaller. streams). Data is first recorded via field survey sheets and later transferred into a spreadsheet data base. Transect locations, the presence of storm drain outfalls, fish barriers, stream channel erosion problem areas and other noteworthy observations are additionally mapped onto topographic maps (preferably 1 "=200' horizontal scale or larger). Last, photographic information (35mm color slide format) is catalogued so as to provide a permanent historical reference for stream areas surveyed. Upper Rock Creek downstream of Fieldcrest Road was used as the RSAT reference site for stream areas <10 mi'. Portions of the Gunpowder Falls, Patapsco and Patuxent Rivers were used to help characterize large mainstem reference conditions. RSAT employs a riffle transect-based assessment approach for two main reasons: 1.) in Piedmont stream systems riffles are the principal macroinvertebrate-producing areas and 2.) riffles are both prominent and relatively permanent geomorphological features of a stream; thereby facilitating repeatable and comparable future stream-assessment studies. I. RSAT Evaluation Factors and Scoring System An example of the 0-50 point RSAT scoring system, as applied in Montgomery County, Maryland to the Brooke Manor Country Club Branch of Rock Creek has been included as Table 1. As seen in Table 1, the channel stability evaluation category is weighed slightly more heavily than the other five categories. This was intentionally done to reflect the major influence which the stream flow regime exerts on all six evaluation categories. Table 1. Example of RSAT Scoring for Brooke Manor Country Club Branch RSAT General Verbal Rating Categories and Associated Point Range Evaluation Category Excellent Good Fair Poor PoiatsQ,=: 1. Channel Stability 9-11 6-8 3-5 0-2 7' 2. Channel Scouring/Deposition 7-8 5-6 3-4 0-2 4.' 3. Physical Instream Habitat 7-8 5-6 3-4 0-2 6- ; 4. Water Quality 7-8 5-6 3-4 0-2 f.> >'- 5. Riparian Habitat Conditions 6-7 4-5 2-3 0-2 5: 6. Biological Indicators 7-8 5-6. 3-4 0-2 g. ` ... . Total Points Verbal Ranking Good Total Score 36 , 42-50 Excellent 30-41 Good. 16-29 Fair <-16 Poor A brief description of representative stream characteristics for each of the six preceding evaluation categories has been provided in Table 2. As seen in Table 2, necessary reference condition descriptor adjustments have been made in an attempt to account for differences associated with increased stream/catchment area size. While considerable variation often exists, large mainstem- type stream conditions generally become self-evident when drainage.basin size approaghes 10-15 square miles. These changes include but are not limited to the following: increased baseflow discharge, lower average stream gradient, wider channel widths and wetted perimeters, taller bank 2 M M M M M M M M M. M' M MM M M M M M -71 W Table 2. RSAT Evaluation Plethod - Representative Stream Characteristics' Evaluation Relative Category Significance Excellent Good Fair Poor 1. Channel • Indicative of hydrologic/ • > 80% of bank • 71-80% of • 50-70% of bank • <50% of bank Stability flow regime alteration network stable. no bank network network stable. network stable. and general condition of evidence of bank stable. infrequent recent signs of bank recent bank atic l i h sloughing signs of bank sloughing, sloughing, slumping aqu ca ys p , habitat. slumping or failure; sloughing, slumping or failure or failure frequently • slumping or failure; fairly common; observed ; .Provides insight into • stream bend areas P stream bend areas • stream bend areas .stream bend areas past, present and are very stable. stable. outer bank unstable. outer highly unstable. ht <2 i k h b above ht 2-3 ft hei bank height 3-4 ft outer bank height possible future changes g an e outer . g . ,,. in channel ft. above stream (<4 stream bank (4-5 ft. above stream (5-7 >4 ft. above stream. morphometry. ft. above stream above stream ft. above stream (>7 ft. above for large mainstem bank for large for large stream for large ?- areas). bank mainstem areas). mainstem areas). mainstem areas). overhang < 2 ft.; overhang 2-2.5 ft.; bank overhang 2.5- overhang >3 ft.? 3 ft.; .exposed tree roots • exposed tree roots • young exposed • young exposed old, large, and predominantly old tree roots common. tree roots abundant. woody. generally 0- and large, smaller 4-5 recent (large) >6 recent large 1 recent (large) tree young roots scarce. tree falls/stream tree falls/stream falls/stream mile; 2-3 recent (large) mile; mile.; tree falls/ stream mile; • bottom 1/3 of bank •boltom 1/3 of • bottom 1/3 of bank • bottom 1/3 of is generally highly bank is generally is generally highly bank is highly resistant plant/soil highly resistant erodible material; erodible material; matrix or material; plant/soil matrix or plant/soil matrix plant/soil matrix material; compromised; severely compromised; n U 416 RSAT (:valuation Method - Representative Stream Characteristics (cont'd.) Evaluation Category' Relative Significance Excellent Good Fair Poor 1. Channel *channel x-sect. is *channel x-sect. is *channel x-sect. is *channel x-sect. is Stability generally V or U- generally V or generally generally (cont'd.) shaped. U-shaped. trapezoidally- trapezoidally- shaped. shaped. Point Range 9-11 6-8 3-5 0-2 2. Channel • Relates to level of • riffle embeddness • 25-49% embedded • 50-75% embedded • > 75% embedded Scouring/ uncontrolled stormwater <25% sand/silt (35-59% embedded (60-85% embedded (>85% embedded Sediment runoff, sediment load (<35% for large for large mainstem for large mainstem for large mainstem Deposition and transport and mainstem areas); areas); areas); areas); de radation of instream g ` habitat. .high number of .moderate number • low-moderate .few, if any, deep deep pools >24" of deep pools. number of deep pools. pool (248" for large pool substrate pools. pool substrate >81 % mainstem areas). 30-59% sand/ substrate 60-80% sand/silt; pool substrate <30% silt; sand/silt; ' composed of ° sand/silt; •o • streambed streak • streak marks and/or • streak marks and/or • streak marks- and/or - marks and/or "banana" deposits "banana" deposits "banana" deposits ;: . banana-shaped uncommon; common; common; ... J ° sediment deposits absent; E • ! M i i M M ! i r r w M/ M IM M M M M M MIM = M' i M M M M M W M M M M I? M M Vi RSA,' Evaluation Method - Representative Stream Characteristics (contd.) Evaluation Relative Category Significance Excellent Good Fair Poor 2. Channel a fresh, large sand • fresh, large sand • fresh, large sand o fresh, large sand Scouring/ deposits in channel deposits in deposits in channel deposits v. common Sediment rare-absent. no channel uncommon. common. small in channel. moderate- Deposition evidence of fresh small localized areas localized areas of heavy sand (cont'd.) -sediment .reposition of fresh sand fresh sand deposits deposition along on overbank; deposits along along top of low major portion of top of low banks; banks; over-bank area v, common; • point bars few, • point bars small opoint bars -point bars small and stable, and stable, well moderate-large moderate-large well vegetated and/ vegetated and/or and unstable with and unstable with or armored with armored with little high amount of high amount of little or no fresh or no fresh sand. fresh sand common. fresh sand present at sand. most stream bends. Point Range 7-8 5-6 3-4 0-2 • RSA,' Evaluation Method - Representative Stream Characteristics (cont'd ) M Evaluation Relative Category Significance Excellent Good Fair Poor 3. Physical • Relates to the ability of a *wetted peri meter • wetted perimeter • wetted perimeter wetted perimeter Instream stream to meet basic >85% of bottom 61-85% of bottom 40-60% of bottom <40% of bottom Habitat physical requirements channel width width (66-90% for width (45-65% for width (<45% for f th necessary or e support of a well- (>90% for large mainstem areas) large mainstem large mainstem large mainstem ; areas); areas); areas); balanced aquatic communit (e de th y .g. p of flow, water-velocity, • riffles, runs, and • good mix between • few pools present, • dominated by one water temperature, pool habitat present, riffles, runs and riffles and runs habitat type substrate type and diverse velocity and pools, relatively dominant, velocity/ (usually runs) and v ` quality, etc;) depth of flow diverse velocity/ depth generally by one velocity/ ?1 ve r present (i.e., slow, depth of flow; slow-shallow (for depth condition fast, shallow and large mainstem (slow-shallow) (for deep water); areas runs and large mainstem pools dominant areas few iffl , r es velocity/depth present, runs and diversity pools dominant, intermediate); velocity/depth diversity low); • riffle substrate *riffle substrate • riffle substrate *riffle substrate composition - composition has composition composition ' cobble, gravel, good mix of gravel, predominantly predominantly rubble, boulder • cobble and rubble small cobble, gravel gravel with high mix with t ,.Ie sand, material and sand percentage of sand • (>50% cobble); • (25-49% cobble); • (5-24% cobble); • (<5% cobble); • riffle depth > 8" • riffle depth 6-7.9" • riffle depth 4-5.9" • riffle depth <4" for for large for large for large large mainstem mainstem areas; mainstem area; mainstem area; area; M Ml M M M i M M M t M IM Ml M M M M i M J RSAT Evaluation Method - Representative Stream Characteristics (cont'd.) Evaluation Relative Category Significance Excellent Good Fair Poor 3. Physical • large pools • large pools large pools • large pools Instream generally >24 in. generally 18-24 in. generally 12-18 in. generally <12 in. Habitat deep (>48 in. for deep (36-48 in. for deep (24-36 in. for deep (< 24 in. for (cont'd.) large mainstem large mainslem large mainstem large mainstem areas) with good areas) with some areas) with little or areas) and devoid overhead cover/ cover/structure; no cover/structure; of cover/structure; structure; • no channel • slight increase in a moderate increase extensive channel alteration or point bar formation/ in points bars and/or alteration qr point significant point enlargement or in amount of bar formation/ bar formation or slight amount of channel enlargement; enlargement; channel modification; modification; * riffle/pool ratio- * riffle/pool ratio- * riffle/pool ratio- * riffle/pool ratio- 0.9-1.1.:1 0.7-0.89:1; 0.5-0.69:1; 0.49:1 S; 1.11-1.3:1 1.31-1.5:1 Z 1.51:1 * summer afternoon * summer afternoon * summer afternoon * summer afternoon H2O temp <68T. H2O temp 68-75T. H2O temp 75-80T. H2O temp >80T. Point Range 7-8 5-6 3-4 0-2 • L? 11SAT Evaluation Method - Representative Stream Characteristics (cont'd.) CO Evaluation Relative Category Significance Excellent Good Fair Poor 4. Water • Indicative of: • substrate fouling2 • substrate fouling • substrate fouling • substrate fouling Quality watershed leve10- 10% (rock level - very light- level - moderate (2) - level - high perturbations/ underside). light (11-20%). 50%). (>50%). general level of human activity, *TDS3: <50 mg/L; • TDS: 50-100 mg/L; • TDS: 101-150 mg/L; • TDS: > 150 mg/L; point and nonpoint source loads, and • clear water - objects • objects visible objects i ibl b i ibl aquatic habitat • v s e • o jects v s e to :; conditions. >3 ft. deep visible; down 1.5-3.0 ft.; down 0.5-1.5 ft.; depth <0.5 ft.; • no odor; • slight organic odor; • slight-moderate odor; • moderate-strong organic odor; Point Range 7-8 5-6 3-4 0-2 5. Riparian • Provides insight- • wide (>200') • forested buffer • riparian area • riparian area mostly Habitat into change(s) in mature forested generally more than predominantly non-woody Conditions stream energetics, buffer along both 100 ft. wide along wooded but with vegetation, narrow- ime erature re tem banks; major ortion of major localized a id h i i g , p p g ps; w t par r an area; - and both aquatic both banks; and terrestrial - habitat conditions. a ?• canopy coverage; • canopy coverage; • canopy coverage; • canopy coverage; ?80% shading 60-79% shading 50-60% shading <50% shadi ng (>60% for large (45-59% for large (30-44% for large (<30% for large f IKY 4 mainstem areas). mainstem areas). mainstem areas). mainstem areas). Point Range 6-7 4-5 2-3 0-1 • • ! i! i! i!! i!?! i i i i l• i i RSAT Evaluation Method - Representative Stream Characteristics (contd.) I'D Evaluation Relative Category Significance Excellent . Good Fair Poor 6. Biological • Best overall • diverse • mayflies and • pollution-tolerant • poor diversity Indicators indication of mac roi n vertebrate caddisflies present caddisflies, snails, generally stream health and community present, (stoneflies absent), midgeflies, aquatic dominated by level of watershed dominated by flat- good overall worms dominant; midgeflies, aquatic Perturbation. head mayflies, diversity; worms and snails; ` a and •? d cased ca cased disflies, very few snails, and/or leeches present; • moderate-high • moderate-high • low-moderate • depauperate number individuals. number individuals. number individuals. population - low number individuals. Point Range 7-8 5-6 3-4 0-2 Score Verbal Stream Quality Ranking 42-50 Excellent Condition 30-41 Good- Condition 16-30 Fair Condition , < 16 Poor Condition TOTAL SCORE: ' Bolded characteristics pertain to drainage areas generally > approx. 10-15 mil. 2 Substrate fouling = percentage of underside surface area of a cobble-sized stone (or larger), lying free on the streambed, which is coated with a biological film or growth. 3'1'l)S = total dissolved solids. Note, natural background "rDS level may sometimes be >50 mg/L due to geologic composition of water bearing strata. heights, deeper rifles and pools a general increase ' in rnstream large woody debris, a gradual reduction in canopy coverage, increased numbers of macroinvertebrate filter feeders such as clams, increased fish diversity, etc. Under the RSAT system, the stream, including its channel network, is surveyed in its entirety in an upstream-downstream fashion. As implied by its name, RSAT is designed to provide a quick yet ' accurate assessment of stream conditions. For example, an experienced two-person monitoring team can under normal field conditions, generally survey 1.0 - 1.25 stream miles per day (roughly equivalent to 12-15 transects). Although a two-person team approach is strongly recommended, the RSAT survey can be performed satisfactorily by a single investigator. A l f l ' n examp e o a comp eted RSAT stream survey form has been included as Table 3. As seen in Table 3, upon survey completion stream parameters/conditions are averaged over the entire stream segment. length surveyed. These averaged results together with the general stream descriptors presented in Table 2 and the investigator's professional experience and judgement are used in assigning a summary condition score for each of the six RSAT evaluation categories. Within the point range of each of the four verbal rating/assessment categories (i.e., excellent, good, fair and/or poor) discretion is used to add or subtract points based on representative stream conditions, taking into account stream segments observed between transect station locations. Upon completion of RSAT survey work stream areas may be further evaluated from a potential stream bank stabilization/stormwater management project need perspective. A companion Project Prioritization evaluation system which examines and weights: a.) overall site accessibility, b.) ' proximity of residencesibuildings to stream areas experiencing moderate to severe channel erosion, c.) the overall environmental sensitivity of the site, d.) level of existing or programmed S_WM controls within the watershed and e.) stream problem level has been included in Section III of this ' document. H. RSAT Field Protocols , Background - The protocols described herein represent an attempt to provide both general guidance and ' standardized procedures for "reading" the stream for tell-tale signs of overall quality/level of impairment. In addition to calibrating and properly maintaining'water quality meters and other field equipment, it is important that MAT survey team members calibrate their eyes, and sense of smell and touch with one another.' Furthermore, while RSAT has already been applied to over 140 Piedmont stream miles, the methods presented in this document will continue to be evaluated, revised Last where more uantitative or intensive data is dated and where deemed necessar u , . q p y As with most rapid stream bioassessment methods, it is recommended that RSAT survey work be ' performed by either a professional biologist or RSAT-trained individual. 10 ' 0 • Table 3. Example RSAT Stream Survey Form Montgomery County Stream Survey Study Watershed 'hack Ge ? MC So:--t Map Book Coordina= Mt-14f k- 6 . J -6 . U -4 Tributary Name and Number r?MaAa. GC. Ti'•0b.tu,7 fA I44 i Iqs D.A. (ac) LiSg Watershed Imperviousness (5'a) 17 Stream Grf °t (%) 1.4 stwi 4 ark MDE Class 7M Date 174241. z Time (3100 V M Invesdgators J. t?, z T,n, Current Weather Conditions it Cot! i^ AM; SwT co.? Last Precipitation Event ?z 19 qz Survey Reach " Grw- G„ t..,? ?+ Nria s.. r.? G t Survey Length (ft.) sew Riffle/Pool Ratio 612 s! o.sa : t Baseflow (cfs) Las% x-sc . M General Accessibility C l(y""?? T1> Photo Nca n' Is I,. ?. b".'v [.+.• ?Zt u 1"? -ft-fiL P-A rw1 ?. %- eed- Is AV%.CaeopyCovetsje i RI°f O, S,qS ,90,30, Is, 10 q0 7S TOML Na. OfTmo Fail: - . No. of Rsmt Tme Fos - C Rdadve Amount o(Tmth Pic= - No. of Obz=n t Fish S=Ticct - PuttRl - O . COMO= • l Ce 1 G.C f'?.d o • No. of Espflmed SeweKE= - 331ES) !r A- - w aw Hd - 3abd" lt/ ar t..? ai 10111a pry.. Yna-- a.ir?. WwA V4 h.l M.r.. air Tw te 0.....• •-...• g r?" 7.A? $L*-, (T?Fd T pti L-" YY Chwd NW. YY w%fth ?i • IN b- Liter OOft d R R % R ly.... ?..?...r I?.? r. M OW KI R . R l . • _ ba so Io.o ?o eo I 1.0 1.0 too loo loo 51c rs.(US s 2:5 F F 20 too Hone - t o 1.5 o w.a is 2D ?•0 90 9o ??' t ZS -10a F 213 noeR - 5o 1.0 1.0 .o %.o 'j.s 1- -10 SS 79 S R 6s,n M 2S F f- 049 '20n 1-7 5:4,j a 19 .o SS 1 14- •O V 94 4S 5 5 1- aCTxS,B 30 35 F 7S 11,5 20. Y.S a s so 10.(3 5 9.0 2.0 0 101 9a S L. I? R S 0 F fr 3D ISO -= 63e • WIN 11.0 I&:0 : g:S' 3. 3A So• 90 0 9h 14 C/ M. sl R Gr r .5 3 7 too 1'1 r., r So 12.4 11.0 iS '2a 2.0 .S 90 95 q0 SL 6 .1 24 to I b ? SO So t 1 t1S Ia.s 3 2S 210 70 It b o C W1 101K!j?S e5- ?-70 6 is 212 SO 124 6-0 44 1245 124 !A `.O 3+ c C a s, 55, . CS F . t= w So -?o %z 2.S 2.S I.S 40 53 C S 16,44's 2:o F F •0 14 k. f- 5 to t A 41,5 Its 3,45 2.0 124 gt 6S s e s • S o F F Is, za Ge-!d u 54 11,o I M, -1.0 1 •S 2 2-0 $S 7 SL 5 6 .x.15 I 10 ]= F Rrj ISO 29 . m u 5b 1\.s 4.0 7.S C.0 1.0 3 D 9S 9S VIL ?,b 4 60 S F F ).m -L sr u A?6. 12.9 10:3' ' 65 (Ia t. Lo z o -rrs . 61.5 1; t tay Rear A bb.-..a stone C . day. SL- d M. 3 . M& C . Irr•.l O. mhblt R . rubbl% I - buWw. F - k.es. Cr - /nss.. - IIIStiry avdaLla beak nsri+l pn+aw A - abundaw C . eoaunce. SG - swm IIa . mm, M . 11-• aaA. , I.. • tw-l- r COM • Co , C.b • Cia¦ a ' . Sr • 0 Table 3. Example RSAT Stream Survey Form (cont'd.) _."WO AI,., ITN /.nV YI•I A"tI'1.,!• rrar+:.a No. rr . I (11x) remo (--.I air wat1w oa I (,WU 70$ I (mGn-) rM CW14 I (rrLSlCm) rurfl (NTO water I C.Wor Carr I 110 47 1 1.0 C. Q I ro •6i I '7.521 ?0 0.U 6 ( cleat I 11 115ob I B•o 6.4- ? tl. S? x1,131 'l0 I Q.M Z Ctev No I ? ---? Y-?_?• Y-¢- - - - - - is x-?.uo X•6:qp• bo Y - ;2 60 Bielcc;±?. Ccrj?fors: ??!!Obsuve?: ltase?.se?'.. t3a t?l.aer•rci• • S1QMt3d ,Mwrl^'IN s?esrti; ? C*? . eFs?l e.Jl:? \J C?•w..?1wYr . t? t ?oeeilt kl w lw t 11 VI VI I I Vi VII I -11 1 .1 1 1 1 1 Vl .9 71 I X1 7 I 7 ft4tcrn z- t?ecd solo.no.b:, L"-' t Sla+e?l+o M" I :n waia all ca.u.,e? A1tKi. all 1,GscIzLr_rot:s Car :.cres @ Y-SaLkon2)9sr tMat•to;nvtr.,%k.t Ozr ah .vn art ?ceCle. 'J" lNkl, 3 K41+5 Gyetb.w CGtd1.n Sis M•i`R. Gtpn. Phil sat,-rty r int?.klv?/r+'.1:•; ;r ewv 1..14- strw.. Cr+?- Oct!• * rt _ ft CAbfars _ Rtr-1Zi? _ Oe.Z.- _ L_ft ? S?e?.art P @ leer. Srsr_. Dries O??L?s) •4- ere IisAr Stn= ETaiuatioa Su==7 . Shp C ma CatsaerY xcuaam era lsls tier ' tee. L Fork 3tiiakr 041 ai si . oa '7 z mam+a? imaa?af/Oepostdaa fi is 3.? as 4 3. >a,.str..m 7i si 34 os 6 t WaasQ?otls? 74 si 34 L Uputmtlbiis Caedttlene K K 4i S aL sako:t WLLM=o t: S4 u at $ Teed Pyints 6nS,7 . Exceams 30.41. co" did! . Frir t U F=w VMAL L%Nl= Eod 2L7r tL 5=LL. 12 1 t 1 1 needed for study purposes (e.g., pebble count for enumerating substrate particle size) RSAT may be modified to accept the needed accommodation(s). 1. Pre-Stream Survey Map Preparation and Planning Before heading out to the stream the following preparatory map work and planning is recommended: 1. Using a US Geological Survey 7.5 minute series quadrangle topographic map or equivalent, delineate the drainage area at the furthest downstream point to be surveyed. Then using either a planimeter, dot grid, or geographical information system (GIS) calculate the associated drainage area; ' 2. Determine the general watershed land use(s) and approximate overall imperviousness level for the survey area using, whenever available, recent county/state zoning and land use maps; 3. Pencil-in and number the proposed RSAT riffle transect station locations onto a suitable topographic base map. Transect map spacing is best done using a map wheel. As seen in Figure 1, transects should generally be spaced approximately 400 feet apart and numbered in an upstream-downstream order. Also, at this point the intended length of stream to be surveyed per day should be determined; and 4. For general stream reconnaissance purposes, the average stream gradient for the proposed survey segment may be determined directly from the topographic base map(s). Gradient is calculated by dividing the elevation difference between the starting and end points by the total stream segment length to be surveyed. 2. Stream.Channel Cross-Sectional Characterization ' As seen in Figure 2, five different parameters are measured at each riffle transect. 'Because the associated data provides the requisite baseline fo' both planning-level analyses of general channel morphology and hydrologic conditions and for transformation into cross-sectional ' plots, it is imperative that a representative transect location be selected within the riffle area. A brief description of how each of the preceding five parameters are measured and their general relevance is provided in the following section. Note, all five parameters are measured to the nearest tenth of a foot. 1 1 13 'J Figure 1. Riffle Transect Spacing and Numbering System .AZ CNY HILLS Q !SX3 ?Q. 3 < N' .X4aG: '=-•Cor zl-? 14 ! ! ! ! !' i i i i ! ! i ! i ! ! !• i i Figure 2. Riffle Tra- sect: Channel Cross-Sectional Measurements' 41/ ui K Bank;Height iE----- Left Bank ___Q _Top Channel Width 2 Bottom Channel Width --- -----=-------------------------- 3 Wetted Perimeter ----------------------------- SQ Riffle Depth 4b BanklHeight Right Bank • .! • Left and right denote looking in a downstream direction. • • Top Channel Width: Measured from top of bank to top of bank along the transect. In order to minimize potential measuring error the tape measure is both held level and pulled taut. Top channel width provides insight into the relative volume of discharge associated with large bankfull storm events (i.e., approx. 1.1- 1.5-year frequency storm). Bottom Channel Width: Measured from toe of bank to toe of bank along the transect. Generally marked by a noticeable break in the slope of the bank, lack of vegetation or both. Includes part or all of the active channel area. Provides insight into the relative volume of discharge from smaller, more frequent storm events (i.e., generally < 1-year frequency storm). Wetted Perimeter: Portion of riffle which contains flowing water. Measured from water edge to water edge along the transect. When compared against bottom channel width provides insight into both level of stream channel widening and existing physical aquatic habitat. Bank Height: Measured from stream water surface to the top of each bank. Note, the mean of three measured heights is recorded for each bank. Provides insight into the approximate extent of stream channel downcutting. Riffle Depth: The mean of 10 riffle depth measurements, with each taken at a representative location within the riffle, is recorded. Provides insight irito both baseflow discharge and general aquatic habitat conditions present. 3. Channel Stability A. Bank/Lateral Stability At each riffle transect, either a 50- or 100-foot long channel reach is selected and carefully examined for signs of bank instability.' Typically, the length of channel to be examined is divided into equal halves by the transect. Within the designated 50- or 100-foot long channel reach both right and left banks are examined. Signs of instability such as bank sloughing/slumping, recently exposed non- 3 A 50-foot long stream reach is employed for streams with drainage areas <10 mi'; whereas, a 100-foot long reach is used when the drainage area is >10 mi'. 16 1 • • ' woody tree roots (e.g., fine hair-like roots and or smaller lateral roots measuring less than 0.5 inches in diameter), the general absence of any vegetation within the bottom one-third ' portion of the bank, recent tree falls, etc. are noted. After the total length of stable area for each bank has been determined it is converted into a percentage and recorded along with the average percent stability for the entire section surveyed. In addition, general bank stability conditions between transect stations are visually rated and mapped. The following six verbal bank stability rating categories are employed by RSAT: • Stable - Over 90 percent of bank network is stable. No signs of major lateral bank erosion problems present. • Slight - 81-90 percent of bank network is stable. Signs of major lateral bank erosion problems are rarely observed. ' • Slight/Moderate - 71-80 percent of bank network is stable. Signs of major lateral bank erosion problems are uncommon-common. • Moderate - 61-70 percent of bank network is stable. Signs of lateral bank ' erosion problems are common. • Moderate/Severe - 50-60 percent of bank network is stable. Signs of lateral bank erosion problems are very common. ' • ' Severe.- Less than 50 percent of bank network is stable. Major portions of banks are unraveling. ' B. Channel Downcutting/Degradation As the stream channel is walked particularly close attention is paid for evidence of major ' channel downcutting or degradation. Again, average bank heights provide a good approximate indication for most streams. For example, bank heights which average five feet ' for a small headwater stream would suggest that downcutting on the order of two to three feet resence of nickpoints and liable indicators include the Oth d p er re . has probably occurre exposed concrete footers for retaining walls, weirs, culverts and other man-made instream structures. In urban streams, the presence of exposed sewer lines provide yet another good measure of channel degradation.; Note, the number' of exposed sewer lines or other normally buried utility lines observed is recorded on the stream. survey form C. Bank.Nlaterial Type (Soil Sampling) At each riffle transect area, the general soil texture of material located in the lower one-third of each bank is classified by feel in accordance with the textural characteristics described in Table 4. Depending on the degree of homogeneity of the bank material, 1-3, two- to three- 4 Where a sewer line crossing of a stream is required, the pipe is normally laid three to four feet below the bottom of the streambed. Knowing the approximate age of the sewer system provides additional insight into the general rate of downcutting over time. 17 1 inch d ' eep samples per bank are taken from an exposed soil area with a short soil sampling tube, small hand trowel or equivalent. The dominant textural class is then recorded for each , bank on the survey form. Table 4. Soil Texture Classification by Feel (modified from Northcote, 1979) Texture Class and RSAT Behavior of Moist Bolus of Soil Abbreviation Sand (S) Crumbles readily; cannot be molded; single sand grains adhere to fingers Loamy Sand (L/S) Slight coherence; can be sheared between thumb and forefinger to give minimal ribbon of about 0.25 inches; discolors fingers with dark organic stain Sandy Loam (S/L) Bolus just coherent but very sandy to touch; will form a short ribbon; dominant sand grains can be seen, felt or heard Sandy Clay Loam Strongly coherent bolus, sandy to touch; medium size sand grains (SC/L) visible in finer matrix; will form a longer ribbon than sandy loam Loam (L) Coherent and rather spongy bolus; smooth feel when manipulated but with no obvious sandiness or "silkiness"; will form a short ribbon <1.0 inches long Silt Loam (SL/L) Coherent bolus, very smooth to silky when manipulated; may form short ribbon Silt (SL) Pure silt will have a smooth, floury or silky feel; bolus can be manipulated without breaking; ribbons 0.25 inches or more Silty, Clay Loam Coherent smooth bolus; plastic and silky to the touch; will form (SLC/L) longer ribbon than loam .Clay Loam (C/L) Coherent plastic bolus; smooth to manipulate; will form ribbon similar to silty clay loam ' Sandy Clay (S/C) Plastic bolus; fine to medium sands can be seen, felt or heard in clayey matrix; will form a thin ribbon over 1.0 inches which breaks easily Silty Clay (SL/C) Plastic bolus; smooth and silky to manipulate; will form long ribbon Clay (C) Handles like plasticise, plastic and sticky; will form a long, ribbon of 2.0 inches or more 18 The preceding soil textural information is used for: 1.) quick screening of the relative potential erodibility of the stream bank network and 2.) providing insight into both potential in-channel sources of sandy material and possible future susceptibility to high embeddedness levels. In general, the relative erodibility potential of non-vegetated or poorly vegetated stream banks is as follows: High - lower 1/3 of stream banks is predominantly silt-textured soil material; Moderate - lower 1/3 of stream banks feature non-silt or clay dominant soil textures; and Low - lower 1/3 of stream banks are predominantly clay-textured soils,. bedrock, saprolite, rip-rap, or other hard impermeable material. 4. Channel Scouring/Sediment Deposition ' A. Embeddedness Embeddedness is generally defined as the degree to which sand and silt (fines) surround or ' cover the larger gravel, cobble and boulder-sized material and is expressed as a percentage. Under the RSAT system, the percentage of fines occupying the interstitial spaces between cobble, gravel, rubble and boulder-sized material is visually estimated with the aid of a viewing tube. Figure 3 has been included to illustrate the four general percent embeddedness ranges/categories used by RSAT. The imaginary quadrants depicted in Figure 3 may be used ' as a handy reference aid in first gauging the general embeddedness range. Next, and only after closer examination, the level of embeddedness is estimated to the nearest 5 percent. At each riffle transect area 10 viewing tube readings are taken at representative riffle depth/velocity locations. The 10 embeddedness subsamples are averaged and the mean recorded on the stream survey form. In order to avoid both undesirable clouding of the water and potential substrate disturbance, it is recommended that measurements begin at the downstream end of the riffle and proceed in both a lateral and upstream direction (e.g., z-like pattern). Two sizes of viewing tubes, each with a white surfaced interior are recommended: a.) for ' shallow riffles measuring less than six inches deep - a minimum 10-inch long tube with a six-inch internal diameter, and b.) for riffles over six inches deep - a standard, white five- gallon plastic bucket with both the bottom-end cut out and a small siphoning notch cut into the bottom edge.5 5 Note, a good alternative low-cost viewing tube for shallow riffles can be constructed by simply cutting out the bottom-end of a white, one gallon cylindrical. Rubbermaid plastic juice container. For turbid streams the employment of a large steel shovel instead of a viewing tube is alternatively recommended. ' 19 1 • • Figure 3. Relative Levels of Riffle Substrate Embeddednessl Frame 1 Frame 2 . -10% Excellent (0-25%) Frame 3 -30% Good (25-50%) Frame 4 -'60% Fair (50-75%) -90% Poor (>75%) sand/silt-sized material (fines) ' Bolded number below each frame is areal percentage of tines surrounding larger bed materials; imaginary quadrants labelled A. B. C. D used as handy reference aid. 20 B. Point Bars ' The number, size, material composition and extent of vegetational colonization/stability of point bars is noted as the stream channel is walked. C. Streambed Sediment Deposits and Streak Marks ' An approximation of the relative sediment load and level of channel scouring is made as the stream channel is walked. Signs of high sediment loadings and low stream competency include sandy ripples or banana-shaped deposits in run areas, sand-filled pools, and high numbers of sandy point bars. Large, extensive, fresh deposits of sand on overbank areas are also another general indicator of a high sandy sediment load. With regard to channel scouring, the presence of parallel streak marks in run areas, flattened or uprooted vegetation and armoring of point bars by large gravel and cobble-sized material, etc. are indicative of high levels of channel scouring and bed load movement. 5. Physical Instream Habitat A. Riffle Substrate Material Size Distribution At each transect station the entire riffle area is surveyed and the general riffle substrate material size distribution is visually determined. Substrate materials are recorded on the survey form, in descending order of areal coverage, using both the particle size classes and abbreviations presented in Table 5. From an aquatic habitat standpoint, the ideal riffle substrate composition is (in descending order) a cobble, gravel, rubble, boulder mix with little sand. In general, as the amount of sand increases habitat conditions for both macroinvertebrates and for Fish spawning and incubation decline. Note, fair to poor conditions are generally present when sandy material appears in one of the first three particle size slots recorded on the stream survey form. 21 • • Table 5. General RSAT Substrate Size Classes (modified from Wentworth, 1962) RSAT Class Abbreviation 1. Boulder B 2. Rubble2 R 3. Cobble Cb 4. Gravel G 5. Sand S 6. Clay C ' Measured along intermediate axis. 2 Includes part of size class commonly referred to as small boulder B. Riffle/Pool Ratio Particle Size Ranger MM inches >305 >12 256-305 10-12 64-256 2.5-10 2-64 0.1-2.5 0.062-2 <0.1 As the stream is walked the number of riffles and pools present are counted using hand-held tally counters. The ratio, provides a relative measure as to the general mix of instream fish habitat present. C. Pool Quality At each transect station the closest pool within 100 feet of the transect is examined. Five habitat quality factors are evaluated: • size and maximum depth of the pool; • substrate composition; • amount and type of overhead cover • amount and type of submerged cover; and • proximity to the nearest upstream riffle area. . Based on the investigator's experience and judgement pool quality is verbally rated according to one of the five following categories - excellent, very-good, good, fair and poor. D. Baseflow Discharge Under the RSAT system baseflow discharge is estimated in the vicinity of the most downstream transect station using the Embody Float Method (Embody, 1929). Selection of a stream area which has relatively uniform cross-section, bed material size and velocity/depth characteristics is critical to achieving consistent results. Field measurements of both velocity and rate of flow are made as follows: 21 ' Velocity 1. First locate two points four feet apart (or any convenient distance) and mark both the upstream and downstream ends with a rock or some other convenient object; ' 2. Using a small, round cork float record the time it takes for the float to drift between the two points. Repeat this three times, making sure that representative velocity areas are floated. Record the average time; and ' 3. Calculate the number of feet traveled per second by dividing the average time in seconds into the distance travelled. ' Volume of Flow/Discharge . The following formula is used to calculate discharge: ' R = WDa1 T where: R = volume of flow in cubic feet per second (cfs); W = average wetted perimeter of stream in feet; ' D = average depth in feet; a = roughness coefficient - smooth sandy bottom = 0.9, rough rocky L = bottom = 0.8; length of stream floated; and T = time in seconds for float to travel the measured distance. '. When properly applied the preceding method does yield consistent results. However, a word of caution is warranted. Flows generated by the Embody Float Method are generally consistently higher than those obtained from either a flow meter or a V- notch or broad-crested weir. ' 6. Water Quality A. Substrate Fouling For RSAT survey purposes, substrate fouling is defined as the percentage of the underside surface area of a cobble-sized stone (or larger) lying free on the streambed, which is coated with a biological film or growth.' Substrate fouling level is determined at every riffle e Owing to their larger size, hence reduced likelihood of frequent abrasion/movement along the streambed. only cobble-sized stones or larger are normally examined. ' 23 . • ,* 1 transect by turning over and visually examining the underside ' of 10 appropriately sized rocks. The recommended procedure is to first visually divide the underside surface of each stone into four equal 25 percent portions or quadrants. Within each quadrant the observer ' mentally notes the areal extent of biofilm coverage to the nearest 5 percent. Each quadrant is examined in similar fashion, with the sum percentage of the four used to assign an average overall substrate level percentage to the individual rock. The same procedure is then ' repeated for each of the 10 stones. After all 10 rocks have been examined the mean substrate fouling level (for the 10 subsamples) is recorded. Representative substrate fouling levels as determined by the preceding method are illustrated in Figure 4. Substrate fouling provides a qualitative indirect measure of chronic nutrient (primarily ' nitrogen) and organic carbon loadings in a stream. In relatively clean streams substrate fouling levels are normally on the order of 10 percent or less (Galli, 1995). B. Water Quality Meter Readings, Clarity, Color and Odor , The following nine parameters are measured at every fourth or fifth transect station area , along the stream: air temperature, water temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, conductivity, turbidity, total dissolved solids (TDS), water color and odor. Water quality readings are taken in an undisturbed pool area and recorded on the survey form. Water 1 clarity, color and odor are described according to the general terminology presented in Tables 6 and 7. 11 I ?4 1 1 1 1 1 r • • Figure 4. Representative Substrate Fouling Levels' Frame 1 , . A L.:. B . . , , . C D , , , , , -5% Excellent (0-10%) Frame 2 , ( A B , , , , C -- - -- D -- -- --- - , -15% Good (11-20%) Frame 3 . , , , j , -?._._......_ . t - C D -35% Fair (ZT-50%) Frame 4 -70% Poor (>50%) = biofilm area (i.e., coating on underside of stone associated with growth of bacteria, fungi, slime molds or combinations thereof). ' Bolded number below each frame is percent substrate fouling; imaginary quadrants labelled A, B. C, D used as handy reference aid. 25 • 0 Table 6. List of RSAT Water Clarity and Color Terms (modified from P.G. County Health Dept., 1993) Clarity/Color General Description 1. Clear Smaller objects lying on streambed in deeper pool areas (i.e., > 3 feet deep) are clearly visible. 2. Slightly Off-Color Water has slight yellow, brown or greenish hue. Visibility of smaller objects lying, on stream- bed in deeper pool areas are partially obscured. Larger objects still visible. 3. Off-Color/Turbid Visibility into water column is nil. Generally attributable to high levels of light scattering/reflecting particles in water column such as clays, algae, etc. 4. Tea or Coffee Self-describing. Generally associated with tannic and fulvic acids from decomposition of leaves or other organic material. More common during fall-winter seasons. May sometimes be associated with seasonal growths of certain algae on streambed. 5. Bright Green Most likely source is antifreeze. Note, uranine dye is (bright green) an additive in antifreeze. 6. Green Fibrous, slime layers with visible air bubbles may indicate an algae bloom brought on by excess nutrients. The most frequent cause is improper fertilizer or manure storage and/or application. 7. Yellow-Brown, Sudsy Suds normally observed in slower eddy areas. Origins may be tree resins, gums and/or pollen. 8. Red-Orange Filmy deposits along the edge of the stream and bed often associated with greasy rainbow appearance of iron-oxidizing bacteria (which are generally naturally occurring). 9. White, Cloudy if the-e are no identifiable solids or odor, it is likely that this problem is run-off from cement cutting or washing activities associated with roadway construction. 10. White; Sudsy Usually associated with home car washing, or other detergent discharge. Most car washes recycle their wash water and have discharge permits with established limits. Note, car wash discharges will normally have waxy smell. 11. Light to Dark Gray Strong fetid odor indicates possible sewage overflow or exfiltration. Sewer trunk lines and manholes follow stream valleys to treatment plants and may occasionally leak or overflow with time or during certain large stormflow conditions. Note, sewage fungus growth on rocks in stream provides additional evidence. 12. Brown Probable discharge of sediment-laden water. 13. Yellow-Brovrm Greasy petroleum smelling material that clumps together is likely to be Number 2 fuel oil. 14. Rainbow Sheen Oils which coalesce together when disturbed indicate a petroleum discharge. 26 ' Table 7. List of RSAT Odor Terms` Term 1. None 2. 3. Organic Chlorinated 4. Petroleum 5. Antifreeze (sickly sweet) 6. Sulfurous 7. Sewage 8. Other ' Modifiers - slight, moderate, strong 7. Riparian Habitat Conditions A. Canopy Coverage Percent canopy coverage at each riffle transect station area is visually estimated via the employment of either a spherical densiometer or a hand-held, 50 square plexiglass grid or equivalent. Canopy coverage is recorded on the survey form to the nearest 5 percent. Note, an eyeball method may be substituted af= having calibrated one's eyes with one of the preceding instruments. Also, it is recognized that canopy coverage estimates made during late fall, winter and early spring are less accurate and require considerably more effort. During these periods, particularly close attention to riparian vegetation species composition, height, branching patterns and density, etc. is essential to making reasonable estimates. B. Vegetation Type The general dominant vegetation present along each bank is noted at each riffle transect station and recorded on the survey form using one of the following abbreviations: forest (l), shrub (Sh) and grass (G). C. Buffer Width 1 At each transect station the riparian buffer width along each bank is determined in one of two ways: 1.) scaled directly off the topographic base map (if tree-line area shown) or 2.) visually estimated. Buffer widths are recorded onto the survey form to the nearest 5 feet. $. Biological Condition - Benthic Macro invertebrate Biosurvey Macro invertebrates are generally defined as animals without backbones that are large enough to be retained on a U.S. standard No. 30 sieve, 0.595 mm openings. Benthic 1 27 III. 1. macro invertebrates have long been used for biological monitoring purposes because they are a ubiquitous diverse group of sedentary and relatively long-lived species, which often respond predictably to human watershed perturbations. Importantly, a stream's biological community normally responds to and is reflective of prevailing water quality and physical habitat conditions. As part of the RSAT evaluation, a screening level biosurvey of the stream's riffle macro invertebrate community is performed. The primary purpose of the biosurvey is to characterize macro inve rte brate community composition and relative abundance of major representative taxonomic groups, so as to shed additional light on overall stream quality/level of impairment. A. Macroinverte b rate Sampling The standard RSAT macroinvertebrate sampling protocol involves both turning over 10 cobble-size stones (or larger), as well as, taking a minimum of 3 one-square-foot, 30-second kick samples per riffle. Kick sampling of smaller streams can be adequately performed using a six-inch wide, fine-meshed dip net. For larger streams a 12-inch wide D-net is recommended. Note, dip nets and/or D-nets are employed so as to allow sampling to be performed by one individual. Macroinvertebrate identification is done at each riffle transect site via visual examination. Individuals are identified to taxonomic order and, whenever possible, to either the family or genus level. Observed- taxa are recorded on the survey form. In addition, representative individuals are placed into a voucher collection for either further identification or future reference. Macroinvertebrate relative abundance categories used in the biosurvey are comparable to EPA's RBP level I and are as follows: absent/no group found, scarce, scarce/common, common/abundant and abundant. Relative abundance ratings are made based on the investigator's experience and knowledge. Note, major pollution tolerance for major taxonomic groups is per Bode et al., 1991 and Lenat, 1993. Last, in addition to noting the macro invertebrates present, the RSAT survey form includes check-off blocks for recording fish species visually observed during the survey. General Remedial Measures Guide and Restoration Project Prioritization General Remedial Measures Guide The Genecal Remedial Measures Guide was developed as an optional planning-level screening tool for providing assistance to non-aquatic biologists 'in identifying appropriate generic-type solutions for observed stream problems. As seen in Figure 5, the Guide factors both stream size (i.e., its baseflow in cubic feet per second) and strea n/riparian corridor problem-level into a restoration matrix. To use the Guide one must first determine both the 28 stream size and the existing problem level for the general restoration objective subcategory. For example, if the subject stream has a baseflow of 0.6 cfs and the existing riffle and pool habitat is severely degraded, physical instream habitat restoration efforts would be deemed appropriate. Conversely, if riffle and pool habitat were only slightly degraded then major habitat enhancement/restoration efforts would be considered inappropriate. 2. Project Prioritization The Project Prioritization method is employed for systematically prioritizing stream channel stabilization and/or stormwater management retrofit project needs for MAT survey stream segments. Five general evaluation factors are employed by the system. These factors are: l.) overall site accessibility, 2.) proximity of moderate/severe and/or severe channel erosion areas to nearby residences/buildings, 3.) environmental site sensitivity/expected tree removal, 4.) level of existing or programmed upstream SWM controls within the subwatershed and 5.) the relative stream problem level, taking stream size into account. An example completed Project Prioritization form, Table 7, (Dawson Farm Creek) is included. As seen in Table ' 7 the stream received a total score of 29, placing it into a moderate (Level U) project priority category. 1 1 29 Figure 5. General Remedial Measures Guide' Stream/Riparian Corridor Problem Level estoration Objective(s) ] m m Se m m y o m m m ? m m H N m 2 m m GA 1. Bank Stabilization/Aquatic Habitat Restoration Major Stream Bank Stabilization O Q O 0 19 10 10 . Baseflow Channel Restoration O Q Q O 0 16 10 10 0 Pool/Riffle Sequence Restoration O Q (D O 19 10 10 '°` • Overhead Cover/Other 0 0 0 (3 0 0 0 Q Q If. Fisheries Restoration/Management Forage Fish (non-sensitive) 01 9 • 01 0 61 01 9 • Resident Game and/or Sensitive Fish 01 0 O e ® Q 0 Q ,gig Put and Take 01 0 01 0 0 0 Q Q Q III. Riparian Restoration Canopy Coverage Q O 61 01 0 • Q 01 0 Wetlands Q 0. 01 0 Q 01 01 01 0 Wildlife C 01 01 0 Q 01 0 O Q Native Plant Communities Q Q • Q Q • 0 Q • IV. Aesthetic Trash Reduction/Removal • • • • * 0 01 0 Landscape O Q Q Q Q Q Stream Slzez (CIS) 0.01 - 0.5 cis 0.51 - 5.0cfs > 5.0cfs LEGEND 40 Appropriate O Case - by - Case O Not Appropriate ' Consultation with appropriate resource management experts recommended prior to concept restoration plan development. = Stream size = normal ba_senow discharge in cubic feet/second (cfs). 30 Table 8. Project Prioritization' (Dawson Farm Creek) w Total Points Pryycct Priority Level a 30 High (Level 1) 20-29 = . Moderate (Level 11) S19 = Low (Level III) Ranking Category F t l ti E - or on ac ua va Low Moderate High Points 1. Overall Site Accessibility 0-3 4-6 7-9 7 (Poor) (Fair-Good) (V.Cood • Excellent) 2. Proximity of Moderate-Severe/Severe Channel Erosion Area to 0-3 4-6 7-9 Nearby Residences/Buildings C&L No. of Residences Des ante (ft) poin A. 0 <50,50-100,>WO 0 B. 1-2 <50,50-100,>100 7,4,1 C. 3-5 <50,50-100,>100 8,5,2 2 D. z6 <50,50-100,>100 9,6,3 3. Environmental Sensitivity/Tree Removal 7-9 4-6 0-3 DAL Predominant Condj ion Est. Disturbance Points A. Mature Forest and/or Wetland Low, M-. k., High 3,2,1/0 B. Young Forest Low, Me-]., High 6,5,4 7 C. Mixed and/or Other Low, Mod., High 9,$,7 4. Level of Existing or Programmed SWM 7-9 4-6 0-3 Control(s) Within Watershed 7 S. Stream Problem Level2 0-3 4-6 7-9 CaL Base0ow(efs) Sever Frosion (.F) LEM" A. 0-05 50-200,201 -900,>900 1,4,7 B. 0.51-1.0 50-200,201-900-,>900 2,5,8 C. >1.1 50-200,201-900>900 3,6,9 6 D. All <50 0 Total Score 29 Priority II Level 0 0 r ()Illy performed if total RSAT score is <29 or bank stability score is <5. Note. puint scores uray Ix uwdified by 1-5 points to reflect poor water quality andlor problem coriditious. References 1 Beschta, R.L. and W.S. Platts, 1986. Morphological Features of Small Streams: Significan ce an d Function. Water Resources Bulletin 22(3):369-79. Bode, R.W., 1991. Quality Assurance Work Plan for Biological Stream Monitoring in New York 33 State. Stream Monitoring Unit, Bureau of Monitoring and Assessment, Div. of Water, NYS Dept. of Environ. Cons., Albany, NY. Bode, R.W., M.A. Novak, and L.E. Abele, 1991. Methods for Rapid Biological Assessment of Streams. NYS Dept. of Environ. Cons., Albany, NY. Booth, D.B., 1990. Stream Channel Incision Following Drainage Basin Urbanization. Water Resources Bulletin 26(3):407-417. ' Brusven, M.A. and K.V. Prather, 1974. Influence of Stream Sediments on Distribution of Macrobenthos. J. of Entomol. Soc. British Columbia 71:25-32. Davis, R.M., 1974. Key to the Freshwater Fishes of Maryland. Maryland Dept. of Nat. Res., 1 Annapolis, MD. Embody, G.C., 1929. An Outline of Stream Study and the Development of a Stocking Policy. Contr. Aquic. Lab., Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY. 22 pp. Fraley, J.J., 1979. Effects of Elevated Stream Temperatures Below a Shallow Reservoir on a ' Cold Water Macro invertebrate Fauna. Pages 247-272 in J.V. Ward and J.A. Stanford, (eds.), The Ecology of Regulated Streams. Plenum Press, NY. 398 pp. Frost, S., A. Huni, and W.E. Kershaw, 1971. Evaluation of a Kicking Technique for Sampling Stream Bottom Fauna. Can. J. Zool. 49:167-173. r Galli, F.J., 1995. Water Quality Grab Sampling of Streams in Montgomery and Prince George's County, Maryland -Unpublished Notes. Metropolitan Washington Council of Govts., Wash. DC. Galli, F.J., 1990. Thermal Impacts Associated with Urbanization and Stormwater Management Best Management Practices. Metropolitan Washington Council of Govts., Wash. DC. Gordon, N.D., T.A. McMahon and B.L. Finlayson, 1992. Stream Hydrology - An Introduction for Ecologists. John Wiley Sons, West Sussex, England. 520 pp. Gougeon, C., 1996. Personal Communication. Maryland Dept. of Nat. Res. Coldwater Fisheries Biologist. References (cont'd.) Hannon, P., 1996. Personal Communication. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission. Sanitary Engineer. Howarth, R.W. and S.G. Fisher, 1976. Carbon, Nitrogen, and Phosphorous Dynamics During Leaf Decay in Nutrient-Enriched Microecosystems. Freshwater Biol. 6:221-228. Jenkins, R.E. and N.M. Burkhead, 1993. Freshwater Fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 1079 pp. Jones, R.C. and C.C. Clark, 1987. Impact of Watershed Urbanization on Stream Insect Communities. Water Resources Bulletin 23(6):1047-55. Kellog, L.L., 1992. Save Our Streams - Monitor's Guide to Aquatic Macro invertebrates. Izaak Walton League of America, Arlington, VA. 46 pp. Klein, R.D., 1979. Urbanization and Stream Quality Impairment. Water Resources Bulletin . 15(4):948-963. Kondratieff, P.F. , R.A. Matthews and A.L. Buikema, Jr., 1984. A Stressed Stream Ecosystem: Macroinvertebrate Community Integrity and Microbial Trophic Response. Hydrobiologia 111:81-91. Lemly, A.D., 1982. Modification of Benthic Insect Communities in Polluted Streams: Combined Effects of Sedimentation and Nutrient Enrichment. Hydrobiologia 87:229-245. Lenat, D.R., 1993. A Biotic Index for the Southeastern United States: Derivation and List of Tolerance Values, with Criteria for Assigning Water-Quality Ratings. J. N. Am. Benthol Soc. 12:279-290. Lock, M.A., 1993. Attached Microbial Communities in Rivers. Pages 113 138 in T.E. Ford, (ed.), Aquatic Microbiology - An Ecological Approach. Blackwell Scientific Publ., Cambridge, MA. 518 pp. Luedkte, R.J. and M.A. Brusven, 1976. Effects of Sand Sedimentation on Colonization of Stream Insects. J. Fish. Res. Coord. Can. 33(9):1881-1886. McCafferty, W.P.; 1981. Aquatic Entomology - The Fishermen's and Ecologist's Illustrated Guide to Insects and Their Relatives. Science Books Int. Boston; MA. 448 pp. McCaw, W,J., 1974. Water Quality of Montgomery County Streams and Sewage Treatment Plant Effluents, Dec. 1969-74. Mont. Co. Md. Dept. of Environ. Prot. 67 pp. 34 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 References (cont'd.) Merritt, R.W. and K.W. Cummins, 1984. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America. 2nd Ed. Kendall/Hunt Publ., Dubuque, IO. 722 pp. Minshall, G.W., 1984. Aquatic Insect-Substratum Relationships. Chapter 12: pages 358-400 in V.H. Resh and D.M. Rosenburg, (eds.), The Ecology of Aquatic Insects. Prager Scientific Publ., New York, NY. 625 pp. Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection, 1981. Water Quality of Streams in Montgomery County, Md.: January - December, 1980. Water Res. Sect. Div. of Pollution Control. Northcote, K.H., 1979. A Factual Key for the Recognition of Australian Soils. Rellin Technical Publications, Adelaide, Australia. Oswood, M.W., 1979. Abundance Patterns of Filter-Feeding Caddisflies (Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae) and Seston in a Montana (USA) Lake Outlet. Hydrobiol. 63(2):177-183. Otton, E.G. and J.T. Hilleary, 1985. Maryland Springs - Their Physical, Thermal, and Chemical Characteristics. Md. Geol. Survey. Report No. 42. Baltimore, MD. 151 pp. - Palmer, T., 1991 (ed.). Better Trout Habitat - A Guide to Stream Restoration and Management. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 320 pp. Pennak, R.W., 1978. Freshwater Invertebrates of the United States. 2nd Ed. John Wiley and Sons. 803 pp. Plaflcin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross and R.M. Hughes, 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macro invertebrates and Fish. U.S. EPA, Off. of Water. EPA/444(440)/4-39-001, Wash. DC_ Prince George's County Health Department, 1993. Stream Complaints. Landover, Maryland. 1 pp Reice, S.R., 1980. The Role of Substratum in Benthic Macro invertebrate Microdistribution and Litter Decomposition in a Woodland Stream. 61(3):580-590. Stewart, K.W. and B.P. Stark, 1993. Nymphs of North American Stonefly Genera (Plecoptera). Univ. of Texas Press, Denton, TX. 460 pp. Terrell, C.R: and P.B. Perfetti, 1989. Water Quality Indicators Guide: Surface Waters. USDA - Soil Cons. Serv. SCS-TP-161. Wash. DC. 129 pp. 35 References (cont'd.) U.S. EPA, 1986. Quality Criteria for Water. U.S.-EPA, Off. 'of Water. EPA 440/5-86-001, Wash. D.C. Vannote, R.L., G.W. Minshall, K.W. Cummins, J.R. Sedell, and C.E. Cushing, 1980. The River Continuum Concept. Can. J. of Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37:130-137. Washington Suburban Sanitary *Commission, 1995. Patuxent and Potomac Water Filtration Plants 1994 Tap Water Analysis. WSSC, Laurel, MD. 2 pp. Wentworth, 1962. A Scale of Grade and Class Terms for Clastic Sediments. Jour. of Geology 30:377-92. Wiggins, G.B., 1978. Larvae of the North American Caddisfly Genera (Trichoptera). Univ. of Toronto Press. 401 pp. Yorke, T.H. and W.J. Herb, 1978. Effects of Urbanization on Streamflow and Sediment Transport in the Rock Creek and Anacostia River Basins, Montgomery County, Maryland, 1962-74. U.S..Geological Survey Prof. Paper 1003. Wash. DC. 71 pp. 36 ?l 1 1 t 1? J 1 Appendix D Wetland Report rubm KZTRAHA S HI ?J' ASSG7GIAT'ES, INC. Civil Engineering Water Resources Landscape Architecture Planning Surveying 12600 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Suite 100 Tigard, Oregon 97223 503.968.1 605 FAX 503.968.1 105 • WETLAND REPORT METZGER TRUNK REPLACEMENT Washington County, OR Project No. 1577 Prepared For: The Unified Sewerage Agency October 9, 1997 1 t 1 P t iregon John A. Kitzhaber, M.D., Governor October 30, 1997 Brent Davis Kurahashi & Associates, Inc. 12600 SW 72nd Ave., Ste. 100 Tigard, OR 97223 NO V ,, 159 7r,U J Re: Wetland Delineation Report for Metzger Trunk Replacement T01S R01W S26 & 35; City of Tigard and Washington County Tigard LWI Units B-6, B-7, C-1 - C-6 & C-14 (DSL Det. #97-0450) Dear Mr. Davis: Division of State Lands 775 Summer Street NE Salem, OR 97310-1337 (503) 378-3805 FAX (503) 378-4844 TTY (503) 378-4615 State Land Board John A. Kitzhaber Governor Phil Keisling Secretary of State Jim Hill State Treasurer I have reviewed your wetland delineation report for the above referenced project. Based on the information provided, I concur with your findings as mapped in Sheets 1 to 5 of the report. The wetland areas, Ash Creek, the tributary to Ash Creek are jurisdictional and subject to the permit requirements of the state Removal-Fill Law. A state Removal-Fill permit is required for fill or removal of 50 cubic yards or more of material in these areas. Federal and local regulations may also apply. Your contact person for a Removal-Fill permit is Bill Parks, who can be reached at extension 234. If you or your client have any questions, please feel free to call me at extension 246. Thank you for your report. Sincerely, 0-4r k, /JA6CV_A -W e!?4? Mary Pakenham-Walsh Wetlands Technician cc: Jim Goudzwaard, Corps of Engineers Jan Stuart, Corps of Engineers Bill Parks, DSL Washington County Planning Department City of Tigard Planning Department \\SalemI\pp\Wetlands\Mary pw\Letters\97-450.doc WETLAND REPORT SUMMARY SHEET GENERAL Client: Unified Sewerage Agency Project No.: 1577 Attention: Lee Walker Project Name: Metzger Trunk Street: 155 N First Street, Ste 270 Investigator: Brent Davis City/State: Hillsboro, OR 97124 Date: September 25, 1997 SITE LOCATION County: Washington Township: IS Range: 1 W City: Tigard/Metzger Waterway: Ash Creek Sections: S 1/2 OF 26 AND N 1/2 OF 35 Tax Lot(s): Multiple (Sanitary Sewer Easement) LAND USE Zoning: mixed Parcel Size: 6200 L.F. MFlood Plain MPublic MAgricultural F-JPrivate E]Park Crop Land [JAD-1026 Certified Undeveloped E:]Greenway/space MPasture/Hayland Other (remarks) FjEasment/Dedication ?Openspace ?Abandoned ?Other (remarks) MOther (remarks) E]Converted WETLAND INVENTORIES MNWI Map Name(s): Beaverton []LWI ID(s): All All MPartial Partial Previous/Related Determinations: METHO DOLOGY MCOE 1987 MANUAL [:]FSA MAUNUAL F] COMPREHENSIVE MROUTINE ?ON-SITE - OFF-SITE MTypical Situation MSmall Site Problem Area 00n-site FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT MAtypical Situation [-]OJj`-site EJFSA MANUAL BOTHER: Abnormal Environmenta l Conditions E]OREGON METHOD WETLAND TYPES ®PEM aPFO F]R3 B []E2EM F]E2FO PSS PWM ?Other: MW FW EJFWP CPC SAW REMARKS Linear project within a sanitary sewer easement that paralells Ash Creek. Some locations required Atypical Methodology and others required the use of Interem Operating Procedures for Agricultural Lands (8/12/97) As noted on individual data forms. rubm 12600 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Suite 100 Tigard, Oregon 97223 KURAHA S HI 503.968.1 605 AS SOC:[ATES, I1VC. FAX 503.968.1105 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 METZGER TRUNK WETLAND REPORT UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 WETLAND DEFINITION & PROJECT METHODOLOGY 3.0 SITE LOCATION & GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS 4.0 WETLAND CHARACTERISTICS 5.0 LIMITATIONS 6.0 REFERENCES FIGURES AND MAPS FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2: NWI MAP FIGURE 3: SCS SOIL SURVEY AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH WETLAND LOCATIONS MAP APPENDIX I: WETLAND DELINEATION CRITERA APPENDIX II: DATA FORMS J 1 1 1 Metzger Trunk (1577) 1.0 INTRODUCTION Unified Sewerage Agency Kurahashi & Associates, Inc. (KAI) has completed a site analysis of approximately 6200 linear feet of Ash Creek and the adjacent sanitary sewer easement in the Metzger area for the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA). USA intends to replace the sanitary trunk line located within this easement in the 1998 construction season. KAI has conducted a Rapid Stream Assessment (RSAT) for the creek and wetland delineation within the existing sewer easement. The following document presents the results of an on- site wetland determination. Field data was collected on two occasions, July 10, 1997 and August 13, 1997. 2.0 WETLAND DEFINITION & PROJECT METHODOLOGY Wetlands are formally defined as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, the prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." (Federal Register, 1980, 1982). Federal, state, and local regulations governing activities located in or near wetlands and streams include: • Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) are administered through the Army Corps of Engineers. • The "Swampbuster" provision of the Food Security Act (FSA) of 1985, administered through the Natural Resource Conservation Service. • Oregon's Removal-Fill Law (ORS 196.800 - .990), Oregon's Wetland Inventory and Wetland Conservation Plans, Standards, and Guidelines (ORS 196.668 - .692) which are administered through the Division of State Lands. • Washington County's Comprehensive Plan, Article IV, Sections 422 and 423. • The Metzger-Progress Community Plan The 1987 Corps of Engineers Manual routine on-site methodology (summarized in Appendix I) was used to delineate wetlands within the sanitary sewer easement on non-agricultural lands. The downstream segment of the study reach on Ash Creek is active pasture therefore, wetlands were delineated according to the Interim Operating Procedure for Completing Wetlands Determinations on Agricultural Lands (effective as of 8/12/97). Two portions of the study reach required Atypical Situation Methodology since wetlands have been encroached upon by either apartment buildings or a concrete pathway surrounded by manicured turf lawns. 3.0 SITE LOCATION & GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS The study area is 6200 linear feet of a 15 foot wide sanitary sewer easement (Figure 1) located approximately adjacent to Ash Creek between the end of Spruce Street and the crossing at Taylor's Ferry Road in the general area of Metzger, Or. The lower segment, below Hall Boulevard, is within the City of Tigard, OR. The sewer easement crosses both private (agricultural, commercial, residential uses) and public properties (several street right-of-ways and Metzger Park). The study area has been divided into three segments for the purpose of description (segment limits are indicated on the aerial photo): ' Pasture Segment This segment, currently used as pasture, is located between the downstream portion of the study area at the dead end of Spruce Street and the crossing of Oak Street. The owner is not a Federal program Kurahashi & Associates, Inc. September 25, 1997 1 Metzger Trunk (1577) Unified Sewerage Agency ' but the use qualifies for treatment as agricultural land for the participant, purpose of delineating wetlands. The easement does not cross the creek in this segment. Middle Segment This segment is located between the crossings of Oak Street and Cedarcrest Street. A large portion of to asegment is a fragmented remnant riparian forested wetland. Upland portions include street right-of-way and existing development that encroaches on Ash Creek. Two locations within the segment requre the use of Atypical Situation Methodology due to severe encroachment on the creek that included both structures and landscaping. The easement crosses a tributary of Ash Creek and the creek itself once each within the middle segment. ' Upper Segment The Upper Segment is located between the crossing of Cedarcrest Street and the crossing of Taylor's Ferry Road. This segment contains shrub/scrub and open meadow wetland. Uplands include some residential mowed field and lawns as well as the 80th Ave. right-of-way. Atypical Situaltion Methodology was required for one turf lawn area near the creek (determined to be upland). The easement crosses the creek twice in this segment. ' 4.0 WETLAND CHARACTERISTICS ' 4.1 NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY Most of the proposed wetlands, are not identified in the National Wetland Inventory, however Ash Creek is identified as Permanent Saturated Palustrine Emergent Wetland (PEM 1 Y) on the Beaverton quad. ' 4.2 ON-SITE INVESTIGATION Eighteen (18 data plots) were used to locate eight (8) wetland, fragments within the study area. Data Plot and Fragment locations are shown on the Wetland Locations Map. Field dates, data plot numbers, and fragment labels for each segment are as follows: ' Pasture Segment 7/10/97 Data Plots 1-6 Fragments A and B Fragment A is on the upper rim of a large streamside depression that contains a man made pond (permanently ponded) postdating the original sewer line installation. The sewer easement runs along the southern and eastern edges of the pond (generally between the pond and Ash Creek). Fragment B is a narrow linear depression (seasonally ponded or saturated), located directly over the sewer line, that has no noticeable inlet or outlet. It appears to be an area where the existing sewer ' line backfill has subsided. Middle Segment 8/13/97 Data Plots 7-13 Fragments C,D,E and F ' All of these fragments are part of a formerly contiguous forested wetland, (seasonally flooded and/or saturated). Fragments E and F are pieces of the same wetland separated by a topographic feature that appears to be fill postdating the original sewer line installation but predating wetland protection ' under the CWA. Fragments C, D, and E have been disconnected by road crossings. Portions of C and E have been encroached upon by development (C, apartments and lawn at the south end; E, a concrete pathway and lawn at the south end). Fragment D is a crossing of a tributary of Ash Creek. 1 ' Kurahashi & Associates, Inc. September 25, 1997 2 Metzger Trunk (1577) Unified Sewerage Agency Upper Segment 8/13/97 Data Plots 14-18 Fragments G and H ' Fragment G contains riparian shrub/scrub and emergent meadow wetland, (seasonally flooded and/or saturated) directly adjacent to Ash Creek. ' Fragment H is crossing of Ash Creek. Field data collected are summarized below by segment for the three delineation criteria. ' Hydrology Pasture Segment According to the Interim Operating Procedure, NFSAM Hydrology Criteria (Appendix I) were used for this segment. The Pasture Segment is located almost entirely within the 100-year floodplain of Ash Creek. The hydrology of Fragment A is dominated by the pond and adjacent creek. The hydrology of Fragment B is dominated by topographic conditions (a clear drainage pattern) and poorly drained soils. Oxidized root channels and/or rhizomes were observed at most wetland data plots. One "other" indicator observed in Fragment A was dried deep hoof prints (from cattle) suggesting that the surface had been saturated or inundated earlier in the season. ' One region of the field adjacent to the study area contains several small perched depressions (location is indicted on the Wetland Locations Map) with no discernable drainage pattern. Though ' oxidized root channels and/or rhizomes were observed to be present in some upland areas between these depressions and within the study area, no other secondary indicators of saturation during the growing season were observed. ' Middle Segment The hydrology in the most of the Middle Segment fragments (C, E, and F) is dominated by Ash Creek. In areas where the banks are less than three (3) feet high the floodplain area was, based on secondary indicators, determined to be frequently flooded and/or seasonally saturated. The portion of Fragment E that is a maintained turf lawn may be irrigated, however no evidence of a permanently installed sprinkler system was observed. The hydrology of Fragment D is dominated by a tributary ' of Ash Creek. Oxidized root channels and/or rhizomes were observed at most wetland data plots. The upland riparian areas generally have higher creek banks and an absence of primary or secondary wetland hydrology indicators. Upper Segment The hydrology in the Upper Segment is dominated by the both the creek and a small tributary seep. The seep was observed to be a shallow swale that was inundated with a few inches of water at the time of the field visit. Th seep appears to maintain wetland hydrology in a wet meadow (The upper portion of Fragment G, infrequently flooded and/or seasonally saturated) that would otherwise be elevated too far above the creek to be wetland. Hydrology in the shrub/scrub area just upstream from the Cedarcrest crossing (the lower portion of Fragment G, frequently flooded and/ or seasonally saturated) is confined by the road fill (approximately eight (8) vertical feet) and is dominated by the ' creek. The hydrology of Fragment H is dominated by Ash Creek. Oxidized root channels and/or rhizomes were observed at most wetland data plots. Soils Pasture Segment The SCS Soil Survey maps Verboort silty clay loam throughout the Pasture Segment. Verboort is a poorly drained soil formed in stratified, moderately fine textures and fine textured alluvium on Kurahashi & Associates, Inc. September 25, 1997 3 • • Metzger Trunk (1577) Unified Sewerage Agency bottom lands.. The mapped soil type could not be confirmed based on the soil data collected for this study At a depth of ten (10) inches, soils were observed to be dark grayish brown to very dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2-3/2, 2.5Y 4/2) silty clay loam with course, distinct, and common mottles of ' varying color. Soils at upland data plots (3 and 4) displayed hydric characteristics, but hydrology and vegetation criteria were not met at these locations. Middle Segment The SCS Soil Survey maps Verboort silty clay loam at the northern and southern ends of the Middle Segment, the rest of the segment is mapped as Wapato silty clay loam. Verboort is a poorly drained ' soil formed in stratified, moderately fine textures and fine textured alluvium on bottomlands. Wapato is a poorly drained soil formed in recent alluvium on floodplains. The wetland fragments proposed in the Middle Segment fall entirely within the area mapped as Wapato. The mapped soil ' type could not be confirmed based on the soil data collected for this study. At a depth of ten (10) inches, soils were observed to be dark grayish brown to very dark gray (IOYR 4/2-3/1) silty clay loam with course, distinct, and common mottles of varying color in wetland soils. ' Some wetland soils had an equally mixed matrix of IOYR 3/1 and 10YR 4/2 (Data Plots 10 and 12). Upland soils (Data Plot 7 only) were not mottled. Upper Segment ' The SCS Soil Survey maps Verboort silty clay loam throughout the Upper Segment. Verboort is a poorly drained soil formed in stratified, moderately fine textures and fine textured alluvium on ' bottom lands.. The mapped soil type could not be confirmed based on the soil data collected for this study At a depth of ten (10) inches, soils were observed to be dark grayish brown to very dark gray (IOYR ' 4/2-3/1) silty clay loam with course, distinct, and common mottles of varying color in wetland soils. Upland soils (Data Plots 17 and 18) were not mottled. Vegetation Wetland plant communities were generally consistent within each of the three study segments with the exception of disturbed areas such as the lawns in the Middle Segment. Due to a lack of natural vegetation in the three lawn areas sampled (Data Plots 8,11, and 18), vegetation at adjacent plots (9, 12, and 17 respectively) were used under Atypical Methodology to determine vegetation criteria at the disturbed locations. Variations in the relative mix of species within each community are shown on the ' data forms in Appendix II. A summary of observed and dominant vegetation by study segment is provided in the following table: TABLE 1: Vegetation Observed at Data Plots BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME INDICATOR STATUS PASTURE WETLAND ' Agrostis albs Redtop FAC* Agrostis stoloniferat Spreading Bentgrass FAC* Agrostis tenuist Colonial Bentgrass FAC ' Alopecurus pratensist Meadow FoxtaiI FACW Calocedrus decurrens Incense Cedar UPL Carex densat Dense Sedge OBL Crataegus monogyna One-Seed Hawthorn FACU+* Daucus carota Queen Anne's Lance UPL Epilobium ciliatum Hairy Willow-Herb FACW- Kurahashi & Associates, Inc. September 25, 1997 4 1 J 1 1 • 0 Metzger Trunk (1577) Unified Sewerage Agency BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME INDICATOR STATUS Equisetum arvenset Field Horsetail FAC Festuca arundinacea Kentucky Fescue FAC- Festuca rubrat Red Fescue FAC+ Fraxinus latifolia Oregon Ash FACW Holcus lanatus Common Velvet Grass FAC Juncus eJfusus Soft Rush FACW Juncus patens Spreading Rush FACW Leucanthemum vulgare f Oxeye Daisy UPL Lolium perenne Perennial Ryegrass FACU Lotus corniculatus Birds-Foot Trefoil FAC Phalaris arundinaceat Reed Canary Grass FACW Plantango lanceolatat English Plantain FAC Plectaris congesta f Pink Plectatis FACU Poa pratensis Kentucky Bluegrass FAC Ranunculus repens Creeping Butter-Cup FACW Rosa nutkana f Nootka Rose FAC Rubus discolort Himalayan Blackberry FACU Tanacetum vulgare Common Tansy NI Traxicum ofcinale f Common Dandelion FACU Trifolium pratense Red Clover FACU Trifolium repent White Clover FAC* PASTURE UPLAND Agrostis alba Redtop FAC* Agrostis tenuisf Colonial Bentgrass FAC Alopecurus pratensis Meadow Foxtail FACW Centaurea cyanus Bachelor's Button UPL Danthonia californica California Oatgrass FACU* Daucus carotaf Queen Anne's Lace UPL Festuca rubra Red Fescue FAC+ Lolium perenne Perennial Ryegrass FACU Lotus corniculatus Birds-Foot Trefoil FAC Prunella vulgarise Heal-All FACU+ Taraxacum ofcinale Common Dandelion FACU Trifolium repent White Clover FAC* MIDDLE WETLAND Acer macrophtyllum Big-Leaf Maple FACU Alnus rubra Red Alder FAC Carex deweyana Short-Scale Sedge FACU* Carex obnupta Slough Sedge OBL Corylus cornuta Beaked Hazel-Nut FACU Crataegus douglasii Douglas' Hawthorn FAC Epilobium ciliatum Hairy Willow-Herb FACW- Equisetum arvene Field Horsetail FAC Equisetum hyemale Rough Horsetail FACW Fraxinus latifolia Oregon Ash FACW Glyceria elata Tall Manna Grass FACW+ Hedera helix English Ivy UPL Holcus lanatus Common Velvet Grass FAC Juncus patens Spreading Rush FACW Lonicera involucrata Four-Line Honeysuckle FAC+* Phalaris arundinacea Reed Canary Grass FACW Polystichum munitum Pineland Sword Fern FACU Populus balsamifera Balsam Poplar FAC Ranunculus repen Creeping Butter-Cup FACW Rubus discolor Himalayan Blackberry FACU Rubus ursinus California Dewberry FACU Salix lasiandra Pacific Willow FACW+ Kurahashi & Associates, Inc. September 25, 1997 1 1 1 1 1 1 Metzger Trunk (1577) Unified Sewerage Agency BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME INDICATOR STATUS Solanum dulcamara Climbing Nightshade FAC+ Thuja plicata Western Red Cedar FAC Trifolim repens White Clover FAC* Turf Lawn MIDDLE UPLAND Festuca arundinaceat Kentucky Fescue FAC- Poa annuat Annual Bluegrass FAC Agropyron repent Quackgrass FAC- Holcus lanatust Common Velvet Grass FAC Agrostis tenuis Colonial Bentgrass FAC Turf Lawn UPPER WETLAND Agrostis albat Redtop FAC* Agrostis tenuist Colonial Bentgrass FAC Alnus rubra Red Alder FAC Alopecurus pratensis Meadow Foxtail FACW Cornus stoloniferat Red-Osier Dogwood FACW Equisetum arvenset Field Horsetail FAC Festuca arundinaceat Kentucky Fescue FAC- Fraxinus latifolia Oregon Ash FACW Holcus lanatus Common Velvet Grass FAC Phalaris arundinaceat Reed Canary Grass FACW Quercus garryanat Oregon White Oak UPL Ranunculus repen Creeping Butter-Cup FACW Rosa nutkanat Nootka Rose FAC Rubus discolor Himalayan Blackberry FACU Salix lasiandra Pacific Willow FACW+ Salix scoularianat Scouler Willow FAC Scirpus microcarpus Small-Fruit Bulrush OBL Spiraea douglasiit Douglas' Spiraea FACW Tanacetum vulgaret Common Tansy NI UPPER UPLAND Agrostis tenuis Colonial Bentgrass FAC Daucus carotat Queen Anne's Lace UPL Festuca arundinaceat Kentucky Fescue FAC- Holcus lanatust Common Velvet Grass FAC Prunella vulgaris Heal-All FACU+ Taraxacum officinalet Common Dandelion FACU Trifolium pratense Red Clover FACU Turf Grass 'Used as a dominant species in vegetation calculations (see Appendix II) *Indicator status tentative as of 1993 revisions to the Region 9 Plant List. 5.0 LIMITATIONS The delineation of wetland boundaries is an inexact science. Wetlands are ecotones or transition areas between upland and aquatic environments. Consequently, their boundaries often change over time and individuals will often disagree on the precise location of a boundary. The final determination of wetland boundaries is the responsibility of the resource agencies that regulate activities in and around wetlands (in Oregon it is the Division of State Lands). Accordingly, the wetland delineation performed for this study, as well as the conclusions drawn in this report, should be reviewed by the appropriate regulatory agency prior to any detailed site planning or construction activities. We recommend that the wetland study be verified with the appropriate regulatory agency as soon as practical. Kurahashi & Associates, Inc. September 25, 1997 6 Metzger Trunk (1577) Unified Sewerage Agency ' Within the limitations of schedule budget, and scope-of-work, we warrant that this study was conducted in accordance with generally accepted environmental science practices. The results and conclusions of this report represent the author's best professional judgement, based upon the information provided by the project proponent in addition to that obtained during the course of study. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. ' 6.0 REFERENCES ' Clark, J.R., and J. Benforado, editors. 1981. Wetlands of Bottomland Hardwood Forests; Proceedings of a Workshop on Bottomland Hardwood Forest Wetlands of the Southeastern United States. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, NY. Guard, B. Jennifer. 1995. Wetland Plants of Oregon & Washington.. Lone Pine Publishing, Redmond, WA. 239pp. Hitchcock, C. Leo and Arthur Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. 730 pp. Munsell Color. 1975. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgan Corporation. Baltimore, MD. Pojar, Jim, and Andy Mackinnon. 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast. Lone Pine Publishing, Redmond, WA. 527 pp. ' Reed, Porter B. 1993. 1993 Supplement To List Of Plant Speices That Occur In Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington D.C. 10 p. Resource Management Group, Inc. 1993. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands, Region ' 9-Northwest. B.J. Sabine, editor. Resource Management Group, Inc., Grand Haven, MI. 72 pp. Soil Conservation Service. 1982. Soil Survey of Washington County. George L Green, editor. U.S. ' Department of Agriculture. U.S Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA. 1 Kurahashi & Associates, Inc. September 25, 1997 7 1:24000 0.5 0 0.5 1 Miles Street Major Arterial Stream rwsm KURAHA S HI A, SSCD CGIATI?S, INC_ Wetland Delineation Figure 1 Vicinity Map Metzger Trunk (1577) Unified Sewerage Agency August 1997 9 0 9 1 1 1 , 1 ?. iii 14, 1 ? PEM1Y ` r 1 L lot 1 ``??.r-??.r O r Study Reach ,r=te 00 lop 00 `1:24000 0.5 0 0.5 1 Miles Major Arterial Stream NWI Wetlands KURAHA S HI ASSOC [AYES, 1 NC_ Wetland Delineation Figure 2 NN Map (Beaverton Quad) Metzger Trunk (1577) Unified Sewerage Agency August 1997 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1:24000 0.5 0 0.5 1 Miles Major Arterial ???' Stream 0 Woodburn silt loam 0 Wapato silty clay loam ® Verboort silty clay loam Aloha silt loam rw& KURAHA S HI ASSOC IATI?S, 1 NC. Wetland Delineation Figure 3 SCS Soils Map Metzger Trunk (1577) Unified Sewerage Agency August 1997 l3 a r , r « u ,c .. k .. ?. t :. ,: ,. kvs: ?, w•. '„ '?' a,. ':: y:.. , f.. t .` .,? a. 'Vf m: ? .1 r ?y }? I,. i? ti t ,.fit. •? ,?._ : ? , » ?'rt ;-.. ,rY.. ? 'a. ,?M v«. .Ap4 q J. f:•, ....: . 4. ,. r _ .. '? :{f-I - 'b. .fir ,,.,. :,.,,.. •'?.:.. _;? .:. ,r..,,., :, , ,? ::: ,{ rrai ".',' '?. ..C i ,_ »,,. '... ,.. ,q'S?•' n ? q :.v , ;.. :.: r" ... 1 ...`3:, ; - ra .^_. o-!1.` ?.. • roe ?' : S 4. .,,k. :? .;fit Y .' 'rte "i i ? t c :., „, Df,c a p n,: Lt T .;> r" i;;.i- ( i s l • ?" , .:`.,?a.°r w.• '?.?.. .r s?+ - •?z-.,;: ?. ..,« ?-.. ar yY ?.. ., ?:. .a: • a> ... „_,:, : ?'aR }w,'•'T:' ?' `•L%' •.>? ,. .?aAr, ?.;: } t:. ??,a ,:. tm.. «: t .:: r-. >•.: a 'ry ;-, ! )..;. .... .?;'.? .. dt ?14' ;"' :.? ,?« --'i a NT'a:-.'?" rr ?,:. fin:.:.. ;:,. ., ?... ,. .;,. .: - ;i 1'. ;? -y"'.'a? r. Y;'?. ? \• .;v?? r r+1a?a: 3l?<. ,.. JK -, - .? ... W?jj s - e ,? i` rayh •»!r ? ft' ^'.,. s y ? ?, F , ?r . I • r. v I 74 r '; ?• _ a :' , ..-. '', •?` ? t.N rt r , ,1 'E 1 3. .d 9 ..kr fa .. ^,(- M z®, _ -. ? .. ,a ?• r. w.n w ..:3[?iin"'"?' '4.7?`,f.Ma?'... .. •.;?. -? _..t3ir Dui f F • a NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION t NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 0 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION t e • NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Metzger Trunk (1577) Unified Sewerage Agency APPENDIX I: ON-SITE WETLAND DELINEATION CRITERA 1.0 Hydrology Water must be present in order for wetlands to exist: however, it need not be present throughout the entire year. Wetland hydrology is considered to be present when there is permanent or periodic inundation or soil saturation for a significant period (usually a week or more) during the growing season (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989). Indicators of wetland hydrology, including areas of ponding or soil saturation; evidence of previous water inundation or saturation, such as dry algae on bare soil, or soil mottling along live root channels; and drainage patterns should be examined. When positive indicators of wetland hydrology are observed, wetland hydrology is likely to occur for a significant period of the growing season. The table below summarizes some of the hydrologic regimes that can be encountered and their wetland characteristics. Degree of Inundation or Saturation Duration* Wetland Characteristic Permanently inundated** 100% present Semipermanently to nearly permanently inundated or sat.*** >75 - 100% present Regularly inundated or saturated >25 - <75% usually present Seasonally inundated or saturated >12.5 -25% often present Irregularly inundated or saturated >5 - 12.5% often absent Intermittently or never inundated or saturated <5% absent * percent of growing season * * inundation >6.6 ft mean water depth *** inundation < or = 6.6 ft mean water depth Sources: Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, 1987 Clark and Benforado, 1981 2.0 soils One characteristic of wetlands is hydric soils. Hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part of the soil profile. The Soil Conservation Service has compiled a list of hydric soils in the United States. The list identifies soil series mapped by the SCS that meet hydric soil criteria. A map unit of upland soil may have inclusions of hydric soil, and vice versa. These inclusions may not be included as 1 part of the SCS soil survey; therefore, field examination of the soil conditions is important to determine if inclusions exist. The wet anaerobic conditions create certain characteristics that are typical of hydric soils. Such characteristics or indicators include: high organic content, accumulation of sulfitic material, greenish or bluish gray color (gley formation), spots or blotches of orange/black color (mottling), and or dark soil colors (low soil chroma). P Kurahashi & Associates, Inc. September 25, 1997 e Metzger Trunk (1577) Unified Sewerage Agency Hydric Indicator Diagnostic Criteria Organic Content >50% by volume Sulfidic Material "rotten egg" odor Soil Color mottling, dark soil matrix, gleyed colors Water Saturation poorly drained soils with low permeability Sources: Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, 1987. USDA 1975. 3.0 Vegetation Plants must be specifically adapted for life under saturated or anaerobic conditions in order to grow in wetlands. Such plants are classified as "hydrophytic" vegetation, meaning "water loving." The Corps of Engineers and the US Fish and Wildlife Service have assigned "indicator status" to most plant species, based on the estimated probability that the species occurrence in wetland areas. Definitions of each indicator status from the Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation,(1989) are listed below. Species with an indicator status of OBL, FACW, or FAC are considered adapted for life in saturated or anaerobic soil conditions. Indicator Definition OBL Obligate. Species that occur almost always (99% probability) in wetlands under natural conditions. FACW Facultative wetland. Species that usually occur in wetlands (67°/0-99% probability), but occasionally are found in nonwetlands. FAC Facultative. Species that are equally likely to occur in wetlands or nonwetlands (34% - 66% probability). FACU Facultative upland. Species that usually occur in nonwetlands (67% -99% probability), but occasionally are found in wetlands. UPL Upland. Species that usually occur almost always in nonwetlands under normal conditions (99% probability). NI No indicator. Species for which insufficient information was available to determine indicator status. Sources: Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, 1987. Resource Management Group, 1988. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1993. 11 t Kurahashi & Associates, Inc. September 25, 1997 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r APPENDIX If rw&M KURAHA S HI & ASSOC:IA"TES, 11V C. Civil Engineering Water Resources Landscape Architecture Planning Survcyin-- • Routine On-site Wetland Determination Data Form Adapted from the Corps of Engineers and Division of State Lands data forms (revised October 1996). Project Name: ?vlsiz R? Project Number: -7 Investigator: r L)Ayis Date: 111olol-I Plot ID: 1 Plant Community:. *pA41,uR6 . y,/ t4aA Normal Environmental Conditions? es N Remarks: Liv6 p, ; Si vv ? Signifi cant Disturbance (Atypical)? Yes 2D00' SEr.! ?2 L??E= Problem Area? Yes o Rdw-'K6M CivT VEGETATION Species % Cover Indicator Species % Cover Indicator Trees Herbs FRAxIr,?Js I- Art F-t,AA '40 F I c.1S upP Ac.ayyt17 fLlbLDh?.If 6FR&4- * I's, r- A -C F 'rujC 4-9R _ 10 _ FALi- 6 vs ALAa. to FAL :rAi 0 it£PEnMS tt 2.0 Fl(. Shrubs TAI NLuS F-;:P.S5OS ? hcv-5_ PL rJ\DTK& 10 F J 1 N I J?- IZ G ALyA3 Total % Cover Trees Shrubs Herbs Number of Dominants FAC b OBL: 3 By Stratum p p Number of Dominants FAC- b UPL: .0 Relative 50% level: 50 Total Dominants: 2? % Wetland Vegetation: IpO Relative 20% level: 20 Wetland criteria met? es No Remarks: TQr E S g S A;LG 1a A QTVkC90T- X% PAP4 AN co24Zi ibK Bar AiaG W 1 r rE w ? ?4 pl , J5 1 F4ESE tr?6Rti? N csT I IJC-W OED 1 N L hL?.•?t-?'tT?Q lam. _ -inalcates aominant species as aeterminea oy the -ouav rule FAC-NEUTRAL TEST (OPTIONAL) Number of Dominants FACW b 0130 Total FACW b 0130 2 Total FAC+? Number of Dominants UPL b f.ACU? O Total UPL b FACU? Total FAC-? ositive Negetive 12600 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Suite 100 Tigard, Oregon 97223 503.968.1605 FAX 503.968.1 105 Wvnonl nrv Recorded Data: Field Data: Stream, Lake or Tidal Gauge Depth of Surface Water - Aerial Photographs Depth to Free Water in Test Pit Other (explain below) Depth to Saturated Soil No Recorded Data Available: Primary Indicators: Secondary Indicators: Inundated Oxidized Root Channels in first 12 inches Saturated within first 12 inches Water-stained Leaves Water Marks Local Soil Survey Data Drift Lines AC-Neutral Test Sediment Deposits ,,Other (explain below) Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Wetland Criteria Met? Yes No Remarks: THERE I? oN x-ttlz -to' rzvuw -bX-tylt Lo c o ' lJopf: PA ev •/ / .SCE s /4t :d Snn s Map Unit Name (Series and phase): v?L$oo fD%L-T- t CAA-4 LoAOA Drainage Class: -ptokr- Subgroup: pIL AgL.% ; Field Conformation of Mapped Type? I Yes o Profile Description: Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors (Moist) Mottle Abundance/Contrast Texture, Structure, etc. O -4 A to Z K - to Ala I 10 `12 y to IZ 4 h _ Isr n?_(Ommor A C( X14 0,9 - A 2. i 10 12 3 I L 13 T?Co &0AW l LQt'M ? I I Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol edoximorphic Features (describe below) Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions (Chemical Method) ! Listed on National Hydric Soils List io0eyed or Low-chroma Colors Other (explain in remarks) Wetland Criteria Met? es No Remarks: MO rT?L&-S WCTI Akin n=TGRMINATInki Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No Wetland Hydrology Present? es No Hydric Soils Present? a No Is the Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No k e" F cI? 10 Ot ^W ? T -O Remarks: eJ-<(r - - v2' 11 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t rubm KURAHA S MI &' ASSOCIATES, I1VC7. Routine On-site Wetiand Determination Data Form Adapted from the Corps of Engineers and Division of State Lands data forms (revised October 1996). Civil Engineering Water Resources Landscape Architecture Planning Surveying Project Name: ?v16?z,z a? Project Number: Investigator: r L)Ayis Date: o Plot ID: Z Plant Community: PAbr., to : wet- #oaro% ov_) Normal Environmental Conditions? a No Remarks: LivaAR PA*,7 Si 6lv 7 Signifi cant Disturbance (Atypical)? ©e No 2DO .30' r-etz .3ew-relp- LinJC il Problem Area? Yes C-No) , r2? P[.?1C Eivf Eti/T VEGETATION Species % Cover Indicator Species % Cover Indicator Trees Herbs AGtoSrI S I e z,m - ?rbl l FE(Lf1 AGR-iris AJAPFCA)Lk FgArEtan, lS )1- 10 SOY vJ I C,/M. OFFicignl * 20 0PL PPL6CTK T i Ga.4 o F*Lo L Cae_A T JvA O U ft _ Shrubs ' o - L (_RATA13.yS Tx?.?rts+sl?* mac. o # 7_x? Fb?C #J FAc r s 5 Fk_w >f Total % Cover Trees Shrubs Herbs Number of Dominants FAC b OBL: By Stratum 'Zp I Z9 Number of Dominants FAC- b UPL: 3 Relative 50% level: (,3 Total Dominants: IQ % Wetland Vegetation: Q Relative 20% level: ZS Wetland criteria met? es No Remarks: "Indicates dominant species as determined by the "50/20" rule FAC-NEUTRAL TEST (OPTIONAL) Number of Dominants FACW a OBL? 1 Total FACW b OBL? Total FAC+7 Number of Dominants UPL b FACU? 3 Total UPL 4 FACU? Total FAG- Positive egetive 12600 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Suite 100 Tigard, Oregon 97223 503.968.1605 FAX 503.968.1105 • ?s HYDROLOGY Recorded Data: Field Data: Stream, Lake or Tidal Gauge Depth of Surface Water Aerial Photographs Depth to Free Water in Test Pit Other (explain below) Depth to Saturated Soil i No Recorded Data Available: Primary Indicators: Secondary Indicators: Inundated xidized Root Channels in first 12 inches Saturated within first 12 inches Water-stained Leaves Water Marks Local Soil Survey Data Drift Lines F AC-Neutral Test Sediment Deposits ther (explain below) Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Wetland Criteria Met? es No Remarks: - O/./ 0 5u Z - -6 ") n/O r" c SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and phase): cn T su_r c A L Am I Drainage Class: Tbzm Subgroup: 'r-4PIc. A Field Conformation of Mapped Type? I Yes Profile Description: Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors (Moist) Mottle Abundance/Contrast Texture, Structure, etc. I A o 0.3 2 0-14 i ' (?o??.? 4 = -43 j O & 4 11 o ti + j 4_ j_F1La . nIt.TI ..CS?!MN?0/? C _`? LLY!'` 1CDUft56, 17tn ia, 4c vuonl { LLY?`( LCA" Hydric Soil Indicators: j Histosol edoximorphic Features (describe below) Histic Epipedon j High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions (Chemical Method) Listed on National Hydric Soils List wGleyed or Low-chroma Colors , Other (explain in remarks) Wetland Criteria Met? es No Remarks: ox????-moo ROOT- C KRNN cS !." MaITtES tZK,z0M115-5 60 WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No Wetland Hydrology Present? s go Hydric Soils Present? es No Is the Sampling Point Within a Wetland? es No Remarks: kjF'?4m i W v P iN--' -?2 rw&M KURAHA S HI ? ASSOC:IATES, INC. Routine On-site Wetland Determination Data Form Adapted from the Corps of Engineers and Division of State Lands data forms (revised October 1996). 1 1 1 f 1 1 t r Civil Engineering Water Resources Landscape Architecture Planning Surveying Project Name: ?vlg?rz a? Project Number: -7 Investigator: r ,S Date: o Plot ID: Plant Community: J>pe.T.,,q& - uP(, ^I D Normal Environmental Conditions? a No Remarks: ,,,tic Significant Disturbance (Atypical)? Yes (Q (? ?A0X 30' ro2 ?EI^JErZ Li?/C= Problem Area? Yes rZEPLrKEivl c?/T VEGETATION Species % Cover Indicator Species % Cover Indicator Trees Herbs _ G IS Tent W S 50 ^ C_ t s Al," ti _ FESTvcr1 R?DILA to ?iKt IZAx?CV C AN (_G G S Q AWPC{ JS os-,1SlS 19, EL<A J uJJ TA JF 20 L Shrubs A cA? c G ? Total % Cover Trees Shrubs Herbs Number of Dominants FAC b OBL: By Stratum 100 Number of Dominants FAC- b UPL: I Relative 50% level: So Total Dominants: -Z % Wetland Vegetation: S-p Relative 20% level: Z Z, Wetland criteria met? Yes No Remarks: 'Indicates dominant species as determined by the "50/ZU" rule FAC-NEUTRAL TEST (OPTIONAL) Number of Dominants FACW b OBL? Total FACW b OBL? Total FAC+? Number of Dominants UPL b FACU? Total UPL b FACU? otal FAC-? Positive a etive 12600 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Suite 100 Tigard, Oregon 97223 503.968.1 605 FAX 503.968.1105 HYDROLOGY Recorded Data: Field Data: Stream, Lake or Tidal Gauge Depth of Surface Water Aerial Photographs Depth to Free Water in Test Pit Other (explain below) Depth to Saturated Soil No Recorded Data Available: Primary Indicators: Secondary Indicators: Inundated Oxidized Root Channels in first 12 inches Saturated within first 12 inches Water-stained Leaves Water Marks Local Soil Survey Data Drift Lines FAC-Neutral Test Sediment Deposits Other (explain below) Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Wetland Criteria Met? Yes Remarks: SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and phase): I LOAM Drainage Class: ,z Subgroup: I o Field Conformation of Mapped Type? j Yes No Profile Description: Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors (Moist) Mottle Abundance/Contrast Texture, Structure, etc. r 2 (d?f tt 31fo ? LNlrr-fE-W 1 As = C- -14r`1 I i Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol edoximorphic Features (describe below) _Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions (Chemical Method) Listed on National Hydric Soils List ,.6leyed or Low-chroma Colors ; Other (explain in remarks) Wetland Criteria Met? es No Remarks: • 17 WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes o Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Hydric Soils Present? s No Is the Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes FO-) Remarks: -)C_-SjC A ??DE Z -E - - -T 2 - •? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t rw&M KURAHA S HI ASSOCIATES, I1-4C. Civil Engineering Water Resources Landscape Architecture Planning Surveying • Routine On-site Wetland Determination Data Form Adapted from the Corps of Engineers and Division of State Lands data forms (revised October 1996). Project Name: M6-fZ(,6A Project Number: Investigator: r ,S Date: Z ((o Plot ID: Plant Community: , ?A,,.-rjRG JPLA*jD Normal Environmental Conditions? ® No Remarks: LiveAr? p, Si vv ?c Significant Disturbance (Atypical)? Yes ZOV' so' 3Er r C.in/C= Problem Area? Yes o Rd-PLrK 6M c^/T VEGETATION Species % Cover Indicator Species % cover Indicator Trees Herbs 1- 5zc) TAr- jb`srJ?i4 RJ3iLn. _ GR 1E _ _tLOt CE G ? 17 CAS A L Shrubs i _ <G L ?,?Il1w? ?¢t26rlr?lE FAC,) Total % Cover Trees Shrubs Herbs Number of Dominants FAC b OBL: By Stratum 100 Number of Dominants FAC- b UPL: Relative 50% level: Total Dominants: % Wetland Vegetation: So Relative 20% level: Z,o Wetland criteria met? Yes' o Remarks: E - o M" so`Y? c i S L4? 5Z,?ftd (3 /C S i J or o aM rAl G TMf - vt1? i _ Con15 - r? -inaicates aomrnant species as aeterminea by the -5uizo'- rule FAC-NEUTRAL TEST (OPTIONAL) Number of Dominants FACW b OBL? Total FACW b OBL? Total FAC+? Number of Dominants UPL c FACU? Total UPL b FACU? otal FAC-? Positive a etive 12600 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Suite 100 Tigard, Oregon 97223 503.968.1605 FAX 503.968.1 105 Wvnoni nrv • Recorded Data: Field Data: Stream, Lake or Tidal Gauge Depth of Surface Water -- Aerial Photographs Depth to Free Water in Test Pit Other (explain below) Depth to Saturated Soil No Recorded Data Available: Primary Indicators: Seco dary Indicators: Inundated xidized Root Channels in first 12 inches Saturated within first 12 inches Water-stained Leaves Water Marks Local Soil Survey Data Drift Lines FAC-Neutral Test Sediment Deposits Other (explain below) Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Wetland Criteria Met? Yes No Remarks: , argeffg 5g?, c - - SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and phase): CLk yh I Drainage Class: OciZ Subgroup: c. 0, I k-19 a 1 L-, I Field Conformation of Mapped Type? ( Yes 1 0 Profile Description: Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors (Moist) Mottle Abundance/Contrast Texture, Structure, etc. i- (i41rr3 i Z.?? Z ; kN& Z 0 ,I i 1 l 0-1 C tMkX0AF(,a ' Tu C. F _.? i i Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol edoximorphic Features (describe below) Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions (Chemical Method) Listed on National Hydric Soils List leyed or Low-chroma Colors Other (explain in remarks) Wetland Criteria Met? Yes No o? 0 c N -? R o }? _ 5 Remarks: Ccit?ps-raA-t 10 WFTt ANn DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes o Wetland Hydrology Present? o Hydric Soils Present? Ye No Is the Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: m, 1 ?J 1 N 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 KURAHA S M ASSOCIATES, I1VC. Routine On-site Wetland Determination Data Form Adapted from the Corps of Engineers and Division of State Lands data forms (revised October 1996). Civil Engineering; Waiter Resources Landscape Architecture Planning; Surveying; Project Name: #16174,6,z aV Project Number: Investigator: T L)AV1.5 Date: Io 9-7 Plot ID: 5 Plant Community: % Normal Environmental Conditions? No Remarks: L?,y - p, 51'?v A,zc,?4 Significant Disturbance (Atypical)? Yes ® ZDV' p' SEhI e_"j45 Problem Area? Yes o rZ?PL?3GE?E?/T VEGETATION Species % cover Indicator Species % cover indicator Trees Herbs GAtt OG6ORJS 06 C??t6?.1S 30 %J?L- F` A is et?NDu.I - * CIO Pw,gplsirtS LO n1 a P451LA O moap-A 1 y t:?C t ri-o E __$, _ vti wrJ.. L q P? ? rs n1S 10 L Shrubs S _ L '4aa? y'5coL6r_ 5 FAW go5A rjurscP.,j4, ` 0 FAc_ JS Lei 1 -OLI I O 1=A60i Total % Cover Trees Shrubs Herbs Number of Dominants FAC b OBL: 3 By Stratum '2>0 -70 Jos, Number of Dominants FAC- b UPL: o Relative 50% level: 515 93 Total Dominants: 3 % Wetland Vegetation: I 0,o Relative 20% level: I L4 2 I Wetland criteria met? es No Remarks: ED _ R E - ZwA CA ea r1f M d?? ry ?tiDRl 2?l -inalcates aominant species as aetermineo oy lne -ouizu- rule FAC-NEUTRAL TEST (OPTIONAL) Number of Dominants FACW b OBL? I Total FACW b OBL? Total FAC+? Number of Dominants UPL U? p Total UPL b FACU? Total FAC-? Alrositive Ne etive 12600 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Suite 100 Tigard, Oregon 97223 503.968.1 605 FAX 503.968.1105 HYnRnLOGY Recorded Data: Field Data: Stream, Lake or Tidal Gauge Depth of Surface Water -- Aerial Photographs Depth to Free Water in Test Pit - Other (explain below) Depth to Saturated Soil No Recorded Data Available: Primary Indicators: Secondary Indicators: Inundated xidized Root Channels in first 12 inches Saturated within first 12 inches Water-stained Leaves Water Marks L peal Soil Survey Data Drift Lines AC-Neutral Test S invent Deposits Other (explain below) rainage Patterns in Wetlands Wetland Criteria Met? a No Remarks: e, k:LAtA_p,_3 W SWAL_M D' o SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and phase): C.u4y coAA.& I Drainage Class: Subgroup: y tc. A Field Conformation of Mapped Type? 1 Yes I No Profile Description: Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors (Moist) Mottle Abundance/Contrast Texture, Structure, etc. 1 /o 3/1- o•4M _ ! A a IoYQ q to b N c/o -5-11 O . 0 16/L71,1 eL--A 0 M 7?Kr?lcT? teiu?Aar! l Sir r/ C(Ax e 41A i Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol edoximorphic Features (describe below) Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils _ Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions (Chemical Method) Listed on National Hydric Soils List Gleyed or Low-chroma Colors Other (explain in remarks) Wetland Criteria Met? e-s No Remarks: o nr AATro o z c N WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? s No Wetland Hydrology Present? No H dric Soils Present? a No Is the Sampling Point Within a Wetland? es No Remarks: z - -v 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ruhn KURAHA S HI Fes' ASSOCIATES, I1VG. Civil Engineering Water Resources Landscape Architecture Planning Surveying 0 Routine On-site Wetland Determination Data Form Adapted from the Corps of Engineers and Division of State Lands data forms (revised October 1996). Project Name: #1617(,6A a? Project Number: Investigator: r DAyis Date: -I/jo 4-7 Plot ID: 6 Plant Community: p T-jt : svv? Normal Environmental Conditions? No Remarks: L,,yeftz P,xocTEcr; Si ivy h1,7c Significant Disturbance (Atypical)? Yes 6P zM' 30' SEhI L in/C? Problem Area? Yes o Re-P44ce rt ENT VEGETATION Species % Cover Indicator Species % Cover Indicator Trees Herbs 0,V9 d 14 < $ Fgca1 _ v Zo 1= AcRo,TI e"4IJ5 VY _ Tfz QuI -i 0A 2EpeaS S -F-& ?. - M &1Q9 S -E ?`?_ tj°t Shrubs joLL 15 f: &0,J r Js ? RJB.rS D(SCor? ooa * 2.0 ^ J - Fgsn c-,?r 'r o13R o AC.t- KasA n? o _Pk- E E (0 1745- 3 L.?2?4-? MtGGu:S U u,o?loC3-Inl A 'S V?C-J ??eGJItJ? P?4TENS IS CJ(.s.t5 815 ? S _ ?S_ _?_ _?? LO J CO[tNILJL??TJS S _??_ Total % Cover Trees Shrubs Herbs Number of Dominants FAC b OBL: 3 By Stratum - I pp Number of Dominants FAC- b UPL: I Relative 50% level: 33 So Total Dominants: % Wetland Vegetation: 7S Relative 20% level: 13 7,0 Wetland criteria met? es No Remarks: 'Indicates dominant species as determined by the "50/20° rule FAC-NEUTRAL TEST (OPTIONAL) Number of Dominants FACW b OBL? 0 Total FACW b OBL? Total FAC+? Number of Dominants UPL b FACU? Total UPL b FACU? Total FAC-? Positive a etive 12600 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Suite 100 Tigard, Oregon 97223 503.968.1 605 FAX 503.968.1 105 HYDROLOGY Recorded Data: Field Data: Stream, Lake or Tidal Gauge Depth of Surface Water Aerial Photographs Depth to Free Water in Test Pit Other (explain below) Depth to Saturated Soil No Recorded Data Available: Primary Indicators: Secon ary Indicators: Inundated L-Oxidized Root Channels in first 12 inches Saturated within first 12 inches Water-stained Leaves Water Marks Local Soil Survey Data Drift Lines FAC-Neutral Test S ' ent Deposits Other (explain below) v"Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Wetland Criteria Met? es No Remarks: A t_E s SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and phase): ,fecx3cfL-r :5I LTf c-! Drainage Class: 2 Subgroup: C o i Field Conformation of Mapped Type? ! Yes Profile Description: Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors (Moist) Mottle Abundance/Contrast Texture, Structure, etc. C) - ' A o 2- 1 i (-o.4r11 yam/ Z 10,12 W6 -! i&C,, A& rlrJc.T,(„t?m m od ?I (-7,4 C-C-A ?4NA44 _ ' I Hydric Soil Indicators: i Histosol edoximorphic Features (describe below) Histic Epipedon j High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List R ucing Conditions (Chemical Method) Listed on National Hydric Soils List j/Gleyed or Low-chroma Colors Other (explain in remarks) Wetland Criteria Met? Yes No Remarks: &yj c r e,q r - T oSPke R C--j t A00 ?- NN -c.s I WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No Wetland Hydrology Present? No H dric Soils Present? a No Is the Sampling Point Within a Wetland? (:Yes::) No Remarks: - - 46 Q 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 rMSM KURAHA S HI ? ASSC7C:itAT1ES, INC. Civil Engineering Water Resources Landscape Architecture Planning Surveying • Routine On-site Wetland Determination Data Form Adapted from the Corps of Engineers and Division of State Lands data forms (revised October 1996). Project Name: #16'fZr 6 -re,1Aje_ Project Number: 7 Investigator: r Z?Ayis Date: ?, q-7 Plot ID: Plant Community: 1 pt.G ; LANo Isup Normal Environmental Conditions? <n5D No Remarks: L,,, lo?xacTEcT; Si ivy A,2c,,4 Significant Disturbance (Atypical)? Yes & ZCV' O' SELL rz L?NL Problem Area? Yes !` rZE'P44cem T VFrFTATInN Species % Cover Indicator Species % Cover Indicator Trees Herbs rrJ E Pt Z O - - F4(-- - -- k Top'. For r- 1%(' - o ?s a` Lo FAL - (o AC G - t0 Shrubs _ Total % Cover Trees Shrubs Herbs Number of Dominants FAC OBL: By Stratum 1.0 Number of Dominants FAC- b UPL: Z Relative 50% level: S Total Dominants: % Wetland Vegetation: $"C Relative 20% level: 2 Wetland criteria met? Yes Remarks: >FlEC.p ARZ1. i< vu.ovaED F(LLQJEti1TL:?q -- 'Indicates dominant species as aeterminea Dy the -ouiw rue F:Ar_NFI ITPAI TFCT MPTInNAI I Number of Dominants FACW b OBL? Total FACW -* OBL? Total FAC+? Number of Dominants UPL b FACU? Total UPL b FACU? Total FAC-? Positive Negetive 12600 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Suite 100 Tigard, Oregon 97223 503.968.1605 FAX 503.968.1105 HYDROLOGY Recorded Data: Field Data: Stream, Lake or Tidal Gauge Depth of Surface Water ?-- Aerial Photographs Depth to Free Water in Test Pit -? Other (explain below) Depth to Saturated Soil No Recorded Data Available: Primary Indicators: Secondary Indicators: Inundated Oxidized Root Channels in first 12 inches Saturated within first 12 inches Water-stained Leaves Water Marks Local Soil Survey Data Drift Lines FAC-Neutral Test Sediment Deposits Other (explain below) Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Wetland Criteria Met? Yes o Remarks: SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and phase): e23=(Z--r C_L W Drainage Class: t?ot2 Subgroup: -T I I Field Conformation of Mapped Type? I Yes No Profile Description: Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors (Moist) Mottle Abundance/Contrast Texture, Structure, etc. D - fo A ! P. C - iLvAr" fc 4- ! 3 101k412- ? S t? TY C (_A Lcw4O1 I ? -- 1 I i I Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol i Redoximorphic Features (describe below) ?Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions (Chemical Method) 1 Listed on National Hydric Soils List Gleyed or Low-chroma Colors Other (explain in remarks) Wetland Criteria Met? Yes Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes o Hydric Soils Present? Yes CM 05 Is the Sampling Point Within a Yes o Remarks: `_ E? _ t-I ,._ 6A 6c j F.xa N Grin D Z 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • rw&M KURAHA S HI & ASSOCIATES, I1VC'. Civil Engineering Water Resources Landscape Architecture Planning Surveying Is Routine On-site Wetland Determination Data Form Adapted from the Corps of Engineers and Division of State Lands data forms (revised October 1996). Project Name: M6-TZ(,6A a? Project Number: Investigator: r L)Ayis Date: B t 3( 9 -1 Plot ID: $ Plant Community: mjotxe; : r jRi- w4vio Normal Environmental Conditions? <!dD No Remarks: 6.,,"c P,:txT ST?/D ? Significant Disturbance (Atypical)? t No gyp" o roLZ ZCKr, Lin/C? 3j Problem Area? Yes (R> I 9w?L'-w_'-M E^./T VCrCTATIr11J Species % Cover Indicator Species % Cover Indicator Trees Herbs rltybc ?i.1J 5 LAT1C-OLI A 30 F0V_w TJRf- o.tl D SOW-7- + Lou -t. 7 Shrubs Total % Cover Trees Shrubs Herbs Number of Dominants FAC b OBL: By Stratum 3 o t Oo Number of Dominants FAC- b UPL: Relative 50% level: Total Dominants: % Wetland Vegetation: Relative 20% level: Wetland criteria met? Yes No Remarks: jj;G el-w-ile?-l t!5 .o J E.il 5F-IF PLO-r-5, J L?^SS Dr J o ? o F?? '- M ?jc z csr t440 R.o Pt4j nC J?C Ta4T I(Y?I 'Indicates dominant species as aeterminea oy the ow/u rule FAC-NEUTRAL TEST (OPTIONAL) Number of Dominants FACW b OBL? Total FACW b OBL? Total FAC+? Number of Dominants UPL b FACU? Total UPL b FACU? Total FAG-7 ' Positive Negetive 12600 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Suite 100 Tigard, Oregon 97223 503.968.1605 FAX 503.968.1105 HYDROLOGY Recorded Data: Field Data: Stream, Lake or Tidal Gauge Depth of Surface Water T Aerial Photographs Depth to Free Water in Test Pit Other (explain below) Depth to Saturated Soil - No Recorded Data Available: Primary Indicators: Secondary Indicators: Inundated Oxidized Root Channels in first 12 inches Saturated within first 12 inches Water-stained Leaves .05ter Marks off 1-1t c-s 1 &aDl G Local Soil Survey Data Drift Lines F -Neutral Test Sediment Deposits --'Other (explain below) Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Wetland Criteria Met? es No Remarks: o R: sip 644s ?>=,o ro r be c.*- w ,-c IN W GC r S bTSo?? o epnt % ,+ C /o.t/S ?C ><O a000 (off 7ror+.S 4Re 'P `l' ,N &L&At+aV 4, 15 D+709 APLar SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and phase): WApWo St I Drainage Class: RDep- Subgroup: L4 "toMj i Field Conformation of Mapped Type? Yes I Profile Description: Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors (Moist) Mottle Abundance/Contrast Texture, Structure, etc. Q lo`/O- ?jz - L Ht f? L Y ! CaMMo?/+_p_1J17t??r?.L?t??(LG_Y.??G'_!? -. i { I H_ydric Soil Indicators: - I Histosol j -IRedoximorphic Features (describe below) Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor ! Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions (Chemical Method) 1 leyed or Low-chroma Colors Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (explain in remarks) Wetland Criteria Met? es No Remarks: v•-b.?s Tro WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? des No Hydric Soils Present? No Is the Sampling Point Within a Wetland? No Remarks: rro S v c - /2E4 ,4.7-0 vo Q1.4Tio.?S c c.[ ,*. t r '( 70 t1!jP9Qeff%j-7-jC C ?E T d -f 1A D F 4/6 Le 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 rw&M KLJRAHA S HI ASSOG IATIES, 1 TV C. Civil Engineering Water Resources Landscape Architecture Planning Surveying n L_J Routine On-site Wetland Determination Data Form Adapted from the Corps of Engineers and Division of State Lands data forms (revised October 1996). Project Name: pl6-176,ciz Project Number: Investigator: r ,S Date: qjf?cn Plot ID: 9 Plant Community: mioDLe, FvAesreo vJerupo Normal Environmental Conditions? E No Remarks: tc,,A p, Ems; Si ivy ?,Zc,,4 Significant Disturbance (Atypical)? Yes (0 zoo -k 30 zc!n?LejZ 4./^w45' Problem Area? Yes No izepz_4cem e ^ -r- VEGETATION Species % Cover Indicator Species % Cover Indicator Trees Herbs INU 1ZjMLA 50 FA 0 v * Sb OBL r-A - Z57 RL t 20 ??L 1neow'5 BAsA•-1---aP A_ 10 Ac Rjeti-s s Nv 5 2,0 ?+Ky JNC0LUS ?ePE-,- S o FACW 5 t .f JN UM _ FACJ Shrubs - _ - RUBJS 1DlsCOe 4 # 4 t Aw- F?2 t??J5 (A-*rjP-aLIA rJ FA" S l l S Re- WS C-ol2r`uT 10 PVJ M0406 1^10k < S J AC iZ fAa tk4 LLQ, & Lo f= Total % Cover Trees Shrubs Herbs Number of Dominants FAC b OBL: y By Stratum $S 18S 10 5 Number of Dominants FAC- b UPL: I Relative 50% level: Lis SS Total Dominants: % Wetland Vegetation: SO Relative 20% level: I I Z ( Wetland criteria met? es No Remarks: 'Indicates dominant species as determined Dy tne -5U/"LU"" rule FAC-NEUTRAL TEST (OPTIONAL) Number of Dominants FACW b O PL? Z Total FACW b OBL? Total FAC+? Number of Dominants UPL b W U? 1 Total UPL b FACU? Total FAC-? 96sitive Ne etive 12600 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Suite 100 Tigard, Oregon 97223 503.968.1605 FAX 503.968.1105 HYDROLOGY Recorded Data: Field Data: Stream, Lake or Tidal Gauge Depth of Surface Water Aerial Photographs Depth to Free Water in Test Pit Other (explain below) Depth to Saturated Soil ^ No Recorded Data Available: Primary Indicators: Secondary Indicators: Inundated xidized Root Channels in first 12 inches Saturated within first 12 inches Water-stained Leaves Water Marks Local Soil Survey Data Drift Lines vFAC-Neutral Test Sediment Deposits Other (explain below) Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Wetland Criteria Met? es No Remarks: SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and phase): ;Drainage Class: ?oer2 Subgroup: FLoMp4je-?.nc_ , Field Conformation of Mapped Type? I Yes <197F Profile Description: Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors (Moist) Mottle Abundance/Contrast Texture, Structure, etc. St A?Q /o 1 /Z /oY ? V3 3 Ca?St Orbr.VCr c won/ ?? cl?/ c arq.n?__ i Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol edoximorphic Features (describe below) Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions (Chemical Method) Listed on National Hydric Soils List leyed or Low-chroma Colors Other (explain in remarks) Wetland Criteria Met? s No Remarks: b by ,¢ it /?(g ,Zqr ?? (A,vcEN7jtgnal?lS?LZr-tr E17 a??/S WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? oe§D No Wetland Hydrology Present? s No H dric Soils Present? es No Is the Sampling Point Within a Wetland? es No Remarks: 1 1 1 r i i L lliiJ KUR m2k S HI & ASSOC IATiES, 1 TV C:. Civil Engineering Water Resources Landscape Architecture Planning Surveying Routine On-site Wetland Determination Data Form Adapted from the Corps of Engineers and Division of State Lands data forms (revised October 1996). Project Name: Project Number: Investigator: a4gAjj- /S Date: ?1(3('.? Plot ID: (o Plant Community: M, oLg, i-agEsrep vitn,e,.,p Normal Environmental Conditions? No Remarks: _,Nc l?,et)cT Sr,.,O 7c Significant Disturbance (Atypical)? Yes ZOO" 0' 5Ett1 Lin/L Problem Area? Yes No R+r P!_A em CivT' VEGETATION Species % Cover Indicator Species % Cover Indicator Trees Herbs J`fL o FA< Ecw s Erdnil AR Je o FAC RA"i JLUS AE $ 0-+ F&AV -- _ oC.CJ3 LAN'frt.m Zo'- FqC (oL4Cd5Xj/F L.,iT 10 uJt Pb* PRRM = J Ste- FAC - Z Shrubs nscac-cnA y 0 Fhca - Total % Cover Trees Shrubs Herbs Number of Dominants FAC b OBL: By Stratum o 4z? 19 Number of Dominants FAC- b UPL: I Relative 50% level: 319 Total Dominants: S % Wetland Vegetation: to Relative 20% level: I $ Wetland criteria met? es No Remarks: -maicaies aominant species as oeterminea oy the -5uizu- rule FAC-NEUTRAL TEST (OPTIONAL) Number of Dominants FACW b ?, I Total FACW b OBL? '2 1 Total FAC+? Number of Dominants UPL b CU? Total UPL b FACU? Total FAC-? ositive Negetive 12600 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Suite 100 Tigard, Oregon 97223 503.968.1 605 FAX 503.968.1105 HYDROLOGY Recorded Data: Field Data: Stream, Lake or Tidal Gauge Depth of Surface Water - Aerial Photographs Depth to Free Water in Test Pit - Other (explain below) Depth to Saturated Soil No Recorded Data Available: Primary Indicators: Secondary Indicators: Inundated .-dxidized Root Channels in first 12 inches " Saturated within first 12 inches Water-stained Leaves Water Marks Local Soil Survey Data Drift Lines AC-Neutral Test Sediment Deposits Other (explain below) Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Wetland Criteria Met? ellell> No Remarks: SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and phase): QLT4 G-4-4 L w-, Drainage Class: pn0 2 Subgroup: -pWjAqjs,J%C ! Field Conformation of Mapped Type? Yes j o Profile Description: Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors (Moist) Mottle Abundance/Contrast Texture, Structure, etc. O- y A lo?l Q L I 1: Co?4M s/iC, Jowir 3"-r"( cc.aY C-4M A/ 0/1 Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol edoximorphic Features (describe below) Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime I Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Red cing Conditions (Chemical Method) Listed on National Hydric Soils List eyed or Low-chroma Colors ! Other (explain in remarks) Wetland Criteria Met? es No Remarks: CA qf-CFL4r&A7-7qtj3 4 . x &- 7" - ?+- o tt;, ivt i x OP o y 2 s ? WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? es No Wetland Hydrology Present? a No Hydric Soils Present? No Is the Sampling Point Within a Wetland? No Remarks: 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 rw&M KURAHA S M & ASSC)C:iAT'ES, itVC% Civil Engineering Water Resources Landscape Architecture Planning Surveying Routine On-site Wetiand Determination Data Form Adapted from the Corps of Engineers and Division of State Lands data forms (revised October 1996). Project Name: M6-rZr,6A Project Number: -7 Investigator: aZgAj-r rs Date: g l3 11 Plot ID: I I Plant Community: MIDp&E : rJRF l,xwti Normal Environmental Conditions? CJR No Remarks: L??yegrx 8xocT6cT; ST?/DY /fi?c?¢ Significant Disturbance (Atypical)? (j No 2D0" p' r-op SEw! L„?L Problem Area? Yes No R6'P4,1C.6.v1 civ I- VEGETATION Species % Cover Indicator Species % Cover Indicator Trees Herbs ?? 2 F o.J?O 5 7 S t2 =o vM eprEl'j S 16 M Jt NSc 0 0+C_ Shrubs Total % Cover Trees Shrubs Herbs Number of Dominants FAC a OBL: By Stratum Number of Dominants FAC- b UPL: Relative 50% level: Total Dominants: % Wetland Vegetation: Relative 20% level: Wetland criteria met? Yes No Remarks: L E o-r -L e3n (Z .4wn CE op uNjJ,sTJ(tjAE.D PIZ.C WjTilitil Zo T Op T1418 PLOT -inalcates aominant species as aeterminea by tne -bu/zu,- rule FAC-NEUTRAL TEST (OPTIONAL) Number of Dominants FACW o OBL? Total FACW a OBL? Total FAC+? Number of Dominants UPL b FACU? Total UPL b FACU? Total FAC-? Positive Ne etive 12600 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Suite 100 Tigard, Oregon 97223 503.968.1 605 FAX 503.968.1105 HYDROLOGY Recorded Data: Field Data: Stream, Lake or Tidal Gauge Depth of Surface Water - Aerial Photographs Depth to Free Water in Test Pit ^ Other (explain below) Depth to Saturated Soil - No Recorded Data Available: Primary Indicators: Seco ary Indicators: Inundated xidized Root Channels in first 12 inches S rated within first 12 inches Water-stained Leaves -vWater Marks Local Soil Survey Data Drift Lines FAC-Neutral Test S diment Deposits Other (explain below) w"Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Wetland Criteria Met? Y s No Remarks: EJ .JC E - r w /:r*,Ai 6' o ?o Coe SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and phase): &Lx4 C,_ CAoge^ Drainage Class: Pc,-4a Subgroup: FLj%) C i Field Conformation of Mapped Type? I Yes i o Profile Description: Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors (Moist) Mottle Abundance/Contrast Texture, Structure, etc. 0+ A16 I OIX i 1 re & i CW-46 E i c C.6M*t0Al cI- `Lccv4M Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol I doximorphic Features (describe below) _ Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime 1 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Re ucing Conditions (Chemical Method) Listed on National Hydric Soils List v,Gleyed or Low-chroma Colors I Other (explain in remarks) Wetland Criteria Met? es No Remarks: AAQA, 2 ION i r-.3 oA)C61V rJN Ch to, CC C WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Yes No MOP No a No Is the Sampling Point Within a Wetland? No Remarks: T DLO I o o-4 b r JE - r?F R. FRo E-W D G t? N Lo 1 1 1 1 1 u • rw&M KURAHA S M ASSOCIATES, IiVG. Civil Engineering Water Resources Landscape Architecture Planning Surveying • Routine On-site Wetland Determination Data Form Adapted from the Corps of Engineers and Division of State Lands data forms (revised October 1996). Project Name: pg6rZc,6,z RJ Project Number: 7 Investigator: aZg?Qr ,S Date: 911-1 Plot ID: I Z Plant Community: MtopLE: F:'09tSY-e4D vIETWWo Normal Environmental Conditions? tTe?) No Remarks: LiNeA z p, Sr--,v ? Significant Disturbance (Atypical)? Yes (0 30' -' SE?.I L in/C? Problem Area? Yes o tzcpLAG6iv1 c1vT VEGETATION Species % Cover Indicator Species % Cover Indicator Trees Herbs tZft v. u 5 L. ALT- F o rAC ?,J o )0 't oD k- /J j wt U M 10 - OV- --- Shrubs K 05A- - I % J(zS I r0 t) S I O J &aA- L?u C-<?.(koorA -C S Ps1CJ ( oNIGEL?A wgotcleadm- O'f FAc Total % Cover Trees Shrubs Herbs Number of Dominants FAC b OBL: y By Stratum O '10 85 Number of Dominants FAC- a UPL: Relative 50% level: Zo Total Dominants: $ 7 % Wetland Vegetation: $ o Relative 20% level: Wetland criteria met? Yes No Remarks: -inuicates aommam species as aeterminea oy ine -our/.u ruie FAC-NEUTRAL TEST (OPTIONAL) Number of Dominants FACW a OBL? Z Total FACW b OBL? Total FAC+? Number of Dominants UPL b ACU? Total UPL b FACU? Total FAC-? ositive Ne etive 12600 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Suite 100 Tigard, Oregon 97223 503.968.1605 FAX 503.968.1105 • • HYDROLOGY Recorded Data: Field Data: Stream, Lake or Tidal Gauge Depth of Surface Water Aerial Photographs Depth to Free Water in Test Pit Other (explain below) Depth to Saturated Soil No Recorded Data Available: Primary Indicators: Secondary Indicators: Inundated Oxidized Root Channels in first 12 inches Saturated within first 12 inches Water-stained Leaves ater marks L I Soil Survey Data Drift Lines AC-Neutral Test S invent Deposits Other (explain below) voDrainage Patterns in Wetlands Wetland Criteria Met? es No Remarks: SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and phase): ' Drainage Class: Pk?o(z Subgroup: n??L L J Field Conformation of Mapped Type? I Yes Profile Description: Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors (Moist) Mottle Abundance/Contrast Texture, Structure, etc. Q _te i I to 40e -3 1 l _M Wr C 104 tl C ?Ca?56, QJSLNG??_C O ! wt W St L-,A_C i A,4 C.OH m _ i I Hydric Soil Indicators: i Histosol Redoximorphic Features (describe below) Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor I Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime I Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions (Chemical Method) Listed on National Hydric Soils List eyed or Low-chroma Colors ! Other (explain in remarks) Wetland Criteria Met? No Remarks: C.oNCe.vT iC %0JS - WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No Wetland Hydrology Present? No Hydric Soils Present? a No Is the Sampling Point Within a Wetland? es No Remarks: C E Cc ro i TJ (Be- A8-GA D PC SG % rJ 7 1 1 L?- LJ f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 rw&M KURAHA S HI & ASSOCIATES, I1VG. Civil Engineering Water Resources Landscape Architecture Planning Surveying • Routine On-site Wetland Determination Data Form Adapted from the Corps of Engineers and Division of State Lands data forms (revised October 1996). Project Name: a,, Project Number: Investigator: r DAyis Date: 0519-) Plot ID: 13 Plant Community: fAiDDLE. i:0f.1r"6TCD wFTL.wn ?> No Normal Environmental Conditions? Y€s- Remarks: LqA P?cxTEcr: Si?vy ?i???4 . Significant Disturbance (Atypical)? Yes SE?.I L??./C. ZDD' 30' FOR- Area? Yes 11 o Problem ?2EPL?K E? eA.17 - VFr.FTATInN Species % Cover Indicator Species % Cover Indicator Trees Herbs os L_? ' = A O FAC L C rn 10 iLv? r J1 ?vl 11.7iN 41e 30 vi o t!? ? D dC, t) C_ztFx DE?.1t r?A CJ 7- S _ALH1 NuM LeAM A R/i /6 FA C+ Shrubs PMLA415 i4R?Np,,? 15 C,,j ICJii.1o ?lS( OLOIZ FoKi-- . x L.rt'syp 1Di A f zo Co&I WS C.o(Zr J rA l=AG.) Total % Cover Trees Shrubs Herbs Number of Dominants FAC b OBL: By Stratum 7-0 Cto -20 Number of Dominants FAC- b UPL: Relative 50% level: H j S Total Dominants: L{ % Wetland Vegetation: 15 Relative 20% level: I g t q Wetland criteria met? a No Remarks: -Inalcates aominant species as aeterminea Dy ine ou//-u rule FAC-NEUTRAL TEST (OPTIONAL) Number of Dominants FACW b OBL? Total FACW b OBL? Total FAC+? Number of Dominants UPL b ACU? 1 Total UPL o FACU? Total FAC-? ositive Negetive 12600 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Suite 100 Tigard, Oregon 97223 503.968.1605 FAX 503.968.1105 HYDROLOGY Recorded Data: Field Data: Stream, Lake or Tidal Gauge Depth of Surface Water Aerial Photographs Depth to Free Water in Test Pit Other (explain below) Depth to Saturated Soil No Recorded Data Available: Primary Indicators: Secon ary Indicators: Inundated xidized Root Channels in first 12 inches Saturated within first 12 inches Water-stained Leaves ater marks Lo I Soil Survey Data Drift Lines C-Neutral Test Sediment Deposits Other (explain below) Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Wetland Criteria Met? a No Remarks: SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and phase): C.o o& Drainage Class: Subgroup: lRr- Field Conformation of Mapped Type? Yes Profile Description: Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors (Moist) Mottle Abundance/Contrast Texture, Structure, etc. - A I I oyR 17 1 !CAM M ,3 i I o yR y 12 I io-iig -//A 3h ?91B.ic cawmak? C r '50-4 U-1_14 caw-+rt Hydric Soil Indicators: ^ - Histosol imorphic Features (describe below) G Histic Epipedon , High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions (Chemical Method) Listed on National Hydric Soils List leyed or Low-chroma Colors Other (explain in remarks) Wetland Criteria Met? s No Remarks: C.,ucE," o T1 0 i0i t:0 iF os - ?tao7c.•f?aiVit/E WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No Wetland Hydrology Present? es No Hydric Soils Present? s No Is the Sampling Point Within a Wetland? es No Remarks: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U rMSM KURAHA S HI ASSOC i ATES, i 1V C. Civil Engineering; Water Resources Landscape Architecture Planning; Surveying LJ Routine On-site Wetland Determination Data Form Adapted from the Corps of Engineers and Division of State Lands data forms (revised October 1996). Project Name: #16r7ccA a? Project Number: 15-7-7 Investigator: r DAyis Date: g (I Plot ID: I y Plant Community: uP sl?,??a sciz?a weTU1No Normal Environmental Conditions? es No Remarks: Liva p,? Si vv ? Significant Disturbance (Atypical)? Yes XSD zco 30' 4-1^14E Problem Area? Yes o Re-Pv9C.Em MA- 17-VEGETATION Species % Cover Indicator Species °/, Cover Indicator Trees Herbs _ ?t4*L* J O /N * SO F? uJ C V 5 J A(ZJ r _ FAC Shrubs 1=Q4x wJS Sri F o(.1rt i=.?c? 5AL(). ,%if i2ia N W'?` Zo E= C- 1h L?4S I Mil 4 R+• 10 F w AQW-A 10 PAC u STown1 -?c2A ZO F W no u + -z-o FA-(-W _ Total % Cover Trees Shrubs Herbs Number of Dominants FAC b OBL: By Stratum too '70 Number of Dominants FAC- b UPL: C) Relative 50% level: 50 -6 Total Dominants: S % Wetland Vegetation: t oo Relative 20% level: 'o 14 Wetland criteria met? a No Remarks: -Inaicates dominant species as oetermineo ny the -auilu- rule FAC-NEUTRAL TEST (OPTIONAL) Number of Dominants FACW * OBL? Total FACW b OBL? Total FAC+? Number of Dominants UPL a ACu? Total UPL b FACU? Total FAC-? -Positive Negetive 12600 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Suite 100 Tigard, Oregon 97223 503.968.1 605 FAX 503.968.1 105 • .• HvnRnl nr;v Recorded Data: Field Data: Stream, Lake or Tidal Gauge Depth of Surface Water --- Aerial Photographs Depth to Free Water in Test Pit 1-21, Other (explain below) Depth to Saturated Soil No Recorded Data Available: Primary Indicators: Secondary Indicators: Inundated y Oxidized Root Channels in first 12 inches (f, 7 aturated within first 12 inches Water-stained Leaves Water Marks Local Soil Survey Data Drift Lines AC-Neutral Test Sediment Deposits Other (explain below) Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Wetland Criteria Met? es No Remarks: SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and phase): L L,&+#n ; Drainage Class: -%oV- Subgroup: ?- t O Field Conformation of Mapped Type? ; Yes Profile Description: Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors (Moist) Mottle Abundance/Contrast Texture, Structure, etc. _ I q i 101 2 c+1M to yR VC, N!c CO ?iSriAkT,,_comP"w/ 1 ce-A ?( -L0 4M lyt I I N I IC Y dric Soil Indicators: Hy _ Histosol j L-Redoximorphic Features (describe below) Histic Epipedon I High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor i Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 52ducing Conditions (Chemical Method) Listed on National Hydric Soils List Gleyed or Low-chroma Colors i Other (explain in remarks) Wetland Criteria Met? Yes No Remarks: o ,J rXA o,J 3 N6Y 0 ok ,o z c D 12os %l/=-3 ac =Tc WFTI_AND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No Wetland Hydrology Present? (JW No Hydric Soils Present? es No Is the Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ff-e-S) No Remarks: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • rw&M KURAHA S HI F3' ASSOC:IATES, INC.. Civil Engineering Water Resources Landscape Architecture Planning Surveying I? LJ Routine On-site Wetland Determination Data Form Adapted from the Corps of Engineers and Division of State Lands data forms (revised October 1996). Project Name: MsrzroE,z a? Project Number: Investigator: r L)Ayis Date: r3 13 cjs Plot ID: I E Plant Community: v?p6g: w£( m Aao,&) Normal Environmental Conditions? a No Remarks: Liva ivy Significant Disturbance (Atypical)? Yes ?o ZOO' D' ALZ 5EH.r L/^/Z5' Problem Area? Yes ?CIOJ rZ?P[.?K6?vl a^/T VEGETATION Species % Cover Indicator Species % Cover indicator Trees Herbs _ M$_J00I#4A EA* 10 C? M t-c ?l- 7-0 1 X-IPL%5 MIC,90CrARiWS 49' OBt_ __?Wonlwcr?s f1,E'?iS I S _ Fgc?1 _ AG sTtS 7154t, 3 1$ FAc- Shrubs RC S Pi S C CC o R RACO- RoiJ 7-K4/JA O PAC Total % Cover Trees Shrubs Herbs Number of Dominants FAC o OBL: 2 By Stratum 90 Number of Dominants FAC- b UPL: Relative 50% level: -7 4C Total Dominants: _% % Wetland Vegetation: Relative 20% level: 1,6 Wetland criteria met? Yes No Remarks: to cciEQ E JSEA m Mrn 1iMMJ K c.oJEAACE Fol? D6 ?N4tJCC; _ N R.? E 'Indicates Cominant species as aetermineo by the -5wzu° rule FAC-NEUTRAL TEST (OPTIONAL) Number of Dominants FACW b OBL? Total FACW b OBL? Total FAC+? Number of Dominants UPL b FACU? Total UPL b FACU? Total FAC-? Positive Negetive 12600 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Suite 100 Tigard, Oregon 97223 503.968.1605 FAX 503.968.1105 HYDROLOGY Recorded Data: Field Data: Stream, Lake or Tidal Gauge Depth of Surface Water Aerial Photographs Depth to Free Water in Test Pit ?-- Other (explain below) Depth to Saturated Soil No Recorded Data Available: Primary Indicators, Secondary Indicators: Inundated L..-Oxidized Root Channels in first 12 inches Saturated within first 12 inches Water-stained Leaves Water Marks Local Soil Survey Data Drift Lines FAC-Neutral Test Se ' ent Deposits Other (explain below) L.-Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Wetland Criteria Met? es No Remarks: SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and phase): l wjy-T Su-T ,&A Drainage Class: (Z Subgroup: j tL A(LGI ptL- ( Field Conformation of Mapped Type? i Yes Profile Description: Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors (Moist) Mottle Abundance/Contrast Texture, Structure, etc. 0-9 A 1e!fm ? t r? C LokA 2 !o`f2 Y JA ? ! ,OqSTi4Cr, CoMµo^ !S _ CLAN LOS I Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol edoximorphic Features (describe below) Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor + i Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime i Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions (Chemical Method) Listed on National Hydric Soils List eyed or low-chroma Colors Other (explain in remarks) Wetland Criteria Met? (,Ye :p Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No Wetland Hydrology Present? No Hydric Soils Present? No Is the Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: 1 1 1 1 1 1 r-j 1 1 rw&M KURAHA S HI ?s' ASSG7CIATES, INC. Routine On-site Wetland Determination Data Form Adapted from the Corps of Engineers and Division of State Lands data forms (revised October 1996). Civil Engineering Water Resources Landscape Architecture Planning Surveying Project Name: p1?,e Project Number: Investigator: r i s Date: 8( i-t cn Plot ID: ( Plant Commu nity: wE rAEAao,) Normal Environmental Conditions? a No Remarks: wive PROcT Sr,,O Z Signcant Disturbance (Atypical)? Yes (9) ZAO' O' .3cl-j ?n/C= 'COA Problem Area? es No 2cpz_ Ce 1 civT' Vct-_wreTlnt,I Species % Cover Indicator Species % cover Indicator Trees Herbs QJ o GARR,/A NA - IS OPL? GICoS !fit * 25 FvgE x ' 25 FAC wPie-c.-tu PR0vr N)54%4' Lo N M 20 - V-7: r?ln AXJst-156 5 FAc. _ Fq? Shrubs Total % Cover Trees Shrubs Herbs Number of Dominants FAC b OBL: 3 By Stratum 15 I oo Number of Dominants FAC- b UPL: Z Relative 50% level: o Total Dominants: % Wetland Vegetation: 400 Relative 20% level: 20 Wetland criteria met? es No Remarks: t.?oTE TtfE LAC K or FAc.J A&P QPL ti(ca.c.si?coKS ?Ef?ET/l t/on/ 'Indicates dominant species as oetermineo Dy the ourcu ruie eec_f lcirr!MM TeeT MIDTInIJAI I Number of Dominants FACW o OBL? 1 Total FACW b OBL? i Total FAC+? O Number of Dominants UPL a FACU? Total UPL a FACU7 Total FAC-? I Positive a etive 12600 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Suite 100 Tigard, Oregon 97223 503.968.1 605 FAX 503.968.1105 • HYDROLOGY Recorded Data: Field Data: Stream, Lake or Tidal Gauge Depth of Surface Water _ Aerial Photographs Depth to Free Water in Test Pit _ Other (explain below) Depth to Saturated Soil No Recorded Data Available: Primary Indicators: Se dary Indicators: Inundated Oxidized Root Channels in first 12 inches ' Saturated within first 12 inches Water-stained Leaves Water Marks Local Soil Survey Data Drift Lines F 6C-Neutral Test Sediment Deposits -Other (explain below) Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Wetland Criteria Met? Yes No Remarks: c 5 AT- A a G o e GJ P fore J 0 THE 6 I OI V 13F-0051thrA. Lo X w. o C-&-C-eVc- I' A EIS Ia1DIC4TIE LkKEL,44coAD o Abcw L sAvcza Ep N F'wou SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and phase): Exgo„ IL C L oAo- ! Drainage Class: Top R Subgroup: c Field Conformation of Mapped Type? ; Yes Profile Description: Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors (Moist) Mottle Abundance/Contrast Texture, Structure, etc. V - o 1 A 312 (.,A ^4 ! S+ I ro R z ! Io /1 Cow.?,.o,Jr Qlyjl?lcT? o??? ;SI_j? G! I d?agt? I i i Hydric Soil Indicators: _ Histosol edoximorphic Features (describe below) _ Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions (Chemical Method) Listed on National Hydric Soils List v,Zeyed or Low-chroma Colors Other (explain in remarks) Wetland Criteria Met? No Remarks: a e - rJ WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? es Wetland Hydrology Present? s H dric Soils Present? (np No No No Is the Sampling Point Within a Wetland? s No Remarks: p , pzE 1 c SdI?.S L I c v wtT1.1 ?IJE4K SECcaj J vJCE vJ r T Oe Cli.1S1oA1 A ?E A J/LaTCD. S nn ILA To u lrl-AN EEK CMrM o J - al (1-6- PCB ROCA-CA 1 1 1 1 1 1 LJ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 rw&M KURAHA S M F3' ASSOCG[ATES, INC. Civil Engineering Water Resources Landscape Architecture Planning Surveying r1 LJ Routine On-site Wetland Determination Data Form Adapted from the Corps of Engineers and Division of State Lands data forms (revised October 1996). Project Name: M6TZr,6A aj Project Number: Investigator: r ,S Date: s i Plot ID: t Plant Community: vFpcx . r e,o Normal Environmental Conditions? Yes No Remarks: Liva?4rz P,xaT c f : Si vv 2 Significant Disturbance (Atypical)? Yes No ZAD' BO' r-LZ SEisr Problem Area? Yes No r2ePLACEn't Eti/T VEGETATION Species % Cover indicator Species % Cover Indicator Trees Herbs 17r?yCU s C-6&PTA + o UPL _ Ft"'STV C? ARJND1NAC x 20 FRC_- s Nib 0 T?12,4-k ?cJw? CFFic &W FACU _ ?(Ll)h1FLiA yliw6 +Q,A 15 o FAe-J v - to F J Shrubs L4cL CuS 57 f 4L Total % Cover Trees Shrubs Herbs Number of Dominants FAC b OBL: 1 By Stratum too Number of Dominants FAC- b UPL: 3 Relative 50% level: Total Dominants: L( % Wetland Vegetation: -Z5 Relative 20% level: Zo Wetland criteria met? Yes (SP Remarks: 'Indicates dominant species as determined ny the -5uizu- rule FAC-NFUTRAL TEST (OPTIONALI Number of Dominants FACW b OBL? O Total FACW b OBL? Total FAC+? Number of Dominants UPL b FACU? 2 Total UPL b FACU? 3etal FAC-? Positive a etive 12600 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Suite 100 Tigard, Oregon 97223 503.968.1 605 FAX 503.968.1105 HYDROLOGY Recorded Data: Field Data: Stream, Lake or Tidal Gauge Depth of Surface Water Aerial Photographs Depth to Free Water in Test Pit - Other (explain below) Depth to Saturated Soil -- No Recorded Data Available: Primary Indicators: Secondary Indicators: Inundated Oxidized Root Channels in first 12 inches Saturated within first 12 inches Water-stained Leaves Water Marks Local Soil Survey Data Drift Lines FAC-Neutral Test Sediment Deposits Other (explain below) Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Wetland Criteria Met? Yes o Remarks: / Jo 5Gcaj D SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and phase): \jeg.6mpT -AC- T-4 U_ik uAnnl Drainage Class: ?co(;-, Subgroup: ! Field Conformation of Mapped Type? ( Yes j Profile Description: Depth (in) Horizon Matra Color Mottle Colors (Moist) Mottle Abundance/Contrast Texture, Structure, etc. C)- t o `/R 3 - i ca/?w? to YR 411 i - ! S t rY '-LAs-j LOAM j j ? Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol i Redoximorphic Features (describe below) Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime i Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions (Chemical Method) Listed on National Hydric Soils List Gleyed or Low-chroma Colors ! Other (explain in remarks) Wetland Criteria Met? Yes No Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is the Sampling Point Within a [Wetland? Yes No Remarks: 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 rw&M KURAHA S HI & ASSOCiA-T•ES, INC. Routine On-site Wetland Determination Data Form Adapted from the Corps of Engineers and Division of State Lands data forms (revised October 1996). Civil Engineering Water Resources Landscape Architecture Planning Sun?cyin-- Project Name: f46,T74Eiz ej Project Number: -7 Investigator: r L)Ayis Date: i8(r5jqj-j Plot ID: I j; Plant Community:- ufpesz•• Tjx+= u4.ar1 Normal Environmental Conditions? es No Remarks: L,,yt p,,y,7, c r; _S vv 41; Significant Disturbance (Atypical)? No 6 ZDO' x 30' rot SEwlEr, C //n/45 Problem Area? Yes No R6-PUW_6M Cti/T VCr` -rATir%Ki Species % Cover Indicator Species % Cover Indicator Trees Herbs ?U F o?aGo 5 RT 1 t o o O Ry Shrubs Total % Cover Trees Shrubs Herbs Number of Dominants FAC b OBL: By Stratum Number of Dominants FAC- b UPL: Relative 50% level: Total Dominants: % Wetland Vegetation: Relative 20% level: Wetland criteria met? Yes No Remarks: PL.oT 11 05 E p iRS REF O? L, la To Po(?=? ?= ?.?Ti O??/ 4 5'M I? 'Indicates dominant species as oetermmea oy ine ouicu rwe FAC-NEUTRAL TEST (OPTIONAL) Number of Dominants FACW b OBL? Total FACW b OBL? Total FAC+? Number of Dominants UPL b FACU? Total UPL b FACU? Total FAC-? Positive Negetive 12600 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Suite 100 Tigard, Oregon 97223 503.968.1605 FAX 503.968.1 105 • i HYDROLOGY Recorded Data: Field Data: Stream, Lake or Tidal Gauge Depth of Surface Water - Aerial Photographs Depth to Free Water in Test Pit - Other (explain below) Depth to Saturated Soil No Recorded Data Available: Primary Indicators: Secondary Indicators: Inundated Oxidized Root Channels in first 12 inches Saturated within first 12 inches Water-stained Leaves Water Marks Local Soil Survey Data Drift Lines FAC-Neutral Test Sediment Deposits Other (explain below) Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Wetland Criteria Met? Yes No Remarks: SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and phase): Sty, CI,iW LaoeADrainage Class: '?oo q! Subgroup: j jPV_ t I Field Conformation of Mapped Type? I Yes o Profile Description: Depth (in) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors (Moist) Mottle Abundance/Contrast Texture, Structure, etc. - A Ito2 - _ L?^ I t i I I Hydric Soil Indicators: I Histosol Redoximorphic Features (describe below) _ Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions (Chemical Method) j Listed on National Hydric Soils List Gleyed or Low chroma Colors Other (explain in remarks) Wetland Criteria Met? Yes o Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes (Ap Hydric Soils Present? Yes C NO Is the Sampling Point Within a Yes Remarks: A-r c o D S LE J A T toil j F3 6,3 = i- t-1 C E D o E - .? G - v K Ila 1 1 1 1 1 I i 1 Appendix E Floodplain Certification KURAHASHI ' & ASSOCIATES,INC. Civil En_ineerin_ Water Resource, ' UtndseapeArchiteetwe Plwininu, Surveying ' November 19, 1997 Lee Walker Unified Sewerage Agency 155 N First Street, Suite 270 Hillsboro, OR 97124 Subject: Metzger Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation (1577) Floodway and Floodplain Issues Dear Mr. Walker: I have reviewed the grading plan for the proposed Metzger Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project. It is clear that portions of the construction will occur within the Floodway and 100-year Floodplain of Ash Creek. ' Bases on my understanding that the project will not alter the existing grades within the FEMA 100-year Floodplain and/or Floodway, I hereby certify the following statements: 1) The proposed construction in the Floodway will not measurably alter water surface elevations or contribute to the cumulative effect of existing or anticipated development in the Ash Creek Basin. 2) The proposed construction in the 100-year Floodplain will not measurably alter water surface ' elevations or contribute to the cumulative effect of existing or anticipated development in the Ash Creek Basin. 3) The proposed construction will not measurably increase the velocity of flood flows in Ash Creek. ' If you have any questions or additional concerns about floodplain issues related to your project please call me (968-1605) ' Sincerely, Roger C. Sutherland, PE Director of Water Resources C. Brent Davis, KAI Rick Raetz, Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation 1 12600 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Suite 100 Tigard, Oregon 97223 503.968.1605 FAX 503.968.1105 { i ~ it I I 6 Bea~uerton Porttand 14 ~'HtSDI,E HNfr ii f 4 21'7 SITE i TAYLORS FY RD 5 214 5 Ttigard Q ~ Lake Oswego I DURHAM RD i . VICINITY MAP ~ " Not to Scale ~ Sr TayJori J?lrry Rd MH 29 •i MH 27 MH 26 :ts =r', MH 26 S/ FivA MH 25 LEGEND •aa" MH 2 ;s v . ':r ~S NEW SANITARY SEWER w/MANHOLE t~ Q CONTROL POINT POWER POLE (WOOD) •'S MH 23 S1 C~m~»+t SYra! ~ m SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE F ANCHOR :s .x •r _ ~ FOUND MONUMENT OF RECORD ~ GUY POLE (TYPICAL) S~ "Sl . 5 ~ WATER VALVE CURB AT FLOWUNE .t X 4 i D4 GAS VALVE do GAS MARKER ~ ABUTMENT (CONCRETE) y 3 : MH 22 •.v MH 21 sr CAaMu~ 5tirnt FlRE HYT3RANT (E7(IS11NG) d FOOT 9RIDGE (4' TYPICAL) 'S '-_w PVC DRAIN PIPE (ORIpNAT10N UNKNOWN} EVF3tptEEN TREE CMP CULVERT TYPICAL ~ DECIDUIQUS TREE ~M ~ _ MH 20 CONCRETE CUI.VERF (TYPICAL) ~ CATCH 8A51N INLET rs o o CHAIN UNK FENOE ~ CATCH BASIN 2 O SQ INLET LIGHT POLE (METAL) sr r~,ooa s~ --x x SARK 1MRE FENCE CENTERLINE ROAD •ti MH 19 WOOD FENCE ..~r BUILDING (TYPICAL} MN RETAINING WALL (TYPICAL} s~ ~ Sr ~etinlack SIrnE GUARD RAIL MH 17 CENTERLNE CREEK _ _ MH iB sr Sr ,GaraA Sf ,'MH 1 S. 1 U11UTY LOCATES A,^ID MAPS WERE ORDERED ON 3/21/97 (NO UT#UTIES WERE MARKED IN THE FIELD - •.R sr rm~dnu ssri~ MH 14 AT THE TIME OF THIS SURVEY) MAPS WERE RELIEVED FROM NORTHWEST GAS, TCJ, AND TU WATER AND THE LOCATION AS SHOWN ON THIS MAP WRE SCALED FROM THE MAPS UNLESS NOTED - Y b 's'~ i81 MH f 3 Sr Lootu! Slnr! Y 1dH 12 1! 1 SHEET INDEX :"T ~ Scale i = 400 ~ MH ib• - s MH 9 M 11 ~ s~ a• 'xs~ ~ a~ - .:r - ~ ~ i "r " covER SHEET 3 g y :s' MH 8 '7" ~ MH 7 .r - - ,:irlH e„ Sr Oak SMd _ 1. PLAN SHEET STA 0+00 TO STA 17+19.4 :r - .•~:r F 2. PLAN SHEET STA 17+ ~ 9.4 TO STA 30+74.2 MH 5 . ~a MH 1 ~ " MH 3 _ Sr P6?1 S1rn! •r . •m 3. PLAN VIEW STA 30+74.2 TO STA 45+64,9 MH 2 ~ . :t ~y .y z ~~a MH i 4. PLAN VIEW STA 45+64.9 TO STA 59+92.6 "•n! SL "~t 51 Slrvrt 5. PROFILE STA 0+00 TO STA 28+04,2 ns. 6. PROFILE STA 28+04.2 TO STA 59+02,6 SHEET DES ADH Unified Sewerage Agency DR WDH of Washington County METZGER F ZGER SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION COVER SHEET ODATE CHK TLC CHK DAZE REVISION 155 N. First Avenue Hillsboro, Oregon PROJECT APPO NO PROJ NO JAN 3 0 1998 1 REMOVVE d~ REPLACE~ ~ L,F STD. CURB ~t GUTTER 2 REMOVE dt REPLACE 40 SF 5'-WIDE SIDEWALK 9 .f 0~ 0 0 9~ ~p MANHOLE 10 » > STA 15+59.4 ~ C a G e ~ = " ~ MH 9432 ~I PLUG p`~ EXIST. SAN. SOUTH 0 iSf 35 AA o 9~ ~ TL 1900 g ~ MANHOLE t o pr p~ MANHOLE 9 ~ sTA o+oo REPLACE EXISTING MH 9448 t~ v'~ STA 14+99.9 9~, ps 1S1 35 AD l~ 1S1 3s AA ~ 1S1 35 A, 7'L 1300 1S1 35 AD TL 37 1S1 35 AA TL f901 MANHOLE 3 oz TL 3702 ~ ~ ~ ~ STA 3+89.1 TL 1301 -MANHOLE 6 ~ + REPLACE EXISTING MANHOLE MH g,~ STA 9+63 STA 9+63 ~ REPAACE E REPAACE IXISTING / k MH 9438 MH 9438 ~ a ~ >>4 1S1 35 AA TL 2000 ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ + MANHOLE 2 STA 2+10.2 ~ ~r\ rf ~j2 ~ ~ G~ ~ REPLACE IXISTING k ~ o MH 9445 ~ ~ ~ r rrr ~ ~ i ~'o ~ , ~ ~ ~4 ~ w f ~ k ~ ~ r6 a 8. (1 e ~ ~ r6d 4 ly Q / r r f ~ r' ~y ~ 1 + a ~ ~ ~ F9+ 1S1 35 AA rr / / ~ s ~ tss ~ tss \ ` TL 2500 . / n . nsz , ~ use ~ G~~r ~ ® s . ~ ~ 0 ~ rg ~ `CO ~ \ q 1S1 35 AD , ~ ~k ~ , ''tt~1 v . * / i' h ~ 1 TL 1200 , .~Q ~5' ~ g MANHOLE 4 ~ yp . , 5TA 5+41.5 , , r ~ ~ ~ ~ REPLACE EX1511NG i~ ~ 20' ~ H 9440 ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ 20 ~ ~ ~ ~ 20 ~ ~ ~ iS1 35 AD ~ ~ i ~ , ~ ~i T ' 168 ~ ~ ~ 1S1 35 AD ~ sc , TL 1101 ~ . f 7'L 900 ~ TEMP CONSTRUCTION !!NITS ~ - ~ i ~ r 0 . ~ f ` s J ~ ~}i0~ 8 1S1 35 AA ~ ~ m i S \ ~ v 6g ~ / ~~r - r ~ 168 STA t 1+9t TL 2100 J ~ ~ i CONSTRUCT OVER ~ t ~ s ~ 1 10__~.~. i ~ D(ISTING L1NE ~ ~ - r - ~y ~ PLUG EXIST. SAN, NE ~ ss - - ~ ~ - R ~ ~ ~ 6 ~ \ V~ / r ~ r 168 ~GJ d` / ~ ~ ~ , 1 1 J 1 ~ ' ~ R~MOYE D(ISTiNG ° ~ t6s ~ 1S s~ ~ 1S A MH 9131 dt 31 LF ~ ~ a TL 26 ~ TL 2800 ~ OE 8' SANITARY ~ '160 V' ~ iS1 35 AA REM EXI 188 ~ ~ ~ TL 2400 ~ 9433 * ^ P v ~ / ~ MANHOLE 7 MANHOLE 11 ~ n,~ tss p ~~ti ` STA ~ 1+68.7 5TA 17+19.4 ~ ~ ib 1 35 AD 5 5 \ REPLACE EXISTING f TL 1103 rd 1Sf 35 AA STA 1+40 ~ J G f~IH 9434 ~ 2' TL 3600 REPLACE EXISmN EX~smN ~ J~~ by ~ MH 9439 c 3 3 ~ CG Cy i ~ ~ 1 S1 35 AD ~ U?~ TL r1o0 DES wDH Unified Sewerage Agency WDH DR ` SHEET 1/6 cHK MLw ufr.) of Washington County METZGER ZGER SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION PLAN VIEW OF 1 APPO TLC NO DATE REVISION 155 N First Avenue Hillsboro, Oregon PROJECT DATE JUL 1997 No°J 4779 u JAN 3 0 1998 I 180 lsa REMOVE & REPLACE SANITARY S1~iY&R "IN 51Ti1" 175 175 F 17a 7a 1 165 165 160 ~6a 308.9 LF 30" 00.0020 " RCP ®D O( " 223 LF 30 RCP ®0 0029 203.7 LF 30" RCP ®0.0017 ~ " 192.5 LF 30 RCP ~D.D02fi 158.4 LF 30 ®0 0032 ~ ~ 178 9 3O" RCP X0.0027 ~ 0" RCP X0,0026 155 ~ 21 x2 ~ 3 ~I , 24,3 LF 30" oaoo2o 155 I~_ MANHOLE 9 15a MANHOLE 8 5T 14+99 9 15a ~WH01„E $ STA i 1 +91 INV I~ = 15913 MANHOLE 3 MANHOLE 4 MANHOLE 5 STA 3+89.1 STA 5+47 5 STA 7+40 STA 9+63 INV IN = 158,41 1NV OUT = 159.03 MANHOI..E 2 :155.65 INV IN = 156.26 NEW 3O" NE INV IN = 156.97 INV IN T E _ INV kN = 157 81 NEW 30 Nf INV OUT = 158.31 INV iN = 158 60 EXIST S" N~V EXIST 24" N#= TO 8E ABANDONED ~STl4 2+10. INV IN = 157 00 EXlS 8 ) INV OUT - 156,77 INV OUT = 155.55 " W ENV IN = 160.10 EXIST 8" 5W INV IN = 155 D7 INV OUT = 156.16 (NEW 30 ) INV OUr = 154.87 lNV OUT = 157,81 (NEW 30" S) MANHOLE 7 MANHOLE 1 ` STA 11 X66.7 STA 0+00 INV IN = 158.25 NEW 30 NE INV IN = 154 32 NEW 30 NE INV IN = 155 20 EXIST 10" S _ _ _ _ . _IN~L IE~_-_1.59.86 EX1SX 8"- SE - - INV OUT = 154.12 (EXIST 30" W) _ ~ - - - ~ INV OUT = 158.16 (NEW 30" SW) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q 4 Q f- + f + + Q ~ ~ ~ ~ + + f f ~ C~ 4Y3 d' ~ CO ~ ~Q 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ RElIOVE dk REPLACE SANlPARY SE ~ NlPARY S1J<'~ER "!N SITU REMOVE & REPLACE 18a lao SANlTA~Y S~']fER 1N SITU" 175 ~ I REMOVE MANHOLE ~ 170 17a STA. 16+~;~ !I I II I I I I I I ~ 165 165 I I Ii 235 LF 27" RCP X0.003 II I I 386 8 38fi 8 LF 27" RCP X0.0043 8.8 LF 27" RCP X0.0035 " 17 i IIEr,~ 238.2 LF 27 RCP ®0.002 " LF 30 W0.006 M ~ ~ 59.5 LF 30 160 16a ®o 0025 45 LF 27" RCP 16a X0.0071 REMavE 31 tE 8" SANITARY 155 155 MANHOLE 11 MANHOLE 12 MANHDL); 13 MANHOLE 1O MANHOLE 16 + 9.4 STA 17+ 19.4 STA 21 +37.4 MANHOLE 45 STA 28+04 2 MANHOLE 9 STA 15 5 INV IN = 1 1.07 ~ ! iN 1 .3 27 N ~ k I . 9 N 7 N STA 14+ 9.8 INV IN = 162 29 EXIST 8" E INV DUT = 160.87 INV IN = 163 00 EXIST S" E N 7 N STA 27+59 2 INV IN = 165 09 INV IN = 1.59.13 INV OUT = 159.28 " EXIST 8" E INV IN = 164.57 INV QUT = 164.89 k INV OUT 164 37 EXIST 21 " S. TO BE ABANDONED 15a EXIST 24" 5 TO BE ABANDONED INV OWT ~ 160.34 (NEW 30 W) INV OUT ~ 161.69 15~ iNV DUT ~ 159.p3 MANHOLE 14 STA 25+24.2 I = lNV IN = 163 70 EXIST 21" E) INV 4UT = 183 56 (NEW 27" S) 0 o a o 0 0 O O CJ C} C] U C? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 T T r Ln 00 LN- 10() V-4 CQ v-4 e-i T-4 C\ C\1 ~i CV C\2 C\2 CQ N C\2 C\l Q ~ L DES Unified Sewerage Agency T-4 rH DR of Washington County METZGE1 PROFILE SHEU 5/6 FZGER SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION CHK U I I )f(4 REVISION 155 N First Avenue Hillsboro, Oregon PROJECT STA 0+00 TO STA 28+04.2 PROJ JUL 1997 APPD NO DATE NO 4779 JAN 3 0 1998 - KEY T~ PLANTING ZONES ~~i Forested q ~ ~ Wet Wetland a ~ Meadow 0 o Upland Upland 0 0° Forest Meadow Scale 1 = 50 x x Upland ~ o ~ Pole x x x x k Riparian o Cuttings Wetland ~ ~ Lawn Riparian Replaoernent 5t~rub/scrub C Wetland t1~ 0 a e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i >>4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~y ~'s8 7gI`\ ~ + ~ '8g ~ 1 762 ~ 18 % _ Y V a ~ti~ / ~ ~ ~ / o \ f ~ti d a4 Q a a a ~d~ aad ~ ~ R d Q a a a s a a a 4 ~ 's$ ~ ° ~ ~ ~aaaaaa aaa da aaa 1 ~ / Q ` ~ / ~ aaQ 4 ~ ~~e`\ 4444 ~4~9 , - V ~ ~ ~ ~ 1b$ a ~ ~,s ~ \ , / ~ ~ ~ ~~72 ~ ~ ~\~y. 168 ~ ~ ~ i ~ e Cow ~ ~ ~ T ~8 0 P~p~ v~ ~ ~ M168 - .4J' ~~CG 7" 2~ t.1Z~ \`n~~, ~ N ~ ~ ~ c L 07 61 ~-I 1f7 n ti NaO APB 4~V l~i~~ ~~sT~~ ~e~~ TITTU A tT A CtiTTY ~h~ n a ti IV UXAW rYnx0nI VIA %pvp~"09' i, jlulz & ASSOCIATES, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERING, WATER RESOURCES ~}OYId WaNBC3 V o LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING OREGON ~j SURVEYING 12800 SW 72nd Avenue, Suite 104 ll c2l N Tigard, Oregon 97223 LOPE, r_ 003) 968-1605 4 DES BHD CO DR eHD g y PR EL IMINA R Y Unified Sewerage A enc of Washington County METZGER SAP CHK DHW UfA QO APPD DHW NO DATE REVISION 155 N. First Avenue Hillsboro, Oregon SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION E-001 WETLAND MITIW PLANTING PLAN MITIGATION DATE NOV 1997 p 1577 JAN 3 0 1998 i MASTER PLANT L!S'~ GENERAL NOTE: KEEP PLANT MATERIAL MOIST UP TO TIME OF INSTALLATION, WATER PLANTS WEEKLY DURING DRY PERIODS OP FIRST YEAR OF PLANTING, Forested Wetland Zone Area ft Area (ft 42736 Plat Size 10' x 10' 427,4 plats Common Name Botanical T Botanical Name Form Per Plot Qt Size Notes SET ROOT MASS AT IT'S PREVIOUSLY Ore on Ash Fraxinus lot g Fraxinus lat~folia bareroot 1 428 3-4' PLANTED LEVEL, SO THAT NO ROOTS Pacific N'mebark Ph sot us Physocarpus capitatus container 1 428 2 gal ARE EXPOSED AND TRUNK IS NOT BURIED ~ ~ Carex obnupta bareroot 10 4274 K P I AIN M H A F M A Slough Sedge Carex obnul n. EE SO L D UC CLE R 0 5TE B SE. 2 855 o Pole Cuttings x ~ ~ ~ Grass Mix 2 o Q ~ war`, k LOOSLY PACK CLEAN NATIVE SOLI. AROUND 0 05 22 Ib 0 5 lb/1040 ft8 ~ ~ A,k o- ~ ROOTS PREVENT ROOT5 FROM BECOMING, Q o ~ ~ . • c~ U land Forest Zone Area ft ; TANGLED, POINTING UP, OR PARALLEL TO TRUNK. ~ Area (ft z); 25113 Plat Size 10' g 1Q' 251,1 plats o ° ~ ~ I I~ - Common Name Botanical P Botanical Name Form Per Plot t Size Notes x i I I Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Pseudotsuga menziesii container 1 252 2 gal Western Red Cedar Thuja plicat+ Thuja plicate container 1 252 2 gal Red Alder A),nus rubs APPROX. 1,5 X ROOTMASS DEPTH Alms rubs container 2 503 2 gaI Sword Fern Polpstiehum Polpstiehum munitum root cutting 2 603 4" x 6" Dull Oregon Grape Mahonia per Mahonia nervosa root cutting 2 543 4" a 8" Grass ~ 2 0 D5 13 7b 0,51bj1040 fts ar r i ai n u ~n n n a e Wetland Ri arian Zone Area ft Area (ft a}; 23918 Plat Size 10' x 10' 239,2 plots 1~ Common Name Botanical ~ Botanical Name Form Per Plot Qt Size Notes Black Hawthorn Crataegus d~ Crataegus douglasii container 1 240 2 gal Black Cottonwood Populus bal; Populus balsam~fera bareroot 2 479 2-3' Clustered Rase Rosa pisacai Rosa pisocarpa container 2 479 1 gal Pole Cuttings 3 718 Grass ~ 1 0 05 12 lb 4,5 lb/1000 #ta CUTTING TO BE APPROX. i/Zn-1" THICK U land Ri arian Zone Area ft l~ Area (ft a}; 12789 Plot Size 14' $ 19' 127.9 plots DRIVE CUTTING WITH PLASTIC Common Name Botanical r Botanical Name Form Per Plot Qt Size Notes Alms rubs container 2 258 2 gal 4R RUBBER MALLET. Red Alder Alms rubs lfestern Red Cedar Thuja plicate Thuja plicate container 1 128 2 gal TOP OF CUTTING TO BE FLAT, Servieeberry Amelanchier Amelanchier alnifolia container 2 268 2 gal IF STEM SPLITS, CUT STEM FLUSH Osoberry Oemleria cep Oemleria ceras~formis container 2 258 2 gal BELOW SPLIT Snowbe S )~oricar ~'Y YmP Sympl~oricarpos albus container 2 258 1 gaI FOR HARD SOILS PREPARE Grass Mix 2 005 'r lb 0 5 lb/1400 #t~ HOLE WITH IRON ROD. Shrub Scrub Wetland Zone Area ft Area (ft a}; 8324 Plot Size 10' ~ 10' 83.2 plots ~ Common Name Botanical T Botanical Name Farm Per Plot Qt Size Notes F ~ 17ouglas Spuaea Sp~raea doul Spiraea dauglas~i bareraat 3 250 2-3' ~ ~ ~ ~ Clustered Rase Rosa p~socar Rosa pisocarpa container 3 254 1 gal w ~ Serviceberrp Amelancbier Amelanchier alnifalia container 2 167 2 gal ~ z , ~ ~ Pale Cuttings 3 250 ~ ~ ! m f Grass Mix 1 ~ 0,05 5 lb 4,5 lb/1040 #ts ~ BOTTOM OF CUTTING TO BE ANGLED _ Wet Mea~aw Zone Area ft Area (ft 39142 Plat Size 10` g 10' 391,4 plots Common Name Botanical T Botanical Name Form Per Plot Qt Size Notes Sawbeak Sedge Carex stipat~ Carex stipata bareroot 3 1175 Grass Mix 1 4.1 40 lb 1 lb/1400 ft$ U land ~eadaw Zone Area ft p Area (ft 14995 Common Name Per 1000 Per 1000 ft2 Qt Size Notes Grass Mix 2 1 1 15 lb e u in an in a~ n Pole Cuttin s Zone Area ft Area (ft 2}; 6815 Plat Size 10' ~ 10' 68.2 plats Common Name Per Plot Per Plot Qt Notes Pale Cuttings 5 5 341 Area (f t 12685 I.~Wn Re lacement Zone Area f t p 'l~rf grasses per owner spee~fication n Grass Mi.~ 2~' w„ Common Name Botanical Nam otanical Name Size Form ~ b ~t, Notes SET ROOT CROWN 1 BELOW FINAL GRADE '~estern Manna Grass Gl ceria occider F lyceria occidentalis lb P1S 24 Native Red Fescue Festuca rubs estuca rubs lb P1S 34 ° MULCH AS SPECIFIED (Keep mulch clear Blue WTI a El us autos ~ ~ 81 ~ymus glaucus lb PL5 34 of trunk base} Meadow Barle Hordeum brech~ ordeum brech antherum lb P1S 20 ~ FINISH GRADE w z Grass Mix 2 ~ Q R M V FROM CONTfANER AND ~ EOE d Common Name Botanical Nam otanical Name Size Form ~ b wt. Notes w z LOOSEN COMPACTED ROOT BALL 0 o Blue lYildrye Rlymus glaucus U Cymus glaucus lb PlS 34 Native Red Fescue Festuca rubs estuca rubs Ib P1S 30 NATI A F! o VE $ CK LL Cal~forma Brame Bromus carinat~ romus carinatus Ib P1S 20 m n Pole Cuttin s 1,5 X DIAMETER , I Common Name Botanical Nam 4F CONTA NER otanical Name Size Form q in mix Notes Y~illows consisting of two or mare of the following: 3-4' cutting 74 Pacific Willow 5alix lasiandra alix lasiandra Sco~ler s Willow Salix scauleran~ alix scoulerana Hookers W~liaw Salix haokerana alix haokerana Sitka Willow Salix sitchensis alix sitchensis ' S T~~, o ` - Northwest Willow Salix sessddolia sess~falia KURAHAS~ I i23 ~d Red-Osier Do wood Corpus stalamfE L ornus stolomfera 3-4' cuttin 34 ~ ~ Rc AR.S'f?CTATTi'..S" iT~If'! Iit u> Container Stock Planting Detail (not to scale) CBU ENGINEERING WATER RESOURCES r David H. Walters H °a LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING ~ OREGON w w SURVEYIlVG ~m 12600 S K 72nd Avenue, Suite 100 n c+ w Q' L' FOR CONSTRUICTION Tigard, Oregon 87223 `SAE Ag,V (503) 988-1805 a DES er+D ~ QO Unified Sewerage Agency IMETZGER SA PRELIMINARY CHK ~R DHW V ~ of Washington County ~R SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION E-005 • WETLAND MITI APPD DHW NO DATE REVISION 155 N First Avenue Hillsboro, Oregon MITIGATION PLANTING DETAILS DATE NOV 1997 0 NOCJ 1577 cj JAN 3 0 1998 1 -1--- - - I - ~ ,s 1 " - 120' Ur Q 50' Tree Bu er .~xcavatior~ Limits ~ ~ ~ ~ • i\ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / \ ~ i ~ 2 Hawthorn {<6 D) i ~ ~ i ~ \ p ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ . / i , \ 4 Cedar {7-t 8 D) ~ ~ ti I ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 Cedar (7-14 D) ~ ~ ~ \ i ~ \ 3 Hawthorn (<6" D) i~ \ ` ~ ~titi ~ \ ~ ~ ~ POND i~ ~ \ ~ i T`\ i ~ ~ i~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ / ~ D \ ~ / ` ~ / ' ~ \ ` ~ / / ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ - r - - / \ ~ / ~ ~ ` ~ ` ~ ~ ~ P ~ ~ ~ / ti ~ M ~ / ~ , % ~ ~ ~ ~ \ 1 f ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ \ 1 \ ¢ 1 ~ -v ~ \ ~ I i ~ .rte ~ ~ ~ f ~ r ~ ~ ~ / , ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~j, A A V ~t 5 ~ r ~ 1 t ~ ~ r 1 ~ ~ ~ a ~ ` L----~- ~ ~ ~ • P ~ r \ ~ , V~ + ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 / ~ ~ f i ~ ~~ti 1 ~ ' p p i 1^1 ~ V - ~ EXISTING SANITARY V " G. ALIGNMENT PROPOSED SANITARY ~ ALIGNMENT IR APPROX. 7 00-YEAR iJ FLOOD PLAIN N L D] ~1 Q7 M (V (V ~iJ N H ~ ti M I KURAHASHI Cl) lit A ~5U(;lA'1'EZ5, 11NC. cu , r nv v CIVIL ENGINEERING, WATER RESOURCES O tll w LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING SURVEYING OR"' 0 i's r; T I z 12600 S W 72nd Avenue, Suite 100 Tigard, Oregon 87223 O F 0 STR C) (503) 968-1605 Ln DES BHD NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIo1v DR BWO Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County 1 METZGER o CN!( DHW ER SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION T-00I i ~ APPD DHW NO DATE REVISIQN 155 N First Avenue Hdisboro, Oregon TREE PLAN SAN Tree Locations DATE NOV 1997 Pa°J 1577 JAIL 3 0 1998