:cJ~~~ - Granicus

AGENDA BILL

Beaverton City Council Beaverton, Oregon

SUBJECT: An Ordinance Amending Ordinance 4187, the Comprehensive Plan; Adoption of the South Cooper Mountain Local Wetland Inventory, CPA 2015-0008

FOR AGENDA OF: 05-03-16 BILL NO: 16094

MAYOR'SAPPROVAL: :cJ~~~ DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: COD u DATE SUBMITTED: 04-19-16

CLEARANCES: City Attornev_\)"" ~St _ CAO ~ Planning ~

PROCEEDING: Ordinance First Reading

EXHIBITS: 1. Ordinance 2. Land Use Order No. 2450 3. Planning Commission Minutes, Dated 01-27-2016 4. Planning Commission Staff Report, Memoranda,

and Exhibits 5. DSL Approval Letter, Dated 04-18-2016

BUDGET IMPACT

EXPENDITURE REQUIRED $0

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

AMOUNT BUDGETED $0

City Council conducts a first reading of the proposed ordinance.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE:

APPROPRIATION REQUIRED $0

The City Council adopted the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan in February 2015 (CPA 2014-0011 ). As part of that planning process, a Local Wetland Inventory (LWI) was prepared for the 544-acre South Cooper Mountain Annexation Area (SCMAA), pursuant to Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 141-086 for Statewide Planning Goal 5 compliance. The LWI evaluated all wetlands over one-half acre in size, as well as probable wetlands under one-half acre in size, and determined that there were three "locally significant wetlands" within the study area. Adoption of the LWI was not included in CPA 2014-0011, as it had yet to be approved by the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL).

This proposal (CPA 2015-0008) would amend Volume Ill of the Comprehensive Plan (Statewide Planning Goal 5 Inventory Resource Documents) by adopting the South Cooper Mountain LWI. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment on January 27, 2016, and recommended that the City Council approve the amendment, as memorialized in Land Use Order 2450. On April 18, 2016, the South Cooper Mountain LWI was formally approved by DSL and may now be considered for adoption by the City Council.

INFORMATION FOR CONSIDERATION: The ordinance is attached for Council's consideration and adoption.

Agenda Bill No: 16094

ORDINANCE NO. 4685

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 4187, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; ADOPTION OF THE SOUTH COOPER MOUNTAIN LOCAL WETLAND INVENTORY, CPA 2015-0008

WHEREAS, the City of Beaverton has a Citywide Local Wetland Inventory (LWI), which was approved by the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) in December 2000 and is included within Volume Ill of the City of Beaverton Comprehensive Plan; and

WHEREAS, the South Cooper Mountain Annexation Area (SCMAA) is a 544-acre planning area that was annexed by the City in January 2013; and

WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan in February 2015 to guide development within the SCMAA; and

WHEREAS, the SCMAA is not included within the boundaries of the adopted Citywide LWI; and

WHEREAS, Statewide Planning Goal 5 requires local governments to maintain inventories and create protection programs for the state's natural resources within their planning areas; and

WHEREAS, on January 27, 2016, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider a City-initiated application to amend Volume Ill of the Comprehensive Plan by adding the South Cooper Mountain LWI to the Goal 5 Resource Inventory; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received and considered the submitted staff report, exhibits, and public testimony on the Comprehensive Plan amendment; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Beaverton City Council on January 27, 2016; and

WHEREAS, the South Cooper Mountain LWI was approved by DSL on April 18, 2016; and

WHEREAS, the Council adopts as to criteria applicable to this request and findings thereon the Planning Division Staff Report dated January 20, 2016, and the Planning Commission Land Use Order No. 2450; now, therefore,

THE CITY OF BEAVERTON ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Ordinance No. 4187, the Comprehensive Plan, is amended as shown in Exhibit "A" to this Ordinance, attached to and incorporated herein by this reference.

First reading this day of ______ , 2016.

Passed by the Council this day of ______ , 2016.

Approved by the Mayor this day of ______ , 2016.

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Catherine Jansen, City Recorder Denny Doyle, Mayor

Ordinance No. 4685 Agenda Bill No. 16094

1 .l.

1\.:)

EXHIBIT __,_A....a.--_ Ordinance No. 4685

Figure 1 Vicinity Map

City of Beaverton South Cooper Mountain

Annexation Area

LOCAL WETLAND INVENTORY

Legend ·----~ I 1 LWI Study Area

'····" CJ Section

~-..r.

Beaverton City Limits

Washington County Tax Lot .. ~ ..

~. o.l. WET'-'N. Park!Greenspace ...,($"" · ~ "s.

.).~ \ Stream/River i "'

II. 0 ~ 411112011.. ~

Waterbody

Arter ial ~ ~ ..

q,. J ~ .AI' ~~\>·

Data Sources: LIM Study Area: Metro RLIS, 2012. Modified by DEA. PLSS, City Umits , Tax Lots , Parks/Greenspaces, Arterials: Metro RLIS, 2012 Hydrology: USGS NHD Service Layer ESRI World Topo Map

Disclaimer: Information &hown on this map is for planning purposes, represents the conditions that exist at the map date. and is subject to change.

750 1,500 Feet

(f) Printed on and Corrections as of:

Information Current as of:

August 2015

North August 31, 2015

a/2lli015-I'PIIxk1\pfqlld\o\\APO~NFO\GSIM•po\F•1VIcr1.tyMap..,..<l

"-, f

w

LINOOWCR~EK/ r--~~====~:~~==lf~~Fi~~~f~~~~~;~;~~~~~ JACKSON CREEK

T·1SR·2W Section 36

~ 3 .L I ../ f

\ ~ I/ ~

_l_

\

I

SUMMEfl CREEK

T ~

Figure 5, Sheet 1 of 10 Local Wetland Inventory Map


Annexation Area


Legend

1::] Sheet Extent

::: :: LWI Study Area

--Arterial

--Street

-- LWI Stream

-- NHD Stream

Wetlands*

D Emergent (PEM)

- Forested (PFO)

CJ Section

.-··-··-: Beaverton City t_ .. _J Limits

r----, Washington County L___j Tax Lot

CWS Small CJ Streamsheds Boundary

~WET~O

- Pond/Open Water (PUB) f ~4J ... o ~~..~r

i ~-· : - Scrub/Shrub (PSS)

\ ' ~-4~ENf ~ <~-'

Detention Pond

o 250 500 Feet 1"""1 I

Data Sources: LWI Study Area: Metro RLIS, 2012. Modified by DEA. Tax Lots, PLSS, City Limits, Arterials , Streets: Metro RLIS, 2012 Wetlands, Streamsheds: Anchor QEA , DKS Engineering, PH S,

DEA, 2015; City of Beaverton, Metro RLIS, 201 2. Modified by DEA.

Streams: Metro RLIS, 2012 ; Modified by DEA. USGS NHD, 2015.

Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning J!Ul)OS8S, represents the conditions that exist at the map date, Md is subject to change. The location and extent of wetlands and other waters ia approximate. There may be unmapped wetl~~r~ds and other wateR present flat Me subject to regulation. A cLJTent Oregon Department of State Lands-approved wetland dellleation is required lor state remov5-fll permits. You •e

I advised to contact the Deptriment of State l ands and the U.S. Army Caps of Engineers with any regulatory question&.

(I) Information Current as of:

August 2015

Printed on and Corrections as of: North August 31,2015

#WET1..4N~ ~'V (S.J,

6 ~ E o ~ 4111/2018.. ~

\ I \ !!;~ LINDOW CREEK I

JACKSON CREEK

~ ~ .... ,_._,_.. I

~"-'tra.eNTd,:.t- .•........• ~~----··-·-·--~~~uu~~~~~~~ •••••••••••••••-

1252010000101

1 I I

: i : I

:

I I :

I ····t ··----~ ---····

T-1SR-2W Section 36

~ /

I T-2SR-~~ /.2010000100 Sectio/

~

T U A LIA T IN R TRIB

151310001602

& PW-K

~ PEM1

PW-L PEM1

\

I ,_, \ T-2SR-1W

Section 6

T-1SR-1W Section 31

251060000302

Figure 5, Sheet 2 Local Wetland Inventory Map


Annexation Area


Legend

::: :: LWI Study /Vea

,--, Washington County l__j Tax lot

CJ Section

--Street

CWSSmall D Streamsheds Boundary

0 Data Plot

-- LVv'IStream

-- NHD Stream

WeUands•

CJ Emergent (PEM)

Data Sources:

lall a I

I i ~ N l ~ ,j!l'l 1

· w= Wetlands PW = Probable WeUands

100 200 Feet I""'S'S; I

LWI Study Area: Metro RLIS, 2012. Modified by DEA. PLSS, City Limits, Streets: Metro RLIS, 201 2 Wetlands, Stream sheds: AKS Engineering, Anchor QEA, DEA,

PHS 2015. Also City of Beaverton, Metro RLIS, 2012. Modified by DEA.

Data Plots: DEA, 2015. Streams: Metro RLIS, 2012 and USGS NHD, 2015.

Modified by DEA.

Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning purposes, represents the conditions that exist at the map dale, and is subject to change. The location M d extent of wetlands and other waters is approximate. There may be unmapped wetlands and other waters present that ere ;ubject io regulation. A wren! OreQOn Oeplriment of State land&-apJroved waUand delineation is re"'i"ed for slate removal-fil permits. You •e advised to contact the Oep«iment of State Lands and he U.S. hmy Corps of Engineers with anyregulatofy questions.

(f) lnfonnation Current as of:

August 2015

Printed on and Corrections as of: North August 31, 2015

812412015C:IUMrsiA!II'DHI<lop'Fo~lociiiW.hndl.....,."r'-'J.._II..)01~JIUd

#WET~C

" "~ r ~~ \ 0 ~

~ ~~~~· ~ 1\!q,. !l

1

I I ~-1~ENT of~"' I

...•. ·-------.....,.,L ----~,------------.! I ----\

151310001602

251060000302

<.11

T-2SR1W Section 6

\_15131CA01600 ~151310001900 n

T-1SR-1W Section 31

151310001605

TUALATIN H TRI8

151310001600

PW-D PEM1Y

PW-E""" j PEM1Y n

(

... ~

"

P-6

I I

v 15131DCC!0600

I I I I I

r15131DC00700

"' ~I ~ : 15131DC00800 :1: I ..,. ~ -~ I

~ : 1}---15131DC00900 I I I . I

I I I

~~15131DC01000

15131DC01100

~

~

q UM~iiEH r-.B:~F-K-

I

-------------·--·--------



Annexation Area


Legend ..... 1• • •" LWI Study Area

,----, Washington County l___j Tax lot

c:::J Section

- - Street

CWS Small D Stream sheds Boundary

Data Plot

-- LWI Stream

-- NHD Stream

Wetlands*

c:::J Emergent (PEM)

- Scrub-Shrub (PSS)

Data Sources:

I a 101

~n~~n~u jl

* W= Wetlands PW = Probable Wetlands

0 100 200 Feet 1"""""1

LWI Study Area: Metro RLIS, 2012. Modified by DEA. PLSS, City Limits, Streets: Metro RLIS, 201 2 Wetlands, Streamsheds: AKS Engineering, Anchor QEA, DEA,

PHS 2015. Also City of Beaverton, Metro RLIS, 201 2. Modified by DEA.


Modified by DEA.

Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is fOf planning pLrpo&es, represents the oonditions that exist at the map date, and is subject to ctlange. The localion and extent of wetlands and other waters is approximate. Tl'lere may be unmapped wetlands and other waters present lhat are subject to regulation. A cLJTent Oregon OepMtment of State Lands-approved wedand delinet1tion is required for sttlte removll-fil permits. You 1n t1dvised to contact the Oepertment of State Lt1nds and lhe U.S. Army Corps of Engineer1 with any regulatory question;.

00 Information Current as of:

August 2015


111'212015 C-I/Ju••lu~li;tqiiFii5LOQoiW.•ndl,...,ltwy_lol~booll_2(11~wt-"'~d

0')

152360001000 T·25R-2W Section 1

•·•···•·······•··•···•·•··•·········•····•• I I I I I I I I I I I I

····••···•····•··•·····•·•·•·•···•·•

It o Ill

252010000200

LI NDOW CREEK I JACKSON CR EE K

252010000201 T-2SR-2W Section 1

r 252010000500

C~WET'-41,0 ...,o .,~

l7 ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ 4118/2018 JB ~

~ 1 \ 4!-J

<>~~ .:-.,.. ~an of

252010000101

,w-G PEM1Yfd

r) r,

: I

i ·······

252010000100



Annexation Area


Legend


,---, washington County L-J Tax Lot

O section

--Street

CWS Small c:J Streamsheds Boundary

0 Data Plot

-- Stream

Wetlands•

D Emergent (PEM)

Data Sources:

·w= Wetlands PW = Probable Wetlands

100 200 Feet P"""'"'""

LWI Study Area: Metro RLIS , 2012. Modified by DEA. PLSS, City Limits, Streets: Metro RLIS, 2012 Wetlands, Streamsheds: AKS Engineering, Anchor QEA, DEA,

PHS 2015. Also City of Beaverton, Metro RUS, 2012. Modified by DEA.

Data Plots : DEA, 2015. Streams: Metro RLIS, 2012 and USGS NHD, 2015. Modified by DEA.

Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning ptl'poses, represents the con ditions that exist at the map date, and is subject to ctlange. The locaHon and extent of weUands Md other water& is approximate. There may be unmapped wetlands and other waters present lhat tn subject to regulation. A CliTent Oregon Department of State lands--approved wed and delineation is requi"ed for state removal-til permits. You 1.-e advised to contact the Oepl!l1ment of State lands and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with any regulatory q..~estions .

(jj Information Current as of:

August 2015


812.no15C'VJ .. ..W...~'i'.Sloul-""lnvMIII<y_M.Ipboolt_2015Aug, ,.,.d

-· ....

..J

Section 1

252010000100

T-1SR2W Section 36 151310001602

TUALA H

251060000301

251060000500

f\1

T-1SR1W Section 31

T-2SR-1W Section 6

251060000302

251060000302

PW-8 G PEM1Yd -v

.-----'------1

251060000402

251060000400



Annexation Area


Legend ::: :: LWI Study Area

,---, Washington County L__1 Tax Lot

CJ section

-- Street • 7

0


0 DataPiot

-- LWI Stream

Wetlands*

*W= Wetlands PW = Probable Wetlands

CJ Emergent (PEM)

- Forested (PFO)

- Pond/Open Water (PUB)

100 200 Feet

Data Sources: LWI Study Area: Metro RLIS , 2012. Modified by DEA. PLSS, City Limits, Streets: Metro RLIS, 2012 Wetlands, Streamsheds: AKS Engineering, Anchor QEA, DEA,



Modified by DEA.

Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning p11poses, represents the conditions that exist at the map date, and is subject to mange. The location and extent of we Hands and other waters is approximate. There may be unmapped wetlands Md other waters present !hat tre subject to regulation. A ctJTent Oregon Department of State l ands-approved wed and delineation is required for state removal-til permits. You are advised to contact the Oeperiment of State lands and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with any regulatory questions.


August 2015


011'2/lQ1S C.'\UutsUOI\Oe&ldop\Frg5 LocaiW.tlo~ d lrw611toty_ l.lll9book_ 201SAut. SM•t5.rnid

151310001600

251060000403

~251060000400

00

251060000402

TUALAT IN

251060000800

T-25R-1W Section·&

I

------------------------·

PW-F PEM1Yfd

251060000200

DP-1

W-H P551Yd

SUMMEF< CR EE K

0~WETI..\a,il.t ~"' ~ ~(() ~-

R ~ Q. 0 ~ .c/1812010 Jll ~ 0 10 1.! Q

~ ! ,. 1!-~ .. ~ENT df'--<.'f-



Annexation Area



,--, Washington County L__j Tax lot

CJ section

--Street

CWS Small D Streamsheds Boundary

Data Plot

-- LWI Stream

-- NHD Stream

Wetlands*

CJ Emergent (PEM)

- Forested (PFO)

- Scrub-Shrub (PSS)

Detention Pond

Data Sources:

·w= Wetlands PW = Probable Wetlands

100 200 Feet

LW1 Study Area: Metro RUS, 2012. Modified by DEA. PLSS, City Limits, Streets: Metro RLIS, 2012 Wetlands, Streamsheds: AKS Engineering, Anchor QEA, DEA,


Data Plots: DEA, 2015. Streams: Metro RLIS, 2012 and USGS NHD, 2015. Modified by DEA.

Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is fOf' planning p1Sposes, represent& the conditions that exist at the mBf! date, and is subject to change. The location and extent of weHands and other walera is approximate. There may be unmapped watiMds and other watefs present that M'a subject to regulation. A ctJTent Oregon Department of State lands--approved wetland delineation is required for state removal-til penn its. You are edvi&ed to contact lhe Deps1ment of State Lands and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with any regulatory queationa.

({) Information Current as of:

August 2015


llf2J2015C\U_.,Io ... no.~o&Gto\FC15l~IW.IIondi1W.,I<wy_W8f>boolt_:Xl15Awl·&lleet l.lftl<d

251060000103

~w.WET1..4N. (f"' 0~

co'V ~ .:.,'V ~-

i ~ Q; 0 ~ 4111121011.8 ~

'~ J ~ #' "~~of-t-

~

251060000103

T-2SR-1W Section 6

SUM~1IE H CF( EE K

T-2SR-1W Section 5



Annexation Area


Legend


11 Wash ington County L__j Tax lot

c::::::J Section

--Street

CWS Small c::J Streamsheds

Boundary

0 Data Plot

-- LWI Stream

-- NHD Stream

Wetlands*

- Forested (PFO)

- Scrub-Shrub (PSS)

Data Sources:


100 200 Feet t--- I

LW1 Study Area: Metro RLIS, 2012. Modified by DEA. PLSS, City Limits, Streets: Metro RLIS, 201 2 Wetlands, Streamsheds: AKS Engineering, Anchor QEA, DEA,

PHS 201 5. Also City of Beaverton, Metro RLIS, 201 2. Modified by DEA.


Disclaim«: Information shown on this map is for planning p1Sposes, represents the conditions that exist at the map date, and is subject to change. The location and extent of weUands and other waters i& approximate. There may be unmapped wetlands Md oth« water&; present lhat a-e subject to regulation. A ctxrent Oregon Department of State Lands-approved wetland delineation is requl'ed for stale removal-fll penn its. You are advised to contact the Oeptrlrnent of State lands and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with MY regulatoryq..~estions.


August 2015


111'212015 C"'oUH<•In\l'tOMiiiAJ>IFI05 lacaiW. ... cl l...-en.....,_ lhpbMI\..lOI!Aug . Shwi7.11'DCcl

!--» 0

~WETf..4No ..,o it~

~$ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ 4/1ar.:I018 .. ~ 0 ..

" ~ \ s i).. I' -~JO>_.~EMT of""'

T-2SR-1W Section 6

251060000600



Annexation Area


Legend

::: :: LW I Study Area

r---1 washington County 1__j Tax lot

0 Section

--Street


0 Data Plot

-- LW I Stream

-- NHD Stream

Wetlands*

0 Emergent (PEM)

- Forested (PFO)

• 7

•



100 200 Feet

Data Sources: LWI Study Area: Metro RLIS, 2012. Modified by DEA. PLSS, City Limits, Streets: Metro RLIS, 2012 Wetlands, Streamsheds: AKS Engineering, Anchor QEA, OEA,


Data Plots: DEA, 201 5. Streams: Metro RLIS, 2012 and USGS NHD, 2015.

Modified by DEA.

Disclaimer: lnfonnation shown on this map is for planning p1rposes, represent& the oooditions that exist at the map date, and is SIJbject to mange. The location and extent of wetiMds and other wall!lrs is approximate. Th«e may be unmapped wetloVids and other waters presenllhat Me subject to regulation. A curent Oregon Department of State Lands-approved wetland delineation is required for state removal-fll permits. You are advised to contact the Depa1ment of State: lands and the U.S. Army Caps of Engineers with any regulatory questions.

({) Printed on and Corrections as of:


August 2015


W212<J15 C \UlM& ..... oi'De&lolaplf .. S LocalW.lllnll bo•..,lory_Mapl>oo~201s.-.ug . ShHI& .... G

251060000600

q;"

"

~

251060000500

251060000400

T-2SR-1W Section 6

TUALATIN R TF< I B

251060000403

251060000700

PW-N PEM1Y

251060000800

rfoWET~..w¢. ...,o "~

~ ~

0 411112018.8 ~ ..

!!-! off:.,.



Annexation Area


Legend


CJ washington County Tax Lot

CJ Sect ion

-- Street


0 Data Plot

-- LWI Stream

-- NHD Stream

Wetlands*

CJ Emergent (PEM)

- Forested (PFO)

• w =Wetlands PW = Probable Wetlands


100 200 Feet

Data Sources: LWI Study Area: Metro RLIS , 2012. Modified by DEA. PLSS , City Limits, Streets: Metro RLIS, 2012 Wetlands, Streamsheds: AKS Engineering, Anchor QEA, DEA,

PHS 2015. Also City of Beaverton, Metro RLIS, 201 2. Modified by DEA.

Data Plots: DEA, 2015. Streams: Metro RLIS, 201 2 and USGS NHD, 2015.

Modified by DEA.

Disclaim«: Information shown on this map is for planning ptl'poses, rep-esents the conditions that exist at the map date, and is subject to change. The location and extent of weUands and other waters is approximate. There mey be unmapped wetlands and other waters present that IW"& subject to regulation. A curent Oregon OepNtment of State lands--approved wehnd de~neation is required for state removel-fll permits. You ere advised to contact the Depa1menl of State l ands and the U.S. Army C«ps of Engineers with any regulatory questions .

(f) Information Current as of:

August 2015


lll'ln015C:Y.J...,• I&a&I'OMIIU>p\Ff11115LoeaiW.t1Mdllw••n•wy_lol*9booii_XIISA"f·SI'IHtl . .,.,

251060000800

~

N

251060000205

TU ALATIN H TH I8

251060000200

SUMMEH CHEE~<

T-2SR-1W

251060000103

SUMI\JI EH CRE E 'r<

~we~;;- I J ...,o "~ ~ ~ ,s ~

l 0 ~ <411812011 JB ~ 0 .. ~ ~ ~+ !l ~ .. ~ENT ot-t-"'



Annexation Area


Legend


r---1 washington County L___J Tax Lot

c:::::J Section

-- Street


0 Data Plot

-- LWI Stream

-- NHD Stream

Wetlands'

c:::::J Emergent (PEM)

- Scrub-Shrub (PSS )

D Detention Pond

Data Sources:

• w =Wetlands PW = Probable Wetlands

100 200 Feet

LWI Study Area: Metro RLIS, 2012. Modified by DEA. PLSS, City Limits, Streets: Metro RLIS, 2012 Wetlands, Streamsheds: AKS Engineering, Anchor QEA, DEA,



Modified by DEA.

Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning pll'poses, represents the conditions that exist at the map date, and is subject to change. The location and extent of wetlands and other waters is approximate. There may be unmapped wetlands and other waters present &!at are subject to regulation. A cLrTent Oregon Department of State Lands-approved wetland delineation is required for state remov5-fil permits. You are advised to contact the DepiYtment of Sta te Lands and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with any regulatory questions.


August 2015


W2/2015C\U~_..-...r.o.kltlp\FII(I5lO«oi W..!Io.nd i ""Wllofy_Mapbooii,_2015A~g.SftHI10.m:.d

EXHIBIT --'-2~-

BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF BEAVERTON, OREGON

After recording return to: City of Beaverton, City Recorder: P.O. Box 4755 Beaverton, OR 97076

IN THE MATTER OF A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO AMEND VOLUME Ill OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY ADOPTING A LOCAL WETLAND INVENTORY FOR THE SOUTH COOPER MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION AREA

SPACE RESERVED FOR WASHINGTON CO. RECORDERS USE

ORDER NO. 2450

CPA2015-0008 ORDER RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO ADD THE SOUTH

COOPER MOUNTAIN lOCAl WETLAND INVENTORY AS APPENDIX F TO VOLUME Ill OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

The matter came before the Planning Commission on January 27, 2016, on a

request for approval to amend Volume Ill of the Comprehensive Plan by adopting a Local

Wetland Inventory (LWI) for the South Cooper Mountain Annexation Area, a 544-acre

area annexed to the City of Beaverton in 2013, as Appendix F of Volume Ill.

Pursuant to Sections 1.1 through 1.6 of the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning

Commission conducted a public hearing on January 27, 2016 and considered testimony

and exhibits on the subject proposal. No oral testimony was provided at the public

hearing. The Commission also considered several revisions to the LWI that were proposed

by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), which are

outlined in the Supplemental Staff Memorandum dated January 26, 2016 and with which

city staff concurs.

ORDER NO. 2450 Page 1 of 3

13

The Commission, after holding the public hearing and considering all oral and

written testimony, adopts the January 20, 2016 Staff Report and the proposed revisions

in the Supplemental Staff Memorandum dated January 26, 2016, as reviewed by the

Commission at the January 27, 2016 public hearing, and the findings contained therein,

as applicable to the approval criteria contained in Section l.S.l.A-D and Section 1.5.3.A

of the Comprehensive Plan.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT CPA2015-0008 is APPROVED based on

the testimony, reports and exhibits, and evidence presented during the public hearing on

the matter and based on the facts, findings, and conclusions found in the Staff Report

dated January 20, 2016 and the proposed revisions in the Staff Memorandum dated

January 26, 2016, as amended, and this Land Use Order.

Motion CARRIED, by the following vote:

AYES: Wilson, Kroger, Doukas, Sajadpour, Overhage, Winter and Nye.

NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None.

Dated this ___ day of __ ~ __ ,_,,_, ----t---' 2016.

To appeal the decision of the Planning Commission, as articulated in Land Use

Order No. 2450 an appeal must be filed on an Appeal form provided by the Director at

the City of Beaverton's Community Development Department's office by no later than

ORDER NO. 2450 Page 2 of 3 14

ATnST:

DAVID LEVITAN, AICP Senior Planner

STEVEN SPARKS,\JdCP Principal Planner

ORDER NO. 2450

PLANNING COMMISSION FOR BEAVERTON, OREGON

APPRQVffi:

MIMI DOUKAS Chair

Page 3 of 3 15

EXHIBIT _....3"""'----

PlANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2 REGUlAR MEETING 3 JANUARY 27, 2016

4 5

6 CAll TO ORDER:

7

8 The Regular Meeting of the Beaverton Planning Commission was called to 9 Order by Chair Mimi Doukas in the Beaverton Building City Council Chamber

10 At 12725 SW Millikan Way, on Wednesday, January 27, 2016, at 6:30p.m. II

12 ROll CALL:

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 21

22

23

24

Present were Chair Mimi Doukas; Planning Commissioners Scott Winter, Jennifer Nye, Linda Wilson, Wendy Kroger, Kim Overhage and Kamal Sajadpour.

Assistant Planner Jason T., Associate Planner Jana Fox, Associate Planner Ken Rencher, Traffic Engineer Jabra Khasho, Principal Planner Steven Sparks, Planning Manager Sandra Freund, Senior Planner David Levitan and Recording Secretary Carmin Ruiz represented staff.

The meeting was called to order by Chair Doukas who presented the format for the meeting.

25 VISITORS:

26

27 Chair Doukas asked if there were any visitors in the audience wishing to address 28 the Commission on any non-agenda issue or item. There were none. 29

30 STAFF COMMUNICATION:

31 None. 32

33 OLD BUSINESS:

34

35 NEW BUSINESS:

36

37 PUBLIC HEARINGS:

38

39

40 41

42

43

44

1. VOSE ELEMENTARY SCHOOl TEAR DOWN AND REBUILD

a. CU2015-0011- Conditional Use b. DR2015-0120- Design Review

The applicant, Beaverton School District, requests approval by the Planning Commission to tear down and re-construct Vase Elementary School. At full enrollment, the proposed 83,000 square foot school building is designed to

16

2

3

4 5

6

7

8

9

10

II

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

Planning Commission Minutes JANUARY 27, 2016 Page 10 of 12

Examples of off sites improvements to public rights away are just that conditions to improve public right of way. The appeal is exacting improvements on private property. This is not a valid argument.

The idea of prescriptive use of trail is not an issue in this particular hearing.

Claim that properties are in same ownership is not true. Properties are in two different ownerships. The ownership entity for the office development internally has different ownership.

Citing of ORS 105.660 has nothing to do with hearing because it relates to immunity if someone is injured on a trail. It has nothing to do with changing the authority of the commission to impose conditions.

Mr. Ramis asks Commission to approve the decision of planning director.

Public testimony was closed.

Commissioner Overhage MOVED and Commissioner Nye SECONDED a motion to APPROVE denial of APP2015-0003- Appeal of Sunset Station PUD Time Extension based on the facts and findings found in the staff report dated January 20, 2016 and to include public testimony received orally and written. Thereby affirming the director's decision approving Sunset Station and Barnes Road PUD time extension EXT2015-0004.

Motion CARRIED 6:0

AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:

Winter, Nye, Wilson, Kroger, Overhage, Sajadpour. None. Doukas. None.

3. HEARING: SOUTH COOPER MOUNTAIN LOCAL WETLAND INVENTORY -CPA2015-0008

The City of Beaverton proposes adoption of the Local Wetland inventory for the South Cooper Mountain Annexation Area through an amendment to Volume 3 (Statewide Planning Goal 5 Resource Inventory Documents) of the City of

Beaverton Comprehensive Plan.

Chair Doukas opened the public hearing and read the format for hearings. This matter is a legislative therefore there were no disqualifications, challenges or conflicts of interest.

17


2

3 4

5

6

7

8

9

10

II

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33 34

The Chair briefly described the hearing process and applicable approval criteria approval criteria for this proposal.

STAFF REPORT

David Levitan, Senior Planner with long range planning, opened up the hearing by stating that staff is considering recommending approval to the City Council of the South Cooper Mountain Local Wetland Inventory this hearing to add that to volume three of the comprehensive plan. Mr. Levitan outlined an overview of his presentation which included:

• Role and requirements of LWI and major steps of preparing South Cooper Mountain LWI

• Summarize proposal

• Detail public review process to date

Role:

• Planning level tool; informs property owners/others of potential presence of wetlands

• Detailed site specific wetland delineations required prior to development to comply with local, state, and federal regulations.

Requirements:

• GoalS requires inventories and protection programs for natural resources, including wetlands.

• LWis required for all planning areas located within the Urban Growth Boundary

• LWis are subject to review and approval by the Department of State Lands

The LWI is now proposed for inclusion in Volume 3 as appendix F.

Steps: 1. Inventory natural resources and determine which are significant. 2. Complete an ESEE Analysis 3. Develop a Protection program

35 };. Why wetland G not determined significant? 36 };.

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

PUBLIC TESTIMONY: None

Commissioner Wilson MOVED and Commissioner Nye SECONDED a motion to APPROVE legislative text and map amendment CPA2015-0008 - South Cooper

Mountain LWI to City Council based on the facts and findings presented in the

18

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

II

12


staff report dated January 20, 2016 and in the amendments outlined in exhibit 5 dated January 26, 2016.

Motion CARRIED 7:0

AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:

Winter, Nye, Wilson, Kroger, Overhage, Sajadpour, Doukas. None. None. None.

13 MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: 14

15 The meeting adjourned at 10:18 p.m.

ld

EXHIBIT __ __.'] __

~CBeaverton I,.

0 R E G 0 N

CITY OF BEAVERTON STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO:

STAFF REPORT DATE:

STAFF:

SUBJECT:

REQUEST:

INITIATED BY:

APPLICABLE CRITERIA:

HEARING DATE:

RECOMMENDATION:

CPA2015-0008 SCMAA LWI

Planning Commission

Wednesday, January 20, 2016

David Levitan, AICP, Senior Planner Cassera Phipps, Associate Planner

Legislative Amendment to Volume Ill of the City of Beaverton Comprehensive Plan, Ordinance 4187, as amended.

1. CPA2015-0008- South Cooper Mountain Local Wetland Inventory (LWI)

The City proposes adoption of the Local Wetland Inventory for the South Cooper Mountain Annexation Area as Appendix F of Volume Ill (Statewide Planning Goal5 Resources Inventory Documents) of the City of Beaverton Comprehensive Plan.

City of Beaverton

Criteria for the proposed amendment are listed in Comprehensive Plan Section 1.5 Criteria for Legislative and Quasi-judicial Comprehensive Plan Amendments; and Section 1.5.3 Criteria for Statewide Planning GoalS Inventory Resource Documents (Volume Ill) Comprehensive Plan Amendments

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Staff recommend the Planning Commission review the LWI documents, hold a public hearing, and recommend approval of CPA2015-0008 to the City Council.

Page 1 of 17 Staff Report Date: January 20, 2016 20

1. Background

The citywide Local Wetland Inventory (LWI) and Riparian Assessment adopted in 2000 included several areas of unincorporated Washington County that were within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and the city's Urban Service Boundary (USB) at that time. The South Cooper Mountain Annexation Area (SCMAA), an approximately 544 acre area added to the UGB in 2011 and annexed into the city in 2013, was not included in the original citywide LWI. Therefore, the City was required to conduct a LWI specifically for the SCMAA, subject to review and approval by the Department of State Lands (DSL).

The draft LWI for SCMAA was initially prepared in concert with the South Cooper Mountain Concept Plan project with the objective of adding it as an amendment to the city's existing LWI contained in Volume Ill of the city's Comprehensive Plan (Statewide Planning Goal 5 Inventory Resource Documents) upon final approval by DSL. The proposed amendment (CPA2015-0008) pertains only to addition of the SCMAA LWI to Volume Ill.

No new natural resource protection requirements or programs are proposed as part of this amendment, nor are changes or revisions to the existing citywide LWI in Volume Ill proposed. Future changes to the Development Code to provide additional regulation of natural resources, including wetlands, would be initiated independently as directed by the City Council.

As stated in the November 26, 2014 staff report for the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan 1

, the SCMAA LWI was conducted pursuant to Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 141-086 for Statewide Planning Goal 5 compliance. Wetlands are among the resources local governments are required to address under Goal 5. Wetlands are defined in OAR 141-086-0370(9) 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, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions".

Wetland function and condition assessment were evaluated for wetlands greater than onehalf acre using the Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Method (OFWAM). OFWAM results were used to determine if any of the SCMAA wetlands qualify as "locally significant wetlands" in accordance with criteria set forth in OAR 141-0-086-0350. Following DSL guidance, "probable wetlands" (wetlands under % acre in size) were not included in the evaluation of "locally significant wetlands".

With adoption of the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan in January 2015, the City acknowledged wetlands W-A, W-C and W-H described in the South Cooper Mountain Annexation Area Local Wetland Inventory (December 2013l as "locally significant wetlands" subject to pending review and approval by the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL). Subsequently, several revisions have been made to the LWI as requested by DSL and are reflected in the most recent draft of the South Cooper Mountain Annexation Area Local Wetland Inventory (September 2015) report attached as Exhibit 1. This report documents the regulatory requirements, methodology, and results of the inventory.

1 CPA 2014-0011, CPA 2014-0012, and TA 2014-0002 2 David Evans & Associates (DEA)

CPA2015-0008 SCMAA LWI Staff Report Date: January 20, 2016

Page 2 of 17 21

Once approved by DSL, the LWI must be used in place of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) and is incorporated into the State Wetlands Inventory (SWI).The approved LWI must be used by cities and counties in lieu of the NWI to notify DSL of land use applications affecting mapped wetlands and other waters. The LWI is used by DSL, other agencies and the public to help determine if wetlands or other waters are present on a particular land parcel.

The LWI provides information for planning purposes on the location of potentially regulated wetlands and other waters such as lakes and streams, but is not of sufficient detail for permitting under the state Removal-Fill Law (ORS 196.800 through 196.990). A detailed DSLapproved project level wetland delineation report for wetlands identified in the LWI is typically required prior to site development.

2. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Procedures

Section 1.1.1 establishes procedures for city-initiated amendments of the Comprehensive Plan, stating that amendment requests shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for preparation and analysis for a Planning Commission public hearing or City Council consideration. The Planning Commission and City Council have the right to accept, reject or modify any specific request for amendment in accordance with the City's policies and procedures.

Section 1.4.1 establishes the notice requirements for legislative amendments including: interagency notice of the initial hearing to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), as well as to Neighborhood Association Committees (NACs) and BCCI; publication in a newspaper of general circulation; posting in Beaverton City Hall and the Beaverton City Library; and posting on the city's website.

Section 1.4.4 Statewide Planning GoalS Inventory Resource Document (Volume Ill) Amendments

A. If the proposal is legislative in nature, as in an update to one of the Statewide Planning Goal 51nventory Resource Documents or an addition of a new category of Statewide Planning Goal 5 Resource Documents, then notice shall follow the legislative notice procedure identified under subsection 1.4.1.

Finding: The proposed amendment adding the SCMAA LWI to the Comprehensive Plan is legislative in nature; therefore the notice procedures identified in subsection 1.4.1 have been followed with notice provided as specified on January 7, 2016. Staff finds this criterion is met.

Section 1.5.1 outlines the criteria for legislative amendment decisions. For the proposed addition of the SCMAA LWI to Volume Ill, the findings are as follows:

A. The proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with relevant Statewide Planning Goals and related Oregon Administrative Rules;

Of the 19 Statewide Planning Goals, the following are relevant to the proposed amendment: Goal 1 (Citizen Involvement); Goal2 (Land Use Planning); Goal2 (Land Use Planning); Goal5 (Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces); Goal 6 (Air, Water and Land Resources Quality); Goal 9 (Economic Development); Goal 10 (Housing); Goal 11 (Public Facilities and Services); Goal 12 (Transportation); and Goal14 (Urbanization).

CPA2015-0008 SCMAA LWI Page 3 of 17 Staff Report Date: January 20, 2016

•) ·) ~~-

Goal1 - Citizen Involvement Statewide Planning Goal 1 calls for cities and counties to "develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process", and that "the citizen involvement program shall be appropriate to the scale of the planning effort".

The Beaverton Citizen Involvement Program adopted by Resolution 2229 in 1980, established a formalized public participation program for the Beaverton Committee for Community Involvement (BCCI) that provides a method by which the committee and other community members can communicate their opinions and inquiries about city matters, including the planning process.

The Community Involvement Element (Chapter 2) of the city's comprehensive plan was updated in 2015. Goal #1 in this chapter provides direction for public outreach, notice requirements and community involvement opportunities.

Extensive public involvement for the South Cooper Mountain Concept and Community planning process that commenced in 2013 included direct contact with property owners to inform them of the LWI to be conducted and to seek their permission to access properties within the SCMAA. Over the course of the 18-month public planning process multiple opportunities were provided for the public to review combined natural resource maps and reports that included wetlands, streams, riparian areas, buffers and upland habitat and information related to these resources in the project area.

The formal review process for the LWI included a public meeting for all property owners in the SCMAA on January 14, 2016 pursuant to OAR 141-086-228; a meeting summary is provided in Exhibit 4. LWI maps and related materials were placed on the city's website on January 7, 2016 to allow public review prior to the public hearing before the Planning Commission held on January 27, 2016. At a public meeting on January 6, 2016, the Planning Commission held a work session to review and discuss the LWI, and the results of the economic, social, environmental and energy (ESEE) analysis for the locally significant wetlands in the study area that was completed in December 2015.

Goal 2- Land Use Planning To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions.

Goal 2 includes guidelines for local government development of land use plans, as follows:

GUIDELINES

The applicable guidelines are addressed, below:

B. REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE It is expected that regional, state and federal agency plans will conform to the comprehensive plans of cities and counties. Cities and counties are expected to take into


account the regional, state and national needs. Regional, state and federal agencies are expected to make their needs known during the preparation and revision of city and county comprehensive plans. During the preparation of their plans, federal, state and regional agencies are expected to create opportunities for review and comment by cities and counties. In the event existing plans are in conflict or an agreement cannot be reached during the plan preparation process, then the Land Conservation and Development Commission expects the affected government units to take steps to resolve the issues. If an agreement cannot be reached, the appeals procedures in ORS Chapter 197 may be used.

C. PLAN CONTENT 1. Factual Basis for the Plan Inventories and other forms of data are needed as the basis

for the policies and other decisions set forth in the plan. This factual base should include data on the following as they relate to the goals and other provisions of the plan: (a) Natural resources, their capabilities and limitations (b) Man-made structures and utilities, their location and condition (c) Population and economic characteristics of the area (d) Roles and responsibilities of governmental units.

Development of the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan began with study and documentation of existing conditions and future needs in the planning area. Land use, transportation, the real estate market, water and sewer infrastructure, stormwater, natural resources, parks, and energy were evaluated as part of the existing conditions assessment

In consultation with the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL), the initial draft SCMAA LWI was prepared in 2013 as part of the comprehensive evaluation of existing conditions in the project area. Since adoption of the Plan in 2015, several revisions have been made to the LWI as requested by DSL through ongoing coordination and review.

Goal 5- Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces.

The South Cooper Mountain Community Plan provides opportunities to knit protection of natural resources and conservation of scenic and open spaces with future urban development

Riparian Areas: Figure 12 of the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan identifies Natural Resources for the Plan area, inclusive of riparian and wetland buffers. In coordination with Clean Water Services (CWS), the city regulates protection of and development impacts to riparian areas. CWS Design and Construction Standards restrict development within sensitive resource areas and adjacent Vegetated Corridor areas.

Within the SCMAA, riparian area boundaries have been defined in accordance with CWS vegetated corridor width determination methods. CWS currently has or will soon have jurisdiction within the SCMAA Therefore, mapped vegetated corridors3 in this area are assumed to be jurisdictional resources that have development restrictions. CWS requires all degraded vegetated corridors on a parcel to be improved as a condition of issuing development permits regardless of

CPA2015-0008 SCMAA LWI Page5of17 Staff Report Date: January 20, 2016 24

whether the vegetated corridor is impacted. Additionally, mitigation is typically required for unavoidable impacts.

Further, incorporation of Figure 12: Natural Resources in the Community Plan area4 into the Habitat Benefit Area map5 acknowledged Riparian Wildlife Class I and II as Significant Natural Resources, in compliance with Metro's Title 13. Significant wetlands are included in Figure 12 adopted as part of the Habitat Benefit Area Map.

Wetlands: The City of Beaverton maintains a Local Wetlands Inventory (LWI) consistent with the criteria and procedures for identification of significant wetlands adopted by the state and as approved by the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL). The citywide LWI adopted in 2000 is contained in Volume Ill of the comprehensive plan. The technical work related to the current inventory and assessment of wetlands in the SCMAA is included in Exhibit 1.

The initial draft South Cooper Mountain Annexation Area Local Wetland Inventory prepared in 2013 identified twelve wetlands and probable wetlands. Three of the identified wetlands were determined to be significant as depicted in Exhibit 2. Preparation of this LWI followed the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) rules, specifically Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 141-086 for Goal 5 compliance. Wetland functions were evaluated for wetlands greater than one half acre using the Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Method (OFWAM). OFWAM results were used to determine if any of the SCMAA wetlands qualify as "locally significant wetlands" in accordance with criteria set forth in OAR 141-086-0350. Following DSL guidance, probable wetlands were not included in the evaluation of locally significant wetlands.

Table 3 of the LWI report in Exhibit 1 attached hereto summarizes wetland functional assessment results for wetlands one-half acre or greater in size. Of the four wetlands evaluated, three met locally significant wetland criteria - Wetlands W-A, W-C, and W-H as depicted on the map in Exhibit 2. This means at least one of the four functions evaluated rated highly. The remaining wetland did not meet locally significant wetland criteria due to degraded conditions with respect to fish habitat, water quality and hydrologic control. Wetland characterization summary sheets for the four wetlands evaluated to determine significance are found in Appendix C of Exhibit 1.

With adoption of the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan in January 2015, the City acknowledged wetlands W-A, W-C, and W-H identified in the draft South Cooper Mountain Annexation Area Local Wetland Inventory (Exhibit 1), as Locally Significant Wetlands subject to pending review and approval by the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL).

The South Cooper Mountain Community Plan is subject to the requirements of Metro's Title 13. The South Cooper Mountain Natural Resources Memo of June 2013 included review of the Community Plan area relative to Title 13 resources and on page 6 states, "Following Metro mapping methods, all areas within 300 feet of streams or wetlands were mapped as well, whether they currently contain native habitat (Class A or B), or are occupied by agricultural lands or nonnative grasslands (Class C)."

4 South Cooper Mountain Community Plan, November 2014 5 HBA map is found in Comprehensive Plan Volume Ill


Page6of17

25

Trees: Existing regulations regarding riparian corridors, local wetlands, and significant natural resource areas provide for protection of trees within the Community Plan area. Additionally, the City has a recognized development review process for proposed removal of Trees within a Significant Natural Resource Area. Protected Trees, including Trees within a Significant Natural Resource Area carry the highest level of review and mitigation. The Locally Significant Wetlands identified in Exhibit 1 and depicted on the map in Exhibit 2 are considered a Significant Natural Resource Area. As such, removal of trees located in a Locally Significant Wetland is subject to the highest level of review and mitigation pursuant to Development Code Section 40.90: Tree Plan.

Pursuant to OAR 660-023, the city completed an economic, social, environmental and energy (ESEE) analysis6 that evaluated potential trade-offs associated with managing significant natural resources (including significant wetlands). Based on the ESEE analysis that evaluated three scenarios to compare the consequences of allowing, limiting or prohibiting conflicting uses, it was concluded that a decision to limit conflicting uses in significant natural resource areas and their impact areas would be appropriate.

Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state.

The Comprehensive Plan for the City of Beaverton addresses storm water and drainage, potable water, and sanitary services within Chapter 5 and addresses air quality, water quality and solid and hazardous wastes within Chapter 8.

Wetlands can provide ecosystem services, including water storage, retention and conveyance, fold control, pollution control and detoxification, groundwater recharge/discharge, erosion protection and habitat for resident or transient species, and nutrient recycling 7

.

Goa/1 0 - Housing Statewide Planning Goal 10 calls on cities and counties "to provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state", and requires that comprehensive plans include, at a minimum, the following:

• an inventory of buildable lands; • a comparison of the distribution of the existing population by income with the

distribution of available housing units by cost; • a determination of vacancy rates, both overall and at varying rent ranges and

cost levels; • a determination of expected housing demand at varying rent ranges and cost

levels; • allowances for a variety of densities and types of residences in each community;

and • an inventory of sound housing in urban areas including units capable of being

rehabilitated.

6 Memorandum, Goal 5 Analysis- South Cooper Mountain, December 24, 2015 7 Ibid.


Page7of17

26

The 2015 Housing Strategies Report forecasts a shortage of land available for single family residential land within the City, whereas a surplus is anticipated in the City's Urban Service Boundary over the 20-year planning period.

The LWI effectively removes approximately 24 acres from the inventory of land available for development of housing in the SCMAA. However, specific wetland boundaries are not determined until a surveyed delineation is performed subject to approval by DSL. Wetlands over %acres in size fall under the jurisdiction of DSL and the US Army Corps of Engineers. Regulations imposed by these agencies restrict development activities impacting delineated wetlands. Where there are unavoidable impacts to regulated wetlands, compensatory mitigation is required under the state Removal-Fill Law (ORS 196.800 through 196.990).

The economic, social, environmental and energy (ESEE) analysis8 completed for the SCMAA found the net effect of limiting conflicting uses is positive for residential development. The program recommendation based on the ESEE analysis is to allow conflicting uses (including residential development) in a limited way that protects the resource to a desired extent or requires mitigation of loss of natural resources and associated values and functions.

Goa/11- Public Facilities and Services To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development.

Generally speaking, public facilities and services are available for the subject properties as the needed facilities and service providers are identified. At the time of proposed development of the subject properties in the future, site specific issues related to public facilities and services will be addressed as part of the development review process.

The ESEE analysis9 found that prohibiting public and private utilities in locally significant wetlands and their 50-foot adjacent impact area could preclude development of an efficient system thus creating the need for additional pump stations, or other engineered solutions. The ESEE recommends limiting conflicting uses, including utilities, in wetlands, while recognizing that public and private utilities may require a greater degree of flexibility to allow for the crossing of resources and the temporary impacts associated with underground utilities.

Goa/12 - Transportation To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system.

Volume 4 of the Comprehensive Plan contains the City's adopted TSP, effective October 21, 2010. OAR 660-012-0060 requires local governments to review Comprehensive Plan and land use regulation amendments with regard to the effect of the amendment on existing or planned transportation facilities.

The ESEE analysis10 found that the positive environmental benefits of prohibiting construction of transportation facilities in wetlands or their 50-foot wide adjacent impact areas are balanced with the negative economic consequences of increased out-of-direction-travel and vehicle miles traveled.

8 lbid. 9 1bid. 10 Ibid.


Page 8 of 17

Goal 13 - Energy Conservation To conserve energy.

Section 7.5 of the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Beaverton outlines goals and policies for energy conservation, solar energy and renewable energy development. Energy conservation can be addressed in several ways. The variety of allowed development types provided for in the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan offers opportunities for residents, employees, and visitors of the subject parcels to rely on services within reasonable walking and biking distances. The combination of transportation options and mix of land uses is expected to reduce per capita energy consumption.

The positive and negative energy consequences associated with allowing, limiting, or prohibiting conflicting uses to impact locally significant wetlands and impact areas are presented in the 2015 ESEE 11

. The cumulative net energy effects of limiting conflicting uses are presented in Table B-5 of the ESEE Memorandum (Exhibit 3). As shown in Table B-5, the net effect of limiting conflicting uses is positive for all four categories, primarily due to the positive social and energy consequences.

Goa/14- Urbanization To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities.

Adoption of the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan allows the City of Beaverton to implement urban land use designations in place of rural land use designations in conformance with the requirements of Metro's Title 11 requirements 3.07.1110 Planning for Areas Designated Urban Reserve and 3.07.1120 Planning for Areas Added to the UGB. Implementation of the Plan allows for development of the subject area in a manner consistent with planning efforts to accommodate urban populations and urban employment inside the UGB through efficient use of land at approximately 15 dwelling units per net residential acre and provision for a livable community inclusive of a pedestrian-friendly network, availability of neighborhood-level commercial, and civic uses.

The Plan also includes natural resource policies intended to provide for protection and enhancement of resources, including locally significant wetlands, consistent with local, state, and federal regulations.

Summarv Finding: Staff finds that, for the reasons identified above, the proposed amendment adding the SCMAA LWI to Volume Ill of the Comprehensive Plan complies with relevant statewide Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 and OARs, and further finds that Goals 3, 4, 8 and 15 through 19 are not applicable. Criterion 1.5.1.A is met.

A. The proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the applicable Titles of the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan and the Regional Transportation Plan;

Chapter 3.07 Urban Growth Management Functional Plan

11 Ibid.


Title 13: Nature In Neighborhoods Metro Code Sections 3.07.1310-3.07.1370

The City, as a member of the Tualatin Basin Natural Resources Coordinating Committee (TBNRCC), implemented a program that complies with Title 13. The City has also enacted Comprehensive Plan and Development Code regulations that comply with Title 13 as part of the TBNRCC program.

Locally significant wetlands recognized by the city at the time of adoption of the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan are included in the in the Natural Resources Map for the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan Area that was added to the City's existing Habitat Benefit Areas Map.

The City's current Title 13 implementation is accomplished through Section 60. 12: Habitat Friendly Development Practices of the Development Code that applies to all of mapped habitat classes on the proposed Habitat Benefit Area Map (aka Natural Resources Map). This approach includes Upland Wildlife Habitat Class C which is not required by Metro Title 13, but will allow use of credits against other development requirements at the time of a development proposal. Implementation of Section 60.12 has ancillary benefits to wetlands and their impact areas by providing incentives for enhancement of adjacent riparian and upland areas.

Chapter 3.08 Regional Transportation Functional Plan (RTFP)

The RTFP was adopted as part of the 2035 RTP (Regional Transportation Plan) in June 2010. Section 3.08.010 of the RTFP states, "The RTFP implements the Goals and Objectives in section 2.3 of the RTP and the policies of the RTP and its constituent. .. " Metro will reviews Map Amendments in light of Title 5, Amendment of Comprehensive Plans, Section 3.08.510, Amendments of City and County Comprehensive and Transportation System Plans.

Title 5: Amendment of Comprehensive Plans

3.08.510 Amendments of City and County Comprehensive and Transportation System Plans A. When a city or county proposes to amend its comprehensive plan or its

components, it shall consider the strategies in subsection 3.08.220A as part of the analysis required by OAR 660-012-0060.

B. If a city or county adopts the actions set forth in subsection 3. 08. 230E and Title 6 of the UGMFP, it shall be eligible for the automatic reduction provided in Title 6 below the vehicular trip generation rates reported by the Institute of Transportation Engineers when analyzing the traffic impacts, pursuant to OAR 660-012-0060, of a plan amendment in a Center, Main Street, Corridor or Station Community

The findings for Statewide Planning Goal 12, addressed earlier in this report, are applicable to these sections of the RTFP.

The subject proposal does not include amendments related to subsection 3.08.230E.

C. If a city or county proposes a transportation project that is not included in the RTP and will result in a significant increase in SOV capacity or exceeds the planned function or capacity of a facility designated in the RTP, it shall demonstrate consistency with the following in its project analysis:

CPA2015-0008 SCMAA LWI Page10of17 Staff Report Date: January 20, 2016

1. The strategies set forth in subsection 3.08.220A (1) through (5); 2. Complete street designs adopted pursuant to subsection 3. 08. 11 OA

and as set forth in Creating Livable Streets: Street Design Guidelines for 2040 (2nd Edition, 2002) or similar resources consistent with regional street design policies; and

3. Green street designs adopted pursuant to subsection 3.08.110A and as set forth in Green Streets: Innovative Solutions for Stormwater and Street Crossings (2002) and Trees for Green Streets: An Illustrated Guide (2002) or similar resources consistent with federal regulations for stream protection.

D. If the city or county decides not to build a project identified in the RTP, it shall identify alternative projects or strategies to address the identified transportation need and inform Metro so that Metro can amend the RTP E. This section does not apply to city or county transportation projects that are financed locally and would be undertaken on local facilities.

The proposal is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to add the SCMAA LWI to Volume Ill of the Comprehensive Plan. No other amendments to the text and maps of the Comprehensive Plan are proposed. This proposal does not include a development action.

Summary Finding: Staff finds that, for the reasons identified above, the proposed amendment complies with applicable Titles of the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan and the Regional Transportation Plan.

A. The proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and other applicable local plans;

Chapters 1, 2, and 7 of the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Beaverton include policies that are applicable to this Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment. Chapters 1 and 2 are addressed above in the staff report. Staff finds that no other local plans are applicable to this proposal.

Chapter 7 - Natural, Cultural, Historic, Scenic, Energy and Groundwater Resources Element

I 7.1.1 Goal: Balance development rights with natural resource protection. Policies:

a) Coordinate resource protection programs with affected local, state, and federal regulatory agencies, and notify them of development proposals within natural resource areas.

Action 1: Adopt land use processes to incorporate notification to appropriate agencies as part of the development review process.

Action 2: Continue membership and activity within the Tualatin Basin Natural Resources Coordinating Committee.

Action 3: Encourage the use of the habitat friendly development practices of low impact development techniques through the Pre-Application Conference.

CPA2015-0008 SCMAA LWI Page 11 of 17 Staff Report Date: January 20, 2016 30

Action 4: Proactively lead the way with development of city buildings by using habitat friendly development practices and low impact development techniques.

b) Where adverse impacts to Significant Natural Resources cannot be practicably avoided, require mitigation of the same resource type commensurate with the impact, at a location as close as possible to the impacted resource site.

c) Allow for relaxation of development standards to protect significant natural and historic resources. Such standards may include but are not limited to minimum setbacks, maximum building height, minimum street width, location of bicycle, pedestrian and multiuse paths, etc.

Action 1: Adopt and apply land use regulations that allow and encourage habitat friendly and low impact development practices within habitat benefit areas, and where appropriate, throughout the city.

Action 2: Adopt and apply a system to allow flexibility in applying the site development standards when development employs low impact development techniques and habitat friendly development practices.

Action 3: Adopt and apply an incentive program to encourage the use of the low impact development techniques and habitat friendly development practices.

d) City policies or regulations shall not interfere with actions necessary for nuisance abatement or protecting the safety, health and welfare of Beaverton's citizens.

e) Upon annexation of unincorporated properties with County Goal 5 natural resource designations, the City shall rely on the Urban Planning Area Agreement with Washington County to determine the appropriate City designation.

Action 1: The City shall work with Washington County to periodically update the UPAA to ensure compatibility in Goal 5 resource inventories, significance determination, and program decisions.

As addressed in response the Statewide Planning Goal 5, above, the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan area provides opportunities to knit protection of natural resources and conservation of scenic and open spaces with future urban development.

The proposed amendment adding the SCMAA LWI to the Comprehensive Plan is supported by the ESEE analysis in Exhibit 3 that contains a recommendation to limit conflicting uses consistent with Goal7.1.1.

7.3.1 Significant Natural Resources 7.3.1.1 Goal: Conserve, protect, enhance or restore the functions and values of

inventoried Significant Natural Resources. Policies:

a) Inventoried natural resources shall be conserved, protected, enhanced or restored:

• to retain the visual and scenic diversity of our community;

CPA2015-0008 SCMAA LWI Page 12 of 17 Staff Report Date: January 20, 2016 31

• for their educational and recreational values; • to provide habitats for fish and wildlife in our urban area.

b) Conserve, protect and enhance natural resource sites and values though a combination of programs that involve development regulations, purchase of land and conservation easements, educational efforts, and mitigation of impacts on resource sites.

Action 1: Establish acquisition programs for Significant Goal 5 Resources; prepare and maintain a long-range list of priority resource locations for public acquisition.

Action 2: Facilitate and encourage habitat friendly development practices and low impact development through flexibility in site development standards and reduction in surface water management fees and systems development charges.

c) Inventoried natural resources shall be incorporated into the landscape design of development projects as part of a site development plan, recognizing them as amenities for residents and employees alike.

d) The City shall rely on its site development permitting process as the mechanism to balance the needs of development with natural resource protection.

Action 1: For properties located within significant natural resource areas, the City shall consider relaxation of its development standards where necessary to accomplish protection of riparian, and wetland and significant upland habitat_ areas. Such standards include, but are not limited to, setbacks, building height, street width, location of bike paths, etc. Where the combination of riparian, wetlands, and other requirements would result in an unbuildable lot, such a situation may be relevant to a decision that may grant a hardship variance.

Action 2: City Staff will provide pre-application conferences to developers of property to provide available information and to discuss alternative methods of development acceptable to meet the adopted policies and ordinance standards.

Action 3: Adopt and apply land use regulations that require integration of natural features with the overall design of developments. Natural features include, but are not limited to, wetlands and water areas, intermittent and perennial streams, riparian corridors, urban forests and significant individual or community trees, slopes, geologic hazards, flooding, and erosion prone soils.

Action 4: Adopt and apply land use regulations that will minimize impacts from adjacent uses. Development Code design criteria shall be adopted that address the following considerations:

• Land uses immediately adjacent to protected resource areas should be designed to physically separate human activity from the resource activity. Preferred development abutting the resource should be 1) buildings with entrances oriented away from the resource area, and then 2) roadways with limited or no street parking with 3) parking lots as the lowest preference.

• Garbage facilities and materials storage areas should be located away from habitat areas. • Habitat areas should be preserved as a few large connected areas, rather than many

disconnected small areas and should be designed to minimize the amount of habitat edge

CPA2015-0008 SCMAA LWI Page 13 of 17 Staff Report Date: January 20, 2016 .--, ')

.]I.,

exposed to development areas. • Existing native vegetation should be retained to provide wildlife habitat. Snags and dying

trees should be left in protected wildlife areas for wildlife use. • To minimize disturbances to wildlife, lights for buildings and parking areas should be

screened, and the light should be directed away from the protected habitat areas, • Walkways should not bisect wildlife areas. If walkways do encroach upon wildlife areas,

security lighting should be designed to shine primarily on the path and avoid shining directly into habitat areas.

Regulations to address the above considerations shall not compromise public safety.

Action 5: Adopt and apply regulations for resource areas, mitigation sites, areas adjacent to natural areas, wetlands, and tree groves that include but are not limited to the following requirements:

• Require use of native vegetation in mitigation areas and riparian buffers. Seed-and fruitproducing native plants with aesthetic value should be incorporated into the landscaping at locations adjacent to wildlife habitat areas.

• Allow for buffer averaging in order to create opportunities for habitat protection and enhancement while accommodating urban forms of development.

e) Development within Significant Natural Resource areas shall be consistent with the relevant regulations or guidelines of the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Oregon Division of State Lands, Clean Water Services, and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

Action 1: During pre-application conferences for developers, City staff will attempt to identify any Federal, State, or local requirements and regulations affecting sites in Significant Natural Resource areas.

Action 2: The City will continue to monitor and review policies and regulations as necessary, to ensure consistency with Federal, State, and service providers' guidelines and regulations.

f) Specific uses of or development activities in Significant Natural Resources areas shall be evaluated carefully and those uses or activities that are complementary and compatible with resource protection shall be permitted. This is not intended to prohibit a land use permitted by the underlying zoning district but only to regulate the design of development such as building or parking location or type of landscaping.

g) Limited alteration or improvement of Significant Natural Resource areas may be permitted so long as potential losses are mitigated and "best management practices" are employed.

H} Roads and utilities, which must be located within, or traverse through, a Significant Natural Resource Area, shall be carefully planned and aligned so as to minimize loss and disruption. A rehabilitation or restoration plan shall be a necessary component. The City should allow variations from standard street sections in these areas.

The City proposes adoption of the SCMAA LWI subject to final DSL review and approval.

CPA2015-0008 SCMAA LWI Page14of17 Staff Report Date: January 20, 2016 ') 3' ,J

The Habitat Benefit Area Map (aka Natural Resources Map) for South Cooper Mountain Community Plan area was adopted as part of the Community Plan amendments in January 2015. Discussion of these resources is provided within responses to Statewide Planning Goal 5 and Metro UGNFP Title 13, above. Locally significant wetlands identified in the LWI are included in the Habitat Benefit Area Map and are considered a Significant Natural Resource Area subject to the policies of Goal 7.3.1.1.

7.3.3 Significant Wetlands The Local Wetland Inventory is part of the Statewide Planning Goal 5 Inventory Resource documents. Significant wetlands are found within Appendix A, Table 5 of the Local Wetland Inventory. The Significant Wetlands designation must comply with the policies and actions set forth in Section 7.3.1 as well as those promulgated in this section. 7.3.3.1 Goal: Protect or enhance wetlands adopted as Significant Wetlands in the Local

Wetland Inventory. Policies:

a) Significant Wetlands in the Local Wetland Inventory shall be protected for their filtration, flood control, wildlife habitat, natural vegetation and other water resource values.

b) Development within the buffer area adjacent to a significant wetland shall be subject to restrictions on building, grading, excavation, placement of fill, and native vegetation removal.

Action 1:Amend the City regulations and development standards as appropriate, to ensure compliance with Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards provisions for encroachment.

c) Where development is constrained due to wetland protection regulations, a hardship variance may be granted if approval criteria are met.

Action 1:Amend the implementing ordinances as appropriate to ensure compliance with Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards provisions for a hardship variance.

Finding: Staff finds that the proposed amendment to add the SCMAA LWI to Volume Ill of the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the relevant goals and policies found in Chapter 7.

Development Code Section 60.67. SIGNIFICANT NATURAL RESOURCES

60.67.05. Local Wetland Inventory. Prior to issuing a development permit, the Local Wetland Inventory map shall be reviewed to determine if the site proposed for development is identified as the location of a significant wetland.

1. Development activities and uses permitted on a proposed development site identified as the possible location of a significant natural resource, including significant wetlands shall be subject to relevant procedures and requirements specified in Chapter 50, of this ordinance.

2. Upon City's determination that a site contains wetland as identified on the Local Wetland Inventory map, notice of the proposed development shall be provided to the Division of State Lands (DSL) in a manner and form prescribed by DSL pursuant to ORS requirements.


Section 1.5.3 outlines the criteria for Statewide Planning Goal 5 Inventory Resource Document (Volume Ill) Comprehensive Plan Amendments.

A. Local Wetland Inventory Amendments require following the criteria for adoption of a local wetland inventory found within Oregon Revised Statutes and Oregon Administrative Rules (as of November 2004, ORS 196 and OAR 141-086 and OAR 660-023).

OAR 141-086-0180 Purpose

Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 196.67 4 pertaining to the Statewide Wetlands Inventory (SWI), these rules establish a system for uniform wetland identification and comprehensive mapping. These rule also establish wetlands inventory standards for cities or counties development a wetland conservation plan (WCP) pursuant to ORS 196.678. A Local Wetlands Inventory (LWI) is developed for all or a portion of a city or county according to the standards and guidelines contained in these rules (OAR 141-086-0180 through 141-086-0240).

The introduction of the LWI report (Exhibit 1) provides the regulatory context and requirements for conducting an LWI. In this instance, the LWI was prepared for a portion of the city of Beaverton -the SCMAA-and conformed to the applicable statute and associated OARs cited above.

OAR 660-023 establishes procedures and criteria for inventorying and evaluating Goal 5 resources (including wetlands) and for developing land use programs to conserve and protect significant Goal 5 resource.

The SCMAA LWI was prepared in accordance with Goal 5 requirements as discussed above under the section on Statewide Goal 5. The ESEE analysis was further conducted in conformance with OAR 660-023 as described in the Memorandum in Exhibit 3.

Finding: Adoption of the SCMAA is proposed to be accomplished through a legislative amendment to the comprehensive plan consistent with the relevant statute and OARs specified in this criterion. Therefore, staff finds that this criterion is met.

Summary Findings for CPA2015-0008: Based on the facts and findings presented, staff conclude that the proposed text and map amendments to Volume Ill of the Comprehensive Plan are consistent with all Legislative Comprehensive Plan amendment approval criteria set forth in Section 1.5.1.A. through D and Section 1.5.3.A.

5. Staff Recommendation

Based on the facts and findings outlined in this staff report and contained in supporting documents, staff recommends the following steps for the January 27, 2016 public hearing for CPA2015-0008, addition of the SCMAA LWI to Volume Ill of the Comprehensive Plan:

A. Open the public hearing. B. Receive all public testimony. C. Close the public hearing.


D. Considering the public testimony and the facts and findings presented in the staff report and supporting documents, deliberate on policy issues and other issues identified by the Commission or the public.

E. Recommend APPROVAL of proposed legislative text and map amendments in CPA2015-0008 to the City Council.

6. Exhibits

Exhibit 1. South Cooper Mountain Annexation Area Local Wetland Inventory, September 2015 Draft

Exhibit 2. Map of Locally Significant Wetlands in South Cooper Mountain

Exhibit 3. South Cooper Mountain Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy (ESEE) Analysis for Goal 5 Natural Resources

Exhibit 4. Summary of January 14, 2016 LWI Property Owner Meeting


Exhibit 1

South Cooper Mountain Annexation Area

Local Wetland Inventory

Prepared for

Beaverton 0 I! [ G 0 N

P.O. Box 4755

4755 SW Griffith Drive

Beaverton, Oregon 97076-4755

Prepared by

§)l; -DAVID EVANS ANO ASSOCIATES INC

2100 SW River Parkway

Portland, Oregon 97201

September 2015

37

Local Wetland Inventory South Cooper Annexation Area

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1

2. METHODS ........................................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 General ......................................................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Preliminary Resource Review ...................................................................................................... 2

2.3 Mapping Procedures and Estimated Accuracy ............................................................................ 3

2.4 OFWAM Functional Assessment ................................................................................................ .4

2.5 Public Involvement Process ......................................................................................................... 5

3. RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................ 5

3.1 Study Area Description ................................................................................................................ 5

3.2 Wetland Inventory Process .......................................................................................................... 6

3.3 Summary of Inventory Results ..................................................................................................... 6

3.4 OFWAM Process and Results ..................................................................................................... 8

3.5 Summary of Locally Significant Wetlands .................................................................................... 8

4. PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS ............................................................................................... 8

5. BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................. 9

6. APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................... 11

Appendix A: Figures

Appendix B: Data Sheets

Appendix C: Wetland Summary Sheets

Appendix D: Wetland Functional Assessment Results

Tables Table 1: Drainage Basins and Streams in LWI Study Area ........ .

Table 2: LWI Wetland Summary Results ..................................................... ..

Table 3: Wetland Functional Assessment Results .......................... ..

September 2015

6

. .............. 7

... 8

Page i


1. INTRODUCTION This Local Wetland Inventory (L WI) has been conducted for the South Cooper Mountain Annexation Area (SCMAA), which was brought into the City of Beaverton urban growth boundary in 20 II. This L WI was prepared in concert with the South Cooper Mountain Concept Plan. The Concept Plan project covers areas beyond the 2011 annexation area, including areas outside of City of Beaverton jurisdiction. This L WI only covers areas within the SCMAA. The SCMAA L WI study area is shown in Appendix A, Figure I. Tax lots covered by the L WI are shown in Appendix A, Figure 2, including those tax lots in

which site access was available and on-site wetland delineation methods were used.

This L WI should be considered an amendment to the City's existing L WI. It is intended to cover the new SCMAA. No work was performed to revise existing L WI mapping for other areas of the City.

The L WI is intended to support planning level decision making and is not intended to replace more detailed site level wetland delineation work that may be needed for compliance with local, state, or federal regulations governing the protection of wetlands and surface waters. The L WI purpose and applicability, as provided in the Oregon Administrative Rules, are provided verbatim in italics text below.

OAR 141-086-0180 Purpose

Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 196. 67 4 pertaining to the Statewide Wetlands Inventory (SWI), these rules establish a system for uniform wetland identification and comprehensive mapping. These rules also establish wetlands inventory standards for cities or counties developing a wetland conservation plan (WCP) pursuant to ORS 196.678. A Local Wetlands Inventory (LWI) is developed for all or a portion of a city or county according to the standards and guidelines contained in these rules (OAR 141-086-0180 through 141-086-0240).

OAR 141-086-0185 Applicability

(1) Once approved by the Department of State Lands (Department), the LWI must be used in place of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) and is incorporated into the SWJ.

(2) The approved LWI must be used by cities and counties in lieu of the NWI for notifying the Department of land use applications affecting mapped wetlands and other waters (ORS 215.418 and 227.350).

(3) An LWI fulfills the wetlands inventory requirements for Goal 5 and Goal17 (OAR 660-015 and 660-023). An LWI that meets the additional WCP requirements specified in these rules must be used as the wetlands inventory basis for a WCP.

(4) A wetland function and condition assessment of mapped wetlands must be conducted as part of the LWI using the Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology (OFWAM) published by the Department in 1996. An equivalent functional assessment methodology may be used or adjustments may be made to OFWAM upon written approval by the Director. The assessment results are used to determine the relative quality (functions, values, and condition) of the mapped wetlands and to designate significant wetlands (OAR 141-086-0300 through 141-086-0350) as required for Goal 5, or to assess wetland functions and values for a WCP.

(5) An LWI is used by the Department, other agencies and the public to help determine if wetlands or other waters are present on particular land parcels.

(6) An LWI provides information for planning purposes on the location of potentially regulated wetlands and other waters such as lakes and streams, but is not of sufficient detail for permitting purposes under the state Removal-Fill Law (ORS 196.800 through 196.990). Smaller wetlands may not be mapped, and wetlands may be missed due to lack of onsite access, tree canopy cover and other constraints. A wetland delineation or determination report may be needed for parcels without LWI-mapped wetlands. A Department-approved wetland delineation report for wetlands identified in an LWI is usually needed prior to site development.

September 2015 Page 1

South Cooper Annexation Area Local Wetland Inventory

(7) All wetlands inventory procedures and products are subject to review and approval by the Department before the products:

(a) Are incorporated into the SWI;

(b) Can be used in lieu of the NWI for Wetland Land Use Notification purposes; or

(c) Can be used by a city or county for Goal 5, Goal17 or WCP purposes.

2. METHODS

2.1 GENERAL

Methods included a review of project area background materials, and drive-by and on-site field reconnaissance visits. Field work was conducted during the week of March 18, 2013. Wetland delineation was conducted at a reconnaissance level of accuracy suitable for L WI documentation and City planning purposes.

This LWI follows the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) rules, specifically Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 141-086. All wetlands one-half acre in size or larger were mapped as wetlands, while smaller wetlands were mapped as "probable wetlands." Although DSL only requires that probable wetlands be mapped as point features (meaning that a single point would represent the wetland), for this project, these wetlands were mapped as polygons. This was done to aid the City planning process, as these features will likely need to be avoided or encroachment minimized.

Where site access was available within the SCMAA LWI area, a single sample plot documenting typical conditions for the respective wetland was completed and boundaries mapped using global positioning system (GPS).

Data collection and wetland boundary delineation followed the Level 2 Routine Delineation Method described in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and further supported by the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Corps 201 0) regional supplement (Supplement). This method requires the simultaneous presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and positive wetland hydrology in wetland delineations.

2.2 PRELIMINARY RESOURCE REVIEW

Reference materials were reviewed prior to the field investigation to provide information regarding the possible presence of wetlands, water features, hydric soils, wetland hydrology, site topography, and habitat conditions. The materials reviewed included:

• Clean Water Services (CWS) GIS streams layer shapefile (2013). • Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) National Geographic World Map for ArcGIS

(2013) • ESRI ArcGIS OnlineWorld Imagery aerial photo imagery for ArcGIS (2009) • Metro Regional Land Information System (RLIS) GIS wetlands layer, hydric soils layer, and GIS

streams layer (2013). • Metro Technical Report for Fish and Wildlife Habitat (April 2005) • Metro Cooper Mountain Natural Resource Management Plan (November 2005) • Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey Geographic Database for 4 Q

Washington County, Oregon (2010).

Page2 September 2015


• Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC) Oregon Wetlands Cover, version 20091030 (2009)

• Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife (ODFW) Fish distribution GIS layers (2013) • Shapiro & Associates, Inc. City of Beaverton Local Wetland Inventory and GIS data (2000) • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetland Inventory Wetland Mapper (2013) • U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Hydrographic Database National Hydrographic

Database (NHD) GIS streams layer (2013) • City of Beaverton January 2013 LlDAR derived contours (January 2013) • City of Beaverton January 2013 high resolution aerial photography (January 2013) • DSL wetland determination/delineation database search results for SCMAA study area (March

2013)

The following materials were provided and reviewed after DEA had completed all field work:

• Fox Hollow Wetland/Goal5 Natural Resource Determination (18200 SW Horse Tale Drive Washington County, Oregon, Tax Map 1S131000, lot 1602) Technical Memorandum (ESA 2013)

• Oregon Goal 5 and Metro Title 13 Natural Resources Determination -Scholls Ferry Road Properties (Tax Map 2S10600, lots 301,302, and 700) Technical Memorandum (ESA 2013)

• Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. Wetland Delineation for Beaverton School District in Beaverton,

Washington County, Oregon (20 14) • AKS Engineering & Forestry, LLC. Dyches Property Wetland and Waters Delineation Report,

Beaverton, Oregon (20 14) • Anchor QEA, LLC. Wetland Delineation Report, West Hills Development: Crescent Grove

Property (20 15)

2.3 MAPPING PROCEDURES AND ESTIMATED ACCURACY

Mapping of L WI features was supported through use of high resolution color aerial photography and LIDAR contour data provided by the City of Beaverton (20 13). Ground truthing occurred on parcels where access was available and from publicly accessible viewing areas (i.e., roadway right of way). In office review of aerial and LlDAR contours was conducted using Geographic Information System (GIS) technology, which allowed for viewing information at various scales. This included the minimum photo

scale of 1 inch= 200 feet required by OAR 141-086-021 0(2)(g). Metadata for the aerial photography provides the following description:

The dataset encompasses portions of Washington, Multnomah, and Clackamas Counties. These data are LiDAR orthorectified aerial photographs of the West Metro study area. The data are delineated into north and south halves of 1 I 1 DOth of standard USGS 7. 5 minute quadra gles to create manageable file sizes. Each 4 band color image tile has a pixel resolution of 3 in.[Note pixel size measured in data provided by City of Beaverton was measured at 0.25 ftj These data are projected in NAD 83 State Plane, Oregon North, and their units are in feet. WS1 collected the LiDAR and created this data set for the Oregon LiDAR Consortium.

The Metro-RLIS wetlands layer and existing L WI-DSL layer provided by the City were merged and used

as a starting point for mapping wetland resources within the SCMAA L WI study area. Obvious wetland

boundary adjustments were made based on review ofthe 2013 aerial photography and roadside 41 reconnaissance. For example, wetland polygons that clearly overlapped with developed areas were

reduced in size so that only the undeveloped portion of the polygon remained. All wetlands were assigned



a Cowardin class (i.e., vegetation type such as forested, emergent, etc.) and a hydrogeomorphic (HGM) class (i.e., slope, depression, etc.). Assigning of Coward in and HGM classes was typically based on review of aerial photo and LIDAR contours, or field verification where possible.

For properties in which site access was available (see Appendix A, Figure 2), wetland and waterway mapping was supported through use of a Trimble Geo XH resource grade geographic positioning system (GPS) unit with typical accuracy of one meter or better. Representative boundary and sample plot locations were collected, differentially corrected, and then exported to geographic information system (GIS) format (i.e., ESRI shapefile format). Although typical GPS accuracy is considered one meter or better, the mapping accuracy of field verified wetlands should be considered to be five meters (16.4 feet) or better, as sample plots, particularly unrecorded supplementary sampling, were conducted at a reconnaissance level of accuracy. For properties in which other consultants conducted formal wetland delineations submitted to DSL for approval, DEA obtained the electronic wetland boundary linework (CAD and GIS formats) and incorporated them into the LWI mapping. The formal wetland delineation mapping is assumed to have a horizontal accuracy of 3 feet or better.

Streams and other waters were mapped in accordance with OAR 141-086-021 0(19), which states that "Streams and other waters must be mapped, but no further documentation such as wetland summary sheets or OFW AM assessment is required. lf an existing stream geospatial dataset is used, it may be necessary to adjust the layer to align with riparian or other linear wetlands." Mapping of streams started with use of the Metro RLlS streams GIS layer. Stream lines were modified based on field observations where access was available. In other areas, stream lines were adjusted to match with topographic contours provided by the City LIDAR data (January 20 13) and aerial photo interpretation based on the City's January 2013 high resolution aerial imagery.

GIS data produced by DEA was originally created using the state plane, Oregon north coordinate system, North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) horizontal datum, international feet to maintain consistency with other South Cooper Mountain Concept Plan mapping efforts. This data was then re-projected into the Lambert system to comply with Oregon statewide wetland mapping standards required by DSL.

2.4 OFWAM FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT

Wetland functions were evaluated for wetlands greater than one half acre using the Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Method (OFW AM). OFW AM results were used to determine if any of the SCMAA wetlands qualify as "locally significant wetlands" in accordance with criteria set forth in OAR 141-086-0350. Following DSL guidance, probable wetlands were not included in the evaluation of locally significant wetlands.

Page 4 September 2015

42


2.5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS

All landowners within the SCMMA L WI study area were contacted by the City to inform them of the L WI project, which would be conducted as part of the greater South Cooper Mountain Planning project. The City requested property access to allow City's consultant, David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA), to perform on-site wetland delineation work. As shown on Figure 2 of Appendix A, access was granted to seven tax lots. Two property owners elected to have their own consultants perfonn wetland delineation reconnaissance work and submit their findings to the City in the form of wetland determination memorandums. An additional three property owners also had their own consultants perform wetland delineation work and submitted their findings to DSL for formal review and concurrence. These are also displayed on Figure 2. All of the above information has been incorporated into this L WI report and mapping.

A formal public involvement process specific only to the SCMAA L WI has not been conducted. However. the L WI was conducted in concert with the South Cooper Mountain Planning project, which has had an extensive public involvement process. Public involvement has included meetings with a technical advisory committee, citizen's advisory committee, multiple open house and community engagement sessions, and dissemination of information through the creation of a project website. L WI mapping results were presented throughout these various meetings and engagements, and information made available to the public via the project website. As ofNovember 2013, LWI results have not been presented as a stand-alone product for public review, but have instead been a part of combined natural resource reporting and mapping (DEA 20 13), including wetlands, streams, buffers, and upland habitat resource mapping for the greater planning project study area. The City will be coordinating with DSL regarding additional LWI public review, if the above process was deemed insufficient.

3. RESULTS L WI results documentation has been prepared in accordance with OAR 141-086-0220 L WI Reports and is provided herein.

3.1 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION

OAR 141-086-0220(2)(a) A general description of the study area including a description of the landscape setting;

The project study area primarily consists of rural lands that are bordered to the east by suburban development and to the north, south, and west by rural land. Slopes range from gently rolling in the south half to moderately steep in the north half of the study area. The majority of the land drains to the south, with a portion of the area draining to the southeast with all drainage eventually flowing off-site to the Tualatin River and its tributaries (See Appendix A, Figure 1), Table I and Figure 5 (Appendix A) show Clean Water Services streamsheds and associated drainages that occur within the L WI study area. All drainages in the study area are unnamed, but were assigned an ID as part of the South Cooper Mountain Concept Plan project.


43

South Cooper Annexation Area

Table 1: Drainage Basins and Streams in LW/ Study Area

Clean Water Services Stream Shed1

Jackson/Lindow

Summer Creek

Clean Water Services

Basin 102

LW

SMC

SMC

TR06.5

Water Bodies3

none

Unnamed tributary

Unnamed tributary to SMC

Unnamed trib to Tualatin River

Local Wetland Inventory

Water Body 103

none

SMC

SMC-1

TR-1

Unnamed Tributary-----------------------to Tualatin River TR06.5 Unnamed trib to TR-1

TR06.5 Unnamed trib to TR-1

1 Data from "CWS_Sma\ISubBasins" GIS shapefile, "STREAMSHED" data field 2 Data from "CWS_Sma\ISubBasins" GIS shapefile, "IDALL" data field 3 Water body IDs assigned by South Cooper Mountain Concept Plan project

TR-1a

TR-1b

Land use is predominantly agricultural, with a mix of annual crop production, pasture, orchards, and viticulture. Several small remnant patches of native forest habitat occur within the area, including mixed upland fir-deciduous forest, Oregon ash dominated wetland forest, and patches of Oregon oak forest. Several fir dominated lots were being logged or had recently been logged as observed during the March 2013 site visits.

3.2 WETLAND INVENTORY PROCESS

OAR 141-086-0220(2)(b) A description of the wetland inventory process including the public involvement process; the inventory methods including the date(s) and scale(s) of source maps and aerial photos used; the offsite and onsite wetland determination procedures including procedures used for visual confirmation and probable wetland identification; and all mapping and map transfer procedures used;

See methods discussion above.

3.3 SUMMARY OF INVENTORY RESULTS

OAR 141-086-0220(2)(c) A summary of the inventory results including the total acreage of the study area and the total number and acreage of wetlands identified within the study area, excluding the acreage of deepwater habitat and artificial(v created wetlands such as detention ponds or aggregate extraction ponds;

The SCMAA study area occupies approximately 544 acres. The study area contains an estimated 19.37 acres of wetlands and probable wetlands. Table 2 provides a listing of individual wetlands, their size and HGM and Cowardin classifications. Study area wetlands are displayed in Appendix A Figure 3. Representative sample plots for each wetland are provided in Appendix B and summary sheets describing each wetland are provided in Appendix C.


44


The following discussion summarizes the range of wetland resources identified in the SCMAA LWI study area. Wetland A was the largest wetland identified within the SCMAA L WI study area and contained a large portion of intact forested wetland as well as emergent wetland dominated by pasture grasses. Probable wetland PW-G is situated in an agricultural field growing annual crops. This feature was mapped based on aerial photo reconnaissance and soil survey mapping that shows hydric soils in the field. This wetland was considered probable because it was very difficult to determine if wetland conditions actually exist and if they do, how wide an area they cover. All wetlands were considered to be slope wetlands as the dominant source of hydrology is likely to be hillside seepage or shallow subsurface flow.

Table 2: LWI Wetland Summary Results

Wetland 101 Acres Coward in Class 2'

3 HGM Class

W-A 11.80 PF01Y, PEM1Y Slope

PW-B 0.12 PEM1Yd Slope

W-C 1.42 PF01Y Slope

PW-D 0.39 PEM1Y Slope

PW-E 0.22 PEM1Y Slope

PW-F 0.18 PEM1Yfd Slope

W-G 21.29 PEM1Yf Slope

W-H 10.79 PSS1Y Slope

PW-1 0.40 PF01Y Slope

PW-J 0.26 PEM1Y Slope

PW-K 0.09 PEM1Y Slope

PW-L 0.09 PEM1Y Slope

PW-M 0.02 PEM1Y Slope

PW-N 0.21 PEM1Y Slope

DP-1 0.25 PUB Depression

Total 47.53

1 "W" =wetland, "PW" =probable wetland, "DP" = constructed detention pond (not a jurisdictional wetland) 2 PFO = palustrine forested, PSS = palustrine scrub-shrub, PEM = palustrine emergent, PUB = palustrine unconsolidated bottom 3 Coward in modifiers "1" = broad-leaved deciduous for PFO and PSS, and persistent for PEM wetlands. "Y" =saturated/semipermanent/seasonal. "f' =farmed. "d" = partially drained/ditched.


45


3.4 OFWAM PROCESS AND RESULTS

OAR 141-086-0220(2)(d) A discussion ofthe OFWAM assessment process (e.g. how assessment units were defined) and the results;

Table 3 provides a summary of wetland functional assessment results for wetlands that are one-half acre or greater in size. Of the four wetlands evaluated, three met locally significant wetland criteria- Wetlands W-A, W-C, and W-H. This means at least one ofthe four functions evaluated rated highly. The remaining wetland did not meet locally significant wetland criteria due to its highly degraded conditions (i.e., plowed field).

Table 3: Wetland Functional Assessment Results

Wetland Wildlife Fish Water Hydrologic Meets Locally Significant 10 Habitat Habitat Quality Control Criteria

W-A Diverse Intact Degraded Intact Yes

W-C Diverse Intact Degraded Degraded Yes

W-G Some Habitat Degraded Degraded Degraded No

W-H Diverse Intact Degraded Degraded Yes

3.5 SUMMARY OF LOCALLY SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS

OAR 141-086-0220(2)(e) A summary of Locally Significant Wetlands, if identified (may be in table format);

Wetlands W-A, WcC, and W-H were determined to meet locally significant wetlands criteria. Wetland functions for these wetlands are summarized in Table 3. Wetland characteristics for these wetlands are summarized in the individual wetland summary sheets provided in Appendix C.

4. PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS

Ethan Rosenthal, DEA Ecologist, authored this report. Phil Rickus, DEA Ecologist, provided the quality review. Dawn Afman, DEA Project Assistant, prepared the report drafts. Sara Gilbert, DEA GIS Specialist, conducted GIS analysis and prepared report figures.


46


5. BIBLIOGRAPHY AKS Engineering & Forestry, LLC. 2014. Dyches Property Wetland and Waters Delineation Report,

Beaverton, Oregon. Prepared for Ron Dyches. November 26,2014. DSL WD#2015-0063.

Anchor QEA, LLC. 2015. Wetland Delineation Report, West Hills Development: Crescent Grove Property. Prepared for West Hills Development. March 2015. DSL WD#2015-0105.

City of Beaverton. 2013. LIDAR derived contours (flown January 20 13)

City of Beaverton. 2013. High resolution digital aerial photography (flown January 2013)

Clean Water Services (CWS). 2013. GIS streams layer shapefile.

David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA). 2013. Project Memorandum to South Cooper Mountain Technical Advisory Committee from Ethan Rosenthal and Phil Rickus. Subject: Natural Resource Memorandum, South Cooper Mountain Concept and Community Plans, City of Beaverton #2752-138. June 3, 2013.

Environmental Science & Assessment, LLC (ESA). 2013a. Memorandum to Matt Wellner, Metropolitan Land Group, LLC from Jack Dalton, RE: Fox Hollow Wetland/Goal 5 Natural Resource Determination (18200 SW Horse Tale Drive Washington County, Oregon). April 2, 2013.

Environmental Science & Assessment, LLC (ESA). 2013b. Memorandum to Valerie Sutton, City of Beaverton from Jack Dalton, RE: Oregon Goal 5 and Metro Title 13 Natural Resources Determination -Scholls Ferry Road Properties. September 30, 2013.

Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI ). 2013. National Geographic World Map for ArcGIS.

Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). 2009. ArcGIS Online World Imagery aerial photo imagery for ArcGIS.

Metro. 2005. Technical Report for Fish and Wildlife Habitat. April 2005

Metro. 2005. Cooper Mountain Natural Resource Management Plan. November 2005

Metro Regional Land Information System (RLIS). 2013. GIS wetlands layer, hydric soils layer, and streams layer.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2010. Soil Survey Geographic Database for Washington County, Oregon.

Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC). 2009. Oregon Wetlands Cover, version 20091030.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2013. Fish distribution GIS layers.

Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL). 2013. Wetland determination/delineation database search results for SCMAA study area. March 2013.

Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. 2014. Wetland Delineation for Beaverton School District in Beaverton, Washington County, Oregon. October 13, 2014. DSL WD#2014-0497.

Shapiro & Associates, Inc. 2000. City of Beaverton Local Wetland Inventory and GIS data.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. National Wetland Inventory Wetland Mapper GIS data.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2013. National Hydrographic Database National Hydrographic Database (NHD) GIS streams layer.



6. APPENDICES

48



Appendix A: Figures

OAR 141-086-0220(2)(f) All figures, with the study area clearly outlined.

48

September 2015

U1 0

Figure 1 Vicinity Map


Annexation Area


Legend ...... 1 1 LWI Study Area '····· c==J Section

r-··-··-: L .. _ .. J Beaverton City Limits

Washington County Tax Lot

.. Park/Greenspace

~ Stream/River

~ Waterbody

Arterial

Data Sources: LWI Study Area: Metro RLIS, 2012. Modified by DEA. PLSS, City Umits, Tax Lots, Parks/Greenspaces, Arterials: Metro RLIS, 2012 Hydrology: USGS NHD Service Layer: ESRI World Topo Map

Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is lor planning purposes, represents the conditions that exist at !he map date, and is subject to change.

750 1,500 Feet

({) Printed on and Corrections as of:


August 2015


112V201S I\Pd<ft.l ... rC!td\AIAPGIOOOOCICJ()4'()60(1NFOIGSV<.l• P'If'CI1 Voc:"'il:r ,..p.-d

CJ1 ~

Figure 2 Tax Lots and Property Access Map


Annexation Area


Legend ·----· : •••• : LWI Study Area r·-·-··-: L.._ .. J Beaverton City Limits

C' Washington County Tax Lot

[Z] LWI Data Provided by Landowner

.. Property with Site Access

--Arterial

-- Street

Data Sources: LWI Study Area: Metro RLIS, 2012. Modified by DEA. PLSS, City Limits , Tax Lots , Arterials, Streets: Metro RLIS, 2012

Disclllimer: lnformlllion shown on this map is for planning purposes. represents the conditions that exist at the map date, 21nd is subject to change.

250 500 Feet

(f) Printed on and Corrections as of:

Information Current as of: August 2015


_]

cfPUBKHh

~-~~~~DR Jl

-- - ·· ---~ ·-------- ----~~------~-- -- ---

\ -......._ - '• ·", 'm ' \ ...__ ~-...._ ~-, \. '\~ ____ j '7~' --- 112SR-2W / PUB~~h ~'~~ ection 1 / \

~ I //

" ~ ~ .... ! "~, ----- -- l

I ·-.------ ---; ~•..-..-.,.r·-~---·-· .

I

I T-1SR-2W : 1~~~~~~ -----j Section 36 r

I

I i

/C. l ~liilir...._.....-. __ ...... ____ ....... ====~I=----- ~~ I

i ~ I

/ /' I

"-''

Figure 3 National Wetland Inventory Map


Annexation Area


Legend


~ NWIWetland

c::::::J Section

c::::::J Washington County Tax Lot

-- Arterial

--Street

Data Sources:

0 250 500 Feet !'"'";; I

LWI Study Area: Metro RLIS, 2012. Modified by DEA. PLSS, City Limits, Arterials, Streets: Metro RLIS, 2012 Wetlands: USFWS NWI Sample Points: DEA. Streams: Metro RLIS, 2012. Modified by DEA. Service Layers: ESRI

Disclaimer: lnfonnation shown on this map is fof planning purposes, represents the conditions that exist .!II the map date, and is subject b change. The location and extent of weaands and other waters is approximate. There may be unmepped wetlallds and other waters present that are subject to regulation. A current Oregon Oeps1ment of State Lands-approved wetland delineation is requ~ed for state removal-fill permits. You ere advised to contact the DepKtment ol Stale Lands and the U.S. Almy Corps of Er~gineefS

I

I Printed on and Corrections as of:

~~~~~~ withMyregutaloryques5ons.


August 2015

C1t t'.)

August 31, 2015

CJl w

Figure 4 NRCS Soils Map


Annexation Area


Legend

NRCS Soil Type

-- Street r-··-... j_.,.,; Beaverton City Limits

250 500 Feet

~

Data Sources: LWI Study Area: Metro RLIS, 2012. Modified by DEA. City Limits, Arterials , Streets: Metro RLIS, 2012 Wetlands: City of Beaverton, Metro RLIS, 2012. Modified by DEA. Sample Points: DEA. Streams: Metro RLIS, 2012. Modified by DEA. Soi ls: USDA NRCS Service Layers: ESRI

Information shown on this map is for planning purposes, represents the 1al exist at the map date, end is subject to change. The location Md extent end other waters is epproximate. There may be unmapped wedands and

) other waters present that ere subject to regulation. A curent Oregon Depatment of State

North

edand delineation is requi"ed for state removal-til permits. You ere the Depll'lment of State Lands and lle U.S. Army Corps of Engineers questions.

Information Current as of: August 2015

Printed on and Corrections as of: August 31, 2015

L11.J()l)\N CREEK I Jl\Ci<S0hl Cf!!3E'K

T-1SR-2W T-1SR-1W Section 36 2 Section 31 3

~ I t 0

.. '!'"_ _L _,.-/ f ~co

"H I ~I ' I I <.'\JI.:Il·AER \ I QRE'EK T-2SR-2W v 1

Section 1 .--JL- f-- -:::.iirC-----.j

~-----:A !'\

~ ~

~

r-l ~ IL~N

_/

tp~ l£11!~

CJl ~

011!

~ill

I \ f II ... I

l~ I I I I I SUMI,1E'R

I I -v f----J I

813Cii21

Figure 5, Sheet 1 of 10 Local Wetland Inventory Map


Annexation Area


Legend

c:::J Sheet Extent


-- Arterial

- - Slreet

-- LWI Stream

-- NHD Stream

Wetlands'

D Emergent (PEM)

- Forested (PFO)

0 Seclion

::-··-...., Beaverton City i. ___ ,j Lim ils

r-1 washinglon County l___l Tax Lot



- Scrub/Shrub (PSS)

Detention Pond

0 250 500 Feet ~

Data Sources: L\M Study Area: Metro RLIS, 2012. Modified by DEA. Tax Lots, PLSS, City Limits, Arterials, Streets: Metro RLIS, 2012 Wetlands, Streamsheds: Anchor QEA, DKS Engineering, PH S,

DEA, 2015; City of Beaverton, Metro RLIS, 2012. Modified by DEA.

Streams: Metro RLIS, 2012; Modified by DEA. USGS NHD, 2015.

Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning pll'poses. represents the conditions that exist at the map date, and is subject to change. The location end extent of weUands Md other walers is approximate. There may be unmapped weHands Md other waters present hat ere subject to regulation. A cliTenl Oregon Oepertment of State Lands-approved wedand delineation is required for state removal-fll permits. You are advised to contact the Depll"lmenl of State Lands end the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wilhanyregulatory~estions .


August 2015


LINDOW GP.EEf< I .JA C f< SO N C lUPr<

~ SW-HORSE-TAIL- OR

... ~;2:;o::1·o:~· ········ 1 ···- ··· - -----~ ---

- 1252010000101

--·· 1 ·-----~ ---··· · /

T-1SR-2W Section 36

~ I T-2SR-~":" /,52010000100

Sectio/

C1l CJ1

TU A L~T IIN R T ~ I El

··~ , ... ,

151310001602

& PW-K

~ PEM1

PW-L PEM1

\ ,.,M_" \ T-2SR-1W

Section 6

T-1SR-1W Section 31

251060000302



Annexation Area


Legend

::: : : LWI Study Area

r---1 Washington County L..J Tax lot

D Section

--Street


0 Data Plot

-- LWI Stream

-- NHD Stream

Wetlands•

D Emergent (PEM)

Data Sources:

(2~h I

r~ r~ r(~ it lt 11

·w=wetlands PW = Probable Wetlands

o 100 200 Feet I""'"SS;; I

LWI Study Area: Metro RLIS, 201 2. Modified by DEA. PLSS, C~y Limits, Streets: Metro RLIS, 2012 Wetlands , Stream sheds: AKS Engineering, Anchor QEA , DEA,



Modified by DEA.

Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning purposes, represents the conditions that exist at the map date , and is subject to change . The location Md extent of wetlands liOd other waters is 11pproximate. There may be unmapped wetlands and other waters present that Me subject to regulation. A cLITent Oregon Dep.!rim&nt of Stele Lands-ep~oved wetland defineetion is reeJJ~ed for state removel-fil permits. You ere advised to contact the Deps-bnent of State Lends and tie U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with any regulatory questions.

Cl) Information Current as of:

August 2015


81'2~15 c \UMrsiASI'tDMklop'Fig!i Loc.IW.Iand ~-~fY_Mapboo~l.5.'.111J.mtd

- --

151310001602

251060000302

U1 en

15131CA01600

T-1SR-1W Section 31

T-2SR1W 151310001605 Section 6

151310001900

~

TU ALATIN R TRI\13

151310001600

" ~

"

PW-E PEM1Y

I

v 15131DC

I I I I I

w

~ 15131 DCOOBOO :I: 1-

"' :: ~ I rJ) I

}--15131DCO 900 I I t UMMER I

- ' I

I I I

~15131DC01000

15131DC01100



Annexation Area


Legend

::: :: LWI Study Area I 2ll 3 I

D washington County I 4 l lTT 7; 1 Tax Lot 1 ' 11 ' 1! 10

1 c:::::::J Section

--Street

CWS Sma ll c:J Streamsheds Boundary

0 Data Plot

-- LWI Stream ·w = Wetlands

-- NHD Stream PW = Probable Wetlands

Wetlands•

c:::::::J Emergent (PEM)

- Scrub-Shrub (PSS)

0 100 200 Feet ~ I

Data Sources: LWI Study Area: Metro RLIS, 2012. Modified by DEA. PLSS, City Limits, Streets: Metro RLIS, 2012 Wetlands, Streamsheds: AKS Engineering, Anchor QEA, DEA,



Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning pLrposes, represents the oonditions that exist at the map date, and is subject to change. The locatwn and extent ofweUands and other walers is approximate. There mttj be unmapped weUands and other waters presenlltull are subject to regulation. A ciJTent Oregon Deplriment of State lands-approved weUand delineation is required for state removel-fil permits. You are advised to contact the Oepll"tment of State Lands and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with any regulatory questions.


August 2015

Printed on and Corrections as of:


5ill/201SC.\U_•.._IIt\DMI;top\FC1Sloc:IIW.dloftdii'I'I'MIDfy IAII!>O<>ol< X115A~~g.m•d

Ul -.1

152360001000

·-·-···············-·····--·--·-···-·--···· I I

I

• I I

: I

~ ~~~ lD lD 0 lC

~ PW-J PEM1Y

252010000200

L1NOOW G~ E fEK I JACKSOr-.1 CREEf<

T-2SR-2W Section 1

T-2SR-2W Section 1

252010000101

W-G PEM1Yfd

·······

2S2010000100



Annexation Area


Legend


,---, Washington County [___J Tax Lot

CJ Section

--Street


Data Plot

-- Stream

Wetlands*

CJ Emergent (PEM)

Data Sources:

•w =Wetlands PW = Probable Wetlands

100 200 Feet r--- I




Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning ptxposes, represents the conditions that exist at the map date, end is subject to dlange. The location end extent of wetlands and other waters is approximate. Tl'lefe may be unmapped wetlands Md other waters present that ere subject to regulation. A ciJ'renl Oregon Department of State Lands-approved wedand delineation is required for sl8te removal-fin permits. You are advised to contact the DepNiment of Sl81e Lands and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with anyragulatorycp..~eslions .

Cl) Information Current as of:

August 2015


6'2412015 C.\Uuot•lu&ftO. ... b p'I'IQS !.Deal W.U.nd ln.,.,nb rt_lobpllool<_l01SAu;.""'d

-- ---·

c.n 00

Section 1

252010000100

W-G PEM1Yfd

T-1SR2W Section 36 151310001602

251060000301

251060000500

T-1SR1W Section 31

T-2SR-1W Section 6

251060000302

W-C PF01Y

251060000302

251060000402

251060000~03"""""\

251060000400



Annexation Area


Legend


,-----, Washington County L__J Tax Lot

CJ Section

--Street • -0


Data Plot

·w=Wetlands PW = Probable Wetlands

Pond/Open Water (PUB)

100 200 Feet

Data Sources: Lwt Study Area: Metro RLIS, 2012. Modified by DEA. PLSS, City Limits, Streets: Metro RLIS, 2012 Wetlands, Streamsheds: AKS Engineering, Anchor QEA, DEA,



Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning pll'poses, represents the conditions that exist at the map date, and is subject to change. The location and extent ofweUends end other waters is approximate. There may be unmapped wetlands end other waters present that EM"e subject to regulation. A clJ'rent Oregon Department of State lands-approved wetland delineation is required for slate removeHII pennits. You ere advised to contact the Depa-tment of State lands and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with any regulatory ~estions.


August 2015


IW2J2015 C IU•.,.Io •.r.DH~\fvS Loc•IW.IIIo~ d l,...,.~ory_M•pbooit_XIlSA"U • She•t S.rnrO

U1 c.o

251060000403

060000400

151310001600

PW-D PF01

151310001605

PW-E PEM1Y

P-6

251060000402

TU Al AT IN

251060000800

15131 nr-1111 ntl--·-1

T·2SR-1W Section 6

z ..... "' ,._

~ VI

SI.Hvi MH< C t{ EE K



Annexation Area


Legend


,--, Washington County L__J Tax Lot

CJ Section

--Street


Data Plot

-- LWI Stream

-- NHD Stream

Wetlands*

CJ Emergent (PEM)

- Forested (PFO)

- Scrub-Shrub (PSS)

-- Detention Pond

Data Sources:

•w = Wetlands PW = Probable Wetlands

100 200 Feel

~

L'NI Study Area: Metro RLIS, 2012. Modified by DEA. PLSS , City Limits, Streets: Metro RLIS, 2012 Wetlands, Streamsheds: AKS Engineering, Anchor QEA, DEA,

PHS 201 5. Also City of Beaverton, Metro RLIS, 2012. Modified by DEA.

Data Plots: DEA, 2015. Streams: Metro RLIS, 201 2 and USGS NHD, 2015.

Modified by DEA.

Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning ptJ"poses, represents the oonditions that exist el the map d11te, and is subject to change. The location and extent of wetlands and other welers is approximate. There may be unmepped weUands and other waters present that are subject to regulation. A ctxrent Ore gem Department of State lands-approved wetland delineation is required for stale removal-fil permits. You ere advised to contact the Oepertmenl of State lands and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with any regutatory questions.

Information Current as of: August 2015 (f)


a'212015 C -..o-•"• .. fllloMIUII>\FG5l.K81W.IIIn dl"".,.lory-M~-X115Auo - st.o•lll.-d

en 0

W-H PSS1Yd

251060000103

T-1SR-1W Section 31

251060000103 T-2SR-1W Section 6

"'U ~11M E'R CREEr<

T-2SR·1W Section 5



Annexation Area


Legend


,---, Washington County L__j Tax Lot

CJ Section

--Street

CWS Small c:J Streamsheds

Boundary

Data Plot

-- LWI Stream

-- NHD Stream

Wetlands*

- Forested (PFO)

- Scrub-Shrub (PSS)

Data Sources:

• W = Wetlands PW = Probable Wetlands

100 200 Feet !""'"SM; I

L'M Study Area: Metro RLIS, 2012. Modified by DEA. PLSS, City Limits, Streets: Metro RLIS, 2012 Wetlands, Streamsheds: AKS Engineering, Anchor QEA, DEA,



Modified by DEA.

Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning ptJ"poses, represents the conditions that exist at the map date, and is subject to change. The IOC8tion end extant ofweUands end other waters is approximate. There mt/lj be unmapped weiiMds Md other waters present that are subject to regulation. A ci.Xrenl Oregon Deparlment of State Lends-approved wetland delineation is required for state removal-Iii permits. Yoo ere advised to contact the Deps-tmentof State lends end the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with eny regulatory ~estions.


August 2015


llfli2015CIUur•'ol.aiiiDH~<u5l.GcaiW.~nd lrw..,""Y_M............_2015Aua·Shoo•t7 .... d

en ~

T-2SR-1W Section 6

251060000600



Annexation Area


Legend

::::: LWI Study Area

,--, washington County L___j Tax Lot

c::::J Section

-- Street

CWS Sma ll CJ Streamsheds Boundary

0 Data Plot

-- LWI Stream

-- NHD Stream

Wetlands'

0 Emergent (PEM)

- Forested (PFO)

•w = Wellands PW = Probable Wetlands

-- Pond/Open Water (PUB)

100 200 Feet

Data Sources: LWI Study Area: Metro RLIS, 2012. Modified by DEA. PLSS, City Limits, Streets: Metro RLIS, 201 2 Wetlands, Streamsheds: AKS Engineering, Anchor QEA, DEA,



Modified by DEA.

Disclaimer: Information shown on this m11p is for planning pll'poses, represents the conditions the! exist at the map date, and is su bject to change. The loca~on and extent of wetlands and other waters is approximete. There mWf be unmepped wetlands and other waters present fleiMe subject to regulation. A ct.rrent Orep1 Department of State Lands-approved weUand delineation is required for stele removal·fil permits. You are advised to contact the DepMtrnent of State Lends and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with any regutetory questions.


August 2015


Clf21X115 C'\Uur&'a .. IIDHI:Itip\FIIIISloui W.IIonct 1,...,10fy_III~~2015A."'J. Shott 8.,.d

251060000600

en rv

251060000500

251060000400

T-2SR-1W Section 6

TUA L AT H~ R TRi o

251060000403

251060000700

251060000800

W-A PEM1Y



Annexation Area


Legend


r---1 Washington County L.._j Tax Lot

c:::J Section

- -Street

CWS Sma ll c:J Streamsheds Boundary

Data Plot

-- LWI Stream

-- NHD Stream

Wetlands*

c:::J Emergent (PEM)

- Forested (PFO)

*W = Wetlands PW = Probable Wetlands

-- Pond/Open Water (PUB)

100 200 Feet

Data Sources: LWl Study Area: Metro RLIS, 2012. Modified by DEA. PLSS, City Limits, Streets: Metro RLIS, 2012 Wetlands, Streamsheds: AKS Engineering, Anchor QEA, DEA,


Data Plots: DEA, 2015. Streams: Metro RLI S, 2012 and USGS NHD, 2015.

Modified by DEA.

Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning pU"poses. represents the conditions that exist at the map date, and ls subject to change. The IOC8tion end extent of wetlands and other waters is approximate. There may be unmapped wetlands Md other waters present that are subject to regulation. A cLJTent Oregon Department of State Lands-approved wetland delineation is required for state removal--til permits. You are advised to conlliCI lhe Department of Slate Lands and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with any regulatory questions.

Cl) Inform ation Current as of:

August 2015


IJt2/2()1 5 C\Uhr•W•&I'ICftUo!>\F'II!il.iC•I WoU.nd i ii\I.,.IO<y_lll~boolt_20 1 5A ug . SIIutg, ..,.d

251060000800

en w

251060000205

TUALAT IN R TR I8

251060000200

SUWiiER CR.E EK

T-2SR-1W

251060000103

S ll ~HR Ef'~. CREE},



Annexation Area



r---1 Washington County L__J Tax lot

c:::::J Section

--Street


0 Data Plot

-- LWI Stream

-- NHD Stream

Wetlands'

Detention Pond

Data Sources:

'W = Wetlands PW = Proba ble Wetlands

100 200 Feet




Modified by DEA.

Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning pll'poses, represents the conditions that eKistet the map date, end is subject to dlenge. The location and extent of we Hands and other waters is approximate. There may be unmapped weUMds and other waters present flat ere subject to regulation. A cooenl Oregon Department of Slate lands-approved wetland delineation is required for state removal·fil permits. You are advised to contact the DepS"tment of Stllte Lends end lhe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers withanyregulatory~estions .


August 2015


litli2015CIU....,.\uSI\OHI<U)JI\FiQ51.o:.•l .... dond ltw"'IOry-M~'XI1~UO·Shtotl10.,...d


Appendix B: Data Sheets

OAR 141-086-0220(3)(a) Sample plot data on standard field data forms per OAR 141-090 et seq.

September 2015 64

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM- Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region

Project/Site: South Cooper Mountain LWI City/County: _w_a_s_h_in-=g_to_n ________ Sampling Date: March 19,2013

Applicant/Owner: _C_it.::.y_o_f_B_ea_v_e_rt_o_n ______________________ State: Oregon Sampling Point: _____ _

lnvestigator(s): PRR, EJRO Section, Township, Range: _T_2_S_R_1_W_S_6 ______________ _

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): swale Local relief (concave, convex, none): _c_o_nc_a_v_e _____ Slope(%): _3 __

Subregion (LRR): _A ______________ La!: 45.430359 Long: -122.85713 Datum:-----

Soil Map Unit Name: Delena silt loam, 3 to 12 percent slopes NWI classification: _n_o_ne _______ _

Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ___ No _x __ (If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation __ , Soil ___ , or Hydrology ___ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _x __ No __ _

Are Vegetation __ , Soil ___ , or Hydrology ___ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc_

Hy~rophytic Vegetation Present? Yes_x __ No --- Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes_x __ No --- within a Wetland? Yes_x ___ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes_x __ No ------Remarks:

Plot lies in a swale draining west. Wetland extends east and west out of study area.

VEGETATION- Use scientific names of plants.

Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius ) %Cover SQecies? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)

2. Total Number of Dominant

3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)

4.

=Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species

100 SaQiing/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius )

That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)

1. Prevalence Index worksheet:

2. Total % Cover of: MultiQI~ b~:

3. OBL species X 1 =

4. FACW species x2=

5. FAC species x3=

=Total Cover FACU species x4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius ) UPL species x5= 1. Phalaris arundinacea 5 n FACW

Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Schedonorus phoenix 70 y FAC

3. Alepocurus pratensis 40 y FACW Prevalence Index = B/A =

4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

5. llJ Dominance Test is >50%

6. 0 Prevalence Index is :53.01

7. D Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting

8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

D Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1

9.

10. 0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)

11. 11ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

115 =Total Cover Wood~ Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius )

1. Hydrophytic

2. Vegetation Yes_x __ Present? No ---=Total Cover

% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 5

Remarks:

s:_ -:)

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast- Interim Version

SOIL Sampling Point· 1

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)

Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) ~ Color (moist) ~ _IyQQ_ Loc< Texture Remarks

0-20 10YR 3/1 90 5YR 4/4 10 c M silty clay ---- ---------------- ----------------- ----- ----- -----

---- ---- ----- --------- ----- ----- ---------- ---- ---- -----

--- ---- ----- ------- ---- ----- ----- -----

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3

:

_ Histosol (A 1) __ Sandy Redox (S5) __ 2 em Muck (A10)

__ Histic Epipedon (A2) __ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2)

_ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)

_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)

__ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) _ Depleted Matrix (F3)

_ Thick Dark Surface (A12) _..:.__ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and

_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No

Remarks:

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

PrimaJ:Y Indicators (minimum of one reguired; check all that aQQiy) SecondarY Indicators (2 or more reguired)

_ Surface Water (A 1) _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,

..::_ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and 48)

.!._ Saturation (A3) _ SaltCrust(B11) __ Drainage Patterns (B10)

_ Water Marks (B 1) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)

_ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

_ Drift Deposits (83) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2)

_!_ Algal Mat or Crust (84) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) __ Shallow Aquitard (D3)

_ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) - FAG-Neutral Test (D5)

_ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) - Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)

_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imager (B7) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) -- Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)

_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)

Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes --- No _x __ Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes_x __ No __ Depth (inches): 9"

Saturation Present? Yes_x __ No __ Depth (inches): 2" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes_x __ No ---(includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

66



Project/Site: South Cooper Mountain LWI City/County: Washington Sampling Date: March 19.2013

Applicant/Owner: _C_it.:..y_o_f_B_ea_v_e_rt_on ______________________ State: Oregon Sampling Point: _2 ____ _


Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): swale Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): _1 __

Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 45.430327 Long: -122.859846 Datum:-----

Soil Map Unit Name: Delena silt loam, 3 to 12 percent slopes NWI classification: _P_F_0_1_A ______ _


Are Vegetation __ . Soil ___ , or Hydrology ___ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _x __ No

(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are Vegetation __ . Soil ___ , or Hydrology ___ naturally problematic?

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hy~rophytic Vegetation Present? Yes_x __ No --- Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes_x __ No --- within a Wetland? Yes_x __ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes_x __ No ------Remarks:

Plot lies in a pasture swale draining west toward forested Oregon ash wetland on adjacent property.

VEGETATION- Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:

Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius ) %Cover S[1ecies? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)



4.

= Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species

100 Sa[11ing/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius )



2. Total% Cover of: Multi[1ly by


4. F ACW species x2=

5. FAC species x3=

= Total Cover FACU species x4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius ) UPL species x5= 1. Phalaris arundinacea 60 y FACW

Column Totals: (B) (A) 2. Agrostis capillaris 40 y FAC

3. Ranunculus repens 5 n FACW Prevalence Index = B/A=


5. [Z] Dominance Test is >50%

6. 0 Prevalence Index is S3.01

7. D Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting


0 Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 9. 0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 10.

11. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

105 =Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius )

1. Hydrophytic


% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

Remarks:

6'7

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains. Valleys, and Coast- Interim Version



Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) __.?&_ Color (moist) __.?&_ ...lYlliL_ Lac< Texture Remarks

0-16 10YR 3/2 90 7.5YR 3/4 10 c M silty clay loam --- --- --- --------- --- --- --------- --- --- ------

--- -------------- --- --- --------- --- --- --------- --- --- ------

-- --- -----------1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3

:

_ Histosol (A1) _ Sandy Redox (S5) __ 2 em Muck (A10)

_ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2)

_ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)

_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)

_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) _ Depleted Matrix (F3)

_ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ....!.... Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and

_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) - Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,

_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.


Type:


Remarks:


Primaey Indicators (minimum of one reguired; check all that a[,1[2lll) Secondaey Indicators (2 or more reguired)

_ Surface Water (A1) _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,

_ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and 48)

_!_ Saturation (A3) _ SaltCrust(B11) _ Drainage Patterns (B10)

_ Water Marks (B1) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)

_ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C 1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

_ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ....:!._ Geomorphic Position (D2)

_ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3)

_ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) - FAG-Neutral Test (D5)

_ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) - Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)

_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) - Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)


Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes --- No_x ___ Depth (inches)

Water Table Present? Yes --- No _x ___ Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes _x __ No __ Depth (inches): 9 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes_x __ No -----(includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

t"l .-... u ,_ ·J



Project/Site: South Cooper Mountain LWI City/County: _w_as_h_in__;g:._t_on _________ Sampling Date: March 19,2013

Applicant/Owner: _C_it.o.y_o_f_B_e_av_e_rt_o_n _______________________ State: Oregon Sampling Point: _3 _____ _

lnvestigator(s): _P_R_R_,_E_J_R_o _______________ Section, Township, Range: _T_2_S_R_1_w_s_6 ______________ _

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): _s_w_a_le ___________ Local relief (concave, convex, none): _c_o_nc_a_v_e _____ Slope(%): _5 __ _

Subregion (LRR): _A ______________ Lat: 45.430964 Long: -122.861488 Datum:-----

Soil Map Unit Name: Delena silt loam, 3 to 12 percent slopes NWI classification: _n_o_n_e _______ _

Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No _x __ (If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation __ , Soil ___ , or Hydrology ___ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _x __ No

(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are Vegetation __ , Soil ___ , or Hydrology ___ naturally problematic?


Hyfrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes_x __ No --- Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes_x __ No --- within a Wetland? Yes_x ___ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes_x __ No ------Remarks:

Plot lies in a swale draining southwest fed by small creek, which lies approx 15' to the east, and is approx 1'wide.

VEGETATION- Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:

Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius ) %Cover SQecies? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Fraxinus latifolia 90 y FACW That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)



4.

90 =Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species



1. Rosa pisocarpa 10 n FAC Prevalence Index worksheet:

2. Oemleria cerasiformis 35 y FACU Total % Cover of: MultiQI~ b~:

3. Holodiscus discolor 5 n UPL OBL species X 1 =

4. Symphoricarpos albus 5 n FACU FACW species x2=

5. FAC species x3=

55 =Total Cover FACU species x4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius ) UPL species x5= 1. Veratrum californicum 10 n FACW

Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Tolmeia menziesii 5 n FAC

3. Carex obnupta 80 y OBL Prevalence Index = 8/A =


5. [ZJ Dominance Test is >50%

6. 0 Prevalence Index is :5:3.01

7. D Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting -


D Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1

9.

10. 0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)


95 = Total Cover Wood~ Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius )

1. Hydrophytic



Remarks:

,. . 6d


SOIL Sampling Point 3


Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) __1L_ Color (moist) __1L_~ Loc' Texture Remarks

0-20 10YR 3/1 90 5YR 4/4 10 c M silty clay --- --- --- --------- --- ----- ---------- ---- ---- ---------- ----- ----- ----------- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ---- -----

---- ---------------- --- -------------1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lininq, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3

:

__ Histosol (A1) __ Sandy Redox (S5) __ 2 em Muck (A10)

__ Histic Epipedon (A2) __ Stripped Matrix (S6) __ Red Parent Material (TF2)

__ Black Histic (A3) __ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) __ Other (Explain in Remarks) __ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) __ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) __ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) __ Depleted Matrix (F3)

__ Thick Dark Surface (A12) __:_ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and __ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S 1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.


Type:


Remarks:


Primae£ Indicators (minimum of one reguired; check all that a[1[1ly) Secondaet Indicators (2 or more reguired)

_ Surface Water (A1) _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA __ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,

_:_ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 46) 4A, and 46)

_!_ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B 11) _ Drainage Patterns (B10)

_ Water Marks (B1) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) __ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)

_ Sediment Deposits (B2) __ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

_ Drift Deposits (83) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) __ Geomorphic Position (D2)

_ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) __ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3)

_ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) __ FAG-Neutral Test (D5)

_ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) __ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)

__ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imager (B7) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)

__ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)

Field Observations:


Water Table Present? Yes _x __ No ___ Depth (inches) 6"

Saturation Present? Yes _x __ No ___ Depth (inches): 2" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes_x __ No ---(includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

70



Project/Site: South Cooper Mountain LWI City/County: _w_a_s_h_in....:g:.._to_n _________ Sampling Date: March 19,2013

Applicant/Owner: _c_i..:.ty_o_f_B_e_a_ve_rt_o_n _______________________ State: Oregon Sampling Point: _4 _____ _

lnvestigator(s}: PRR, EJRO Section, Township, Range: _T_2_S_R_1_W_S_6 ______________ _

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): swale Local relief (concave, convex, none): _c_o_n_ca_v_e _____ Slope(%): _s __ _

Subregion (LRR): A La!: 45.43121 Long: -122.862747 Datum:-----

Soil Map Unit Name: Cascade silt loam, 7 to 12 percent slopes NWI classification: _n_o_n_e _______ _


Are Vegetation __ , Soil ___ , or Hydrology ___ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _x __ No __ _


SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hyfrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes_x __ No --- Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes_x __ No --- within a Wetland? Yes_x ___ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes_x __ No ------Remarks:

Plot lies in a swale draining southwest fed by small creek, which is a prox 8" wide.


Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius ) %Cover SQecies? Status

Fraxinus latifolia 80 FACW Number of Dominant Species

4 1. y That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)



4.



That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (A/B)

1. Rosa pisocarpa 20 y FAC Prevalence Index worksheet:

2. Oemleria cerasiformis 40 y FACU Total % Cover of: MultiQil( by::

3. Physocarpus capitatus 20 y FACW OBL species X 1 =

4. Rubus armeniacus 5 n FACU FACW species x2=

5. FAC species x3=

85 =Total Cover FACU species x4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius ) UPL species x5= 1. Equisetum telmateia 10 n FACW

Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Tolmeia menziesii T n FAC

3. Carex obnupta 65 y OBL Prevalence Index = B/A =


5. !ZI Dominance Test is >50%

6. D Prevalence Index is :>3.01

7. D Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting


9. 0 Wetland Non-Vascular Plants'

10. 0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)


75 =Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius )

1. Hydrophytic



Remarks:

' 71 J




Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) ~ Color (moist) ~~ Loc' Texture Remarks

0-20 10YR 3/1 90 5YR 4/4 10 c M silty clay --- --- --- --------- --- ---- -------- --------------- --- --- --------- --- --- --------- --- --- -----

--- ------------- --- -----------


:

_ Histosol (A 1) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 em Muck (A10) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)

~ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)

_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) _ Depleted Matrix (F3)

_ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ....!_ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.


Type:


Remarks:


Primaey Indicators {minimum of one reguired; check all that aQQI~) Secondaey Indicators (2 or more reguired)

_ Surface Water (A 1) _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,

_!__ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 46) 4A, and 46)

_!__ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B 11) _ Drainage Patterns (B10)

_ Water Marks (B 1) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)



_ Algal Mat or Crust (64) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3)

_ Iron Deposits (65) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAG-Neutral Test (D5)

_ Surface Soil Cracks (66) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) - Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)

_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imager (67) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)

_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)

Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes -- No _x __ Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes_x __ No __ Depth (inches): 6"

Saturation Present? Yes_x __ No __ Depth (inches): 2" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes_x __ No ---(includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

t ..... ·~

l::.



Project/Site: South Cooper Mountain LWI City/County: _w_a_s_h_in....::g'-to_n ________ Sampling Date: March 19,2013

Applicant/Owner: _C_it.:..y_o_f_B_ea_v_e_rt_o_n ______________________ State: Oregon Sampling Point: _5 ____ _


Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): swale Local relief (concave, convex, none): _n_o_ne ______ Slope(%): _3 __ _

Subregion (LRR): _A ______________ Lat: 45.429057 Long: -122.866015 Datum:-----

Soil Map Unit Name: Delena silt loam, 3 to 12 percent slopes NWI classification: _n_o_ne _______ _





Hyprophytic Vegetation Present? Yes_x __ No --- Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes_x __ No --- within a Wetland? Yes_x __ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes_x __ No ------Remarks:

Plot lies near the base of slope in a wetland which extends into a wheat field to the southeast. Drain tiles present in field.

VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:

Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius ) %Cover SQecies? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)



4.

=Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species

67 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) SaQiing/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius )


2. Total % Cover of: MultiQI~ b~:


4. FACW species x2=

5. FAC species x3=

=Total Cover FACU species x4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius ) UPL species x5=

1. Phalaris arundinacea 5 n FACW Column Totals: (A) (B)

2. Schedonorus phoenix 15 y FAC

3. Alepocurus pratensis 10 y FACW Prevalence Index = B/A=

4. Triticum aestivum 15 y UPL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

5. [l] Dominance Test is >50%

6. D Prevalence Index is :53.01

7. D Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting -


D Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1

9.

10. 0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)

11. 11ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

115 =Total Cover Wood~ Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius )

1. Hydrophytic



Remarks: ~) t J




Depth Matrix Redox Features {inches) Color {moist) ~ Color {moist) ~~ Loc' Texture Remarks

0-20 10YR 3/1 40 5YR 4/4 10 c M silty clay --- --------------0-20 10YR 3/2 40 5YR 4/4 10 c M Silty clay ---- ---- ----- ------

--- ----- ---- -----

---- ---- ----- --------- ------------------- ----- ----- ----------- ----- ----- ------

-- ---- ----- ----- -----'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3

:

_ Histosol (A1) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 em Muck (A10) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material {TF2)

_ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) __ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) __ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) _ Depleted Matrix (F3)

_ Thick Dark Surface (A 12) ....:::_ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and __ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.


Type:


Remarks:

Soil matrix was comprised of a mix of 1 OYR 3/1 and 3/2 colors, together covering 80% of the soil profile. Redox features comprised the remaining 20 percent of the soil profile and were evenly distributed between the two matrix colors.


Primar:y Indicators {minimum of one reguired; check all that a(;!(21~) Secondar:y Indicators (2 or more reguired)

__ Surface Water (A1) _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,

...::__ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and 48)

..!._ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Drainage Patterns (B10)




_ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) __ Shallow Aquitard (D3)

__ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAG-Neutral Test (D5)

_ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)

__ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imager (B7) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)


Field Observations:


Water Table Present? Yes _x __ No ___ Depth (inches): 9"

Saturation Present? Yes _x __ No __ Depth (inches): 2" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes_x __ No ---(includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

r'1 1 , . - •

I US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast- Interim Version


Project/Site: South Cooper Mountain LWI City/County: _w_a_s_h_in_g_to_n ________ _ Sampling Date: March 19,2013

Applicant/Owner: City of Beaverton State: Oregon Sampling Point: _6 _____ _

lnvestigator(s): _P_R_R_,_E_J_R_o _______________ Section, Township, Range: _T_1_S_R_1_w_s_3_1 ______________ _

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): swale Local relief (concave, convex, none): _c_o_nc_a_v_e _____ Slope(%): _4 __ _

Subregion (LRR): _A ______________ La!: 45.433845 Long: -122.858479 Datum:-----

Soil Map Unit Name: Cornelius and Kinton silt loams, 20 to 30 percent slopes NWI classification: _n_o_n_e _______ _





Hyrrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes_x __ No --- Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes_x __ No --- within a Wetland? Yes_x ___ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes_x __ No ------Remarks:

Plot lies in a swale draining south that was fenced off. contained aggressive goats, and was impassible, so vegetation was assessed from 20' visually, and hydrology assumed.

VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:

Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius ) %Cover S[!ecies? Status

Fraxinus latifolia 5 FACW Number of Dominant Species

2 1. y That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)



4.


100 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Sa[!ling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius )


2. Total % Cover of: Multi[!ly: by::


4. FACW species x2=

5. FAC species x3=

=Total Cover FACU species x4=

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius ) UPL species x5=

1. Poa pratensis 90 y FAC Column Totals: (A) (B)

2. Juncus effusus 20 n FACW

3. Prevalence Index = B/A =


5. [lJ Dominance Test is >50%

6. D Prevalence Index is :>3.01

7. 0 Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting


0 Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 9. 0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 10.


110 = Total Cover Woody: Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius )

1. Hydrophytic



Remarks:

Grazing by goats. M ....

i ~ ...




Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) ~ Color (moist) ~~ LocL Texture Remarks

--- -------------- ---------------- ---- --- --------- ------------------- --- ---- --------- ----------------- ---------------- --- -------------


:

__ Histosol (A 1) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 em Muck (A10) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ...!__ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) _ Depleted Matrix (F3)

_ Thick Dark Surface (A 12) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S 1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.


Type:


Remarks:

No access due to fencing. Soil assumed hydric based on similar soil in similar swale environments along the same drainage.


Prima[Y Indicators (minimum of one reguired; check all that aQQiy) Seconda[Y Indicators (2 or more reguired)


..:._ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and 48)

_!_ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Drainage Patterns (B10)




__!..._ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3)

_ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAG-Neutral Test (D5)


_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imager (B7) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)


Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes __ No ___ Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes __ No __ Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes __ No __ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes_x __ No ---(includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

No access due to fencing. Hydrology assumed based on hydrology in similar swale environments on the same property

I' I-. tO

·-



Project/Site: South Cooper Mountain LWI City/County: _w_a_s_h_in....:g:...to_n _________ Sampling Date: March 19,2013

Applicant/Owner: _C_it..:.y_o_f_B_e_a_ve_rt_o_n _______________________ State: Oregon Sampling Point: _7 _____ _

lnvestigator(s): _P_R_R_'-'E_J_R_o _______________ Section, Township, Range: _T_2_S_R_1_W_S_6 _______________ _

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): _s_w_a_le ___________ Local relief (concave, convex, none): _c_o_n_ca_v_e _____ Slope(%): _3 __ _

Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 45.42832 Long: -122.864528 Datum:-----

Soil Map Unit Name: Delena silt loam, 3 to 12 percent slopes NWI classification: _n_:o_n_e _______ _




SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hyprophytic Vegetation Present? Yes_x __ No --- Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes_x __ No --- within a Wetland? Yes_x ___ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes_x __ No ------Remarks:

Plot lies in a riparian wetland adjacent to a 1.5' wide drainage. The area has been recently mowed to remove Himalayan blackberry.


Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius ) %Cover Species? Status

Number of Dominant Species 1. Fraxinus latifolia 85 y FACW That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)

2 Total Number of Dominant

3 Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)

4.

85 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species

100 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius )

1. Rosa pisocarpa 10 y FAG Prevalence Index worksheet:

2. Corn us sericea 15 y FACW Total % Cover of: MultiQiy: b~;::

3 Rubus armeniacus 5 n FACU OBL species X 1 =

4. FACW species x2=

5. FAC species x3=

30 = Total Cover FACU species x4=

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius ) UPL species x5= 1. Poa pratensis 40 y FAC

Column Totals: (A) (B)

2 Tolmeia menziesii 10 n FAC

3. Carex obnupta 10 n OBL Prevalence Index = B/A =

4. moss 40 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

5. [lJ Dominance Test is >50%

6. 0 Prevalence Index is :>3.01

7. D Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting


0 Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 9. 0 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) 10.

11. 1lndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

60 =Total Cover Woody: Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius )

1. Hydrophytic



Remarks:

77 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast- Interim Version



Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) _____%__ Color (moist) _____%__ __lyQQ_ ___kQ£_ Texture Remarks

0-20 10YR 3/1 90 5YR 4/4 10 c M silty clay --- ------------------ ------------------ --- ---- ----

---- ---- ----- -------- ----------------- ---------------- ---- ---- -----

-- --- ------------1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3

:

_ Histosol (A 1) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 em Muck (A10) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2)

_ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Thick Dark Surface (A12) _.!.._ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, __ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.


Type:


Remarks:


Prima[Y Indicators (minimum of one reguired; check all that aQQiy) Seconda[Y Indicators (2 or more reguired)


.!_ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and 48)

_!__ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B 11) _ Drainage Patterns (B10)




_Algal Mat or Crust (84) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3)

_ Iron Deposits (85) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAG-Neutral Test (D5)


_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imager (B7) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)


Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes -- No_x __ Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes _x __ No __ Depth (inches): 8"

Saturation Present? Yes _x __ No __ Depth (inches): 4" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes_x __ No ---(includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

~ ;~-; ' "..)



Appendix C: Wetland Summary Sheets (Wetlands less than 0.5 acres Not Included)

OAR 141-086-0220(3J(bJ A summary sheet for each wetland that must at a minimum include.

(A) The unique wetland code;

(B) Street address or equivalent location description;

(C) Township, Range, Section, Quarter Quarter Section and tax lot(s) that contain the mapped wetland;

(OJ Approximate wetland size (in acres);

(E) Cowardin classification(s);

(F) HGM classification(s);

(G) Mapped soil unit(s);

(H) Watershed boundaries at the 6th field Hydrologic Unit Code scale as defined by the US Geological Survey or finer;

(I) Sample plot numbers, if any;

(J) Department wetland determination or delineation file numbers, where applicable;

(K) Scientific and common names of dominant plant species;

(L) Primary hydrology sources;

(M) Sampling or visual confirmation date(s) and method;

(N) Locally Significant Wetland determination, if made; and

(0) Comments that describe the wetland, including topographic position, land uses and significant alterations (including agricultural).

September 2015

LOCAL WETLAND INVENTORY Wetland Characterization Sheet

GENERAL INFORMATION

Wetland Code: W-A (Locally Significant) Method: Onsite and Offsite

Wetland Size: 11.80 acres (+2.64 acres

Field Date(s): March 19, 2013 of open water)

Cowardin Class: PF01Y, PEM1Y (PUB) Data Plot #s: 1, 2, 3, 4

HGM Class: Slope, RFT Investigators: PRR, EJRO

LOCATION

Street/landmark North of Scholls Ferry Road, west of SW 1751h Ave

Legal/tax map: 2S 1 W06000 TL0400, 0402, 0403, 0404, 0800

Sub-basin code: CWS Streamshed-TR06.5 (Tualatin River Trib.)

WETLAND CHARACTERISTICS

Note that portions of this wetland were formally delineated by Pacific Habitat Services (October 13, 2014), which occurred after DEA's site visit. The delineation was approved by DSL and assigned DSL WD #2014-0497.

Description: This rather large wetland is fed by groundwater and two small, unnamed tributaries to the Tualatin River (TR-1, TR-1 b). The eastern portion has been converted to pasture, and is dominated by non-native grasses Tall fescue (Schedonorus phoenix) and Meadow foxtail (Aiopecurus pratensis), while the remainder consists of forested wetland. Site access was granted for only TL0402 and 0800 and representative plots were taken on those lots. The rest was viewed from adjacent lots and appeared to be similar in nature. Forested wetland dominant species are provided below. Vegetative diversity and wildlife use in the wetland was fairly high.

Soils: 16C- Delena silt loam, 3 to 12 percent slopes

Hydrologic Source: Groundwater/subsurface flow

Dominant Vegetation

Trees Shrubs Vines/Herbs

Oregon ash Fraxinus Pacific

Physocarpus capitatus slough sedge Carex obnupta latifolia ninebark

cluster rose Rosa pisocarpa Reed canarygrass

Pha/aris arundinacea

Douglas' Crataegus douglasii

hawthorn

Indian plum Oemleria cerasiformis

Potential Enhancement Opportunities: -Weed removal and native plantings, especially in the pasture area. -Drain tile removal in pasture area. -Limiting herbicide/fertilizer application on adjacent farm fields to protect water quality -Potential to remove dam for fish passage, but this should be weighed against providing open water habitat for wildlife and other opportunities and constraints.

80


GENERAL INFORMATION

Wetland Code: W-C (Locally Significant) Method: Onsite and Offsite

Wetland Size: 1.42 acres Field Date(s): March 19, 2013

Cowardin Class: PF01Y Data Plot #s: 7


LOCATION

StreeUiandmark North of Scholls Ferry Road, west of SW 1751h Ave

Legal/tax map: 2S1W06000 TL0404, 0500, and 0600



Description: This wetland is fed by groundwater and an unnamed tributary to the Tualatin River (TR-1 ), and lies downslope of a small dam. The dam may have reduced historic extent of the wetland based on hydric soils mapping, and the fact that Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) was present in the wetland, indicating drying during the summer months. Blackberry in the wetland was recently cut as a part of the adjacent residential construction. Dominant wetland species are provided below.

Soils: 16C- Delena silt loam, 3 to 12 percent slopes

Hydrologic Source: Unnamed tributary to the Tualatin River; groundwater discharge

Dominant Vegetation

Trees Shrubs Vines/Herbs Oregon ash Fraxinus Red-osier Comus sericea Kentucky Poa pratensis

latifolia dogwood bluegrass

cluster rose Rosa pisocarpa

Potential Enhancement Opportunities: -Weed removal and native plantings, especially in the pasture area. -Limiting herbicide/fertilizer application on adjacent farm fields to protect water quality


GENERAL INFORMATION

Wetland Code: W-G

Wetland Size: 21.29 acres

Cowardin Class: PEM1Yf

HGM Class: Slope

LOCATION

Method: Offsite

Field Date(s): March 19, 2013

Data Plot #s: N/A

Investigators: PRR, EJRO

StreeUiandmark North of Scholls Ferry Road, east of SW Tile Flat Road

Legal/tax map: 2S2W01000 TL0101



Description: This wetland lies in a swale and what is likely a broad and shallow depressional area within a recently plowed field. Aerial photo signatures show potential wetland hydrology conditions over a broad area; however, actual wetland extent could vary considerably. It is unknown if the site has tile drains. The wetland contained no vegetation at the time of the site visit (viewed from Tile Flat Road) and based on aerial photography it appears to plowed annually. It is connected to tributary TR-1 a, which is impounded somewhat by a dam near Scholls Ferry Road.

Soils: 78 - Cascade silt loam, 3 to 7 percent slopes 16C - Delena silt loam, 3 to 12 percent slopes

Hydrologic Source: groundwater/subsurface flow

Dominant Vegetation

Trees Shrubs Vines/Herbs None -plowed None- None-field plowed field plowed field

Potential Enhancement Opportunities: -Weed removal and native plantings. -Limiting herbicide/fertilizer application on adjacent orchards to protect water quality


GENERAL INFORMATION

Wetland Code: W-H (Locally Significant) Method: Offsite (delin by others)

Wetland Size: 10.79 acres Field Date(s): March 19, 2013

Cowardin Class: PSS1Y Data Plot #s: N/A


LOCATION

Street/landmark Just north of Scholls Ferry Road, east of SW 1751h Ave

Legal/tax map: 2S1W06000 TL0103 and 0200

Sub-basin code: CWS Streamshed --SMC (Summer Creek)


Wetland areas in tax lot 0103 were formally delineated by AKS Engineering & Forestry, LLC (November 26, 2014) and areas in tax lot 0200 were delineated by Anchor QEA, LLC (2015). Both delineations were concurred with and assigned DSL WD#2015-0063 and #2015-01 05, respectively. Both delineations occurred after DEA's off-site reconnaissance visit. The wetland continues off-site to the east, which was previously delineated and assigned DSL WD#2006-0732.

Description: This wetland is fed by both groundwater and a small, unnamed tributary to Summer Creek. Although the wetland was only visible from Scholls Ferry Road, it appeared to be a mixture of pasture grasses and shrubs, with scattered Oregon ash in the overstory (approximately 50%). The wetland follows along unnamed tributary (SMC) up the hillslope where recent logging activities had removed much of the vegetation but is likely to quickly grown back into a scrub-shrub community and eventually forested wetland if there is no future disturbance.

Soils: 16C - Delena silt loam, 3 to 12 percent slopes

Hydrologic Source: Tributary to Summer Creek; groundwater/subsurface flow discharge

Dominant Vegetation

Trees Shrubs Vines/Herbs Oregon ash Fraxinus /atifo/ia Willow Salix sp. Tall fescue Schedonorus phoenix

Velvetgrass Holcus lanatus

Colonial Agrostis capil/aris bentgrass

Meadow A/opecurus pratensis foxtail

Potential Enhancement Opportunities: It appears that riparian vegetation could be increased and enhanced by weed removal and native plantings, especially in the herbaceous layer. The wetland extends upslope to the west a short distance into plowed pasture, where the tributary has been channelized along the eastern boundary of the field. Riparian restoration would be especially valuable in this area. Other opportunities: - Limiting herbicide/fertilizer application on adjacent farm fields to protect water quality


Appendix D: Wetland Functional Assessment Results

OAR 141-086-0220(3)(c) OFWAM assessment results for each wetland assessment unit that must include:

(A) Wetlands of Special Interest for Protection (OFWAM, Chapter Five);

(B) Wetland Characterization results (OFWAM, Appendix B);

(C) Assessment results represented in table format;

(D) Answer sheets for all wetland assessment questions (OFWAM, Appendix C);

(E) Function and condition summary sheets for fish habitat, wildlife habitat, water quality, hydrologic control and, if applicable, education and recreation (OFWAM, Appendix C); and

(F) Watershed summary sheet (OFWAM, Appendix C).

(d) Technical staff members and qualifications.

September 2015

Watershed summary sheet for the Oregon Method

Watershed or community identification: Lower Willamette Drainage Basin

Characteristic Description

Physical characteristics of the watershed

Land uses within the watershed

Water quality

Biological characteristics of the watershed

Gentle to fairly steep slope south facing watershed. Drains to Tualatin River or tributaries of the Tualatin River. Drainages are typically headwater drainages, with much of the stream length likely only flowing intermittently, drying out in the late summer. Small irrigation dams/water control stuctures occur on two of the drainages.

The watershed drainaging to the LWI study area covers an area of approximately 770 acres. The average slope of the watershed is approximately 7 percent, with lower gradient slopes occuring in the southern/lower portion and steeper slopes occuring in the northern/upper portion. All streams in the watershed have been modified to varying degrees. For the most part, water is not being taken out of the streams through diking, drainage or irrigation districts in the watershed upstream of the assessment area.

The dominant land use in the watershed upstream from the assessment area is agriculture; however, forested areas and rural residential dwellings are also prevalent. The area within the assessment area is clearly dominated by agricultural/and uses, including a mix of annual crops, pasture, orchards, and viticulture.

No streams within the study area are listed as water quality limited according to DEQ 303(d) databases. A recent Oregon Statewide Assessment of Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution was not available. It is assumed that project stream reaches would be classified as "no data available" since they are intermittent headwater streams. However, riparian areas are lacking substantial native vegetation, especially trees and shrubs, along most streams reaches. This results in a lack of stream shading and affective water quality buffers to capture sediment from agricultural fields. These factors likely lead to reduced water quality.

Assessment area streams are intermittent streams and contain fish passage barriers at the downstream end of the assessment area. They drain to stream reaches that support an anadromous fishery.

Native plant communities have largely been replaced by agricultural lands. Therefore sensitive wildlife species are presumed absent. Wildlife that persist or thrive in agricultural settings, such as deer, coyote, raccoon, etc. are present within the watershed. High quality native habitat exists to the north of the watershed within Cooper Mountain Nature Park and are generally accessable to wildlife that may occur within the LWI study area.

Narrative summary of watershed description The project study area primarily consists of rural lands that are bordered to the east by suburban development and to the north, south, and west by rural/and. Slopes range from gently rolling in the south half to moderately steep in the north half of the study area. The majority of the land drains to the south, with a portion of the area draining to the southeast. Land use is predominantly agricultural, with a mix of annual crop production, pasture, orchards, and viticulture. Several small remnant patches of native forest habitat occur within the area, including mixed upland fir-deciduous forest, Oregon ash dominated wetland forest, and patches of Oregon oak forest. Several fir dominated lots were being logged or had recently been logged as observed during the March 2013 site visits.

() ') 0 ·-

~.,,~ acres) W-C(1.42'cc:::m.,,WG(21~

Question# 1 Lower Willamette Lower Willamette Lower Willamette Lower Willamette 2 0.35 sq miles 0.43 sq miles 0.16 sq miles 0.22 sq miles 3 8 percent 8 percent 4 percent 7 percent 4 A A,B A,B A,B 5 B B B B 6 B B B B 7 B B B B 8 A (no data) A (no data) A (no data) A (no data) 9 F F F F 10 B B B B 11 c c -- c 12 B B B B 13 A A A A 14 B B B B 15 (1-b),(2-c),(4-a) (1-b),(2-c),(4-a) (1-b),(2-c),(4-a) (1-b),(2-b), (4-a) 16 (1-b),(2-c),(4-a) (1-b),(2-c),(4-a) (1-b),(2-c),(4-a) (1-b),(2-a),(4-b) 17 A B A A 18 A A A A 19 B B B B 20 (4) developed at 100% (4) developed at 100% (4) developed at 100% (4) developed at 100% 21 d, C, --, b --, --, --, a --, c, --, -- --, c, --, --22 NA, currently rural NA, currently rural NA, currently rural NA, currently rural 23 A A c A 24 B c c c 25 B c c B 26 NA, currently rural NA, currently rural NA, currently rural NA, currently rural 27 A A A A 28 B D D D 29 c B c c 30 NA, connection impedded B c c 31 NA, connection impedded A D D 32 NA, connection impedded c c c 33 A NA, no lake c NA, no lake 34 A NA, no lake c NA, no lake 35 c NA, no lake c NA, no lake 36 c A c c 37 c A, sediment deposits c c 38 A c c c 39 A B A A 40 A A A A 41 c c c c 42 B, busy road/no sidewalk A B, busy road/no sidewalk B, busy road/no sidewalk 43 A A A A 44 B B B B 45 B B B B 46 c c c c 47 c c c c

Wildlife habitat Question 1 A B c Question 2 A A c Question 3 B c c Question 4 A Question 5 A A A Question 6 A A A Question 7 A A A Question 8 B B B Question 9 A A c Assessment Descriptor Diverse Diverse Some habitat

Fish habitat Streams and rivers Question 1 A A c Question 2 A A B Question 3 B c c Question 4 A A A Question 5 B B B Question 6 B B c Lakes and ponds Question 1 B - -

Question 2 c - -Question 3 B - -Question 4 A - -

Question 5 B - -

Question 6 B - -

Assessment Descriptor Intact Intact Degraded

Water quali!Y_ Question 1 c c c Question 2 c A c Question 3 A A A Question 4 A B A Question 5 B B B Question 6 c c c Assessment Descriptor Degraded Degraded Degraded

Hydrologic control Question 1 B B B Question 2 c c c Question 3 A B A Question 4 A B A Question 5 A c c Question 6 B B B Question 7 A A A Assessment Descriptor Intact Degraded Degraded

Question 1 b b b b Question 2 b b b b Question 3 b b b b Question 4 b b b b

Question 5 a (portion of wetland) a b a (portion of wetland) Question 6 b b b b Question 7 b b b b Question 8 b b b b Question 9 b b b b Question 10 b b b b

I Meets WISP criteria* yes (portion of wetland) yes no yes (portion of wetland)

*Only one question out of the ten needs to be answered as "a" in order to meet WISP criteria.

83

South Cooper Mountain Annexation Area Locally Significant Wetlands

~ Locally Significant Wetlands

D Impact Area (50 ft buffer)

::~ South Cooper Mountain Community Plan Boundary

0 Taxlots

----=====-------Feet 0 387.5

Tr•~n~pil lnlladldlctil*r~.-p..fl(lt·OI'fy . • • riC!Ii~lct-~llt'~",..,.... WhletitsNp..p'MIIUhbeslclltal'<o'IUHI.t. llnafputlic81icn.IMC:ilfo1Bt_.... ..... IIO~. rtlpl'etleft.,llio,., or_.IWI•klh.:encyllt' eci'IIP~I. IleladeiiMIItle~r~nl,

Q) m

775 1,550

N

A

Exhibit 2

E_ JALE

Exhibit 3

I An~lo LAND"'' PLANNING •

p anni~gOgroup-----------------MemorandUm

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING • PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Date: December 24, 2015

To: David Levitan, Val erie Sutton and Cassera Phipps, City of Beaverton

cc: File

From: Cathy Corliss and Andrew Parish

Re: Goal 5 Analysis- South Cooper Mountain

INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE

Statewide Planning Goal 5 directs local governments to protect natural resources and conserve scenic

and historic areas and open spaces. OAR 660-023 establishes procedures and criteria for inventorying

and eva luating Goal 5 resources and for developing land use programs to conserve and protect sign ificant

Goal 5 resources. The purpose of this ana lysis is to address the Goal 5 requirements for three type of

natural resources (Riparian Corridors, Wetlands, and Wildlife Habitat) within the South Cooper Mountain

study area.

The process to comply with Goal 5 follows three main steps.

1. Inventory natural resources and determine which resources are significant. Within the study area

inventories include:

a. Wetlands : the Draft South Cooper Mountain Local Wetlands Inventory (Draft LWI)

b. Riparian Corridors and Upland Wildlife Habitat : Metro Title 13 Resource Inventory and

the South Cooper Mountain Resource Inventory

2. Complete an economic, social, environmental and energy (ESEE) analysis; or, in the case of

regional resources, comply with the requirements of Metro's Urban Growth Management

Functiona l Plan (UGMFP) . An ESEE Analysis involves eva luating the potentia l tradeoffs associated

with managing significant natural resources relative to the expected use scenario. An ESEE

analysis is required for significant wetlands; however, Metro has adopted a regional resources

functional plan which addresses Riparian Corridors and Wildlife Habitat, therefore the

requirements of UGMFP Title 13 (Title 13), rather than those of OAR 660-023, app ly to those

resources. This report includes both an eva luation of Title 13 compliance for riparian corridors

and wildlife habitat and an ESEE ana lysis for significant wetlands .

921 SW Washington Street, Suite 468, Portland , OR 97205 • tel 503.224.6974 • fax 503.227.3679 • www.angeloplanning.com

90

December 24, 2015 ESEE Memorandum 2

3. Develop a program to protect significant natural resources. Beaverton's existing Goal 5 program

relies primarily on programs established by the Tualatin Basin Partners, including Clean Water

Services {CWS), to protect and enhance natural resources . The City also employs other tools to

help protect and conserve significant resources identified in natural resource inventories, such as

flexible development standards (e.g. planned unit developments) and tree protection

requirements. This report identifies potential program recommendations.

STUDY AREA

The study area for this analysis is the South Cooper Mountain Annexation Area (SCMAA), which was

brought into the urban growth boundary in 2011 and annexed to the City of Beaverton in January 2013.

It is anticipated to be developed in the near term . The study area is within the South Cooper Mountain

Concept Plan area. The South Cooper Mountain Concept Plan to serve as a long-term guide for future

growth and development of the 2,300-acre South Cooper Mountain area which includes three distinct

subareas (North Cooper Mountain, the Urban Reserve Area and the South Cooper Mountain Annexation

Area) . This analysis is limited to the SCMAA as shown in Figure 1, below. Both the South Cooper

Mountain Concept Plan and the South Cooper Community Plan, which is specific to the SCMAA, were

adopted in February 2015 and provide policy direction for this ESEE.

Applicable Policies from the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan

Natural Resource Policies 1. Locally significant wetlands and protected riparian corridors within the Community Plan area

shall be protected and enhanced, consistent with local, state, and federal regulations.

2. Development adjacent to significant natural resource areas shall be designed to provide visual

and/or physical access to the resource area and limit continuous rear lot line edges abutting a

significant natural resource through one or more of the following treatments of the open space

edge.

a. parallel trail along the edge of the vegetated corridor with access points from

adjacent roads and community focal points;

b. local streets that run adjacent to the edge of the vegetated corridor, without

development between the street and the vegetated corridor; or

c. neighborhood parks, pocket parks, schools and similar uses that connect to the

resource area and provide breaks between developed areas abutting the resource.

Urban Forestry Policies

3. Regionally Significant Upland Habitat within the SCM Community Plan area shall be protected

through application of the City's existing tree protection standards and Habitat Benefit Area

provisions, as appropriate.

91

December 24, 2015 ESEE Memorandum

Figure 1: South Cooper Mountain Subareas from the South Cooper Mountain Concept Plan

I

South Cooper Mountain Annexation Area

3

As noted in the Draft LWI, the study area is bordered to t he east by suburban development and to the

north, south, and west by rural land. Slopes range from gently ro lling in the south half to moderately

steep in the north half of the study area. The majority of the land drains to the south, with a portion of

the area draining to the southeast. Land use is predominantly agricu ltural, with a mix of annual crop

production, pasture, orchards, and viticulture. However, within the study area these uses are expected to

transition to urban development in the near future as described in the Conflicting Uses section of th is

analysis.

Study area drainages are typica lly headwater drainages, with much of the stream length li ke ly only

flowing intermittently and drying out in the late summer. All streams in the watershed have been

modified to varying degrees. Riparian areas are lacking substantia l native vegetation, especia lly trees and

92


shrubs, along most streams reaches. This results in a lack of stream shading and effective water quality

buffers to capture sediment from agricultural fields. These factors are likely to result in reduced water

quality. Native plant communities have largely been replaced by agricultural lands. However, several

small remnant patches of native forest habitat occur within the area, including mixed upland fir

deciduous forest, Oregon ash dominated wetland forest, and patches of Oregon oak forest. Several fir

dominated lots were being logged or had recently been logged as observed during the March 2013 site

visits . Wildlife that persist or thrive in agricultural settings, such as deer, coyote, raccoon, etc. are present

within the watershed . The South Cooper Mountain Concept Plan notes that "The South Cooper

Mountain Annexation Area provides the greatest opportunities for habitat restoration where a number of

wetlands and waterways have been degraded by agricu ltural activities. Primary opportunities include

protecting and enhancing native vegetation (in wetlands, riparian areas, and wildlife corridors) and

enhancing stream functions and values for fish and other species."

As shown in Figure 2, future land uses within the study area are expected to be primarily residential.

There is also a relatively small area of approximately ten acres designated as Main Street. Development

of a new high school has been approved within the area designated as high density residential adjacent to

1751h Avenue . Table 1 identifies the zones that will implement these designations.

Figure 2: Community Plan Land Use Map from the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan

South

I l I

J

I ~ •

I WouJ:y liD

- .. Beaverton ~ooth Cooper Mountain

·--' I . I

I ' _J =

SCM

~ Sl(YUII V.'QOO$ Ul ~

~lli.-E OR Q/Tl.OOKUI ;: ' SJ rA RIOOI; LN

m..IHH ... tN

RlltK

CMN.II, tH I H

ALYORDLH

i I

~ I . ; ~ i

!

..... ... ·-----·-···-······' ..... ,._ .

• -- I ._" :&"

·----·~ I g

l ' ..... : - . ---.: , ._ti::NI'llYlH

••• Soutll COoper MoUntain ' - -• Ccrnmunlty Plan Atu

<:.~ : :;urt> .. Growth Bot~nCWy

Streams Ta.dals Pltllll\ed High Sehcol Site

Study Area

HiQ Del\llty RnidtnU -M in Street Medium Donoity Rositlential

S~aldOensiiV Re.Jd., t ll

)00 1.000 tOOO !Fee-t

93


Table 1: Zoning, Allowed Uses & Housing Types by Designation

Comprehensive Zoning Uses & Housing Types Allowed Plan Designation District High Density R-1 Attached housing, detached housing all owed outright* Residential

Medium Density R-2 Attached housing, detached housing allowed outright* Residential R-4 Detached housing al lowed outright, limited attached housing

allowed conditional ly*

Standard Density R-5 Detached housing allowed outright, duplexes allowed Residential conditiona lly*

R-7 Detached housing allowed outright*

Main Street** NS Many commercia l uses, including retail, service, eating and drinking establ ishments, and offices allowed outright; attached and detached housing al lowed conditionally; schoo ls and parks allowed outright, churches and certain other civic uses allowed conditionally

* In all residential zones, schools, parks and, churches certain other commercia l & civic uses are all owed conditiona lly. **Ma in Street designation will be implemented by a mix of NS, R1 and R2.

RIPARIAN CORRIDORS AND WILDLIFE HABITAT

INVENTORY AND DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE

At the reg iona l leve l, Metro completed the requ ired process to comply with State Land Use Planning Goa l

5 in developing the Nature in Neighborhoods program. First, Metro developed an inventory of regional ly

significant riparian corridors and wildlife habitat based on a scientific assessment of functional values

{initial Metro Council endorsement in August 2002}. In developing the inventory Metro produced

technical reports, GIS data and models, and maps of showing natural resource features and relative

quality ranks. Metro then completed an ESEE ana lysis to assess the tradeoffs of protecting or not

protecting the resources identified in the inventory.

The Metro Counci l established Title 13 through adoption of Ordinance NO. 05-1077C {September 2005}

and as amended through Ordinance NO. 05-1097A {December 2005 }. Through this action the Metro

Council adopted the inventory of regionally significant fish and wildlife habitat and its ESEE analysis as the

basis for the Nature in Neighborhoods program. Section 2 of this ordinance states : " ... Based on Metro's

ESEE analysis, Metro has determined to allow some confl icting uses and to limit some confl icting uses,

but not to prohibit any conflicting uses. " Metro's determination is reflected in Tables 3-07-13a and 3-07-

13b, which are contained in Tit le 13. These tables illustrate Metro's decision to establish different levels

of protection based on habitat quality and urban development potential. As noted above, SCMAA was

brought into the UGB in 2011; and thus, is subject to Table 3-07-13b, which identifies regionally

significant fish and wildlife habitat {"Habitat Conservation Areas") as Riparian Class I and II habitat within

5

94


the Metro boundary, and upland wildlife Class A and B habitat on land that is added to Urban Growth

Boundary after December 28, 2005.

Table .3. 07-:!.3b: llethod foz Identi.fyin!J Bllhitat Conservation Area:. ("BCA") in ~ture Hetzo

Urban Gzowth Bounda~· ~ansion Areas

!'i::h. & vildl:..fe babitllt cl=sific.a tion

Cl;;.!!:s I R:..-o.:~.ri.:~.n

Cl;;.!!:s II R:..p.:~.ri..:~.r.

::: .. !!!! ~

CJ:=lot.nd "W:..lci.li::e

Cpl.:tnd

High vrhe.n t1e!hum Orban development development

value' vdl ue·l :!-!::>de:::,;;. te f.:iql:.-. HC.~.

:.ow HC.l\. l:;n.; HCI-.

:.ow HCA M::>der;;.te F.:;..

:.ow He .. :... : ~-w HCJ. ..

Low Ur.DII.D development

va.luel

Hoder;;.te

}loder;;.te

Hoder;;.te

Other areas: Park!; dOd

Open Spo!!.ces, r.o d.e::igo

t:;,opes out:z::~.de UG8 l:liqh F.:?. / Hiqh E:.:...+' Hoderate

HC .. ~ / High F.;:?.+' High F.::?. / High ::::;..'· / Hiq.n F.:?.+' Hoderat.e

HC.~ / High F.CA'· / High F.:A+'

6

As part of the South Cooper Mountain planning process, David Evans and Associates (DEA) completed an

assessment of riparian corridor and wildlife habitat. Metro's 2005 inventory of regionally significant

riparian corridors and wildlife habitat provided the technical basis and starting point for this assessment.

By starting with Metro's inventory, DEA was able to incorporate and build on the extensive research,

technical analysis, and public review that shaped the regional inventory. DEA updated riparian habitat

mapping where updated stream locations created gaps and when habitat appeared to have changed

since previous mapping efforts were conducted. Riparian area boundaries were defined in accordance

with CWS vegetated corridor width determination methods. Similar to riparian habitats, upland habitat

mapping was revised based on site reconnaissance and aerial photo review. Forested areas that had been

cut since the 2005 mapping were generally removed from mapping, as were recent residential

development areas.

This updated inventory of significant riparian corridors and wildlife habitat was adopted by the City as

part of the South Cooper Mountain Concept and Community Plans and generally accepted by Metro as in

compliance with the Metro functional plan Metro recognized (letter dated Dec 2, 2014) that further

compliance will be achieved as the city completes tasks outlined in the SCM Implementation Plan. Project

#12: Urban Forestry Review calls for evaluation of current urban forest conditions, review of the city's

existing regulations related to natural resources policies and programs, and determination of whether

there is a need to modify current regulations.

Q ~·~ v •,.o'


Figure 3: Riparian Corridors and Upland Wildlife Habitat

Plan Natural Resources

- DEASCMAA LWI Streams

DEA SCMAA LWI lt.il SiQnlficant 11'/etlands

:') South Cooper Mountain • Communiiy Plan Boundary

't:i Urban Growth Boundary

r~,y~'"'~l - Existing Roads

DISCLAIMER Tb1.s m., i:. inrended for in!Dtm:!xma.' putpOSe~ &nly. tt ~not rJ!end~d !or~t. engw1eerr.q tN ~urvejing pwp~e:s

Wble tf)u map rep-el~~ the btsl ri-a~ anJatlf •r ttJe OO:te ol pubb)On, :he City of SNredon mike.5 no dlln"J t~uonrar.ons orw~!ie.s aJ. to~ .i:c:ura:y Of ccmple~M':- A...~3"!i •~iable t~pon reau~K. Cootr:m.:e Syst•m. NJ..D 1983 HARJ.J S~t•PI•.rw Oleg<JtJ North FiPS 3601 Fe~ fnU

Taxlots

1:1 Riparian & Wetland Buffers

Upland Hobitat Quality

11 Upland Wildlife Hal~tat Class A

II Upland Wild ife Habitat Class B

Upland Wildlife Habitat Classc

Riparian Habitat Quality

11 Riparian W~dlife Habitat Class I

11 Riparian Wildlife Habila Class II

Riparian Wildl ife Habrtat Class Ill

0 500 1,000 2,000 E"3 ~Fe-et

COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 13

For riparian corridors, the City of Beaverton complied with Title 13 through its participation in the

Tualatin Basin Natural Resource Coordinating Committee (TBNRCC), also known as the Tualatin Basin

Partners for Natural Places1. As a Partner jurisdiction, Beaverton requires compliance with CWS Design

and Construction Standards for development in or near a water resource area and also provides

incentives through its Habitat Benefit Areas (HBAs} program .

For wildlife habitat, the UGMFP states that the wildlife habitat requirements of Title 13 for new urban

areas apply to TBNRCC jurisdictions.

UGMFP Section 3.07.1330{8)(5)(f). The city or county complies with the provisions of Metro Code

Section 3.07.1330{8}(1) to {8}(3) as those provisions apply to upland wildlife habitat in territory

1 Alliance of eight cities and Washington Co. working with Metro, THPRD and CWS to meet federal , state and

regional requirements for protecting riparian corridors and wildlife habitat in the Tualatin Basin .

7

96


added to the Metro urban growth boundary after December 28, 2005. For example, {1) each city

and county shall either adopt and apply Metro's Title 13 Model Ordinance to upland wildlife

habitat in new urban areas, {2) substantially comply with the requirements of Metro Code Section

3.07.1340 as it applies to upland wildlife habitat in new urban areas, or {3) demonstrate that it

has implemented an alternative program that will achieve protection and enhancement of upland

wildlife habitat in new urban areas comparable with the protection and restoration that would

result from one of the two previous approaches described in this sentence;

Consistent with the approach described in the UGMFP to implement an alternative program, the City

adopted a new action item under Comprehensive Plan Goal 7.3.4.1 which states:

Action 2: Use existing or new development regulations to minimize impacts to areas identified by

Metro as significant regional upland habitat within areas added to the Urban Growth Boundary

after December 28, 2005.

As shown on Figure 3, there are only small patches of regionally significant (Class A and B) upland wildlife

habitat. Nearly all of the upland habitat is within the SCMAA is Class C, which although not designated by

Metro as regionally significant, is included in the City's HBA Map.

OVERVIEW OF PROGRAMS

• CWS Design and Construction Standards. As noted above and shown on Figure 3, for the South

Cooper Mountain inventory, riparian area boundaries were defined in accordance with CWS

vegetated corridor width determination methods. CWS has jurisdiction within the SCMAA and

therefore mapped vegetated corridors are assumed to be jurisdictional resources that have

development restrictions. CWS requires all degraded vegetated corridors on a parcel to be

improved as a condition of issuing development permits regardless of whether the vegetated

corridor is impacted. Additionally, mitigation is typically required for unavoidable impacts. While

Metro did not find Class Ill riparian areas to be significant, where they coincide the stream buffers

required by CWS' Design and Construction Standards, they will also be protected by CWS.

• Tree protection. Section 60.60 of the City's Development Code establishes regulations and

standards for the protection, pruning, removal, replacement, and mitigation for removal of

Protected Trees (Significant Individual Trees, Historic Trees, Mitigation Trees and trees within a

Significant Natural Resource Area (SNRA) or Significant Grove), Landscape Trees, and Community

Trees. Within the SCMAA, Class I and II riparian habitat areas and Class A and B upland wildlife

areas were designated by the City as Significant Natural Resource Areas (SNRA). The City has a

development review process for proposed removal of trees within a SN RA. Protected trees,

including those within a SNRA, are the subject of the highest level of review and mitigation.

• Planned Unit Development (PUD). A PUD is required for residential developments 10 acres or

larger in the South Cooper Mountain. As shown on Figure 4, nearly all of the tax lots adjacent to

the riparian corridors and wildlife habitat areas appear to be greater than 10 acres; and thus, will

likely require a PUD for residential development. Subsection 40.15.15.4.C of the City's

9?


Development Code establishes approval criteria for PUDs. Approval criteria require that the

proposal comply with the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan and that any " lessening

of the Site Development Requirements results in significant benefits to ... preservation of natural

features." Section 60.35.15 establishes open space requirements for PUDs. Properties within the

South Cooper Mountain Community Plan Area are exempt from the 20% open space requirement

in Section 60.35.15.1, but must provide all community features, including but not limited to,

trail s, habitat benefit areas, and scenic views identified in the South Cooper Mountain

Community Plan, as identified in Section 60.35.25 .

Section 60.35.25.1. Proposals within the South Cooper Mountain Community Plan area shall

demonstrate compliance with the following applicable South Cooper Mountain Community Plan

policies and figures :

C. Resource Protection and Enhancement:

1. Figure 12: Natural Resources in the Community Plan area map.

2. Natural Resource Policy 1: Local Wetlands and Riparian Areas

3. Natural Resource Policy 2: Development adjacent the Significant Natural Resource Areas.

4. Urban Forestry Policy 2: Tree Planting.

5. Urban Forestry Policy 3: Regionally Significant Upland Habitat.

6. Scenic Views Policy 1: Protection of View Corridors.

7. Rural Edges and Transitions Policy 1: SW Tile Flat Road Landscape Buffer.

• Conditional Uses. Most civic and commercial development and parks will be new conditional uses

in residential zones. In order to approve a new Conditional Use application, the decision making

authority must find that "The proposal will comply with the applicable policies of the

Comprehensive Plan." The South Cooper Mountain Community Plan was adopted into Volume V

of the Comprehensive Plan. Natural Resource Policies in the Community Plan include: "Locally

significant wetlands and protected riparian corridors within the Community Plan area shall be

protected and enhanced, consistent with local, state, and federal regulations. " Implementation of

this policy will result in applicants addressing local, state, and federal regulations for "protected

riparian corridors" as part of a conditiona l use application on sites that include such resources.

• Habitat Benefit Areas (HBAs). The HBA program is intended to protect, conserve and restore

riparian and upland habitats through a voluntary incentive based program. HBA areas are

intended to be the area beyond the areas that are managed or protected through other

programs such as CWS Vegetated Corridors . Section 60.12 of the Development Code applies to

all of the mapped habitat and riparian classes on the Habitat Benefit Area Map (aka Natural

Resources Map) for the SCMAA. The Natural Resources Map/HBA for SCMAA, which was

adopted into Vol. Ill of the Comprehensive Plan, includes Class C Upland Wildlife Habitat as well

as Class Ill riparian. While these resources were not deemed significant under Metro Title 13,

including them on the on the map allows applicants to take advantage of the voluntary credit

system, thus providing greater opportunity for protection.

9 8


Figure 4: Taxlots Greater than 10 Acres Intersecting Riparian and Upland Wildlife Areas

Sil ER RIDGE l N{

Be-;~ South Coop~t MourHJit'l

WETLANDS

~ Taxlots < 10 Acres

.:J Taxlots >10 Acres lntersecti119 Riparian Area

- Existi119 Roads [] Taxlots

- streams

t:J Open Water

.. Riparia!V\Jptand Area

6 2,000

[ f~t

This memorandum includes an ESEE ana lysis for significant wet lands within the SCMAA. The Goa l 5 rule

(OAR 660-015-0050} requires that the ESEE analysis include the following steps :

10

1. Determine the impact area . The "impact area" is the area in which allowed uses cou ld adversely affect

the identified sign ificant natural resources. The impact area defines the geographic limits within which to

perform ESEE analysis.

2. Identify conflicting uses. A "conflicting use" is a land use or other activity reasonably and customari ly

subject to land use regulations, that could adversely affect a sign ificant Goa l 5 resource.

3. Analyze the ESEE consequences. This is an ana lysis of the ESEE consequences that cou ld result from

decisions to allow, limit, or prohibit a conflicting use. The narratives and tables within this analysis include

a thorough explanation of the consequences. The final ESEE decision will inform land use actions to

address natural resources .

4. Develop a program to achieve Goal 5. Based on and supported by the ana lysis of ESEE consequences,


the City shall determine whether to allow, limit, or prohibit identified conflicting uses within significant

natural resources areas within designated inventory sites .

INVENTORY AND DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE

11

A Draft Local Wetlands Inventory (Draft LWI} for the SCMAA was prepared by DEA as a part of the South

Cooper Mountain Concept and Community Plan project. The Draft LWI was developed in accordance with

OAR 141-086 in accordance with the GoalS rule (OAR 660-023}:

OAR 660-023-0100 Wetlands

(3) For areas inside urban growth boundaries (UGBs) and urban unincorporated communities

(UUCs), local governments shall:

(a) Conduct a local wetlands inventory (LWI) using the standards and procedures of OAR

141-086-0110 through 141-086-0240 and adopt the LWI as part of the comprehensive

plan or as a land use regulation; and

(b) Determine which wetlands on the LWI are "significant wetlands" using the criteria

adopted by the Division of State Lands (DSL} pursuant to ORS 197.279(3)(b) and adopt the

list of significant wetlands as part of the comprehensive plan or as a land use regulation.

(4) For significant wetlands inside UGBs and UUCs, a local government shall:

(a) Complete the GoalS process and adopt a program to achieve the goal following the

requirements of OAR 660-023-0040 and 660-023-0050; or

(b) Adopt a safe harbor ordinance to protect significant wetlands consistent with this

subsection, as follows: ...

As described in the Draft LWI, wetland functions were evaluated for wetlands greater than one half acre

using the Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Method (OFWAM} . OFWAM results were used to

determine if any of the SCMAA wetlands qualify as " locally significant wetlands" in accordance with

criteria set forth in OAR 141-086-0350. Table 2 identifies the wetlands which were identified as significant

in the Draft LWI. Upon adoption of the Draft LWI, these wetlands will be designated as "significant". The

City has opted to Complete the Goal 5 process and adopt a program to achieve the goal following the

requirements of OAR 660-023-0040 and 660-023-0050 (i.e., an ESEE and Program to Achieve Goal 5} .

Because these wetlands are hydrologically connected to streams, they are also included within the

riparian area boundaries shown on Figure 3, which were defined in accordance with CWS vegetated

corridor width determination methods.

Table 2: Significant Wetlands from Draft LWI

Wetland Acres Wildlife Fish Hydrologic Meets Locally

ID Habitat Habitat WaterQuality

1 Contra Significant Criteria

W-A 11.80 Diverse Intact Degraded Intact Yes

W-C 1.42 Diverse Intact Degraded Degraded Yes

W-H 10.79 Diverse Intact Degraded Degraded Yes

100


The Draft LWI Wetland Characterization Sheets describe these wetlands as follows :

• Wetland W-A: This rather large wetland is fed by groundwater and two small, unnamed

tributaries to the Tualatin River (TR-1, TR-1b). The eastern portion has been converted to pasture,

and is dominated by non-native grasses Tall fescue (Schedonorus phoenix) and Meadow foxtail

(Aiopecurus pratensis), while the remainder consists of forested wetland . Site access was granted

for only TL0402 and 0800 and representative plots were taken on those lots. The rest was viewed

from adjacent lots and appeared to be similar in nature. Vegetative diversity and wildlife use in

the wetland was fairly high. [Note : portions of this wetland were formally delineated by Pacific

Habitat Services (October 13, 2014), which occurred after DEA's site visit. The delineation was

approved by DSL and assigned DSL WD #2014-0497]

• Wetland W-C: This wetland is fed by groundwater and an unnamed tributary to the Tualatin River

(TR-1), and lies downslope of a smal l dam. The dam may have reduced historic extent of the

wetland based on hydric soils mapping, and the fact that Himalayan blackberry (Rubus

armeniacus) was present in the wetland, indicating drying during the summer months. Blackberry

in the wetland was recently cut as a part of the adjacent residential construction.

• Wetland W-H: This wetland is fed by both groundwater and a sma ll, unnamed tributary to

Summer Creek. Although the wetland was only visible from Schol ls Ferry Road, it appeared to be

a mixture of pasture grasses and shrubs, with scattered Oregon ash in the overstory

(approximately 50%). The wetland follows along unnamed tributary (SMC) up the hillslope where

recent logging activities had removed much of the vegetation but is likely to quickly grow back

into a scrub-shrub community and eventually forested wetland if there is no future disturbance.

[Note : Wetland areas in tax lot 0103 were formally delineated by AKS Engineering & Forestry, LLC

(November 26, 2014) and areas in tax lot 0200 were delineated by Anchor QEA, LLC (2015) . Both

delineations were concurred with and assigned DSL WD#2015-0063 and #2015-0105,

respectively. Both delineations occurred after DEA's off-site reconnaissance visit. The wetland

continues off-site to the east, which was previously delineated and assigned DSL WD#2006-

0732.]

As noted above, there have been three wetland delineations completed within the SCMAA- the high

school site west of 175th along Scholls Ferry Road, and two properties east of 175th with concurrence

letters received from DSL. These delineations were incorporated into the Draft LWI prepared by DEA.

IMPACT AREA

As noted above, the "Impact area" is a geographic area within which conflicting uses could adversely

affect a significant Goa l 5 resource. The Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards Manual

(R&O 07-20), defines a "Vegetated Corridor" as "a corridor adjacent to a Sensitive Area that is preserved

and maintained to protect the water quality functions of the Sensitive Area ." For the purposes of the

Draft ESEE analysis, the vegetated corridor has been identified as the impact area . Chapter 3 of the CWS

D&C requires that vegetated corridor widths be measured from the "Edge of Sensitive Area". For

wetlands, the edge is the delineated boundary of the wetland, per DSL I Corps procedures for wetland

10.1


delineation. Vegetated Corridor width for wetlands which are over 0.5 acres in size is 50 feet, unless

slopes are over 25% (which is not the case for significant wetlands in the SCMAA. Significant wetlands

within the SCMAA total 24.01 acres of land. The total area within the wetland impact area shown on

Figure 5 is approximately 43 acres (including wetlands). The significant wetlands and their impact areas

are contained within the riparian and upland habitat areas shown on Figures 3 and 4. Figure 5 has been

simplified to show only the significant wetlands and associated impact areas.

Figure 5: Significant Wetlands and Impact Areas

DISCl.AIAI£R mo map ;s inlerKled tot ~n~>rmaUollat f'IJIPO'i'N or1y tris ootlfiiMded ""legal,-· CK$11Y0)'ingfJllfPO'II?S. IW>l!! tllill map __... the best daiB ..-at the Urre of puljration, the C1!y of Bee-ron malrl!o no daim3 representilborl$ or~ a.s b l5lKX:11aC:Y or ~eteneu. Mefadata available upon raquea Qxlfclaale Syslem: NAD 1963 HARN st-.e ~ Nctth FIPS 3601 Feel JIIJ

CONFLICTING USES

DEASCMMLWI ~ Significant Wetlands

__ South Cooper Mountain • J Community Plan Boundary

tJ Urban Growth Boundary

Open Water

... NORTH

The SCMAA is primarily designated for residential uses on the Comprehensive Plan and none of the

impact area is within the area designated as Main Street. Uses which are permitted outright or

conditionally within in the residential zones fall into the following general categories :

• Residential development. A mix of densities and housing types are possible within the range of

residential zones designated within SCMAA. In all cases a PUD is required for residential

developments on sites over 10 acres. As shown on Figure 5, all of the tax lots that include

sign ificant wetlands or their impact areas appear to be over 10 acres in size. The potential

impacts of residential development include: clearing of vegetation; grading, excavation, filling,

13

102


hauling, and soil compaction; adding impervious surfaces by constructing buildings, sidewalks,

driveways, parking areas and roads; installing utility connections such as sewers and stormwater

pipes; building stormwater control structures; landscaping with non-native vegetation (e.g.,

establishment of lawns, addition of non-native landscape features- trees, shrubs, ground cover,

etc.); using toxins (cleaners, fertili zers, pesticides and herbicides) in households and yards and

generating contaminated runoff from household activities; and other general impacts from pets,

noise, litter, garbage, etc.

• Limited civic and commercial development (e .g., health care, schools, churches). A limited

number of civic and commercial uses are permitted as conditional uses within the residential

zones . The potential impacts of these uses are similar to those described for residential uses;

however, civic and commercial developments may have larger building footprints and more

impervious area due to parking than residential development.

• Parks, open space and trails. Parks, other than community gardens, require conditional use

approval. Where parks include buildings or parking areas, the impacts of these activities are

similar to those described for civic and commercial uses except that normally a smaller

percentage of land area is covered by impervious surfaces. Parks and open areas construction

and maintenance practices can cause erosion and damage vegetation . Intensive recreational

activity such as cycling also causes erosion, particularly when it occurs off maintained trails. The

use of pesticide and fertilizer in maintained areas may impact water quality within wetlands.

• Transportation facilities . Simi lar to other types of development, constructing streets and

sidewalks results in the removal of vegetation, grading, excavation, filling, hauling and new

impervious surfaces. The construction of streets can result in concentration of surface water,

higher runoff rates, and alteration to groundwater recharge (alteration of area hydrology).

Streets also can include impacts associated with crossings and the installation of culverts as well

as the building of stormwater contro l structures. Where stormwater isn't managed, there can be

the potential for impacts from runoff.

• Public and private utilities. This category includes water, sewer and storm drainage pipes,

telecommunication facilities, electri c power lines and substations and gas pipelines. Other than

transmission lines, which are permitted outright, these uses require conditional use approval.

Although operation of existing facilities may have few adverse environmental effects,

construction and maintenance practices for new basic utilities have some adverse effects

associated with clearing or grading. Where facilities include a building or parking area, impacts

are similar to commercial development.

ESEE CONSEQUENCES

In this section, the ESEE consequences that could result from decisions to allow, limit, or prohibit a

conflicting use are analyzed for each category of conflicting uses. Within the SCMAA, significant wetlands

represent a total of approximately 24 acres of the area and the area within the wetland impact area

(including wetlands) is 43.4. It is within these 43 acres that the consideration of allowing, limiting or

prohibiting conflicting uses takes place. Because the existing conditions, environmental conditions and

potential conflicting uses from future development are relatively consistent for all three significant

wetlands, the analysis considers them together.

10 3


As described above, potential conflicting uses can generally be grouped into one of five categories. In the

tables that follow each of the five conflicting use categories is considered under each scenario (i.e., Allow,

Limit, Prohibit) and the expected net effect of either allowing, limiting or prohibiting the conflicting use is

identified as either positive (+1), neutral (O) or negative (-1). In some situations a mix of both positive and

negative outcomes is possible. The net effect is intended to reflect the cumulative end result (either

positive, neutral or negative) of all potential consequences.

Scenario A- Allowing conflicting uses within the resource and impact areas. In evaluating the

consequences of allowing conflicting uses, the assumption is that all significant natural resources would

be subject to development allowed by existing base zone regulations.

Scenario B- Limiting conflicting uses within the resource and impact areas. In evaluating the

consequences of limiting conflicting uses, the assumption is that rules would be established to limit the

impacts of al lowable development in areas containing significant natural resources. Areas containing

significant natural resources could still be subject to development, but additional development

restrictions would exist in addition to base zone regulations.

Scenario C- Prohibiting conflicting uses within the resource and impact areas. In eva luating the

consequences of prohibiting conflicting uses the assumption is that rules and/or other mechanisms would

be established that preclude all allowable development in significant natural resource areas.

SCENARIO A- ALLOWING CONFLICTING USES WITHIN THE RESOURCE AND IMPACT AREAS

Under this scenario there would be no land use regulations restricting conflicting uses within the Goal 5

resources or impact areas . . Tables A-1 through A-4 identify the likely positive and negative consequences

to both the resource and the conflicting use of allowing the conflicting use (i .e., both the economic goods

and services provided by the conflicting uses and the ecosystem services2 provided by the significant

wetland) . The expected net effect of allowing the conflicting use, either positive (+1), neutral (0), or

negative (-1), is identified in column 4.

2 Wetlands can provide ecosystem services, which in turn provide economic and social value. Ecosystem services

include, but are not limited to, water storage, retention and conveyance, flood control, pollution control and

detoxification, groundwater recharge/ discharge, erosion protection and habitat for resident or transient species,

and nutrient cycling. Ecosystem services can also include opportunities for tourism and recreational activities,

aesthetic appreciation of natural scenery, opportunities for formal and informal education and training. For a

detailed review see: Ramsar Technical Report No. 3, CBD Technical Series No. 27, "Valuing wetlands: Guidance for

valuing the benefits derived from wetland ecosystem services" by Rudolf de Groot, Mishka Stuip, Max Finlayson,

and Nick Davidson, Ramsar Convention Secretariat Gland, Switzerland November 2006.

http://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/lib/lib rtr03.pdf

104


Table A-1 Economic Consequences of Allowing Conflicting Uses

Use Category Positive Economic Consequences Negative Economic Consequences Net Effect

Residential • Property owners realize full • Loss of ecosystem services results in development development potential of parcels; higher costs, either to replace

clustering of residential development services or repair impacts (e.g.,

is not required. construct storm water storage

• Residential improvements increase facilties or repair flood damage).

property tax base. • Amenity/development premium for 0

• No mitigation is required, which parcels adjacent to resource areas is

reduces the cost to develop. eliminated.

• Economic development is facilitated • Environmental impact costs passed

by providing additional residential on to City could lead to increased

land for relocating/new employees. taxes.

Limited civic and • Development potential of parcels • Same as residential, but with greater commercial fully realized enhancing potential for potential for increased costs resulting development local economic development. from lost ecosystem services due to

• Commercial improvements increase larger development area size

property tax base. associated with civic and commercial

• Depending on development type, development. +1 potential increase in property values

for adjacent landowners.

• Helps to satisfy governmental and

school district long-term capita I

facilities needs.

Parks, open space • May create a development premium • May decrease property values for and trails and amenity for adjacent adjacent landowners if higher

undeveloped parcels or developed pedestrian traffic or active recreation

pa reels, respectively. (e.g., ball fields) create a nuisance.

• Recreation facilities that are a • Higher municipal service costs

community attraction may enhance relating to maintenance, law 0

potential for local economic enforcement, etc.

development.

• Some ecosystem services could still

be provided.

Transportation • Potential for improved connectivity • Loss of ecosystem services (e.g., facilities and movement of people and goods. higher potential costs due to flood

• No mitigation is required, which damage risk). +1

reduces the cost to develop streets • Environmental impact costs could be

and roads. passed on to City, thus increasing

taxes.

Public and private • Placement and maintenance of • Loss of ecosystem services (e.g., utilities utilities systems can be maximized for higher potential costs due to flood

cost effectiveness and efficiency. damage risk), although impacts may

• No mitigation is required, which be temporary. +1

reduces the cost to develop utilities. • Depending on use (e.g., substation),

property value for adjacent

landowners could be negatively

impacted.

105


Table A-2 Social Consequences of Allowing Conflicting Uses

Use Category Positive Social Consequences Negative Social Consequences Net Effect

Residential • Affordable housing and mix of • Potential impact to historic and development housing types would not be impacted cultural values.

by the cost of complying with GoalS • Potential loss of passive recreational -1

requirements. and educational opportunities.

• Potential loss of scenic benefits .

Limited civic and • Civic and commercial development • Same as residential, but with greater commercial provide community gathering places. potential for impacts to wetlands due -1

development to development size.

Parks, open space • Parks and open space provide • Consequences similar to, but less and trails community gathering places. than, residential, depending on

0 • Opportunities for active recreation amount of active recreation area and

provide community health benefits. non-native landscaping provided.

Transportation • Small blocks and good connectivity • Same as residential, but with greater facilities encourage the use of active potential for impacts to wetlands due

0 transportation modes, which can to development size.

improve public health.

Public and private • Placement and maintenance of • Consequences similar to residential, utilities utilities systems can be maximized for could be less or temporary

safety. depending on type of utility facility 0

(e.g., underground transmission

lines).

Table A-3 Environmental Consequences of Allowing Conflicting Uses

Use category Positive Environmental Negative Environmental Net Consequences Consequences Effect

Residential • Opportunities for voluntary good • Loss of ecosystem services including development stewardship practices by property water storage, retention and

owners. conveyance, flood control, pollution

control and detoxification, -1

groundwater recharge/ discharge,

erosion protection and habitat for

resident or transient species, and nutrient cycling.

Limited civic and • Same as residential development. • Similar to residential, but with commercial potentially greater impacts from the development size of the development and a mount -1

of impervious area and fewer impacts

from domestic animals.

Parks, open space • Public ownership may help ensure • Developed parks and open space may and trails that resource units are maintained in displace native riparian and wildlife

the future. habitat. -1

• Maintenance practices may introduce

pesticides and fertilizers.

lOb


Use category Positive Environmental Negative Environmental Net Consequences Consequences Effect

Transportation • Small blocks and good connectivity • Similar to residential, with potentially facilities encourage the use of active greater impact due to light and noise

transportation modes and lessen from automobile traffic, introduction travel times and vehicle miles of polluted runoff from the -1

traveled which can reduce transportation facility, and

greenhouse gas emissions. vulnerability that accidents that may introduce high levels of pollutants

Public and private • Placement and maintenance of • Similar to residential, but potentially utilities utilities systems is maximized for fewer permanent impacts.

efficiency which reduces waste. Installation may introduce impacts 0

(some are temporary) by removing native vegetation and disturbing stable slopes and soil.

Table A-4 Energy Consequences of Allowing Conflicting Uses

Use category Positive Energy Consequences Negative Energy Consequences Net Effect

Residential • Opportunities to provide compact • Additional energy is required to

development development patterns with grid build and maintain water quality and pattern streets and reduce out-of- stormwater facilities, and manage direction travel are increased. impacts from flooding. 0

• Possible increased energy consumption due to loss of vegetation and microclimate effects.

Limited civic and • Efficient siting may reduce energy cost • Same as residential development

commercial due to transportation, solar access,

development and the provision of infrastructure 0

services. Less energy would then be needed to access and operate the facilities.

Parks, open • Similar to civic and commercial. In • Similar to residential, although

space and trails addition, allowing trails encourages impacts could be less depending on 0

non-motorized modes of the amount of impervious area. transportation.

Transportation • Small blocks and good connectivity • Same as residential development

facilities encourage the use of active +1 transportation modes and lessen travel times and vehicle miles traveled.

Public and • Potential for energy savings as a result • Similar to residential development,

private utilities of maximizing efficiency of system although impacts may be fewer or +1 design. temporary depending on the type of

utility facility.

Table A-5 summarizes the net effect of allowing the conflicting uses. The cumulative net effect column

shows the "strength" of the positive or negative consequences of allowing the conflicting use. The

maximum positive score is +4 and the maximum negative score is -4. A strong positive score suggests

that, on the whole, allowing the conflicting use would provide a net benefit to the City, whereas a

107


negative score would suggest that the use should not be allowed outright. Results of this table are

carried forward to the Program Recommendation section of this analysis.

19

As shown in Table A-5, the net effect of allowing conflicting uses is negative for residential development,

limited civic and commercial development, parks, open space and trails. This is primarily due to the

negative environmental and energy consequences and the fact that the positive economic benefits to

property owners are off-set by the costs to the community associated with the loss of ecosystem services.

In the case of transportation facilities, the environmental consequences of allowing the conflicting use are

balanced with the environmental benefits of creating a compact urban grid in order to reduce vehicle

miles traveled and encourage active transportation. Similarly for utilities, allowing the conflicting use

within the resource and impact area can result in a more efficient system which could avoid the need for

pump stations, or other engineered solutions.

Table A-5 Summary of Consequences of Allowing Conflicting Uses

Use Category Economic Social Environ- Energy Cumulative mental Effect

Residential development 0 -1 -1 0 -2 Limited civic and commercial development

+1 -1 -1 0 -1

Parks, open space and trails 0 0 -1 0 -1 Transportation facilities +1 0 -1 +1 +1 Public and private utilities +1 0 0 +1 +2

SCENARIO B- LIMITING CONFLICTING USES WITHIN THE RESOURCE AND IMPACT AREAS

Under this scenario conflicting uses would be limited (by regulations) within the Goal 5 resource or its

impact area. The tree protection, planned unit development, habitat benefit area, water quality and

wetland standards and regulations implemented by the City, Clean Water Services, the Corps of Engineers

and the Division of State Lands would be in effect. Tables B-1 through B-5 identify the likely positive and

negative consequences of limiting the conflicting use. The expected net effect of limiting the conflicting

use, either positive (+1), neutral (0), or negative (-1), is identified in column 4.

10:3


Table B-1 Economic Consequences of Limiting Conflicting Uses


Residential • Property owners realize most of the • Loss of some ecosystem services still development development potential of parcels possible.

through clustering of residential • Mitigation is required, which development. increases the cost to develop.

• Economic development is still facilitated by allowing development

of residential land for relocating/new employees.

• Most ecosystem services are retained +1 reducing costs to replace services or

repair impacts (e.g., construct storm water storage facilities or repair flood damage).

• Most of the amenity/development premium for adjacent parcels is preserved and may be enhanced by

mitigation.

Limited civic and • Some of the development potential • Similar to residential, but with commercial of parcels fully realized, but may be greater potential for increased costs development difficult to allow larger uses without resulting from lost ecosystem

impacting the resource to some services and greater need for degree. mitigation as a result of larger scale

• Enhances potential for local facilities.

economic development by providing some opportunities for commercial 0 development.

• Depending on development type,

potential increase in property values for adjacent landowners.

• Helps to satisfy governmental and school district long-term capital facilities needs.

Parks, open space • To the extent that a limited amount • Similar to residential, but to these and trails of parks, open space and trail extent these facilities are allowed,

development is allowed within the they may decrease property values resource or impact area, these for adjacent landowners if higher facilities may create a development pedestrian traffic or active recreation premium and amenity for adjacent (e.g., ball fields) create a nuisance. 0 parcels and a community attraction • Higher municipal service costs may enhance potential for local relating to maintenance, law economic development. enforcement, etc.

• Most ecosystem services are provided.

109



Transportation • To the extent that some facilities are • Loss of some ecosystem services still facilities allowed within resources and impact possible.

areas, connectivity can be achieved. • Mitigation is required, which

• Potential for local economic increases the cost to develop. 0

development is enhanced by • Mitigation costs could be passed on providing access for goods and to City, thus increasing taxes. people.

Public and private • Similar to transportation facilities • Similar to transportation facilities utilities except that system efficiency rather except that mitigation costs are

0 than connectivity is maintained. passed on to rate payers rather than

to tax payers.

Table B-2 Social Consequences of Limiting Conflicting Uses

Use Category Positive Social Consequences Negative Social Consequences Net Effect

Residential • Affordable housing and mix of • Some potential loss of scenic, historic development housing types could still be achieved and cultural values could still occur

through clustering. which cannot be offset by mitigation.

• Community scenic, historic and

cultural values are preserved for the +1 most part and may be enhanced by

mitigation.

• Mitigation sites can become an

amenity.

Limited civic and • To the extent that these uses are • Similar to residential, but impacts commercial permitted within resources and may be more significant due to the

+1 development impact areas, they provide larger size of the developments.

community gathering places.

Parks, open space • Same as civic and commercial. • Similar to residential, but with and tra i Is • Opportunities for active recreation potentially less impact depending on

+1 provide community health benefits. amount of active recreation area and

non-native landscaping provided.

Transportation • To the extent that connectivity can • Similar to residential, but with facilities be achieved, small blocks can be greater potential for impacts to

developed which encourage the use wetlands due to development size, +1 of active transportation modes, potential for noise, light and glare.

which can improve public health.

Public and private • The placement and maintenance of • Similar to residential, but utilities utilities systems can still be consequences could be less

maximized for safety, provided depending on type of utility facility +1 impacts to resources can be (e.g., transmission lines).

mitigated.

110


Table B-3 Environmental Consequences of Limiting Conflicting Uses Use Category Positive Environmental Consequences Negative Environmental Consequences Net

Effect Residentia I • Most ecosystem services including • Some loss of ecosystem services development water storage, retention and could still occur which cannot be

conveyance, flood control, pollution offset by mitigation. control and detoxification,

groundwater recharge/ discharge, 0

erosion protection and habitat for

resident or transient species, and

nutrient cycling are retained.

• Opportunities for mitigation and restoration of degraded resources.

Limited civic and • Same as residential development. • Similar to residential, but with commercial potentially greater impacts from light development and glare and fewer impacts from

0

domestic animals.

Parks, open space • Same as residential development. • Similar to residential, but with and tra i Is • Public ownership may help ensure potentially fewer impacts if limits

that resource units are maintained in require native vegetation and limit 0

the future. the use of pesticides and fertilizers.

Transportation • To the extent that connectivity can • Similar to residential, with potentially facilities be achieved, small blocks can be higher impact due to light and noise

developed which encourage the use from automobile traffic, introduction

of active transportation modes and of polluted runoff from the +1 lessen travel times and vehicle miles transportation facility, and

traveled which can reduce vulnerability that accidents that may

greenhouse gas emissions. ·Introduce high levels of pollutants.

Public and private • Placement and maintenance of • Similar to residential, but potentially uti I ities utilities systems can still be with potentially fewer permanent

maximized for efficiency which impacts. Installation may introduce

reduces waste provided impacts can impacts (some are temporary) by +1

be mitigated. removing native vegetation and

• Mitigation and restoration could disturbing stable slopes and soil.

improve resource quality where

resources are degraded.

Table B-4 Energy Consequences of Limiting Uses

Use Category Positive Energy Consequences Negative Energy Consequences Net Effect

Residentia I • Most ecosystem services are retained • Some loss of ecosystem services development reducing the energy needed to build could still occur which cannot be

and maintain water quality and offset by mitigation resulting in stormwater facilities, and manage possible increased energy

impacts from flooding. consumption due to flood impacts +1 • Opportunities to provide compact and the loss of vegetation and

development patterns with grid microclimate effects.

pattern streets and reduce out-of- • Additional energy is required to

direction travel are possible with construct mitigation. mitigation.

111



Limited civic and • Efficient siting is possible if impacts • Same as residential development. commercial can be mitigated. Less energy would

+1 development then be needed to access and operate

the facilities.

Parks, open space • Similar to residential. In addition, • Similar to residential, although and trails allowing trails encourages non- impacts could be less depending on +1

motorized modes of transportation. the amount of impervious area.

Transportation • Small blocks and good connectivity are • Similar to residential. In addition, facilities possible if impacts can be mitigated, increased energy costs may be

thus encouraging the use of active associated with facilities that are +1 transportation modes and lessen required to avoid resource areas if

travel times and vehicle miles traveled. mitigation is not possible.

Public and private • Siting facilities within resources may • Same as transportation facilities. utilities be possible if impacts can be

mitigated, thus producing energy +1 savings by maximizing efficiency of

system design

Table B-5 summarizes the net effect of limiting the conflicting uses. The cumulative net effect column

shows the "strength" of the positive or negative consequences of prohibiting the conflicting use. The

maximum positive score is +4 and the maximum negative score is -4. A strong positive score suggests that

on the whole limiting the conflicting use would provide a net benefit to the City, whereas a negative score

would suggest that the use should not be limited. Results of this table are carried forward to the program

recommendation section of this analysis.

As shown in Table B-5, the net effect of limiting conflicting uses is positive for all categories. This is

primarily due to the positive social and energy consequences. The economic and environmental

consequences are often neutral in recognition that mitigation may be costly and may not provide all of

the ecosystem services that are lost.

Table B-5 Summary of Consequences of Limiting Conflicting Uses


Residential development +1 +1 0 +1 +3 Limited civic and commercial

0 +1 0 +1 +2

development

Parks, open space and trails 0 +1 0 +1 +2 Transportation facilities 0 +1 +1 +1 +3 Public and private utilities 0 +1 +1 +1 +3


SCENARIO C- PROHIBITING CONFLICTING USES WITHIN THE RESOURCE AND IMPACT AREAS

Under th.ls scenario conflicting uses would be completely prohibited within the Goal 5 resource or its

impact area. Existing water quality regulations implemented by Clean Water Services, the Corps of

Engineers and the Division of State Lands would remain in effect, but would be superseded by the City's

stricter regulations. Tables C-1 through C-4 identify the likely positive and negative consequences of

prohibiting the conflicting use. The expected net effect of prohibiting the conflicting use, either pos·1f1ve

{+1), neutral {0), or negative (-1), is identified in column 4.

Table C-1 Economic Consequences of Prohibiting Conflicting Uses

24


Residential • Existing ecosystem services are • Property owners don't realize full development preserved eliminating need to development potential of parcels.

replace services or repair impacts • Property tax base is not increased (e.g., construct storm water storage • Economic development is impacted facilities or repair flood damage). by loss of land for housing -1

• Amenity/development premium for relocating/new employees . adjacent parcels is preserved

• Environmental impact costs are avoided.

Limited civic and • Same as residential development. • Development potential of parcels not commercial realized. development • Reduces potential for local economic

development. -1

• Does not help to saf1sfy

governmental and school district

long-term capital facilities needs.

Parks, open space • Similar to residential. In addition, • Recreation facilities, which are a and trails may increase property values for community attraction that may

adjacent landowners if higher enhance potential for local economic

pedestrian traffic or active recreation development, are not provided.

(e.g., ball fields) would have created a 0 nuisance element.

• Lower municipal service costs

relating to maintenance, law

enforcement, etc.

Transportation • Existing ecosystem services (e.g., • Connectivity and movement of facd1ties higher potential costs due to flood people and goods is restricted,

damage risk) are preserved. impacting potential for local -1

• Environmental impact costs are economic development.

avoided. • Cost of building transportation facility

is increased.

Public and private • Same as transportation facilities. • The construction and operating costs utilities of utilities are increased as a result of

facilities being designed to avoid -1

resources and impact areas.

11.3

December 24, 2015

Use Category

Residential

development

Limited civic and

commercial

development

Parks, open space

and trails

Transportation facilities

Public and private

utilities

Use Category

Residential

development

Limited civic and

commercial development

Parks, open space

and trails

ESEE Memorandum

Table C-2 Social Consequences of Prohibiting Conflicting Uses

Positive Social Consequences Negative Social Consequences

• Scenic, historic and cultural values of • Affordable housing and mix of existing resources are preserved. housing types would be impacted by

• Passive recreational and educational the cost of complying with Goal 5

opportunities of existing resources requirements.

are preserved.

• Same as residential development. • Civic and commercial developments

could be impacted, thus reducing

community gathering places.

• Same as residential development. • Parks and open space, which provide community gathering places, are

impacted.

• Opportunities for active recreation

and outdoor education, which

provide community benefits, could

be precluded.

• Same as residential development. • Small blocks and good connectivity, which encourage the use of active

transportation modes and can

improve public health, may not be

possible.

• Same as residential development • Placement and maintenance of

utilities systems may not be able to

be maximized for safety.

Table C-3 Environmental Consequences of Prohibiting Conflicting Uses

Positive Environmental Consequences Negative Environmental Consequences

• Ecosystem services including water • No mitigation would be required; storage, retention and conveyance, thus opportunities for enhancement flood control, pollution control and of degraded resources may be fewer.

detoxification, groundwater

recharge/ discharge, erosion protection and habitat for resident or

transient species, and nutrient cycling that are provided by the existing

resources are preserved.

• Same as residential development. • Same as residential development.

• Developed parks and open space • Same as residential development.

don't displace native riparian and

wild life habitat.

• Maintenance practices don't occur

which could introduce pesticides and

fertilizers.

25

Net Effect

0

0

-1

-1

-1

Net Effect

+1

+1

0

1 ~, d _t


Use Category Positive Environmental Consequences Negative Environmental Consequences Net Effect

Transportation • Same as residential development. • Out-of-direction travel is increased. facilities • Impact due to light and noise from Small blocks and good connectivity,

automobile traffic, introduction of which encourage the use of active

polluted runoff from the transportation modes and lessen -1

transportation facility, and travel times and vehicle miles

vulnerability that accidents that may traveled, thus reducing greenhouse

introduce high levels of pollutants are gas emissions, may be precluded.

avoided.

Public and private • Same as residential development. • Placement and maintenance of uti I ities • Impacts from installation, which may utilities systems cannot be maximized

introduce impacts (some are for eff1ciency thus increasing the

temporary) by removing native need for additional power lines, -1

vegetation and disturbing stable pump stations, and other facilities to

slopes and soil, are avoided. work around resources and impact

areas.

Table C-4 Energy Consequences of Prohibiting Conflicting Uses


Residential • Additional energy ·Is not required to • Reduces opportunities to provide development build and maintain water quality and compact development patterns with

stormwater facilities, and manage grid pattern streets and reduce out-

impacts from flooding of-direction travel. 0

• No increased energy consumption due

to loss of vegetation and microclimate

effects.

Limited civic and • Same as residential development. • Efficient siting may reduce energy commercial cost due to transportation, solar development access, and the provision of

0 infrastructure services. Less energy

would then be needed to access and

operate the facilities.

Parks, open • Similar to residential, although • Similar to civic and commercial. space and trails benefits could be less depending on • Allowing trails encourages non- 0

the amount of impervious area. motorized modes of transportation.

Transportation • Same as residential development. • Small blocks and good connectivity facilities encourage the use of active

transportation modes and lessen -1 travel times and vehicle miles traveled.

Public and • Same as residential development. • Placement and maintenance of private utilities utilities systems cannot be maximized

for efficiency thus increasing the

need for additional power lines, -1

pump stations, and other facilities to

work around resources and impact

areas.

115


Table C-5 summarizes the net effect of prohibiting the conflicting uses. The cumulative net effect column

shows the "strength" of the positive or negative consequences of allowing the conflicting use. The

maximum positive score is +4 and the maximum negative score is -4. A strong positive score suggests

that, on the whole, prohibiting the conflicting use would provide a net benefit to the City, whereas a

negative score would suggest that the use shou ld not be prohibited. Results of this table are carried

forward to the program recommendation section of this analysis.

Table C-5 Summary of Consequences of Prohibiting Conflicting Uses


Residential development -1 0 +1 0 0 Limited civic and commerc ial

-1 0 +1 0 0

development Parks, open space and trails 0 -1 0 0 -1 Transportation facilities -1 -1 -1 -1 -4 Public and private utilities -1 -1 -1 -1 -4

As shown in Table A-5, the net effect of prohibiting conflicting uses is neutral for residential development,

civic and commercia l development. This is primarily due to the positive environmental consequences

being off-set by the economic impacts to property owners. The consequences to parks, trails and open

space are generally neutral; however, the social consequences would li kely be negative as trails and other

passive recreation opportunities within the resource and impact area would be precluded . In the case of

transportation facilities, the environmenta l benefits of prohibiting the conflicting use are balanced with

the economic consequences of increased out-direct ion-travel and vehicle miles traveled. Similarly for

utilities, prohibiting the conflicting use within the resource and impact area could preclude development

of an efficient system thus creating the need for add itional pump stations, or other engineered solutions.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS

This section includes draft recommendations as to whether to allow, limit, or prohibit identified

conflicting uses within significant natural resources areas based on the ESEE ana lysis above. A decision to

prohibit or limit conflicting uses protects the natural resources . A decision to allow some or all conflicting

uses for a particular site may also be consistent with Goal 5, provided it is supported by the ESEE analysis.

One of the following determinations shal l be reached with regard to conflicting uses for a resource site:

(a) The City may decide that a significant natural resource is of such importance compared to the

conflicting uses and the ESEE consequences of allowing the conflicting uses are so detrimental to

the resource that the conflicting uses shou ld be prohibited .

(b) The City may decide that both the sign ificant natural resource and the conflicting uses are

important compared to each other and, based on the ESEE analysis, the conflicting uses should

be allowed in a limited way that protects the resource to a desired extent or requires mitigation

of loss natural resources and associated values and functions.

116


(c) The City may decide that the conflicting use should be allowed fully, notwithstanding the

possible impacts on the significant natural resources. The ESEE analysis must demonstrate that

the conflicting use is of sufficient importance relative to the resource and must indicate why

measures to protect the resource to some extent should not be provided, as per subsection (b) of

this section.

SUMMARY OF GENERAL RECOMMENDATION

Table 3, below, identifies the "net effect" from Tables A-4, 8-4, and C-4 and provides a general

recommendation for each use category. The possible numeric values range from -4 to +4. A value of -4

suggests that the scenario (allow, limit, prohibit) would likely result in negative economic, social,

environmental and energy consequences. Whereas, a value of +4 suggests that the scenario would likely

result in positive consequences. The recommendation is based on encouraging the strongest positive

outcome.

The analysis and weighing of the ESEE factors from the three scenarios suggests that overall the limit

scenario offers the greatest net benefit in all use categories; thus a general recommendation of "limit" is

appropriate. However, the Private and Public Utilities and Facilities and Transportation use categories

also received a positive result under the Allow scenario; indicating that a greater degree of flexibility to

accommodate these uses under a future protection program may be appropriate.

Table 3: Summary of Net Effect of Allowing, Limiting or Prohibiting Conflicting Uses within Significant Wetlands and Impact Areas

Use Category Allow Limit Prohibit (from Table A-1) (from Table B-1) (from Table C-1)

Residential development -2 +3 0

Limited civic and commercial -1 +2 0 development Parks, open space and trails -1 +2 -1

Transportation facilities +1 +3 -4

Public and private utilities +2 +3 -4

PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPLEMENT LIMIT SCENARIO

As noted above, the limit scenario offers the greatest net benefit in all use categories; thus a program

that limits conflicting uses is appropriate. More specifically, the program should accomplish the following

objectives in order to achieve the net benefit to the City anticipated by this approach:

• Avoid impacts where possible. Where impacts cannot be avoided require mitigation for resource

impacts to help ensure that lost ecosystem services are replaced to the extent possible.

• Support the clustering of residential development away from resources so that the economic and

social benefits of providing housing are accomplished in conjunction with environmental benefits

of protecting resources.

117


• Recognize that the Private and Public Utilities and Facilities and Transportation use categories

may require a greater degree of flexibility to allow for the crossing of resources and the

temporary impacts associated with underground utilities.

There are a number of existing regulations and policies, which apply to significant wetlands, and which

address these objectives. These regulations and policies, which are implemented by the City, Clean

Water Services, the Corps of Engineers (COE) and the Department of State Lands, include:

29

• CWS Design and Construction Standards. The City's Development Code (Section 50.25.1.F)

requires documentation from Clean Water Services stating that water quality will not be

adversely affected by the proposal. As noted above, because these wetlands are hydrologically

connected to streams, they are included within the riparian area boundaries shown on Figure 3,

which were defined in accordance with CWS vegetated corridor width determination methods.

The significant wetlands will be subject to CWS review .. CWS requires all degraded vegetated

corridors on a parcel to be improved as a condition of issuing development permits regardless of

whether the vegetated corridor is impacted and mitigation is typically required for unavoidable

impacts.

• Tree protection. The wetlands designated as "significant" in the Draft LWI were designated by

the City as Significant Natural Resource Areas {SNRA). The City has a development review process

for proposed removal of trees within a SNRA. Protected trees, including those within a SNRA, are

the subject of the highest level of review and mitigation.

• Planned Unit Development (PUD). A PUD is required for residential developments 10 acres or

larger in the South Cooper Mountain. All of the properties within SCMAA which are adjacent to

wetlands or impact areas appear to be over 10 acres in size. "Local wetlands" are one of the

listed community features in Section 60.35.25.1.C that are required to be "provided" by Planned

Unit Developments and significant wetlands are shown on Figure 12: Natural Resources in the

Community Plan area map.

• Conditional Uses. Most civic and commercial development and parks will be new conditional uses

in residential zones. In order to approve a new Conditional Use application, the decision making

authority must find that "The proposal will comply with the applicable policies of the

Comprehensive Plan." Within South Cooper Mountain Community Plan was adopted into

Chapter V of the Comprehensive Plan. Natural Resource Policies include: "Locally significant

wetlands and protected riparian corridors within the Community Plan area shall be protected and

enhanced, consistent with local, state, and federal regulations." Upon adoption of the Draft LWI,

three of the wetlands inventoried will be designated as "significant".

• Habitat Benefit Areas (HBAs). The Natural Resources Map/HBA for SCMAA, which was adopted

into Vol. Ill of the Comprehensive Plan, includes the significant wetlands. The HBA program is

intended to protect, conserve and restore riparian and upland habitats through a voluntary

incentive based program. HBA areas are intended to be the area beyond the areas that are

managed or protected through other programs such as CWS Vegetated Corridors.

118


• Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL). Significant wetlands are subject to the permit

requirements of the state Removal -Fill Law. Under current regulations, a state permit is required

for cumulative fill or annual excavation of 50 cubic yards or more in wetlands. Under this permit,

the ecological functions (biotic and abiotic) that are impacted by the project must be replaced. In

addition to determining which ecological functions should be replaced, DSL uses ratios for spatial

considerations; ratios are specific to the restoration, creation, or enhancement types of

compensatory mitigation. DSL prefers mitigation within the same watershed; payment in lieu of

mitigation may be possible or acquisition of mitigation credits from a DSL approved mitigation

bank.

• United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404

establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredge and fill material into waters of the

United States, including wetlands. Responsibility for administering and enforcing Section 404 is

shared by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Permit review and issuance follow a sequential process that encourages avoidance of impacts

first, followed by minimizing impacts and, finally, requiring mitigation for unavoidable impacts to

the aquatic environment.

These regulations and policies as applied to significant wetlands would appear to provide an appropriate

level of protection to achieve the recommendation for "limit".

\

Beaverton

MEMORANDUM

TO: Cheryl Twete, Community Development Director

CC: Steve Sparks, Principal Planner

FROM: Valerie Sutton, Interim Long Range Planning Manager David Levitan, Senior Planner

DATE: January 15, 2016

Exhibit 4

General l'ifo:TiJ..:~li_J·~ ~s-.J) 52::=-:::_..::_-::_~ vr L·[\ _t:,.~.:-j -)r·eci,-:

SUBJECT: Summary of South Cooper Mountain LWI Property Owner Meeting

OAR 141-086-228 requires local governments to provide opportunities for the public to review and comment on draft Local Wetland Inventory (LWI) documents prior to the public hearing. City staff consulted with Department of State Lands (DSL) and Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) staff to develop an appropriate public outreach and review program for the South Cooper Mountain LWI. As part of the city's outreach program, staff held an informational meeting on January 14, 2016 with South Cooper Mountain property owners to discuss the LWI. A meeting announcement and map of locally significant wetlands was mailed to all 22 property owners in the South Cooper Mountain area on December 30, 2015.

Seven people attended the January 141h meeting, including 5 property owners, a representative for

Metropolitan Land Group, and a wetland biologist from AKS Engineering. Staff provided each attendee with a packet of materials that included the draft LWI report and the Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy (ESEE) analysis, which is required when developing a program for protecting significant natural resources covered by Statewide Planning Goal 5. Maps showing property ownership and the presence of locally significant wetlands were also distributed at the meeting.

Staff gave a Powerpoint presentation that summarized the role and requirements of the LWI; how and when wetlands were inventoried; the ESEE analysis process; the city's proposed protection program for locally significant wetlands in South Cooper Mountain; and the approval and adoption process for the LWI. Staff's presentation was followed by a question and answer session with meeting attendees. The majority of questions and comments received at the meeting were related to potential wetlands and especially vegetated corridor buffers on specific properties, which will be established during project review by the applicable agencies (DSL, the Army Corps of Engineers, and Clean Water Services). There were no questions or disagreement about the mapped location of locally significant wetlands.

There were also questions about whether the city is proposing additional protection (e.g. "no-touch") for significant wetlands in South Cooper Mountain. Staff explained that their current recommendation is to adopt the LWI for South Cooper Mountain, to which the city's existing significant natural resource protection program will apply (no new restrictions). This recommendation will be presented to the Planning Commission as part of the January 27, 2016 hearing for the LWI. The Planning Commission will forward their recommendation on the LWI to the City Council.

1 I 1')(!

1- .)

Staff continues to communicate with DSL staff, including a January 15, 2016 email to summarize the city's public review process to date and the project's next steps. Staff anticipates that unless extensive public comments are received during the public comment period (which runs until January 26), or at the Planning Commission public hearing (January 27), the South Cooper Mountain LWI will be approved by DSL and forwarded to City Council for adoption in March 2016.

121

Beaverton

MEMORANDUM

TO:

FROM:

MEMO DATE:

Planning Commission

David Levitan, AICP Senior Planner

January 26, 2016

PUBLIC HEARING: January 27, 2016

Exhibit 5

SUBJECT: DLCD Comments on South Cooper Mountain LWI (CPA 2015-0008)

Recent Comments from DLCD on South Cooper Mountain LWI

The South Cooper Mountain Draft Local Wetland Inventory (LWI) has been reviewed by both the Department of State Lands (DSL) and the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). Comments and revisions from DSL were incorporated into the draft LWI being considered by the Planning Commission (Exhibit 1 ), but DLCD's comments were not.

DLCD's comments include the following:

1) In Table 2 under Section 3.3, the most recent version of the LWI changed Wetland G from a probable wetland to a known wetland, and the acreage was changed from 1.16 acres to 21.29 acres. However, the paragraph just above Table 2 still references Wetland G as a Probable Wetland (PW-G).

2) The same paragraph above Table 2 also refers to Wetland A as the largest wetland within the study area (11.80 acres), while Wetland G is actually bigger (21.29 acres) after the acreage was changed. The text description of Wetland G's characteristics also needs to be updated.

3) The first paragraph under Section 3.3 notes that the study area contains an estimated 19.37 acres of wetlands and probable wetlands, which was the total before changes were made in late August. However, the total listed in the bottom row of Table 2 now lists 47.53 acres.

4) The first paragraph also notes that the study area wetlands are displayed in Appendix A, Figure 3, while it appears that this should be Appendix A, Figure 5.

Planning Commission Options

Staff agrees with all four of DLCD's proposed revisions. Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the South Cooper Mountain LWI, staff proposes that the motion incorporate the changes proposed in this Exhibit 5.

Staff Memorandum Date: January 26, 2016 Page 1 Supplemental information for CPA 2015-0008 (South Cooper Mountain LWI)

.- ..... /7Dregon ''"-,J_"6"'5:'f//' Kate Brown, Grwenwr

April 18,2016

The Honorable Denny Doyle, Mayor City of Beaverton 12721 SW Millikan Way P.O. Box 4755 Beaverton, OR 97076

Re: Approval of the City of Beaverton, Cooper Mountain South Local Wetlands Inventory and Assessment

Dear Mayor Doyle:

Department of State Lands 775 Summer Street NE, Suite 100

Salem, OR 97301-1279

(503) 986-5200

FAX (503) 378-4844

www,oregon.gov I dsl

State Land Board

Kate Brown

Governor

Jeanne P. Atkins

Secretary of State

Ted Wheeler

State Treasurer

I am pleased to notify you that the Department of State Lands (DSL) has approved your Local Wetlands Inventory (L WI) and assessment. We appreciate your planning staff and the wetland consultant, David Evans and Associates, working with our staff to ensure that the inventory meets state LWI requirements (OAR 141-86-0180 through -0240) and the city's needs. The DSL-approved report and maps can be viewed and downloaded from our website at http://www.oregonstatelands.us/DSLIWETLAND/lwi disclaimer agreed.shtml?. The DSLapproved GIS datasets are available for download from the Department's dropbox site at https:l/www.dropbox.com/sh/Ojkzo8933hvh257/AADVKB6Km4WAQiPsSbkDFYiga?dl=O.

The final inventory requirement is for the city to notify property owners with wetlands mapped on their property within 120 days of this approval. Please provide us with a copy of the landowner notification, indicating the date when notification was completed.

Approval by DSL means that the LWI becomes part ofthe Statewide Wetlands Inventory. The LWI must now be used by the city instead of the National Wetlands Inventory for the Wetland Land Use Notification Process (ORS 227.350). Please note that mapped wetlands, "probable wetlands" (PW), and waterways may initiate a Wetland Land Use Notification to DSL.

The L WI and functional assessment also form the foundation for your wetland planning under Statewide Planning Goal 5, and the L WI must be adopted by the city per the Goal 5 requirements. Please note when significant wetlands are designated by the city, "nonsignificant" wetlands may be coded to distinguish them from "significant wetlands" but must not be removed from the approved L WI maps. These wetlands are still subject to state and federal permit requirements.

While considerable effort has been made to identify accurately most wetlands within the study area, DSL's approval does not guarantee that all regulated wetlands have been mapped. The mapped wetland boundaries are estimated boundaries, they have not been surveyed, and there are inherent limitations in mapping accuracy. DSL advises persons proposing land alteration on

parcels containing mapped wetlands first to contact DSL or to obtain a wetland boundary delineation by a qualified consultant and submit it to DSL for approval prior to the land alteration.

It will be important to keep your L WI updated as new wetland delineations are completed and approved by DSL. One method is to annotate the LWI map with the DSL file number(s) on the affected tax lots. This may also be accomplished by creating a separate "refinement layer" within the digital dataset, per 141-085-0230(5). A few delineations have been approved since the L WI miginal draft and were incorporated into subsequent drafts. Please contact us if you need copies of these delineation approval documents. Future wetland delineation approval documents will be provided to the planning department for updating the L WI mapping.

We are pleased that the City of Beaverton has conducted a thorough wetlands inventory of the South Cooper Mountain study area, and has made wetland planning a high priority. We look forward to working with you and your staff as you continue on the Goal 5 wetland planning effort. Please feel free to contact Jevra Brown at (503)986-5297 with any questions you may have about the L WI or its use.

Jevra Brown Aquatic Resource Planner Aquatic Resource Management Program

ec: Cassera Phipps, Associate Planner, Community Development Department, City of Beaverton Theresa Cherniak, Principal Planner, Washington County Dept. of Land Use and Trans. Anne Debbaut, Metro Regional Representative, DLCD Amanda Punton, Natural Resource Specialist, Planning Services Division, DLCD Ethan Rosenthal, Project Manager/Ecologist, David Evans and Associates Yvonne Vallette, EPA Heidi Firstencel & Michael Ladouceur, US Corps ofEngineers Shauna Ginger, USFWS Bill Kirchner, NWI, USFWS Joy Vaughan, ODFW Sara Christensen, ODEQ John Christy, Oregon Biodiversity Infonnation Center Melinda Butterfield, Anita Huffman, & Peter Ryan, ODSL