Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Exhibit N_Wetland Delineation Report
Willamette River: Eugene River Front Wetland Delineation SUBMITTED TO City of Eugene January 2019 Willamette River: Eugene River Front Wetland Delineation SUBMITTED TO Emily Proudfoot City of Eugene 1820 Roosevelt Blvd Eugene, Oregon 97402 PREPARED BY Inter-Fluve, Inc. 501 Portway Ave., Suite 101 Hood River, OR 97031 January 2019 Table of Contents Project summary ........................................................................................................ $¸¸µ¸ȔɎ!µµ±³§¸±Ɏ´µºɎª«¬¯´«ªȌ A. Landscape Setting and Land Use ....................................................................................................................... 4 B. Site Alterations ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 C. Precipitation Data and Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 5 D. Methods ................................................................................................................................................................. 6 E. Description of All Wetlands and Other Non-Wetland Waters ...................................................................... 7 Upland areas adjacent to the river ......................................................................................................................... 7 6¤¦¤³ ³¨® ȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁ ȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁ Ζ 3®¨«² ȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁ ȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁ Ζ Upland areas on slope ............................................................................................................................................. 7 6¤¦¤³ ³¨® ȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁ ȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁ Ζ 3®¨«² ȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁ ȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁȁ Ζ Willamette river waterbody .................................................................................................................................... 8 F. Deviation from LWI or NWI .............................................................................................................................. 8 G. Mapping Method ................................................................................................................................................. 9 H. Additional Information ....................................................................................................................................... 9 Fish use ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................................................... 11 I. Results and Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 13 J. Required Disclaimer .......................................................................................................................................... 13 K. References ........................................................................................................................................................... 14 Appendices Appendix A Maps referenced in wetland report Appendix B Wetland data forms Appendix C Ground level photographs i Project Name: Willamette River: Eugene Water Front Applicant: Emily Proudfoot City of Eugene 1820 Roosevelt Blvd Eugene, Oregon 97402 Location: No formal street address (see appendix A, Figure 1) Legal Description: Sec. 29 and 32, T17S, R3W Lat. 44.05573 N, Long. 123.0844 W to Lat. 44.05229 N, Long. 123.0825 W Field Study Dates: December 3, 2019 Conditions prior to fieldwork: Cool and dry. This study was authorized by the City of Eugene. The study area is owned by the Eugene Water and Electric Board. A.Landscape Setting and Land Use The study area is located on the Willamette River left bank, between the river and the Ruth-Bascom Bike path, in Eugene, Oregon. The landscape surrounding the study area is comprised of urban land use. The channel is confined by riprap and bank armoring, and bridges cross the river upstream and downstream of the study area. The Coast Fork Willamette River and Coast Fork Willamette River confluence is located roughly 5 miles upstream of the project area, and the hydrology of both tributaries is controlled by dams. The channel bed contains bedrock features that control grade, and alluvial material is also present. The City of Eugene is planning an urban park project in the former Eugene Water and Electric Board site, located within and landward of the study area. The project will involve bank treatments within the study area to re-naturalize the bank, promote a native riparian community, and provide stability for the larger park. This wetland assessment was carried out to identify wetlands and waters within the study area to inform the river bank grading plan. B.Site Alterations The Eugene Riverfront project area is located at the outside bend of a river meander. The shape of the current meander was anthropogenically constructed to accommodate industrial and urban development in the middle of the 20 century. What was once a topographically irregular floodplain th with multiple flow paths has been filled and graded at the project site to maximize acreage for urban and industrial development that extends today to the top of the river bank. Except at the downstream 4 end of the project area near the EWEB plaza, the bank-top surface of the Eugene Riverfront project area is now considered a terrace surface a bank-top surface that is never or very rarely inundated. The entire river bank within the project area is armored with large boulder riprap or cement. At the upstream end of the study area, a water withdrawal tower associated with the historical steam plant is constructed of cement and adds additional localized bank protection. The bank tops are high at approximately 10 to 24 feet above low-water elevation. Bank gradients are steep with a range from 30- 40% along the project area. At the downstream end of the project area, where flow hydraulics decrease, bank height also decreases and the EWEB plaza apron protrudes slightly over the toe of the bank. As a result, the lower section(s) of the EWEB apron is inundated during high-flow events. C.Precipitation Data and Analysis Water year to date is 47% of normal (October 1, 2018 to December 3, 2018). The three months preceding field work were also drier than normal (Figure 1). Monthly precipitation Normal precipitation % of normal Month(inches, 2018)(inches, 1981-2010)by month September, 20180.281.2921.7% October, 20181.683.2551.7% November, 20183.457.7244.7% Figure 1. Monthly precipitation for 3 months preceding the wetland delineation, including normal values. Data from Eugene- Mahlon Sweet Field, Oregon gage (USDA 2019). Precipitation during the 2 weeks leading up to field work was 93% of normal, with 3.84 inches of rain between November 20 and December 3, 2018 compared to the normal precipitation of 4.12 inches for thrd the same period. No precipitation fell during field work on December 3 (Figure 2). rd 1.2 Normals 1981-2010 2018 data 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Date Figure 2. Daily precipitation from November 20, 2018 to December 3, 2018. 5 D.Methods The wetland assessment was conducted on December 3, 2018. Wetland boundaries were primarily established according to the Routine Onsite method described in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE 1987), and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West (Version 2.0) (USACE 2008) (hereafter, referred to as the Manual). Areas with high potential to support jurisdictional wetlands were identified prior to field work by reviewing aerial photographs of the site, National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, United Stated Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS) soil maps, and LiDAR. All areas within the study area were surveyed on foot. Notes concerning soil, vegetation, and hydrology were recorded at each sample plot location. No wetlands were identified at the site. The Willamette River Ordinary High Water (OHW) mark shown in this report was delineated using field indicators using methodologies outlined in the Washington Department of Eoclogy 2016 manual (Washington Department of Eoclogy 2016). The line was drawn in the office using detailed field nots, aerial photographs, formal topographic survey, and hydraulic model results. Field indicators included changes in soil character, vegetation community breaks, and topographic breaks. Vegetative community shifts were the most obvious indicators for OHW, and are described in detail in the following sections. Wetland sample plot locations were determined through observation of topographic and vegetation patterns, while periodic soil sampling ground-truthed our observations by determining the presence or absence of hydric soils and wetland hydrology. Sample plots 1, 2, and 3 were sited near the river at low spots on floodplain benches where wetlands were most likely to occur. Sample plots 4 and 5 were placed on a similar floodplain bench feature, but adjacent to a stormwater/ tributary outfall. Sample plots 6 and 7 were sited below a stormwater outfall pipe further up the slope to investigate the presence or absence of wetlands in relation to these types of features. Sample plot 4 was sited below the OHW mark, and has been excluded from the appendix for this reason. 6 E.Description of All Wetlands and Other Non-Wetland Waters UPLAND AREAS ADJACENT TO THE RIVER 6«º²§´ªɎ¹§³¶²«Ɏ¶²µº¹ȎɎ-µ´«Ɏ 4¶²§´ªɎ¹§³¶²«Ɏ¶²µº¹ȎɎ¹¶ųŴȍɎ¹¶ųŵȍɎ¹¶ųŶȍɎ¹¶ųŸɎ These samples plots were established on a floodplain benches throughout the study area to look for wetlands. Sample plots were targeted at lower elevation areas where wetlands were most likely to occur. Vegetation The majority of vegetation on these floodplain benches and immediately upslope were upland species. Bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum, FACU) and Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia, FACW) were found upslope from the floodplain benches, while red alder (Alnus rubra, FAC) was commonly encountered just upslope from the OHW line. Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus, FAC) and English ivy (Hedra helix, FACU) were common upslope of OHW. While grasses were found closer to the water surface downslope of OHW. Soils Upland soils were found in this feature. Sandy loam 10YR3/2 and 2/1 were found with gravels and riprap encountered 2-The relatively thin layer of sandy loam and rock beneath likely drain this feature rapidly following rain or flooding. UPLAND AREAS ON SLOPE 6«º²§´ªɎ¹§³¶²«Ɏ¶²µº¹ȎɎ-µ´«Ɏ 4¶²§´ªɎ¹§³¶²«Ɏ¶²µº¹ȎɎ¹¶ųŹȍɎ¹¶ųźɎ These samples plots were established on the bank slope below a stormwater outfall pipe to look for potential slope wetlands below water inputs. Vegetation Vegetation in the swale directly below the outfall pipe had herbaceous cover only with grasses and shining geranium (Geranium lucidum, FACU). Outside of this swale, Himalayan blackberry and English Ivy were prevalent. Soils Upland soils were found in this feature. Sandy loam 10YR3/2 and 2/1 were found with gravels and riprap encountered 2-The relatively thin layer of sandy loam and rock beneath likely drain this feature rapidly following rain events. 7 WILLAMETTE RIVER WATERBODY 1,700 lineal feet of the Willamette River OHW mark are located within the study area boundaries. An additional 450 lineal feet of OHW were delineated outside of the study area using field notes combined with hydraulic model and elevation data sets. The Willamette River described here is only partially contained within the study area. The OHWM was delineated at the site based upon shifts in vegetation community, soil character, and topography. OHW corresponded to a vegetation community transition from sedges to upland species including Himalayan Blackberry, English ivy, and snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus, FACU). Alder were commonly found just upslope of OHW, and washed roots were observed in line with OHW. Vegetative transitions were the primary indicator used, and were present throughout the study area. Soils upslope had more developed horizons compared to sandy soil downslope, and this indicator was only present at a few locations. A topographic slope break was also observed at the OHWM at several locations. The OHWM was delineated at an elevation 406.5 feet at the middle of the study area and 407.4 feet at the upstream end of the study area F.Deviation from LWI or NWI The US Fish and Wildlife Service maps wetlands and deepwater habitats based on Cowardin classes as part of its National Wetland Inventory (NWI) program (Cowardin et al. 1979). NWI maps are produced from aerial photographic and topographic map interpretation and are not meant to represent the extent of jurisdictional wetlands (Dahl et al. 2015). No wetland types were mapped found within the study area. Just outside of the eastern boundary of the study area, the Willamette River was classified as: 1ŵ4!'ȎɎ1¯¼«¸¯´«ȍɎ²µ½«¸Ɏ¶«¸«´´¯§²ȍɎ»´©µ´¹µ²¯ª§º«ªɎ¨µººµ³ȍɎ¶«¸³§´«´º²¿Ɏ¬²µµª«ª. The Willamette River was mapped as this wetland type. The absence of wetlands identified in this delineation is in agreement with the absence of mapped NWI wetlands. The OHWM of the Willamette River as delineated in the field is in relative agreement with the R2UBH boundary from NWI, however our field delineated OHWM was located landward of NWI. Discrepancies between delineated and NWI OHW are most likely due to the quality and scale of data used. This delineation used field indicators, detailed survey, and detailed field investigation to determine wetland boundaries while NWI wetlands are mapped from aerial photos and topographic maps and are therefore less precise. A local wetland inventory (LWI) was completed for the project area by Pacific Habitat Services Inc in 2003. This LWI did not delineate any wetlands within the project area. 8 G.Mapping Method Sample plot locations and wetland boundaries nodes were recorded using a Trimble map grade GPS with sub-meter accuracy (Table 1). OHW and topographic features were surveyed using RTK GPS with accuracy of 0.1 feet. OHW nodes were recorded throughout the study area and were connected using GIS. Lines between the nodes were adjusted using high quality aerial imagery, LiDAR, and topographic survey data from the RTK. Table 1. Post-processing accuracy of sample plots taken with the Trimble GPS. 9ƭƷźƒğƷĻ ğĭĭǒƩğĭźĻƭ wğƓŭĻtĻƩĭĻƓƷğŭĻ 0-5 cm- 5-15 cm1.04% 15-30 cm20.39% 30-50 cm17.50% 0.5-1 m35.46% 1-2 m24.45% 2-5 m1.16% >5 m- H.Additional Information FISH USE The project area is within the Upper Willamette River (UWR) management unit for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). The Willamette River within the project area vicinity supports a wide variety of native and nonnative fish species (Table 2), and is designated critical habitat for Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon, which is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Non-listed hatchery summer steelhead are also present in the area. 9 Table 2. Fish species present in the Willamette River (data from Williams, Giannico, and Withrow-Robinson 2014). Common nameScientific nameNative? Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Y Steelhead/ Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Y Coastal Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarki clarki Y Chiselmouth Acrocheilus alutaceus Y Northern Pikeminnow Ptychocheilus oregonensis Y Peamouth Mylocheilus caurinus Y Redside Shiner Richardsonius balteatus Y Speckled Dace Rhinichthys osculus Y Largescale Sucker Catostomus macrocheilus Y Threespine Stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus Y Reticulate Sculpin Cottus perplexus Y Prickly Sculpin Cottus asper Y Oregon Chub Oregonichthys crameri Y Sand Roller Percopsis transmontana Y Brook Lamprey Lampetra spp.Y Pacific Lamprey Entosphenus tridentatus Y Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus N Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus N Warmouth Lepomis gulosus N Green Sunfish Lypomis cyanellus N Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus N White Crappie Pomoxis annularis N Common Carp Cyprinus carpio N Goldfish Carassius auratus N Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides N Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu N Western Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis N Yellow Bullhead Ameiurus natalis N Brown Bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus N Yellow Perch Perca flavescens N Banded Killifish Fundulus diaphanus N Oriental Weatherfish Misgurnus anguillicaudatus N The Chinook Salmon that utilize the Willamette River are a mix of native and hatchery raised fish. The hatchery release fingerlings and smolts are cultivated from native Middle Fork Willamette River stock and used to supplement the native run populations. The Willamette River hatchery is located on Salmon Creek near Oakridge, Oregon approximately 50 miles upstream of Eugene. This facility also produces summer steelhead smolts produced at the South Santiam Hatchery from out-of-basin Skamania stock. Summer steelhead in the Middle Fork Willamette River are an entirely hatchery propagated run (Oregon Fish Division 2016). UWR spring Chinook are considered one of the most genetically distinct populations of Chinook in the Columbia River basin (Beamesderfer et al. 2011). These fish use the channel near the project site for migrating (adults and juveniles) and rearing. Life history diversity of Willamette River Chinook stocks is high, with six different life histories and seven demographically independent populations contributing differently to smolt production over eight brood years of study (Schroder et al. 2015, Beamesderfer et al. 2011). The relative contribution of each life history to total Chinook recruitment is highly variable over years and provides resilience to this population (Schroder et al. 2015). UWR spring Chinook salmon are a federally listed threatened species native to the Willamette River watershed. Chinook salmon present within the project area vicinity belong to the Middle Fork Willamette population. 10 Adult spring Chinook migrate through the Upper Willamette from May to October. Spawning occurs in tributaries upstream of the project area, with spawning activities peaking in mid-September (Oregon Fish Division 2016). Pre-spawn mortality of adult UWR spring Chinook is highly variable between years and has been shown to be dependent on water temperatures and origin of returning adults (hatchery vs native). Pre-spawn mortality varies considerably but was consistently >80% of returning females when composition of spawning fish was >80% hatchery origin and maximum temperatures exceeded 20C (Bowerman et al. 2017). ° Juvenile UWR Chinook salmon out-migrate through the project area as both sub-yearling and yearling fish (Schroder et al. 2015). Juveniles that emigrate as yearlings are the most dominant life history type, and these fish rear in the Willamette River year-round, including the river segment along the project area. Peaks in juvenile out-migration typically occur during high flows in the spring, but sometimes there is a very broad temporal distribution of outmigrants (Beamesderfer et al. 2011). Table 3. Life history timing of UWR Spring Chinook Salmon in the vicinity of the project area. SPECIES JANFEBMARAPRMAYJUNEJULYAUGSEPTOCTNOVDEC Spring Chinook Juvenile Rearing Peak Juvenile Migration Adult migration Shallow water habitats required by juvenile salmonids for migration and rearing are limited by the lack of shallow water habitat complexity, absence of native and multi-layered riparian vegetation, and substantial riverbank modifications. HYDROLOGY In general, the annual hydrograph for the Willamette River at the project area expresses seasonal high flows between mid-November through January. On average, relatively moderate flows occur March through mid-June and low flows occur through the summer and early autumn. Data from an on-site USACE stream gage was used as the primary data source for the hydrologic analysis. The gage (USACE EUGO) is located on the left bank water exchange structure of former Steam Plant in Eugene, OR. Peak flows were also reported for the project area in the Lane County Flood Insurance Study (FEMA 1999a) at the former USGS Gage 14158000 at State Hwy 125 near Springfield, OR. Vegetation based (Non-regulatory) Ordinary High Water (OHW) marks were observed and surveyed on April 26, 2018. These marks were then correlated to a discharge using the project-specific hydraulic model created by Inter-Fluve. The available post-dam construction annual peak flow record period (1976-2018) from the gage (USACE EUGO) was used for the purpose of evaluating representative modern peak flow hydrology. The peak flow evaluation followed the methods prescribed in the US National Flood Frequency 11 Guidelines Bulletin 17B (Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data, 1982) and were carried out using the H-SSP v.2.1 2016). The results of the peak flow evaluation where compared with the peak flows reported for the project area in the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Lane County, Oregon (FEMA 1999a). For design purposes a combination of the Bulletin 17B peak flow statistics and the FIS report values were selected as shown in Figure 3. Return Period (years) 11.525102550100200500 150,000 100,000 70,000 50,000 Dec. '96 30,000 Gage peaks Dec. '16 Low outliers 20,000 Nov. '17 5% conf. limit Bulletin 17B curve 95% conf. limit 10,000 FEMA FIS Values Project Design Values 5,000 100%67%50%20%10%4%2%1%0.5%0.2% Annual Exceedance Probability Figure 3. Flood frequency analysis plot - FEMA FIS & Bulletin 17B. Gage peaks are discharge from USACE Gage EUGO at the Former EWEB Steam Plant in Eugene, OR for the available post dam period of record (1976-2018). The 5% confidence, Bulletin 17B curve, and 95% confidence lines are from HEC-SSP version 2.1. FEMA FIS values are as reported in the Lane County Flood Insurance Study (FEMA 1999a) at the former USGS Gage 14158000 at State Hwy 125 near Springfield, OR. The design values are a combination of Lane County FIS (FEMA 1999a) values and Bulletin 17B analysis results. The available post-dam annual peak flow record period (1976-2018) from the on-site gage (USACE EUGO) was also used for the purpose of evaluating seasonal flow hydrology. A number of statistical analysis were done on the data including; daily and monthly average, minimum, maximum, and flow exceedance probabilities (from 5 to 95 percent). Mean daily discharges were used in the analysis and a normal distribution was assumed for exceedance probability calculations. The results of these analysis are shown in Figure 3. 12 Daily 10% Exceedance Daily Mean Daily 90% Exceedance Monthly Mean 12,009 10,769 7,968 6,513 5,531 4,879 4,736 4,217 3,976 3,416 2,445 2,135 OctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSep Month Figure 3. Annual Hydrology Statistics, Willamette River at Former EWEB Steam Plant, Water Years 1977 to 2018. Discharge statistics are for the USACE Gage EUGO at the Former EWEB Steam Plant in Eugene, OR. I.Results and Conclusions No wetlands were identified within the study area. The Willamette River OHW line was identified within the study area, and was delineated based on field indicators. J.Required Disclaimer Wetlands are regulated on federal, state, and local levels by the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL), and the City of Eugene. This report presents the findings of the wetland scientists based on their experience and best professional judgment. This report does not represent a jurisdictional determination of wetland boundaries or classifications. Within the state of Oregon, the Corps and DSL have the final authority in determining wetland boundaries and regulations. It is suggested that this report be forwarded to the appropriate agencies for concurrence prior to completion any project activities that would disturb the wetlands as assessed in the field. 13 K.References Beamesderfer R. , L. Berg, M. Chilcote, J. Firman, E. Gilbert, K. Goodson, D. Jepsen, L. Kruzic, S. Knapp, B. McIntosh, J. Nicholas, J. Rodgers, T. Stahl, B. Taylor, and R. Walton. 2011. Upper Willamette River Conservation and Recovery Plan for Chinook Salmon and Steelhead. Prepared foby Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest Region. August 5, 2011. Bowerman T., A. Roumasset, M. Keefer, C. Sharpe, and C. Caudill. 2017. Prespawn mortality of female Chinook Salmon increases with water temperature and percent hatchery origin. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Cowardin, LM, V Carter, FC Golet, ET LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. US Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington DC. FWS/OBS- 79/31. Dahl, T.E., J. Dick, J. Swords, and B.O. Wilen. 2015. Data Collection Requirements and Procedures for Mapping Wetland, Deepwater and Related Habitats of the United States. Division of Habitat and Resource Conservation (version 2), National Standards and Support Team, Madison, WI. 92 p. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 1999a. Flood Insurance Study for Lane County, Oregon and Incorporated Areas, 3 Volumes. June 2, 1999. Oregon Fish Division. 2016. Willamette hatchery program management plan. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Salem, OR. Schroeder R., L. Whitman, B. Cannon, and P. Olmsted. 2015. Juvenile life-history diversity and population stability of spring Chinook salmon in the Willamette River basin, Oregon. Canadian Journal of Aquatic Sciences 73(6), 921-934. USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. <http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/wetlands/pdfs/wlman87.pdf>. USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers). 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0). U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi. ERDC/EL TR-08-28. <https://www.spk.usace.army.mil/Portals/12/documents/regulatory/pdf/wmvc_df2.pdf>. USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers). 2012. National Wetland Plant List Indicator Rating Definitions. Wetland Regulatory Assistance Program. ERDC/CRREL TR-12-1. <http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/regulatory/reg_supp/trel08- 28.pdf>. USBOR (United States Bureau of Reclamation). 2012. Catherine Creek Tributary Assessment, Grande Ronde River Basin. February 2012. Prepared by Pacific Northwest Regional Office, Boise, Idaho. Washington Department of Ecology. 2016. Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State. October 2016 Final Review. Publication no 16-16-029. 14 Williams J., G. Giannico, and B. Withrow-Robinson. 2014. Field guide to common fish of the Willamette Valley Floodplain. Oregon State University Extension Service. June 2014. 15 Appendix A: Maps referenced in wetland report Map 1. Eugene Riverfront study area locator. ΐ Map 2. Tax lots as of January 2019. ΐ Map 3. NWI wetlands mapped near the study area. Α Map 4. Local wetland inventory of the study area (black rectangle, approx) completed by Pacific Habitat Services Inc in 2003. Β Map 5. USDA NRCS soils mapped near the study area. Chapman-Urban land complex (25) is not a hydric soil. Γ Map 6. Aerial image of the site taken June 26, 2016. Δ Map 7. Regulatory features, sample plots, tax lots, and built features within the study aera. Ε Map 8. Wetland delineation overview and photo points for downstream portion of the study area. Ζ Map 9. Wetland delineation overview and photo points for upstream portion of the study area. Η Appendix B: Wetland data forms WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM –Western Mountains, Valleys, and CoastRegion Project/Site:Eugene waterfrontCity/County:Eugene/ Lane CountySampling Date:December 3, 2018 Applicant/Owner:City of EugeneState: ORSampling Point:SP-01 Investigator(s):Emily Alcott and Joe ParzychSection, Township, Range:T17SR3WSec 32NW Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Floodplain benchLocal relief (concave, convex, none):NoneSlope (%):5% Subregion (LRR):A–NW ForestLat:44.051968Long:-123.081898Datum:WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name:Chapman-Urban land complexNWI classification:Upland Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? YesxNo(If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation,Soilx,or Hydrologysignificantly disturbed?Are “Normal Circumstances” present? YesXNo Are Vegetation,Soil,or Hydrologynaturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS –Attachsite map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic VegetationPresent?YesNoX Hydric Soil Present?YesNoXIs the Sampled Area within a Wetland? YesNoX Wetland Hydrology Present?YesNoX Remarks: Located on riprap bank on outside of riverbend. Local slope is 5%,landward the slope is ~40%. Surface is an intermediate floodplain surface. Soils are disturbed from presence of riprap justbeneath the surface. VEGETATION –Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Absolute DominantIndicator Tree Stratum(Plot size:15’)% CoverSpecies?Status Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:1(A) 1.30yFACU Acer macrophyllum Total Number of Dominant 2. Species Across All Strata:2(B) 3. Percent of Dominant Species 4. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:50%(A/B) 30= Total Cover Prevalence Index worksheet: Sapling/Shrub Stratum(Plot size:10’) Total % Cover of:Multiply by: 1.5yFAC Rubus armeniacus OBL species0x 1 = 2. 0 3. FACW speciesx 2 = 4. FAC species5x 3 =15 5. FACU species30x4=120 5= Total Cover UPL species0x 5 =0 Herb Stratum (Plot size:5’ r) Column Totals:35(A) 135(B) 1.5y Poa spp Prevalence Index = B/A =3.9 2. 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. 5. 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. 2-Dominance Test is >50% 7. 3-1 8. 4-Morphological Adaptations 1(Providesupporting data in Remarks or on a separatesheet) 9. 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation(Explain) 1 11. 5= Total Cover Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 1 be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum(Plot size:) 1. 2. Hydrophytic = Total Cover Vegetation % Bare Ground in HerbStratum95 Present?YesNox Remarks: Riprap prominentin this areaat and just beneath the surface. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP01 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) MatrixRedox Features Depth (inches)Color (moist)%Color (moist)%TypeLocTextureRemarks 12 0-410YR 3/285Sandy loam 15Gravel/cobble 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered orCoated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicatorsfor Problematic Hydric Soils: 3 Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 3 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 (ifpresent): Type:RiprapHydric Soil Present? YesNox Depth (inches):4” Remarks:Refusal at 4”depth due to riprap.No hydric soil indicatorsobservedat time of field assessment HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, Surface Water (A1)MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)4A, and 4B) High Water Table (A2)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Sediment Deposits (B2)Roots(C3)Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (B5)(LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?YesNoxDepth (inches): Water Table Present?YesNoxDepth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?YesNox Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe)YesNoxDepth (inches): Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: River at low flow, NOAA gage EUGO3 (Willamette River at Eugene) at 10.0 feet (gage datum). Remarks:No wetland hydrology indicators observedat time of field assessment US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM –Western Mountains, Valleys, and CoastRegion Project/Site:Eugene waterfrontCity/County:Eugene/ Lane CountySampling Date:December 3, 2018 Applicant/Owner:City of EugeneState: ORSampling Point:SP-02 Investigator(s):Emily Alcott and Joe ParzychSection, Township, Range:T17SR3WSec 32NW Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope (%):<2% Subregion (LRR):A–NW ForestLat:44.05211Long:-123.082114Datum:WGS 84 SoilMap Unit Name:Chapman-Urban land complexNWI classification:upland Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? YesxNo(If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation,Soilx,or Hydrologysignificantly disturbed?Are “Normal Circumstances” present? YesXNo Are Vegetation,Soil,or Hydrologynaturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS –Attachsite map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic VegetationPresent?YesNoX Hydric Soil Present?YesNoXIs the Sampled Area within a Wetland? YesNoX Wetland Hydrology Present?YesNoX Remarks: Soils disturbed through riprap at thisplot and surrounding.Persistent patch of carex obnupta located downslope of OHW at this location. VEGETATION –Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum(Plot size:15’)% CoverSpecies?Status Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:1(A) 1.80YFACU Acer macrophyllum Total Number of Dominant 2.15NFACW Fraxinus latifolia Species Across All Strata:3(B) 3. Percent of Dominant Species 4. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:33%(A/B) 95= Total Cover Prevalence Index worksheet: Sapling/Shrub Stratum(Plot size:10’) Total % Cover of:Multiply by: 1.40YFAC Rubus armeniacus OBL species15X1=15 2. 3. FACW species15X2=30 4. FAC species40X3=120 5. FACU species90X4=360 40= Total Cover UPL speciesX5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size:5’) Column Totals:160(A) 525(B) 1.30Y Poa spp Prevalence Index = B/A =3.3 2.15NOBL Carex obnupta 3.10NFACU Geranium lucidum Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. 5. 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. 2-Dominance Test is >50% 7. 3-1 8. 4-Morphological Adaptations 1(Providesupporting data in Remarks or on a separatesheet) 9. 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation(Explain) 1 11. 55= Total Cover Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 1 be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum(Plot size:) 1. 2. Hydrophytic = Total Cover Vegetation % Bare Ground inHerb Stratum45 Present?YesNox Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP02 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirmthe absence of indicators.) MatrixRedox Features Depth (inches)Color (moist)%Color (moist)%TypeLocTextureRemarks 12 0-510YR 3/2Sandy Loam 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicatorsfor Problematic Hydric Soils: 3 Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (exceptMLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 3 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:RiprapHydric Soil Present? YesNox Depth (inches):5” Remarks:Refusal at 5”due to riprap, no hydric soils indicators observed. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, Surface Water(A1)MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)4A, and 4B) High Water Table (A2)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation(A3)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Sediment Deposits (B2)Roots (C3)Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (B5)(LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6)(LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?YesNoDepth (inches): Water Table Present?YesNoDepth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?YesNox Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe)YesNoDepth (inches): Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: River at low flow, NOAA gage EUGO3 (Willamette River at Eugene) at 10.0 feet (gage datum). Remarks:No wetland hydrology indicators observed.Located on theoutside of a riverbend. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM –Western Mountains, Valleys, and CoastRegion Project/Site:Eugene waterfrontCity/County:Eugene/ Lane CountySampling Date:December 3, 2018 Applicant/Owner:City of EugeneState: ORSampling Point:SP-03 Investigator(s):Emily Alcott and Joe ParzychSection, Township, Range:T17SR3WSec 32NW Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope (%):<2% Subregion (LRR):A–NW ForestLat:44.053513Long:-123.083527Datum:WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name:Chapman-Urban land complexNWI classification:upland Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? YesNo(If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation,Soil,or Hydrologysignificantly disturbed?Are “Normal Circumstances” present? YesXNo Are Vegetation,Soil,or Hydrologynaturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS –Attachsite map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic VegetationPresent?YesNoX Hydric Soil Present?YesNoXIs the Sampled Area within a Wetland? YesNoX Wetland Hydrology Present?YesNoX Remarks: VEGETATION –Use scientific namesofplants. Dominance Test worksheet: Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum(Plot size:15’)% CoverSpecies?Status Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:1(A) 1.70YFAC Alnus rubra Total Number of Dominant 2. Species Across All Strata:3(B) 3. Percentof Dominant Species 4. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:33%(A/B) 70= Total Cover Prevalence Index worksheet: Sapling/Shrub Stratum(Plot size:10’) Total % Cover of:Multiply by: 1.15NFAC Rubus armeniacus OBL species0X1=0 2.70YFACU Hedra helix 3. FACW species0X2=0 4. FAC species85X3=255 5. FACU species70X4=280 85= Total Cover UPL species0X5 =0 Herb Stratum (Plot size:5’) Column Totals:155(A) 535(B) 1.80Y Poa spp Prevalence Index = B/A =3.45 2. 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. 5. 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. 2-Dominance Test is >50% 7. 3-1 8. 4-Morphological Adaptations 1(Providesupporting data in Remarks or on a separatesheet) 9. 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation(Explain) 1 11. 80= Total Cover Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 1 be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum(Plot size:) 1. 2. Hydrophytic = Total Cover Vegetation % Bare Ground inHerb Stratum20 Present?YesNox Remarks: Riprap US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP03 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) MatrixRedox Features Depth (inches)Color (moist)%Color (moist)%TypeLocTextureRemarks 12 0-310YR 3/2100Sandy Loam 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicatorsfor Problematic Hydric Soils: 3 Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 3 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:RiprapHydric Soil Present? YesNox Depth (inches):3” Remarks:Refusal at 3”due to riprap, no hydric soils indicators observed. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, Surface Water (A1)MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)4A, and 4B) High Water Table (A2)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Sediment Deposits (B2)Roots (C3)Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (B5)(LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?YesNoDepth (inches): Water Table Present?YesNoDepth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?YesNox Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe)YesNoDepth (inches): Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: River at low flow, NOAA gage EUGO3 (Willamette River at Eugene) at 10.0 feet (gage datum). Remarks:No wetland hydrology indicatorsobserved. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM –Western Mountains, Valleys, and CoastRegion Project/Site:Eugene waterfrontCity/County:Eugene/ Lane CountySampling Date:December 3, 2018 Applicant/Owner:City of EugeneState: ORSampling Point:SP-05 Investigator(s):Emily Alcott and Joe ParzychSection, Township, Range:T17SR3WSec 32NW Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope (%):<2% Subregion (LRR):A–NW ForestLat:44.05414Long:-123.083995Datum:WGS 84 SoilMap Unit Name:Chapman-Urban land complexNWI classification:upland Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? YesxNo(If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation,Soil,or Hydrologysignificantly disturbed?Are“Normal Circumstances” present? YesXNo Are Vegetation,Soil,or Hydrologynaturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS –Attachsite map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic VegetationPresent?YesNoX Hydric Soil Present?YesNoXIs the Sampled Area within a Wetland? YesNoX Wetland Hydrology Present?YesNoX Remarks: VEGETATION –Use scientific namesofplants. Dominance Test worksheet: Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum(Plot size:15’)% CoverSpecies?Status Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:1(A) 1.85 YFAC Alnus rubra Total Number of Dominant 2. Species Across All Strata:3(B) 3. Percent of Dominant Species 4. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:33%(A/B) 85= Total Cover Prevalence Index worksheet: Sapling/Shrub Stratum(Plot size:10’) Total % Cover of:Multiply by: 1.95YFACU Hedra helix OBL species0X1=0 2.5NFAC Rubus armeniacus 3. FACW species0X2=0 4. FAC species90X3=270 5. FACU species95X4=380 100= Total Cover UPL species0X5=0 Herb Stratum (Plot size:5’) Column Totals:185(A) 650(B) 1.2Y Poa spp Prevalence Index = B/A =3.51 2. 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. 5. 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. 2-Dominance Test is >50% 7. 3-1 8. 4-Morphological Adaptations 1(Providesupporting data in Remarks or on a separatesheet) 9. 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation(Explain) 1 11. 2= Total Cover Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 1 be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody VineStratum(Plot size:) 1. 2. Hydrophytic = Total Cover Vegetation % Bare Ground inHerb Stratum98 Present?YesNox Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP05 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) MatrixRedox Features Depth (inches)Color (moist)%Color (moist)%TypeLocTextureRemarks 12 0-210YR 3/275Sandy Loam 15Gravel/cobble 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicatorsfor Problematic Hydric Soils: 3 Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 3 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:RiprapHydric Soil Present? YesNox Depth (inches):2” Remarks:Refusal at 2”due to riprap, no hydric soils indicators observed. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (exceptWater-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, Surface Water (A1)MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)4A, and 4B) High Water Table (A2)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Sediment Deposits (B2)Roots (C3)xGeomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (B5)(LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?YesNoxDepth (inches): Water Table Present?YesNoxDepth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?YesNox Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe)YesNoxDepth (inches): Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: River at low flow, NOAA gageEUGO3 (Willamette River at Eugene) at 10.0 feet (gage datum). Remarks:Upslope of sp04. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM –Western Mountains, Valleys, and CoastRegion Project/Site:Eugene waterfrontCity/County:Eugene/ Lane CountySampling Date:December 3, 2018 Applicant/Owner:City of EugeneState: ORSampling Point:SP-06 Investigator(s):Emily Alcott and Joe ParzychSection, Township, Range:T17SR3WSec 32NW Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope (%): Subregion (LRR):A–NW ForestLat:44.054678Long:-123.084313Datum:WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name:WaterNWI classification:upland Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? YesxNo(If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetationx,Soilx,or Hydrologyxsignificantly disturbed?Are “Normal Circumstances” present? YesXNo Are Vegetation,Soil,or Hydrologynaturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS –Attachsite map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic VegetationPresent?YesNoX Hydric Soil Present?YesNoXIs the Sampled Area within a Wetland? YesNoX Wetland Hydrology Present?YesxNo Remarks: This plot located at the outfall of a pipe in a small swale. Soil is disturbed by riprap and concrete in the vicinity, while hydrology is affected bythe pipe outfall. VEGETATION –Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum(Plot size:15’)% CoverSpecies?Status NumberofDominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:0(A) 1. None Total Number of Dominant 2. Species Across All Strata:1(B) 3. Percent of Dominant Species 4. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:0(A/B) 0= Total Cover Prevalence Index worksheet: Sapling/Shrub Stratum(Plot size:10’) Total % Cover of:Multiply by: 1. None OBL species 2. 3. FACW species 4. FAC species 5. FACU species90360 0= Total Cover UPL speciesx 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size:5’) Column Totals:90(A) 360(B) 1.5N Poa spp Prevalence Index = B/A =4 2.90YFACU Geranium lucidum 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. 5. 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. 2-Dominance Test is >50% 7. 3-Prevalenc 1 8. 4-Morphological Adaptations 1(Providesupporting data in Remarks or on a separatesheet) 9. 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation(Explain) 1 11. 95= Total Cover Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 1 be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum(Plot size:) 1. 2. Hydrophytic = Total Cover Vegetation % Bare Ground inHerb Stratum5 Present?YesNox Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP06 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) MatrixRedox Features Depth (inches)Color (moist)%Color (moist)%TypeLocTextureRemarks 12 0-510YR 2/1100Sandy Loam 1 Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicatorsfor Problematic Hydric Soils: 3 Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)xOther (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 3 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)DepletedDark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:RiprapHydric Soil Present? YesNox Depth (inches):5” Remarks:Refusal at 5”due to riprap, no hydric soils indicators present.Riprap creates problematic soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, Surface Water (A1)MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)4A, and 4B) High Water Table (A2)Salt Crust (B11)xDrainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) WaterMarks (B1)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)SaturationVisible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Sediment Deposits (B2)Roots (C3)xGeomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Algal Mator Crust (B4)Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (B5)(LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?YesNoxDepth (inches): Water Table Present?YesNoxDepth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?YesxNo Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe)YesNoxDepth (inches): Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: River at low flow,NOAA gage EUGO3 (Willamette River at Eugene) at 10.0 feet (gage datum). Remarks:Geomorphic position is an indicator because the plot is located in a swale, and drainage patters (pipe) likely deliver water to this feature. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM –Western Mountains, Valleys, and CoastRegion Project/Site:Eugene waterfrontCity/County:Eugene/ Lane CountySampling Date:December 3, 2018 Applicant/Owner:City of EugeneState: ORSampling Point:SP-07 Investigator(s):Emily Alcott and Joe ParzychSection, Township, Range:T17SR3WSec 32NW Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope (%): Subregion (LRR):A–NW ForestLat:44.054678Long:-123.084313Datum:WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name:WaterNWI classification:upland Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? YesNo(If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation,Soil,or Hydrologysignificantly disturbed?Are “Normal Circumstances” present? YesXNo Are Vegetation,Soil,or Hydrologynaturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS –Attachsite map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. HydrophyticVegetationPresent?YesNoX Hydric Soil Present?YesNoXIs the Sampled Area within a Wetland? YesNoX Wetland Hydrology Present?YesNoX Remarks: This plot located at the outfall of a pipe in a small swale.Soil is disturbed by riprap and concrete in the vicinity, while hydrology is affected bythe pipe outfall. VEGETATION –Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum(Plot size:15’)% CoverSpecies?Status Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:(A) 1. None Total Number of Dominant 2. Species Across All Strata:(B) 3. Percent of Dominant Species 4. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:(A/B) 0= Total Cover Prevalence Index worksheet: Sapling/Shrub Stratum(Plot size:10’) Total % Cover of:Multiply by: 1.10NFAC Rubus armeniacus OBL species 2.90YFACU Hedra helix 3. FACW species 4. FAC species 5. FACU species 100= Total Cover UPL speciesx 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size:5’) Column Totals:(A) (B) 1. None Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. 5. 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. 2-Dominance Test is >50% 7. 3-1 8. 4-Morphological Adaptations 1(Providesupporting data in Remarks or on a separatesheet) 9. 5-Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation(Explain) 1 11. 0= Total Cover Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 1 be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum(Plot size:) 1. 2. Hydrophytic = Total Cover Vegetation % Bare Ground inHerb Stratum5 Present?YesNox Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP07 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) MatrixRedox Features Depth (inches)Color (moist)%Color (moist)%TypeLocTextureRemarks 12 0-210YR 3/2100Sandy Loam 1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicatorsfor Problematic Hydric Soils: 3 Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 3 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:RiprapHydric Soil Present? YesNox Depth (inches):2” Remarks:Refusal at 2”due to riprap, nohydric soils indicators present.Majority of the slope here consists of riprap at or just beneath the surface. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, Surface Water (A1)MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)4A, and 4B) High Water Table (A2)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Sediment Deposits (B2)Roots (C3)Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Iron Deposits (B5)(LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?YesNoxDepth (inches): WaterTable Present?YesNoxDepth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?YesNox Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe)YesNoxDepth (inches): Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: River at low flow, NOAA gage EUGO3(Willamette River at Eugene) at 10.0 feet (gage datum). Remarks:No wetland hydrology indicators present. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0 Appendix C: Ground level photographs ! ɎɎ Photo 1. OHW transect 1, looking downstream, with OHW marked as a blue dashed line. Vegetation change from sedges to snowberry and blackberry was used to determine OHW line, along with washed willow roots. ΐ ɎɎ Photo 2. OHW transect 2, looking downstream, with OHW marked as a blue dashed line. Clear shift from sedges to Himalayan blackberry used to delineate OHW. Alder occurred just upslope from OHW. Α Photo 3. OHW transect 2, looking upstream, with OHW marked as a blue dashed line. Clear shift from sedges to Himalayan blackberry used to delineate OHW. Alder occurred just upslope from OHW. Β Photo 4. OHW line determined to be just above alder line and above the upslope extent of sedges. Γ Photo 5. Looking across the Willamette and slightly upstream. The scour line on the river right bank roughly corresponded to the OHW elevation selected at the study area. Δ Photo 6. SP05, looking in the upstream direction. Water outfall pipe and apron located beyond the alder trees in the center of the image. Ε Photo 7. SP06, looking downslope. Concrete with green line is the stormwater outfall pipe. Ζ Photo 8. Looking upslope towards sp05 (white circle). Stormwater outfall pipe is marked with a green line. Η Photo 9. Looking downstream from the steam plant intake at bank armoring from concrete slaps (foreground) and riprap (background). The entire length of the river bank in the study area had bank armoring. Θ Photo 10. Looking upstream at the steam plant intake. ΐΏ Photo 11. The pedestrian trail shown here was the upslope/landward boundary of the study area. ΐΐ Photo 12. Typical river bank within the project area. Slopes were relatively steep, and the entire bank contained riprap from the edge of water up to the top of slope adjacent to the pedestrian path. ΐΑ