DOCSLIB.ORG

Fifth Five-Year Review Report for Allied Plating, Inc Superfund Site

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fifth Five-Year Review Report for Allied Plating, Inc Superfund Site FIFTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR ALLIED PLATING, INC. SUPERFUND SITE MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON PREPARED BY U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 Seattle, Washington Approved by: Date Ai @f#- Sheryl Bf:/:!;, Director r 1 Office of Environmental Cleanup Table of Contents LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................ 5 I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 6 Site Background .................................................................................................................................................... 6 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM ....................................................................................................... 9 IL RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 9 Basis for Taking Action ........................................................................................................................................ 9 Response Actions ................................................................................................................................................ 10 Status of hnplementation .................................................................................................................................... 11 Systems Operations/Operation & Maintenance .................................................................................................. 14 III. PROGRESS SINCE THE PREVIOUS REVIEW ............................................................................................. 14 IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS ................................................................................................................... 14 Community Notification, Community Involvement and Site Interviews ............................................................ 14 Data Review ........................................................................................................................................................ 14 Site Inspection ..................................................................................................................................................... 14 V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................................... 15 QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? ......................................... 15 QUESTION B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid? .............................................................................. 15 QUESTION C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? ............................................................................................................................................................... 16 VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................... 17 VIL PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT ............................................................................................................ , .. 17 VIII. NEXT REVIEW ............................................................................................................................................. 17 APPENDIX A- REFERENCE LIST ................................................................................................................... A-1 APPENDIX B - SITE CHRONOLOGY .............................................................................................................. B-1 APPENDIX C- SITE MAPS ................................................................................................................................ C-1 APPENDIX D-PRESS NOTICE ........................................................................................................................ D-1 APPENDIX E- INTERVIEW FORMS ................................................................................................................ E-1 APPENDIX F - SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST .............................................................................................. F-1 APPENDIX G- SITE INSPECTION PHOTOS .................................................................................................. G-1 APPENDIX H - SCREENING-LEVEL RISK REVIEW ..................................................................................... H-1 Tables Table 1: hnpoundment Soil COC Cleanup Goals ................................................................................................... 10 Table 2: Summary of Planned and/or hnplemented Institutional Controls (!Cs) .................................................... 12 Table 3: Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2013 FYR Report .................................................... 14 Table B-1: Site Chronology ................................................................................................................................... B-1 Table H-1: Industrial Risk Review - Cleanup Goals in hnpoundment Area ........................................................ H-1 Table H-2: Residential Risk Review - Cleanup Goals in Impoundment Area ...................................................... H-1 Table H-3: Residential Risk Review - Maximum Concentrations Post-Removal in hnpoundment Area ............ H-1 3 Table H-4: Maximum Metals Concentrations in the Layout Area ........................................................................ H-2 Figures Figure 1: Detailed Site Map ....................................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 2: Institutional Control Map ......................................................................................................................... 13 Figure C-1: Site Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................................... C-1 4 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement ATCM Airborne Toxics Control Measure CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations coc Contaminant of Concern DEQ Department of Enviromnental Quality EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency FYR Five-Year Review HQ Hazard Quotient IC Institutional Control mg/kg Milligrams per Kilogram NA Not Available NCP National Contingency Plan NPL National Priorities List O&M Operation and Maintenance OU Operable Unit PFAS Perfluoroalkyl Sulfonate ppm Parts per million PRP Potentially Responsible Party RAO Remedial Action Objective RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RI Remedial Investigation ROD Record of Decision RPM Remedial Project Manager RSL Regional Screening Level UU/UE Unlimited Use and Unrestricted Exposure 5 I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of a five-year review (FYR) is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a remedy to determine if the remedy is and will continue to be protective of human health and the enviromnent. The methods, findings and conclusions of reviews are documented in FYR reports such as this one. In addition, FYR reports identify issues found during the review, if any, and document recommendations to address them. The U.S. Enviromnental Protection Agency (The EPA) is preparing this FYR pursuant to the Comprehensive Enviromnental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 121, consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii)), and considering EPA policy. This is the fifth FYR for the Allied Plating, Inc. Superfund site (the Site). The triggering action for this statutory review is the completion date of the previous FYR. The FYR has been prepared because hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants remain at the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure (UU/UE). The Site consists of one operable unit (OU), which is the focus of this FYR. OU! addresses contaminated soil, sludge, surface water and groundwater. The EPA remedial project manager (RPM) Joe Wallace led the FYR. Participants included Sarah Miller from the Oregon Department of Enviromnental Quality (DEQ) and Sarah Alfano and Alison Cattani from Skeo (the EPA support contractor). The review began on 11/13/2017. Site Background The 12-acre Site is part of an industrial and commercial district in northeast Portland, Oregon (Figure C-1). Allied Plating operated a chrome-plating facility at the Site between 1957 and 1984. For over 25 years, the company discharged untreated wastes into an unlined impoundment on site. Plating activities and waste disposal practices contaminated groundwater, surface water, sludge and soil with heavy metals and other hazardous chemicals. The EPA proposed the Site for listing on the Superfund Program's National Priorities List (NPL) in January 1987 and listed the Site on the NPL in February 1990. There are three main areas that make up the Site: former administrative and storage buildings, the former layout area (the location of the former plating operations
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Bug's Life in the Columbia Slough
    A Bug’s Life in the Columbia Slough: Handbook of Invertebrates and Macroinvertebrate Monitoring in the Columbia Slough June 2005 Jeff Adams WWW.COLUMBIASLOUGH.ORG Contacts: The Xerces Society for Invertebrate The Columbia Slough Watershed Conservation Council Jeff Adams Ethan Chessin [email protected] [email protected] Director of Aquatic Programs Volunteer Coodinator 4828 SE Hawtorhne Blvd. 7040 NE 47th Avenue Portland, OR 97215-3252 Portland, OR 97218-1212 503-232-6639 503-281-1132 http://www.xerces.org http://www.columbiaslough.org Funding for this handbook and the education and monitoring activities associated with this project has been provided by: ! Metropolitan Greenspaces Program – a partnership between Metro and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service ! The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation member contributions ! Northwest Service Academy ! Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board ! City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services' Community Watershed Stewardship Program All image credits belong to Jeff Adams with the following exceptions: the Joseph D. Meyers map of Portland vicinity was downloaded from the Center for Columbia River History website; the image with line drawings of a water strider and a back swimmer is used with permission from the University of Illinois Department of Entomology; and the images of the creeping water bug, left-handed snail, and sponge are used with permission from Daniel Pickard of the California Department of Fish and Game. (Cover photo: restoration site on Columbia Slough near Interstate 205. The benches had recently been created, but had not yet been planted with native vegetation.) Handbook of Macroinvertebrate Monitoring in the Columbia Slough TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Nificant Natural Area Sites and Interconnections
    .~­ ". \ i' .- / ,.• --- ./ \. \ ~ • I. • h j . .LC .' \. \ \ '.', ."'- /_ ,I • ~, I • ,{ \ I j .' ,,'" "..', r -, " (. ) ./ ..~, / / --)" ( , / '- L • r-( ."• \ " • ." L •~ rr ('., r I" ~••. / r ~ ). ," , \ . ) / ) •. ~ \ '-: '.' / -' ", ,'; ---' -, ", - ( '..\~ , " ' '. ,J \. ) .~ .\ / -" ,e.' ·r ","." ~ METROPOLITAN - e> )~ .' \ I" e :\(?-reel1space~, :- J • 'f /' r: /. ..../ .J \ • ~.' / l .. 'v' /". • '> I / I e-, ~ ./ ,I \ • .>" ) Master-Piait ) e• .,/ r ", / Ij .'-..... L e "'" '. \ e ( r e /. e e, , --- '~. e j -.', ,.­ ;' r .. •er, ) r / -'. ~ \' - ( . ~ . ., ~ ~' -\ A Cooperative Regio!lal$ystem ofNa.tural Areas, "Open Space, T~f!:..ils a~¢ Gree.nways / /', ' '.)' " forWilcJlife and p,!ople . ./( . ./ ,... ' .... / r • '. X- •.\ / e ! -, "e- ( \ - '- '\ .J • r~gional go~ernmeht (As' ofJuly 1992) "- (. • Metro is the 'directly elected thatserves , .. ,/ Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington cOUlities andilie 24 Policy Advisory COn:'!m,ittee M,ember;s: • \'citiesThat make up the P~rtlana metropolita~;rea. " "'- Ri~hard Devlin, Metro councilor and chair •e- Metr~is ;~spon~ible f~r soli~:~aste management, op~ration/of Ruth~cFariana, Metro,co~n;ilor rmd vice-chair ,_ .i ,'-- M~tro us~ \, the Washington Park Zoo, transportation-and land Sandi Hansen/Metro councilor " "- ~" ' pl~nping, 1da~inerstad, commissi~ne~ urban growth boundary management, technical ." J Judie Clackamas County . ,. services to local go\\ernments and, 'through the Metropolitan Pauline Anderson, Multnomah County commissioner ) r·, ) : fxposition)Recre,ation Gommission,man~gementofthe
    [Show full text]
  • Voluntary Local Watershed Council" Under Oregon Law
    BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 2015-016 Recognizing the COLUMBIA SLOUGH WATERSHED COUNCIL as a "Voluntary Local Watershed Council" Under Oregon Law. The Multnomah County Board of Commissioners Finds: a. "Voluntary local watershed councils" consist of a majority of local residents, including local officials. (Oregon Revised Statute 541.910(1)). b. "Voluntary local watershed councils" must report their activities periodically to the Board of County Commissioners. (Oregon Revised Statute 541.910(3)). c. The Columbia Slough has been declared water quality limited by the State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. d. The Columbia Slough Watershed lies within the jurisdictions of Multnomah County, City of Portland, City of Gresham, and City of Fairview. e. The Columbia Slough Watershed Council is a local, citizen-led organization organized in 1994 reflecting the interests of the watershed, with representation from local government, special purpose districts, neighborhoods, businesses, environmental interests, recreation advocates, scientists, and educators. f. The Columbia Slough Watershed Council meets State and Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board guidelines. g. The Columbia Slough Watershed Council has requested formal recognition by the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners. h. Formal recognition will enable the watershed council to be eligible for Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board grant funds to support council activities directed to assessing watershed conditions, developing action plans, implementing projects, and educating watershed residents. Public stewardship and public involvement are critical elements in improving and protecting water quality and watershed health in the Columbia Slough watershed to meet County goals for clean water. The Multnomah County Board of Commissioners Resolves: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Portland Watershed Health Index ASCE-EWRG & APWA 2012 Sustainable Stormwater Symposium Acknowledgements
    City of Portland Watershed Health Index ASCE-EWRG & APWA 2012 Sustainable Stormwater Symposium Acknowledgements Portland City Council BESPresentation and GSI MarchTeam 8, 2006 It takes a Community to create •Jenniferand Antak, implement Shannonan effective Axtell - BES Watershed •JuliePlan Wilson, GSI Portland Watershed Management Plan Portland City Council WatershedPresentation Approach March 8, 2006 •Cost-effective restoration integratedIt takes a Community •Adaptiveto create strategies and •Addressimplement multiple regulatory requirements.an effective Watershed Plan *Rather than starting with the regulations, Portland focuses on goals and strategies for healthy watersheds. 5 Portland Watersheds Portland Watershed Management Plan Portland Watershed Management Plan Clean Water Act MS4, NPDES and TMDLs CSO Control Stipulated Order Safe Drink Water Act UICs and Groundwater CERCLA (Superfund) Portland Watershed Portland Harbor Management Plan Projects, programs Objectives and and policies Endangered Species Act Salmon and Steelhead Strategies Oregon Statewide Planning Goals 5, 6 and 15 Natural Resource Protection Air, Water and Land Quality Willamette Greenway METRO Growth Management Policies Titles 3 and 13 Portland City Code and Comprehensive Plan NEW? Portland Watershed Management Plan Key Milestones 5-Year Strategy Watershed Plan Milestones •2006: Portland Watershed Management Plan (PWMP) (est. objectives, strategies and actions) •2009: Measures: priority indicators and metrics •2010: Watershed Health Index •2010: Portland Area Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Program (PAWMAP) •2011: First year of PAWMAP data collection •Completion of 5-year Strategy •2012: Watershed Health Index Finalized Watershed Monitoring Objectives Why do we monitor? And how to ensure that monitoring supports watershed restoration efforts. Watershed Health Goals • Hydrology – Move toward normative stream flow conditions to protect and improve watershed and stream health, channel functions, and public health and safety.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia Slough Sediment Cleanup: Option for Liability Release Through Cash Settlements
    Fact Sheet Columbia Slough Sediment Cleanup: Option for Liability Release Through Cash Settlements Background Alternative approach The Department of Environmental Quality In 2008, DEQ provided an alternative option for issued a Record of Decision in 2005 that parties to settle their potential liability for Northwest Region provides the framework for cleaning up Columbia Slough sediment contamination. DEQ Cleanup Program contaminated sediment within the Columbia developed a settlement framework that calculates 700 NE Multnomah St. Slough. The primary components of this a “cash-out” payment for each facility based on Suite 600 framework are: estimated costs that would be incurred in a Portland, OR 97232 Phone: 503-229-5040 sediment investigation and cleanup. Settling 800-452-4011 • Upland source control parties would pay this amount to a state fund Fax: 503-229-5850 • Sediment hot spot remediation dedicated to sediment investigation and cleanup Contact: Sarah Miller • Monitored natural recovery of priority areas within the Columbia Slough. As www.oregon.gov/DEQ of October 2019, DEQ has completed 16 The Columbia Slough is an approximately 31- settlements under this approach and is mile waterway extending from Fairview Lake, negotiating four additional settlements. near the city of Fairview, to Kelly Point Park near the confluence of the Willamette and The basic settlement amount associated with a Columbia Rivers. Sediment in the Columbia single discharge point to the slough has remained Slough is contaminated with a variety of the same since 2009. DEQ increased the amount hazardous substances such as PCBs, pesticides on March 30, 2018, in consideration of two and metals. Industrial, commercial and factors: cost inflation and our experience agricultural facilities located along the Columbia conducting and overseeing sediment cleanup Slough may have contributed to sediment projects in the Columbia Slough, which have contamination through wastewater discharge, cost between $500,000 and $2 million dollars.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia Slough Sediment Analysis
    Columbia Slough Sediment Analysis 2006 Sampling Prepared by: City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services January 2009 Prepared for: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Page intentionally left blank EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Portland, Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) have been engaged in investigating and improving sediment quality in the Columbia Slough for over ten years. During this time, extensive remedial investigations, focused investigations, and feasibility studies have been conducted. BES is currently participating in the state’s Voluntary Cleanup Program to address contaminated sediments in the Slough. As part of the program, BES and DEQ signed an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) which describes the actions each agency will take to address sediment quality including conducting long-term monitoring. The Long-term Monitoring Plan, which is an element of the remedial approach for the Columbia Slough, includes sampling fish and sediment every 10 years to assess progress in achieving protective levels, evaluate spatial and temporal trends, and identify areas where more focused remedial efforts may be warranted. During the summer of 2006, BES collected 78 surface sediment samples for analysis of contaminants of interest (COI). The sediment samples were analyzed for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), metals, and pesticides. The first broad-scale sampling event was conducted in 1994. These data were comprised of sediment samples from 10 segments/reaches throughout the slough. The 2006 samples consisted of 78 sediment samples from the same reaches. In the 2006 sediment data, metals and PAHs were nearly always detected, pesticides ranged widely in percent detection, and many PCB Aroclors were never detected in any sample while others were detected infrequently.
    [Show full text]
  • The Benefits of Three Columbia Slough Restoration Projects on The
    1 The Benefits of Three Columbia Slough Restoration Projects on the Natural and Urban Environment. Chris Brown, Arielle Glade, Mary Head, Joe Miller and Brian Thatcher Abstract: We sampled three different restoration projects; the Whitaker Ponds, the Vanport Wetlands and the Section 1135 Project, to determine what ecological and community benefits restoration is having on the slough and the local community. The Whitaker Ponds, once a junkyard, has been restored to a semi-pristine state and now acts as a community environmental learning center to create awareness of watershed importance. The Vanport wetlands is a young mitigation project that has already shown to aid in wildlife recovery and species diversity. The $4.5 million section 1135 restoration project consists of several components to focus on system restoration. Each of these projects has shown to be successful early on, and a more concerted effort to collect quantitative data will help in steering future projects. Key Words: Columbia River Slough, ecosystem, wetland restoration, urban ecosystems 2 Introduction The Columbia River Slough is a heavily industrialized and highly impacted area located in north Portland, Oregon. Within the past decade the value of its natural state has been realized, and efforts are being made to restore various areas. As land becomes available, the regional Metro government and other government agencies are acquiring lands to use as open space, recreation, and wildlife habitat (personal communication, Jay Mower, CRS watershed council). Currently, there are dozens of restoration projects by various government agencies, non-profit groups and volunteer workers. However, there is no concise relationship between these projects, nor any methodology to measure the projects’ effectiveness.
    [Show full text]
  • Portland Metro Levee System Feasibility Study
    Portland Metro Levee System Feasibility Study Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment Appendix H – Cultural Resources January 2020 Page left blank to facilitate 2-sided copying. Contents Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Purpose Statement ................................................................................................................ 1 1.2. Study Scope ......................................................................................................................... 1 2. Project Area Description and Background ............................................................................... 10 2.1. Environmental Setting ....................................................................................................... 10 2.2. Environmental History ....................................................................................................... 12 2.3. Precontact Context ............................................................................................................. 20 2.4. Previous Archaeological Investigations ............................................................................. 21 2.5. Archaeological Potential .................................................................................................... 24 2.6. Native Peoples ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation Plan
    City of Gresham, Oregon TMDL Implementation Plan VOLUME III: TEMPERATURE TMDL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Initial Submittal - April 2007 Addendum 1 Submittal - March 2008 Addendum 2 Submittal - May 2014 Addendum 3 Submittal – February 2019 Department of Environmental Services City of Gresham, OR TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume III: Temperature TMDL Implementation Plan Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... 3-1 BACKGROUND Introduction .................................................................................................................... 3-3 Gresham’s Tree Canopy and Surface Water Resources ................................................ 3-3 TMDL Background ........................................................................................................ 3-5 Temperature TMDLs Affecting Gresham Streams........................................................ 3-5 Gresham as a Designated Management Agency for the Temperature TMDL .............. 3-7 “Surrogate Measures” for Meeting Temperature Criteria ............................................. 3-8 Gresham’s Shade Targets .............................................................................................. 3-8 System Potential Vegetation .......................................................................................... 3-9 Targets for Other Factors Influencing Temperature .................................................... 3-10 Overview of Gresham’s Watersheds ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Status and Distribution of Native Turtles in the Columbia Slough and Johnson Creek Watersheds: Results of 2009 Surveys
    Status and Distribution of Native Turtles in the Columbia Slough and Johnson Creek Watersheds: Results of 2009 Surveys December,7B 2009 Report from: Report to: Northwest Ecological Research Institute City of Portland, 130 NW 114th Avenue Bureau of Environmental Services Portland, OR 97229 1120 SW 5th Avenue Portland, OR 97204 Executive Summary: During the summer of 2009, selected sites within the Columbia Slough and Johnson Creek watersheds were surveyed for western painted (Chrysemys picta bellii) and western pond (Clemmys [Actinemys] marmorata) turtles, the two species native to Oregon. Surveys were performed by wildlife biologists sub-contracting to the Northwest Ecological Research Institute. Sites were assessed for the presence of turtles, quality of habitat present, and potential for habitat restoration, with respect to the requirements of native turtle species. In general, both watersheds were extremely degraded, and most sites were too heavily developed to support reproducing populations of native turtles without heroic efforts at habitat restoration. Of the two watersheds, the Columbia Slough had more suitable habitat, and existing populations of western painted turtles were found at four sites within the watershed: Winmar Wetlands, Ramsey Stormwater Wetlands, the Heron Lakes Golf Course and the Whitaker Ponds/Whitaker Slough complex. Of these sites, Winmar and Ramsey currently support sustaining populations of painted turtles, while the Whitaker Ponds and Slough support a population of painted turtles which is probably declining, but may be increased through habitat restoration. The painted turtle population on the Heron Lakes Golf Course also appears to be declining, though management options are limited. No extant populations of native turtles were found within the Johnson Creek watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • Description of the Ground-Water Flow System in the Portland Basin, Oregon and Washington
    Description of the Ground-Water Flow System in the Portland Basin, Oregon and Washington United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2470-A Prepared in cooperation with Oregon Water Resources Department, City of Portland Bureau of Water Works, and Intergovernmental Resources Center of Clark and Skamania Counties AVAILABILITY OF BOOKS AND MAPS OF THE US. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Instructions on ordering publications of the U.S. Geological Survey, along with prices of the last offerings, are given in the current- year issues of the monthly catalog "New Publications of the U.S. Geological Survey." Prices of available U.S. Geological Survey publica­ tions released prior to the current year are listed in the most recent annual "Price and Availability List." Publications that may be listed in various U.S. Geological Survey catalogs (see back inside cover) but not listed in the most recent annual "Price and Availability List" may be no longer available. Order U.S. Geological Survey publications by mail or over the counter from the offices given below. BY MAIL OVER THE COUNTER Books Books and Maps Professional Papers, Bulletins, Water-Supply Papers, Tech­ Books and maps of the U.S. Geological Survey are available niques of Water-Resources Investigations, Circulars, publications over the counter at the following U.S. Geological Survey Earth Sci­ of general interest (such as leaflets, pamphlets, booklets), single ence Information Centers (ESIC's), all of which are authorized copies of Preliminary Determination of Epicenters, and some mis­ agents of the Superintendent of Documents: cellaneous reports, including some of the foregoing series that have gone out of print at the Superintendent of Documents, are obtain­ ANCHORAGE, Alaska Rm.
    [Show full text]
  • Portland Area Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Program Executive Summary–First Year Data 1
    BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • CITY OF PORTLAND YEAR Portland Area Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Program Executive Summary–First Year Data 1 Nick Fish, Commissioner Michael Jordan, Director OCTOBER 2015 EXECUTIVE Portland Area Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Program SUMMARY FIRST YEAR DATA (FY 2010-2011) PAWMAP gathers and The Portland Area Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Program analyzes data from these Portland-area watersheds: (PAWMAP) redesigned the city’s watershed monitoring to more • Columbia Slough directly support the 2005 Portland Watershed Management Plan. • Fanno Creek The program: • Johnson Creek • Coordinates and integrates watershed monitoring across all watersheds, to make results comparable. • Tryon Creek • Collects all watershed measures at the same locations to support more • Tualatin River powerful analysis of patterns in the data. • Willamette River • Uses a strong statistical design that increases the accuracy and efficiency of tributaries only data collection. • Adopts an approach designed by national monitoring experts, providing information that is directly comparable to state and federal monitoring efforts. • Supports regulatory compliance requirements under the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. Portland watersheds are very diverse, including steep Forest Park streams, moderate-gradient streams like Tryon and Johnson creeks, and low-gradient waterbodies like the Columbia Slough and Columbia and Willamette Rivers. Stream sizes range from small seasonal streams to the fourth largest river in the country. Land cover ranges from the heavily forested Forest Park and Tryon Creek State Natural Area to the highly industrialized Portland Harbor. PAWMAP samples the habitat, water quality and biological communities of Portland’s watersheds1. This document summarizes the results of the first year data sampling in each watershed.
    [Show full text]