Tech Spec 1.b APPENDICES - DTFASA-17-R-00152 Portland ASSC (COMBINED 8-18-2017).COMBINED 8-18-2017

ANM-0682 PDX ASSC

Portland, OR CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS

APPENDICES

APPENDICES

Portland, OR CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS

APPENDIX

APPENDIX A

TREE PRUNING

TREE PRUNING APPENDIX A - 1 OF 11

American National Standard for Tree Care Operations – Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Maintenance – Standard Practices (Pruning)

1 ANSI A300 standards

1.1 Scope

ANSI A300 standards present performance standards for the care and maintenance of trees, shrubs, and other woody plants.

1.2 Purpose

ANSI A300 standards are intended as guides for federal, state, municipal and private authorities including property owners, property managers, and utilities in the drafting of their maintenance specifications.

1.3 Application

ANSI A300 standards shall apply to any person or entity engaged in the business, trade, or performance of repairing, maintaining, or preserving trees, shrubs, or other woody plants.

1.4 Implementation

Specifications for tree maintenance should be written and administered by an arborist.

2 Part 1 – Pruning standards

2.1 Purpose

The purpose of this document is to provide standards for developing specifications for tree pruning.

2.2 Reasons for pruning

The reasons for tree pruning may include, but are not limited to, reducing risk, maintaining or improving tree health and structure, improving aesthetics, or satisfying a specific need. Pruning practices for agricultural, horticultural production, or silvicultural purposes are exempt from this standard.

2.3 Safety

2.3.1 Tree maintenance shall be performed only by arborists or arborist trainees who, through related training or on-the-job experience, or both, are familiar with the practices and hazards of arboriculture and the equipment used in such operations.

2.3.2 This standard shall not take precedence over arboricultural safe work practices.

2.3.3 Operations shall comply with applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards, ANSI Z133.1, as well as state and local regulations.

TREE PRUNING APPENDIX A - 2 OF 11

3 Normative references

The following standards contain provisions, which, through reference in the text, constitute provisions of this American National Standard. All standards are subject to revision, and parties to agreements based on this American National Standard shall apply the most recent edition of the standards indicated below.

• ANSI Z60.1, Nursery stock

• ANSI Z133.1, Tree care operations - Pruning, trimming, repairing, maintaining, and removing trees, and cutting brush - Safety requirements

• 29 CFR 1910, General industry 1)

• 29 CFR 1910.268, Telecommunications 1)

• 29 CFR 1910.269, Electric power generation, transmission, and distribution 1)

• 29 CFR 1910.331 - 335, Electrical safety-related work practices 1)

4 Definitions

4.1 anvil-type pruning tool: A pruning tool that has a sharp straight blade that cuts against a flat metal cutting surface, in contrast to a hook-and-blade type pruning tool (4.21).

4.2 apical dominance: Inhibition of growth of lateral buds by the terminal bud.

4.3 arboriculture: The art, science, technology, and business of commercial, public, and utility tree care.

4.4 arborist: An individual engaged in the profession of arboriculture who, through experience, education, and related training, possesses the competence to provide for or supervise the management of trees and other woody plants.

4.5 arborist trainee: An individual undergoing on-the-job training to obtain the experience and the competence required to provide for or supervise the management of trees and other woody plants. Such trainees shall be under the direct supervision of an arborist.

4.6 branch bark ridge: The raised area of bark in the branch crotch that marks where the branch and parent meet.

4.7 branch collar: The swollen area at the base of a branch.

4.8 callus: Undifferentiated tissue formed by the cambium around a wound.

4.9 cambium: The dividing layer of cells that forms sapwood (xylem) to the inside and inner bark (phloem) to the outside.

4.10 cleaning: Selective pruning to remove one or more of the following parts: dead, diseased, and/ or broken branches (5.6.1).

4.11 climbing spurs: Sharp, pointed devices affixed to a climber’s boot used to assist in climbing trees. (syn.: gaffs, hooks, spurs, spikes, climbers)

TREE PRUNING APPENDIX A - 3 OF 11

4.12 closure: The process of wound wood covering a cut or other tree injury.

4.13 crown: The leaves and branches of a tree measured from the lowest branch on the trunk to the top of the tree.

4.14 decay: The degradation of woody tissue caused by microorganisms.

4.15 espalier: The combination of pruning, supporting, and training branches to orient a plant in one plane (5.7.2).

4.16 establishment: The point after planting when a tree’s root system has grown sufficiently into the surrounding soil to support shoot growth and anchor the tree.

4.17 facility: A structure or equipment used to deliver or provide protection for the delivery of an essential service, such as electricity or communications.

4.18 final cut: A cut that completes the removal or reduction of a branch or stub.

4.19 frond: A leaf of a palm.

4.20 heading: 1. Cutting a currently growing, or a 1-year-old shoot, back to a bud. 2. Cutting an older branch or stem back to a stub in order to meet a defined structural objective. 3. Cutting an older branch or stem back to a lateral branch not large enough to assume apical dominance in order to meet a defined structural objective. Heading may or may not be an acceptable pruning practice, depending on the application.

4.21 hook-and-blade-type pruning tool: A pruning tool that has a sharp curved blade that overlaps a supporting hook; in contrast to an anvil-type pruning tool (4.1). (syn.: by-pass pruner)

4.22 interfering branches: Crossing, rubbing, or upright branches that have the potential to damage tree structure and/or health.

4.23 internodal cut: A cut located between lateral branches or buds.

4.24 lateral branch: A shoot or stem growing from a parent branch or stem.

4.25 leader: A dominant or co-dominant, upright stem.

4.26 limb: A large, prominent branch.

4.27 lion’s tailing: The removal of an excessive number of inner, lateral branches from parent branches. Lion’s tailing is not an acceptable pruning practice (5.5.7).

4.28 mechanical pruning: A utility pruning technique where large-scale power equipment is used to cut back branches (5.9.2.2).

4.29 parent branch or stem: A tree trunk, limb, or prominent branch from which shoots or stems grow.

TREE PRUNING APPENDIX A - 4 OF 11

4.30 peeling: For palms: The removal of only the dead frond bases at the point they make contact with the trunk without damaging living trunk tissue. (syn.: shaving)

4.31 petiole: A stalk of a leaf or frond.

4.32 phloem: Inner bark conducting tissues that transport organic substances, primarily carbohydrates, from leaves and stems to other parts of the plant.

4.33 pollarding: The maintenance of a tree by making internodal cuts to reduce the size of a young tree, followed by the annual removal of shoot growth at its point of origin (5.7.3).

4.34 pruning: The selective removal of plant parts to meet specific goals and objectives.

4.35 qualified line-clearance arborist: An individual who, through related training and on-the job experience, is familiar with the equipment and hazards in line clearance and has demonstrated the ability to perform the special techniques involved. This individual may or may not be currently employed by a line clearance contractor.

4.36 qualified line-clearance arborist trainee:

An individual undergoing line-clearance training and who, in the course of such training, is familiar with the hazards and equipment involved in line clearance and has demonstrated ability in the performance of the special techniques involved. This individual shall be under the direct supervision of a qualified line-clearance arborist.

4.37 raising: Selective pruning to provide vertical clearance (5.6.3).

4.38 reduction: Selective pruning to decrease height and/or spread (5.6.4).

4.39 remote/rural areas: Locations associated with very little human activity, land improvement, or development.

4.40 restoration: Selective pruning to improve the structure, form, and appearance of trees that have been severely headed, vandalized, or damaged (5.7.4).

4.41 shall: As used in this standard, denotes a mandatory requirement.

4.42 should: As used in this standard, denotes an advisory recommendation.

4.43 stub: An undesirable short length of a branch remaining after a break or incorrect pruning cut is made.

4.44 thinning: Selective pruning to reduce density of live branches (5.6.2).

4.45 throwline: A small, lightweight line with a weighted end used to position a climber’s rope in a tree.

4.46 topping: The reduction of a tree’s size using heading cuts that shorten limbs or branches back to a predetermined crown limit. Topping is not an acceptable pruning practice (5.5.7).

TREE PRUNING APPENDIX A - 5 OF 11

4.47 tracing: The removal of loose, damaged tissue from in and around the wound.

4.48 urban/residential areas: Locations, such as populated areas including public and private property, that are normally associated with human activity.

4.49 utility: An entity that delivers a public service, such as electricity or communications.

4.50 utility space: The physical area occupied by a utility’s facilities and the additional space required to ensure its operation.

4.51 vista pruning: Selective pruning to allow a specific view (5.7.5).

4.52 watersprouts: New stems originating from epicormic buds. (syn.: epicormic shoots)

4.53 wound: An opening that is created when the bark of a live branch or stem is penetrated, cut, or removed.

4.54 woundwood: Partially differentiated tissue responsible for closing wounds. Woundwood develops from callus associated with wounds.

4.55 xylem: Wood tissue. Active xylem is sapwood; inactive xylem is heartwood.

4.56 young tree: A tree young in age or a newly transplanted tree.

5 Pruning practices

5.1 Tree inspection

5.1.1 An arborist or arborist trainee shall visually inspect each tree before beginning work.

5.1.2 If a condition is observed requiring attention beyond the original scope of the work, the condition should be reported to an immediate supervisor, the owner, or the person responsible for authorizing the work.

5.2 Tools and equipment

5.2.1 Equipment and work practices that damage living tissue and bark beyond the scope of the work should be avoided.

5.2.2 Climbing spurs shall not be used when climbing and pruning trees.

Exceptions:

-when limbs are more than throwline distance apart and there is no other means of climbing the tree;

-when the bark is thick enough to prevent damage to the cambium;

-in remote or rural utility rights-of-way.

5.3 Pruning cuts

TREE PRUNING APPENDIX A - 6 OF 11

5.3.1 Pruning tools used in making pruning cuts shall be sharp.

5.3.2 A pruning cut that removes a branch at its point of origin shall be made close to the trunk or parent limb, without cutting into the branch bark ridge or collar, or leaving a stub (see Figure 5.3.2).

5.3.3 A pruning cut that reduces the length of a branch or parent stem should bisect the angle between its branch bark ridge and an imaginary line perpendicular to the branch or stem (see Figure 5.3.3).

5.3.4 The final cut shall result in a flat surface with adjacent bark firmly attached.

5.3.5 When removing a dead branch, the final cut shall be made just outside the collar of living tissue.

5.3.6 Tree branches shall be removed in such a manner so as not to cause damage to other parts of the tree or to other plants or property. Branches too large to support with one hand shall be precut to avoid splitting of the wood or tearing of the bark (see Figure 5.3.2). Where necessary, ropes or other equipment shall be used to lower large branches or portions of branches to the ground.

5.3.7 A final cut that removes a branch with a narrow angle of attachment should be made from the outside of the branch to prevent damage to the parent limb (see Figure 5.3.7).

5.3.8 Severed limbs shall be removed from the crown upon completion of the pruning, at times when the tree would be left unattended, or at the end of the workday.

Figure 5.3.2. – A pruning cut that removes a branch at its point of origin shall be made close to the trunk or parent limb, without cutting into the branch bark ridge or collar, or leaving a stub.

Branches too large to support with one hand shall be precut to avoid splitting of the wood or tearing of the bark.

Figure 5.3.3. – A pruning cut that reduces the length of a branch or parent stem should bisect the angle between its branch bark ridge and an imaginary line perpendicular to the branch or stem .

Figure 5.3.7. – A final cut that removes a branch with a narrow angle of attachment should be made from the outside of the branch to prevent damage to the parent limb.

5.4 Wound treatment

5.4.1 Wound treatments should not be used to cover wounds or pruning cuts, except when recommended for disease, insect, mistletoe, or sprout control, or for cosmetic reasons.

5.4.2 Wound treatments that are damaging to tree tissues shall not be used.

5.4.3 When tracing wounds, only loose, damaged tissue should be removed.

5.5 Pruning objectives

TREE PRUNING APPENDIX A - 7 OF 11

5.5.1 Pruning objectives shall be established prior to beginning any pruning operation. To obtain the defined objective, the growth cycles and structure of individual species and the type of pruning to be performed should be considered.

5.5.3 Not more than 25 percent of the foliage should be removed within an annual growing season. The percentage and distribution of foliage to be removed shall be adjusted according to the plant’s species, age, health, and site.

5.5.4 Not more than 25 percent of the foliage of a branch or limb should be removed when it is cut back to a lateral. That lateral should be large enough to assume apical dominance.

5.5.5 Pruning cuts should be made in accordance with 5.3 Pruning cuts.

5.5.6 Heading should be considered an acceptable practice for shrub or specialty pruning when needed to reach a defined objective.

5.5.7 Topping and lion’s tailing shall be considered unacceptable pruning practices for trees.

5.6 Pruning types

Specifications for pruning should consist of, but are not limited to, one or more of the following types:

5.6.1 Clean: Cleaning shall consist of selective pruning to remove one or more of the following parts: dead, diseased, and/or broken branches.

5.6.1.1 Location of parts to be removed shall be specified.

5.6.1.2 Size range of parts to be removed shall be specified.

5.6.2 Thin: Thinning shall consist of selective pruning to reduce density of live branches.

5.6.2.1 Thinning should result in an even distribution of branches on individual limbs and throughout the crown.

5.6.2.2 Not more than 25 percent of the crown should be removed within an annual growing season.

5.6.2.3 Location of parts to be removed shall be specified.

5.6.2.4 Percentage of foliage and size range of parts to be removed shall be specified.

5.6.3 Raise: Raising shall consist of selective pruning to provide vertical clearance.

5.6.3.1 Vertical clearance should be specified.

5.6.3.2 Location and size range of parts to be removed should be specified.

5.6.4 Reduce: Reduction shall consist of selective pruning to decrease height and/or spread.

TREE PRUNING APPENDIX A - 8 OF 11

5.6.4.1 Consideration shall be given to the ability of a species to tolerate this type of pruning.

5.6.4.2 Location of parts to be removed and clearance should be specified.

5.6.4.3 Size range of parts should be specified.

5.7 Specialty pruning

Consideration shall be given to the ability of a species to tolerate specialty pruning, using one or more pruning types (5.6).

5.7.1 Young trees

5.7.1.1 The reasons for young tree pruning may include, but are not limited to, reducing risk, maintaining or improving tree health and structure, improving aesthetics, or satisfying a specific need.

5.7.1.2 Young trees that will not tolerate repetitive pruning and have the potential to outgrow their space should be considered for relocation or removal.

5.7.1.3 At planting

5.7.1.3.1 Pruning should be limited to cleaning (5.6.1).

5.7.1.3.2 Branches should be retained on the lower trunk.

5.7.1.4 Once established

5.7.1.4.1 Cleaning should be performed (5.6.1).

5.7.1.4.2 Rubbing and poorly attached branches should be removed.

5.7.1.4.3 A central leader or leader(s) as appropriate should be developed.

5.7.1.4.4 A strong, properly spaced scaffold branch structure should be selected and maintained.

5.7.1.4.5 Interfering branches should be reduced or removed.

5.7.2 Espalier

5.7.2.1 Branches that extend outside the desired plane of growth shall be pruned or tied back.

5.7.2.2 Ties should be replaced as needed to prevent girdling the branches at the attachment site.

5.7.3 Pollarding

5.7.3.1 Consideration shall be given to the ability of the individual tree to respond to pollarding.

TREE PRUNING APPENDIX A - 9 OF 11

5.7.3.2 Management plans shall be made prior to the start of the pollarding process for routine removal of watersprouts.

5.7.3.3 Internodal cuts shall be made at specific locations to start the pollarding process. After the initial cuts are made, no additional internodal cut shall be made.

5.7.3.4 Watersprouts growing from the cut ends of branches (knuckles) should be removed annually during the dormant season.

5.7.4 Restoration

5.7.4.1 Restoration shall consist of selective pruning to improve the structure, form, and appearance of trees that have been severely headed, vandalized, or damaged.

5.7.4.2 Location in tree, size range of parts, and percentage of watersprouts to be removed should be specified.

5.7.5 Vista pruning

5.7.5.1 Vista pruning shall consist of selective pruning to allow a specific view.

5.7.5.2 Size range of parts, location in tree, and percentage of foliage to be removed should be specified.

5.8 Palm pruning

5.8.1 Palm pruning should be performed when fronds, fruit, or loose petioles may create a dangerous condition.

5.8.2 Live healthy fronds, initiating at an angle of 45 degrees or greater from horizontal, with frond tips at or below horizontal, should not be removed.

5.8.3 Fronds removed should be severed close to the petiole base without damaging living trunk tissue.

5.8.4 Palm peeling (shaving) should consist of the removal of only the dead frond bases at the point they make contact with the trunk without damaging living trunk tissue.

5.9 Utility pruning

5.9.1 General

5.9.1.1 The purpose of utility pruning is to prevent the loss of service, comply with mandated clearance laws, prevent damage to equipment, avoid access impairment, and uphold the intended usage of the facility/utility space.

5.9.1.2 Only a qualified line clearance arborist or line clearance arborist trainee shall be assigned to line clearance work in accordance with ANSI Z133.1, 29 CFR 1910.331 – 335, 29 CFR

1910.268 or 29 CFR 1910.269.

TREE PRUNING APPENDIX A - 10 OF 11

5.9.1.3 Utility pruning operations are exempt from requirements in 5.1 Tree Inspection:

5.1.1 An arborist or arborist trainee shall visually inspect each tree before beginning work.

5.1.2 If a condition is observed requiring attention beyond the original scope of the work, the condition should be reported to an immediate supervisor, the owner, or the person responsible for authorizing the work.

5.9.1.4 Safety inspections of the work area are required as outlined in ANSI Z133.1 4.1.3, job briefing.

5.9.2 Utility crown reduction pruning

5.9.2.1 Urban/residential environment

5.9.2.1.1 Pruning cuts should be made in accordance with 5.3, Pruning cuts. The following requirements and recommendations of 5.9.2.1.1 are repeated from 5.3 Pruning cuts.

5.9.2.1.1.1 A pruning cut that removes a branch at its point of origin shall be made close to the trunk or parent limb, without cutting into the branch bark ridge or collar, or leaving a stub (see Figure 5.3.2).

5.9.2.1.1.2 A pruning cut that reduces the length of a branch or parent stem should bisect the angle between its branch bark ridge and an imaginary line perpendicular to the branch or stem (see Figure 5.3.3).

5.9.2.1.1.3 The final cut shall result in a flat surface with adjacent bark firmly attached.

5.9.2.1.1.4 When removing a dead branch, the final cut shall be made just outside the collar of living tissue.

5.9.2.1.1.5 Tree branches shall be removed in such a manner so as not to cause damage to other parts of the tree or to other plants or property. Branches too large to support with one hand shall be precut to avoid splitting of the wood or tearing of the bark (see Figure 5.3.2). Where necessary, ropes or other equipment shall be used to lower large branches or portions of branches to the ground.

5.9.2.1.1.6 A final cut that removes a branch with a narrow angle of attachment should be made from the bottom of the branch to prevent damage to the parent limb (see Figure 5.3.7).

5.9.2.1.2 A minimum number of pruning cuts should be made to accomplish the purpose of facility/utility pruning. The natural structure of the tree should be considered.

5.9.2.1.3 Trees directly under and growing into facility/utility spaces should be removed or pruned. Such pruning should be done by removing entire branches or by removing branches that have laterals growing into (or once pruned, will grow into) the facility/utility space.

TREE PRUNING APPENDIX A - 11 OF 11

5.9.2.1.4 Trees growing next to, and into or toward facility/utility spaces should be pruned by reducing branches to laterals (5.3.3) to direct growth away from the utility space or by removing entire branches. Branches that, when cut, will produce watersprouts that would grow into facilities and/or utility space should be removed.

5.9.2.1.5 Branches should be cut to laterals or the parent branch and not at a pre-established clearing limit. If clearance limits are established, pruning cuts should be made at laterals or parent branches outside the specified clearance zone.

5.9.2.2 Rural/remote locations – mechanical pruning

Cuts should be made close to the main stem, outside of the branch bark ridge and branch collar.

Precautions should be taken to avoid stripping or tearing of bark or excessive wounding.

5.9.3 Emergency service restoration

During a utility-declared emergency, service must be restored as quickly as possible in accordance with ANSI Z133.1, 29 CFR 1910.331 – 335, 29 CFR 1910.268, or 29 CFR 1910.269.

At such times it may be necessary, because of safety and the urgency of service restoration, to deviate from the use of proper pruning techniques as defined in this standard. Following the emergency, corrective pruning should be done as necessary.

Reference publications International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). 1995. Tree Pruning Guidelines .

Savoy, IL: International Society of Arboriculture (ISA).

APPENDIX B

7460 DETERMINATION LETTERS

ANM-0682 PDX ASSC

APPENDIX F

Federal Aviation Administration

January 26, 2017

TO:

Susan Bertram Attn: FAA 1601 Lind Ave. SW Renton, WA 98057 Susan.Bertram@faa.gov

CC:

Port of Portland Attn: Pat Ebert 7200 NE Airport Way Portland, OR 97218 pat.ebert@portofportland.com

RE: (See attached Table 1 for referenced case(s))

**FINAL DETERMINATION**

Table 1 - Letter Referenced Case(s)

ASN Prior ASN Location Latitude

(NAD83)

Longitude

(NAD83)

AGL

(Feet)

AMSL

(Feet)

2016-

ANM-1259-NRA

2015-

ANM-1388-NRA

PORTLAND, OR 45-35-06.02N 122-36-07.93W 51 71

Description: PDX - Airport Surface Surveillance Capability Program (ASSC) - Antenna RU18 Revised Proposed Location and Height: The FAA Proposes to install antenna RU18 as part of the ASSC antenna project.

The proposed location has been moved to the northeast side of the Ground Run-up Enclosure. This supersedes case #2015-ANM-1388-NRA, dated January 27, 2016.

We do not object with conditions to the construction described in this proposal provided:

You comply with the requirements set forth in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-2, "Operational Safety on Airports During Construction."

Proponent must submit an FTA request to the FAA Spectrum group for M1575.42. If the Remote Unit is associated with M1030 and M1090, FTA's are also required for these units.

A separate notice to the FAA is required for any construction equipment, such as temporary cranes, whose working limits would exceed the height and lateral dimensions of your proposal.

This determination does not constitute FAA approval or disapproval of the physical development involved in the proposal. It is a determination with respect to the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and with respect to the safety of persons and property on the ground.

In making this determination, the FAA has considered matters such as the effects the proposal would have on existing or planned traffic patterns of neighboring airports, the effects it would have on the existing airspace structure and projected programs of the FAA, the effects it would have on the safety of persons and property on the ground, and the effects that existing or proposed manmade objects (on file with the FAA), and known natural objects within the affected area would have on the airport proposal.

This determination expires on December 31, 2018 unless:

(a) extended, revised or terminated by the issuing office.

(b) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for the completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application.

NOTE: Request for extension of the effective period of this determination must be obtained at least 15 days prior to expiration date specified in this letter.

If you have any questions concerning this determination contact Mandi Lesauis (425) 227-2614 mandi.lesauis@faa.gov.

Mandi Lesauis

ADO

Federal Aviation Administration

April 26, 2017

TO:

FAA

Attn: Susan Bertram 1601 Lind Ave. SW Renton, WA 98057 susan.bertram@faa.gov

CC:

Parsons (TSSC 4) Attn: Collin Williams 801 B St. Ste 200 Anchorage, AK 99501 collin.ctr.williams@faa.gov

RE: (See attached Table 1 for referenced case(s))

**FINAL DETERMINATION**

Table 1 - Letter Referenced Case(s)

ASN Prior ASN Location Latitude

(NAD83)

Longitude

(NAD83)

AGL

(Feet)

AMSL

(Feet)

2017-AAL-72-NRA 2016-AAL-150-NRA ANCHORAGE, AK 61-11-59.10N 150-01-03.18W 45 188

Description: ASSC Antenna ID RU10 Receive Only RNWY 15 Greenfield West Omni Antenna We are moving RU 10 site approximately 15' to the east away from the crest of a steep embankment.

We do not object with conditions to the construction described in this proposal provided:

You comply with the requirements set forth in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-2, "Operational Safety on Airports During Construction."

You contact ANC ATCT at 907-271-6549 at least 15 minutes prior to operating in that area and advise when complete.

You provide an obstruction light on the structure in accordance with chapter 5 of Advisory Circular 70/7460-1L, Obstruction Marking and Lighting.

This determination does not constitute FAA approval or disapproval of the physical development involved in the proposal. It is a determination with respect to the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and with respect to the safety of persons and property on the ground.

In making this determination, the FAA has considered matters such as the effects the proposal would have on existing or planned traffic patterns of neighboring airports, the effects it would have on the existing airspace structure and projected programs of the FAA, the effects it would have on the safety of persons and property on the ground, and the effects that existing or proposed manmade objects (on file with the FAA), and known natural objects within the affected area would have on the airport proposal.

This determination expires on October 26, 2018 unless:

(a) extended, revised or terminated by the issuing office.

(b) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for the completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application.

NOTE: Request for extension of the effective period of this determination must be obtained at least 15 days prior to expiration date specified in this letter.

If you have any questions concerning this determination contact Patrick Zettler (907) 271-5446 Patrick.Zettler@faa.gov.

Patrick Zettler Specialist

APPENDIX

APPENDIX C

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING OF GEOTECHNICAL DRILLING

OPERATIONS AT PORTLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, FOR THE

PORTLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ASSC PROJECT

PORTLAND, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON

February 16, 2017

SWCA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS

PORTLAND, OREGON

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING OF GEOTECHNICAL DRILLING

OPERATIONS AT PORTLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, FOR THE

PORTLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ASSC PROJECT

PORTLAND, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON

Report Prepared for Parsons Government Services, Inc.

100 West Walnut Street Pasadena, California 91124

By

Mike Cannon, Ph.D., R.P.A Annalisa Heppner, B.A.

February 16, 2017

SWCA Project Number 41829 SWCA Report Number 17-62

Findings Positive

County Multnomah Township/Range/Section T 1N/R2E/Sec. 7, 9

USGS Quad(s)/Date Mount Tabor OR-WA (1990) Project Type Geotechnical Monitoring

Project Acres N/A Acres Surveyed N/A

New Prehistoric 0 Historic 0 Isolate 1 Archaeological Permit No. n/a

Field Notes Location On file at SWCA Portland office Curation Location n/a

Accession Number n/a

Contains Confidential Information – Not for General Distribution

SWCA Environmental Consultants 1220 SW Morrison Street, Suite 700

Portland, OR 97205

SWCA Environmental Consultants i February 16, 2017

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION

ABSTRACT

Parsons Government Services, Inc. (Parsons) is under contract with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to provide engineering services in support of the Airport Surface Surveillance Capability (ASSC) Project at the Portland International Airport (PDX). This project will require the installation of system components on high mast and other types of pole structures. Prior to finalization of project design, geotechnical work was conducted in order to provide subsurface data for foundation design. SWCA monitored the drilling of five geotechnical boreholes: RU4, RU5, RU6, RU8, and RU10. All of the boreholes are located on PDX property in previously developed, heavily disturbed, and currently actively in use areas, including greenfields associated with runways, and within the airfield itself. No significant cultural resources were observed during monitoring of the five geotechnical boreholes. Sediments observed within the boreholes were fluvial and alluvial undifferentiated silts with weak clay development.

One modern nail was recovered from borehole RU5, from 20 feet below the surface, indicating this area had been heavily and extensively disturbed. While no significant cultural resources were observed during the geotechnical drilling reported on here, SWCA Environmental Consultants recommends that Parsons continue to have any additional ground-disturbing work in areas where that work will encounter native fill monitored by a professional archaeologist, consistent with the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office’s recommendation for the project as a whole. This will ensure that cultural resources, if located, are treated appropriately.

SWCA Environmental Consultants ii February 16, 2017

SWCA Environmental Consultants iii February 16, 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

Area of Potential Effects

Monitoring Personnel

Environment

Cultural Setting

Prehistoric Background

Historic Background

Ethnographic Background

Tribal Data

Previous Archaeological Investigations

Research Design

Questions

Methods

Expectations

Results

National Register of Historic Places Evaluations

Discussion

Recommendations

Summary/Conclusion

References

SWCA Environmental Consultants iv February 16, 2017

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Potential tower locations and monitored borehole locations Figure 2. Potential tower locations and monitored borehole locations Figure 3. RU5 in Frontage Road Greenfield, view northwest Figure 4. RU8 in the Between Ground Run-Up Enclosure, view south Figure 5. RU10 in Runway 3 Greenfield, view south Figure 6. GeoProbe 7330 DT in use at RU6, view southwest

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Previous Cultural Resource Investigations within 1 Mile of the APE Table 2. Previous Reported Cultural Resources within 1 Mile of the APE Table 3. Borehole Soil Description Table 4. Will ASSC Tower Foundations at PDX Extend into Native Strata?

SWCA Environmental Consultants 1 February 16, 2017

INTRODUCTION

Parsons Government Services, Inc. (Parsons) is under contract with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to provide engineering services in support of the Airport Surface Surveillance Capability (ASSC) Project at the Portland International Airport (PDX). This project will require the installation of system components on high mast and other types of pole structures. Three of the antennae are high-mast monopoles, and two are shorter, wire-supported poles. The typical foundation for the high-mast monopoles consist of a single 4-foot-diameter drilled pier with an embedded length of about 20 feet. The foundation for the shorter poles consists of three 3-foot-diameter circular shallow foundations with a minimum embedment depth of 5 feet. Prior to finalization of project design, geotechnical work was conducted in order to provide subsurface data for foundation design. All of the boreholes are located on PDX property in previously developed, heavily disturbed, and currently actively in use areas, including greenfields associated with runways, and within the airfield itself. No significant cultural resources were observed during monitoring of the five geotechnical boreholes. Sediments observed within the boreholes were fluvial and alluvial undifferentiated silts with weak clay development. Native sediments were encountered in all boreholes at 20 feet below the surface, except for RU-4 where only fill was observed.

One modern nail was recovered from borehole RU5, from 20 feet below the surface, indicating this area had been heavily and extensively disturbed.

Regulatory Context

Because this work is funded by the FAA, it is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), which requires federally assisted or permitted undertakings to take into account the effects of those undertakings on historic properties, i.e., buildings, structures, objects, or archaeological sites, included in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Eligible properties generally must be at least 50 years old, meet at least one of four criteria of significance, and retain integrity sufficient to convey that significance. The FAA is the lead federal agency for this project.

The project area was previously identified as having a high probability for cultural resources by the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and given this, Parsons elected to have an archaeological monitor on-site during ground disturbing work to identify any cultural resources that might have been present.

Area of Potential Effects

The five geotechnical boreholes monitored were located on PDX property in Sections 7, and 9 of Township 1 North, Range 2 E, Willamette Meridian, as depicted on the Mount Tabor OR-WA (1990) U.S.

Geological Survey topographic 7.5-minute quadrangle (Figures 1 and 2). This area of potential effects (APE) is within the active PDX airport, on the south bank of the Columbia River, where the river serves as the boundary between Multnomah County, Oregon, and Clark County, Washington. The borehole locations are in developed property. RU4 is associated with Runway 2810L Greenfield North. RU5 is on the Frontage Road Greenfield. RU6 is in the Port Authority Construction Greenfield. RU8 is in the Between Ground Run-up Enclosure and Jet Fueling Station, and RU10 is in the Runway 3 Greenfield (Figures 3 to 5).

Monitoring Personnel

SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) archaeologist Donald Tatum conducted the monitoring of the five geotechnical boreholes.

2 Archaeological Monitoring of Geotechnical Drilling Operations at Portland International Airport

SWCA Environmental Consultants February 16, 2017

Figure 1. Potential tower locations and monitored borehole locations.

Archaeological Monitoring of Geotechnical Drilling Operations at Portland International Airport 3

Figure 2. Potential tower locations and monitored borehole locations.

4 Archaeological Monitoring of Geotechnical Drilling Operations at Portland International Airport

Figure 3. RU5 in Frontage Road Greenfield, view northwest.

Figure 4. RU8 in the Between Ground Run-Up Enclosure, view south.

Archaeological Monitoring of Geotechnical Drilling Operations at Portland International Airport 5

Figure 5. RU10 in Runway 3 Greenfield, view south.

ENVIRONMENT

The project area lies within the Portland Basin, which is roughly bounded by the confluence of the Sandy and Columbia Rivers near the western end of the Columbia River Gorge; Willamette Falls near Oregon City, Oregon; and the confluence of the Kalama and Columbia Rivers near Kalama, Washington (Pettigrew 1981; Saleeby 1983). The Portland Basin is part of the Puget-Willamette Lowland, and is one of the only parts of this long coastal trough not currently inundated with water. Geologically, the project area is part of a conglomerate characterized by aphyric basalt cobbles, as well as plutonic and metamorphic rocks. This conglomerate was likely deposited fluvially by the Columbia River during the late Pleistocene (Evarts 2004). Sediments within the project area are typical of alluvial terraces and floodplains in the area, and consist of silt loams to silty clay loams, all of which are the result of alluvial deposition.

The Portland Basin is in the Pinus-Quercus-Psuedotsuga zone, characterized by Black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana), Red alder (Alnus rubra), and ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) in riparian areas, and Douglas-fir (Psuedotsuga menziesii), grand fir (Abies grandis), and ponderosa pine elsewhere (Franklin and Dyrness 1973).

6 Archaeological Monitoring of Geotechnical Drilling Operations at Portland International Airport

CULTURAL SETTING

Prehistoric Background

Previous archaeological investigations have demonstrated the presence of humans in the Willamette Valley for at least 10,000 years (Aikens 1993), although the period from ca. 6,000 years before present (B.P.) onward is the most archaeologically visible. Evidence of Paleoindians—the earliest widely accepted inhabitants of the Northwest Coast and environs—is extremely rare in the Willamette Basin.

There is general agreement that people first inhabited the Portland Basin specifically during the Archaic Period (11,000 to 5500 B.P.).

Evidence of the Early Archaic period (ca. 8000 to 6000 B.P.) is also sparse, but Early Archaic sites are known in the Willamette Basin (Aikens 1993). During this period, populations of the Willamette Valley practiced a mobile hunter-gatherer lifestyle, and both large and small game were important to the inhabitants’ diet. Evidence from sites such as the Hannavan Creek Site in the southern Willamette Valley suggests the exploitation of plant resources was becoming more important in this period, as fragments of ground stone implements for grinding plant resources along with camas roasting pits have been found (Aikens 1993; Pettigrew 1990). A characteristic of the Early Archaic period was the presence of the willow-leaf-shaped Cascade point. Toward the end of this period, thick, large, side-notched points appear, reminiscent of the Northern Side-notched style points from the Plateau and Great Basin (Aikens 1993).

Sites of the Middle Archaic period (ca. 6000 to 1700 B.P.) provide evidence of the earliest extensive use of the Willamette Basin floodplain, including in the Middle Willamette Basin (Louis Berger & Associates 1986). At this time, Native American groups occupied semisubterranean pit houses in permanent winter villages, exploited and stored a wide array of food items, and developed burial practices. In the Portland Basin, the Middle Archaic is known as the Pacific Period (5500 to 200 B.P.), and is characterized by a shift towards sedentism, seen archaeologically as residential sites that appear to have at least semipermanent or year-round habitation alongside special use sites for resource acquisition and processing (Ames 1992; Dunnell et al. 1973). More specific chronologies have been devised using projectile point styles from approximately 2600 B.P. to the present (Pettigrew 1990).

The Late Archaic period represents the development of the Willamette Basin cultures and dates from around 1700 B.P. to the time of European contact, just over 200 years ago. In the Portland Basin, the Multnomah Phase, ranging from approximately 1750 B.P. to the historic period, is characterized by smaller, narrow-necked, corner-notched points, and later, small, side-notched points. Sites characteristic of this phase often include notched or perforated netsinkers, mule-ear knives, clay figurines, and incised clay tablets. Populations in the region generally increased, with a shift to larger, semipermanent villages concentrated in major stream valleys, along the shores of lakes and other wetlands, and on prairies.

Subsistence patterns were similar to those in the Middle Archaic period, but fishing grew more important.

The most important vegetable resources were camas, tarweed, and wapato. Local and regional exchange networks developed to provide resources that were not locally available, such as obsidian and coastal goods. Small triangular and stemmed points were very abundant during the Late Archaic period, marking the beginning of use of the bow and arrow. The same styles continued to be made into the ethnographic/historic period. Late Archaic sites are more numerous than sites from previous time periods and are more widely distributed over the landscape; archaeological evidence from this time period shows more regional stylistic variation and implies a growing population.

Historic Background

Lieutenant William Broughton was the first European to sail up the Columbia River as far as the mouth of the Sandy River, east of modern-day Portland (Carey 1971:97–99). In the years between Broughton’s

Archaeological Monitoring of Geotechnical Drilling Operations at Portland International Airport 7 exploration of the Columbia River and the Lewis and Clark expedition in 1805 to 1806, the sheltered bay just inside the mouth of the Columbia became a frequent resting point for ships on the trade route between North America, Hawaii, and China, and the value of pelts obtained on the Columbia became widely known (Carey 1971:98–101). These early explorations opened the area for fur trapping, with the Pacific Fur Company, North West Company, and, eventually, the French-Canadian Hudson’s Bay

Company (HBC) each establishing a presence along the Columbia River.

After 1821, HBC dominated trade in the Northwest, initially from its headquarters at Fort George (near present-day Astoria), and after 1824 from its headquarters at Fort Vancouver. Goods from China and London were sold or traded at the fort by French-Canadian, Scottish, Hawaiian, and Native American trappers and laborers.

Euroamerican settlement in the Willamette Valley began in the late 1820s and accelerated substantially in the early 1840s. Beginning in 1841, a massive migration of Americans occurred along the Oregon Trail, generally departing from Missouri and crossing to The Dalles, from which point they traveled down the Columbia River or traveled overland to the Willamette Valley (Bassett et al. 1998). The early settlers claimed the most desirable farming locations on the foothills of the Coast and Cascade Ranges, which had access to spring water, friable and easily plowed soils, and nearby forests, which supplied the wood used by the settlers to construct their homes (Bowen 1978:62). As Euroamerican settlements boomed, pressure grew to establish a legal foundation for land claims by negotiating Indian land cessions through treaties with surviving populations. A series of treaties with groups in the Willamette Valley in 1851 were never ratified by Congress.

The pattern of Euroamerican settlement in the Willamette Valley generally progressed from north to south. Most settlements were made under the Provisional and Donation Land Claim (DLC) Acts. The DLC Act of 1850 entitled many settlers within Oregon Territory (which at the time included present-day Washington State) to claim up to 640 acres of land (Bergquist 1957:28). By 1854, it was reported by a contemporary witness that nearly all of the Willamette Valley had been claimed, though the extent to which his definition of the Willamette Valley reached the far margins and foothills of the surrounding mountain ranges is unclear (Bourke and DeBats 1995:62–65).

The development of the city of Portland was propelled by the California gold rush of 1849. The rapid growth of San Francisco was dependent on Oregon’s timber, and Portland’s location on the Willamette

River allowed it to be a center for California trade. Successful prospectors, land speculators, farmers, businessmen, and merchant capitalists flocked to Portland in the 1850s. Between the late 1850s and the 1870s transportation options in the Portland area included the construction of new railways and steam-powered riverboats, and more roads through the Willamette Valley. The increased transportation network turned Portland into a manufacturing and shipping hub for lumber, fishing, wheat, and Oregon’s other natural resources (Becker and Butler 2013).

Ethnographic Background

The project area is in the ancestral homeland of indigenous groups that spoke Chinookan dialects. While Chinookan speaking groups are most often divided into “Upper” and “Lower”, based on their dialect and location, a third “Middle” Chinookan group is often recognized (Wuerch 1979). General Land Office (GLO) maps from the 1850s indicate an unnamed “Indian village” directly northwest of the project area. The well-known ethnographic Cathlapotle Chinook village was located northeast of the project area along the Columbia River (Beckham 1987).

Chinookan people lived in villages that were oriented toward fishing and root and berry gathering, with extensive economic and political ties among villages, maintained by the exchange of goods and alliance

8 Archaeological Monitoring of Geotechnical Drilling Operations at Portland International Airport through marriage. Chinookan society was based on the distinction between the ascribed status of free person and slave; between upper class and commoners; and between higher, prestigious rank culminating in chiefdom, and lower rank (Silverstein 1990). Winter villages were built of large, gabled-roof, cedar plank houses, which were located on high ground to avoid seasonal flooding. Plank houses were multi-family dwellings ranging in size from 14 by 20 feet up to 40 by 100 feet, and featured subfloor food storage compartments for surplus trade and subsistence items (Ray et al. 1938:124–127). Most of the year was spent at specific resource locations (i.e., salmon fisheries or berry and root patches) where people lived in temporary structures that consisted of cattail mats laid over a light framework.

Waterways, in particular the Columbia River, provided food, travel, and trade opportunities. Trade along the Columbia also led to increased material status. With their traditional use areas near the Columbia, Chinookan people controlled the trade of interior goods up and down the river as well as trade of local fish and berries (Silverstein 1990). Fish were the primary source of food; five species of salmon, sturgeon, steelhead trout, eulachon, and herring were all eaten fresh and smoke-dried for storage and winter consumption. Sea mammals such as sea lions, seals, and porpoises and land mammals including deer, elk, bear, and various small mammals were hunted for food, skin, bone and antler for tools, and blubber for oil. A variety of roots like wapato, camas, and bracken fern and berries including salmonberry, cranberry, strawberry, and huckleberry were collected as an important part of the Native diet (Silverstein 1990).

The interactions between Chinookan people and Euroamericans intensified after the Lewis and Clark Expedition of 1805. The Clatsop Chinooks provided the Lewis and Clark crew with desperately needed food and shelter for several months. The explorers and other Euroamericans who preceded and followed them left a devastating legacy of smallpox, cholera, and other diseases, as well as impacts from alcohol.

George Gibbs, a customs house operator in Astoria, noted in an 1854 report the devastation of disease on the Chinook in particular. He reported completely abandoned villages along the Columbia River and overgrown, abandoned trade trails to the Cowlitz and Chehalis Tribes as the result of severe population decline from disease (Gibbs 1863).

By the 1850s, there were fewer Chinookan people to defend their lands against the salmon fishing operations and towns being constructed by Euroamericans. In August of 1851, Chinook leaders signed the Tansey Point Treaty with Indian Agent Anson Dart (Deloria and Demallie 1999:204–228). The Tansey Point Treaty was never ratified, in part because the Chinooks’ skill in negotiations pushed Anson Dart to accept terms that would have established a series of small reservations along the Columbia River. This contradicted Dart’s congressional orders to remove all Native peoples to an undetermined reservation east of the Cascades (Coan 1921).