SKYLINE WEST CONSERVATION PLAN
INVENTORY, ANALYSIS AND REGULATIONS
FOR THE CONSERVATION OF
NATURAL, SCENIC AND OPEN SPACE RESOURCES
Adopted by City Council September 21,1994
Effective September 21, 1994
Ordinance No. 168154
Bureau of Planning
Portland, Oregon
September 1994
Portland City Council
Vera Katz, Mayor
Earl Blumenauer, Commissioner
Charlie Hales, Commissioner
Gretchen Kafoury, Commissioner
Michael Lindberg, Commissioner
Portland Planning Commission
Richard Michaelson, President
Doug Van Dyk, Vice President
Steve Abel
W. Richard Cooley
Sarah ffitch
Bruce Fong
Paul Schuback
Ruth Scott
Noell Webb
To help ensure equal access to information, the Portland
Planning Bureau offers the following services:
• Interpreter (two working days notice required);
• Accessible meeting places;
• Audio Loop equipped hearing rooms in City Hall
and the Portland Building; and
• Planning documents printed in large type sizes (two
working days notice required).
For more information, please call 823-7709 or 823-6868.
SKYLINE WEST CONSERVATION PLAN
INVENTORY, ANALYSIS AND REGULATIONS FOR THE CONSERVATION OF
NATURAL, SCENIC AND OPEN SPACE RESOURCES
Adopted by City Council September 21, 1994
Effective September 21, 1994
Ordinance No. 168154
Bureau of Planning
Charlie Hales, Commissioner-In-Charge
David Knowles, Interim Director
Robert E. Clay, Chief Planner, Long Range Planning and Urban Design
Project Staff
Tim Brooks, Project Manager
Robert Goldie, GIS Manager
Catherine Lawson, Economic Analyst
Geoff Sauncy, Graphic Illustrator
Lauren Waterton, Planning Intern
Phase One Project Staff
Al Burns, City Planner
Gail Curtis, City Planner
Damian Syrnyk, City Planner
Printed on Recycled Paper
September 1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION page 1
Purpose 3
Relation to Other Resource Planning Projects 3
Organization of the Plan 4
How to Use this Document 4
Chapter 2 PLAN SUMMARy 7
O1apter 3 BACKGROUND 11
Introduction 13
Geologic His tory 13
Pre-Settlement History 15
Past Planning Efforts 18
Policy Framework 22
Summary 26
Chapter 4 RESOURCE INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS 27
Introduction 29
Resource Functions and Values 29
Conflicting Uses Permitted by Zoning 31
Consequences of Allowing Conflicting Uses 38
Consequences of Limiting or Prohibiting Conflicting Uses ..43
Inventory and Analysis Overview 44
Discussion Format 59
Site Inventory and Analysis 61
Site 143 Rock Creek Headwaters 65
Site 144 Bronson Creek Headwaters 79
Site 145 Cedar Mill Creek Headwaters 91
Compatibility with other Goal 5 Programs 123
Applicable Statewide Planning Goals I23
Conflict Resolution 124
Chapter 5 PLAN CONSERVATION MEASURES 127
Introduction 129
General Summary 129
Amendments to Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 130
Conservation Plan Policies & Objectives 131
Amendments to Title 33, Planning and Zoning 133
Amendments to the Official Zoning Maps 133
PLAN APPENDICES 135
Appendix A: Adopting Ordinance A-I
Appendix B: Wildlife Habitat Assessment Form B-1
Appendix C: Statewide Planning Goal... C-l
Appendix D: Goal 5 Administrative Rule D-l
Appendix E: Glossary E-l
Appendix F: Bibliography F-l
CHAPTERl
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE·
RELATION TO OTHER RESOURCE PLANNING PROJECTS·
ORGANIZATION OF THE PLAN·
HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT·
Purpose
The Skyline West Conservation Plan provides the inventory, analysis and
recommendations for protection of significant natural, scenic and open space
resources located along the west slope of the Tualatin Mountain ridge in northwest
Portland. The plan area is bounded on the east by NW Skyline Boulevard, and
north, south and west by the Portland city limits (see Vicinity Map on page 5). The
northern and southern boundaries are approximately NW McNamee and NW
Cornell Roads, respectively.
This plan is the last of a series of eight conservation plans developed by the city to
comply with Statewide Planning Goal 5. Goal 5 requires all cities and counties in
Oregon to "conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources:' The Goal
5 Administrative Rule prescribes the following three-step planning process:
1) Inventory of location, quantity and quality of GoalS resources;
2) Analysis of economic, social, environmental and energy (ESEE)
consequences of allowing, limiting or prohibiting conflicting uses; and
3) Development of a plan to protect significant resources.
On September 21, 1994, the Portland City Council adopted Ordinance No. 168154
enacting protection for significant natural, scenic and open space resources west of
Skyline Boulevard, consistent with Goal 5 and its Administrative Rule.
Relation to Other Resource Planning Projects
The Skyline West Conservation Plan is integrated with other city resource plans.
The Northwest Hills Natural Area Protection Plan (1991) and the Balch Creek
Watershed Protection Plan (1991) border the plan area to the east and southeast,
respectively. These plans provide similar levels of protection for similar resources
east of Skyline. The Scenic Resources Protection Plan (1991) identifies several scenic
corridors and one panorama within the Skyline plan area. The Northwest Hills
Study (1985) addresses policy and resource issues within the plan area.
Locally, coordination efforts between city, county and Metro resource planning
efforts are ongoing. Multnomah County is currently studying GoalS resources in
the West Hills, including areas adjacent to the Skyline plan area. Important creek
and habitat resources which cross the boundary between city and county are
identified .as significant by both jurisdictions. Washington County, which borders
the plan area to the south, has completed its GoalS work. Significant Skyline
resources are identified and protected on adjoining county lands.
On the regional level, this Conservation Plan supports the efforts of the
Metropolitan Greenspaces Program to identify and protect greenspaces within the
four-county metropolitan region. The Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan (1992)
Introcluetion 3
identifies Cedar Mill Creek, Rock Creek, the Tualatin River and nearby Forest Park
as regionally significant natural area sites. The Conservation Plan proposes
conservation measures that help to protect these basins.
Organization of the Plan
The Skyline West Conservation Plan has six parts, five chapters and Appendices:
Ch. 1 Introduction
Ch. 2 Plan Summary
Ch. 3 Background
Ch. 4 Resource Inventory and Analysis
Ch. 5 Proposed Conservation Measures
Appendices
Chapters 1, 2 and 3 provide an overview of the plan, its purpose, background and
policy framework. Chapter 4 covers the inventory and analysis of resources for the
plan's three resource sites. Chapter 5 presents adopted implementing measures.
Plan appendices provide information on proposed zoning, habitat assessments,
State Goal 5 and the Goal 5 Administrative Rule. The appendices also included a
glossary of technical or unfamiliar terms, and a bibliography containing a list of
references cited in the report.
How to Use this Document
This plan serves as a policy document for planning staff in evaluating development
proposals through environmental review. The plan also serves as a reference for
citizens, designers, developers and neighborhood groups.
To get a quick overview of the plan and its recommendations:
• Read the one-page plan summary (Chapter 2);
• Scan chapter summaries and the site discussions in Chapter 4; and
• Review the adopted zoning contained on the Official Zoning Maps.
For information about a particular resource site, refer to the Vicinity Map on the
following page, identify the site number, then turn to that site in Chapter 4. The
discussion includes a site description, an inventory of resources, and an analysis of
conflicting uses. Adopted regulations are discussed in Chapter 5 and adopted zoning
is shown on the Official Zoning Maps.
4 Chapter 1
~
NORTH
o 2,000 4,000
I
Scale (Feet)
(Elevation Contour
Intervals: 50')
I.'I
I
Inventory
Sites
Vicinity Map
Skyline-West
Resource Protection Plan
Bureau of Planning· City of Portland, Oregon
CHAPTER 2
PLAN SUMMARY
Plan Overview
The Skyline West Conservation Plan is the eighth, and last, of the city's
environmental study reports designed to comply with Statewide Planning Goal 5.
The plan provides protection for significant natural, scenic and open space resources
west of Skyline Boulevard.
The planning area covers a narrow piece of the city, located west of NW Skyline
Boulevard, north of Cornell Road and south of McNamee Road. The area is
divided into three resource sites, each forming the upper basin of a west slope creek:
Rock Creek (north), Bronson Creek (central) and Cedar Mill Creek (south). The
combined planning area is approximately 1,750 acres in size.
Chapter 3 provides a brief review of the background and policy framework for the
plan. Chapter 4 presents the resource inventory for each site, identifies conflicting
uses, and analyzes economic, social, environmental and energy (ESEE) consequences
of resource protection. Plan proposals, contained in Chapter 5, are designed to
resolve conflicts and deliver resource protection as required by Goal 5.
Environmental Zones
The plan's primary implementing measure is the application of the environmental
zones. These zones protect identified resources and provide a mechanism through
which conflicts between resources and human uses can be resolved. Full protection
(the "protection" zone) is proposed for highly valued resources such as creeks,
wetlands, sensitive species or habitats with net positive ESEE consequences. Limited
protection (the "conservation" zone) is proposed for significant resources to balance
conflicts between land uses and resources. No protection is proposed where resources
are not significant or where protection of significant resources has overall negative
consequences. Adopted environmental zones are shown on city zoning maps.
Summary of City Council Actions
On September 21, 1994, the Portland City Council adopted Ordinance No. 168154
authorizing the following actions. These actions became effective upon adoption;
they are presented in more detail in Chapter 5.
• Adopt the Skyline West Conservation Plan report including the Goal 5
inventory, analysis and recommendations;
• Amend Portland's Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies to refer to the
Skyline West Conservation Plan;
• Adopt the Skyline West Conservation Plan Policies and Objectives as the
policy document for the area;
• Amend Title 33, Planning and Zoning, to implement the Skyline West
Conservation Plan; and
• Amend the Official Zoning Maps to apply the Environmental Zones and
remove the Interim Resource Protection Zone.
Plan Summary 9
CHAPTER 3
BACKGROUND
INTRODUCfION •
GEOLOGIC HISTORY·
PRE-SETTLEMENT HISTORY·
PAST PLANNING EFFORTS·
POLICY FRAMEWORK·
SUMMARY·
Introduction
This chapter reviews the geology, pre-settlement history, past planning efforts and
policy framework within the Skyline West planning area. The chapter begins with
history of the geological formations, soils and seismic activity. It describes the early
plant and animal life and the Native American populations that inhabited the area.
Early plans for the city and the Skyline area are then reviewed, followed by more
recent efforts to plan for urban growth and environmental protection. The last
section of the chapter reviews state, regional and local plans that guide policy
development in the Skyline planning area.
Geologic History
The oldest recorded geologic event in the Skyline West planning area began
approximately twenty-two million years ago, dUring late Oligocene and early
Miocene periods. At that time, the land area of Portland was submerged
underneath an inland area of marine waters which formed thick beds of siltstone
and shale, accumulating to depths of several thousand feet. This fossil rich deposit
known as the Scappoose Formation underlays the West Hills of Portland.
Geologists presume that the next event was the slow uplifting of the region which
forced the seas to retreat. The following few million years were relatively quiet,
while the sedimentary marine beds partly eroded (Houle 1987).
Sixteen million years ago, in the middle of the Miocene period, Oregon was active
with volcanic events. Fissures in southeastern Washington and northwestern
Oregon erupted with hundreds of cubic miles of molten materials that literally
covered tens of thousands of square miles of earth. The lava formed basalt, a heavy,
fine-grained igneous rock, covering the land from Idaho to the Pacific Ocean and
referred to as Columbia River Basalt. In the West Hills, this basalt lies above the
Scappoose Formation and is approximately seven hundred feet in depth.
After the eruptions stopped, the upper layer of basalt weathered into clay. The
tropical climate in Portland caused an extensive, reddish laterite crust to form on
the exposed basalt. The relative calm ended thirteen million years ago when the
present-day Cascade and Coast ranges were uplifted and the basalt land surface of
Portland, once flat, was squeezed and folded. The ridge that was formed by upfolded
arches of layered rock, or "anticlines," is known today as Tualatin Mountains or
Portland Hills. They are a narrow, northwest-trending, complexly-faulted range that
rises about 1,000 feet above the Tualatin and Portland basins on either side.
These same mountain-building disturbances caused the formation of numerous
parallel and transverse high-angle faults, and several southeast-dipping thrust faults
along the ridge. The valley floors settled over the course of several million years
until, in the Pliocene period, approximately eight to ten million years ago, their
Background 15
basins breached, forming eddies in the Columbia River into which large quantities
of quartzite and granite river rock were deposited.
Today these deposits, known as the Troutdale Formation, cover the original basalt
layer along the lower half of the West Hills and provide an excellent aquifer (Madin
1990; Price 1987). This formation has two distinct compositions: the lower facies,
which consists of gravels containing quartzite, schists and granites that tie it to the
ancestral Columbia River and the upper facies, which consists primarily of '
sandstone from basaltic origin, presumably eroded from the Cascades. The
deposition of these sands and gravels began ten million years ago and ceased nearly
two million years ago (Price 1987).
The last major activity affecting the study area was the wind-blown deposition of up
to 100 feet of a homogeneous, nonstratified, unindurated deposit or "loess" at
elevations above 600 feet, known as Portland Hills Silt. This silt is thought to have
eroded from the Columbia River floodplain, carried down the Gorge, and finally
wind-deposited on the West Hills. The blanket of silt accumulated thickest on the
top of the slopes, decreasing near the base.
Information concerning the total depth of silt and its geographic variation is
extremely limited, due to the small number of outcroppings which expose the base
of the formation (Lentz 1981). Various reports indicate a gross thinning of the
deposit westward. The depth of the silt decreases from approximately 120 feet on the
east side of the Tualatin Mountains to 50 feet and less on the western flank (Lentz
1981). Massive flooding, approximately five million years ago, eroded this silt away
from all areas below 300 feet, but replaced it with Lacustrine deposits of silt and sand.
The presence of Portland Hills Silt along the Tualatin Mountains has important
implications for land use and development. This silt becomes unstable when wet,
and susceptibility to landslides is high, particularly after rains have saturated the soil
(Madin 1990). Landslides, mud slides and slumps are common on steep areas in the
West Hills. These slope failures, often associated with logging and building
activities, have substantially altered the face of the hillside over the last century.
The unstable nature of Portland Hills Silt is compounded by the risk of seismic
activity in the study area. According to Orr (Orr and Baldwin 1992), research into the
relationship between movement of crustal plates and earthquakes has led to the
predictions that Oregon could experience an earthquake as high as magnitude 8 on
the Richter scale. The point of origin for such massive quakes would be off the
Oregon coast along the subduction zone where the Juan de Fuca plate is passing
under the North American plate.
Beneath Portland and the northern Willamette Valley is a network of faults which
could become active at any time. After 1882, Portland experienced a recorded quake
on the average of once every 5 years. In 1962 and 1968, quakes of magnitudes
14 Chapter :5
Figure 1
Geologic Cross·Section of the Northwest Hills
Portland Hi11s Fault
III Portland Hil1s
. Silt
E2! QuatemBI)'
Alluvium
~ ,~,I.o::-o
'.1
2.000
.- .
~ 1.000
.2 ""1 --;p::;~~g o-EP.;
~ .".
"l .,000,-2,DOOL.. ---:'-- ~_ ___:..=~
IIDI Columbia
WU Basalt
between 3.7 and 5.0 repeatedly struck Portland from epicenters on the eastern edge of
the city. Shocks were due to movement of a fault as much as 10 to 15 miles deep. A
series of quakes in 1991, measuring 3.5, were focused in the Tualatin Mountains.
More recent quakes, such as the Mt. Angel quake in the spring of 1993, were centered
outside of Portland but tremors were felt throughout the city.
In recent personal interviews with geologists Ian Madin (1993) and Matthew Mabey
(1993), they discussed the relationship between the soil characteristics and the risk of
earthquake activity. Those areas covered with Portland Hills Silt, located on slopes
greater than 15 percent are more apt to move depending on the depths of the soil. A
lateral spread displacement and dynamic slope instability map for the Portland
Quadrangle was recently completed. This map locates landslides, steepness of slopes
and thickness of soils. A similar study is planned for the Skyline West plan area
(the Linnton Quadrangle) by 1996. At this time, there are only a few well sites from
which to record data.
Pre-Settlement History
The presence of Native American people in the Portland area dates back over 10,000
years. These people arrived during the late glacial and early post-glacial periods.
Human use of the landscape over the last 10,000 years can be divided into three
periods: the early post-glacial setting; the period of drier and warmer conditions (the
Alithermal); and the period of the return of a milder climate. The first human
populations appearing in this first period found pine, fir, lodgepole pine and alder
forests. Later, fir, spruce and hemlock moved into the lowland forests (Ellis 1992).
At the end of the glacial period, the climate changed bringing conditions that were
drier and warmer than previously. With the onset of the Altithermal periods, the
forests opened further, creating rich grasslands and scattered stands of oak. The
surrounding mountains remained forested. This period resulted in trees in need of
cooler and moister conditions retreating to the hills and mountains. The lowland
Background 15
forests were eventually dominated by Douglas-fir and oak. These were not dense
forests, but rather open stands of trees bordered by prairies.
These conditions continued from 10,000 to 6,000, and even 4,000 years ago in some
areas. Milder climates allowed the forest cover to return. Ellis (1992) believes that
woodlands similar to those of today were typical of the last few thousand years. The
woodlands areas were dominated by Douglas fir. Hemlock and cedar were
characteristic of riparian and swampy areas. Near the end of this second period, the
rise in sea level and the later flooding of the lower Columbia valley reduced the
amount of riparian habitat available.
This rise in the sea level caused the Columbia River from the Pacific Ocean to the
Columbia Gorge area to contain sea water. As a result, the lower Columbia would
have contained brackish waters. The floodplain is assumed to have been composed
of tidal swamps, marshes and flats. Floodplains offering extensive dry ground
would have appeared in the Portland Basin only after the decline in sea level,
thought to have begun about 3,500 years ago.
The third period was cooler and moister, creating a setting similar to those found by
the first white explorers in the Portland Basin. When the sea level declined,
extensive tracts of floodplain suitable for human settlement were created. For the
past 3,000 to 4,000 years, the Portland area offered two basic environments: densely
forested uplands and river bottoms (a mosaic of wetlands, prairies and scattered
stands of trees).
During the last 10,000 years of human occupation, the resources of interest to Native
people changed very little. What did change was the degree to which these people
relied on particular resources and how they shaped their settlement patterns.
Important upland resources included black-tailed deer, ground birds, berries,
hazelnuts and acorns. Camas, a wild lily bulb baked as bread in special earthen
ovens, was found in upland prairies and floodplains sources. During the
Altithermal period, when the upland forests were more open, they probably
supported more extensive camas fields and larger elk populations. The upland
forests were an important source of fir, pine and cedar which were used in making
tools, shelters and canoes. Certain medicinal plants were found only in the uplands.
The river bottoms provided fish, shellfish and sea mammals. The river and inland
lakes, ponds and marshes provided great flocks of waterfowl, wapato (an Indian
potato), rushes and cattails. The wet meadows supported elk herds and white-tailed
deer populated the riparian woodlands. Ash and willow, used in building shelters
and making baskets and nets, were more easily found on the floodplains than in the
uplands. The cedar, Douglas fir and oak grew on the higher ridges of the bottoms.
A variety of bears and small furbearers such as weasels, minks and rabbits were
found in both upland and lowland environments. Muskrats and beavers were
more commonly found in the bottoms.
16 Chapter :5
Early historic accounts of the Tualatin Mountains describe a terrain of steep slopes,
deep ravines, and a tangle of brush and fallen timber (Ellis 1992). The hills were
drained by many unnamed creeks into the Tualatin River to the west and the
Willamette River to the east. Archaeological research has recorded sites in the
uplands and at the upland-floodplain edge with artifacts that date back 6,000 to 9,000
years ago. Upland sites are more rarely reported, but there are references to sites in
the Tualatin Mountains, west of Linnton. Ellis predicts that the hills contain one
archeological site per 130 acres of land area with higher site density along drainages
and wetlands (1 site/40 acres). Using this predictive model, approximately 15 sites
could be expected to have existed within the Skyline plan area.
In the early nineteenth century, the Columbia valley was occupied by several
branches of Chinookan-speaking people. The Chinook tribes lived in the Lower
Columbia area which includes the Columbia and Willamette River valleys. The
Chinook tribes consisted of approximately 12 smaller tribes. The Multnomah
Chinook occupied Sauvie Island, Scappoose Bay, the Multnomah Channel, and the
Vancouver Lake area. The Clackamas occupied the Clackamas River area, also near
to the Tualatin Mountains (Zucker et aI. 1983).
The various tribes were distinguished from one another by dialect and in some cases
cultural differences. The base of Chinookan social organization was large,
permanent and independent villages linked together by trade and marriage
alliances. Social organization was stratified by wealth and heredity. The Lewis and
Clark records of 1805-06 referred to the Portland Basin as the Columbia or
"Wappato" valley. They estimated a Native population of 4,000 people.
Of the Chinookan villages recorded by Lewis and Clark, only two were within the
present city limits of Portland.. Nemalquinner was a small village listed as the
home of about 100 people (twice that number in spring) of four houses near the
present site of the University of Portland. The second village, Neerchokioo, was
located on the Columbia River near the present site of Portland International
Airport (Ellis 1992).
The confluence of the Columbia and Willamelte Rivers was one of the most
densely populated areas of Oregon, due to the availability of extensive salmon runs
and the large trade network along the rivers. Travel was accomplished by canoe and
wood plank houses were typically constructed for winter shelter. The natural
resources of the area also had deep spiritual significance for the various tribes.
Mountains and forests were believed to be places where humans could contact the
spiritual world and fish, animals and plants were seen as spirit beings who assisted
the human race. The indigenous peoples of the Portland area had a unique
relationship with the land, one of stewardship, or guardianship.t
1
"Guardianship' was a term used by a Native American at a public workshop on West Hills resource planning.
Background 17
Past Planning Efforts
Several local and regional planning efforts provide historical context to the present
study. This section summarizes past planning efforts, moving from early to recent
plans and concludes with a review of other GoalS plans related to the Skyline plan.
Early Plans
Olmsted Brothers' Report
At the tum of the century, in 1903, John Charles and Frederick Law Olmsted
conducted a study of Portland and prepared a report which proposed a system of
parks and provided a comprehensive framework for the development and
maintenance of Portland's parks and parkways.
In addition to scenic and aesthetic values of natural areas, the Olmsteds pointed out
their public health and safety, and economic benefits, and noted how protection of
natural resources"adds greatly to the value of adjoining properties." They also
observed that:
It is true that some people look upon [woods of the West Hills] merely as a
troublesome encumbrance standing in the way of more profitable use of the
land, but future generations will not feel so and will bless the men who were
wise enough to get such woods preserved. (Olmsted 1903)
Bennett and Moses Plans
City planners E. H. Bennett and Robert Moses echoed the proposals of the Olmsteds
in subsequent planning proposals. Bennett emphasized in his Greater Portland Plan
of 1912 that "the great woodland areas [of Europe] are the life giving elements of the
city." Thirty years later, Moses presented a similar argument in his Portland
Improvement report: "the wooded hillsides west of the city are as important to
Portland as the Palisades of the Hudson are to the city of New York."
The Urban Outdoors Plan
In 1971, the Columbia Region Association of Governments (CRAG), predecessor to
Metro, developed "The Urban Outdoors: A New Proposal for Parks and Open
Space." The Urban Outdoors plan built on the proposals of the Olmsteds, Bennett
and others, calling for the creation of a system of local and regional parks, open
spaces, trails and natural areas. A primary goal of the plan was to preserve and
enhance:
those environmental features (the rivers, streams, floodplains, high points
and historic sites) that have already stamped the region with their unique
form and character, which make it a very special place to live. (CRAG 1971)
18 Chapter :;
Recent Plans
Northwest Hills Study
In November 1985, the City Council adopted the land use and administrative
recommendations set forth in the Northwest Hills Study. The purpose of the study
was to determine appropriate land use densities and patterns in the planning area
given present and planned urban services. Upon presentation of the study findings,
the City Council directed the Bureau of Planning to zone portions of the study area
for farm and forest uses, develop standards for sites with hazardous slope conditions
or unique features and develop specific conditions for new subdivisions and
Planned Unit Developments.
Portland Future Focus
In August 1991, the city adopted the Portland Future Focus: Strategic Plan. The
purpose of the plan is to guide government, businesses, community organizations
and citizens in ensuring a healthy city in the following decades. The plan includes
an action plan for managing regional growth. Strategy #1 of this action plan is:
Maintain livability in the Portland Metropolitan region through an
integrated planning process which focuses appropriate growth in the
Central City, protects the natural environment and open spaces,
strengthens cultural programs and enhances neighborhoods.
Implementation of the Skyline West Conservation Plan will support several action
items under Strategy #1. These items include:
1.2 Create a regional system of linked greenways and greenspaces. As part
of its Metropolitan Greenspaces Program, Metro should institute a
cooperative regional system of natural areas, open space, recreational
trails, crop lands and greenways. The system should integrate
landscape features, natural areas, wildlife refuges, rivers and streams....
1.3 Institute ecosystem protection, restoration and management program
that integrates landscape ecology, protection of open space, wildlife
refuge parks, crop lands and the maintenance of air and water quality
with economic development.. ..
Portland's Livable City Project, begun in late 1991, is an ongoing effort to implement
part of the Strategic Plan. The project's purpose is to achieve the Future Focus
growth management goal:
Manage regional growth to provide effective public services at the
lowest responsible cost, to improve environmental quality, and to
enhance the quality of life.
The policies and resource protection measures of the Skyline West Conservation
Plan will aid the Livable City project in achieving this goal.
Background 19
Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan
The Metropolitan Greenspaces Program was initiated by Metro to identify and
protect natural areas within the region, in keeping with the Future Focus action
items noted above. The goal is to establish a regional system of natural areas, parks
and open spaces which are connected by trails and greenways.
The Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan Ouly 1992) identifies Cedar Mill Creek,
Rock Creek, Tualatin River and nearby Forest Park as regionally significant natural
area sites. The area contains "significant wildlife habitat, providing ecological
connection between Columbia River and the Tualatin Valley." The Skyline plan
advances Metro's efforts to protect these regionally significant resources.
Multnomah County Planning Efforts
Multnomah County has identified significant creeks and wildlife habitat areas in
the vicinity of the Skyline West plan area. These designated resources overlap
the city/county boundary in several areas and are designated in a consistent
manner by both jurisdictions. The city and county are coordinating on their
concurrent Goal 5 planning efforts in the Skyline area.
The county's Natural Area Protection and Management Plan Oune 1992) is
intended to create a framework to select natural areas for acquisition by the
county and to identify means to preserve, protect and enhance natural resource
values on such lands. The plan recognizes the "Tualatin Mountain Corridor" as
a natural area system which supports resident and anadromous fish species.
In January 1993, Multnomah County amended zoning of forest lands outside the
Urban Growth Boundary in response to new state regulations. In areas adjacent
to the Skyline plan area, Multiple Use Forest zoning with 19 and 38-acre
minimum lot sizes was changed to Commercial Forest Use with 80-acre lot sizes.
Dwellings must now be accessory to the primary forestry use.
Related City GoalS Plans
Historic Resources Inventory
The 1984 Portland Historic Resources Inventory identifies the location, quality and
quantity of historic resources in Portland. The inventory volume entitled Selected
Properties - Northwest includes the Skyline planning area. Three historic properties
are identified within the northern portion of the area. These properties are
discussed further in Chapter 4.
Mineral and Aggregate Resources Inventory
Mineral and aggregate resources in the Portland metropolitan area are identified in
the 1988 Mineral and Aggregate Resources Inventory (MARl). This document,
together with amendments to the Comprehensive Plan policies and Zoning Code
adopted in 1982, satisfies Statewide Planning Goal 5 requirements for ~ineral and
20 Chapter :3
aggregate resources. No significant mineral or aggregate sites are identified within
the Skyline planning area.
Interim Resource Protection Zone
To protect resources before the completion of the city's GoalS planning program, the
City Council adopted the Interim Resource Protection Zone, effective January, 1991.
Upon adoption of the Skyline West Conservation Plan, this interim zone and the
water feature designations shown on the zoning maps will be removed from the
plan area and replaced, where appropriate, by environmental zones.
Balch Creek Watershed Protection Plan
In January 1991, the City Council adopted the Balch Creek Watershed Protection
Plan to fulfill part of the city's State GoalS requirements. The plan covers the area
southeast of and adjacent to the Skyline planning area.
Balch Creek with its unique, land-locked population of cutthroat trout was
identified as one of the highest valued resource areas in the city. Consequently, the
Balch Creek plan applied the city's environmental protection zone to most of the
basin. The adopted regulations include a development season limitation, special
criteria to protect fish and wildlife, and a 90 percent forest cover requirement. Such
full-basin protection measures and special standards are not expected to be necessary
within the Skyline plan area which generally contains less sensitive resources.
Scenic Resources Protection Plan
In March 1991, as part of the city's GoalS scenic resource protection work, the City
Council adopted the Scenic Resources Protection Plan. The inventory and analysis
contained in the plan is incorporated by reference and is not repeated in this report.
Scenic value is only one factor weighed in the decision to recommend
environmental protection for sites in the Skyline planning area.
The Scenic Plan identifies three scenic corridors within the Skyline planning area:
NW Skyline Boulevard, NW Germantown Road and NW Cornell Road. The plan
also identifies one scenic viewpoint located at Skyline Memorial Gardens (VP 15-04).
These identified resources are discussed further in Chapter 4.
Northwest Hills Natural Areas Protection Plan
The Northwest Hills Natural Areas Protection Plan was adopted by City Council in
July 1991. Like the Scenic and Balch Creek plans before it, this plan was designed to
satisfy part of the city's GoalS requirements. The Plan applies measures to protect
resources on the east slope of the Tualatin ridge (across Skyline Boulevard from the
study area of the present plan). Adopted actions included the following:
• Special conservation regulations, including a development season
limitation and criteria for habitat and watershed protection.
Background 21
• The Skyline Plan District, allowing transfer of development rights for
properties within Forest Park. The plan district includes all but the
southernmost portion of the Skyline planning area.
• Environmental review for land divisions.
• A Planned Unit Development requirement for certain land divisions.
Among the implications of this plan on resource planning west of Skyline is the fact
that the east and west slopes of the hills are ecologically connected and wildlife
regularly move across the ridgetop. Another issue is the need to accommodate a
portion of the transferred housing density from Forest Park in the Skyline plan area.
Policy Framework
This section presents the policy framework which guides the development and
implementation of the Skyline West Conservation Plan. The discussion covers
coordination with legislation and public agencies from the federal to the local level.
The section begins with a discussion of the state-mandated land use planning
program, followed by a review of local, regional and federal policies and programs.
Statewide Planning Goals
Oregon's statewide land use planning program was established by Senate Bill 100
and adopted by the Legislature in 1973. The bill is included in the Oregon Revised
Statutes (ORS) as Chapter 197. The legislation created the Land Conservation and
Development Commission (LCDC) and gave it the authority to adopt mandatory
Statewide Planning Goals. These goals provide the framework for Oregon's cities
and counties to prepare and maintain comprehensive plans.
After local governmental adoption, comprehensive plans are submitted to the
Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) for review to ensure
compliance with and implementation of the Statewide Planning Goals. A
comprehensive plan is acknowledged by DLCD when it is found to comply with the
goals. The City of Portland's Comprehensive Plan was adopted by City Council in
1980, effective January I, 1981, and acknowledged by DLCD in May of 1981.
Periodic Review
Also in 1981, the Legislature amended ORS Chapter 197 to require periodic review
by the state of acknowledged comprehensive plans. The purpose of periodic review
is to ensure that each local government's comprehensive plan and land use
regulations are in compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals and coordinated
with the plan and programs of other state agencies. New Statewide Planning Goals
or Rules adopted since a comprehensive plan was acknowledged must be addressed
in the Periodic Review. In the fall of 1981, subsequent to acknowledgment of the
city's Comprehensive Plan, LCDC adopted an Administrative Rule for State Goal 5.
22 Chapter :3
The Skyline West Conservation Plan updates the city's Comprehensive Plan
inventory and analysis of natural, scenic and open spaces within the Skyline
planning area and addresses the new Goal 5 Administrative Rule requirements.
The Conservation Plan brings the city into compliance with the terms of its Local
Review Order (Resolutions 34523 and 34653) concerning GoalS natural resources.
Statewide Planning Goal 5
GoalS requires Oregon cities and counties "to conserve open space and protect
natural and scenic resources." The Goal 5 Administrative Rule requires local
governments to follow a three-step planning process.
An inventory of resources is the first step. This involves determining the location,
quantity and quality of the resources present. If a resource is not important, it may
be excluded from further consideration for purposes of local land use planning,
even though state and federal regulations may apply. If information is not available
or is inadequate to determine the importance of the resource, the local government
must commit itself to obtaining the necessary data and performing the analysis in
the future. At the conclusion of this process, all remaining sites must be included in
the inventory and are subject to the remaining steps in the GoalS process.
The next step is identification of conflicts with protection of inventoried resources.
This is done primarily by examining the uses allowed in broad zoning categories. A
conflicting use is one which, if allowed, could negatively impact the resource.
If there are no conflicting uses for an identified resource, a jurisdiction must adopt
policies and regulations to ensure that the resource is preserved. Where conflicting
uses are identified, the economic, social, environmental and energy (ESEE)
consequences of resource protection must be determined. Compatibility with other
Goal 5 plans and other applicable statewide planning goals must be considered. The
ESEE analysis is adequate if it provides a jurisdiction with reasons why decisions are
made regarding specific resources.
The final step is adoption of a program or plan to protect significant resources.
Based on the inventory and analysis, a jurisdiction must decide whether to allow,
limit or prohibit conflicting uses and adopt measures to implement its decisions.
Other Applicable Statewide Planning Goals
There are 19 Statewide Planning Goals. Thirteen of these goals apply, to a greater or
lesser extent, to the Skyline planning process. Some of these goals establish a
decision-making process, such as Goal I, Citizen Involvement, and Goal 2, Land Use
Planning. These procedures were applied during the preparation, review and
presentation of the Conservation Plan.
Background 23
State GoalS is the focus of the present study and is discussed above. Goal 3,
Agricultural Land, Goal 4, Forest Lands, generally apply to lands outside of the
Urban Growth Boundary of which there are only 15 acres within the study area.
Goals 6 through 14 cover topics such as air, water and land resources quality; areas
subject to natural disasters and hazards; recreational needs; economic development;
housing; public facilities and services; transportation; energy conservation; and
urbanization. This Conservation Plan incorporates the requirements of these goals
with the ESEE analysis.
The requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 15/ Willamette River Greenway, were
addressed in the Willamette River Greenway Plan (1987). Statewide Planning Goals
16/ 17/ 18 and 19 address coastal and ocean resources and therefore do not apply to
the City of Portland.
The City of Portland Comprehensive Plan
The city's Comprehensive Plan provides a coordinated set of guidelines for decision-
making to guide future growth and development of the city. The Comprehensive
Plan is implemented through the use of public facilities and land use policies, the
Comprehensive Plan map, and the city's regulations for development, including the
Zoning Code. Since the state acknowledged the city's Comprehensive Plan in 1981,
land use decisions in conformance with the policies and objectives of the Plan are in
compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals.
The Skyline West Conservation Plan's policies, objectives and recommendations
are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies, particularly Goal 8 -
Environment. The purpose of Goal 8 is to "maintain and improve the quality of
Portland's air, water and land resources and protect neighborhoods and business
centers from detrimental noise pollution." The Conservation Plan will include an
amendment to Goal 8 to acknowledge the Skyline plan area as a "Special Area" (see
Chapter 5). Similarly, the Conservation Plan supports other goals. Implementation
of the plan, for example, will preserve housing opportunities while retaining the
character of the Forest Park neighborhood consistent with Goal 2 - Urban
Development, Goal 3 - Neighborhoods and Goal 4 - Housing.
There are seven additional Comprehensive Plan Goals. These goals address
metropolitan coordination, economic development, transportation, energy, citizen
involvement, plan review and administration, and public facilities. As with the
State Planning Goals, these procedures are applied in the preparation, review and
presentation of this plan. Economic development, energy and related goals are
addressed in more detail in Chapter 4 as part of the ESEE analysis of resource sites.
24 Chapter :3
Regional
Metro Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives
In September 1991, Metro developed the Regional Urban Growth Goals and
Objectives (or RUGGOs). RUGGO Goal 11.1, Natural Environment, states:
Preservation, use and modification of the natural environment of the region
should maintain and enhance environmental quality while striving for the
wise use and preservation of a broad range of natural resources.
Objective 9, Natural Areas, Parks and Wildlife Habitat, directs Metro to acquire,
protect and manage (1) open spaces to provide passive and active recreational
opportunities, and (2) an open space system providing habitat for native wildlife
and plant populations. The development and implementation of the Skyline West
Conservation Plan will assist Metro's regional efforts to establish and maintain an
open space system and may aid in acquisition efforts.
Metro's ongoing Region 2040 Project is closely tied to the RUGGOs, the Greenspaces
program and Portland's Livable Cities Project discussed in the preceding section.
Region 2040 is aimed at identifying a collectively-shared vision for the future urban
form of the region. The proposed growth concepts recognize the significant resource
areas identified in the Skyline West Conservation Plan.
Metropolitan Housing Rule
In addition to regional coordination with Metro, the city is responsible for meeting
its share of regional housing needs. The regulations proposed as part of the Skyline
West Conservation Plan will not prevent the city from meeting its housing
obligations. Resource areas proposed for protection within the plan are: 1)
constrained lands which by the Metropolitan Housing Rule definition are not
needed for housing; 2) areas from which housing densities may be redistributed to
less constrained, "buildable" land; or 3) areas which allow housing provided impacts
are controlled. Certain areas which are not needed for housing may still provide
limited infill opportunities. To the extent housing density can be increased in or
adjacent to these areas, urban services can be provided in a more cost effective
manner. For this reason, the city encourages compact development forms which
accomplish the dual objectives of resource conservation and housing development.
Federal
The Federal Clean Water Act applies to water resources in the Skyline planning
area. The Act's primary objective is to maintain and restore physical, chemical and
biological integrity of the nation's waters, including wetlands. Another objective of
the Act is "to maintain a balanced indigenous population of species."
Implementation of the Conservation Plan is consistent with these objectives.
Background 25
Pennitting Agencies .
Federal and state governments, as well as special districts, have jurisdiction over
wetland modification. Following is a brief synopsis of the agencies involved and
their roles as they relate to wetlands and water bodies.
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Under Section 309 of the Clean
Water Act, EPA reviews environmental impact statements required for all
federally funded developments having significant environmental impacts.
• Army Corps of Engineers: The Clean Water Act, primarily through the
Section 404 process, requires a permit for the dredge or fill of material into the
waters of the United States. Pennits under the Section 404 process are subject
to review by EPA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
• Oregon Division of State Lands: In accordance with Oregon statutes, a state
permit is required for filling, removal or alteration of 50 cubic yards or more
of material within the bed or banks of the waters of Oregon.
Summary
Skyline West natural resources were formed through a series of geologic events
beginning millions of years ago. Upfolding arches of layered rocks thirteen million
years ago resulted in a narrow, northwest trending range known today as the
Portland Hills. The silt that covers the hills becomes unstable when wet and is
susceptible to erosion and landslides, particularly on steep slopes.
The plants and animal populations in the study area changed with the climatic
conditions. The abundant natural resources at the confluence of the Columbia and
Willamette Rivers created an hospitable environment for human and animal
habitation over the past 10,000 years. Several Chinookan tribes used the Skyline
planning area to hunt and to rest on their journeys between the Tualatin and
Willamette River valleys. Trails over the ridge were later used by early settlers.
Past planning efforts in the study area focused on parks and planning for natural
resources. The policy framework for the present study includes compliance with
State Planning Goals (particularly GoalS), Portland Comprehensive Plan Goals and
. Policies, and other local, regional and national conservation programs.
26 Chapter :3
CHAPTER 4
RESOURCE SITE
INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION·
RESOURCE FUNCTIONS AND VALUES·
CONFLICTING USES PERMITTED BY ZONING·
CONSEQUENCES OF ALLOWING CONFLICTING USES·
CONSEQUENCES OF LIMITING OR PROHIBITING CONFLICTING USES·
INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS OVERVIEW·
DISCUSSION FORMAT·
SITE INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS·
COMPATIBILITY WITH OTHER GOAL 5 PROGRAMS·
APPLICABLE STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS·
CONFLICT RESOLUTION·
Introduction
The previous chapter outlined the background and policy framework for the present
plan. The first part of this chapter provides an overview of resource functions and
values, followed by a discussion of conflicting uses. The method used to select,
inventory and evaluate resource sites is then outlined, followed by an explanation
of the format used in examining resource sites. The inventory and analysis of
individual resource sites is then presented. The last sections cover compatibility
with other Goal 5 plans and other state goals, and conclude with conflict resolution.
Resource Functions and Values
Wildlife Habitat
Area creeks, tributaries, wetlands, ravines and forests provide important breeding,
feeding and refuge areas for a variety of bird, mammal, amphibian, reptile and
invertebrate species. Of these, two are state-listed sensitive species: the northern
red-legged frog, which also is a Federal candidate species, and the pileated
woodpecker. These species serve as indicators of the health of the watershed
ecosystem.
The planning area contains a diverse bird population with some sites exceeding 70
resident and migrant species. Of the migrant species, nine warblers were identified
including the rare Tennessee warbler. Other wildlife species include deer, elk,
bobcat, beaver, coyote, shrews, voles, squirrels, chipmunks, weasels and bats. Pacific
tree and red-legged frogs, ensatina and pacific giant salamanders, northern alligator
and western fence lizards, northwestern and common garter snakes, and roughskin
newt are resident herptiles.
The site's creeks, wetlands and forested ravines also exert a Significant influence on
downstream fish and amphibian production within the larger Tualatin River
system. Among other species, this system supports state-listed sensitive coho and
fall chinook salmon, cutthroat trout, pacific lamprey and northern red-legged frog.
In addition to the importance of maintaining "a balanced indigenous population of
species" as identified by Federal policy, wildlife have many beneficial values ranging
from vector control and plant pollination to the enjoyment and education they
provide for local residents, school children and nature enthusiasts.
Vegetation
The planning area contains over 120 plant species, including several species or
occurrences of particular note. The planning area also contains good examples of
the Pacific Northwest's western hemlock forest community. This community is
unique among all temperate forests in the world.
Resource Site Inventor:Y and Analysis 29
The forest community includes the pacific yew (Taxus brevifolia), a slow growing
tree species in which a cancer-fighting substance known as "taxol" was recently
discovered. Several significant stands of community associates western red cedar
(Thuja plicata) and grand fir (Abies grandis) are found in the area, as is the madrone
(Arbutus menziesii) which has limited distribution within the region.
In addition to providing habitat for wildlife, forest vegetation moderates the effects
of winds and storms, stabilizes and enriches the soil, and slows runoff from
precipitation. These functions control erosion and enable the forest floor to filter
out sediments and pollutants as the water soaks down into groundwater reserves or
passes into surface drainages.
By filtering water, the forest maintains good quality drinking water for residents
who use wells. By stabilizing soil, increasing groundwater infiltration and reducing
runoff and erosion, the forest protects the local community from landslides and
other hazards such as flooding. This reduces potential demand on disaster relief
agencies (and demand on tax dollars), as well as individual expenses for
replacement of destroyed property and treatment for injury. Native wildlife also
control populations of pests such as mosquitoes and rats.
The forest provides additional values which accrue to broader segments of society.
The mixed coniferous and deciduous forest acts as a buffer from the sights and
sounds of the urban metropolis. The forest mutes the noise of traffic, construction
activities, and commercial activities and provides a visual screen between homes,
neighborhoods and businesses. The forest absorbs air pollutants caused primarily by
auto and industrial emissions. The microclimate of the forest, created in part by the
shade of the vegetation and the transpiration of water from the leaves, moderates
climate extremes: the forest acts as a natural air conditioner for adjacent residential
areas, cooling the air during the day and warming it at night.
When an identified resource is vegetation, including forest, the principal value of the
resource is the natural land that supports the vegetation. That resource .value
remains when vegetation is removed, so long as there is the potential for regrowth.
Clearing is not a permanent change, and if a vegetated area is designated as valuable
in itself or for its function in support of other resources, such as waterways, riparian
areas and wetlands, removal of vegetation is not reason for changing the designation.
Wetlands and Water Features
In addition to providing critical habitat for wildlife, area creeks, ponds and wetlands
recharge groundwater, control erosion and provide flood storage, desynchronization
and conveyance functions. These natural water features perform important water
quality functions by slowing surface waters, allowing deposition of sediments and
associated nutrients, metals, and organic contaminants (at least 35 percent removal
according to Hupp and Yanosky).
30 Chapter 4
Forested wetlands in particular have been found to improve· water quality by
converting soluble nitrogen into gaseous nitrogen through denitrification (Bragan).
This important microbial process represents the most important pathway for
reducing nitrogen releases to aquatic systems. As water passes through soils, acidity
is neutralized through sulfate reduction, a bacterial process common in saturated
soils. At least 90 percent of sulfates have been shown to be neutralized by wetlands,
leaving 10 percent discharged to the downstream waters (Eshleman).
Soils
Soil microorganisms, seeds and root stocks, nutrients, oxygen and moisture play
essential roles in supporting life above the ground. Soil is a living organism
without which the forest and water resource values discussed above would not
exist. Soil also provides water management functions, effecting water recharge,
discharge and storage.
Soils, underlying geologic formations, ground and surface waters, vegetation and
wildlife are interdependent elements of the natural community. The ability of these
elements to function properly is an important measure of the general health and
vitality of the local environment. A healthy environment preserves a
neighborhood's scenic, recreational and educational values, and contributes to
Portland's high quality of life.
Other Values
The area's natural resources provide important educational and recreational values.
Educational values include hands-on learning about ecology and environmental
issues, basic life skills training (communication, problem solving skills, etc.),
community benefit projects (such as trash clean-ups, environmental monitoring),
and development of pride, self respect and sensory awareness. As local high school
students have testified: "Greenspaces teach you how to think."
As the metropolitan area grows over the next decade, natural resource and open
space areas will help maintain the population's health. These areas provide
opportunities for recreation and exercise as well as opportunities to escape the
stresses of urban life. The parks, trails and natural open spaces of the planning area
provide such amenities for keeping a growing population physically and
psychologically healthy.
Summary
The planning area contains locally, and in certain cases regionally, significant
resources with a broad range of values. These values include the provision of
habitat for wildlife, domestic water supplies, groundwater recharge and discharge,
slope stabilization, flood storage and desynchronization, sediment and erosion
control, neighborhood livability and scenic amenities, and recreational and
educational values. The primary beneficiaries of these resource values are
neighborhood residents, but many of the benefits accrue to residents and businesses
throughout the Portland metropolitan area.
Resource Site Inventory and Analysis :31
Conflicting Uses Pennitted by Zoning
As indicated in the preceding paragraph, individual resources are interdependent
elements of a complex natural system; the impacts of conflicting uses rarely will
affect one resource without affecting others. For similar reasons, the cumulative
impacts of conflicting uses can have far reaching effects on resources.
As a component of GoalS resource planning, local governments must identify
conflicting uses within inventoried Goal 5 resource areas. According to the Goal 5
administrative rule, a conflicting use is one that, if allowed, could negatively impact
a significant resource site. Such uses are permitted in the Portland base zones as
allowed uses, uses subject to limitations, or conditional uses. In some cases, a use
may be allowed subject to limitations and allowed only as a conditional use in
others. Conflicting uses not allowed in a base zone may be permitted by recognition
of legal nonconforming status or through a temporary use agreement.
The administrative rule directs local governments to examine the uses allowed
within broad zoning categories (e.g., residential, commercial). For the purposes of
this plan, the examination of broad zoning categories covered the following zones
in the Skyline West Study area: open space, residential farm and forest, limited
single-dwelling, low density single-dwelling, and neighborhood commercial. Table
1 (page 34) lists the uses permitted under the base zones present in the study area
which conflict with Goal 5 resources.
This discussion identifies existing and potential conflicting land uses in each zone,
including a brief examination of how two overlay zones and a plan district affect
conflicting uses in the study area. The discussion also includes an examination of
the uses not assigned to a single zoning category, such as temporary uses. The
analysis of economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences of protecting
significant resources addresses the existing and the potential conflicting use allowed
in each resource site.
Open Space
The study area includes 101 acres zoned OS, Open Space, located at Skyline
Memorial Gardens (Site 144). The purpose of the OS zone is to preserve public and
private open and natural areas identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Agriculture,·
parks and open areas are the only uses allowed by right in the OS zone.
Certain facilities which are part of a park and open area use are allowed as
conditional uses. Retail sales and service uses are allowed as conditional uses only
when they are associated with a park and open area use. Several institutional uses
are allowed as conditional uses: basic utilities, community service and daycare.
Radio and television broadcast facilities and rail lines and utility corridors are
permitted as conditional uses as well.
:32 Chapter 4
Temporary uses permitted in the OS zone are: fairs, carnivals, and other special
events; temporary activities and structures needed for natural disasters and
emergencies, and staging areas for public utility installation.
Existing conflicting uses in the OS zoned areas consist of a cemetery, which is an
allowed use as a Park and Open Area. The following accessory facilities are
considered conditional uses: mausoleums, chapels and similar accessory structures
associated with funerals or burials, and parking areas. Portions of the Open Space
land are currently undeveloped.
Farm and Forest
The plan area includes 558 acres of land zoned RF, Residential Farm/Forest. The
RF zoned land is located north of Skyline Memorial Gardens. The RF zone is
applied to lands suitable for agriculture and forestry and which are presently
deficient in public services.
Agriculture and household living are allowed by right in the RF zone. Some parks,
open areas, and daycare uses are allowed as limited uses. Group living uses,
institutional uses, aviation and passenger terminals, radio and television broadcast
facilities, mining, and railroad lines and utility corridors are permitted as
conditional uses. Temporary uses allowed consist of mobile homes (during
construction); residential sales offices; sales; fairs and carnivals; shows of model
homes; temporary activities and structures for natural disasters and emergencies,
and staging areas for public utility installation.
The existing land uses in the RF zone consist of 64 single dwellings and one office
building. Approximately 65 properties zoned RF are undeveloped. Data from the
County tax records indicate that approximately 378 acres are undeveloped.
Limited Density Single-Dwelling
The study area includes two acres of land zoned R20, Limited Density Single-
Dwelling. These parcels also have a Low Density Single-Dwelling (RIO)
Comprehensive Plan Designation. These properties are located between Skyline
Boulevard and Thompson Road. All of the properties zoned R20 are currently
vacant, and all but one do not meet the minimum lot standards of the R20 zone.
These properties are currently landlocked, though access is expected to be provided
via roads platted as part of the Forest Heights Phase 7 development.
Agriculture and household living are the only uses allowed by right. Some parks,
open areas, and radio and television broadcast facilities are allowed as limited uses.
Group living uses, all other institutional uses, and rail lines and utility corridors are
allowed as conditional uses. Temporary uses allowed in the RF zone are also
allowed in the R20 zone.
Reeource Site Inventory and Analyeie
Tablet
Conflicting Uses Pennitted by City of Portland Zoning
in the Skyline West Study Area
Use Categories . os
Base Zones
RF R20 RIO CNZ
Residential Categories
Household Living N Y Y Y Y
Group Living N CU CU CU L/CU
Commercial Categories
Retail Sales and Service CU N N N Y
Office N N N N Y
Quick Vehicle Servicing N N N N Y
Commercial Outdoor Recreation CU N N N N
Industrial Categories
Manufacturing and Production N N N N L
Institutional Categories
Basic Utilities CU CU CU CU Y
Community Service CU CU CU CU Y
Parks and Open Areas L/CU L/CU L/CU L/CU Y
Schools CU CU CU CU Y
Colleges N CU CU CU Y
Medical Centers N CU CU CU Y
Religious Institutions N CU CU CU Y
Daycare CU L/CU L/CU L/CU Y
Other Categories
Agriculture Y Y Y CU N
Aviation and Surface Passenger Terminals N CU N N N
Mining CU CU N N N
Radio and Television Broadcast Facilities LlCU L/CU L/CU L/CU L/CU
Rail Lines and Utility Corridors CU CU CU CU CU
. .Note: Uses prohibited m all of the above zones are not mcluded m thiS table.
LEGEND
Y Allowed subject to the development standards of this zone and other regulations of Title 33
L Allowed subject to limitations
L/CU Allowed with special limitations in certain circumstances or Conditional Use Review Required
CU Conditional Use Review Required
N Prohibited in this zone
34 Chapter 4
II,
!
~
NORTH
o 2,000 4,000
I
Scale (Feet)
(Elevation Contour
Intervals: 50') Bureau of Planning· City of Portland, Oregon
Low Density Single-Dwelling
Most of the lower portion of the Skyline West study area, between Cornell Road and
Skyline Memorial Gardens, is zoned RIO, Low Density Single-Dwelling Residential.
Approximately 495 acres have this designation, much of it within Forest Heights
Estates. The RIO zone is intended for areas with public services but which are
subject to significant development constraints.
Household living is the only use allowed by right in the RIO zone. Some parks,
open areas, and radio and television broadcast facilities are allowed subject to
limitations. Group living uses, all other institutional uses, agriculture, radio and
television broadcast facilities, and rail lines and utility corridors are permitted as
conditional uses. Temporary uses allowed in the RF and R20 zones are also allowed
in the RIO zone.
In the RIO zoned portions of the plan area, 258 properties are developed with a
single dwelling and approximately 350 residential building lots are vacant (as of Fall
1993). One retail service use is also located within the RIO zone.
Neighborhood Commercial
The study area includes two properties, totaling less than one acre of land, zoned
CN2, Neighborhood Commercial 2. These properties are located at the intersections
of Skyline Boulevard and Cornell Road and Skyline Boulevard and Old
Germantown Road. Commercial uses in the CN2 zone provide services for nearby
residential areas, and other uses which are small scale and have little impact. Both
CN2 zoned properties are vacant.
Household living uses, retail sales and service uses, office uses, and all institutional
uses are allowed by right. Some group living uses, manufacturing and production
uses, and radio and television broadcast facilities are allowed subject to limitations.
The remaining group living uses, radio and television broadcast facilities, and all
rail lines and utility corridors are allowed as conditional uses. The following
temporary uses are allowed: parking lot sales, seasonal outdoor sales, fairs and
carnivals, warehouse sales, temporary activities and structures needed for natural
disasters and emergencies, and staging areas for public utility installation.
Overlay Zones and Plan Districts
In addition to the base zones, some of the study area is included within overlay
zones and a plan district. All of the study area north of approximately Thompson
Road is within the Skyline Plan District. The plan district provides a mechanism for
the protection of sites with highly valued natural resources through transfer of
residential development rights from these sites to less sensitive ,sites.
Properties which abut Skyline Boulevard, Cornell and Germantown Roads are
located within the Scenic Resource (s) overlay zone. The scenic zone regulates
certain forms of development within 100 feet of these scenic corridors.
36 Chapter 4
A few lots located immediately north of Springville Road and west of Skyline
Boulevard contain the Future Urban (f) overlay zone. This area is within the
Portland city limits but outside of the Urban Growth Boundary. The overlay zone
requires a minimum lot size of 20 acres. Existing lots of less than 20 acres can be
developed, but may not be reduced in area.
Finally, some properties have a water feature designation and are within the
Interim Resource Protection overlay zone. This zone provides interim protection
for Goal 5 resources until they can be reviewed as part of the Skyline Plan. The zone
will be removed from the planning area upon adoption of the Skyline Plan.
Other Uses
There are a few allowed uses that are not assigned to a single category by the city
zoning code. These include infrastructure; various nonconforming and revocable
uses; and land divisions, partitions and property line adjustments.
Infrastructure Uses
These uses include roads; water, sewer, electric, and television lines; and other
public and private utilities not described by the zoning code category "Basic
Utilities." Infrastructure is allowed in all city zones; however, sewer service only
exists and is planned for in the lower portion of the study area (Resource Site 145).
Some of these uses are regulated city public works and building codes, but these
codes are not acknowledged land use regulations and do not carry out Statewide
Planning Goal 5 decisions.
Nonconforming Situations
Nonconforming situations are created when zoning or zoning regulations change.
As part of the change, existing uses, density or development might no longer be
allowed. These are situations lawfully established under repealed provisions of the
zoning code or maps, or established before the existence of city zoning.
Nonconforming uses can exist in any category or in any zone.
Revocable Permit Uses
These are uses that violated city zoning, but were allowed to continue by zoning
code provisions that were repealed on January 1, 1991. These permits are no longer
issued, and extensions are limited to three years, so that most have now expired.
Revocable permit uses can be in any category, and can occur in any zone.
Land Divisions, Partitions, and Property Line Adjustments
These are city procedures that establish lots or relocate property lines within any
zone. These procedures prescribe where every allowed use can be carried out. New
lots usually allow more conflicting uses than the lots from which they were created.
Re50urce Site Inventory and Analysis 37
Summary
This section provided a review of existing and potential conflicting uses allowed by
zoning. These uses generally fall into one of the following categories:
• open space uses;
• residential uses;
• commercial uses;
• institutional uses; and
• other uses such as agriculture, aviation and surface passenger terminals,
mining, radio and TV broadcast facilities, rail lines and utility corridors,
nonconforming situations; and temporary uses.
The following section discusses the consequences of allowing conflicting uses in or
near Goal 5 resource areas.
Consequences of Allowing Conflicting Uses
The preceding discussion identified the base zones in the Skyline West plan area
and the conflicting uses allowed within these zones. If these uses actually occurred
at the intensities allowed by the zone, they would diminish or destroy identified
values of one or more resources in the planning area.
This section describes the impacts of permitted uses on resource areas within the
plan area. Where the report identifies the same impacts for different conflicting
uses, reference is made to the first analysis which is not repeated. This section
analyzes the consequences of limiting or prohibiting these uses for individual
resource sites.
Residential Uses
Residential uses identified in the zoning code include household living and group
living. Household living is residential occupancy of a dwelling unit by a household.
Group living is different from household living in that it involves occupancy of a
structure by a group of people who do not meet the definition of a household. For
the purpose of a conflicting uses analysis, both types of residential uses can degrade
or destroy natural resources during both construction and use of residential
structures. This section examines the consequences of housing, for both households
and group living situations, on Goal 5 resources.
Housing is permitted in residential and commercial zones. In addition to the
construction of homes, housing may include the construction of garages and other
accessory buildings, access drives, parking areas, landscaped areas, utility
connections and related development.
Preparing land for housing commonly includes removal of vegetation. Removal of
vegetative cover denudes or eliminates habitat for many native animals. Lost
Chapter 4
habitat includes feeding, nesting, perching and roosting places for birds, and loss of
feeding, breeding and refuge areas for mammals, herptiles and insects. Vegetation
clearing removes plants which produce edible seeds, berries, nuts, bark, leaves,
stems and roots for animals.. Clearing also removes important structural features of
the forest such as multiple layered canopies, snags and downed logs, and large trees.
These important habitat components are removed and replaced with ecologically
barren buildings, fences, driveways, parking lots and other impervious surfaces.
Forest fragmentation caused by the clearing of vegetation for residential uses
increases the isolation of one habitat area from another. This can impede or form
barriers to wildlife migration and can limit the flow of genetic material. Roads,
traffic and fences can also form barriers to wildlife migration. As the range of
habitat for indigenous wildlife becomes restricted and isolated, opportunities for
recruitment from other areas are limited and wildlife populations become
vulnerable to disease, predation and local extinction.
Household lights, loud noises and other outdoor activities disturb the breeding and
predator instincts of animals. Activity levels as defined by noise and movement
increase from between 10 and 100 times that of normal (natural system), also
producing disruptions in competition and communication habits as well as mating
and predation, making it difficult or impossible for native species to exist (Brown
1987). Additionally, litter and garbage in resource areas degrade habitat values, and
household pets can kill or injure native wildlife and compete for limited space.
The steep slopes of the plan area become susceptible to erosion, slumping and
landslides when forest cover is removed and when cuts and fills are made for roads
and buildings. Vegetation clearing and site grading activities accelerate soil loss and
erosion, and can precipitate landslides and flooding, posing significant hazards to
people and property. Soil loss and erosion can result from common construction
activities such as vegetation removal, grading and compaction even on sites with
gentle slopes. These activities also can reduce the capacity of soil to support
vegetation and effect groundwater recharge by reducing fertility, soil micro-
organisms, seeds and root stocks and damaging soil structure.
The construction of homes, roads and other impervious surfaces has adverse
consequences beyond those described above. The adverse impacts of impervious
surfaces include the following:
• Increases erosion. flooding and landslides
Increased impervious surfaces increase surface runoff and peak flows,
resulting in soil loss and erosion, and potential landslides and floods;
These activities can damage soil structure and fertility, degrade or
eliminate wildlife habitat as well as result in public safety hazards.
• Alters hydrology
Increased impervious surfaces reduce groundwater recharge, lower the
volume of water in wetlands and surface drainages contributed by
Re50urce Site Inventory and AnalY5i5 39
groundwater, form a barrier to plant growth and wildlife movement, and
interfere with the transfer of air and gases;
This can alter an area's hydrology by lowering surface water levels or
groundwater tables and removing a local source of water and moisture
essential to the survival of amphibians and aquatic organisms as well as
terrestrial animals.
• Increases pollution
Leaks (oil, gas, tar, antifreeze, etc.) from vehicles, heating and cooling
systems, and roofs degrade habitat and water quality;
Pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers applied to landscaped areas can pollute
ground and surface waters, and degrade habitat;
- Dirt and mud eroded from cultivated land or deposited from vehicles can
cause sedimentation of wetlands and drainages;
Septic drain fields can contaminate ground and surface waters.
Other detrimental impacts of housing include reduction of open space, scenic and
recreational values. Common residential landscaping practices also can have
detrimental impacts. The removal of native vegetation and the establishment of
lawns and non-native landscape features reduce resource values.
Lawns in particular can be ecological deserts. Lawns are maintained as
monocultures often with herbicides, fertilizers and pesticides which degrade nearby
habitat areas and water quality. They require regular irrigation which reduces
drinking water supplies and can exacerbate summer water shortages.
Landscape trees, shrubs and groundcover often are invasive, non-native species that
escape into natural areas and compete aggressively with natives. Ivy, holly and
laurel are commonly used in landscaped areas. Landscaping normally does not
affect open space, but can degrade scenic and recreational values.
Commercial Uses
Commercial uses, such retail sales, are permitted in the CN2 zone. Two limited
commercial uses are permitted in the open space zone: commercial outdoor
recreation and retail sales and service associated with park and open areas use.
Within the Skyline resource areas, commercial zoning is ·limited to two small
locations on Skyline Boulevard. Both locations are zoned CN2, Neighborhood
Commercial. The CN2 zone allows a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.75 to 1 and buildIng
coverage of 65 percent of site area. The zone requires landscaping over 15 percent of
site area. One-third of this area, however, can include impervious surfaces such as
paved walkways. Allowing conflicting uses fully will therefore eliminate most
resources since the site can be covered with buildings and as much as 85 percent
impervious surfaces. Removal of forest cover and planting of exotic vegetation is
permitted and generally has the same effects as those described for housing above.
40 ChaptBr 4
All housing effects described above apply. As a practical matter, commercial
business lot coverage normally exceeds that of housing, and this compounds the
problem of impervious surfaces (e.g., reduced water penetration and supply of
nutrients to the soil, lower groundwater levels, interference with the transfer of air
and gases, etc.). Commercial uses in the study area can significantly diminish or
destroy open sp,ace, scenic and recreational values.
Industrial Uses
Industrial uses are allowed with special limitations in commercially zoned areas.
The two properties zoned CN2 allow manufacturing and production with special
limitations. No other industrial uses are allowed within the plan area.
The consequences of allowing industrial uses within the CN2-zoned areas are
similar to those described above for commercial uses. Industrial uses such as
manufacturing and production are limited to 5,000 square feet of total floor area
exclusive of parking area. However, depending on the size of a site, as much as 85
percent of the site can still be covered with buildings and impervious surface.
Industrial uses also have more detrimental impacts on nearby resource areas than
do commercial uses. These impacts include, but are not limited to, industrial
emissions into the air and water and waste storage and disposal.
Institutional Uses
Institutional uses are limited or conditional uses in most zones except commercial.
In commercial zones, institutional uses are allowed outright. In residential zones,
institutional uses are limited or conditional uses. The city Zoning Code has nine
different categories of institutional uses ranging from Parks and Open Areas (with
relatively few adverse impacts) to Schools and Medical Centers (with greater
impacts). Because of the wide range of impacts, this section briefly reviews the
impacts of each category below.
Basic Utilities are infrastructure services that need to be located in or near the area
where the service is provided. Although operation of existing facilities has few
adverse environmental effects, construction and maintenance practices for new
basic utilities have a variety of adverse effects. These activities often create cleared
corridors which increase wind and light penetration into the forest providing
opportunities for the establishment of invasive, non-native plant species.
Construction often fragments wildlife habitat, degrades wetlands and drainages,
increases stormwater runoff and erosion, and reduces forest cover. Forest cover
. removal has the same effects as those described for housing. Certain types of basic
utilities, such as stormwater retention areas, sediment traps and constructed
wetland pollution treatment facilities can have beneficial environmental effects if
located without disruption to existing resources. Replacement of existing resource
areas with these facilities normally has detrimental effects.
Community Service uses provide a local service to people of the community
(examples include libraries, museums and community centers). Essential services
Re60urce Site Inventory and Analy6i6 41
uses provide on-site food or shelter beds and include emergency shelters, soup
kitchens and surplus food-distribution centers. These two uses have the same
effects as commercial businesses.
Parks and Open Areas uses focus on natural areas, community gardens or public
squares. These lands tend to have few structures and include parks, golf courses,
cemeteries, recreational trails and botanical gardens. Skyline Memorial Gardens is
the predominant park and open area use in the planning area. Parks and Open
Areas construction and maintenance practices can cause erosion and damage
vegetation and habitat. Removal of vegetation, creation of impervious surfaces
such as roads, parking lots and tennis courts, and construction of buildings are
activities commonly associated with development of Parks and Open Areas. The
environmental consequences of these activities are similar to those described for
housing except that normally a substantially smaller percentage of land area is
covered by impervious surfaces. Intensive recreation such as cycling, motoring and
equestrian sports' also cause erosion, particularly when off maintained trails.
Unleashed domestic animals in parks and open areas can injure or kill wildlife.
Schools, Colleges, Medical Centers and Religious Institutions are separate
institutional categories but have similar effects. Schools include public and private
schools through high school level. Colleges include universities, colleges and
seminaries. Medical Centers include hospitals and tend to be on multiple blocks or
in campus settings. Religious Institutions provide meeting areas for religious
activities and include churches, temples, synagogues and mosques. The
construction and maintenance of School, College, Medical Center and Religious
Institution grounds have the same effects as parks and open space. Structures and
facilities (including parking areas) have the same effects as commercial uses.
Daycare includes preschools, nursery schools and adult daycare programs. Daycare
uses are normally small in size and often are contained within other institutional
use buildings (e.g., Medical Centers, Schools, Colleges, Religious Institutions and
Community Service Providers). When within such existing buildings, daycare
impacts are limited to the additional new parking or building facilities required for
the use. These new facilities have the same impervious surface effects as housing.
Daycare centers independent of other uses have the same effects as housing, except
that larger buildings and parking areas increase the effects of impervious surfaces.
Agriculture
Clearing of vegetation, plowing of fields, exposing bare soils and other farm practices
cause erosion which degrades water quality and can adversely impact aquatic habitat.
The removal of forest cover has the same effects as those for housing. The
conversion of forest to farm land replaces diverse forest plant communities with
few, cultivated species. Vegetation acts as a filter, cleansing runoff before it reaches
streams or wetlands. Removal of vegetation for agricultural uses eliminates these
benefits. Agriculture also commonly involves the use of pesticides, herbicides and
fertilizers. These chemicals contaminate surface- and ground-water areas and harm
42 Chapter 4
wildlife. Animal fecal contamination occurs as a result of pasture use and can have
similar environmental effects.
Agriculture often draws irrigation water from wells. Extensive use of groundwater
can result in draw down of the water table, which in tum can reduce surface
drainage flows and eliminate a water source for wildlife. Agriculture normally does
not diminish open space, but can degrade scenic and recreational opportunities.
Aviation and Surface Passenger Terminals
Aviation and surface passenger terminals are allowed as conditional uses in the RF,
Residential Farm/Forest zone. These uses completely destroy natural resources.
The existing pattern of parcels and development in the RF zone preclude
development of either aviation or surface passenger terminals. -
Mining
Mining is a conditional use in the open space and the RF zone. It is prohibited all
other zones in the planning area. No existing or potential mineral or aggregate
resource mining operations are identified in the area (BOP 1988).
Radio and TV Broadcast Facilities
Most low powered transmitters such as cordless telephones and citizen band radios
are allowed in all zones. Other radio and television broadcast facilities are allowed
subject to limitations or as conditional uses in as, RF, R20, RIO, and CN2 zones.
Their effects are the same as basic utilities, but with greater adverse visual effects.
Rail Lines and Utility Corridors
Rail lines and utility corridors are allowed as conditional uses in all Skyline zones.
Their effects are the same as basic utilities, except that construction of rail lines often
requires substantial excavation and fill to meet 0-3 percent slope standards.
Generally, additional grading results in a greater area of resource disturbance and
greater degradation of soil, vegetation and habitat resources.
Summary
This section identified the consequences of allowing the nine conflicting uses
identified in the Skyline West planning area. If these uses occurred at the
intensities allowed by existing city zoning, they would have significant adverse
environmental consequences.
Consequences of Limiting or Prohibiting Conflicting Uses
The environmental consequences of limiting or prohibiting conflicting uses are
summarized below. Other consequences are discussed in the ESEE analysis of
individual resource sites later in this chapter.
Re50urce Site Inventory and Analy5i5 4:3
Limiting or prohibiting uses which conflict with identified natural resources clearly
has direct benefits for these same resources. The natural resource functions and
values described earlier in this chapter are protected through the control or
elimination of conflicting uses. Since these resources are part of an interconnected
natural system, protection of one resource has beneficial consequences for other
resources. Protection of forest vegetation, for example, will maintain food and
cover habitat for wildlife, stabilize and protect soils and steep slopes, filter out
potential air and water pollutants, and sustain surface and ground water resources.
Limiting or prohibiting conflicting uses protects forests, soils, geologic features,
wildlife habitat, surface drainages, wetlands, groundwater reserves and domestic
water supplies. Slope stabilization, dissipation of erosive forces, and flood storage
functions would be protected, reducing the area's susceptibility to landslides, floods
and similar hazards. Open space, recreation, scenic and heritage resources would
also be protected. Limiting or prohibiting conflicting uses also would preserve the
significant contribution of the planning area's resources toJocal neighborhood
identity and livability.
Inventory and Analysis Overview
Skyline West was among several areas identified as containing significant natural
resources in the original city inventory conducted in 1986. As part of that inventory,
biologists Esther Lev and Michael Jennings carried out an extensive city-wide
inventory which included several sites within the Skyline West planning area. A
technical advisory committee of private and public sector natural resource experts
was established to review inventory areas and methodology. Local scientific
literature was reviewed and information was solicited from citizens, neighborhood
associations, special interest groups and city agencies. With the information
compiled by Planning staff, the technical advisory committee, biologists and
neighborhood residents, inventory sites were then delineated and mapped.
Skyline West is the last remaining area to be addressed by the city to satisfy its
Periodic Review requirements for State GoalS (natural resources) and comply with
the terms of a state order (Proposed Local Review Order, City of Portland
Resolutions 34523 and 34653). Page 122 of this Order requires, in part, "...Planning
Commission and City Council review and adoption of Environmental Mapping for
the West Hills area...." The West Hills area was divided into five areas due to its
large size; Skyline West is the last portion of the hills to be studied.
Site Selection
Resource sites were selected based on the locations of watersheds for the three
primary creek systems within the planning area: Rock Creek, Bronson Creek and
Cedar Mill Creek. The headwaters and upper branches of these creeks are located in
Portland; downstream the creeks enter unincorporated Multnomah County, then
Washington County where they flow into the Tualatin River. The sites are
44 Chapter 4
numbered following previous city resource numbering conventions. Rock Creek, at
the northern end of the planning area, is Resource Site 143; Bronson Creek in the
central area is Site 144; and Cedar Mill Creek to the south is Site 145. The planning
area totals approximately 1,750 acres in size.
Inventory and Analysis Methods
Field inventory work was conducted in the Skyline West planning area between
1992 and 1994. Some sites were previously evaluated in the 1986 city inventory, the
Metro Urban Greenspaces Inventory (1990-1991), or by local biologists. Information
collected included wildlife habitats assessments, data on plant communities,
wetland and creek resources, scenic, recreational and other human use.
Additional information was gathered from the following sources: Oregon Water
Resources Board (data on wells and surface water rights), Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife (fisheries), Oregon Natural Heritage Program (RT&E species).
Other sources reviewed include: local inventories or land use cases, State Geologic
Survey maps, USDA Soil Survey maps, Portland Physiographic Inventory maps
(Redfern 1976), National Wetlands Inventory maps, USGS topographic maps, City
topo maps, infra-red aerial photographs (Bergman 1991), aerial blue prints (Metro
1993). Additional references used during the development of the plan inventory
and analysis are cited in the Bibliography (Appendix F).
The object of the inventory is to establish the location, quantity and quality of
resources within the planning area. These features and other notable aspects of
identified resources are summarized for each site in the Site Inventory and Analysis
section later in this chapter. To evaluate the relative significance of a resource,
several factors were considered. Each resource has certain functional values.
Depending on the location, quantity and quality of the particular resource, these
values may be important or they may not be important.
If the values are important when considering the factors discussed below, the
resource was deemed significant. Decision factors are those factors which, on their
own, are important and establish the significance of a resource. Contributing factors
may have limited or moderate importance on their own, but when two or more
contributing factors for the same resource area are combined, that resource is
deemed significant. In general, contributing factors are associated with resource
values which may be limited due to the geographic, physiographic or related
conditions in the Skyline West planning area. For example, the plan area's ridgetop
location means that many of its watercourses cannot provide major flood storage
value but may contribute some storage capacity.
Following is a list of decision and contributing factors:
Re50urce Site Inventory and Analy6i6 45
Resource Value
Fish/Wildlife Habitat
Water Purification
Decision Factors
Provides habitat for threatened, endangered or state-listed
sensitive species; or Wildlife Habitat Assessment is 45
points or more; or provides a viable connection between
or enhances adjoining habitat areas
If 75% of creek length has an average vegetative coverage
of 25% or greater in riparian zone, vegetation has positive
influence on water quality and riparian zone significant
Slope/Soil Stabilization Vegetative cover is significant if on slopes of 50% or more,
soils have vegetative canopy cover of 75% or more
Domestic Water Supply Oregon Water Resources Dept. records show surface or
groundwater usage; source waters are significant
Groundwater Recharge Resource is pervious and permits infiltration to aquifers or
groundwater reserves which supply water for domestic use
or sustain flows in significant creeks during dry season
Heritage Resource has unique historic, cultural or natural value
Resource Value Contributing Factors
Fish/Wildlife Habitat Resource provides positive influence on off-site habitat
for threatened, endangered or state-listed sensitive species
Slope/Soil Stabilization Vegetative cover on slopes of 30% or more, soils have
vegetative canopy cover of at least 75%
Flood Storage
Surface Drainage
Education
Recreation
46
Creeks, associated wetlands and flood plains, or other
resources reduce intensity of flood events
'Creeks conduct runoff water, sediments and nutrients
from highlands to lowlying land or water bodies
Resource is or potentially could be used for public
educational purposes, or is ecologically or scientifically
significant according to the Natural Heritage Program
Resource is within a designated open space area, or public
park or right-of-way and is or potentially could be an
integral part of area's recreational activities
Chapter 4
Visual/Scenic Amenity Resource is visible from a public area, provides amenity
value to adjoining land uses, or is an identified urban
design element of the neighborhood or city
Buffering Land Uses Resource provides a visual or auditory buffer between
residential neighborhoods or different land uses.
Sources for most of the above information are cited in the first part of this section.
Additional sources were used as well. The Rare, Threatened and Endangered Plants
and Animals of Oregon (Oregon Natural Heritage Program, 1993) was consulted;
this reference also contains state-listed sensitive species. Sensitive species constitute
naturally reproducing native vertebrates which are likely to become threatened or
endangered throughout all or a significant portion of their range in Oregon.
City field inventories include the Wildlife Habitat Assessment (WHA) process
which involves analysis of physical environments for which wildlife have known
preferences. The WHA form is used to rate habitat values numerically for
comparison purposes based on the presence and availability of three basic elements:
food, water and cover. Values for human and physical disturbance, interspersion
with other natural areas, and rare flora, fauna or habitat types are also noted.
Once a resource is found to be significant, existing and potential uses which may
conflict with the preservation of that resource must be identified. Where there are
no conflicts, the resource must be fully protected. Where conflicts arise, a conflicting
use analysis must be carried out. This analysis involves weighing economic, social,
environmental and energy considerations. The economic analysis, in particular,
involves several important principles and methods that warrant further
explanation. These features of the economic analysis are outlined next, followed by
a review of the discussion format.
Economic Consequences on Conflicting Uses
Protection of natural resources can have significant economic consequences on
.property values, both positive and negative. In order to assess these impacts ~t is
necessary to understand what influences the value of a property. The value of real
property is defined as the present worth of its future benefits. The degree of value is
measured in terms of money.
Value is classified into two general categories: value in use and value in exchange.
Value in use is the property's value to its owner or user. Exchange value is the
market value, the highest price a property would bring if the sale were to take place
under conditions ideal for both the buyer and the seller. To have value, a property
must have both utility and scarcity. Utility refers to the ability to arouse desire for
possession and the power to give satisfaction, based on individual tastes. Without
scarcity, even with utility, value diminishes with excessive supply.
Resource Site Inventory and AnalY5i5 47
48
Principles of Value
The following principles of value illustrate ways in which property values can be
increased or decreased with respect to the location of significant natural resources on
a site (Rockwell et al. 1988).
• The Principle of Substitution: No one will pay more for a piece of property
than they would have to pay for an equally desirable substitute property.
Properties with significant natural resources are zoned consistently with
other properties within the-City of Portland where similar resources are
located. Such properties are zoned "P" (preservation) or "C" (conservation)
depending on the value of the resource and ·the level of protection necessary.
• The Principle of Highest and Best Use: The highest and best use is the one
that will provide the greatest net return over a period of time. In the case of
residential properties, this includes amenities as well as monetary returns.
Local and national studies have shown that forested areas, wetland and other
amenities enhance the quality of life for the property owner and the
community as a whole.
• Use Density: If a property's apparent highest and best use is not in demand,
then another highest and best use would have to be used to determine value.
Currently there is a strong demand for residential dwellings near natural
amenities. These amenities are often cited as primary reasons why residents
move to the planning area. Properties where significant resources are located
often can be developed to take advantage of their natural amenities without
disturbing them.
• Principle of Supply and Demand: Values rise as demand increases and/or
supply decreases. Values fall when demand decreases and/or supply
increases. However, land scarcity, alone, does not create demand. The
availability of financing, interest rates, wage levels, property taxes and
population growth or shifts are all factors that influence demand, and
consequently, property value. The supply of sites offering natural amenities
is limited by past development practices and natural conditions. Increases in
the demand for residential dwellings that offer natural amenities increases
the value of existing and future dwelling sites.
• The Principle of Change: It is the future, not the past, that influences value.
Change begins with a period of integration and moves towards equilibrium,
when a property's value is stabilized. Change ends with disintegration, when
the property's present economic usefulness life is over. Resource protection
helps guarantee that the significant natural resources that generate amenity
values will continue into the future and retain values over time.
• The Principle of Contribution: Contribution refers to the value that an
improvement or a feature adds to the overall value of a property. Significant
natural resources contribute to increased enjoyment and quality of life
Chapter 4
conditions for property owners and the community as a whole. The
increment of value associated with natural resources is said to be
"capitalized" into the market value of the property.
• The Principle of Increasing and Decreasing Returns: There is a point where
any additional improvements to land will either have no effect or actually
become detrimental to value. Properties currently receiving benefits from
significant resources that are being protected with a certain degree of
regulation, for example, designated open areas in subdivisions, may not have
a market increase in value with additional environmental protection.
However, there is added value for the community as a whole from the
protection of significant resources such as wetlands or steep slopes.
Property value is also associated with the proximity of the property to the rest of the
community. This includes the nearness of public transit, schools, shopping areas
and other activity centers. Other physical factors include traffic patterns, sizes and
shapes of lots, land use patterns, availability of utilities, potential threats such as
pollution or noise, and visual consideration such as views and topographical
aesthetics. Proximity to parks and natural areas also increase value.
As previously mentioned, the physical characteristics of a property influence value.
These characteristics include its width, frontage, and depth. When a lot is deeper
than typical lots in the area, its value per "front" foot increases, but its value per
square foot decreases. For shorter lots the reverse is true. The first twenty-five
percent of a lot holds 40 percent of its overall value; the second twenty-five percent
accounts for 30 percent of the value, the next twenty-five percent is 20 percent of the
overall value; and the back twenty-five percent is worth only 10 percent of the
overall value.
In many cases, significant natural resources are located on the back portions of a
property where the land value itself only accounts for 10 percent of the total value of
the property. Restrictions placed on the lesser valued portions of a lot are balanced
by the increase in value attributed to the environmental amenities retained. In
addition, a site that has aesthetic appeal is more valuable than one that is
monotonous and flat. However, if a site is costly to develop because it is located far
above or below street-level or is excessively hilly, its value will be diminished.
Additional Cost Factors
In the past, there have been concerns over increases in development costs resulting
from the application of environmental zones. As is indicated below, these costs are
more than offset, in most instances, by density transfer options, by environmental
streamlining proposals, and by considering the net present value of development
and amenity values (as explained in the following section).
The highest development constraints occur where full protection is designated. Full
protection is implemented through the application of the"protection" zone for
Re50urce Site Inventory and AnalY5i5 49
significant resources. The protection zone normally applies to portions of properties
with precipitous slopes, or within floodplains, wetlands or geologic hazard areas .
which are rarely targeted for development. The area of a property located within a
protection zone is still used in the calculation of allowed density for the property; in
other words, a site's development potential in terms of housing units is not reduced
by the full protection designation.
All of the major subdivisions within the planning area have set aside open space
areas which normally contain creeks, wetlands or steeply sloped areas. This is a
consistent pattern for both existing and proposed developments, one which
recognizes the severe building constraints of some of the significant resource areas.
Where there is coincidence between these open spaces and the protection
designations, there are no additional costs to development. In such cases, building
sites are located on the more suitable areas of the site for development. One type of
subdivision, the Planned Unit Development (POO), is especially appropriate for
development sites with environmental zones. POO's provide for a broad range of
development options, including a range of lot sizes, patterns and uses, with areas set
aside in open space. Development may thus occur outside protected resource areas
on less steep, wet or constrained sites. This pattern also allows for more efficient
and cost-effective use of infrastructure (roads, water lines, sewers, etc.).
The"conservation" zone is applied to resources to limit conflicting uses. It allows
for development after review, given that impacts are controlled and mitigated. As
with the protection zone, the area designated with a conservation zone is used in
the density calculation for a given site. The land use review for development
within the conservation zone is an administrative review without a public hearing
(except if decision is appealed). The cost is approximately $300 for a pre-application
conference and $400 for the review. Preliminary recommendations being developed
as part of the Environmental Zone Streamline Project (expected to be adopted
immediately following the Skyline plan) will reduce these costs. A pre-application
conference will no longer be required within conservation zones. The streamline
project also recommends new performance standards in lieu of environmental
review for certain development within conservation zones. These
recommendations will result in a savings of time and money.
Finally, the existing Interim Resource Protection Zone that applies to most creeks in
the planning area will be repealed upon adoption of this Conservation Plan. In
most cases, the interim measures will be replaced by environmental zones; in some
cases, the Conservation Plan recommends no protection for these areas based on the
plan inventory and analysis.
Economic Consequences on Resources
In determining the economic consequences of protecting significant resources, it is
first necessary to define value with respect to a significant resource. Many of the
gains from environmental policies are not readily apparent in the form of
immediate monetary gains. The benefits are found more in an increase in the
50 Chapter 4
quality of life than in any increment to a region's economic output. Environmental
features have been shown to increase property values as they provide aesthetic and
recreational pleasure and a more livable environment. As a result, properties next
to these features have higher property values and produce greater tax revenues.
Many environmental resources are considered "positive undepletable externalities"
or public goods. Such goods are non-rival in consumption, that is, if one person
increases their consumption of the good, it does not preclude or reduce its
availability to others.
Some benefits from resources can be found beyond the immediate resource area, as
is the case with wetlands and their ability to purify and recharge aquifers. When
benefits occur off-site, wetland owners are prevented from charging fees for these
benefits. Since owners cannot recoup the value of these benefits directly, the market
price per acre does not fully reflect the true exchange value of wetland relative to
other goods. In fact, most environmental resources are not priced because they have
no direct market where they are bought and sold like other products. This makes
the establishment of value very difficult. Therefore, it is necessary to use other
methods of identifying value in order to perform economic analysis.
Environmental goods have irreversibility properties, that is, if the resource is not
preserved, it is likely to be eliminated with little or no chance of regeneration. In
addition, environmental resources have uncertainty. Since the future is unknown,
there is a potential cost if the resource is eliminated and a future choice is foregone.
A third feature of environmental goods is their uniqueness.
Methods of Evaluating Significant Resources
Hedonic Models and Willingness to Pay (WTP) Methods
A basic idea underlying a measurement of value for a resource is that individual
preferences form the basis for benefit measurement. A positive preference will be
revealed in the form of willingness to pay for it. Each individual's willingness to
pay will differ, so it is necessary to aggregate over all individuals for a total
willingness to pay figure. This direct method attempts to elicit preferences for non-
market goods by asking individuals to express their views in a simulated market for
the goods in question.2
2 Although it can be assumed that people will not be willing to pay for something they do not want, it is not possible
to know if WfP as measured by marKet prices accurately measures the whole benefit to either individuals or society.
Some may be willing to pay more, which means the benefit they receive is larger than the price they would have to pay.
The excess is consideredconsumer surplus.
Gross WfP = Market price + consumer surplus
The value of significant resources can be established using "user" values. Those who actively participate in the
environment secure a direct benefit from it, such as reaeational activities, hiking, picnicing, etc. There are additional
values expressed through options to use the environment. Thus, the value of the environment as a potential benefit
rather than an actual present use value. It is expressed as a preference or willin8!less to pay for tne preservation of an
environment against some probability that the Individual will make use of it at a later date.
Total user value ~ Actual use value +Option value
Resource Site Inventory ana Analysis 51
The value attributed to a property is the result of a stream of benefits derived from
the land. This might include agricultural output, shelter, access to a workplace,
commercial amenities, parks and the environmental quality of the neighborhood
where the land is located. All these benefits accrue to the person who has the right
to use that piece of property. Given that different locations have varied
environmental attributes, such variations will result in differences in property
values.
The hedonic approach, using this premise, attempts to identify how much
difference there is between properties with differing attributes and infer how much
people are willing to pay for a particular attribute, such as an environmental
amenity. Using multiple linear regression, the model includes as many variables as
are assumed to be contributors to value. These variables are typically classified as
property variables, neighborhood variables, accessibility variables and
environmental variables (public benefits would not be included).
Brown and Pollakowski (1976) conducted a study in the Green Lake area of Seattle,
Washington to examine the impact of water features on housing values, using a
hedonic model. They found that previous studies indicated that the contribution of
a water resource to property values generally is not significant beyond 4,000 feet
from the edge of the water feature.
In their study, they found that a dwelling unit located 200 feet away from a water
feature sold for about $850 more than a comparable one located 100 feet away,
indicating the desirability of a setback area between the dwelling and the water
feature. A dwelling with a 300-foot setback sold for about $1,350 more than one
located 100 feet away indicating greater value is generated with an increase in the
depth of the setback. In the case of no setback, three-fourths of the location value of
proximity to water is lost at a distance of 300 feet from the edge of the water feature.
The researchers constructed a optimal open space model that used a land value
gradient with an optimal open space of about 100 feet compared to the actual
average distance of about 300 feet.
This finding is of importance as most significant resources have been found to
increase the value of properties the closer the dwelling is to the resource. However,
in the case of water features, a setback area contributes to an increase in property
values. The setback area acts as a buffer between the significant resource and the
dwelling.
Intrinsic refers to value which exists strictly because it exists. It is captured by those who have a preference in the
form of non·use value.
Intrinsic value =: Existence value
thus;
Total user value =Actual use value + Option value + Existence value
where Option value =Value in use (by individuals) + Value in use by future individuals + Value in use by others
(vicarious value to individuals).
52 Chapter 4
Garrod and Willis (1992) used a willingness to pay (WTP) methodology based on the
notion that individual households express a demand for trees and woods as a
housing attribute. They maintained that the total benefits of forests are more
accurately captured in property values since the price of a house reflects willingness
to pay to live near an environmental amenity. Their study looked at the impact of
forest type on housing prices and the demand for particular types of forests.
Morales (1980) performed a study that sampled the value of houses with and
without trees, in Amherst, Massachusetts and found trees were estimated to add
$2,686, or 6 percent of the total housing value. Anderson and Cordell (1988) found
that developers, aware of the increment of value attributable to resources, were able
to capture the increase in value by protecting trees in buffer zones in developments.
Other studies have illustrated similar positive effects on property values resulting
from parks and natural area protection:
Location Impact of propertv values Specific evaluations
Philadelphia, PA Property values were shown A 1,294-acre park accounted for 33%
to decrease proportionally of the land value at a 40-foot
with distance from open distance, 9% at 1,000 feet and 4.2% at
space. 2,500 feet (Hammer et al. 1974).
Boulder, CO Property values near Housing prices declined an average
greenbelts were shown to $4.20 for each foot a house was
decrease with distance away located away from a greenbelt. The
from the green belt. average value of property next to the
greenbelt was 32% higher than those
3,200 feet away (CorreIl et al. 1978).
Boise River Greenbelt, Idaho The greenbelt was shown to be Increases in appraised value exceeded
directly responsible for $200 million. Property values of
raising appraised property undeveloped land were $26,000 to
values within the greenbelt. $34,000/acre near greenbelt vs $10,000
to $17,000 elsewhere (Cooper 1989).
Hunters Brook, a 142-unit Properties adjacent to Homes were easier to sell because of
cluster development set aside protected woods had a faster their proximity to the protected
97 acres of pine forest to be selling time. woods. The site's rural character and
protected in open space. acres of habitat were preserved (New
York Times May 8, 1987).
Resource Site Inventory and Analysis 55
Contingent Valuation Method (CVMl
One method for measuring the increased value attributable to natural resources is to
use a contingent valuation method (CVM). Using a survey instrument or personal
interviews, a CVM discovers an individual's preference for a good by determining
the maximum willingness to pay for changes in the provision of that good. It is
used most widely in public goods analysis.
A recent CVM study conducted in Multnomah County evaluated four types of
natural resource areas: a natural open space, a permanent wetland, a limited-access
forest, and a developed park with full recreational facilities (Manuel 1993). Forest
was defined as a site dominated by trees or woody vegetation over 15 feet in height,
supporting wildlife and habitat. In absolute terms, the highest valued
environmental resource was the forest, with higher-priced homes being more
positively affected than lower-priced homes. In general, properties closer to a
natural resource have greater value than those further away. Three housing types
were used. The study used evaluators with expertise in the field of real estate
evaluation, including realtors, tax assessors and residential property appraisers.
The study also addressed the policy tradeoff between the benefits of natural resource
areas and tax revenues that are forgone if development is limited due to natural
resource locations. The example compared a hypothetical 20-acre resource area that
was developed without protection of natural resources with a 20-acre site that
protected forest resources. The researcher stated that if accurate measurements
could be made of housing values, the tax revenues from preserving the forest area
may, in fact, be greater than those generated if the area is developed.
Schofield (1989) cites the sources of bias due to expectations regarding who actually
would pay for amenities as a problem associated with the use of CVM. The concern
centers around the possible understating of values by respondents who see
themselves as future targets of a charge, while those who expect the goods or
services to be provided free would overstate the true value.
In summary, the value of amenities such as water features (lakes, streams, and/or
creeks) and forested areas close to residential units are capitalized into property
values. The increased assessed values result in increased tax revenues. Protecting
forested areas near residential developments has been found to increase the value of
a project.
Intermediate Goods Method
Water features have been recognized in previous public policies as deserving full
protection because of the integral part such features play in an ecosystem. Water
resources are often ranked highest among natural resources, especially in forested
areas where wildlife habitat is enhanced with riparian areas.
Recent information developed from OMSI (Portland) and Mill End Store
(Milwaukie) projects indicate that construction costs for the vegetated swale
54 Chapter 4
stormwater convergence systems (w/infiltration, biofiltration, conveyance)
represent a significant savings over the originally proposed cost of the standard
stormwater pipe system (Lipton 1994). The value of the wetlands can be computed
by estimating the cost of developing a comparable water system. The value is
considered an intermediate good because it is a service performed by a wetlands that
results in improved water quality.
A region-wide survey conducted in November of 1992 in the Portland Metropolitan
area found that of the 400 residents surveyed, 55 percent wanted to preserve
"greenspace" for the maintenance of water quality. According to Metro, preserving
greenspaces for improved water quality was viewed as more important than
preserving endangered species or providing recreation or tourist activities.
Manuel (1993) indicates that it is difficult to quantify in dollars the value of
improved water quality. In addition, not all the benefits can be captured using a
CVM methodology. When the market price of homes is used as a proxy for benefits
accrued due to the natural resources, it captures only the private benefits of natural
resources. There are also public benefits, such as the ecological benefits of wetlands
for the improvement of water quality, which were not included in the expert
evaluations. This would result in an undervalue of the amenities using CVM.
Another approach to evaluating environmental benefits provided by natural
resources is to quantify these benefits. One study, conducted in 1991, estimated $273
worth of environmental benefits for one year for a single tree as follows:
• Air conditioning: $73
• Controlling erosion and storm water: $75
• Wildlife shelter: $75
• Controlling air pollution: $50
Compounding this amount for 50 years at 5 percent, the value of a single tree can
reach $57,151 (Oregon CommuniTree News 1993). This evaluation is useful when a
tree inventory is conducted for a particular lot or subdivision.
Another study estimates for the average base value of trees of various sizes:
Average base valueDiameter of trunk at 4 5 feet.
10" $1,729
14" $3,388 .
26" $11,682
30" $15,554
In summary, wetlands can provide a significant cost savings over conventional
stormwater systems; this value can be estimated by determining the cost of
developing a comparable water system. Forested areas provide services such as air
conditioning, pollution control and wildlife habitat. The intermediate goods values
Resource Site Inventor)' and Analysis 55
attributable to significant natural resources accrue to the general public rather than
to individual property owners.
Damage Costs Avoided
Another approach to establishing the value of natural resources is in terms of the
damage prevention services provided. This value can be determined using
replacement cost or the cost of property damage which would occur if the natural
resource were lost, using the damage costs avoided principle. These approaches are
particularly applicable with respect to erosion and slope slippage. In areas with
unstable slopes and/or high earthquake potential, the value of the natural resources
left in place increases as the preservation of the natural resource prevents society or
individuals from making risky investments in developments that are most likely to
be destroyed.
According to Mabey and Madin (1993), landslides are an ongoing problem in
Oregon. The shaking from an earthquake will tend to cause existing landslides to
move and generate forces that create new ones. Therefore, known landslide masses
can be identified as areas with potential for severe damage during an earthquake. In
addition, the steepness of a slope and soil thickness are indicators of the stability of a
slope. On the basis of slope and soil information, a factor of safety against sliding
was computed for the West Hills. It was determined that the areas of the West Hills
that have slopes greater than 15 percent or that are in the vicinity of an existing
landslide are at the greatest risk in the event of an earthquake or a natural landslide
event.
There are many slopes greater than 15 percent in the study area. In addition, several
ancient landslides have been identified (Madin 1989). Murdoch, Singh and Thayer
(1993) used a hedonic model in their study of the Lorna Prieta earthquake to
demonstrate that areas designated as earthquake prone had reduced property values.
They found that on average, homes located outside of the risky area were valued at
approximately 3.7 percent more than comparable homes inside the area. In their
study this value was apprOXimately $10,770. For homes located on safer soil, the
market premium was about 2.5 percent or $7,250 for an average home, however, the
model interpretation is not as reliable on soil types.
Brookshire, et al (1985) used an expected utility model of self-insurance, structured
as a hedonic modei applied to low-probability, high-loss earthquake hazards.
Individuals can self-insure by purchasing a dwelling in areas where the expected
earthquake damage is relatively low. In this model, the important variable is safety
and due to the nature of earthquakes, it is also random. In their study, the weighted
expected damage by frequency of occurrence was $5,920 per dwelling. Preserving
steep slopes and significant resources on these slopes can prevent damage from
occurring.
56 Chapter 4
X(l + .05) =100 or X =100/1.05 =9524
Net Present Values
It is generally assumed that benefits or costs matter more if they are experienced
now rather than later (Pearce & Turner 1991). Economists recommend an
adjustment be made in values to reflect the lowering or discounting of values in the
future. Discounting allows values in different time periods to be compared at one
point in time. The principle of discounting assumes that resources invested today
will earn a return in years to come.3
The practice of discounting is also a means to share costs and benefits between
generations. According to Pearce and Turner (1991), counting only the current
generation's preferences through the willingness-to-pay methods biases the choice
against future generations unless there is some built-in mechanism to ensure that
current generations choose on behalf of future generations and take their interest
into account.
The economic consequences of not protecting significant resources are irreversible,
that is, if development occurs, the preservation benefits are lost forever. To
illustrate this concept, consider a hypothetical development project with an initial
cost of $1. The development benefits from this project are $D per year forever, with
a discount rate of r. The present value (PV) of D is as follows:
PVo=-l +D/r
In addition to the costs, there is the foregone benefits from the destruction of the
resource as a natural asset. The present value (PV) of the foregone resource will be:
PVp=P/r
The net present value (NPV) then is:
NPVo = -1 +D/r- P/r
For the decision to favor development, the NPVp must be greater than zero or:
(D-P) > r
Pearce and Turner (1991) claim that the relative price of P is likely to rise as the
natural environment becomes scarcer. This rise in price should not be confused
with the effects of inflation when the general price level of all goods and services
increases in price. The preservation benefit in year tis:
PI = Poegt
3 The discount rate can be thoullht of in terms of an interest rate. If the rate is 5 percent, then $100 invested toda)'
wilt earn $5.00 over a one year period. On the other hand, if you want $100 in one year, you need only invest $95.24
today.
Benefils or costs occurring the future are discounted, or divided by 1 plus the discount rate and taken to a power
equivalent to the number of periods of time from year zero (Stokey &: Zeckhauser 1978). If the number of periods
extends far into the future, then the value is divided by the discount rate directly.
Resource Site Inventory and Analysis 57
where Po is the initial year's preservation benefit, e is the exponential factor and g is
the growth rate of the price of preservation benefits relative to the general price
level. Development value is subject to change due to technological changes which
make it less attractive through time. The development benefits then must be
discounted by a factor of k, reflecting the rate of 'technological decay' of the
development.
The net present value (NVP) with these additional refinements leads to:
NPVD = -1 + (01 r + k) - (PI r- g)
A decision to develop would be based on a positive value if, and only if, the square
root of D is greater than the square root of P plus the square root of k plus g.4
The development benefits may need to be nearly 50% greater than preservation
benefits for the development to be worth more than the value of environmental
resources lost. The impact of this illustration is to realize that even if it were
possible to quantify the value of significant resources, these values should not be
equated directly with the values derived from development.
In summary, significant natural resources provide values based on the costs not
evoked in the event of a natural disaster or erosion. These values accrue to the
general public, although the initial incidence of these costs fall on individual
property owners. The actual payment in the form of disaster relief are most often
made with public funds. Finally, the concept of net present value illustrates why
resource values cannot be equated directly with values derived from development.
Other Factors Underlying Recommendations
In order to help weigh the respective economic consequences on resources and on
conflicting uses, significant resources were divided into three groups, A, Band C,
referring to highest significance, highly significant and significant, respectively. A-
quality resources are the highest rated within the planning area, either through the
number of decision and contributing factors met, the exceptional value of particular
factors, or both. B-quality resources rated lower than A-quality resources generally
but consistently meet two or more decision factors. C-quality resources are
significant but lower rated than B-quality resources and may only satisfy two or
more contributing factors. A-, B- and C-quality resource areas are identified on the
resource inventory maps in the Site Inventory and Analysis section of this chapter.
Another convention employed in the analysis is the notion of a building envelope.
Consistent with similar city code definitions, "building envelope" was defined as a
4 As an example, let P be .2 and let k +g = .01. Then, the inequality indicates that for the development to be
worthwhile, D must have a minimum value of {.547)2 or 0.299. This means that the ratio ofD to Pis .299/.2 or 1.49.
That is, the development benefits must be 49 percent higher than preservation benefits for the development to be worth
more than the value of environmental resources lost.
58 Chapter 4
40-foot by 40-foot area in which residential building may occur. This convention
aided in the evaluation of relative impacts of limiting or prohibiting conflicting
uses; for example, prohibiting such uses within a building envelope would
eliminate a site's development potential.
For larger parcels that contain significant resources, there is a loss of flexibility. To
compensate for this loss, Planned Unit Developments, allow greater site design
flexibility than conventional zoning and subdivision regulations. The intent is to:.
• Provide flexibility in architectural design, placement, and clustering of
buildings; use of open areas and outdoor living areas; provision of circulation
facilities and parking; and related site and design considerations;
• Encourage the conservation of natural features;
• Provide for efficient use of public services and improvements;
• Encourage and preserve opportunities for energy efficient development;
• Promote an attractive and safe living environment in residential zones.
PUDs have been used successfully throughout the study area. Developers have
taken advantage of the marketing opportunities made available by the preservation
of natural areas, careful integration of residential uses, and an understanding that
amenity values can be capitalized into private land values.
Another factor considered during the analysis of conflicting uses is transfer of
development rights (TOR). The Skyline Plan District (Chapter 33.575) was adopted
to allow transfers of residential density from fully protected properties near Forest
Park to more suitable building sites in RF-zoned lands along Skyline Boulevard.
The northern portion of the Skyline West plan area is included in the Skyline Plan
District. Unconstrained portions of this area is generally eligible as a receiving area
for TDRs. Housing density at eligible sites can be increased by 50 percent (to 0.75
units per acre) and under certain conditions to one unit per acre.
After the analysis is performed, a decision must be made whether to provide full
protection, no protection, or limited protection. A decision to fully protect
significant natural resources preserves the amenity value of the forest and water
features, the intermediate goods value of improved water quality and wildlife
habitat, and the damage costs avoided values due to the existence of vegetation that
contribute to the stabilization of steep slopes. No protection allows conflicting uses,
but results in the loss of significant resources and associated values. Limiting
protection of significant resources involves finding a balance between development
and resource preservation.
Discussion Format
The inventory and analysis of resource sites in the following section summarizes
material gathered during field visits as well as resource information collected from
Re50urce Site Inventory and Analy5i5 59
other sources as noted above. The elements of the resource site summaries and the
discussion format are reviewed below.
Resource Site #: Name Map: Quarter section maps
Resource Site Size: Approximate acreage of resource site
Approx. Boundaries: Approximate north, east, south and west boundaries
Neighborhood:
Inventory Dates:
Name of the local neighborhood
Dates of field inventories within the resource site
Habitat Classification: Based on the Cowardin classification system
Types of Resources: List of resources, described in more detail below
Functional Values: List of resource values, discussed earlier in this chapter
Resource Location and Description
Describes the location and significant resource features of individual sites.
Resource Quantity and Quality
Resource quantity and quality is evaluated using information from field
inventories, local and regional planning efforts and other sources.
Composite Wildlife Habitat Rating:
The habitat rating provides a summary of the relative quality of wildlife habitat
within a particular resource site. At the top of the habitat rating box, the range of
habitat scores for the site is indicated. The previous section explains the decision
and contributing factors used in weighing the significance of habitat resources. The
functional value of the three principal habitat components, water, food and cover, is
then generalized (from "low" to "high") based on the following habitat scores:
2-7 8 -12 13 -18 19-24 25-30
0-4 5-9 10 -14 15 -19 20-24
0-5 6-11 12-16 17 -22 23-28
Water
Food
Cover
Low Moderately Medium
Low
Moderately
High
High
The three remaining categories, interspersion, uniqueness and disturbance, are
classified in a similar fashion using "low," "medium" and "high." Uniqueness is a
combination of the site's special features (habitat type, flora and fauna); disturbance
is a combination of physical and human disturbance (note: a high score corresponds
to a "low" disturbance); interspersion is assessed directly from interspersion score.
60 Chapter 4
Interspersion
Uniqueness
Disturbance
Low
0-1
0-3
8-6
Medium
2-4
4-7
5-3
High
5-6
8 -12
2-0
Conclusion
Summarizes the inventory and the significance of individual resources.
ESEE Consequences
This section identifies applicable conflicting uses for the resource site and provides
an analysis of allowing, limiting or prohibiting conflicting uses.
Economic Consequences .
Economic factors considered include a comparison of the value of the resource to
the economic impact on properties containing resources. Also considered were the
effects on property values and development potential and effects on quality of life.
Social Consequences
Social consequences considered in this analysis include effects on area policies;
cultural, recreational and scenic values; regional identity and local landscape
character; housing and education; and effects on public health, safety and welfare.
Environmental Consequences
Limiting or prohibiting conflicting uses protect natural resources and resource
values. These consequences are discussed further in the Consequences of Limiting
or Prohibiting Conflicting Uses section above.
Energy Consequences
This subsection reviews energy consequences on transportation and urbanization;
infrastructure and services; and heating and cooling of structures.
Site Inventory and Analysis
The following section presents the inventory and analysis of the three resource sites
within the planning area. The inventory provides information on resource location,
quality and quantity. The analysis reviews the economic, social, environmental and
energy consequences of allowing, limiting or prohibiting conflicting uses.
The next chapter develops a plan to conserve identified resources based on the
inventory and analysis of this chapter. The map on the following page shows the
study area with an overlay of quarter section map numbers. This map is a useful
cross-reference with the city's Official Zoning Maps. The Vicinity Map on page 63
provides a key to the location of resource sites discussed in this section. Each site
summary also contains a map showing resource areas and zoning within the site.
Resource Site Inventor)' and Analysis 61
II.
!
.............
............
NORTH
o 2,000 4,000
Scale (Feet)
(Elevation Contour
Intervals: 50')
I
I.
tI
Quarter-Sections Map
Skyline-West
Resource Protection Plan
Bureau of Planning· City of Portland. Oregon
~
NORTH
o 2,000 4,000
I
Scale (Feet)
(Elevation Contour
IntelVals: 50')
Inventory
Sites
Vicinity Map
Skyline-West
Resource Protection Plan
Bureau of Planning· City of Portland, Oregon
Resource Site 143: Rock Creek Headwaters Maps: 1814,1914,2014-15,
2115-16,2217-18,2318
Resource Site Size: 500 acres
Approx. Boundaries: NW McNamee Rd., north; Skyline Blvd., east; NW
Springville Rd., south; City Limits, west
Neighborhood:
Inventory Dates:
Habitat Classification:
Forest Park
6/18/86,3/24/93,3/31/93,4/5/93,9/9/93,4/19/94
• Upland Coniferous/Broadleaf Deciduous Forest
• Riverine, Intermittent Streambed, Seasonally Flooded
• Riverine, Upper Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom,
Permanently Flooded
• Palustrine, Emergent, Seasonally Flooded
• Palustrine, Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded
Types of Resources:
Forest, wildlife habitat, sensitive fauna, intermittent and perennial creeks and creek
headwaters, palustrine wetlands, groundwater, open space
Functional Values:
Food, water, cover and territory for wildlife; groundwater recharge and discharge;
slope stabilization, sediment and erosion control; microclimate amelioration; air
and water quality protection; scenic values
Resource Location and Description
This is the rural outpost at the northwestern limits of Portland. Scattered single
dwelling residences, agricultural uses, an old grange building and undeveloped
woodlands border Skyline Blvd. as it meanders along the broad, rolling ridgetop.
The site is long and fairly narrow, stretching between Skyline Blvd. and the western
city limits, from NW Springville Rd. north to NW McNamee Rd.
This site marks the source, or headwaters, of two tributaries to Rock Creek. Rock
Creek flows south and west into the Tualatin Valley until, near Beaverton, it
merges with the Tualatin River. The bulk of the elevation change for the Rock
Creek tributaries occurs in Portland and unincorporated Multnomah County. From
a high point of 1,110 ft. at the southern boundary of Site 143, and 850 ft. at the
northern boundary, the creeks drop to less than 200 ft. before entering Washington
County two or three miles away. The upper basin location of this site provides a
biological link to and exerts a significant influence upon downstream land and
Resource Site Inventory and Analysis 65
water resources. The site's location also serves as a ridgetop link between Portland's
habitat areas and the natural areas to the northwest.
Resource Quantity and Quality
This site is a sensitive headwaters area and contains the source and upper reaches of
two primary tributaries to Rock Creek. The total length of the creeks and associated
drainages within the site is approximately four lineal miles. In addition to the
riverine creek system, three palustrine wetlands are identified in the National
Wetlands Inventory. One additional emergent wetland and other wetlands directly
associated with the site's creeks were identified in the field inventory. This SOD-acre
resource site contains approximately 340 acres of forest in varying stages of
succession (as of Spring, 1994). As is common elsewhere on the west slope, the older
and more diverse forest generally occurs within the broad ravines.
The site slopes from the ridge along Skyline southwest towards the Tualatin Valley.
The topography ranges from gentle slopes along the ridgetop to precipitous ravine
slopes exceeding 80 percent.
The site's creeks and associated tributaries, wetlands and ravines provide important
forage, cover and nesting habitat for a variety of bird, mammal, amphibian and
reptile species. The pileated woodpecker is a state-listed sensitive species identified
within the site. The pileated is an important indicator species for the retention of a
complete community of hole-nesting birds and small mammals (McClelland 1979).
Most of these cavity-nesters are beneficial insectivores which help to control insect
populations in the area. The pileated woodpecker is an indicator of the health of the
Rock Creek watershed ecosystem.
The site's water features are important for a variety of reasons not least of which is
their influence on downstream water quality and fish production. The Tualatin
River system supports state-listed sensitive coho and fall chinook salmon, cutthroat
trout, pacific lamprey and northern red-legged frog. The Tualatin River is also
under a DEQ enforcement order requiring all jurisdictions within the watershed to
take actions to improve water quality, including control of erosion and reduction of
sediment and nutrient loads. Though the site's intermittent and upper perennial
creeks are generally not inhabited by fish, they do provide primary habitat for
amphibians and reptiles. Pacific tree frog, ensatina and pacific giant salamander, and
roughskin newt are sensitive amphibians that rely on the moist, wooded areas of
the site with cool water of good quality. Downed logs and woody debris are
common at this site and provide important cover and food sources for amphibians
and other wildlife. Several non-poisonous, beneficial reptiles also use the site,
including the uncommon western fence lizard (open, rocky areas and forest edges),
garter snakes (forest and edge areas), and turtles (ponds).
Among the more notable mammal species observed within Site 143 are bobcat, grey
fox and Roosevelt elk. Black-tail deer use both forest and edge habitat and are
occasionally observed crossing Skyline Boulevard in the vicinity of the BPA power
66 Chapter 4
FOREST PARK
Map 1 - Site 143
Skyline-West
Resource Protection Plan
Bureau of Planning· City of Portland, Oregon
RD.
RD.
~ A Quality Resource
lID B Quality Resource
@I C Quality Resource
Scale (Feet)
(Elevation Contour
Intervals: 50')
GERMANTOWN
..............
NORTH
O' 2,000'
I
III Significant
Resource
Areas
~---
lines. As many as 70 bird species also use the site, including the pileated
woodpecker, sharp shinned and red-tailed hawks, white-crowned and song
sparrows, evening grosbeaks, Townsend's solitaire and Swainson's thrush. Several
of these species depend on both wetland and upland habitat for survival; for
example, the deer, bobcat, frogs, and forest bird species depend on either daily or
seasonal shifts in habitat to forage, escape flooding or predation, and breed.
Composite Wildlife Habitat Rating:
Range of Habitat Scores: 14 - 80
Water : Medium
Food : Moderately High
Cover : Moderately High
Interspersion : Medium
Uniqueness : Medium
Disturbance : Low
In addition to providing habitat for wildlife, the site's forest cover protects soil and
watershed resources, and contribute to the rural character of the site. Some of the
resource values include slope stabilization, dissipation of erosive forces, and
sediment and pollutant removal. The forest helps to purify the air as well as the
water, and provides shelter from storms and cold winds. The forest also adds to the
scenic qualities of the area, giving it a semi-rural character.
The forest provides a good example of the Pacific Northwest's western hemlock
forest community. This community is unique among all temperate forests in the
world (Waring and Franklin 1979).5 This site contains the pacific yew (Taxus
brevifalia), the bark of which contains a cancer-fighting substance known as "taxol."
Another important forest component found at the site is grand fir (Abies grandis).
This tree and its later successional associates red cedar and hemlock are well
established at the site.
The far northern portion of the site is composed primarily of Goble silt loam soils.
This silt loam is high in volcanic ash weathered from the parent material, Columbia
River Basalt. Because of steep slopes, a seasonal perched water table, slowly
permeable fragipan and low bearing strength, this soil has severe limitations for
building site development and sanitary facilities (Mult. Co. Soil Survey, 1983). The
remainder of the site is composed of Cascade silt loam along the ridgetop, with a
small inclusion of Cornelius silt loam at the intersection of Skyline and
Germantown. These soils have similar limitations for development though with
less precipitous slopes.
5 The western hemlock forest of the Pacific Northwest has the greatest biomass accumulation of any plant
community in the temperale zone and in it are found the largest and (usually) longest lived species of conifers within
the zone.
68 Chapter 4
The Columbia River Basalt underlying the site yields moderate to large amounts
(up to 1,000 gallons per minute) of water to wells that penetrate the basalt below the
regional water table, and lesser amounts (2 to 300 gpm) of perched groundwater to
wells and springs above the water table. Groundwater is moderately hard to hard
with occasionally high chloride content. Recharge occurs principally through
infiltration, but also through migration from overlying and underlying formations
and adjacent recharge areas (Redfern 1976). Water Resource Board records of wells
and surface water rights are summarized below.
Wells by Section
Section Wells
4 (INIW) 3
5 (INIW) 13
9 (INIW) 23
10 (INIW) 14
Wells and Surface Water Rights (SWR)
M Q t S ti W 11 SWRap uar er ec on e s
1914 NE 1/4 Sec 51NIW 3
2116 NE 1/4 Sec 91NIW 1
2217 SW 1/4 Sec 10 INIW 1
2318 NE 1/4 Sec 151NIW 1
Skyline Blvd. and Germantown Road are designated as scenic corridors in the city's
Scenic Resources Protection Plan. The Tualatin Mountains were used for campsites
by Chinookan hunting parties from the Columbia River or by Tualatin Plains
groups crossing the Tualatin Mountains to gather wapato, hunt waterfowl, fish or
trade. A stone mortar and pestle were reported found near this site, on the east side
of Skyline. Germantown and Springville Roads follow early trails used by pioneer
farmers of the Tualatin Valley Plains to bring their wheat and produce to
Springville and other settlements along the Willamette River in the 1840s.
Conclusion
This site contains significant natural resources. One state-listed species is identified
within the site, with five additional sensitive fish species identified downstream
from the site. Resource values associated with water quality and slope stability are
significant within the forested ravines. Certain water resources also provide
important domestic water supplies and the entire site is part of the Tualatin Basin
requiring measures to protect and improve water quality. Based on the decision
factors discussed earlier in this chapter, the significant resources are located within
the ravines and on certain upland ridges.
Site 143 Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy Consequences
This section analyzes the consequences of protecting significant natural resources in
Site 143, and the consequences of allowing these resources to be degraded or
destroyed. The analysis addresses four types of consequences: economic, social,
environmental and energy. Environmental consequences of allowing conflicting
uses are addressed in the beginning of this chapter.
Re50urce Site Inventory and Analy5i5 69
This site contains the following zoning categories: Residential Farm and Forest (RF),
Residential 10,000 (RIO) and Neighborhood Commercial 2 (CN2). Significant
resources at the site are located only within areas zoned RF (see Table 1 for allowed
uses). Therefore, no conflicts exist between significant resources and commercial
and medium density (RIO) land within this site. One nonconforming commercial
use is located in an RIO zone and also is not in conflict with an identified resources.
Certain uses allowed in the RF zone are not feasible within or applicable to the
resource site. Site 143 does not include any properties with revocable use permits
and no new uses are permitted, so the analysis will not address these uses. The
analysis does not address mining because the site does not includes any existing or
potential mineral or aggregate extraction operations. The analysis does not address
rail line corridors because none exist or are proposed for the site and area
topography exceeds maximum gradient for rail lines. Aviation and surface
passenger terminals are not feasible due to the topography, shape and development
pattern of Site 143.
Economic Consequences
This analysis considers the economic consequences of prohibiting, limiting or
allowing conflicting uses within Resource Site 143.6 Maps of subdivisions and
subdivision phases referenced in this analysis are available for review at the Bureau
of Planning.
Skyline Ridge
Recorded Planned Unit Development/Major Subdivision of 25 low density lots
located south of N. W. Skyline Boulevard, about one-half mile south of Newberry
Road. There are a total of three drainage ways created by ridges on the site. There
are "B" quality resources located in the designated open space, (Tract A) and "C"
quality resources in the designated open space, (Tract B). There are "B" quality
resources located on twelve lots outside the building envelopes.
Fully Protecting Significant Resources
Fully protecting the "B" and "C" quality resources located in the open space areas
has no negative economic impacts on these resources or on conflicting uses and has
positive economic impacts by insuring the existence of the resources. Fully
protecting the "B" quality resources on the twelve lots has minimal negative
economic impacts on accessory development. There are benefits associated with the
amenity values of the resources that are capitalized into adjacent property values.
Fully protecting the resources does not affect development potential because the
building envelopes contain no significant resources. Fully protecting the significant
6 For the Furpose of this analysis, a "building envelope" is defined as a 40·foot by 4()'fool area in which residential
building may occur.
70 Chapter 4
~---
GERMANTOWN
I
\ ~~
I ::
I
I
I
I
I
RD.
FOREST PARK
RD.
Site 143 - Zoning
Skyline-West
Resource Protection Plan
Bureau of Planning· City of Portland. Oregon
resources preserves the amenity value of the forest and water features, the
improved water quality values, the wildlife habitat values, and increases the
damage cost avoided values through stabilization of the slopes. These values are
greater for the "B" resources, and less for "C" resources.
Negative economic impacts = minimal impact on conflicting uses
due to siting limitations on accessory
development
Positive economic impacts = "B" and "C" quality resources in
open space areas;
"B" quality resources on lots outside
of building envelopes;
potential capitalization of amenity
values into property values
Net economic impacts = positive
No Protection for Significant Resources
The "B" and "C" quality resources in the open spaces areas are at risk of
uncontrolled tree cutting or degradation. There are negative economic impacts
attributable to the loss of the "B" quality resources on the twelve lots. Providing no
protection for the significant resources risks the loss of the amenity values
associated with the forest cover and water features, the wildlife habitat values, and
the damage cost avoided values provided by the stabilization of the slopes.
Negative economic impacts = degradation of "B" and "C" quality
resources in open spaces;
loss of "B" quality resources located
on twelve lots;
reduction in capitalized amenity
values into property values
Positive economic impacts = minimal increased flexibility for
siting conflicting uses
Net economic impacts = negative
Limiting Protection for Significant Resources
Open space areas containing "B" quality resources are bordered by lots with building
envelopes that are outside of the resource site. There are no significant negative
economic impacts associated with protecting these resources in either open space
areas or on lots. There are positive economic impacts in the form of assurance of
future benefits. If development is allowed in the "B" quality resource areas, there is
a risk of lowering of damage cost avoided values, redUcing the amenity value of the
forest, degrading water quality and reducing wildlife values.
12 Chapter 4
Negative economic impacts. '" none
Positive economic impacts
Net economic impacts
Recommendations
. "B" in open space:
"B" on lots:
"C" in open space:
= "B" and "C" quality resources in
open space areas;
"B" quality resources on lots outside
of building envelopes;
potential capitalization of amenity
values into property values
= positive
full protection;
full protection along ravine, limited
protection along boundaries;
limited protection
Parcels in Site 143
Site 143 contains "A" quality resources in the northwestern comer of the site, west
of Skyline Summit. The "A" quality resources are located on 31 smaller parcels and
a large 100-acre site. Along the eastern boundary of this larger site are small areas of
"C" quality resources (within the upland plateaus) which are too small to identify
clearly on the resource map. There are "B" quality resources located east of Skyline
Summit on 30 parcels.
At hearings before the Planning Commission, public testimony addressed the
positive and negative consequences of applying environmental zoning to the
aforementioned 100-acre site (Tax Lots 20, 25, 26, 27 and 28 of Section 5, lNlW). In
1982, a Planned Unit Development (PUD) was proposed and received preliminary
approval for this property. It contained 46 lots and the required amount of common
and private open space, designated approximately where the "A" quality resources
are located. No final approval was granted and this PUD has since expired. _
However, the resource materials placed in the application record were used in this
study, including a Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation by Dames and Moore. The
statement of planning objectives for the PUD emphasized that the proposed
development plan was designed to retain the present forest characteristics of the site.
The lot arrangement and circulation system were located to maximize preserved
open space and exceed the open space requirement for PUDs. Buildable areas were
located outside of the natural streams, identified as sensitive in the Hearings Officer
report, while removal of existing vegetation would be kept to a minimum on
building sites and retained in open spaces.
A local developer testified that the market already perceives the environmental
overlay. The previous PUD approval with open space areas educated the
development community as to the value of the resources and their location on the
Resource Site Inventory and Analysis
property. By applying the environmental zoning, the adoption of this plan removes
the risk of uncertainty over whether these valuable amenities will be preserved.
This is especially true for residential developers who intend to capture the higher
end of the housing market. The adoption of this plan reflects this understanding
and reduces the risk of losing the amenity values for residential purposes.
Fully Protecting Significant Resources
Developed parcels containing "A" or "B" quality resources on the back portions of
the parcel have minimal negative economic impacts from fully protecting the
resources. There are increases in value associated with assurance of the continued
existence of the resources, including the headwaters of Rock Creek and habitat for
sensitive species. Fully protecting "A" quality resources preserves the high ame'nity
values of the forest and water features, the high wildlife habitat values, and the
damage cost avoided values through stabilization of the slopes. This is also true of
"B" quality resources, particularly in the larger creek system to the north. Full
protection of "C" quality resources has lower values for habitat and forest, and do
not contain water features.
Negative economic impacts = loss of flexibility for siting new
development where "A" and "B"
quality resources are located
Positive economic impacts = "A" and "B" quality resources;
potential capitalization of amenity
values into property values;
marginal "C" resource values
Net economic impacts = positive
No Protection for Significant Resources
The "A" and "B" quality resources include water features that would be subject to
degradation and pollution without protection. Loss of the resources located on
developed properties could result in a decrease in property values by the amount
associated with the proximity to forest, wildlife habitat and water features. Slope
destabilization and erosion would result from the loss of the resources. Parcels with
"A" or "B" quality resources that are not protected risk the loss of the amenity values
associated with the forest cover and water features, the wildlife habitat values, and
the damage cost avoided values provided by the stabilization of the slopes. No
protection of "C" quality resources would result in some loss of forest and habitat
values, no loss of water values, and some gain in development flexibility.
Negative economic impacts = loss of "A" and "B" quality resources;
reduction in capitalized value of
amenity values into property values;
loss of marginal "C" quality resources
Positive economic impacts = increased flexibility in siting
development
Net economic impacts = negative
Limiting Protection for Significant Resources
Where development is permitted, there is a risk of lowering the damage cost
avoided values, reducing the amenity value of the forest and water features and
wildlife values. Protecting "A" and "B" quality resources can maintain the amenity
values and their potential capitalization into property values. Limited protection of
"C" quality resources saves some values while allowing development.
Negative economic impacts = loss of "A" and/or "B" quality
resources where development is
permitted
Positive economic impacts = "A", "B" and "c" quality resources;
potential capitalization of amenity
values into property values
Net economic impacts = positive
Recommendations:
Given the information contained in the inventory on resource quantity and
quality, the economic analysis indicates full protection of "A" quality
resources along creeks and ravines, with limited protection of boundary areas
of the ravines. In addition, the analysis indicates full protection of "B" quality
resources in the larger, northern creek area, with limited protection of the
ravines and other smaller drainages. Due to their small size and lower
values, no protection is recommended for "c" quality resources.
Social Consequences
This analysis considers the social consequences of prohibiting, limiting or allowing
conflicting uses within Resource Site 143.
Fully Protecting Significant Resources
Fully protecting resources supports adopted local policies to avoid development
"where landslide hazard are predominant or natural conditions are unique and
sensitive...."(Bureau of Planning 1985). Protection results in reduced landslide,
erosion and flood hazards and increased air and water quality. Protecting the site's
natural resources would complement and maintain the wooded, rural character of
the site. Protected vegetation also provides a filter for noise, odors, air and water
pollutants within neighborhoods. Though the site does not provide needed
housing, some housing opportunities could be lost if redistribution to non-resource
Resource Site Inventory ana Analysis 75
·areas was precluded. Certain potential neighborhood services such as daycare and
community centers could be limited under full protection. Full protection has
overall positive social consequences though with some limitations for siting
housing and community support services.
No Protection for Significant Resources
No protection is inconsistent with adopted local conservation policies. The risk of
landslide and flood hazards is higher. Scenic corridors are protected independently,
but area's wooded character is at risk. Natural buffering values of vegetation is at
risk. Housing and community support services are constrained only by physical site
conditions. No protection has negative social consequences; some siting flexibility
gained.
Limiting Protection for Significant Resources
Limited protection supports adopted local conservation policies. This action limits
potential landslide, erosion and flood hazards and increases air and water quality.
The site's wooded character and the vegetation's buffering values would be partially
lost. Housing and community support service opportunities would be maintained.
Limiting protection has overall positive consequences though with some social
amenity values at risk.
R~commendations:
Fully protect significant water features, vegetation and steep slopes. Provide
limited protection along resource boundaries where full protection would
preclude housing and community support services..
Environmental Consequences
This analysis considers the environmental consequences of prohibiting, limiting or
allowing conflicting uses within Resource Site 143.
Fully Protecting Significant Resources
This action protects significant environmental resources and resource values
identified in the site inventory. The environmental consequences are positive.
No Protection for Significant Resources
No protection results in the loss of significant environmental resources and
resource values identified in the site inventory. The environmental consequences
are negative.
Limiting Protection for Significant Resources
This action conserves significant environmental resources and resource values
identified in the site inventory. The environmental consequences are generally
positive, but there is a risk that some resources and values will be lost.
76 Chapter 4
Recommendations:
Fully protect significant resources.
Energy Consequences
This analysis considers the energy consequences of prohibiting, limiting or allowing
conflicting uses within Resource Site 143.
Fully Protecting Significant Resources
Where Significant trees are located adjacent to buildings, protection provides
beneficial energy effects. Trees reduce energy needs for heating and cooling by
tempering the effects of the local climate. Trees provide shelter from winter winds
and storms, and shade buildings and absorb heat during the summer. One tree can
provide air conditioning benefits totaling $73 per year (Oregon CommuniTree News
1993). Evergreen (and to a lesser extent deciduous) trees located close to bUildings may
reduce solar access and passive heat gain during the cooler months. Full protection of
steep ravines can reduce energy consumption by eliminating long, steep or hazardous
access for residential services and infrastructure. Such protection promotes compact
development forms, common wall construction, and similar energy saving·practices.
Full protection of whole properties risks higher energy costs associated with transport-
ation and infrastructure if housing, neighborhood institutions or local farm opera-
tions are pushed outside established urban areas. Energy consequences are generally
positive, though potentially negative if certain uses are forced outside of the UGB.
No Protection for Significant Resources
No protection risks the detrimental energy effects of suburban sprawl, including
residential service and infrastructure inefficiencies. Energy savings for heating and
cooling of structures will be lost through the loss of trees that ameliorate local
climate. Where resources apply to whole properties, providing areas of no
protection will decrease the pressure for housing, neighborhood institutions or local
farm operations to occur outside established urban boundaries, potentially reducing
energy costs associated with transportation and infrastructure. Energy consequences
are negative unless no other local (urban) sites exist for certain uses.
Limiting Protection for Significant Resources
Limiting protection will conserve some trees that reduce energy needs for heating
and cooling by ameliorating the local climate. Long, steep or hazardous access for
residential services and infrastructure can be limited, providing energy savings.
Compact development forms, common wall construction, and similar energy saving
practices could result with energy benefits. No housing, neighborhood institutions
or local farm operations would be displaced. Net energy consequences are positive.
Recommendations:
Fully protect significant resources, except where whole vacant properties are
affected. Provide limited protection of non-creek resources in such cases.
Resource Site Inventory and Analysis 77
Resource Site 144: Bronson Creek Headwaters Maps: 2318,2418,2518-19,
2618-19
Resource Site Size: 270 acres
Approx. Boundaries: NW Springville Road, north; Skyline Blvd., east; Skyline
Memorial Gardens, south; City Limits, west
Neighborhood:
Inventory Dates:
Habitat Classification:
Forest Park
4/5/93,4/6/93,5/4/94
• Upland Coniferous/Broadleaf Deciduous Forest
• Riverine, Intermittent Streambed, Seasonally Flooded
• Palustrine, Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded
Types of Resources:
Forest, wildlife habitat, sensitive fauna, intermittent creeks and creek headwaters,
palustrine wetlands, groundwater, open space
Functional Values:
Food, water, cover and territory for wildlife; groundwater recharge and discharge;
slope stabilization, sediment and erosion control; microclimate amelioration; air
and water quality protection; scenic values
Resource Location and Description
This site is the headwaters area for Bronson Creek which eventually merges with
Rock Creek near NW 185th Avenue and Germantown Road. The creek basin is
southwest sloping and predominantly forested and remains so as it leaves the city
into unincorporated Multnomah County; it then meanders through rural farmland
and scattered housing in Washington County. About a dozen single dwelling
residences are distributed along Skyline Blvd. intermixed with wooded areas and
agricultural uses. The site is situated between Skyline Blvd. and the western city
limits, from NW Springville Rd. south to Skyline Memorial Gardens. The site's
steep, upper basin location provides an important biological link to downstream
land and water resources. The site also serves as a migratory link for mammals,
birds and herptiles along and across the ridgetop.
Resource Quantity and Quality
This site contains two headwaters tributaries to Bronson Creek. The total length of
the tributaries and associated drainages within the site is approximately two lineal
miles. In addition to the riverine creek system, one pond and several emergent
wetlands associated with creeks are located in the site. Approximately 170 acres of
Resource Site Inventory and Analysis 19
this 270-acre site is forested (as of Spring, 1994). The forest ranges from early to mid-
successional stages, approximately 20 to 120 years in age. Slopes across the site range
from level on the ridgetop at Skyline Memorial Gardens to as much as 100 percent
in the ravines.
The site's headwater tributaries, wetlands, ravines and forest provide important
forage, cover and nesting habitat for a variety of bird, mammal, amphibian and
reptile species. Two state-listed sensitive species occur within the site. The
northern red-legged frog (also a Federal candidate species) breeds in a downstream
pond and migrates up through the northern tributary (its presence in the southern
tributary is expected but not known). One frog was identified in 1994 near the
intersection of Skyline and Springville Road (Hayes 1994). The sensitive pileated
woodpecker is also present in the ravines where older conifers and snags are
common. The woodpecker and frog both serve as indicators of the health of the
Bronson Creek watershed ecosystem.
Though not inhabited by fish, the sites creeks do exert a significant influence on
downstream water quality and fish production. Bronson Creek feeds into the
Tualatin River system which supports a variety of fish including several state-listed
sensitive species such as coho and fall chinook salmon, cutthroat trout, pacific
lamprey. The Tualatin River is also under a DEQ enforcement order requiring all
jurisdictions within the watershed to take actions to improve water quality,
including control of erosion and reduction of sediment and nutrient loads.
The watercourses are in forest cover and contain dispersed large woody debris.
These features help to retain moisture and provide important sources of food and
cover for amphibian species such as the ensatina and pacific giant salamanders,
roughskin newt and red-legged frog. Reptiles include northwestern and common
garter snakes, and the northern alligator lizard. The creek and creek tributaries also
provide a seasonal water source for terrestrial vertebrates such as bobcat, black-tailed
deer, coyote, vagrant shrew, shrew-mole, deer mouse and Townsend's vole which
use the site. Bird species identified at this site include hawks, owls, woodpeckers,
warblers, wrens and numerous other forest bird species. The site's interspersion
with downstream and adjacent forest allows for free migration of wildlife and
increases its value as habitat.
In addition to prOViding habitat for wildlife, the forest protects soil and watershed
resources, and contribute to the rural character of the site. Some of the resource
values include slope stabilization, dissipation of erosive forces, and sediment and
nutrient removal. The forest helps to purify the air as well as the water, and
provides shelter from storms and cold winds. The forest also adds to the scenic
qualities of the area, giving it a semi-rural character.
80 Chapter 4
__ - -- ----0
WASHINGTON COUNlY ,-;==:::
Map 2 - Site 144
Skyline-West
Resource Protection Plan
Bureau of Planning' City of Portland, Oregon
THOMPSON RD.
~ A Quality Resource
lID B Quality Resource
@] C Quality Resource
RD.
COUNlY
uJ
~I ~
\I~WRO'
~oo,1
I
Scale (Feel)
(Elevation Contour
Intervals: 50)
IfIl Significant
Resource
Areas
;PR1NGVlLLE RD.
o
MULTNJ
Composite Wildlife Habitat Rating:
Range of Habitat Scores: 39 - 86
Water : Medium
Food : Moderately High
Cover : Moderately High
Interspersion : Medium
Uniqueness : Medium
Disturbance : Low
The site's forest provides a good example of the Pacific Northwest's western
hemlock forest community. This community is unique among all temperate forests
in the world (Waring and Franklin 1979). Some of the site's ravines contain
significant stands of western red cedar (Thuja plicata) and western hemlock (Tsuga
heterophylla), two later successional associates of the western hemlock community.
With one exception, the entire site is composed of Cascade silt loam soils. This silt
loam is formed in silty materials and has a seasonally high water table, slow
permeability, and a fragipan at 20 to 30 inches. Except in relatively level areas along
the ridgetop, this soil has severe limitations for building site development and
sanitary facilities, particularly during the wet winter months (Mult. Co. Soil Survey,
1983). A small Delena silt loam inclusion borders Skyline Blvd. approximately 2000
ft. south of Springville Rd. This soil also has severe limitations for building site
development and sanitary facilities due primarily to wetness.
The Columbia River Basalt underlying the site yields moderate to large amounts
(up to 1,000 gpm) of water to local wells. Groundwater is moderately hard to hard
with occasionally high chloride content. Recharge occurs principally through
infiltration, but also through migration from overlying and underlying formations
and adjacent recharge areas (Redfern 1976). Water Resource Board records of wells
and surface water rights are summarized below.
Wells and Surface Water Rights (SWR)
Map Quarter Section Wells SWR
2318 NE 1/4 Sec 15 INIW 1
2518 NE 1/4 Sec 221NIW 4 1
2619 SW 1/4 Sec 23 INIW 2
Wells by Section
Section Wells
15 (INIW) 7
22 (INIW) 9
23 (INIW) 11
Skyline Boulevard is a designated scenic corridor in the city's Scenic Resources
Protection Plan. The scenic corridor designation is intended to preserve and
enhance the scenic character along corridors, and where possible, scenic vistas from
corridors. Skyline Memorial Gardens has a designated scenic viewpoint.
82 Chapter 4
Conclusion
This site contains significant natural resources including forest, water and sensitive
fauna resources. Two state-listed species are identified within the site, with four
additional sensitive fish species identified downstream from the site. Resource
values associated with water quality and slope stability are significant within the
forested ravines. Certain water resources also provide important domestic water
supplies and the entire site is part of the Tualatin Basin requiring measures to
protect and improve water quality. Based on the decision factors discussed earlier in
this chapter, most of the significant resources are located within the site's ravines. A
few exceptions occur on upland plateaus with significant values.
Site 144 Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy Consequences
This section analyzes the consequences of protecting significant natural resources in
Site 144, and the consequences of allowing these resources to be degraded or
destroyed. The analysis addresses four types of consequences: economic, social,
environmental and energy. Environmental consequences of allowing conflicting
uses are addressed in the beginning of this chapter.
This site contains the following zoning categories: Residential Farm and Forest (RF)
and Open Space (OS). Significant resources at the site are located within areas
contained in both these zones (see Table 1 for allowed uses).
Certain uses allowed in the RF zone are not feasible within or applicable to the
resource site. Site 144 does not include any properties with revocable use permits
and no new uses are permitted, so the analysis will not address these uses. The
analysis does not address mining because the site does not includes any existing or
potential mineral or aggregate extraction operations. The analysis does not address
rail line corridors because none exist or are proposed for the site and area
topography exceeds maximum gradient for rail lines. Aviation and surface
passenger terminals are not feasible due to the topography, shape and development
pattern of Site 144.
Economic Consequences
This analysis considers the economic consequences of prohibiting, limiting or
allowing conflicting uses within Resource Site 144.
Parcels in Site 144
There are "A" quality resources in the northwestern section of the site. There is a
"B" quality resource in the center portion of the site, south of Saltzman Road and in
the area north of Saltzman Road. There are "C" quality resources in the southern
portion of the site.
Reeource Site Inventory and Analyeie B5
Five parcels contain "A" quality resources. The "B" quality resources, north of
Saltzman Road, are located on five parcels. The "B" quality resources, south of
Saltzman Road, are located on six parcels. There are "B" and "C" quality resources
located on the Skyline Memorial Garden property; "B" on the RF-zoned portion of
the cemetery, and both "B" and "C" on the OS-zoned portion.
Fully Protecting Significant Resources
Fully protecting "A" resources preserves the highest resource values within the site,
but would preclude development of two parcels. Protection of "B" resources within
RF-zoned areas would preserve slightly lower values but precludes development of
one parcel and removes all housing opportunities at the cemetery site. Protection of
"B" resources within OS-zoned areas would preserve resource values without
affecting housing, but could potentially reduce cemetery expansion opportunities.
Protection of "C" resources preserves lower valued resources but also restricts
cemetery expansion options.
Full protection of significant resources preserves the amenity value of the forest and
water features, the improved water quality values, the wildlife habitat values, and
the damage cost avoided values through stabilization of slopes. These values are
greatest for "A" quality ravines and "B" quality creeks.
Negative economic impacts = loss of development potential on two
parcels with "A" quality resources;
loss of development potential on one
parcel and cemetery RF land with
"B" quality resources
Positive economic impacts = "A", "B" and "C" quality resources;
potential increase in property values
due to capitalization of amenity
values
Net economic impacts = positive
No Protection for Significant Resources
Portions of some parcels containing significant resources would be subject to erosion
if the resources are not protected. Slope stabilization and habitat values would be
degraded. Providing no protection for the significant resources risks the loss of the
amenity values associated with the forest cover and water features, the improved
water quality values, the wildlife habitat values, and the damage cost avoided
values provided by the stabilization of the slopes. Two entire parcels with "A"
quality resources and two RF parcels with "B" quality resources could be developed.
84 Chapter 4
RD.
3'PRlNG'/lu.E RO.
Ci
MULTNO AH COUNlY
-- - -- - ----.
WASHINGTON COUNlY ===
lHOM'PSON RO.
~I
NORTH ,'1
0' 2,000' ~;
...-==31 it
Scale (Feet)
(Elevation Contour
Intervals: 50')
Site 144 - Zoning
Skyline-West
Resource Protection Plan
Bureau of Planning· City of Portland, Oregon
Negative economic impacts = loss of "A", "B" and "C" quality
resources;
potential decrease in property values
due to reduced capitalization of
amenity values
Positive economic impacts = four parcels developable
Net economic impacts = negative
Limiting Protection for Significant Resources
Three parcels entirely within "A" and "B" quality resource areas are developable.
The RF cemetery site is developable. Protecting "A" and "B" resources located on
developed parcels will have no significant negative economic impacts. Where
development is permitted, there is risk of lowering of damage cost avoided values,
reducing the amenity value of the forest and water features, and reducing water
quality and wildlife values. Protecting "A", "B" and "C" quality resources can
maintain the amenity values and their potential capitalization into property values.
Negative economic impacts = loss of "A", "B" and "C" quality
resources where development is
permitted;
Positive economic impacts = "A", "B" and "C" quality resources;
potential increase in property values
due to capitalization of amenity
values;
Net economic impacts = positive
Recorn rnenda tions:
Given the information contained in the inventory on resource quantity and
quality, the analysis indicates full protection of "A" quality resources along
ravines, with limited protection along boundary areas. In addition, the
analysis indicates full protection of "B" quality resources along creeks, with
limited protection along ravines and woodland areas containing "B" quality
resources. Limited protection is indicated for "C" quality resources.
Social Consequences
This analysis considers the social consequences of prohibiting, limiting or allowing
conflicting uses within Resource Site 144.
86 Chapter 4
Fully Protecting Significant Resources
Fully protecting resources supports adopted local policies to avoid development
"where landslide hazard are predominant or natural conditions are unique and
sensitive...."(Bureau of Planning 1985). This action reduces landslide, erosion and
flood hazards and increased air and water quality. Protecting the site's natural
resources would complement and maintain the wooded, rural character of the site.
Protecting vegetation also filters noise, odors, air and water pollutants within the
site. Though the site does not provide needed housing, some housing
opportunities could be lost if redistribution to non-resource areas was precluded.
Certain potential neighborhood services such as daycare and community centers
could be limited under full protection. Expansion of the cemetery could be restricted
to non-resource areas. Full protection has overall positive social consequences
though with some limitations for siting housing and community support services.
No Protection for Significant Resources
No protection is inconsistent with adopted local conservation policies. The risk of
landslide and flood hazards is higher. Scenic corridors are protected independently,
but area's wooded character is at risk. Natural buffering values of vegetation at risk.
Housing, community support services, and cemetery expansion would be
constrained only by physical site conditions. No protection has negative social
consequences; some siting flexibility gained.
Limiting Protection for Significant Resources
Limited protection supports adopted local conservation policies. This action limits
potential landslide, erosion and flood hazards and increases air and water quality.
The site's wooded character and the vegetation's buffering values would be partially
at risk. Housing, community support service and cemetery expansion opportunities
would be maintained. Limiting protection has overall positive consequences
though with some social amenity values at risk.
Recommendations:
Fully protect significant resources, except on parcels where housing or
community support services would be precluded. Provide limited protection
of resources in such cases sufficient to allow these uses to occur.
Environmental Consequences
This analysis considers the environmental consequences of prohibiting, limiting or
allowing conflicting uses within Resource Site 144.
Fully Protecting Significant Resources
This action protects significant environmental resources and resource values
identified in the site inventory. The environmental consequences are positive.
Re50urce Site Inventory ana Analy5i5 87
No Protection for Significant Resources
No protection results in the loss of significant environmental resources and
resource values identified in the site inventory. The environmental consequences
are negative.
Limiting Protection for Significant Resources
This action conserves significant environmental resources and resource values
identified in the site inventory. The environmental consequences are generally
positive, but there is a risk that some resources and values will be lost.
Recommendations:
Fully protect significant resources.
Energy Consequences
This analysis considers the energy consequences of prohibiting, limiting or allowing
conflicting uses within Resource Site 144.
Fully Protecting Significant Resources
Where significant trees are located adjacent to buildings, protection provides
beneficial energy effects. Trees reduce energy needs for heating and cooling by
tempering the effects of the local climate. Trees provide shelter from winter winds
and storms, and shade buildings and absorb heat during the summer. One tree can
provide air conditioning benefits totaling $73 per year (Oregon CommuniTree News
1993). Evergreen (and to a lesser extent deciduous) trees located close to buildings
may reduce solar access and passive heat gain during the cooler months. Full
protection of the site's steep ravines can reduce energy consumption by eliminating
long, steep or hazardOUS access for residential services and infrastructure. Such
protection promotes compact development forms, common wall construction, and
similar energy saving practices. Full protection of whole properties risks higher
energy costs associated with transportation and infrastructure if housing,
neighborhood institutions or local farm operations are pushed outside established
urban areas. Energy consequences are generally positive, though potentially
negative if certain uses are forced outside of the UGB.
No Protection for Significant Resources
No protection risks the detrimental energy effects of suburban sprawl, including
residential service and infrastructure inefficiencies. Energy savings for heating and
cooling of structures will be lost through the loss of trees that ameliorate local
climate. Where resources apply to whole properties, providing areas of no
protection will decrease the pressure for housing, neighborhood institutions or local
farm operations to occur outside established urban boundaries, potentially reducing
energy costs associated with transportation and infrastructure. Energy consequences
are negative unless no other local (urban) sites exist for certain uses.
88 Chapter 4
Limiting Protection for Significant Resources
Limiting protection will conserve some trees that reduce energy needs for heating
and cooling by ameliorating the local climate. Long, steep or hazardous access for
residential services and infrastructure can be limited, providing energy savings.
Compact development forms, common wall construction, and similar energy
saving practices could result in energy benefits. No housing, institutions or local
farm operations would be displaced. Net energy consequences are positive..
Recommendations:
Fully protect significant resources, except where whole vacant properties are
affected. Provide limited protection of resources sufficient to allow use.
Resource Site Inventory and Analysis 89
Resource Site 145: Cedar Mill Creek Headwaters Maps: 2619-20,2719-21,
2819-21,2919-21
Resource Site Size: 970 acres
Approx. Boundaries: Skyline Memorial Gardens, north; NW Skyline Blvd., east;
City Limits, south and west
Neighborhood:
Inventory Dates:
Habitat Classification:
Forest Park
6/18/86,4/14/93,3/25/94,3/29/94,4/11/94,4/22/94
• Upland Coniferous/Broadleaf Deciduous Forest
• Riverine, Intermittent Streambed, Seasonally Flooded
• Riverine, Upper Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom,
Permanently Flooded
• Palustrine, Emergent, Seasonally Flooded
• Palustrine, Forested, Seasonally Flooded
• Palustrine, Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded
Types of Resources:
Forest, wildlife habitat, sensitive fauna, intermittent and perennial creeks and creek
headwaters, palustrine wetlands, groundwater, open space
Functional Values:
Food, water, cover and territory for wildlife; groundwater recharge and discharge;
slope stabilization, sediment and erosion control; microclimate amelioration; air
and water quality protection; scenic, recreational and educational values
Resource Location and Description
This is the largest resource site in the plan area and forms a sub-basin of the Cedar
Mill Creek basin. The site is located west of NW Skyline Boulevard, north of the
city limits along NW Cornell Road, east of the city limits, and south of Skyline
Memorial Gardens.
An array of first and second order creeks pass through steep, forested ravines and
merge in the southwest corner of the site at Mill Pond. The ravines are separated by
southwest trending forested ridges or recently developed residential areas which are
part of large area subdivisions. Downstream of Mill Pond, another creek in the
Washington County portion of the site merges with the main stem and eventually
forms Cedar Mill Creek. Cedar Mill Creek becomes Beaverton Creek (and passes
through the towns of Cedar Mill and Beaverton) before flowing into the Tualatin
River. The steep, upper basin location of this site provides an important biological
Re50urce Site Inventory and Analy5i5 91
link to downstream land and water resources. The site also serves as a migratory
link for mammals, birds and herptiles along and across the West Hills ridge.
Resource Quantity and Quality
Multiple first order creek branches feed the site's five primary creeks which meet to
form Cedar Mill Creek. The total length of the creeks and creek branches within the
site is approximately ten lineal miles. In addition to the riverine creek system, three
palustrine wetlands are identified in the National Wetlands Inventory. Three
additional wetlands were identified in the field inventory, as well as numerous
forested and emergent wetlands directly associated with the site's creeks. The
wetlands range in size from 1,000 sq. ft. to three acres and cover a total area of
approximately 12 acres.
Of the total 970 acres, approximately 700 acres of this site is forested (as of Spring,
1994). The forest ranges from early to mid-successional stages, or roughly ten to 100
years in age. The older forest is typically situated in creek ravines and is relatively
dense with diverse species composition (over 125 species) ; the younger forest tends
to be sparse (open canopy) with lower species diversity. The creek ravines also
typically provide more significant wildlife habitat values, though habitat along
certain ridges and upland plateaus is significant.
The site's creeks and associated tributaries, wetlands and ravines provide important
forage, cover and nesting habitat for a variety of bird, mammal, amphibian and
reptile species. Two state-listed sensitive species have been identified within the site
to date. The northern red-legged frog, which also is a Federal candidate species, is a
rare amphibian that breeds in January and February in local ponds or creek pools
(including at least one wetland identified above), travels upstream through
neighboring ravines to terrestrial habitats during the summer, and eventually
returns to breed in downstream ponds. Juvenile frogs were identified in 1994 in the
creek south of Reed Drive (Hayes 1994).
The pileated woodpecker, a sensitive species distributed widely within the site, is an
important indicator species for the retention of a complete community of hole-
nesting birds and small mammals (McClelland 1979). Most of these cavity-nesters
are beneficial insectivores which help to control insect populations in the area.
Wildlife biologists often use the presence or absence of one or more "indicator
species" to predict whether an area of habitat is suitable for a variety of species
having similar habitat requirements. The pileated woodpecker and red-legged frog
both serve as indicators of the health of the Cedar Mill Creek watershed ecosystem.
Black-tailed deer, Townsend's chipmunk and chickaree are common throughout
the site; other mammals include bobcat, beaver, coyote, vagrant shrew, shrew-mole,
Townsend's mole, little brown myotis, Mazama pocket gopher, deer mouse,
Townsend's vole, muskrat, long-tailed weasel, raccoon and striped skunk. Pacific
tree frog, ensatina and pacific giant salamander, roughskin newt, northern alligator
92 Chapter 4
~I
0' Scale (Fee~;OIOO' i~~
(Elevation Contour
Intervals: 50')
1AI0LAWRQ.
~
III Significant
Resource
Areas
00 A Quality Resource
lID B Quality Resource
@] C Quality Resource
-...------1
I
I
I
Map 3 - Site 145
Skyline-West
Resource Protection Plan
Bureau of Planning' City of Portland, Oregon
lizard, northwestern and common garter snake are resident herptiles. Several of
these species depend on both wetland and upland habitat for survival; for example,
the deer, bobcat, beaver, chipmunk, frogs, and forest bird species depend on either
daily or seasonal shifts in habitat to forage, escape flooding or predation, and breed.
Birds recorded at the Cedar Mill Creek site include the following:
hairy woodpecker red-wing blackbird American kestrel great blue heron
downy woodpecker Brewer's blackbird California quail green-backed heron
pileated woodpecker Bewick's wren band-tailed pigeon wood duck
red-br. sapsucker winter wren mourning dove green-winged teal
Cooper's hawk ruffled grouse western screech-ow blue-winged teal
sharp-shinned hawk Oregon junco great horned owl cinnamon teal
red-tailed hawk r. hummingbird vaux's swift mallard
barn swallow bushtit stellar jay American wigeon
bank swallow song sparrow (s) scrub jay belted kingfisher
cliff swallow golden-crowned s. yellow warbler (w) evening grosbeak
tree swallow (s) white-crowned s. Tennessee w. bl.-headed grosbeak
violet-green s. golden-cr. kinglet orange-crowned w. rufous-so towhee
olive-so flycatcher ruby-cr. kinglet Audubon W. C. yellowthroat
western flycatcher Swainson's thrush yellow-rumped w. northern oriole
W. wood peewee varied thrush bl.-throated grey W. purple finch
red-br. nuthatch American crow Townsend's W. house finch
brown creeper robin MacGillivray's W. goldfinch
chestnut-b chickadee cedar waxwing Wilson's W. pine siskin
black-cap chickadee northern flicker band-tailed pigeon br.-headed cowbird
nighthawk common flicker bufflehead gadwall
common merganser solitary sandpiper western tanager
The site's creeks, wetlands and forested ravines exert a significant influence on
downstream water quality and on fish and amphibian production within the larger
Tualatin River system. This system supports a broad range of species including the
state-listed sensitive coho and fall chinook salmon, cutthroat trout, pacific lamprey
and northern red-legged frog.
Composite Wildlife Habitat Rating (Ravines and Wetlands):
Range of Habitat Scores: 17 - 81
Water : Medium
Food : Moderately High
Cover : Moderately High
Interspersion : Medium
Uniqueness : Low
Disturbance : Low
94 Chapter 4
Composite Wildlife Habitat Rating (Ridges and Plateaus):
Range of Habitat Scores: 7 - 48
Water : Not Present
Food : Medium
Cover : Moderately Low
Interspersion : Medium
Uniqueness : Low
Disturbance : Medium
The Tualatin River is under a DEQ order requiring all jurisdictions within the
watershed to take actions to improve water quality, including control of erosion and
reduction of sediment and nutrient loads.
In addition to providing habitat for wildlife, the site's forest cover protects soil and
watershed resources. Forest resource values include slope stabilization, dissipation
of erosive forces, and sediment and nutrient removal. The forest helps to purify the
air as well as the water, and provides shelter from storms and cold winds. The
forest also adds to the scenic qualities of the area, giving local neighborhoods a semi-
rural character and providing buffers between them.
The site's forest contains several notable floral features. Forest species include the
pacific yew (Taxus brevifolia), a slow growing tree species commonly associated with
later successional forests. In recent years, a cancer-fighting substance known as
"taxol" was discovered in the bark of the yew. Several significant stands of western
red cedar (Thuja plicata) and grand fir (Abies grandis) are also found in this site.
These trees are later successional associates of the western hemlock forest
community. Also of note is the presence of madrone (Arbutus menziesii) with
limited distribution in the region.
The following pages contain a list of plant species identified within Site 145. Plants
are listed by taxonomic family, then alphabetically by scientific name. Non-native
plants are denoted with a double asterix (••) symbol. Species diversity is generally
higher than at other sites within the planning area. No sensitive, threatened or
endangered plants were identified.
Approximately 95 percent of the site is composed of Cascade silt loam soils. This soil
is formed in silty materials and has a seasonally high water table, slow permeability,
and a fragipan at 20 to 30 inches. Except in relatively level areas along the ridgetop,
this soil has severe limitations for building site development and sanitary facilities
due primarily to slope, wetness and low bearing strength (SCS Soil Survey 1983).
Several small soil inclusions are scattered along the edges of the site. These
inclusions are the Cascade-Urban land complex (along the developed, middle
section of Skyline Blvd.), Cornelius silt loam, Cornelius-Urban land complex and
Resource Site Inventory ana Analysis 95
96 Chapter 4
ReEiource Site Inventory ana AnalyEiiEi 97
Faloma silt loam (all found in the southwest, Washington County portion of the
site). Faloma is a hydric soil; it and the other inclusions all have moderate to severe
limitations for building site development and sanitary facilities similar to the
Cascade soils.
The Columbia River Basalt underlying the site yields moderate to large amounts
(up to 1,000 gallons per minute) of water to wells that penetrate the basalt below the
regional water table, and lesser amounts (2 to 300 gpm) of perched groundwater to
wells and springs above the water table. Groundwater is moderately hard to hard
with occasionally high chloride content. Recharge occurs principally through
infiltration, but also through migration from overlying and underlying formations
and adjacent recharge areas (Redfern 1976). Water Resource Board records of wells
and surface water rights are summarized below.
Wells and Surface Water Rights (SWR)
Map Quarter Section Wells SW R
2619 SW 1/4 Sec 23 INIW 2
2620 SE 1/4 Sec 23 INIW 2
2720 NE 1/4 Sec 26 INIW 2
2721 NW 1/4 Sec 25 INl'" 2
2819 NW 1/4 Sec 26 INl'" .2
Wells by Section
Section Wells
25 (lN1W) 12
26 (lN1W) 5
Skyline Boulevard and Cornell Road are designated scenic corridors in the city's
Scenic Resources Protection Plan. The scenic corridor designation is intended to
preserve and enhance the scenic character along corridors, and where possible,
scenic vistas from corridors. Certain standards apply to the length of buildings,
development in side setbacks, screening of mechanical equipment, signs and
preservation of trees.
Conclusion
This site contains significant natural resources. Two state-listed sensitive species
(frog and woodpecker) are identified within the site, with four additional sensitive
fish species identified downstream from the site. Resource values associated with
water quality and slope stability are significant within the forested and often steep
ravines. Certain water resources also provide important domestic water supplies
and the entire site is part of the Tualatin Basin requiring measures to protect and
improve water quality. Based on the decision factors discussed earlier in this
chapter, most of the significant resources are located within the site's multiple
ravines. Exceptions occur on ce.tain forested ridges with higher habitat scores or
other significant resource values.
98 Chapter 4
Site 145 Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy Consequences
This section analyzes the consequences of protecting significant natural resources in
Site 145, and the consequences of allowing these resources to be degraded or
destroyed. The analysis addresses four types of consequences: economic, social,
environmental and energy. Environmental consequences of allowing conflicting
uses are addressed in the beginning of this chapter.
Resource Site 145 contains the following zoning categories: Residential Farm and
Forest (RF), Residential 20,000 (R20), Residential 10,000 (RIO), Neighborhood
Commercial 2 (CN2) and Open Space (OS). Significant resources at the site,
however, are located only within areas zoned RF, RIO and OS (see Table 1 for
allowed uses). Therefore, no conflicts exist between significant resources and
commercial (CN2) and low density (R20) land within this site.
Certain uses allowed in the RF, RIO and OS zones are not feasible within or
applicable to the resource site. Site 145 does not include any properties with
revocable use permits and no new revocable uses are permitted, so the analysis will
not address these uses. The analysis does not address mining because the site does
not includes any existing or potential mineral or aggregate extraction operations (see
BOP 1988). The analysis does not address rail line corridors because none exist or are
proposed for the site and area topography exceeds maximum gradient for rail lines.
Aviation and surface passenger terminals are not feasible due to the topography,
shape and development pattern of Site 145.
Economic Consequences
This analysis considers the economic consequences of prohibiting, limiting or
allowing conflicting uses within Resource Site 145.7 Maps of subdivisions and
subdivision phases referenced in this analysis are available for review at the Bureau
of Planning.
Phase 1 of Forest Heights
Recorded subdivision plat of 144 low density lots and three medium density sites:
Austen Row 8 units (fully built); Miller Hill 69 designated units; and Leighbrook 27
designated units. Phase 1 contains two significant creek/ravine corridors. The
northern ravine (north of Miller) contains "A" quality resources. The southern
ravine (south of Miller) contains "C" quality resources. There are approximately 15
acres of "A" quality resources and 12 acres of "C" quality resources located in
designated open spaces. Nine lots have narrow back portions with "A" quality
resources. One flag lot contains "A" quality resources. The northern portion of the
7 For the purpose of this analysis, a "building envelope" is defined as a 40-foot by 40-foot area in which residential
building may occur.
Resource Site Inventory and Analysis 99
Austen Row parcel contains "A" quality resources. There are "e" quality resources
on the edges of the lots adjacent to the "C" quality resources located in open spaces.
Fully Protecting Significant Resources:
The "A" quality resources on the nine lots are within the back portions of the lots,
outside the building envelopes. Development on these lots will be minimally
constrained. The flag lot cannot be developed because there are "A" quality
resources inside the building envelope. Austen Row is fully built. The significant
resources are located behind this development. There are minimal negative
economic impacts, except for the loss of development on the flag lot. Fully
protecting the significant "A" quality resources preserves the amenity value of the
forest and water features, the improved water quality values, the wildlife habitat
values, and the damage cost avoided values through stabilization of the slopes.
Fully protecting the significant resources has positive economic impacts. Fully
protecting the "C" quality resources also has positive economic impacts, however
they are not as high in value, particularly with respect to wildlife habitat and
damage costs avoided values.
Negative economic impacts = loss of development where "A"
resources are located inside building
envelope on flag lot;
decreased siting flexibility for
development where "A" resources
are located outside building
envelopes
Positive economic impacts = "A" and "C" resources located in
open spaces;
"A" and "C" resources located
outside building envelope;
potential increase in property values
due to capitalization of amenity
values
Net economic impacts = positive
No Protection for Significant Resources
The lots containing "A" quality resources can be developed inside their building
envelopes. Several lots would be susceptible to erosion and possible slope failure if
significant resources are not protected on the back portions of the lots. Providing no
protection for the significant resources on lots or in open space risks the loss of the
amenity values associated with the forest cover and water features, the improved
water quality values, the wildlife habitat values, and the damage cost avoided
values provided by the stabilization of the slopes.
100 Chapter 4
..............
NORTH
0' 2,000'
I
Scale (Feet) I'
(Elevation Contour •
Inlervals: 50') !¥
-------1
I
I
1
Site 145 - Zoning
Skyline-West
Resource Protection Plan
Bureau of Planning· City of Portland, Oregon
Negative economic impacts = degradation of "A" and "C" quality
resources in open spaces; .
loss of "A" and "C" quality resources
outside building envelope;
loss of "A" quality resources inside
building envelope on flag lot
Positive economic impacts = opportunity to develop flag lot;
increased siting flexibility
Net economic impacts = negative
Limiting Protection for Significant Resources
The open space areas of Phase 1 include 15 acres of "A" quality resources and 12 acres
of "C" quality resources. There are no negative economic impacts to protecting
these resources. There are positive economic impacts in the form of assurance of
future benefits. If development is allowed in the "A" quality resource areas, there is
risk of lowering of damage cost avoided values, reducing the amenity value of the
forest and water features, reducing water quality and wildlife values.
Negative economic impacts = potential degradation of "A" quality
resources;
Positive economic impacts = "A" and "C" quality resources located
in open spaces;
"A" quality resources located outside
building envelope;
potential increase in property values
due to capitalization of amenity
values
Net economic impacts = positive
Recommendations for recorded subdivision plat:
"A" in OS & on lots, not flag: full protection
"A" in flag lot: limited protection
"C" in OS & on lots: limited protection
Phase 2 of Forest Heights
Recorded subdivision plat of 168 low density lots. Phase 2 includes one-half of
Silver Ridge 64 medium density units (32 units) which are not yet approved; Site
(W) (83 medium density units); a commercial/recreation site of 6.6 acres; and Mill
Pond Park. The "A" quality resources are located north of Miller, in Site (W) with
3.5 acres located in the designated open space areas. These resources include
102 Chapter 4
wetlands and ravines. There are 7.5 acres of "B" quality resources located in
designated open space areas. Seventeen lots contain "C" quality resources. There
are 4 acres of "C" quality resources in designated open space areas.
Fully Protecting Significant Resources
Site (W) contains an "A" quality wetland area. The density proposed for this site can
be redistributed with open space areas to avoid the resource area. Protecting "B"
quality resources located in open space has no negative impacts. Thirteen of the lots
containing "C" quality resources can be developed if the dwelling units are located
in a building envelope close to the roadway and away from the resources. The
majority of the area of four of lots contain "C "quality resources, including the area
inside the building envelope. Full protection would prevent development of these
lots. Therefore, there are negative economic impacts for these four lots. Fully
protecting the significant resource preserves the amenity value of the forest and
water features, the improved water quality values, the wildlife habitat values, and
the damage cost avoided values through stabilization of the slopes.
Negative economic impacts = loss of development potential inside
building envelope containing "A" or
"C" quality resources
Positive economic impacts = "A", "B" and "C" quality resources in
open space;
"C" quality resources outside
building envelope;
"A" and "C" quality resources inside
building envelopes;
potential increase in property values
due to capitalization of amenity
values
Net economic impacts = positive
No Protection for Significant Resources
The "A" quality wetland is at risk. "A", "B" and "C" resources located in open space
are subject to degradation. The 17 lots containing resources could be developed
inside their building envelopes. The four lots containing "C" quality resources
could be developed. The 83 medium density units could be developed, subject to
state and federal regulations. If development is allowed in the resource, there is a
risk of lowering of damage cost avoided values, reducing the amenity value of the
forest and water features, and reducing water quality and wildlife habitat values.
Re50urce Site Inventory ana AnalY5i5 10~
Negative economic impacts = degradation of "A", "B" and "C"
quality resources in open spaces;
loss of "C" quality resources outside
building envelope;
loss of "A" and "C" quality resources
inside building envelopes;
potential decrease in property values
due to reduction in capitalization of
amenity values
Positive economic impacts = potential development inside
building envelope containing "C"
quality resources
Net economic impacts = negative
Limiting Protection for Significant Resources
If development is allowed in the resource area, there is risk of lowering of damage
cost avoided values, reducing the amenity value of the forest and water features,
reducing water quality and wildlife habitat values. The economic impacts for
limiting protection are otherwise similar to fully protecting the significant
resources, with the exception of the four lots and the 83 medium density units.
Negative economic impacts = potential loss of "A" and "C" quality
resources on lots
Positive economic impacts = "A", "B" and "C" quality resources in
open space;
potential increase in property values
due to capitalization of amenity
values
Net economic impacts = positive
Recommendations for recorded
"A" in open space:
"B" in open space:
"C" in open space:
"A" in (W):
"C" on lots:
"C" inside envelopes:
subdivision Vlat
full protection
full protection
limited protection
full protection of wetlands,
limited protection of border
limited protection on northern edge
no protection
Phase 3 of Forest Heights
Recorded subdivision plat of 168 low density lots. Phase 3 includes one-half of
Silver Ridge (32 medium density units) and The Village at Forest Heights (70
104 Chapter 4
medium density units) in S South. Ten acres of "A" quality resources are located in
designated open areas near the south creek and 5.5 acres are located near the north
tributary. Nine lots contain "A" quality resources outside the building envelopes.
There are 5.5 acres of "B" quality resources located in designated open space areas,
including a man-made water feature. There are an additional 3 acres of "B" quality
resources adjacent to the S South. Fourteen lots contain "B" quality resources
outside the building envelopes.
Fully Protecting Significant Resources
The lots containing "A" and "B" quality resources can be developed because the
resources are located outside the building envelopes. Therefore, there are minimal
negative economic impacts. Fully protecting the significant resources preserves the
amenity value of the forest and water features, the improved water quality values,
the wildlife habitat values, and the damage cost avoided values through
stabilization of the slopes. There are limited negative impacts on uses including
reduced flexibility.
Negative economic impacts = minimal loss of flexibility for siting
Positive economic impacts = "A" and "B" quality resources in
open space;
"A" and "B" quality resources
outside building envelope;
potential increase in property values
due to capitalization of amenity
values
Net economic impacts = positive
No Protection for Significant Resources
"A" and "B" quality resource areas are at risk, resulting in the loss of damage cost
avoided values, the reduction of the amenity value of the forest and water features,
water quality values and wildlife habitat values.
Negative economic impacts = loss of "A" and "B" quality resources
in open space;
loss of "A" and "B" quality resources
outside building envelope;
potential decrease in property values
due to reduction in capitalization of
amenity values
Positive economic impacts = none
Net economic impacts = negative
Resource Site Inventory and Analysis 105
Limiting Protection for Significant Resources
If development is allowed in resource areas, there is risk of lowering of damage cost
avoided values, reducing the amenity value of the forest and water features,
reducing water quality wildlife habitat values.
Negative economic impacts = potential loss of "A" and "B"
resources
Positive economic impacts = "A" and "B" quality resources in
open spacej
"A" and "B" quality resources
outside building envelope;
potential increase in property values
due to capitalization of amenity
values
Net economic impacts = positive
Recommendations for recorded subdivision
"A" in open space:
"B" in open space:
"A" on lots:
"B" on lots:
plat
full protection
full protection
full protection of ravines,
limited protection along boundary
limited protection
Phase 4 of Forest Heights
Proposed subdivision of 117 lots. Phase 4 tentatively includes Site (T) a site with 160
medium density designated units and S North, a site with 47 medium density
designated units. To the extent that "A" quality resource locations are known prior
to the approval process, economic losses can be minimized through appropriate
siting of development. In the most recent version of the site plan there are "A"
quality resources in the center open space area, on twenty-four lots outside building
envelopes and on seven lots inside the building envelopes.
Fully Protecting Significant Resources
More than half of the site contains "A" quality resources. There are "A" quality
resources in the center open space area and inside the building envelope of seven
proposed lots. These seven proposed lots could not be developed. Twenty-four
proposed lots contain "A" quality resources outside the building envelopes. Fully
protecting the significant resources preserves the amenity value of the forest and
water features, the improved water quality values of the water features, the wildlife
habitat values, and the damage cost avoided values through stabilization of the
slopes.
106 Chapter 4
Negative economic impacts = loss of development potential inside
building envelope where "A" quality
resources are located;
Positive economic impacts = "A" quality resources in open space
and on lots
Net economic impacts = positive
No Protection for Significant Resources
The resources could be degraded, resulting in destabilization of slopes, loss of
habitat, and water quality damage. The "A" quality resource areas are at risk of being
lost which would lower of damage cost avoided values, reduce the amenity value of
the forest and water features, and reduce the water quality and wildlife habitat
values.
Negative economic impacts = loss of "A" quality resources
Positive economic impacts = increased development potential
where "A" quality resources are on
lots
Net economic impacts = negative
Limiting Protection for Significant Resources
If development is allowed in the "A" quality resource areas, there is a risk of
lowering of damage cost avoided values, reducing the amenity value of the forest
and water features, reducing water quality wildlife habitat values. "A" quality
resources within proposed building envelopes would be lost.
Negative economic impacts = potential loss of "A" quality
resources
Positive economic impacts = "A" quality resources in open spaces
Net economic impacts = positive
Recommendations:
Given the information contained in the inventory on resource quantity and
quality, the economic analysis indicates full protection of "A" quality
resources, with limited protection along boundaries of "A" quality resource
areas.
Re~ource Site Inventory and Analy~i~ 107
Phase 5 of Forest Heights
Proposed subdivision of 114 low density lots. Site (Q) is designated for 206 medium
density units and Site (Q/R) for 125 medium density units. This Phase also contains
a 10-acre school site. There are 31 proposed lots with "A" quality resources outside
the building envelope and 10 proposed lots with "A" quality resources inside the
building envelope. The site contains "A" quality significant resources in the
designated open space areas. There are also "B" quality resources on the
northeastern corner of (Q). To the extent that "A" and "B" quality resource locations
are known prior to the approval process, economic losses can be minimized
through appropriate siting of development.
Fully Protecting Significant Resources
"A" quality significant resources in the proposed open spaces areas would be
protected. The 31 proposed lots could be developed as the resource is located outside
the building envelopes. The 10 proposed lots with resources within the building
envelopes could not be developed. The "B" quality resources can be preserved by
redistributing the density of (Q) and restricting siting flexibility. Fully protecting the
significant resource preserves the amenity value of the forest and water features, the
wildlife shelter values, the water quality values and the damage cost avoided values
through stabilization of the slopes.
Negative economic impacts = potential loss of conflicting use in
"A" and "B" quality resources areas
Positive economic impacts = "A" quality resources in proposed
open spaces;
"A" and "B" quality resources;
potential increase in property values
due to capitalization of amenity
values
Net economic impacts = positive
No Protection for Significant Resources
The "A" quality resources located in the open space areas are subject to degradation
without protection. The "B" quality resources in (Q) would be degraded if density is
not redistributed. The "A" and "B" quality resources located on the proposed lots
are at risk resulting in loss of values.
Negative economic impacts = degradation of "A" quality resources
in open spaces;
loss of "A" and "B" quality resources;
potential decrease in property values
due to reduction in capitalization of
amenity values
108 Chapter 4
Positive economic impacts = potential increased flexibility in
siting of conflicting uses
Net economic impacts = negative
Limiting Protection for Significant Resources
The "A" and "B" quality resources on the proposed lots would be lost. However,
protecting the "A" and "B" quality resources in open spaces maintains the amenity
value of the forest and water features, the wildlife shelter values, and the damage
cost avoided values through stabilization of the slopes.
Negative economic impacts = potential loss of "A" and "B" quality
resources
Positive economic impacts = "A" quality resources in open spaces;
"A" and "B" quality resources;
potential increase in property values
due to capitalization of amenity
values
Net economic impacts = positive
Recommendations:
Given the information contained in the inventory on resource quantity and
quality, the economic analysis indicates full protection of "A" quality
resources, with limited protection along boundaries of "A" areas.
In addition, the economic analysis indicates full protection of "B" quality
resources in northern boundary of (Q) and in southern creek area.
Phase 6 Forest Heights
Proposed Site (R) designated for 37 medium density units. There are "B" quality
resources located in the middle third of the phase. To the extent that "B" quality
resource locations are known prior to the approval process, economic losses can be
minimized through appropriate siting of development.
Fully Protecting Significant Resources
The middle third of the site contains "B" quality resources, partially located in open
space and partially located in Site (R). Fully protecting the significant resource
preserves the amenity value of the forest and water features, the intermediate
values of the water features, the wildlife habitat values, and the damage cost
avoided values through stabilization of the slopes. Density for Site (R) can be
redistributed to avoid the resource area.
Negative economic impacts = reduced flexibility for siting
development
Re50urce Site Inventory and Analy5i5 109
Positive economic impacts = "B" quality resources
potential increase in amenity values
Net economic impacts = positive
No Protection for Significant Resources
The "B" quality resource areas would be lost, resulting in the lowering of damage
cost avoided values and the reduction of the amenity value of the forest and water
features, water quality values and wildlife habitat values. Some greater siting
flexibility may be obtained.
Negative economic impacts = loss of "B" quality resources
Positive economic impacts = greater siting flexibility
Net economic impacts = negative
Limiting Protection for Significant Resources
The "B" quality resources in the middle third of the site partially overlap Site (R).
Loss of resources would occur where development permitted, with corresponding
loss of amenity values. Housing units can be redistributed to avoid the resource
area though limited development within resource area is possible.
Negative economic impacts = potential loss of "B" quality resources
potential loss of amenity values
Positive economic impacts = "B" quality resources
Net economic impacts = positive
Recommendations:
Given the information contained in the inventory on resource quantity and
quality, the economic analysis indicates full protection of "B" quality
resources, with limited protection along south boundary.
Phase 6 (East) Forest Heights
Recorded subdivision plat of 73 low density lots. There are "A" quality resources in
the open space in the southern portion of the site. There are "B" quality resources
in the northwestern corner and "C" quality resources in the southwestern corner.
Fully Protecting Significant Resources
The "A", "B" and "C" quality resources are all located in designated open spaces in
this phase. Fully protecting these resources preserves the amenity value of the
forest and water features, the water quality, the wildlife habitat values, and the
damage cost avoided values through stabilization of the slopes.
110 Chapter 4
Negative economic impacts = none
Positive economic impacts = "A", "B" and "C" quality resources
located in open space
Net economic impacts = positive
No Protection for Significant Resources
The "A", "B" and "C" quality resources within the open spaces areas are at risk of
degradation without protection.
Negative economic impacts = degradation of "A", "B" and "C"
quality resources located in open
space
Positive economic impacts = none
Net economic impacts = negative
.Limiting Protection for Significant Resources
The amenity value of the forest and water features, the wildlife habitat values, and
the damage cost avoided values through stabilization of the slopes are retained by
protecting the "A" and "B" quality resources. The "C" quality resources also provide
these values, but to a lesser degree.
Negative economic impacts = none
Positive economic impacts = "A", "B" and "C" quality resources
located in open space
Net economic impacts = positive
Recommendations for recorded
"A" in open space:
"B" in open space:
"C" in open space:
subdivision plat
full protection
full protection
limited protection
Phase 6 (West) Forest Heights
Proposed subdivision of 135 low density lots. More than half of the site contains
"A" quality resources, including the entire open space area. There are 20 proposed
lots with "A" quality resources outside the building envelope and 36 proposed lots
with "A" quality resources inside the building envelope. Three lots in the
northwestern corner contain a "B" quality wetland area. To the extent that "A" and
"B" quality resource locations are known prior to the approval process, economic
losses can be minimized through appropriate siting of development.
Re50urce Site Inventory and Analy5i5 111
Fully Protecting Significant Resources
Ravines and wetlands will be preserved. There are no negative economic impacts
associated with fully protecting the "A" quality resources in the open space areas,
while there are positive economic impacts in the form of assurance of future
benefits. The 36 proposed lots that contain "A" quality resources over all or most of
the lot are potentially undevelopable since there is no non-source areas for the
building envelope. Fully protecting the significant resources preserves the amenity
value of the forest and water features, the improved water quality values, the
wildlife habitat values, and the damage cost avoided values through stabilization of
the slopes. Fully protecting the significant resources has positive economic impacts,
but negatively impacts the development potential of 36 proposed lots.
Negative economic impacts = potential loss of development of
conflicting use within "A" and "B"
quality resources
Positive economic impacts = "A" quality resources in proposed
open spaces;
"A" and "B" quality resources on
proposed lots;
potential increase in property values
due to capitalization of amenity
values
Net economic impacts = positive
No Protection for Significant Resources
Loss of ravine resources and wetlands could result in the destabilization of slopes,
loss of habitat, and water quality damage. If development is allowed in the "A" or
"B" quality resource areas, there is a loss of damage cost avoided values and a
reduction in the amenity value of the forest and water features, water quality values
and wildlife habitat values.
Negative economic impacts = loss of "A" and "B" quality resources
Positive economic impacts = increased flexibility for siting
conflicting uses
Net economic impacts = negative
Limiting Protection for Significant Resources
There are minimal negative economic impacts associated with protecting the "A"
quality resources in the open space areas, while there are some economic benefits in
the form of assurance of future benefits. Limited protection of "A" or "B" quality
resources would result in some resources being lost where development is
permitted.
112 Chapter 4
Negative economic impacts
Positive economic impacts
Net economic impacts
= loss of "A" and "B" quality resources
where development is permitted
= "A" and "B" quality resources
outside building envelopes;
proposed lots in resource area
developable;
potential increase in property values
due to capitalization of amenity
values
= positive
Recommendations:
Given the information contained in the inventory on resource quantity and
quality, the economic analysis indicates full protection of "A" quality
resources along the ravine, with limited protection along boundaries of "A"
quality resource areas. In addition, the economic analysis indicates limited
protection for "B" quality resources.
Phase 7 of Forest Heights
Proposed subdivision of 211 low density lots. There are two "B" quality and six "C"
quality resources running from north to south through the proposed phase. To the
extent that "B" and "C" quality resource locations are known prior to the approval
process, economic losses can be minimized through appropriate siting of
development.
Fully Protecting Significant Resources
The "B" quality resources in the proposed open spaces have no negative economic
impacts associated with full protection, while there are positive benefits for the
assurance of future existence. The "C" quality resources are of less value and are
within proposed open space areas, with the exception of several edges of lots and the
roadways. Fully protecting the quality resources preserves the amenity value of the
forest and water features, the wildlife habitat values, and the damage cost avoided
values through stabilization of the slopes.
Negative economic impacts = potential loss of flexibility in siting
development
Positive economic impacts = "B" and "C" quality resources
Net economic impacts = positive
Ree;ource Site Inventory and Analye;ie; 113
No Protection for Significant Resources
The proposed open space areas contain "B" and "C" quality resources. The resources
could be degraded, resulting in the destabilization of slopes, loss of habitat, and
water quality damage. The proposed road crossings will degrade the "C" quality
resources.
Negative economic impacts = potential loss of "B" and "C" quality
resources
Positive economic impacts = greater siting flexibility
Net economic impacts = negative
Limiting Protection for Significant Resources
There are minimal negative economic impacts associated with protecting the "B"
and "C" quality resources in proposed open space areas, while there are positive
economic impacts in the form of assurance of future benefits. Limited protection
would result in some resources being lost where development is permitted.
Negative economic impacts = potential loss of "B" and "C"
resources
Positive economic impacts = "B" and "C" quality resources in
open spaces
Net economic impacts = positive
Recommendations:
Given the information contained in the inventory on resource quantity and
quality, the economic analysis indicates full protection of "B" quality
resources along the creek, with limited protection along boundaries of "B"
quality resource areas. In addition, the economic analysis indicates limited
protection for "C" quality resources.
Blue Point
Recorded subdivision plat of 35 acres with 59 designated low density lots in the
northern two-thirds of the subdivision. The "A" quality resource, a significant
ravine is located primarily in Parcel (0), which is designated as common open space.
Fully Protecting Significant Resources
The "A" quality resources are located in a designated common space. Fully
protecting the Significant resources preserves the amenity value of the forest and
water features, the improved water quality values, the wildlife habitat values, and
the damage cost avoided values through stabilization of the slopes.
114 Chapter 4
Negative economic impacts = none
Positive economic impacts = "A" quality resource in open spaces;
potential increase in property values
due to capitalization of amenity
values
Net economic impacts = positive
No Protection for Significant Resources
Even though "A" quality resources are located in a designated open space, the
resource could be degraded, resulting in slope destabilization, water pollution and
wildlife habitat loss.
Negative economic impacts = degradation of "A" quality resources
in open spaces;
Positive economic impacts = none
Net economic impacts = negative
Limiting Protection for Significant Resources
The "A" quality resources in the open space would receive additional protection.
Protecting these resources conserves many of the amenity values of the forest and
water features, the improved water quality values, the wildlife habitat values, and
the damage cost avoided values. However, some resources could be degraded,
resulting in limited slope destabilization, water pollution and wildlife habitat loss.
Negative economic impacts = none
Positive economic impacts = "A" quality resources in open spaces;
Net economic impacts = positive
Recommendations for recorded subdivision V1at
"A" in open space: full protection
Skyline Summit
This site is a partially recorded subdivision with Phases 1 through 6. Phase 1/ 2/ and
3 are recorded subdivision plats. Phase 1 is in the process of being built out. There
are "B" quality resources on the back third of seven lots in the northern section of
the phase and "C" quality resources on the back portions of three lots in the
southern section. Phase 2 contains "B" quality resources on the back half of eleven
lots. Phase 3 contains "C" quality resources in the designated open space area and on
the back portion of six lots in the southern portion of the phase. There are four lots
with "A" quality resources. Phase 4 contains "A" quality resources in the proposed
Resource Site Inventory and Analysis 115
open space areas in the northern half of the phase. There are forty-one proposed
lots with "B" quality resources. Phase 5 contains "A" quality resources in the
southeastern corner which cover four proposed lots, and the adjacent proposed
open space. The "C" quality resources are located on one proposed lot. Phase 6
contains "A" quality resources over most of the phase, including the proposed
southern open space area and eleven proposed lots. To the extent that "A", "B" and
"C" quality resource locations are known prior to the approval process, economic
losses can be minimized through appropriate siting of development.
Fully Protecting: Significant Resources
The "B" quality resources in Phases 1 and 2 are located on the back portions of the
lots. The "C" quality resource in Phase 3 is located primarily in the designated open
space and outside of the building envelopes of the lots. The open space area in
Phase 4 contains "A" quality resources. There are minimal negative economic
impacts on open space and positive benefits for the assurance of future existence.
The lots containing "A" quality resources on the majority of the lot areas cannot be
developed under full protection. The proposed lots in the southern section of Phase
4 contain "B" quality resources in the back portions, outside the building envelopes.
Fully protecting the quality resources preserves the amenity value of the forest and
water features, the wildlife habitat values, and the damage cost avoided values
through stabilization of the slopes.
Negative economic impacts = the potential loss of development
where "A", "B" or "C" quality
resources are located
Positive economic impacts = "A", "B" and "C" quality resources in
open spaces;
"A", "B" and "C" quality resources
outside building envelopes;
"A", "B" and "C" quality resources
inside building envelopes;
potential increase in property values
due to capitalization of amenity
values
Net economic impacts = neutral
No Protection for Significant Resources
"A", "B" and "C" quality resources located in open space areas could be degraded.
Slope destabilization, habitat losses and reduced water quality are all consequences
of no protection. "A", "B" and "C" quality resources are at risk, resulting the
lowering of damage cost avoided values, reducing the amenity value of the forest
and water features, reducing water quality values and wildlife habitat values.
116 Chapter 4
Negative economic impacts
Positive economic impacts
Net economic impacts
= degradation of "A", "B" and "C"
quality resources in open spaces;
loss of "A", "B" and "C" quality
resources outside building
envelopes;
loss of "A", "B" and "C" quality
resources inside building envelopes
= increased flexibility for siting
conflicting uses
= negative
Limiting Protection for Significant Resources
The "A", "B" and/or "C" quality resources located inside building envelopes will be
lost, and those outside the envelope are at risk. The resources located in open space
will preserve the amenity value of the forest and water features, the improved
water quality values, the wildlife habitat values, and the damage cost avoided
values through stabilization of the slopes. .
Negative economic impacts = loss of "A", "B" and "C" quality
resources inside building envelopes;
potential loss of resources outside
building envelopes
Positive economic impacts = "A", "B" and "C" quality resources in
open spaces;
potential increase in property values
due to capitalization of amenity
values
Net economic impacts = positive
Recommendations for recorded subdivision plats for Phases 1. 2 and 3
"A" in open space:
"A" outside building envelope:
"B" in open space:
"B" outside building envelope:
"C" in open space:
"C" outside building envelope:
full protection
full protection
full protection
full protection along stream,
limited protection on boundary
limited protection
limited protection
Recommendations for Phases 4, 5 and 6
Given the information contained in the inventory on resource quantity and
quality, the economic analysis indicates full protection of "A" and "B" quality
resources, with limited protection along the boundaries of the "A" and "B"
•
Resource Site Inventory ana Analysis 117
quality resource areas. Limited protection is indicated for "C" quality
resources.
The Summit
Proposed subdivision of 119 low density lots. There are "B" quality resources in the
southern section of the site and "A" quality resources in the northern portion.
There are "C" quality resources located in southeastern corner of the site, near
Skyline Boulevard. To the extent that "A" and "B" quality resource locations are
known prior to the approval process, economic losses can be minimized through
appropriate siting of development.
Fully Protecting Significant Resources
The proposed subdivision contains "B" quality resources in the southern section of
the site. The majority of the resources are located in the proposed open space areas.
However, twenty-three proposed lots contain "B" quality resources. The northern
most portion of the site contains "A" quality resources. These resources are located
in designated open space and on twenty-seven proposed lots. Fully protecting the
quality resources preserves the amenity value of the forest and water features, the
wildlife habitat values, and the damage cost avoided values through stabilization of
the slopes. Four proposed lots contain "C" resources with lower values and ten
proposed lots contain a combination of "B" and "C" quality resources.
Negative economic impacts = reduction of development flexibility
within significant resource area
Positive economic impacts = "A", "B" and "C" quality resources;
potential increase in property values
due to capitalization of amenity
values
Net economic impacts = positive
No Protection for Significant Resources
The majority of the "A" and "B" quality resources are located in open space areas.
However, these resources can be degraded, resulting in slope destabilization, water
pollution, wildlife habitat loss. Resources located within proposed lot areas would
be lost. The "C" quality resources are at risk of degradation or loss, though their
values are lower, particularly along the site boundary and Skyline Boulevard.
Negative economic impacts = loss of "A", "B" and "C" quality
resources;
reduction in amenity value
Positive economic impacts = increased development flexibility
Net economic impacts = negative
118 ~a~r4
Limiting Protection for Significant Resources
Resources located on proposed lots would be lost where development is permitted.
This would result in a reduction of amenity value of the forest and water features,
the improved water quality values, the wildlife habitat values, and the damage cost
avoided values through stabilization of the slopes.
Negative economic impacts = potential loss of "A", "B" and "C"
quality resources
Positive economic impacts = "A", "B" and "C" quality resources;
potential increase in property values
due to capitalization of amenity
values .
Net economic impacts = positive
Recommendations:
Given the information contained in the inventory on resource quantity and
quality, the economic analysis indicates full protection of "A" and "B" quality
resources along ravines, with limited protection along the boundaries. The
economic analysis also indicates limited protection of "C" quality resources,
with no protection along the site boundary.
Parcels in Site 145
The site contains several smaller parcels in the vicinity of Thompson Road. There
are two parcels with "A" quality resources, two parcels with "B" resources and seven
with "C" resources. The resources are creeks, small ravines and forested slopes.
Fully Protecting Significant Resources
Fully protecting the quality resources preserves the amenity value of the forest and
water features, the wildlife habitat values, and the damage cost avoided values
through stabilization of the slopes. These values are greatest for "A" quality
resources, then "B" and "C" in decreasing magnitude. Some negative impacts
would result from reduced siting flexibility.
Negative economic impacts = loss of siting flexibility
Positive economic impacts = "A", "B" and "C" quality resources;
potential increase in property values
due to capitalization of amenity
values
Net economic impacts = positive
Re60urce Site Inventory and AnalY6i6 119
No Protection for Significant Resources
Resources located within parcel areas would be lost, resulting in loss of amenity
values. Siting flexibility is increased.
Negative economic impacts = loss of "A", "B" and "C" quality
resources;
reduction in amenity value
Positive economic impacts = increased siting flexibility
Net economic impacts = negative
Limiting Protection for Significant Resources
Resources located on parcels would be lost where development is permitted. This
would result in a reduction of amenity value of the forest and water features, the
improved water quality values, the wildlife habitat values, and the damage cost
avoided values through stabilization of the slopes. Siting flexibility is maintained.
Negative economic impacts = potential loss of "A", "B" and "C"
quality resources
Positive economic impacts = "A", "B" and "C" quality resources;
potential increase in property values
due to capitalization of amenity
values
Net economic impacts = positive
Recommendations:
Given the information contained in the inventory on resource quantity and
quality, the economic analysis indicates full protection of "A" and "B" quality
resources along creeks, with limited protection along the ravines and forested
slopes. The economic analysis also indicates limited protection along of "C"
quality resources.
Social Consequences
This analysis considers the social consequences of prohibiting, limiting or allowing
conflicting uses within Resource Site 145.
Fully Protecting Significant Resources
Fully protecting resources supports adopted local policies to avoid development
"where landslide hazard are predominant or natural conditions are unique and
sensitive...."(Bureau of Planning 1985). Protection results in reduced landslide,
erosion and flood hazards and increased air and water quality. Protecting the site's
120 Chapter 4
natural resources would preserve the wooded buffers and ravines between the site's
small residential neighborhoods, and reduce noise, odors, air and water pollutants.
Fully protecting the natural resources of Site 145 would preserve opportunities for
environmental education within designated park and common open areas. Such
action would not detrimentally affect the siting of the proposed school, but could
reduce opportunities for housing or community support services. Full protection
has overall positive social consequences.
No Protection for Significant Resources
No protection is inconsistent with adopted local conservation policies. The risk of
landslide and flood hazards is higher. Scenic corridors are protected independently,
but area's woodland and ravine buffer are at risk, as are the ameliorating effects of
the forest on noise, odors, air and water quality. Housing opportunities are
preserved. No protection has negative social consequences.
Limiting Protection for Significant Resources
Limited protection supports adopted local conservation policies. This action limits
potential landslide, erosion and flood hazards and increases air and water quality.
The site's wooded character and the vegetation's buffering values would be partially
lost. Limiting protection has overall positive consequences though" With some
social amenity values at risk.
Recommendations:
Fully protect significant resources, except on parcels where housing or
community support services would be precluded.
Environmental Consequences
This analysis considers the environmental consequences of prohibiting, limiting or
allowing conflicting uses within Resource Site 145.
Fully Protecting Significant Resources
This action protects significant environmental resources and resource values
identified in the site inventory. The environmental consequences are positive.
No Protection for Significant Resources
No protection results in the loss of significant environmental resources and
resource values identified in the site inventory. The environmental consequences
are negative.
Limiting Protection for Significant Resources
This action conserves significant environmental resources and resource values
identified in the site inventory. The environmental consequences are generally
positive, but there is a risk that some resources and values will be lost.
Resource Site Inventory and Analysis 121
Recommendations:
Fully protect significant resources.
.Energy Consequences
This analysis considers the energy consequences of prohibiting, limiting or allowing
conflicting uses within Resource Site 145.
Fully Protecting Significant Resources
Where significant trees are located adjacent to buildings, protection of trees reduces
energy needs for heating and cooling by tempering the effects of the local climate.
Trees provide shelter from winter winds and storms, and shade buildings and
absorb heat during the summer. One tree can provide air conditioning benefits
totaling $73 per year (Oregon CommuniTree News 1993). Evergreen (and to a lesser
extent deciduous) trees located close to buildings may reduce solar access and passive
heat gain during the cooler months. Full protection of steep slopes and ravines can
reduce energy consumption by eliminating long, steep or hazardous access for
residential services and infrastructure. Such protection promotes compact
development forms, common wall construction, and similar energy saving
practices. Full protection of whole properties risks higher energy costs associated
with transportation and infrastructure if housing or neighborhood institutions are
pushed outside established urban areas. Energy consequences are generally positive.
No Protection for Significant Resources
No protection risks the detrimental energy effects of suburban sprawl, including
residential service and infrastructure inefficiencies. Energy savings for heating and
cooling of structures will be lost through the loss of trees that ameliorate local
climate. Where resources apply to whole properties, providing areas of no
protection may decrease the pressure for housing or neighborhood institutions to
occur outside established urban boundaries, potentially reducing energy costs
associated with transportation and infrastructure. Energy consequences are negative
unless no other local (urban) sites exist for these uses.
Limiting Protection for Significant Resources
Limiting protection will conserve some trees that reduce energy needs for heating
and cooling by ameliorating the local climate. Long, steep or hazardous access for
residential services and infrastructure can be limited, prOViding energy savings.
Compact development forms, common wall construction, and similar energy
saving practices could result with energy benefits. Net energy consequences are
positive.
Recommendations:
Fully protect significant resources, except where whole vacant properties are
affected. Provide limited protection of resources sufficient to allow use.
122 Chapter 4
Compatibility with other Goal 5 Programs
The City of Portland has completed Goal 5 planning for mineral and aggregate
resources, scenic resources and for other natural resource areas throughout
Portland. The City is currently updating its inventory of historic resources.
The Skyline West Conservation Plan is be compatible with these other Goal 5 plans
because the same inventory, analysis and regulation process is followed as required
by the Administrative Rule. In addition, where significant Goal 5 resources
identified in other plans were located in the Skyline plan area, these resources are
identified and protection levels are maintained or enhanced. The City is currently
updating its 1984 Historic Resources Inventory through a series of community
plans. The Skyline West Conservation Plan identified and addresses inventoried
historic properties within the plan area
Multnomah County and Washington County are the two jurisdictions with GoalS
programs adjoining the Skyline West Conservation Plan area.
Multnomah County
Multnomah County is currently developing the West Hills Rural Area Plan. One of
the plan's purposes is to update the Multnomah County Comprehensive
Framework Plan to comply with the Goal 5 administrative rule. The county has
completed its resource inventory for the wildlife habitat, scenic, open space, forest,
and stream and riparian resources located adjacent to the Skyline plan area. These
resources overlap the cityI county boundary in numerous areas and are designated
in a consistent manner by both jurisdictions. The city and county are coordinating
on their concurrent GoalS planning efforts in the Skyline area.
Washington County
Washington County completed its Goal 5 planning in 1983 with the adoption of its
Comprehensive Plan. The county is currently evaluating new code language in its
Rural/Natural Areas Resource Plan and Development Code to better comply with
Goal 5. The county's program for protecting significant natural resources includes
development and performance standards in its Community Development Code.
The Skyline West Conservation Plan program for protection of Goal 5 resources is
compatible with Washington County's program.
Applicable Statewide Planning Goals
This section reviews applicable statewide planning goals with particular bearing on
the analysis contained in this plan. Other state goals are addressed in Chapter 3.
Goal 6, Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality, directs local governments to
maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the State.
This plan will help the City meet its water quality obligations in the Tualatin
Re50urce Site Inventory and Analy5i5 123
Watershed. In addition, the plan will help the City comply with this goal though
the protection of significant forest, soil and water resources within the study area.
Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards, provides for the protection
of both life and property from natural hazards and disasters. Protecting the forest
cover on this site's slopes, as well as the water and drainage resources, will
accomplish this goal. Protecting forest cover as a means of soil stabilization will
prevent erosion and slides due to excavation, clearing and grading. Limiting or
prohibiting conflicting uses on steep slopes and soils susceptible to landslides will
also accomplish this goal.
Goal 10, Housing, directs local governments to provide for the housing needs of
citizens of the State. The Metropolitan Housing Rule, which provides local
governments with administrative direction, does not require cities to include those
lands with slopes greater than 25 percent or lands within the floodplain as part of
the City's buildable lands inventory. Protection measures proposed in the Skyline
Plan apply primarily to these constrained lands and will not prevent the City from
meeting its needed housing obligations.
Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services, directs local governments to plan and
develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and serviceS
to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. This plan will help the
City comply with this goal by protecting the hillside forest adjacent to the ravine and
guiding development away from these sensitive areas.
Conflict Resolution
The important natural resources and resource values within the plan area were
discussed earlier in this chapter. The following table lists the resource site, the
location and a summary of the identified conflicts between significant resources and
conflicting uses. The recommendations for each of the four ESEE factors considered
are listed. "Full" designates full protection, "limited" designates limited protection
and "none" indicates no protection. The final column lists the recommended
decision on the level of resource protection.
124 Chapter 4-
Conflict Resolution Summary Table
Site Location Identified Conflicts Eoon Social Environ Enelm' Decision
143 Skyline "B" in open space; Full Full Full Full Full
Ridge "B" on lots along ravines; Full Full Full Full Full
"B" on lots on boundary; Limited Limited Full Full Limited
"C" in open space. Limited Limited Limited Full Limited
Parcels "A" along creeks and ravines; Full Full Full Full Full
"A" along ravine boundaries; Limited Limited Full Full Limited
"B" along northern creek; Full Full Full Full Full
"Bft in ravines, small creeks. Limited Limited Full Full Limited
"C" on upland plateau None None Limited Limited None
144 Parcels IIA II along ravines; Full Full Full Full Full
"A" along boundary areas; Limited Limited Full Limited Limited
"B" along creeks; Full Full Full Full Full
"B" in ravines and woods; Limited Limited Full Limited Limited
"C" quality resources. Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited
145 Forest "A" open space, lots, not flag Full Full Full Full Full
Heights, "A" in flag lot Limited Limited Full Limited Limited
Phase 1 "C" in open space Limited Full Limited Full Limited
"C" on lots Limited Full Limited Full Limited
Phase 2 "A" in open space Full Full Full Full Full
"B" in open space Full Full Full Full Full
"C" in open space: Limited Full Limited Full Limited
"A" in Site (W), wetlands Full Full Full Full Full
"A" in Site (W), border Limited Limited Full Full Limited
"C" on lots Limited Full Limited Full Limited
"C" in envelopes None None Limited Limited None
Phase 3 ItA II in open space Full Full Full Full Full
"B" in open space Full Full Full Full Full
nAn on lots of ravines Full Full Full Full Full
"A" on lots along boundary Limited Limited Full Full Limited
"B" on lots Limited Full Full Full Limited
Phase 4 "A" quality resources Full Full Full Full Full
"A" boundary areas Limited Limited Full Limited Limited
Phase 5 "A" quality resources Full Full Full Full Full
"A" boundary areas Limited Limited Full Full Limited
"B" Quality resources Full Full Full Full Full
Phase 6 "B" quality resources, Full Full Full Full Full
"B" along south boundary. Limited Limited Full Full Limited
Phase 6 "A" in open space Full Full Full Full Full
(East) "B" in open space Full Full Full Full Full
"C" in open space Limited Full Limited Full Limited
Phase 6 "A" along the ravine Full Full Full Full Full
(West) "A" boundary areas Limited Limited Full Limited Limited
"B" Quality resources Limited Limited Full Full Limited
Re50urce Site Inventory and Analy5i5 125
Site Location Identified Conflicts Eam Social Environ Energy Decision
Phase 7 "B" along the creek Full Full Full Full Full
"B" boundary areas Limited Limited Full Full Limited
"C" quality resources Limited Full Limited Full Limited
Blue nAif in open space Full Full Full Full Full
Point
Skyline "A" in open space Full Full Full Full Full
Summit, 'A' outside building envelope Full Full Full Full Full
Phases '8' in open space Full Full Full Full Full
1,2,3 '8' outside env, along stream Full Full Full Full Full
'8' on boundary Limited Limited Full Full Limited
'C' in open space Limited Full Limited Full Limited
"C' outside building envelope Limited Full Limited Full Limited
Phases "A" quality resources Full Full Full Full Full
4,5,6 '8' quality resources Full Full Full Full Full
'A" and "B" boundary areas Limited Limited Full Full Limited
"C' quality resources Limited Full Limited Full Limited
The IIA II quality resources Full Full Full Full Full
Summit "B" along ravines Full Full Full Full Full
liB" boundary areas Limited Limited Full Full Limited
"C" adjacent to liB" Limited Full Limited Limited Limited
"C" on site boundary None None Limited Limited None
Parcels "A" and "B" along creek Full Full Full Full Full
"A" and "Bn ravines, slopes Limited Limited Full Limited Limited
"e" quality resources Limited Full Limited Full Limited
126 Chapter 4
CHAPTERS
PLAN CONSERVATION MEASURES
INTRODUCflON •
GENERAL SUMMARY·
AMENDMENTS TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS AND POLIOES •
PROTECflON PLAN POLIOES & OBJECflVES •
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 33, PLANNING AND ZONING·
AMENDMENTS TO OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS·
Introduction
This chapter provides a general summary of adopted resource conservation
measures. Plan policies and objectives which form a foundation for these measures
are presented, followed by the adopted measures and zoning code language.
General Summary
The Skyline West planning area contains three resource sites occupying the
headwaters region of three drainage basins: Rock Creek, Bronson Creek and Cedar
Mill Creek. Development pressure is high in the area and threatens to degrade
natural, scenic and open space values. Measures are needed to limit and in certain
areas prohibit conflicting uses so that development can be allowed to continue
without degradation of identified wetlands, surface and ground water resources,
native plant and animal communities, and scenic, recreational and open space
resources.
Statewide Planning Goal 5 requires that resources found to be significant, be
protected. The administrative rule for the Goal requires that an inventory be
conducted to determine the location, quantity and quality of resources. Existing or
potential land uses that conflict with significant resources are then identified. These
uses are then analyzed to determine the economic, social, environmental and
energy (ESEE) consequences of resource protection. In the course of this analysis, the
effects of resource protection are weighed against each other. From the analysis a
plan is formulated to balance the need for continued social, economic and energy
uses with the need for resource protection.
The resource inventory and analysis is presented in Chapter 4. This chapter
contains the policies, objectives and regulations necessary to implement the
required protection of significant Goal 5 resources within the plan area. The
implementation measures include:
• An Amendment to Portland's Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies to
refer to the Skyline West Conservation Plan;
• Adoption of the Skyline West Conservation Plan Policies and Objectives as
the policy document for the area;
• Amendments to Title 33, Planning and Zoning, to implement the Skyline
West Conservation Plan; and
• Amendments to the Official Zoning Maps to apply the environmental zones
to designated resource areas and remove the Interim Resource Protection
Zone.
Plan Conservation Measures 129
Environmental Overlay Zones
The primary conservation measure of the Skyline West Conservation Plan is the
application of the city's environmental zones to significant resources which are
found to warrant limited or full protection. The environmental zones protect
identified resources and resource values from adverse impacts and provide a
mechanism through which conflicts between resources and human uses can be
resolved.
The Conservation Plan applies the city's two environmental overlay zones to
resource and impact areas within the planning area. The Environmental
Conservation (EC) zone limits conflicting uses while the Environmental Protection
(EP) zone is designed to prohibit conflicting uses. Each zone contains a transition
area and a resource area. In the transition area, development is allowed subject to
transition area development standards. In the resource area of the EC zone,
development is allowed after review so long as impacts are controlled and
mitigated. In the resource area of the EP zone, development may be permitted after
review but approval criteria are extremely strict to ensure protection of resource
functions and values.
Amendments to Portland's Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
The following amendment to Comprehensive Plan Goal 8 is necessary to
acknowledge the adoption of Skyline West Conservation Plan. Language to be
added is underlined.
• Amend Comprehensive Plan Goal 8, Policy 8.11, to add a new policy area for
Skyline West. Place special areas in alphabetical order.
8.11, Special Areas
Recognize unique land qualities and adopt specific planning objectives for special
areas.
A. Balch Creek Watershed (no change)
B. East Buttes, Terraces and Wetlands (no change)
C. Fanno Creek Watershed (no change)
D. Johnson Creek Basin (no change)
E. Northwest Hills (no change)
F. Skyline West
Conserve wildlife. forest and water resource values of the Skyline
planning area through implementation of the Skyline Conservation Plan.
F. Southwest Hills (re-Ietter to G; no other change)
G. Willamette River Greenway (re-Ietter to H; no other change)
130 Chapter 5
Conservation Plan Policies & Objectives
This plan recognizes human and natural resource values on the west slope of the
Tualatin ridge. The plan applies measures to protect natural resource values while
allowing human activity in locations that can sustain such activity, and guiding
conflicting uses away from more sensitive resource areas. The plan's protection
measures are based on a set of policies and objectives which are derived from the
inventory and analysis of natural resources and human uses in the preceding
chapter.
The following policies and objectives will provide specific guidance for staff and
applicants during review of development proposals within the environmental
zones in the Skyline West planning area.
Conservation Plan Policies & Objectives
This section identifies specific policies and objectives for the SklJline West
Conservation Plan. Protection measures needed to carry out these policies and
objectives are described at the end of this chapter. These measures are designed to
protect significant functions and values of Skyline West natural resources.
#1 Overall Policy
Protect significant natural resources to preserve and enhance Skyline area
natural amenities and livability for residents and visitors.
#2 Natural Resource Policy
Protect significant natural resources and resource values by guiding
conflicting uses and development away from these resource areas
to less sensitive, more suitable building sites.
Objectives
The following objectives are intended to protect significant resources and resource
values while allowing urban development to continue:
1. Protect natural communities, sensitive species and significant wildlife habitat
and maintain connections between these communities by applying appropriate
environmental regulations;
2. Retain the natural character of the area's forested slopes interspersed with
streams by promoting compatible development away from ravines;
Plan Consetvation Measures 131
3. Use development as a means of improving or repairing the natural and scenic
qualities of the planning area by locating development on less sensitive or
already disturbed sites, planting native vegetation to match surrounding
conditions, and preserving healthier landscapes with important natural values;
4. Retain as much existing native vegetation as possible before, during and after site
alteration or construction activities;
5. Restore natural values by taking actions such as daylighting culverted creek
sections, reducing ground and surface water use during dry summer months,
removing invasive exotic plants and planting native vegetation in their place;
6. Enhance amphibian and aquatic habitat through planting of native streamside
vegetation to provide shade and reduce water temperatures, and limit
impervious surfaces to increase summer creek flows and reduce flooding and
erosion; and
7. Improve water quality by reducing sediment, nutrient and other contaminant
levels in creeks.
#3 Natural Hazards Policy
Protect water, soil and forest resources and resource values and reduce landslide
and flood hazards by minimizing disturbance to natural terrain, vegetation and
drainal!;eways and by directinl!; site development away from hazard-prone areas.
Objectives
The following are objectives which can protect existing and future development
from natural hazards within and downhill from the planning area:
1. Investigate proposed development sites for land suitability and limitations,
including potential impacts of vegetation removal, site grading, road and
building construction, and septic system and utility construction.
2. Plan and orient development and roads away from sensitive slopes, soils and
other potentially hazardous conditions identified in soils, geology or hydrology
reports.
3. Within resource areas, disturbance of existing terrain and vegetation should be
limited to the minimum area necessary to complete approved construction
activities;
4. Manage and control on- and off-site water runoff and soil erosion impacts before,
during and after construction; and
132 Chapter 5
5. When possible, limit ground-disturbing activities to the dry season and complete
all construction and re-vegetation activities in one season.
Amendments to Title 33, Planning and Zoning
The following amendments to Title 33 are necessary to acknowledge the Skyline
West Conservation Plan report and to protect Skyline area natural resources from
the threat of particularly invasive, exotic plants. At the time of this printing, only
two code changes are proposed.
• Amend Chapter 33.430, Environmental Zones, to add the Skyline West
Conservation Plan report to the list contained in 33.430.120, Environmental
Reports.
• Amend the Portland Plant List to place Scot's broom, reed canary grass and
purple loosestrife on the prohibited plant list. The new prohibited plants are
aggressive and invasive exotic species whose intrusion into resource areas have
reached critical mass. These species pose a serious threat to the continued health
and vitality of native plant ~nd animal communities within the plan area and
throughout the city.
Amendments to the Official Zoning Maps
This Conservation Plan applies environmental zones within the plan area (see
Official Zoning Maps for quarter sections shown on page 62). The water feature
designations of the Interim Resource Protection Zone and the Forest Disturbance
references are removed from the zoning maps.
The Environmental Protection overlay zone is applied to resource areas with high
functional values that are in need of full protection according to the inventory and
analysis findings. Generally, the Protection zone is applied to high quality wetlands,
creeks and ravines, as well as ecologically or scientifically significant natural areas,
high quality habitat areas for sensitive wildlife, and other resources which provide
significant values based on the decision factors described in the previous chapter.
The Protection zone will insure the protection of resource values, the continuation
of critical plant and wildlife habitat elements, and the preservation of the integrity
and viability of Skyline resources as a whole. The application of this zone will also
protect area neighborhoods from hazards such as landslides and flooding, and retain
the natural character and identity of the West Hills.
The Environmental Conservation zone is applied to areas that, while not as highly
rated as Protection zone areas, provide significant values that warrant protection.
Plan Conservat;ion Measures 133
These areas are generally able to support certain levels of development provided
impacts are controlled. The Conservation zone balances resource-use conflicts in
these areas.
The Interim Resource Protection overlay zone is removed from the planning area.
This interim zoning to protect water features is the last such zoning within the city;
its removal completes the transition to permanent city zoning for Goal 5 natural .
resources. References to Forest Disturbance are removed from the zoning maps;
these interim regulations are no longer applicable to forests within the city.
134 Chapter 5
PLAN ApPENDICES
ApPENDIX A
ADOPTING ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE No. 168154
As Amended
.K Adopt Natural Resource Inventory, ESEE Analysis, and Skyline West Conservation
Plan; amend Comprehensive Plan and Title 33 of the City Code; amend
Official Zoning Maps of the City of Portland (Ordinance; amend Title 33).
The City of Portland Ordains:
Section 1. The Council finds:
General Findings
1. In 1974, the State of Oregon adopted Statewide Planning Goal 5, Open
Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources, that requires
jurisdictions to conserve open space and protect natural and scenic
resources.
2. The City of Portland adopted its Comprehensive Plan on October 16, 1980
(effective date, January 1, 1981) and was acknowledged as being in
conformance with Statewide Goals for Land Use Planning by the Land
Conservation and Development Commission on May 1, 1981. At the
time of its adoption the plan complied with State Goal 5.
3. The Land Conservation and Development Commission's (LCDC)
administrative rules for Goal 5 (OAR 660-16-000 through 660-16-025)
outline the process to be followed in identifying and evaluating
resources and achieving compliance with Goal 5. LCDC adopted these
administrative rules in September 1981.
4. With the adoption of the administrative rule for State Goal 5 by LCDC,
the City's Comprehensive Plan was no longer in compliance with Goal 5.
5. The City has undertaken a review of its Comprehensive Plan as part of
Periodic Review to bring the Plan into compliance with the State Goals,
particularly Goal 5. The Skyline West Conservation Plan updates the
city's Comprehensive Plan in compliance with the terms of its Local
Review Order (Resolutions 34523 and 34653) concerning GoalS natural
resources. The plan and its implementing regulations fulfill State Goal 5
requirements to protect significant wetlands, water bodies, open spaces,
scenic areas and wildlife habitat areas.
6. An inventory of natural, scenic and open space resources was conducted
by Planning Bureau staff and consulting biologists, and reviewed by
Page No.1 of 13
168154
citizens, land owners, developers, neighborhood associations and other
interested groups and organizations during the planning process.
7. Three resource sites were included in the inventory and evaluated. The
resource sites are located west of NW Skyline Boulevard. Each site
forms the upper basin of a west slope creek: Rock Creek (north), Bronson
Creek (central) and Cedar Mill Creek (south). The combined planning
area is 1,750 acres in size.
8. The natural, scenic and open space resources included in the inventory
were further examined through the Economic, Social, Environmental
and Energy (ESEE) analysis process outlined in the Goal 5 administrative
rule to determine the appropriate level of protection. Each site contains
resources which warrant full protection (e.g., stream corridors and
ravines, wetlands), resources which warrant limited protection (e.g.,
upland forest and open space), and resources which are not significant or
do not warrant protection as a result of the ESEE analysis.
9. The planning area contains locally, and in certain cases regionally,
significant resources with a broad range of values. The values include
the provision of habitat for plants and wildlife, including sensitive
species; purification of water and provision of domestic water supplies;
recharge and discharge of groundwater; retention of soils and
stabilization of slopes; retention and removal of excess nutrients and
chemical contaminants; trapping and filtration of sediments and
dissipation of erosive forces of stormwater; storage, conveyance and
desynchronization of flood waters; enhancement of neighborhood
livability and scenic amenities; and provision of recreational and
educational opportunities.
10. These resource values benefit local residents, businesses and visitors
throughout the Portland metropolitan area.
11. The Skyline West Conservation Plan is the result of a two-year planning
effort with the involvement of and input from many citizens, land
owners, developers, local interest groups, environmental and economic
consultants, neighborhood organizations, as well as Bureau of Planning
staff, Planning Commissioners and City Councilors.
12. The Bureau of Planning recommendation on the natural resources
inventory, ESEE analysis, and implementing regulations was amended
in response to public testimony and adopted unanimously by the
Planning Commission on July 26,1994.
13. Legislative procedure requirements have been met because 3D-day notice
of the May 25, 1993 Planning Commission hearing was provided to
Page No.2 of 13
168154
recognized organizations, affeeted bureaus, interested persons and was
published in the Oregonian. Notice was also mailed to potentially
affected owners of record. Subsequent notices were sent to interested and
participating persons, including a July 6, 1993 notice indicating that the
project would be delayed. Notice of the second Planning Commission
hearing on July 12,1994 was mailed four weeks prior to the meeting to
interested and participating persons, to more than 500 owners of record,
affected bureaus and neighborhoods, and was published in the
Oregonian. At least 10 days prior to each of the Commission hearings, a
staff report and recommendation was filed with the Commission and
made available for public review.
Notice of the August 31,1994 City Council hearing was mailed to
interested and participating persons at least 14 days prior to the hearing.
The Council ordinance was filed on August 26.
14. The State post-acknowledgment requirements were followed in the
development of the plan and its implementing actions. A 45-day Notice
of Proposed Action was mailed to the Land Conservation and
Development Commission on June 20, 1994 along with copies of the
proposed plan, the ESEE analysis and the inventory. No comment was
received from the Commission by the date of final adoption.
15. It is in the public interest for the Skyline West Conservation Plan,
inciuding amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, amendments to
Title 33 and the Portland Plant List, and amendments to the Official
Zoning Maps to be adopted and implemented.
State Goal Findings:
16. Goal 1. Citizen Involvement. requires opportunities for citizens to be
involved in all phases of the planning process. Development of the
Skyline West Conservation Plan meets this goal because it included
opportunities for citizen review of all phases of the project, including
information on the location, quantity and quality of resources, the
analysis of conflicting uses, and the proposals for resource protection..
Meetings with neighborhood, land owners, developers and other
interested citizens to discuss the planning process, inventory and
analysis began in February 1993. The Planning Commission held a
public hearing in May 1993 to receive comment on the preliminary
inventory and on the project scope and direction. During the following
year, meetings with land owners, developers and other interested parties
continued. On June 7,1994, preliminary plan recommendations were
presented at a meeting of the Forest Park Neighborhood Association (for
which neighborhood notice was provided). Following this meeting, a
Page No.3 of 13
168154
Public Review Draft of the plan was published. Approximately 600
hearing notices were then mailed, informing citizens of the plan's
availability. The plan was distributed to the neighborhood association,
persons requesting copies, and was made available at the Audubon
House, the Portland Building, or by mail. Public comments received on
the draft plan were incorporated into the Proposed Draft which was
presented to the Planning Commission on July 12. After reviewing
public testimony received at this hearing and during the written
comment period, the Commission approved the plan with several
amendments in response to testimony. The City Council held a public
hearing August 31, 1994 and also made amendments to the plan in
response to testimony prior to final adoption. Public notices of Planning
Commission and City Council hearings were mailed and published in
local newspapers as described under Finding 13.
17. Goal 2, Land Use Planning, requires the development of a process and
policy framework which acts as a basis for all land use decisions and
assures that decisions and actions are based on an understanding of the
facts relevant to the decision. The Skyline West project conforms to this
goal. The Skyline West Conservation Plan adopts policies to amend the
Comprehensive Plan and implement zoning regulations that assures
conformance with the Plan's policies and objectives. Development of
the inventory, ESEE analysis, and protection measures for the planning
area followed established city procedures for legislative actions,
18. Goal 3, Agricultural Lands, provides for the preservation and
maintenance of the State's agricultural land, generally located outside of
urban areas. A narrow band of land within the Skyline West study area
is located outside the urban growth boundary but is generally unfit for
agricultural use. Nevertheless, the Skyline West Conservation Plan
preserves and maintains existing and future opportunities for
agricultural use within the urban planning area.
19. Goal 4, Forest Lands, provides for the preservation and maintenance of
the State's forest lands, generally located outside of urban areas. Since
the Skyline West Conservation Plan applies to an urbanized area
generally unfit for commercial forest use, this goal does not apply.
However, limited forestry opportunities are preserved in the plan.
20. GoalS. Open Space. Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources.
provides for the conservation of open space and the protection of natural
and scenic resources. The Skyline West Conservation Plan implements
this goal for areas within northwest Portland (west of Skyline
Boulevard) because the process identified in the Goal 5 Administrative
Rule (ORS 660-16-000 to 660-16-025) for resource identification and
conflicting use analysis was followed in developing this plan,
Page No.4 of 13
168154'
Specifically, the City inventoried natural resources and identified
conflicting uses in the plan area; analyzed the economic, social,
environmental, and energy consequences of resource protection; and
developed a program to protect Goal 5 resources in the plan area, as
detailed in Exhibit A and incorporated herein.
The Skyline West Conservation Plan will be the controlling document
in the protection of wetlands, water bodies, open spaces, and wildlife
habitat areas in the plan area and will ensure and enhance the City's
compliance with this goal by doing the following:
a. The Skyline West Conservation Plan policies and objectives are
designed to protect and preserve significant natural resources in the
plan area by identifying specific natural resource values and the
means by which they are to be protected.
b. Significant natural resources are protected through application of
environmental zones on distinct resource features.
c . Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan acknowledge the
importance ot the area's Goal 5 resources and the need for their
protection.
21. Goal 6. Air, Water and Land Resource Quality, provides for the
maintenance and improvement of these resources. The Skyline West
Conservation Plan protects water resources by limiting or prohibiting
conflicting uses along the area's streams, wetlands and steep ravines
where these resources could be degraded or destroyed, encouraging
groundwater recharge in the uplands, and retaining riparian vegetation
to provide food and cover for wildlife, control erosion, and trap
sediments, nutrients and pollutants. This plan will further help the City
meet its water quality obligations in the Tualatin Watershed. Protection
of natural resource quality is also consistent with maintaining and
improving air and land quality. The plan protects forest vegetation
which preserves the land by reducing erosion and stabilizing soils and
steep hillside slopes. The plan improves air quality because the
preserved forest vegetation helps to control smog and trap airborne
particulates. The plan will help the City comply with this goal though
the protection of significant forest, soil and water resources within the
study area.
22. Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards, provides for the
protection of life and property from natural disasters and hazards. The
Skyline West Conservation Plan is consistent with this goal because it
guides development away from the area's many steep, hazard-prone
areas and to more suitable areas through the planned unit development
process. The plan also protects wetlands, creeks and flood plains which
. provide flood storage, conveyance and desynchronization.
Page No.5 of 13
168154
23. Goal 8, Recreational Needs, provides for satisfying the recreational needs
of both citizens of and visitors to the State. The Skyline West
Conservation Plan is supportive of this goal because Portland's natural
resources contribute to the recreational enjoyment of the City by area
residents. The plan preserves forest and other natural features within
numerous common open spaces, providing passive recreational
opportunities for residents.
24. Goal 9, Economy of the State, provides for diversification and
improvement of the economy of the State. The natural resources ESEE
analysis has balanced the impact on economic development with the
protection of each identified natural resource. Protection of resources
identified in the plan will have limited impacts on development in the
City because plan conservation measures have been structured to allow
reasonable economic development opportunities on privately-owned
parcels containing significant natural resources. The plan is in
conformance with this goal because where economic impacts outweigh
the value of the natural resource, new regulations limiting economic
development are not recommended.
25. Goal 10, Housing, provides for meeting the housing needs of the State.
Lands containing steep slopes and flood plains or lands designated for
farm and forest use (FF) were not part of the City's inventory of lands
needed for housing. In Site 143, all but one acre of land was excluded
from the buildable lands inventory; this one acre is not within the
proposed Goal 5 resource protection area. All of Site 144 was excluded
from the buildable lands inventory. Site 145 contained approximately
435 acres of land zoned RIO and identified in the inventory. Of this land,
20 percent (87 acres) was set aside for rights~f-way leaving 348 net acres
buildable (or 1392 buildable units at a designated 4 units/acre). Under
the proposed Goal 5 plan regulations there are 2538 approved and/or
allowable housing units. Thus, the plan results in no loss of potential
housing units.
The natural resources ESEE analysis has balanced the impact on housing
with the protection of each identified natural resource. Where potential
housing impacts are significant, the planned unit development
provisions of the City's land use regulations allow the transfer of
housing densities elsewhere on site.
26. Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services, provides for planning and
development of timely, orderly and efficient public service facilities that
can serve as a framework for the urban development of the City. The
Skyline West Conservation Plan conforms with this goal by protecting
hillside forests and steep ravines and by guiding development to more
suitable areas. On lands with highly-valued natural resource areas,
Page No. 60f 13
16815~
transfer of residential density is allowed to other areas on site through
application of planned unit development provisions where urban
services can be provided in a more orderly and efficient manner.
27. Goal 12, Transportation, provides for the development of a safe,
convenient and economic transportation system. The Skyline West
Conservation Plan is supportive of this goal by allowing needed
transportation facilities through certain natural resource areas if adverse
impacts on resources can be mitigated. Very steep and/or wet resource
areas which are unsafe or uneconomical to develop for transportation
purposes are protected by the plan in a manner consistent with this goal.
28. Goal 13, Energy Conservation, provides for the distribution of land uses
in a pattern that maximizes the conservation of energy. The Skyline
West Conservation Plan conforms with this goal because the natural
resources ESEE analysis addresses the impact on energy conservation.
The plan provides limited protection of significant natural resources
where preservation would lead to an energy-inefficient use of land as
identified by existing Comprehensive Plan Map designations. The plan
is supportive of this goal because it preserves housing, educational and
recreational opportunities close to the state's largest population and
employment center, reducing energy consumption on transportation
and supporting a greater range of transportation modes, including
bicycling and walking.
29. Goal 14, Urbanization, provides for the orderly and efficient transition of
rural lands to urban uses. The Skyline West Conservation Plan
conforms to this goal by allowing continued urban development within
the City in an orderly and efficient manner. The plan guides
urbanization by limiting use of hazardous lands and promoting orderly
and efficient development on buildable lands through planned unit
developments and similar mechanisms.
30. Goals 16, 17, 18 and 19 deal with the Willamette River Greenway,
Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelines, Beaches and Dunes, and Ocean
Resources. respectively. These goals are not applicable to the Skyline
West Conservation Plan because the plan does not affect the Willamette
River Greenway and no ocean resources are present within Portland.
Comprehensive Plan Findings:
31. The Skyline West Conservation Plan, including its implementing
measures, is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and is
especially supportive of certain goals and policies. The review of goals
and policies in this section of the ordinance is limited to those which are
directly relevant to the plan.
Page No.7 of 13
32. Goal 1, Metropolitan Coordination. provides for planning activities to be
coordinated with federal, state and regional plans. The Skyline West
Conservation Plan complies with the State's required post-
acknowledgment review process and is part of the State-required
periodic review of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The plan is
consistent with Policy 1.2, Urban Planning Area Boundary, because it
inventories and evaluates natural resources within a planning area
inside the existing City limits in Northwest Portland.
The Metropolitan Service District (Metro) has developed RUGGOs, or
Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives. These goals and
objectives are largely consistent with the City's Skyline West planning
efforts. RUGGO Goal 11.1, "Natural Environment," states: "Preservation,
use and modification of the natural environment of the region should
maintain and enhance environmental quality while striving for the
wise use and preservation of a broad range of natural resources."
Objective 7, Water Resources, and Objective 8, Air Quality, are supported
by the proposed resource protection measures in this plan. Objective 9,
Natural Areas, Parks and Wildlife Habitat, directs Metro to acquire,
protect and manage (1) open spaces to provide passive and active
recreational opportunities, and (2) an open space system providing
habitat for native wildlife and plant populations. The development and
implementation of the Skyline West Conservation Plan addresses this
objective by applying environmental overlay zoning to significant open
spaces within the planning area.
The Conservation Plan supports the efforts of the Metropolitan
Greenspaces Program to identify and protect greenspaces within the
metropolitan region. The Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan (1992)
identifies Cedar Mill Creek, Rock Creek, the Tualatin River and nearby
Forest Park as regionally significant natural area sites. The Conservation
Plan proposes conservation measures that help to protect these basins.
33. Goal 2. Urban Development, provides for maintaining Portland's role as
the region's major employment, population and cultural center through
expanding opportunities for housing and jobs while retaining the
character of established areas. The Skyline West Conservation Plan
conforms with this goal by minimizing impacts on employment areas
and preserving natural resources which enhance the City as a place to
live, work and recreate.
a. The plan is consistent with Policy 2.1, Population Growth, because
the plan does not reduce needed housing opportunities and
minimizes the impact of preserving natural resources on existing
and future land uses within the City.
Page No.8 of 13
168154'
b. The plan is consistent with Policy 2.5, Natural Resource Area,
because it protects wetlands, water bodies, open spaces, wildlife
habitat areas and other natural resources in the plan area.
c The plan is supportive of Policy 2.6, Open Space, because it will
enhance enjoyment of designated open space areas by protecting the
scenic and natural resource characteristics of these areas.
d. The plan is supportive of Policy 2.8, Forest Lands, because it
provides for the preservation of forest resources.
e. The plan is consistent with Policy 2.18, Utilization of Vacant Land,
because it protects significant natural resources while allowing
continued infill development of vacant land.
34. Goal 3. Neighborhoods. provides for the preservation and reinforcement
of the stability and diversity of the City's neighborhoods while allowing
for increased densities. The Skyline West Conservation Plan conforms
with this goal because it has evaluated, through the ESEE analysis, the
impact of protection of identified resources on opportunities for
development within neighborhoods. Significant natural resources have
been given only limited protection where impacts on development
opportUnities outweigh impacts on resources. Natural resources are
protected where neighborhood associations have identified those that
are important to the livability and attractiveness of the neighborhood.
a. The plan is supportive of Policy 3.5, Neighborhood Involvement,
because the local neighborhood association was notified at the onset
and at regular intervals throughout the development of this project
and solicited for information on potential resources and for
comments on plan recommendations. In addition, neighborhood
meetings were held on the plan and neighborhood was notified of
all public hearings.
b. The plan is supportive of Policy 3,6, Neighborhood Plan, because all
applicable neighborhood plans are addressed in the ESEE analysis of
individual resource sites.
35. Goal 4. Housing. provides for a diversity in the type, density and location
of housing in order to provide an adequate supply within the City. The
Skyline West Conservation Plan is consistent with this policy because it
has evaluated the impact of protection of inventoried natural resources
on the supply of existing and potential housing. Significant natural
resources are protected in a way to minimize their impact on both
existing housing and the potential for new housing development. In
some instances, the environmental zones have been reduced in area or
not applied to resources in order to preserve housing opportunities. Site
development standards mitigate the impact of development rather than
prohibit development opportunities. Where housing development is
severely restricted, provisions of the planned unit development
Page No.9 of 13
168154·
regulations allow the redistribution of residential development to
mitigate these impacts.
36. Goal 5. Economic Development. provides for increasing the quantity and
quality of job opportunities through the creation of an attractive business
and industrial environment. The Skyline West Conservation Plan is
consistent with this goal because it has evaluated the economic impact of
protecting inventoried natural resources in the ESEE analysis. Where
the negative economic impact of protecting the resource outweighed the
value of the resource, limited or no protection measures were included.
a. This plan is supportive of Policy 5.2, Economic Environment,
because it promotes through natural resource protection the image
of Portland as a livable, attractive city which acts as a positive aspect
of business recruitment. The plan balances the need for resource
protection with that for an adequate supply of developable land.
b. The plan is supportive of Policy 5.5, International Image, because it
strengthens the attractiveness of the area thereby enhancing the
City's reputation as a destination for international tourists. The
plan protects natural resources along Skyline Boulevard which is a
popular scenic drive with several viewpoints.
37. Goal 7, Energy, provides for increasing the energy efficiency of existing
structures and the transportation systems of the City. The Skyline West
Conservation Plan is consistent with this goal because it has considered
the energy impacts of protecting natural resources in the ESEE analysis
for each resource. Protection of natural resources will provide a more
easily serviced development pattern of clustered housing and open areas
and will reduce the need to travel to enjoy or study natural areas, thereby
reducing overall energy costs.
38. Goal 8, Environment, provides for maintaining and improving the
quality of Portland's air, water and land resources and protecting
neighborhoods and business centers from noise pollution. The Skyline
West Conservation Plan is especially supportive of this goal and is
designed to implement the policies of the goal as they relate to natural
resources. In addition, the plan modifies an existing policy to further
clarify the City's intent in protecting and enhancing the natural resources
of the Skyline West plan area.
a. The plan is supportive of Policy 8.8, Groundwater Protection,
because it encourages groundwater filtration and recharge by
retaining vegetation and minimizing impervious surfaces.
b. The plan is supportive of Policy 8.9, Open Space, by providing
additional protection for designated open space areas.
c The plan is supportive of Policy 8.10, Drainageways, because it limits
or prohibits development within wetlands and drainageways to
protect watershed resources and minimize flood hazards.
Page No. 10 of 13
168154-
d. The plan is supportive of Policy 8.11, Special Areas, because it adopts.
a new policy setting forth guidelines for the protection and
enhancement of unique resource qualities for the Skyline plan area.
e. The plan is supportive of Policy 8.13, Natural Hazards, because it
protects significant resources in areas of steep slopes, unstable soils
and flood plains, and encourages the shifting of development to
other portions of lots which are more easily built upon.
f. The plan is supportive of and implements Policy 8.14, Natural
Resources, by protecting significant natural resources. The plan
balances the conservation of natural resources with the need for
other urban uses in the accompanying ESEE analysis.
g. The plan is supportive of Policy 8.15, Wetlands/Riparian/Water
Bodies Protection, because it protects Northwest Portland wetlands,
creeks and riparian areas for values related to flood protection,
sediment and erosion control, water quality, groundwater recharge
and discharge, education, vegetation, and fish and wildlife habitat.
h. The plan is supportive of Policy 8.16, Uplands Protection, because it
identifies and protects upland forests and meadows which provide
wildlife habitat, slope protection and groundwater recharge values.
i. The plan is supportive of Policy 8.17, Wildlife, because it protects
existing wildlife habitat areas, and encourages retention of
vegetation and open space in the plan area for wildlife habitat.
39. Goal 9, Citizen Involvement, provides for improving the method for
citizen involvement in the on-going land use decision-making process
and providing opportunities for citizen participation in the
implementation, review and amendment of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Skyline West Conservation Plan and implementing measures are
consistent with this goal for the reasons stated in the finding for
Statewide Planning Goal 1.
a, The plan is consistent with Policy 9.1, Citizen Involvement
Coordination, because opportunities were provided throughout the
planning process to change aspects of the process to increase
opportunities for review. Staff reports were available to the public
within the required time frames and were provided free of charge.
Notice of meetings and hearings were sent to neighborhood
associations, property owners and to all interested citizens.
b. The plan is consistent with Policy 9.2, Comprehensive Plan Review,
because the Skyline West Conservation Plan is part of the periodic
review of the Plan called for in this policy.
e The plan is consistent with Policy 9.3, Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, because proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan
were reviewed by and received comment from the public.
40. Goal 11, Public Facilities, provides for a timely, orderly and efficient
arrangement of public facilities that support existing and planned land
Page No. 11 of 13
168154"
use patterns and densities. The plan conforms with this goal for the
reasons stated in the finding for Statewide Planning Goal 11.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council directs:
a. The Planning Commission Recommended Skyline West Conservation
Plan (Exhibit A) and Plan Appendices (Exhibit B) is hereby adopted.
b. Ordinance No. 150580 is hereby amended?y adding to Policy 8.11 of the
Comprehensive Plan the following new special area (underlined):
8.11, Special Areas
Recognize unique land qualities and adopt specific planning
objectives for special areas.
A. Balch Creek Watershed (no change)
B. East Buttes, Terraces and Wetlands (no change)
C Fanno Creek Watershed (no change)
D. Johnson Creek Basin (no change)
E. Northwest Hills (no change)
F. Skyline West
Conserve wildlife. forest and water resource values of the
Skyline planning area through implementation of the Skyline
Conservation Plan.
F. Southwest Hills (re-Ietter to G; no other change)
G Willamette River Greenway (re-Ietter toH; no other change)
Co Ordinance No. 163608 enacting Title 33, Planning and Zoning, of the
Municipal Code ofthe City of Portland, is hereby amended as set forth in
Exhibit A.
d. The Official Zoning Maps of the City of Portland are hereby amended as
shown in Exhibit B.
Section 2.
This ordinance shall apply to permits, limited land use decisions and zone
changes in the manner prescribed by Oregon Revised Statutes 227.178(3).
Page No. 12 of 13
168154i
Section 3.
H any portion of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code or Official Zoning
Maps amended by this ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a
court of competent jurisdiction, that portion is to be deemed severed, and in
no way affects the remaining portions. .
Section 4.
The Council declares an eillergency exists because unprotected natural
resources are threatened by immediate degradation in areas within the
Skyline West ~lanning area. Natural values will be lost without protection
afforded by the plan. The area covered by this plan contains steep,
unstable slo~es which are susceptible to landslides. Development without
the controls required in this plan will result in erosion, landslides and
threats to public health and safety. Therefore, this ordinance shall be
in force and be effective upon adoption.
Passed by the Council, SEP 2 1 1994
Commissioner Hales
August 26, 1994
Tim Brooks/tb
Page No. 13 of 13
BARBARA CLARK
Auditor of the City of Portland
By -:;S.:4.-~L~S.(M.....
, Deputy
ApPENDIXB
WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT FORM
Selection of the Wildlife Habitat Rating System
The Wildlife Habitat Assessment (WHA) rating system, originally developed for the
City of Beaverton in 1983 as part of their GoalS update, is acknowledged by the Land
Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) as meeting the GoalS inventory
requirements. This system is used by many jurisdictions throughout the Portland
metropolitan area and by Lane County juri~dictions.
The success of the WHA rating system is due to the participation by biologists from a
number of agencies, who developed the system and determined the criteria to be
included under each component. The rating system was designed by a technical
advisory team consisting of staff from the following agencies:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
• Audubon Society of Portland
• The Wetlands Conservancy
• Beaverton Planning Bureau
The WHA rating system reviews each identified habitat site in terms of its potential for
wildlife. The rating system is based on the fact that all wildlife have three basic
requirements for survival: food, water and cover. These form the three major
components of the assessment. Each site is evaluated in terms of quantity, quality,
diversity and seasonality of food, water and cover offered on the site. Also considered
is the degree and permanence of physical and human disturbance on the site, whether
there are other usable habitats nearby, and the unique features on the site, including
wildlife, flora and rarity of habitat.
Each of these components is discussed in the section, "Discussion of the Rating Sheets."
The rating system is not intended to provide a comprehensive analysis of each site, but
to allow relative values between habitat areas to be determined and compared. Should
an in-depth study of specific sites be required, a more detailed biological analysis would
be appropriate.
The City of Portland has modified the WHA form by dropping two elements originally
considered as part of the habitat rating. These elements are "scenic" and "educational
potential" values. The presence of these elements has no direct relationship to habitat
quality. Scenic and educational values are reviewed in other parts of the GoalS
inventory for resource sites.
Conducting the Field Inventory
Biologists from the City of Portland, Planning Bureau staff and occasionally members of
the GoalS technical advisory committee, inventoried resource sites within the Portland
Urban Services Boundary. The original field work was conducted largely in the spring,
summer and fall of 1986. Subsequent inventories were conducted between 1989 and
B-3
1992. Habitat rating sheets for each site were completed and are on file at the Planning
Bureau.
Discussion of the Rating Sheets
This section is a summary discussion of the Wildlife Habitat Assessment rating sheets.
An examples of WHA rating sheet is included in this appendix. It needs to be
emphasized that this discussion is a summary and not a textbook approach which
would allow the reader to duplicate the City's inventory information. For more
detailed information on specific procedures, the reader is encouraged to contact the City
of Portland. The WHA rating system provides a city-wide basis for comparison of
resource sites. The WHA form is one element of the City's GoalS resource inventory;
other sources of inventory information include published plans, reports and maps,
aerial photographs and field sampling.
The WHA rating form is divided into three parts. The first presents general information
about the site to facilitate identification. Included here are the site number, location,
size, score, field dates, observers and comments.
The second section consists of the water, food and covers values (referred to as habitat
components). Each of these components is further divided into a number of aspects.
Water
Four aspects of the water regime on a site were included on the rating form: quantity
and seasonality, quality, proximity to cover, and diversity. All of these factors play an
important role in the site's significance to wildlife.
The relative value of these aspects compared to the other components (food and cover)
are higher. The total number of possible points from the water component is 30 points,
while the highest totals for food and cover are 24 and 28 points, respectively. The
reason for this weighting of the relative value of the water component is that it is of
critical importance to the function of wetlands and riparian zones and the wildlife
species that inhabit them.
Quantity and Seasonality: This aspect refers to the amount of water available on site,
and its seasonal variability. Seasonal water sources are given a value of four points, and
perennial water sources (available year-round) a value of eight.
Quality: Stagnant water sources were given a value of zero, seasonally flushed a value
of three, and continually flushed a value of six. Although desirable to have some value
included reflecting the quality of the water on site, actual water quality analysis is not
always feasible. Therefore, an indirect measure of quality, "flushing," was selected. In
actuality, even stagnant water has some wildlife habitat value, but it was decided to
assign it a value of zero, as seasonally or continually-flushed water has a higher value
for wildlife, and because the presence of stagnant water indicates the probability of
other factors which result in lower wildlife values.
B-4
Proximity to Cover: Wildlife will use water more readily if it is close to vegetative
cover. This allows escape from predators and protection from weather extremes. The
closer and more dense the cover, the more important the water source to many species.
Dense cover immediately adjacent to a water source yields a site value of eight, nearby
cover a value of four, and no cover a value of zero.
Diversity: A site with a mixture of wetland, stream and open pond or lake resources
has higher wildlife value than a site with only one of these features. The ranking ranges
from a low of two (one water source only) to eight (three or more water sources
present).
Food
Food is a basic requirement for any organism. Wildlife cannot survive in one area for
any appreciable period of time without food. The greater the variety and quantity of
food, the greater the potential for serving the needs of more wildlife species. The three
aspects included under food are variety, quantity and seasonality, and proximity to
cover.
Variety: The variety of food on a site is rated from a high of eight points to a low of
zero.
Ouantity and Seasonality: This aspect measures the amount of food and its availability
on an annual basis. Sites having large quantities of food available year-round receive a
value of eight, and sites with little or no food available receive a value of zero.
Proximity to Cover: As with water, the presence of adjacent cover from which to forage
for food and escape predation by other native wildlife or domestic animals is important.
Proximity to cover also ranked from zero to eight points.
Cover
The aspects of cover included here (structure, variety, nesting, escape and seasonality)
attempt to describe the physical environment of the site from a number of perspectives
that are important to wildlife.
Structural Diversity: What is looked for in this category is the vertical stratification of
vegetation on a site, Le., is there only one layer of vegetative cover (herbaceous, shrub
or tree), or are there more? The most diverse structural system expected to be
encountered would be multi-layered, with a ground layer of herbaceous vegetation
(grasses, forbs, wildflowers, etc.), a second layer consisting of shrubs (snowberry,
thimbleberry, Oregon grape, Himalayan blackberry, etc.), perhaps another layer of taller
plants (red and blue elderberry, Indian plum, serviceberry), a short tree layer (flowering
dogwood, hazelnut, saplings of taller species), and finally a tall canopy layer (Douglas
fir, western hemlock, bigleaf maple, black cottonwood, Oregon ash, Oregon white oak,
etc.). Snags and down woody debris also provide structural diversity. The more layers
present, the greater the surface area for more feeding, traveling, and breeding available
B-5
to a wider number of wildlife species. Values range from eight points for high
structural diversity, to zero for low or no diversity.
Variety: Within anyone layer or when considering all layers, if structural diversity is
high, there may be a number of plant species which provide a variety of vegetation
characteristics. This is important from the standpoints of cover, feeding and
reproduction. The greater the variety of vegetation, the more important the habitat. For
example, a forested wetland with a mixture of rushes, sedges, smartweed, spirea and
willow provides more valuable wildlife habitat than an area with a monoculture of reed
canarygrass. Values range from eight points for high variety, to zero for little or no
variety.
Nesting: While there may be both good variety and diversity of vegetative cover, the
overall nesting potential may vary from site to site. This aspect was added to address
the overall nesting potential of the site for a variety of bird and mammal species.
Nesting values range from four to zero points.
Escape: This aspect is primarily a function of density of cover and its ability to afford
escape from predation. A value of four points is assigned to sites which offer a high
possibility of escape, and zero for those with no or low potential.
Seasonality: As with food and water, a habitat site will be less important to wildlife if
cover is not present year-round. Regarding cover, this relates primarily to whether all
of the vegetation is deciduous or evergreen. If there is some evergreen vegetation, or
the deciduous vegetation retains some of its canopy year-round, the site is more
valuable. Vegetative cover available year-round receives a value of four, limited cover a
value of two, and seasonal cover a value of zero.
The third part of the form addresses values in addition to food, water and cover. The
factors examined include disturbance, interspersion and unique features.
Disturbance
Disturbance is examined from two perspectives: physical and human.
Physical: This category was used to assign a higher value to those sites with little
disturbance, to reflect the fact that the removal or disturbance of physical components
(food, water, cover) is detrimental to wildlife. However, it is also recognized that such a
disturbance could be relatively short-lived (such as placement of a sewer line down a
creek channel), while others are long-term or permanent. A relatively undisturbed site
receives a maximum value of four points, sites with temporary physical disturbance a
value of two, and those with permanent or long-term disturbance a value of zero.
Human: Human and human-related (e.g., domestic animals) disturbances can be very
detrimental to wildlife. On the other hand, an area that is highly disturbed from a
physical perspective may receive little human use. The values range from four points
for low human disturbance, to zero for high impact.
B-6
Interspersion
Habitats are important to one another in the sense that a number of different habitats
adjacent to one another can provide an overall diversity of vegetative cover, food and
often water. Therefore, an isolated site surrounded by pavement, buildings, and human
activity would receive a lower interspersion value than a similar site surrounded by
other habitat sites, such as wetlands, upland forests, shrubby areas, or meadows. The
interspersion score ranges from a high of six points, to a low of zero.
Unique Features
This component is intended to take into account other factors which might make the site
unique to plants, animals or humans. Aspects included are unique or locally rare or
sensitive flora or fauna, and the rarity of habitat within the City.
Flora and Fauna: If there is a particular species of plant or wildlife which is sensitive or
unique in some way, then the site would receive a value ranging from one to four
points.
Habitat Type: This refers to whether the site has any plant or animal species considered
rare from a regional or national perspective, or in terms of scarcity within the City, or
within a particular Management Unit. The highest value which can be received is four
points.
B-7
WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT
for sites With surface waterfeatures
.
(LJru~~R I TOTAL HABITAT IPOTENTIAL HABITAT ITOTALSCORE AS EXISl'ING SCORE IF ENHANCED ACRES
SITE FIELD FIELD
LOCATION DATES OBSERVERS
GENERAL
COMMENTS
HABITAT DEGREE SCORE SCORE SPECIFIC
COMPONENT PRESENT EXISTING ENHANCED COMMENTS
QUANTITY & NONE SEASONAL PERENNIAl
SEASONALITY 0 4 8W
DIVERSITY ONE TWO THREEA
T STREAMS. PONDS, ETC. 2 4 8
E PROXIMITY NONE NEAR ADJACENT
R TO COVER 0 4 8
QUALITY STAGNENTSEASONALCONTU'UOU~
FLusnmo FREQUENCY 0 3 6
QUANTITY & NONE LIMITED YEAR ROUND
F SEASONALITY 0 4 8
0 LOW MEDIUM HIGH
• 0 VARIETY 0 4 8
.,. n PROXIMITY NONE NEAR ADJACENTOJ
TO COVER 0 4 8
STRUCTURAL LOW MEDIUM HIGH
DIVERSITY 0 4 8
C VARIETY LOW MEDIUM HIGH
0 0 4 8
V SEASONALITY NONE LIMITED YEAR ROUNlJE 0 2 4
R NESTING LOW MEDIUM HIGH
DENNINC, ETC. 0 2 4 .
ESCAPE LOW MEDIUM lIIGH0 2 4 ..
PHYSICAL PERMANENT TEMPORARY NONEOV DISTURBANCE 0 2 4TA
HL HUMAN HIGH MEDIUM LOW
EU DISTURBANCE 0 2 4RE
S INTERSPERSION LOW MEDIUM HIGH
wrm OlllER IlABlTATS 0 3 6
UF HABITAT TYPENE 0
- 4I A
3~ FLORA 0 4-
E E FAUNAS 0
-
4
(
~ageOne ofFour
CityofPortlan~Oregon
Bureau ofPIanning
DEVELOPED BY:
Nib HO'Kk • P..-tWld Audllboa SocIety
Esther Leot· PorUaD4Bureau clP1amUDc
Mlcbael.1eanlap· Porl1&Dd Bu.rw.u fIl PWudnr
COMPtTl'ER AUTOMATION BY:
AJ Bunu '" Tim Broon ·PorUancl Bur.u oCPlarm!na"
DEVELOPWENT ASSISTED BY:
Demu. Pden. U.s' Filh aDd Wilcllite SerTice-
Balpb &e'en' U.s. EOllNUllental Pl1ltedioll Acmc7
am. Bedl • OftI'OR DepuUlIent. orPtlh and.WiIdllfa
Jack Broom•• W.u.nd- Conf,ernrxr
Diana H...,.. • U.s. Fl,h an4 Wildlite Senice
•WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT
for sites withsurfacewaterfeatmes
..
SITE TOTAL HABITAT IPOTENTIAL HABITAT ITOTAL..
SCORE AS EXISTING SCORE IF ENHANCED ACRESNUMBER
WEATHER ON DAY OF FIEW OBSERVATION
PRECIPITATION PRESENT WlNDSPEED
KIND OF PRECIPITATION WIND DIRECTION
CLOUDCOVER % TEMPERATURE OF
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
OF TOPOGRAPHY
ORIENTATION OF SLOPE
DEGREE OFSLOPE 0
TYPE OF WATER FEATURES PRESENT
PORTION OF SITE INUNDATED BYWATER %
MAJOR STRUCTURES
OR ROADS PRESENT
VEGETATION
LIST OF
HERB SPECIES
LIST OF
SHRUB SPECIES
LIST OF
TREE SPECIES
TYPES OF PLANT
.
COMMUNlTIES
SERIAL STAGES
OFPLANT
COMMUNlTIES
GENERAL HEALTH
AND VITALITY
OF PLANT
COMMUNITIES
CANOPy CLOSURE IN HERB ZONE: %ISHRUB ZONE: %ITREE ZONE: %
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF SNAGS PERACRE: IDIAMETER OF LARGEST SNAGS IN FEET:
. AQUATIC VEGITATION FLOATING: %IEMERGENT: %1 INUNDATED: %
Page TwoofFour
....j
CityofPartIand, Oregon
Bureau ofPIannjng
DEVELOPED BY:
J4ib Bouck. Poc1l_ AUlhaboa BoQelJ
Elther:r.-·JWt1an4 Bun&u _PJamWar .
Michu1 JmDlnp • Pon1aDcl Bw'a.1I clPIamllnc'
COMPUTER AUTOKA'l10N BY:
AI Bom." nm Broob. Portluld nUIW.1I ot'P1anDblc
WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT
for sites with surface waterfeatures
DEVELOPED BY:
Wib Bouck .. Port1uIa A.uduboa SocIety
ERhc' ........ Port!aDcI B_aClCP1aDDfD«'
Mlcbaol J'eDDbap .. PorUaDll BarM" oll'laDJllq
COMPUTER AUTOIlATlON BY:
AI BunUI .. 'nm Broob .. PortlaDd BCftlluot~
CityafPort1and, Oregon
Bureau afPlanning
fage'Three afFour
.
\ SITE -, TOTAL HABITAT IPOTENTIAL HABITAT ITOTAL
-/NUMBER SCORE AS EXISTING SCORE IF ENHANCED ACRES
FISH AND WILDLIFE
INVERTEBRATE
SPECIES OBSERVED
..
FISH
SPECIES OBSERVED
AMPHIBIAN
SPECIESOBSERVED
REPTILE
SPECIES OBSERVED
BIRD
SPECIES OBSERVED
MAMMALIAN
SPECIES OBSERVED
l
.
SPECIES NOT
OBSERVED BUT
KNOWN TO BE
PRESENTAND
SOURCE OF
INFORMATION
'.
(
WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT
for sites with sUrface water features .
.' SITE ITOTAL HABITAT IPOTENTIAL HABITAT ITOTAL
_,:).JMBER . SCORE AS EXISTING SCORE IF ENHANCED ACRES
. HABITAT FUNCTIONS
FOOD
SOURCES
ROOSTING
PLACES
PERCHING
PLACES
NESTING
PLACES
OTHER
FUNCTIONS
RARE
SPECIE'3
SENSITIVE
SPECIE'3
PROTECTED
SPECIE'3
UNIQUE
FEATURES
I HUMAN USES
I. HOMAN
\ USES
DOMESTIC
ANIMAL USES
PROXIMITY TO
RESIDENCES
EXISTING
COMPATABLE USES
EXISTING
CONFLICTING USES
INTERSPERSION
WITH OTHER
NATURAL AREAS
MANAGEMENT
MEASURES
THAT COULD BE
CARRlEDOUT
TOlMPROVE
HABITAT VALUES
- (
"
DEVELOPED BY:
IIib Boock· Por1.land Audubaa Sodet1
EIth..~.PortWMlB_. IllI'WmiD1'
Nicbu1 ,J'4aDIDp • Port1aD4 Suftau orPluWQI'
COMPUTER AUTOJlA'J10N BY:
1J BUI'DI " Tim Bt-ka· Pon1aDd Bun-u orl"Wlniq
ApPENDIXC
STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 5
5 •
I
OPEN SPACES, SCENIC AND HISTORIC
AREAS, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
QOAL: To con..," 09'n ,p.ee .nd PfOo
leel natural .nd se-nlc ,..OUn::wI.
'root,m, .h,11 bt pr'O.I~.Ih.1 will: (1) In·
.u... open .Plce, (2] protKl Kanle .nd
hl.IOt1C ...... and ",IUNI ""oun:e. 'OC'
htlurw O'Mf.Uon•••nd P1 promOC' hI.Uh,.
'M -t.u.lI,. aUractl... em1ronm.nt.ln l'I.r.
mony with Iha n'tural land.c.pa
ctl".OMr. 1'beloclllon" Qu.llty aM qu.nn·
tr o' 1M following~••1\111 bot In·
_nlotlC
L Laftd~ or dnwbM for o,.n
-:
b. ....,.. and~'I'"HUfC":
Co EtMrvr .ocm::.c: .
cL FI.h .nd wlldili. .hI" .nd
Nb41'~1I:
a. EcoloCltc,n, ,nd acl.nllftc.n,
.lqnlnee", IMtunl.,.a'. &ftdudlng
"'""" ......;
f. Out.I.ncllf\il .canlc ..... .nd
.U":
G. W.I., ....... wetl,ftd,. w"anhoed.
• nd llf'OU"CW.lef ...o~.:
II. Wlldeme a;
I. HI"on.; sll... .ef\lall"..
•n4~~tt:
J. cunYl'I ......:
L Pot.n1I,' .Itd appt'D'Iad 0'*00'\
recra.ttoft trail.:
L Potentl.l.ftd.PP\'D'ft4 fed«.l ",lid
.I'd IlCeftlc wdlN'''' and ...t.
.otnIc ••,......, ..
WhanI no COflfllctlng ~... lor .uetl
N.ourea' hi.. been I6MtIlIaod" .uctI
IfW.-..rc" .han bra llnanaCIed eo II to
pniUftOt IIMlr adginIl chaNct.,. WhaN
COftfUetlng ~... Nw bien ldantlflltd tfM;
.~."..mIC. ,oca.l. _ ..tanm.n,,' .na
,,~. :: ••,_......... .oiDftIIlcllnQ
UM' ....11 ". on-lMd end p¢'Vgnm.
o.nk)pad Jo .Chla,. ..... 0011.
Cull",II' AN. _ ",'an to .n .ra. chllle.
,.rtz~ Dr ariOlnca of .n .tnnle:,
""IOloul Of tocl.1 oralIO wtth cJlstlnc.
119t tr.II•• twill.' and aocl.,lonn•.
Hlatorte AIw.. - If' I,nd:ll wUh .U.s.
.tNCtur•• anc! obl.ets 11'1'1 ...." 'oc.,.
f-Vlonal. 11.I.w\Oa Of naUon.1 hlSlorl·c., t.onlflcane•.
N.lur.1 ..... - Inelwck. I.nd 4nd w,I.,
Itlal N.a lUC)sl.nll.lly Ntaln.d lis
nalur,l Char.cler and I.nd .nd w.tar
Ihat, a"hOUOh .1Iar~ In Ch.ract.r. II
ImClOll,nl II h.bll'l. 'Of pl.nl. anlm,l
Of maliM III.. tor 1he Sludy or 113
n.lurll 1'I1110111:al, .e.nunc: or p.leon-
tOlOOI«1 l"lutll. Of lor tnl apprecla·
lion 0111. ".tural ,.lIura•.
Opan SP.c. - con.llI. of 1'''''1 u ••a '0'
aOneul1ur'1 or401.S1 UMS, and .tt.y I.nd
."a 11'1.1 would, II pfl• .,.,ed .nd c:o,,"
IInued In U. Pfllent UN:
(., Con••"" and enhance nalural or
llcenle fllQufe..:
(C)J "":naet air Of llra.ms OI.al.f sup-
"r.(c) Promo" co".......lIon of ,oUs•
....tl.nels. ba.ch., Of tidal m.,•
• nal;
(41 Cocu;."" 1a.ftCI.caPl'd "au, ,vCh
.II outllic or pnyat. golf c;oursal.
~ftat fecluca .If pooUullon and
aM\aAea th. "lIlue 01 'bUIUnO or
M10hbottno PlQCMtIy,
t.l Enn.anca '1\1 ",ue to the PUblic of
.buttlno Of fM'OftbOftng panc.••
'orll". _lldllIe Pf.Uf'\oU;, nalure
r........(I0ft0. or ••nctu.rl.s Of
olhet opan apaee:
(I) PromOle Of(Jarly uttl.n cs.,..'op-
man1.
ScaNe ........ - .re l.nds that Ifa ...Iuad
'or 'Mit 'uthellc .ppa.ranc•.
WlkMfM•• AN•• - .r• .,.•• Whar. tI'M
• ..,,, end ((s community of ilia .,. un-
'ran\fM~ by man.. Wher. man hlm..U
Is. ~.lIOtWhO doe_ not NmaJn.1t 'S an
.,•• CIt UncMYf,lclMd land NI&tnlno Its
prtma.._l chataC'1f and Infhol.nCI.
wlthOUl p.lrman;ent ImDr'O'lemant Ofhuman habitation. which I. protected
and mllAAo-d ao as to pr....... Its
natural condltlonl and whlcft (1'
DeMltally appears to haw been. .f·
leeted prtmanly by the lorce. of Ntu,..
weth the imprint of man'. 'W'Cn aw.tan-
"eUy unnoclCMbla: (2) hu outal&nCIlng
~vnttl.. for eoIlIude Of. Pt'mlU,..
and unconllMd type 0' NCtMIIon: (31
I'M)' &Iao contain ecoIoQle&t. o«MoQ'"'
cal, or otMI 'utu,.. of Klentlflc.
ed~Uon."acenlc or I\lII000c 'NJw.
GUIDELINES:
A. ptann'no:
1. TM nMCI lor OCMn &p.&clI In tM pI.~
nlng .re. ahoukl ~ c.tarmln-s. and
a'andat(l& *"-t«Md lot the amovnt.
dlt1l'lbuUon. and type of open apU:a.
2. ertt«ta ahould be dewk)ped &I'ld utlll.t·
ed to 04tarrnlM Whet u... ate conal ..
'.nt llrith oPen Iq)ICI ",*1"," and to
• .,.Iua,. 1M aflea of conftft1no ooen
aoaCli lanes. to Inconl••'ent "ML n..
ft\oIlntan&nal and ow.l~1of OD4!n
ap.aQl In URt&n ....a3 ahoukl be en-
c:.our.o«s.
3. Halveal nleoufen and NQut,..;1 aU..
lor lhe Oln«auon of~ (1.a. NtUfaJ
oa., 011. coal. hydta. Q«)IMnn&I,
uranium. eel., and GtlNt'l) ahOukf be
conun«t and ptaC~~ MMrwclt
aUa, atlOuid be 5d"UU«l ancl pro-
t«:led aoal"" ~Ibl.Iou.
4. Plana Pf'O"I"IG:I"O tOt OJ)ett. apaOli••c.nlc
:'In}S,;..."....corICo!••r•••., .fnd -1\,'ur'J •
"~rcea ahould oon,Id"«·u a nwJOr
cHllrmlnant ..... carT)'tng caPACity 01
thl air. lard and .alar"~tW'of the
planning .r... Tha land Cll)ftaen'aUon
and ~PfNnt actlonl Pf'G'I'1ded 'ot
by aua. plan. ahauld not .zCMd ItMt
Clnytng capaCity o' luch Neourea..
$. Tha National Regll.lr of HI'torlc
PllcaS and Cha recomm.ndltlon. 01
tha Stall ACh1aary Commltt.. an
Hl,tortc PrwN.......Uon 'hOuld be vtlllle.d
In deSlgnaUng hl&tortc aU...
uUlIz.d In dlllOnlUno hls'orle Iltll.
E.. In conlunctlon wUh thl In"ftiOCY of
ml"'''1 and -ogreog'ta r.~rces,aU..
lot flmo.al and ProceSllng a. aUCh
flSOutC.s ahould be Id.nUlled ano pn>
t6Cte<!.
7. At: I glnerll Nil. pl.n, .hould prohibit
OU1dOO( acwenl.lng .Ioni ••capt I"
commatelal or Indualt1al zon.l. Plana
C-3
ahould nat prcmdl lor lhe recluaUrc.
tlon 01 I.nd 'or I.... pUfPON 01 accOft\o.
modaUno .n ouldool ad_rttSIf\O .Ign.
The tann OooutOOQr .dwenl'Itt.Q Ilgtt.-
tlas the rnaanlno Nt 'Otlh an ORS
3n.710(23).
8. Impl"""'t.Uon:
1. Oaftloomant .hOuld be Planned ancr
dltee:tld aa &I 10 c:on..rw tIM neecsac
amount of OCMn apace. "
:z. Th. CoOftNIC"VaUan o' taoth ranawabla
and ft04YIna••ble natural "aoureea
..cr ~1Cal Ilmlta1l0na of the land
should be UMd as \he baala '01 G.,.,.
ftdn.lng tM QUantity. quamy. IOCaUon.
,."MlICI type o. gfVWCl\ In c.he pCannlng
.....
3. "n.. .U'denl COftaVmpUon of eftafV1
ahould be CCl'M1dared ....n utlUZtng
nalW" fllOUl"l:eS.
.(. Flah .ftCI ..Udllt....... and habUat.a
ahOUld t>. protecte4 and m&naoad In
.cc0n3anc. wtlh the Or-oon Wlldllfa
Cammlulon'a n.h and .cldJU. mana.
oamenl pl.ns•
S. Sifum tlo••nd ..alar '-"'al• .houkl boa
protected and manaolod &1 , ....., _0.
Qu.t. fot n.h, "UdllIa. pollution abel•
m.nt. rler••Uon. • ••t".Uc, and
agrICulture.
6. Stonlllcatt.1 nalur.1 .,... thet ....
historically. ecologicallyorac..ntlllc.U-
Iy uniQue. ou1s1andlng otlrnpoctant. In-
cluding thoM I4enUlIecI br lha Sta'l
Nalural Ala. Pr...... Ad'tt1JOrf~
mm.., Iltould be Inftnlortad and
....""t.:J. Plana should prooride tot the
pt4tMfYaUon o. N1ural ..... COftI1a.
'ani ""I" an ",","tocy or .eMftttnc:.
educaUonal. e<:oloQlc:a1 and ncraa·
IlGnai ftM(SS tor .lonl'lcaqt "'Iut"
.,...., --......
·7. lDc:aJ, NOlen.' ated a"'la C1owrnme..l.
lhOuld ~ -.coura;ed to lnvellto".
.nd "mu. e.. aCCN'.ltlon. ....mant••
cl".I.t d ....loDm••".. prat.flnUel-
......ment, o-.lopmanl ngl'lts K'
oul,IOon .nd ,Imllar lec:hft&quas 10 .....
P4efMn11hlt goa.L
I. SI.I, .nd 1.cI.r,1 '~II should
o-.lOp .'.1......01 "'hHal resoUrcl.
coen 'DIe•• aeanle and tIIatonc ....
pt.ns and prO'llde taehnlcal .aultlnee
10 1oc.1 .nd raclonll aOlncl.,. Stall
.nd tedlrll platt.. shOuld ~ faYiewad
and cGOrdlnalad wi1h k)cat.ncs raglGf\lI
plans.
0. Ar••• Id.ntlfled a, ha.lng non.
trn••abl. tnln.fll anC:: aoorao.'.
fllourcas ShOUld be plan"a<I for In-
,arlm. It.nslllonal and "'aecond UN-
ull1l.c:allo" .. _II •• for the prtmary
u••.
ApPENDIXD
GOAL 5 ADMINISTRATIVE RULE
OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
CHAPTER 680. DIVlSION 16 - LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
DIVlSION16
REQUIREMENTS AND APPLICATION
PaOCEDURES FOR COMPLTING
WITH STATEWIDE GOAL 5
Inventory Goal 5 Resources
660·16·000 (1) The inventory process for
Statewide Planning Goal 5 beglOs with the
collection of available data from as many sources as
possible including eXDem in the field, local citizens
and landowners. The local government then
analyzes and refines the data and determines
whether there is sufficient information on the
location, Cluality and quantity of each resource site
to I1roperly complete the Goal 5 process. This
analySIS also includes whether a j)articular natural
area is ·ecologically and scientifically significant",
or an open space area is "needed", or a scenic area
is ·outstandiillr', as outlined in the Goal. Based on
the evidence and ·Iocal government's analysis of
those data, the local government then determines
which resource sites are ·of significance and
includes those sites on the final plan inventory.
(2) A ·vaiid" inventory _of a Goal 5 resource
under subsection (5Xc) of this rule must include a
determination of the .Iocation quality, and quantity
of each of the resource sites. Some Goal 5 resources
(e.g., natural areas, historic sites, mineral and
aggregate sites, scenic waterways) are more site-
specific than othen (e.g., groundwater, energy
sources). For site.specific resources, determination
of lOcation must include a description or map of the
boundaries of the resource site and of the impact
area to be affected, ifciifferent. For non·site-sp'ecific
resources, determination must be as speCIfic as
possible. .
(3) The determination of quality requires some
consideration of the ruouree site's relative value,
as compared to other e,;amples of the same
resource in at least the jurisdiction itself. A
determination of quant~ requires consideration of
the relative abundance or the resource (of any given
quality). The level of detail that is provided will
depend on how much information is available or
·olltainable".
(4) The inventory completed at the local level
including options in subsections (5Xa), (b), and (c!
of this rUle, will be ade~te for Goa! compliance
. unless it can be shown to be based on inaccurate
data, or does not adequately address location,
quality or quantity. The issue of adequacy may be
raised by the Department or objectors, but final
determination is made by the Commission or the
Land Use Board ofAppeals as provided by law.
(5) Based on data collected, analyzed and
refined by the local government, as outlliied above,
a jurisdiction has thiee basic options:
(a) Do Not Include on Inventory: Based on
information that is available on location, quality
and quantity, the local government might deter
mine that a particular resource site is not
important enoul:h to warrant inclusion on the plan
inventory, or is not required to be included in the
inventory based on the specific Goal standards. No
further a..ion need be taken with regard to these
sites. The local government is not required to .justify in its comprehensive plan a decision not to
Include a jlarticular site in the plan inventory
unless chaIlenged by the Department, objectors or
~he C0!O'1mission based upon contradictory
mformation;
• <]» Del.ay Go~ ~ Pr?cess: When some informa.
tion IS avwlilbl!!, mdicating the possible existence of
a resource. Slte, bu~ tliat information is not
ade9.':18te to Iden~ WIth particularity the location
qual1ty and quantity of tli., resource site, the local
government should only mclude the site on the
comprehensive plan inventory as a special category.
The local government must ex{lress its intent
relative to the resource site througn aJlan policy to
address that resource site and procee throulrlt the
Goal 5 process in the future. The 'plan Should
include a ~ime·frame for this revIew. Special
Impl~mentmll:..measuresa~e not appropriate or
reqUIred for Goal 5 comphance purposes until
adequate information is available to enBble further
review and adoption of such measures. The state.
ment in the plan commits the local government to
address the resource site through the Goal 5
process in the post-acknowled£ment period. Such
future actions could require a pran amendment;.
. (~) IncllIde on Plan I!lventory, When info~l1'
tion IS avwlable on locatIon, qual1ty and quantlty,
and the local government has determined 11 site to
be significant or important as a result of the data
collection and analysis process, the local govern·
ment must include the site. on its plan inventory
and indicate the location, quality and Q.uantity of
the resource site (see abovel. Items included on this
inventory must proceed through the remainder of
the Goal 5 procesB. .
Stat. Aoth~ORS Cb. 1.83 '" 197
Hiot.: LCD 5-198UTampl, r. '" of. 5-3-81: LCD 1.1981. (. &
.r. 6-29081; LCDC 3·1990, r. '" cort. of. s.a-9O
[ED. NOTE: The ten or Temporary Rulao !a Dot priDud iD
the Oregon Adminiatn.tive Rul.. Compilation. Copies may be
olltaiDad fn>m the adopting "Q'ODCY or the Secretary or Stata.l
Identify ContUctin( Uses
660-16-005 It is the responsibility of local
~vernment to identify conflicts with inventoried
Goal 5 resource sites. This is done primarily by
examining ~he uses allowed in broad zoning
districts established by the jurisdiction (e.g., forest
and agriculturlll zones). A conflicting use is one
which, if allowed. could ne~tively impact a Goal 5
resource site. Where conflicting uses have been
identified, Goal 5 resource sites may impact those
uses. These impacts must be conSIdered in
analyzinJ: the economic, social, environmental and
energy (ESEE) consequences:
(I) Preserve the Resource Site: If there are no
conflicting uses for an identified resource site, thejurisdiction must adopt policies and ordinance pro-
visions, as appropriate, which insure preservation
of the resource site.(2) Determine the Economic, Social, Environ-
mentel, and Energy Consequences: If conflicting
uses are identified, the economic, social, environ·
mental and energy conseQ1.!ences of the conflicting
uses must be determined. Both the impacts on the
resource site and on the conflicting use must be
considered in analyzing the ESEE consequences.
The a~plicabil!ty and requirements of. other
StateWIde Plannmg Goals must also be conSIdered,
where appropriate at this stage of the·process.....
determmatlon of the ESEE consequences of
1· Div. 16 (November, 1992)
OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
CHAPTER 660. DIVISION 16 - LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
identified conflicting uses is adequate if it enables a
j:1ri5~iction to provide r~as0!1s to explain why
aecislons are made for specific SiteS.
Stat. Auth.: ORS Ch. 183 " 197
Hat.: LCD 5-1981<Temp). C. " oC. 5-8-81; LCD 7·1981. C. "
of. S·2&-81
[EO. NOTE: The ten oC Tempormy Ruleo to not printed in
the Oregon Ad..r:b.inilt.rative Rule. CompUation. Cople. may be
obtalne<! from tb. adoptlng lIgellC)' or tbe Secretary oC State.)
Develop ProgrllIJ:1 to Achieve ~e Goal
llBo;l~10 Based on the determination' of the
economic, social, environmental and energy
consequences, a jurisdiction must "develop a
program to achieve the Goal". Assuming there is
adequate information on the location, gu:aIity, and
quantity of the resource site as well as on the
nature of the conflicting use and ESEE con·
sequences, a jurisdiction IS expected to "resolve"
conflicts with specific sites in any of the following
three ways listed below. Compliance with GoalS
shall also be based on the plan's overall ability'to
protect and conserve each GoalS resource. The
Issue of adequacy of the overall program adoDted or
of decisions maae under sections (1), (2) and (3) of
this rule may be raised by the Department or
objectors, but final determination is made by the
CommiSSion, pursuant to usual procedures;
(1) Protect the Resource Site: Based on the
analysis of the ESEE consequences, a jurisdiction
may determine that the resource site is of such
imDortance, relative to the conflicting uses, and the
ES'EE consequences of allowing conflicting uses are
so great that the resource site should be protected
and all conflicting uses prohibited on the site and
possibly within tfie impact area identified in OAR
660-16-000(5)(c). Reasons which support this
decision must be presented in the comprehensive
plan, and plan and zone designations must be
consistent with this decision.(2) Allow Conflicting Uses Fully: Based on the
analysis of ESEE consequences and other
Statewide Goals, a jurisdiction may determine that
the conflicting use should be allowed fully, not
withstanding the possible impacts on the resource
site. This approach may be used when the
conflicting use for a particular site is of sufficient
importance, relative to the resource site. Reasons
which support this decision must be presented in
the comprehensive plan, and plan and zone
designations must be consistent with this decision.
(3) Limit Conflicting Uses: Based on the
analysis of ESEE consequences. a jurisdiction may
determine that both the resource site and the
conflicting use are important relative to each other,
and that the ESEE consequences should be
balanced 90 as to allow the conf1icting use but in a
limited way so as to protect the resource site to
some desired extent. To implement this decision,
the jurisdiction must designate with certainty what
uses and activities are allowed fully, what uses and
activities are not allowed at all and which uses are
allowed conditionally, and what specific standards
or limitations are placed on the permitted and
conditional uses and activities for each resource
site. Whatever mechanisms are used, they must be
specific enough 90 that affected property owners are
able to determine what uses and activities are
allowed, not allowed, or allowed conditionally and
under what clear and objective conditions or
standards. Reasons which support this decision
must be presented in the comprehensive plan and
plan and zone designations must be consistent'with
this decision.
Stat. Auth.: ORS Ch. 183 " 197
HaL: LCD 5-198U'l'emp), f. " .C. 5.'1-81; LCD 7·1981. C. "
.C.6·29-81
(ED. NOTE: Th. ten oCTempormy Ruleo to no< prlntod in
the Oregon Adminiatntive Rul.. CcmpUatica.. Copi" may be
obtalnocl from tbe adoptiq OPllC)' or tbe s.cn.taly oC StaLe.l
P08t·Aclmowleqrnent Period
66O-1~15 (l) All data. findin!;!, and decisions
made by a local government prior to acknowl-
edgment may be reviewed by that local government
in its periodic update process. This includes
decisions made as a result of OAR 66G-16-000<5Xa),
660-16·005(1), and 660-16·010. Any changes
additions, or deletions would be made 88 a plati
amendment, again following all GoalS steos.
(2) If the focal Eovernment hu included in its
plan items under OAR 660·16-000(5)(b). the local
government has committed itself to take cenain
actions within a certain time frame in the post·
acltnowle4gment 'period. Within those stated time
frames, the local government must address the
issue as stated in ita plan, and treat the action u a
plan amendment.
Stat.Auth~ORS Ch.183" 197
Hiot.: LCD 5-1981<Templ, C. " .C. 5.'1-81; LCD 7-1981. C."
.C.6·29-81
(ED. NOTE: The tat or Temporal)' Rulee to not prlntecl in
th. Orqan Admlniatntlv. RuJ.. Compilation. c..piee Cl.&y be
obtainocl from the adoptiq OPllC)' or the Seoretazy oC State.1
Landowner Involvement
66O-1~20 (1) The development of inventory
data. identification of conflicting uses and adoption
of implementing measures must, under Statewide
Plannin~ Goals 1 and 2 provide opportunities for
citizen Involvement and agency coordination. In
addition, the ado{ltion of reEUlations or plan
provisions carries Mth it buic li!ga! notice require-
ments. (County or city lenl counsel can advise the
planning department ana governing body of these
requirements.) Depending upon the type of action
involved, the form and method of landowner
notification will vary. State statutes and local
charter provisions contain basic notice require-
ments. Because of the nature of the GoalS process
as ·~tlined in this paper it is important to provide
for ..otification and Involvement of landowners.
including- publ.ie agencies, at the earliest possible
opportunity, This will liJl:ely avoid 'problems or
diS8!P:"ementli later in the process and improve the
local decision-making- process in the development of
the plan and imolementing measures.(2) Aa the Goal 5 process 'progresses and more
specificity about the nature of resources, identified
conflicting uses, ESEE consequences and imple-
menting measures is known, notice and
involvement of affected part~es wi}l become l1!0re
meaningful. Such notice ana lanao,qner lDVOlve-
ment, although not identified as a Goal 5
(N'ovember, 1992) 2 - Div. 16
OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
CHAPTER 660, DMSION 18 - LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Stat. Auth.: ORS Ch. 183 &, 197
Hi...: LCDC 3·l992, f. &, cen. ef. 6·10·92
S.at. Auth.: ORS Ch. 183" 197
Ria••: LCD 5-1981<Templ. f. &, ef. 5-8-81: LCD 7·1981. r. "
ef.6.29-81
Mineral and Alrgregate Re80urceS
880-18-030 (1) When planning for and
regulating the development of aggregate resources,
Policy Application
66O-1il=025 [LCD 5.1981(Temp),
f. & ef. 5-8·81'
LCD 7-1981, f. & ef. 6·29-81;
Repealed by LCDC 3-1990,
f. & cert. ef. 6-6-901
[ED. NOTE: The text of Temporazy Rul.. ia DO' priDted iD
the Oregan Administrative Rules Compilation. Copies may be
obtained from .he adDp.ing ageDcy or .he SecTetary of State.)
requirement is in the opinion of the Commission, local govemments shall address ORS 517.750 to
imperative. 517.900 and OAR Chapter 6321 Divisions 1 and 30..(2) Local govemments shad coordinate with the
State Department of Geology and Mineral
Industries to ensure that requIrements for the
reclamation of surface mines are incorporated into
prOlr':ams to achieve the Goal developed in
accordance with OAR 660-16·010.(3) Local governments shall establish pro-
cedures designed to ensure that comprehensive
plan provisions, land use regp.lations, and land use
permits necessary to authorize mineral and
aggregate development are coordinated with the
State Department of Geology and Mineral
Industries. Local governments shall amend
comprehensive plans and land use regulations, as
necesaan', no later than January I, 1993.
(4) The provisions of this rule shall be effective
immediately.
.,
3 - Div. 16 (November. 1992)
GOAL S OPEN SPACES, SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS,
AND NATURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY EVALUATION "ROCESS
mrs IN PROCESS
mum IN PRoCESS
~lli.1
Collecl, Jcvclopdata on
GoalS ResourcC$
Analyze. refine data;
determine surridcl\cy.
siGnificance. clc.
L1A. Iwallablc Inrormatlon on ,r« .,,~I., WlI.kr".,., ........._"...", I<kfIrif;eJl lA. Do not Indude all planlocation, qualily and
'nvcotory; no furtherqUlntily indicates lelion required orIC$ourcc not important 'PP1~'ialc lot Goal S
camp lanca
'--~l D. Some inlormalloA u.ailablc•. (I« <IJt~nofltflf. #.by ~pplylCl'Klm<lllIlri II ",•."Ie: ICWUrt:CI)
. -~1 O. Include in rlan Inventorybut Inadcqualc 10 idenllfy
IS a specia category:resource
L-._IC. In(ormatlon availilblc; Adopt plan statement to
addleS! the fcsourceProvide Information on
and CoalS process InlocOitlon. quality and
future, slalina lime hame,~ua/llily and include
In InVerry No special restriction plan
policies, tcm(nc ordln:uu;c
pro..,lslont or Interim~ STEP 1
review ml:chulsms
Identify connlcting uses required or .appropriatel. 2A. No conflicHn~um ror Co.al 5 compliance.(fOf elf.".,.": ,.~lrJ.,."""1'1,"" ___
. - ...lA. M.anace resource
q-,SpMa) 10 presc.....e
... 20. Connicting uses
original chuacterIdentified
Delermlne economic,
sodal. environmenlll
Ind energy consequences
of connictln8 uses
.. I
. ... SUP J
Devclop.a procram
Co .achlcyc Ihe gOlf;
Resolve conniels based
on presently ilv.ailablc
Inrormation .and
dele:rmln.ation of
economic. sod;"l.
cnv;'omnClllotl.
cnc'l;y consequencesIIL____.,,-,-
-:lAo PII:SCrYC 1110 rcsource
(lot 'U"'p',l
-.3D. Allow conlllctJllG u.st~CAf.r'f1, ,-,IJe'II1" u,e. llyuJn"1 ".1l1li,'
,nd ,"",,(. '.~,4
,r""x,,,,,,',: Nl1wdl,~'opIftt",w'lIl _ 1--3C. SpeclJle>lIy IImll
'tll,k.""', '" EN l«Itl connlctinc uscs
-
ApPENDIXE
GLOSSARY
AQUIFER
BANK
CHANNEL
COVER
DESYNCHRONIZATION
EMERGENT
VEGETATION
ENDANGERED OR
THREATENED SPECIES
ENHANCE
FRAGIPAN
GOALS
HABITAT
IMPERVIOUS
SURFACE
INDICATOR
SPECIES
Glossary
A water bearing layer of penneable rock, sand or gravel.
The rising ground surrounding a lake, river, or other water
body.
An area demonstrating evidence of the passage of water.
Vegetation that serves to protect animals from excessive
sunlight, drying, or predators.
Modification of the timing of stormwater runoff from
various parts of a watershed through water retention, which
will result in a decrease in flood elevations.
Various aquatic plants usually rooted in shallow water and
having most of their vegetative growth abotve water, such
as cattails and bullrushes.
Those species which are likely or in danger of of becoming
extinct within the foreseeable future.
To raise to a higher degree; improve quality or available
capacity; intensify; magnify.
A hard, slowly penneable silt loam soil layer that normally
develops 2.5 to 4.5 feet below the ground surface in the
Portland West Hills.
A portion of the Oregon Land Conservation and
Development Commission land use goals, dealing with the
protection and conservation of open spaces, scenic and
historic areas, and natural resources.
Place where a plant or animal species naturally lives and
grows; its immediate surroundings.
Any surface that is incapable of being directly penetrated by
stormwater.
The presence or absence of such a species predicts whether
an area of habitiat is suitable for a variety of species having
similar habitat requirements.
E-3
INTERSPERSION
LACUSTRINE
MITIGATE
PALUSTRINE
RIPARIAN
RIVERINE
SATURATED
SERALSTAGE
SMALL MAMMALS
STATE LISTED
SENSITIVE SPECIES
STRUCTURAL
The proximity and interaction of one natural area to other
adjacent areas.
Related to or within lakes.
Reduction of adverse effects of a proposed project by
considering, in the following order:
a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a
certain action or parts of an action;
b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or
magnitude of the action and its implementation;
c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or
restoring the affected environment;
d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by
preservation and maintenance operations during the
life of the action by monitoring and taking
appropriate corrective measures; and
e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or
providing comparable substitute resources or
environments.
Wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergent
herbs, emergent mosses or lichens.
Relating to, living, or located on the bank of a natural water
course (stream, river, etc.).
Related to, formed by, or resembling a river.
Soaked, impregnated, or imbued thoroughly (soils).
A characteristic association of plants and animals during
succession and before climax.
Fur covered animals that bear their young alive and nurse,
those of the Orders Rodentia and Insectivores (mice, voles,
shrews, etc.).
Naturally reproducing native vertebrates which are likely to
become threatened or endangered throughout all or a
significant portion of their range in Oregon.
Different habitat types within a Natural Area (i.e., Diversity;
grasslands, forest, open water, etc.).
E-4
UPPER PERENNIAL
VECTOR CONTROL
WATERFOWL
WATERSHED
WETLANDS
One of four subsystems of the Riverine System, where the
gradient is high, water velocity is fast, and some water
flows throughout the year.
The control of organisms, such as insects, that transmit
pathogens.
Birds of the Family Anatidae. Aquatic, web-footed,
gregarious birds ranging from small ducks to large swans,
including geese.
A region or area bounded peripherally by a water parting
and draining ultimately to a particular watercourse or body
of water.
Lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic where the
water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is
covered by shallow water. Those areas that are inundated
or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and
similar areas.
E-5
ApPENDIXF
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bibliography
Adams, Lowell and Daniel Leedy. A Guide to Urban Wildlife Management, National
Institute for Urban Wildlife (Columbia, Maryland: 1984).
Adams, Lowell W. and Daniel Leedy. Integrating Man and Nature in the Metropolitan
. Environment: Proceedings ofa National Symposium on Urban Wildlife, National
.Institute for Urban Wildlife (Columbia, Maryland: 1986).
Adams, Lowell W. and Louise Dove. Wildlife Reserves and Corridors in the Urban
Environment: A Guide to· Ecological Landscape Planning and Resource Conservation,
National Institute for Urban Wildlife (Columbia, Maryland: 1989).
Anderson, 1. M. and H. K. Cordell. "Influence of Trees on Residential Property Values
in Athens, Georgia," Landscape and Urban Planning, 1988 v. 15: 153-164.
Balsillie, J. H. and G. T. Benson. "Evidence for the Portland Hills Fault," The Ore Bin,
1971 v.33 (6): 109-118.
Bergman Photographic Services. Infra-red Aerial Photographs (1991).
Bragan, R. Variation in Denitrification within Riparian Zones, U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
Brookshire, David S., et al. "A Test of the Expected Utility Model: Evidence from
Earthquake Risks," Journal ofPolitical Economy, 1985 v. 93 (2).
Brown, Gardner M. and Henry O. Pollakowski. "Economic Valuation of Shoreline,"
Review of Economics and Statistics 1977 v. 59.
Bureau of Environmental Services and Washington County Dept. of Land Use and
Transportation. Erosion Control Plans Technical Guidance Handbook (Portland,
Oregon: 1989).
Bureau of Environmental Services, City of Portland, Oregon. Portland Storm Drainage
Study (Portland, Oregon: 1982).
Bureau of Planning, City of Portland, Oregon. Addendum to Mineral and Aggregate
Resource Inventory (Portland, Oregon: 1989).
Bureau of Planning, City of Portland, Oregon. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
(Portland, Oregon: 1993).
Bureau of Planning, City of Portland, Oregon. Historic Resource Inventory (Portland,
Oregon: 1984).
F-3
Bureau of Planning, City of Portland, Oregon. Mineral and Aggregate Resource Inventory
(Portland, Oregon: 1988).
Bureau of Planning, City of Portland, Oregon. Northwest Hills Natural Areas Protection
Plan (Portland, Oregon: 1992).
Bureau of Planning, City of Portland, Oregon. Northwest Hills Study (Portland, Oregon:
1985).
Bureau of Planning, City of Portland, Oregon. Public Facilities Plan (Portland, Oregon:
1989).
Bureau of Planning, City of Portland, Oregon. Scenic Views, Sites, and Corridors: Scenic
Resources Protection Plan (Portland, Oregon: 1990).
City of Portland, Oregon. Arterial Streets Classification Policy (Portland, Oregon: 1990).
Collins, Cliff. "In Harmony with Nature," The Oregonian, October 20,1991.
Columbia Region Association of Governments. Urban Outdoors: New Praposal for Parks
and Open Space (Portland, Oregon: 1971).
Correll, Mark, et al. "The Effects of Greenbelts on Residential Property Values: Some
Findings on the Political Economyof Open Space," Land Economics, 1978 v. 54:
204-217.
Defenders of Wildlife. Nongame Wildlife Assessment Survey: Executive Summary, Intercept
Research Corporation (Portland, Oregon: 1988).
Defenders of Wildlife. Preserving Communities and Corridors (Washington, D.C.: 1989).
Dehlinger, P. et al. "Investigations of the Earthquake of November 5, 1962, North of
Portland," The Ore Bin 1963 v.25 (4).
Ellis, David V. "An Archaeological Predictive Model for the City of Portland:
Management Summary," Portland State University research paper (Portland,
Oregon: 1992).
Eshleman, K.Groundwater - Surface Water Interactions in a Virginia Coastal Plain
Catchment, University of Virginia.
Fox, Tom. Urban Open Space: An Investment that Pays, The Neighborhood Open Space
Coalition (New York, New York: 1990).
Franklin, Jerry D. and C.T. Dyrness. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington, Oregon
State University Press (Corvallis, Oregon: 1988).
F-4
Garrod, Guy and Ken Willis. "The Environmental Economic Impact of Woodland: a
Two Stage Hedonic Price Model of the Amenity Value of Forestry in Britain,"
Applied Economics, 1992 v.24: 715-728.
Hammer, T. R., et al. "The Effect of a Large Urban Park on Real Estate Values," Journal
of the American Planning Association, 1974 v.40: 274-277.
Harris, Larry D. The Fragmented Forest: Island Biogeography Theory and the Preservation of
Biotic Diversity, University of Chicago Press (Chicago, Illinois: 1984).
Hayes, Mark. Personal communication, April 28, 1994.
Hitchcock, C. Leo and Arthur Cronquist. Flora of the Pacific Northwest, University of
Washington Press (Seattle, Washington: 1973).
Hough, Michael. City Form and Natural Process, Routledge (New York, New York: 1984).
Houle, Marcy Cottrell. One City's Wilderness: Portland's Forest Park, Oregon Historical
Society Press (Portland, Oregon: 1987).
Hupp, C. and Tom Yanosky. Role ofForested Wetlands in Water Quality: Sedimentation and
Trace Elements, U.S. Geological Survey.
Lentz, R.T. "The Petrology and Stratigraphy of the Portland Hills Silt - a Pacific
Northwest Loess," Oregon Geology, 1981 v.43(I): 3-10.
Lipton, Tom. Bureau of Environmental Services. Personal communication (1994).
Mabey, Matthew A. Personal communication (1993).
Mabey, Matthew A., et al. Earthquake Hazard Maps of the Portland Quadrangle, Multnomah
and Washington Counties, Oregon and Clark County, Washington, State of Oregon,
Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (Portland, Oregon: 1993).
Madin, Ian. "Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Portland, Oregon Metropolitan
Area: Mapping Potentially Hazardous Soils," The Ore Bin 1989 v.Sl(S): 106-118.
Madin, Ian. Personal communication (1993).
Mandelker, Daniel R. and Roger A. Cunningham. Planning and Control of Land
Development, The Michie Company (Charlettesville, VA: 1979).
Manuel, Jocelyn. "Urban Open Space: An Empirical Study in Benefit Estimation" An
unpublished paper (1993).
F-S
Maser, Chris, Bruce Mate, Jerry Franklin, and e. T. Dyrness. Natural History of Oregon
Coast Mammals, Museum of Natural History, University of Oregon (Eugene,
Oregon: 1984).
Mathews, Daniel. Cascade Olympic Natural History: A Trailside Reference, Raven Editions
(Portland, Oregon: 1988).
Metro. Aerial Blue Prints (Portland, Oregon: 1993).
Metro. Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan (Portland, Oregon: 1992).
Metro. Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives (Portland, Oregon: 1990).
Morales, Dominic J. "The Contribution of Trees to Residential Property Value," Journal
ofArborculture, 1980 v. 6(11): 303-308.
Murdoch, James e., Harinder Singh and Mark Thayer. "The Impact of Natural Hazards
on Housing Values: The Loma Prieta Earthquake" Journal of the American Real
Estate and Urban Economics Association, 1993 v. 21(2): 167-184.
New York Times, "Cluster Builders' New Enticement: Adjacent Woods," May 8,1987.
Olmsted J.e. and F.1. Olmsted. Report of the Park Board (Portland, Oregon: 1903).
Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 660, Division 16.
Oregon CommuniTree News, "Facts That Influence Urban Forestery," Vol 3(1), Winter
1993.
Oregon Natural Heritage Program. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Plants and Animals of
Oregon. (Portland, Oregon: 1993).
Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 197, Section 640.
Orr, Elizabeth 1., N. William Orr and Ewart M. Baldwin. Geology of Oregon, Hunt
Publishing Company (Dubuque, Iowa: 1992).
Pearce, David W. andR. Kerry Turner. Economics ofNatural Resources and the
Environment, Johns Hopkins University Press (Baltimore, Maryland: 1990).
Pearce, David W. Economic Values and the Natural World, The MIT Press (Cambridge,
Massachusetts: 1993).
Price, Larry W. (ed.). Portland's Changing Landscape, Portland State University Press
(Portland, Oregon: 1987).
F-6
Redfern, Roger. Portland Physiographic Inventory (Portland, Oregon: 1976).
Rockwell, David L., William Allen, and Joseph Schram, Jr. Fundamentals ofWashington
Real Estate, National Real Estate Institute (Redmond, Washington: 1988).
Schaenman, Philip S. and Thomas Muller. Measuring Impacts ofLand Development, Urban
Land Institute (Washington, D.C.: 1974).
Schofield, J. A. Cost-Benefit Analysis in Urban and Regional Planning, Unwin Hyman
(Boston, Massachusetts: 1989),
Scodari, Paul F. Wetlands Protection: The Role of Economics, Environmental Law Institute
(Washington, DC: 1990). .
Seidel, Stephen R. Housing Costs and Government Regulations, Center for Urban Policy
Research (New Jersey: 1978).
So, Frank S. and Judith Getzels. The Practice of Local Government Planning, The
International City Management Association (Washington, D.C.: 1988).
Spickard, Steven E. "The Economics of Greenways:' Paper presented at Country in the
City Symposium, July 12,1991.
State of Oregon, Dept. of Geology and Mineral Industries. Earthquake-Hazard Geology
Maps for the Portland Metropolitan Area, Oregon; Open-File Report 0-90-2 (Portland,
Oregon: 1990).
State of Oregon, Land Conservation and Development Commission. Oregon's Statewide
Planning Goals (Salem, Oregon: 1990).
Stockey, Edith and Richard Zeckhauser. A Primer for Policy Analysis, W. W. Norton
(New York, New York: 1978).
Swanson, R. D. "A stratigraphic-geochemical study of the Troutdale Formation and
Sandy River Mudstone in the Portland Basin and lower Columbia River Gorge"
Portland State University Master's Thesis (Portland, Oregon: 1986).
Thurow, Charles, William Toner and Duncan Erley. Performance Controls for Sensitive
Lands: A Practical Guide for Local Administrators, American Society of Planning
Officials (Chicago, Illinois: 1976).
Treasher, R. C. "Geologic History of the Portland Area." Oregon Dept. of Geology and
Mineral Industries, Short Paper 7, 1942.
Trimble, D. E. Geology ofPortland, Oregon and Adjacent Areas, Geological Survey Bulletin
1119, U. S. Government Printing Office (Washington: 1963).
F-7
United States Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Services. Management ofWildlife and Fish
Habitats in Forests ofWestern Oregon and Washington: Part 1 - Chapter Narratives and
Part 2 - Appendices (Washington, D.C.: 1986).
United States Dept. of Agriculture, Soils Conservation Service. Soils Survey ofMultnomah
County, Oregon (Portland, Oregon: 1983).
United States Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory
maps (Portland, Oregon: 1989).
United States Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey. 7.5 Minute Series, Topographic
maps. (1984).
United States Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service. Economic Impacts of Parks and
Recreation: A Resource Book (Western Regional Office: 1988).
United States Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service. Economic Impacts of Protecting
Rivers, Trails and Greenway Corridors: A Resource Book (Washington, D.C. : 1990).
United States Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service. Rivers and Trails Conservation
Assistance Program, (Washington, DC).
Whitney, Stephen. The Audubon Society Nature Guides: Western Forests, Chanticleer Press
(New York, New York: 1985). .
Yeats, Robert S. "Current Assessment of Earthquake Hazard in Oregon," Oregon
Geology, 1989; v.51(4):90-91.
F-8