Forest Park Project Objective Screening Tool

Forest Park Project Objective Screening Tool

January 2014

Forest Park Project Objective Screening ToolJanuary 2014

Portland Parks & Recreation – Primary AuthorsKendra Petersen-Morgan, Ecologist, City Nature WestEmily Roth, Natural Resources Planner

Portland Parks & RecreationMike Abbaté, DirectorDeborah Lev, City Nature ManagerElizabeth Kennedy-Wong, Public Involvement ManagerAstrid Dragoy, City Nature Zone ManagerRachel Felice, City Nature West SupervisorGreg Hawley, City Nature Trails Program CoordinatorJason Smith, Senior Management Analyst

Officer of Commissioner Amanda FritzAmanda Fritz, Commissioner in Charge of Portland Parks & RecreationPatti Howard, Policy Advisor

Technical Review CommitteeMary Bushman, Willamette Watershed Team, City of Portland Bureau of Environmental ServicesChar Corkran, Forest Park Wildlife Technical Advisory Committee, Private ConsultantRenee Myers, Forest Park Conservancy Executive DirectorMichael Ahr, Forest Conservationist, West Multnomah Soil & Water Conservation DistrictNancy Broshot, Forest Park Wildlife Technical Advisory Committee; Professor, Department of Biology, Linfield CollegeAnita Morzillo, Forest Park Wildlife Technical Advisory Committee; Assistant Professor, Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State UniversityMart Hughes, PP&R City Nature East EcologistLynn Barlow, PP&R City Nature East SupervisorSteve Lower, PP&R City Nature East Protect the Best Crew Leader

Portland Parks & Recreation1120 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1302Portland, Oregon 97204503-823-PLAYwww.PortlandParks.org

Amanda Fritz, CommissionerMike Abbaté, Director

Portland Parks & Recreation 1

Introduction

The Forest Park Project Objective Screening Tool (POST) is a science-based evaluation tool used for preliminary analysis of construction and capital project proposals in Forest Park. Portland Parks & Recreation (PP&R) staff will use the POST to ensure consistency and transparency in initial decision making on proposed projects in Forest Park. In addition, the POST encourages early discussion between project proponents and PP&R staff on a project’s merit prior to submittal of the project for consideration.

The POST is a methodology that synthesizes what we have learned from recently completed Forest Park studies – including wildlife, vegetation, and habitat – and the baseline recreation survey. This synthesized information was used to create objective criteria for evaluation of proposed projects by PP&R staff. The evaluation tool will be used to screen proposed construction or capital projects (those with a total cost of at least $10,000 over the life of the project), including infrastructure improvement projects that help maintain or improve City assets such as trails, buildings, and utilities. The POST will not be utilized to assess events or programs that occur within existing park infrastructure. This tool will not be applied to proposals that are entirely ecological enhancement and/or restoration projects nor minor trail projects that include reroutes less than ¼ mile in length.

Potential projects may be initiated by PP&R, submitted through the Park Proposal Process or a Non-Parks Use Permit (NPUP), and/or introduced by partner organizations.

In response to the City Club’s Forest Park: A Call To Action report (May 2010) and the Forest Park Single Track Cycling process (2010), former Parks Commissioner Nick Fish and former PP&R Director Zari Santner directed staff to take a series of actions to strengthen PP&R’s ability to maintain and enhance Forest Park (2010 Directive). As a result of this directive, and in conjunction with an earlier Federal Emergency Management Agency grant, a number of Forest Park studies were completed. These documents include:

1. Forest Park Wildfire Risk Reduction (City of Portland, 2008)

2. Forest Park Desired Future Condition (2011)

3. Forest Park Ecological Prescriptions (2011)

4. Forest Park Recreational Survey (2012)

5. Forest Park Wildlife Report (2012)

2 Forest Park Project Objective Screening Tool – January 2014

Introduction

The recreation survey and the wildlife report were developed in response to the 2010 Directive. The Wildfire Risk Reduction report was part of a larger effort by the City of Portland to examine potential wildfire areas and actions to reduce the risk. The Desired Future Condition and the Ecological Prescriptions reports are part of the Ecosystem Management Elements (http://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/article/349438) that PP&R uses to manage natural areas.

These studies along with the 1995 Forest Park Natural Resource Management Plan (NRMP5) will guide the evaluation of construction projects. Information from these studies is synthesized in the POST and was used to develop the objectives and evaluation criteria for the evaluation tool. The NRMP remains the foundational policy document adopted by City Council that provides the basis for all decisions in Forest Park.

After a project has been evaluated using the POST, and if it receives a successful score on the screening tool, implementation will depend on meeting additional criteria, including:

• Permitting requirements outlined in the NRMP

• Identified funding source(s)

• Availability of PP&R staff resources for planning, design, permitting, and construction oversight

• Public support for the proposed project

• Environmental review through the appropriate Land Use Review as determined by the Bureau of Development Services

• PP&R capacity for ongoing operations and maintenance

• Implementation of a public engagement process at the level appropriate for the proposed project

PP&R staff will continue to refine the POST as additional information is collected on the ecology and recreational use of the park.


Documents Used in Preparing the POST

Forest Park Natural Resources Management Plan (1995)The Forest Park Natural Resource Management Plan (NRMP) was adopted by City Council in 1995. It guides land use decisions and park management through conservation, recreation, and education goals that are the foundation for all actions in Forest Park. As stated in the NRMP, “Implicit in the plan’s vision statement and more obvious in the goal statements is the adoption of preservation of natural systems as its top priority.” (NRMP, pages 97-98.) PP&R staff developed the POST as a way to evaluate new construction and capital projects in relationship to the goals of the NRMP:

Conservation Goals

1. Protect Forest Park’s native plant and animal communities, its soil, and its water resources while managing the ecosystem in order to grow a self-sustaining ancient forest for the enjoyment and benefit of future generations.

2. Design management and restoration efforts to:

• Maintain and enhance regional biodiversity

• Provide wildlife habitat and migration opportunities

• Improve water quality and aquatic habitat

• Repair damaged and fragmented natural systems

Recreational and Educational Goals

1. Protect and enhance the value of Forest Park as a regionally-significant recreational resource – a place that can accommodate recreational and educational use during appropriate seasons of the year without environmental damage.

2. Enhance the value of Forest Park as a regionally-significant educational resource – an urban laboratory for environmental research and resource enhancement and restoration.

Based on the NRMP recommendation, Forest Park is managed in three units – South, Central, and North. These units also reflect a gradient of ecological health and habitat protection that increases from south to north. The one exception is Balch Creek in the South unit that is of high ecological value. To correlate with the habitat protection gradient, the NRMP also set a recreation gradient that concentrates trails and users in the South unit and limits recreation use in the North unit. In addition to the ecological health gradient, the NRMP recommends the establishment



of core preserves in which human use and intervention is limited to ecological management activities. Core preserves include locations of interior forest habitat, rare plant and animal communities, Balch and Miller Creek Watersheds, Newton Wetlands, and Doane Lake.

In addition, PP&R manages Forest Park and works with adjoining property owners and partners to remove invasive species, protecting and enhancing natural resource functions and processes throughout the entire park, regardless of the management unit.

Projects for all management units and specific to each unit are listed on pages 119-126 of the NRMP. The projects are assigned a priority (high, medium, low) and an estimated cost. The NRMP also lays out the environmental review process for adding unanticipated projects, recognizing that over time there will be additional construction and capital projects in Forest Park.

WI L

LA

ME

TT E R

I V E R

A B B E Y

S U B W A T E R S H E D

B R O N S O N


L I N N T O N


C E D A RM I L L


B A L C H


D O A N E


K I T T R I D G E


S A L T Z M A N


S W A N I S L A N D


M I L L E R


JO

HN

SO

N-

NI C

OL

AI

SU

BW

AT

ER

SH

ED

RI

VE

RG

AT

E

SU

BW

AT

ER

SH

ED

S T . J OH

NS

S UB

WA

TE

RS H

ED

FI S K

E

S UB

WA

TE

RS H

ED

BPA

Roa

d

Saltzm

an R

oad

Oil Line Road

Kiel

h orn

Mea

dow

acce

ss

Leif E

rikso

n D

rive

Verd e Vista

site tra

il (For

est P

ark)

New

ton Road

Leif Erikson D

rive

Saltz

man

Road

Leif E

rikson

D

rive

Leif Erikson Drive

Leif

Erik

son

Driv

e

s ite t r

ail (

Fore

st P

ark)

Lei f Erikson Drive

Leif Er ikson Dr ive

Leif E

rikso

n Drive

Saltz

man

Roa

d

Leif Erikson Drive

Lei f Erikson Drive

Leif Erikson Drive

Leif Erikson Drive

Leif

Erik

son

Driv

e

Leif Erikson D rive

Leif E

rikson Drive

Saltzman Road

Leif Erik

son Driv

e

Saltz

man Road

Leif E

rikson Drive

Leif Erik

son Dr ive

Le

if Erik

so

n Drive

Leif

Erikson Drive

Sal

tzm

an Roa

d

Leif

Er ik

son

Driv

e

Leif Erikson Drive

St. Helens Road

Willamette Greenway

Willamette Boulevard Trail

NW St. Helens Rd.

NW Germ

anto

wn

Ro a

d

NW Bridge Ave.

NW Thurman St.

N Edison St.

St. Johns Trail

Marine Drive Trail

N Columbia Blvd.

N Marine Dr.

N Reno Ave.

Saltzman Road

NW K

ittrid

ge

N Columbia Frontage Rd.

NW Sp ringville Rd.

Peninsula Cro ssin

g T ra il

N Edgewate r St.

St. Johns im

proved

N Columbia Blvd.

N Columbia Blvd.

Willamette Greenway

N Marine Dr.

Ald e

r Tra

i l

Newto

n Trai

l

A lde

r Rid

ge tr

ail

Maple T

ra

il

L innton Trail

N ature Trail

W ater Line Trail

Upper Macleay T rail

Firelane 4

Wildwood Trail

Hardesty Trail R idge Trai l

Ches

tnut Trail

W

ild C

herry Trail

Tunnel Trail

Aspen Trail

Spring

ville

Road

Macleay Trail

Koenig Trail

Forest

Height

s trails

Oi l Line access

Gasline Trail

access trail

Cumberland Trail

NW Mackay Ave.

Old Cornell

Water tank access trac k

BPA

offs

hoot

Marine Drive Trail

Fi r Tr ail

Dogwood Tra

i l

Beec

h Tr

ail

site trail (Forest Park)

site

t rai

l (HA)

Peninsu

la Cro

ssing Tra il

Cre

ek T

rail

Lower

Macleay Trail

Forest Heights trail s

Har

dest

y Tr

ail

Wild

wood Trail

W il dw

ood

Tr

ail

Wi l dwood Trail

M aple Tra i l

Water

Lin

e Trail

Wild

wood

Tra

il

Spr

ingv

ille

Roa

d

Wildwood Trail

Map

le T

rail

Peninsula Crossing Trail

Wi ldwood Trail

Springville Road

Wildwo od T

ra

il

Sprin

g ville

Road

W ildwood Tra il

Water Line Trail

Map le T

rail

Penins

ula C

rossin

g Tra

il

Wild

wo

od T ra

il

Wildwood Trail

Wildwood Trai l

W ildwood Trail

Na tur e T ra il

W

i ldwoo d Trail

Rid g e Tra il

Peninsula Crossing Trail

Wildwood Trail

Ma ple Trail

Firelane 4

Wildwood Trail

Water tank access track

Wildwood Trail

Wild

wood Trail

Gasline Trail

Wild

woo

d Tr

ail

Firelane 4

Wildwood Trail

BPA

offs

hoot

Wildwood Tra

i l

Gasline Tra il

Wildwood Trail

Rid

ge

Trail

Wild

woo

d Trail

W ildwood Trail

Wild Cherry Trai l

Wildwood Trai l

Penins

ula C

rossin

g Tra

il

Wildwood Trail

Wi ldwood Trail

Penins

ula C

ross

ing T

rail

Lower

Mac

leay

Tra

il

Penins

ula C

rossin

g Tra

il

Wild

woo

d Tr

ail

Wild

wood Trail

Wildwood

Trail

Sprin

gville

Road

Wild

wood Trail

W

ildwoo

d Tr

a il

Maple Trail

Wildwood Trail

Wildwood Trail

Penins

ula C

ross

ing T

rail

F irelane 3

Firelane 9

Fir

elane

2

Fire

lane

12

Fire

lane

1

Firelane 7A

BPA Roa d

Firelane 5

Firelane 15

Firelane 7

Fire

lane

10

Fir e lane 13AFi

rela

ne 1

3

New

ton Road

F ir e lane

4

Holman Ln.

Firelane 12

BP A R

oad

Fire

lane

13

Firelane 7

Holman Ln.

Firela ne 3

BPA Road

Firelane 15

New

ton

Roa

d

Firel

ane 15

Firelane 1

New

ton Road

Holman Ln.

Fire la ne 12

Firelane 10

Fir el an e 1

Fi relan e 1 0

Firelane 1

Newton Ro ad

F irel ane 15

Newto

n Ro

ad

Firelane 2

Firelane 10

BPA Road

Fir elane 5

Fire

lane

1

Firel ane 7

Holman Ln.

Firelane 5

NW

New

berry

Roa

d

Forest Heights trails

W ildwood T

r ail

Audubon Trail

Fo r

e st L

a ne

N V

an Ho u ten Pl.

Pier Par k Tra i ls

NW Creston Rd.

M onte Vis ta

Willamet te Greenway

Columbia Slough Trail

NW Nicolai St.

Old Cornell

Firelane 3

NW Harborton Dr.

Fairview Trail

NW V

aughn S t. - N

W Wardway St.

St. J

ohns improved

N B

luff

St. C

onne

ctor

Tra

il

Forest Heigh ts trails

Forest Heights tra

il s

St. Jo

hns i

mpr

oved

Forest Heigh ts tra ils

Hoyt Arboretum

Mt CalvaryCemetery

Sunset HS

Skyline MemorialGardens

Heron LakesGolf

Course

Stoller MS

Sunset SwimCenter/Park

Findley ES

Forest Park

Linnton Park

Pier Park

Macleay Park

Holman Property

Pittock MansionAcres

WashingtonPark

Columbia Park

Smith and BybeeLakes

WetlandsNaturalArea

Chimney Park

Clark & Wilson

Heron LakesGolf

Course

Northgate Park

UniversityPark

Hoyt Arboretum

Cathedral Park

St. Johns Park

Alder RidgeNaturalArea

McCoy Park

McKenna Park

Wright Island

PortsmouthPark

George Park

Harbor ViewProperty

Forest HeightsPark

Peninsula CrossingTrail

Kingsley Park

Johnswood Property

St. Johns RacquetCenter

Pier CommunityGarden

Columbia Buffer

Johns CommunityGarden

Adams CommunityGarden

Exeter Property

PortsmouthCommunity

Garden

McCoy CommunityGarden

Smith and BybeeLakes

Multnomah ChannelProperty

Audobon Societyof

PortlandSanctuaries

WillametteCove

Wright Island

Forest Park

Columbia Slough

Bronson Cree

k

Ceda

r Mill

Cre

ek

Mill

er C

reek

Doane Creek

Saltzman Creek

Balch Canyon

Ennis Creek

Golf Creek

Sylvan Creek

Balch Canyon

Ceda

r Mill

Cre

ek

Balc

h Ca

nyon

Balch Canyon

Sylvan Creek

Doane Creek

Miller Creek

Saltzman Creek

Cedar

Mill

Cre

ek

Balch Canyon

NW SKYLINE BLVD

NW CORNELL RD

NW THOMPSON RD

NW FRONT AVE

N COLUMBIA BLVD

NW

MIL

LER

RD

W BURNSIDE RD

N WILLAMETTE BLVD

NW SPRINGVILLE RD

NW

GER

MAN

TO

WN RD

N FESSENDEN ST

NW ST HELENS RD

N MARINE DR

NW N

EWBE

RR

Y RD

N PORTLA

ND RD

N PO

RTSM

OU

TH A

VE

N BASIN AVE

NW

143

RD

AV

E

SW BARNES RD

NW T HURMAN ST

N LOMBARD ST

N WILLIS BLVD

N CHANNEL AVE

N ST LOUIS AVE

ST JOHNS BRG

N BU

RG

ARD

RD

SW M

UR

RAY

BLV

D

NW

MU

RR

AY

BLVD

N LAGOON AVE

SW SKYLINE BLVD

NW

CE

DA

R H

ILLS

BLV

D

NW BARNES RD

SW C

EDAR

HIL

LS B

LVD

N COLUMBIA WAY

N IVANHOE ST

NW 6

1ST

AVE

SW FAIRVIEW BLVD

NW

SA

LTZMA

N R

D

N DOLP

HIN S

T

NW GERMANT O WN RD

N LOMBARD ST

SW FAIRVIE

W B

LVD

SW BARNES RD

NW

SA

LTZM

AN

RD

N EDISON ST

N P

OLK

AVE

N YALE ST

NW 53RD DR

N W

ALL

AV

E

N OBERLIN ST

N FI

SKE

AVE

N D

WIG

HT

AV

E

N V

AN

HO

UTE

N A

VE

NW

NE

WTO

N R

D

N SEVER RD

N W

OO

LSE

Y A

VE

NW LAIDLAW RD

NW MCDANIEL RD

N ID

A AV

E

N PRINCETON ST

NW LEAHY RD

N M

CKEN

NA A

VE

NW MARINA WAY

N B

UC

HAN

AN A

VE

N TIME OIL RD

N HOUGHTON ST

SW BARNES RD

NW

119

TH A

VE

NW

113

TH A

VE

N O

LIN

AVE

NW B

PA

RD

N O

SWEG

O A

VE

N T

IOG

A AV

E

NW

FIR

ELA

NE

12 R

D

N SYRACUSE ST

N WILLAM

ETTE BLVD

NW

107

TH A

VE

N B

UR

R A

VE

NW OLD G ERMANTOWN RD

N N

EW

MA

N A

VE

NW

29T

H A

VE

N DEPAUW ST

N M

OH

AWK

AVE

NW

FIR

ELANE 2 RD

N HUNT ST

NW

FIRELANE 1 RD

N HARVARD ST

N C

HAR

LEST

ON

AVE

NW

35T

H A

VE

N H

AV

EN

AV

E

N LANDFILL RD

NW BI R KENDENE ST

NW FIR ELAN E 15 RD

NW PINNACLE DR

NW BURTON ST

N A

LLEG

HEN

Y AV

E

N TERMINAL RD

NW WEST RD

NW

124

TH A

VE

N RENO AVE

N M

AC

RU

M A

VE

N M

IDW

AY

AV

E

N IVANHOE ST

NW

31S

T A

VE

N D

AN

A A

VE

N M

ONT

EITH

AVE

NW

SKY

CREST PKWY

NW

118

TH A

VE

N W

ESTA

NN

A A

VE

NW

MIL

L POND R

D

N BOWDOIN ST

N AMHERST ST

N ST JOHNS AVE

N UNNAMED RD

NW FIRELANE 7 RD

NW HA RTFORD ST

NW

131

ST

AV

E

NW LEE ST

N G

ILB

ERT

AV

E

NW

114

TH A

VE

NW G

REE

NLEA

F RD

NW

AS

PE

N A

VE

N SM

ITH ST

NW

102

ND

AV

E

N JAM

ES ST

NW INDUSTRIAL ST

N R

ICH

MO

ND

AVE

N ST

ANFO

RD A

VE

N J

OH

N A

VE

N TRENTON ST

SW MORRISON ST

SW

90T

H A

VE

NW 2ND

ST

NW ROYAL BLVD

N RIVERGATE BLVD

N BANK ST

N W

AY

LAN

D A

VE

NW

MU

RR

AY

RD

N MEARS ST

N N

EWEL

L AV

E

N CRAWFORD ST

NW N

ORT

H RD

N ASTOR ST

NW HILLTOP DR

NW

112

TH A

VE

NW

SCIENCE P ARK DR

NW DEVOTO LN

NW

14 4TH

AV

E

NW

RAM

SEY DR

NW HAZELTIN

E

ST

N W BLACKHAWK DR

NW R EED D R

N C

ENTR

AL ST

N BE

RKE

LEY

AVE

N OLYMPIA ST

N C

LAR

EN

DO

N A

VE

N C

ALH

OU

N A

VE

NW

CR

AD

Y L

N

NW PIONEER RD

N S WIFT WAY

SW TODD ST

NW D

ALE A

VE

N W ASH ST

NW RIDGE R D

SW EVE RGREEN S T

N MCCOY CT

NW

130

TH A

VE

NW

137

TH A

VE

NW SK YVIE

W D

R

NW HOGAN ST

NW

111

TH A

VE

SW FI S CHER LN

N IR

IS W

AY

NW GUAM ST

N BRISTOL AVE

NW

138

TH A

VE

NW

3RD

ST

N SWIFT ST

NW OAK ST

N SUTTLE RD

N A

DR

IATI

C A

VE

NW OLD LAIDLAW RD

NW LAKEVIEW DR

N F

OR

TU

NE

AV

E

SW

MILLE

R R

D

NW BENFIELD DR

SW

130

TH A

VE

NW JO

Y AVE

NW

PI T

TO

CK DR

NW W

EL SH DR

NW OVERTON ST

NW MILL CREEK DR

N SWENSON ST

NW

JE

NN

E A

VE

N EX

ETER

AVE

NW MACLEAY BLVD

NW FILBERT ST

NW WAKER DR

SW BUTNER RD

NW LINMERE DR

N L

EAV

ITT

AVE

N D

RU

ID A

VE

N TRUMBULL AVE

NW

30T

H A

VE

SW LINDA LN

NW

146

TH A

VE

N SEDRO ST

NW 123RD PL

NW WESTLAWN TER

NW HAWKINS BLVD

NW

BA

NNISTER D

R

NW MARSHALL ST

N COLUMBIA CT

SW ADELE DR

NW

133

RD P

L

NW EVERGREEN ST

SW LEAHY RD

N KELLOG

G ST

NW FIRELANE 9 RD

NW 81ST PL

N FESSENDEN ST

N CHIC

AGO AVE

N GIRARD ST

NW

122

ND

AV

E

NW

128

TH A

VE

N LEONARD

ST

NW REEVES ST

SW

88T

H A

VE

NW MILBURN ST

NW VERDE VISTA TER

NW W

ALM AR DR

NW KA

ISER R

D

NW LOST PARK DR

NW LUZON ST

N BURGARD WAY

SW

131

ST

AV

E

NW

SO

UTH

RD

NW HOGE AVE

N JERSEY ST

NW HILLER LN

N CATLIN AVE

NW RALEIGH ST

NW SKYLINE HEI G HTS

DR

SW

143

RD

AV

E

NW R YSTADT RD

S W RITA DR

N LOVELY ST

NW MONTE VISTA TER

NW OIL LIN E RD

NW UN

NAMED RD

N VANDERBILT ST

N HARBORGATE ST

N ENSIG

N ST

NW LURAY TER

NW

PR

IMIN

O A

VE

NW SAVIER ST

N PIER PARK PL

N

W HERMOSA B LVD

N JO

RDAN

AVE

W STARK ST

NW

AR

IEL

TER

NW

101

ST

AV

E

NW BARTHOLOMEW DR

NW

129

TH P

L

NW

140

TH A

VE

N STAFFORD ST

NW WOODROSE DR

NW PETTYGROVE ST

SW VALERIA V

IEW

DR

NW LILYWOOD DR

NW LEWIS LN

N WARREN ST

NW CUMBERLAND RD

NW WILSON ST

SW DOWNING ST

NW

OX

BR

IDG

E D

R

N F

AIR

HAV

EN A

VE

NW FAIRFA X TER

SW

144

T H A

VE

NW MUR D OCK ST

N JUNCTION ST

NW F IRELANE 10 RD

NW

FRO

NT AVE

NW CIRCLE A DR

NW F

IRELA NE 5 RD

NW HAMEL D R

NW D

OAN

E AV

E

N

W 13 6TH AVE

NW PAYN E DR

NW UPSHUR ST

NW TUALATIN AVE

NW RANDO M RD

NW M ALIA LN

NW

BA

UE

R

WOODS DR

NW F

IREL

AN

E 7A

RD

N G

LOU

CEST

ER A

VE

NW MARING DR

NW

TO

RREY

V IEW

DR

NW F ALCONRIDGE L

N

NW S P

ENCER ST

SW TAYLOR ST

SW CORBY DR

NW K

ENNY TER

NW R Y AN ST

NW RO

SEWAY AVE

NW SPRINGVILLE LN

SW CELESTE LN

SW

CH

AMPL

AI

N DR

NW GREENWOOD DR

NW

133

RD

AV

E

NW

32N

D A

VE

NW RAINMONT RD

NW EAST RD

NW MEADOW RIDGE D

R

NW LOVEJOY ST

NW BERTANI ST

SW BE NNINGTON D

RSW WASHINGTON ST

SW S

PRIN

G L

N

NW BAYONNE LN

N W BENS ON S

T

NW

SIL

VERLEAF DR

SW

TE

UF

EL

LN

NW CH

APIN DR

NW BIG FIR CIR

SW 48 TH D R

N B

LOS

S A

VE

NW

88T

H A

VE

NW

87TH A

VE

NW SUNNINGDALE DR

N SKY ST

N UPLAND DR

N BLISS ST

NW 1

28TH

TER

N ROBERTS AVE

NW K

ENNEDY CT

NW

MO

RG

AN

LN

N W CANYO N R

D

NW

RO

BIN

IA L

N

NW

139

TH A

VE

N H

OD

GE

AV

E

N WILLAM

ETTE LN

SW

126

TH A

VE

NW COLEMAN DR NW DAMASCUS ST

SW W

ILLI

AMS D

R

NW PENRIDGE RD

SW

132

ND

AV

E

SW FRENWOOD WAY

NW

9

7TH AV

E

N F

OS

S A

VE

NW KEARNEY ST

NW JUSTUS LN

NW

SK

YL IN

E CREST RD

N DECATUR ST

NW

86T

H A

VE

NW

LEAHY TER

SW

95 T

H A

VE

NW COPELAND ST

SW SALMON ST

NW ELOISE LN

NW CROSSING DR

NW

28T

H A

VE

NW FLOTOMA DR

NW NELA ST

NW GORDON ST

NW

BR

YN

W

OOD LN

SW 1

05T

H T

ER

NW GLE NDOVEER DR

NW S U MMITVIEW DR

NW KYLA LN

NW

95T

H A

VE

N STRONG ST

NW BLUE POINTE L N

N

W RIGGS DR

NW WESTOVER RD

NW

84TH P

L

SW 1

34TH

AVE

NW G LENRIDGE DR

NW GERMANTOWN RD

NW OLD QUARRY RD

NW TRADEWIND ST

NW SOUTH DR

NW FRAZIE

R C

T

NW

SLO

CU

M W

AY

NW

99T

H A

VE

NW

RO

AN

OK

E L

N

NW BARNE S RD

NW

126

TH T

ER

NW C

REEKSID E DR

NW W

OO

D ST

NW MAPLE HILL LN

NW

SUSSE

X AVE

NW PI TTO

CK

AVE

NW WILEY

LN

NW WOOD R OSE LO OP

NW STARK ST

NW

LO

RR

AIN

E D

R

NW

E

NGLEMAN ST

NW

132ND

AV

E

NW

94TH TE

R

NW

120

TH A

VE

N W EAGLERID

GE LN

NW 1

21S

T P

L

N SUPERIOR ST

NW MELODY LN

NW 4TH PL

NW MILLFORD ST

N POWERS ST

NW M

ARCO

TT E RD

NW

92N

D A

VE

NW C EDAR FALLS DR

NW HARVEST HILL DR

SW 1

39TH

AVE

NW SAVOY LN

NW MCKENNA DR

NW HAR DING CT

NW DOGWOOD ST

SW ARAGON ST

NW NAOMI LN

NW

MEI

SNER

D

R

N RUSSET ST

NW

141

ST

PL

NW C

AIT

L IN

TE

R

N A

LASKA ST

NW MARVIN L N

NW HARVEST LN

NW BRO NSON CREEK D

R

NW D URRETT ST

NW

116

TH A

VE

NW SHERRY ST

N W YEON AVE FRONTAGE RD

N T

YLE

R A

VE

NW E

XPRE

SS A

VE

NW

A SHCREEK LN

N W AD AMS ST

NW BELGRAVE AVE

NW BAILEY ST

NW

123

RD

AV

E

N B

UR

LIN

GTO

N A

VE

NW

91ST A

VE

NW 135TH AVE

SW

89T

H A

VE

NW

127TH A

VE

NW BRADY LN

SW CHOBAN LN

SW

104

TH A

VE

NW

LARIAT CT

NW

33R

D A

VE

N H

UD

SON

ST

NW MCLAIN WAY

NW HELEN LN

N FATH

OM S

T

N W LA C

A SS

EL

CR

ES

T L N

NW T

RAIL

AVE

SW C

ASCADE DR

NW ALDERVIEW DR

NW MILLS ST

NW TU A LITY

WAY

SW

M

AYWAY DR

NW

138

TH P

L

NW

MAYFI

ELD

RD

NW PER MI AN DR

N A

LMA

AVE

N HENDRICKS ST

NW DIAMOND DR

NW BIG FIR CT

N W CREE KVIEW DR

SW 1

40T

H A

VE

NW

126TH P

L

SW H

ENRY DR

NW

SP

RIN

G A

VE

NW BORDEAUX LN

NW DUMAR LN

SW BUTNER CT

NW

ROSEFINCH LN

N CECELIA ST

SW 12 1ST PL

NW

118

TH P

L

SW VIE W PL

NW DUNBAR LN

N SW

IFT

CT

NW

OR

CH

ARD DR

N KALMAR ST

N NEWARK ST

SW W INDWO OD WAY

NW RIO VISTA TER

N COM

MERCE S

T

N M

INER

VA A

VE

N ST

OC

KTO

N AV

E

NW LAKE ST

NW

93R

D P

L

NW BYRNE TER

NW GARGANY ST

NW JERICHO RD

NW LOY CT

NW W

ILLBRIDGE AVE

NW

MC

GR

EG

OR

TE

R

NW RIDGETOP ST

NW HENRY CT

NW FLEISC

HN

ER ST

SW YAMHILL DR

N T

AFT

AV

E

NW COLLEGE DR

NW

90T

H A

VE

NW

LO

ST

PA

RK

LN

NW

110

TH A

VE

NW HERRIN CT

NW TUDOR LNNW

119

TH P

L

NW

WIN

D RIDGE DR

NW

118

TH C

T

NW

CO

LUMBINE LN

NW L

ANSB

ROO

K TE

R

NW SUPREME CT

N CAREY B

LVD

SW SPRING CREST DR

SW M

AP

LE

RIDGE DR

NW

115TH A

VE

SW WEST HAVEN DR

SW WINDEMERE LOOP

NW 60TH A

VE

NW

JAS

MINE LN

NW JOHNSON ST

NW

111

TH C

T

NW SEBLAR TER

NW

114TH TER

N MCCOSH ST

SW

VIEWMONT DR

NW WOO DSIDE TER

N H

EPPN

ER A

VE

NW A RBORVIEW DR

NW C

EDAR

LN

N W VALLEVUE PL

NW

126TH A

VE

NW F

OREST LN

NW A BBEY RD

SW F

AI

RVIE

W C

IRCUS

NW KENZIE LN

NW CHEERIO DR

N N

EW Y

OR

K AV

E

NW

119

TH T

ER

NW MERIDIAN RIDGE DR

N A

TTU

ST

N ESPERANZA ST

N C

OU

RT

EN

AY

AV

E

NW COUNTRY WOOD

S LN

NW MIL LER HILL DR

NW

LANGWORTHY TER

NW NORFOLK CT

NW AVOCET LN

N FORTUNE CT

NW JORDAN LN

NW BRIDLE LN

NW HOPEDA LE CT

NW KEETON PARK LN

SW CATL IN CREST DR

NW APPELLATE WAY

NW SALTZMAN CT

NW

93R

D A

VE

NW ROYAL ROSE CT

NW 91ST P

L

NW FLEETWO O D DR

SW

102

ND

AV

E

NW MONTREUX LN

NW

86T

H C

T

NW

98TH A

VE

NW SONOM A LN

NW JERICHO CT

N PORTLAND RD-COLUMBIA BLVD RAMP

NW

142ND

TER

NW LAMBERT ST

NW KAYLEE ST

SW

101ST A

VE

NW BEECH ST

NW

106

TH P

L

NW PUMPKIN CT

NW

VE

RN

ON

CT

SW B

ELVI

DERE PL

SW

111

TH T

ER

NW CRESAP LN

NW

FU

LLN

ER

PL

NW RIDGETOP CT

NW 3RD CT

NW HARDY AVE

NW ODEON LN

NW MACTAVISH LN

NW

117

TH C

T

NW

CAX

TON

CT

NW

110

TH C

T

NW

145

TH P

L

N LOMBARD ST

NW

PE

NN

ING

TON

PL

N H

AV

EN

AV

E

NW 95T H A

VE

NW

81

ST PL

NW UNNAMED RD

N CHICAGO AVE

N HA

VEN

AVE

N UNNAMED RD

N SYRACUSE ST

NW

123

RD

AV

E

N PRINCETON ST

N HOUGHTON ST

N E

XE

TER

AV

E

SW SALMON ST

NW

135

TH

AV

E

N HUDSON ST

NW ASH ST

N SYRACUSE ST

W STARK ST

NW UNNAMED RD

SW

R

ITA DR

N T

YLE

R A

VE

N H

OD

GE

AV

E

N M

ACR

UM

AVE

NW LOVEJOY ST

NW SALTZMAN RD

N UNNAMED RD

N NEWARK ST

NW

137TH AV

E

NW UNNAMED RD

N LE

ON

ARD

ST

N F

ISK

E A

VE

N BAN

K ST

NW KEARNEY ST

N B

ER

KE

LEY

AV

E

NW

124

TH A

VE

N T

YLE

R A

VE

N UNNAMED RD

NW YEON AVE FRONTAGE RD

NW RIDGE RD

N JERSEY ST

NW UNNAMED RD

N CENTRAL ST

NW

97T

H A

VE

SW

MO

RRISON ST

N UNNAMED RD

N LEONARD ST

N KELLOGG ST

NW UNNAMED RD

N NEW YORK AVE

NW MARSHALL ST

SW MORRISON ST

NW BARNES RD

N OLYMPIA ST

N M

OH

AWK

AVE

SW TAYLOR ST

N CHICAGO AVE

N UNNAMED RD

N HO

DGE

AVE

N DECATUR ST

NW

126

TH P

L

N AMHERST ST

N F

OS

S A

VE

SW WA SHINGTON ST

N W

AY

LAN

D A

VE

NW KEARNEY ST

N LEONARD STN SMITH ST

NW

FIR

ELANE 1 RD

N AMHERST ST

SW BUTNER RD

N HUDSON ST

N BANK ST

NW ASH ST

NW

30T

H A

VE

N UNNAMED RD

N C

LAR

EN

DO

N A

VE

N UN

NAM

ED R

D

SW BUTNER RD

N SYRACUSE ST

NW

131

ST

AV

E

Forest Park ManagementKey

Watersheds

Subwatersheds

Forest Park North Mgmt Unit

Forest Park Central Mgmt Unit

Forest Park South Mgmt Unit

Other Public Parks / Open Spaces

Private Open Space

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1

Miles



The following additional Forest Park studies provide important information on the ecology (habitat, wildlife use, and vegetation), recreation, wildfire risk assessments, and actions necessary to achieve the Forest Park Desired Future Condition (DFC). Using the information in these documents and the vegetation survey completed in 2004, PP&R developed the POST as a tool to evaluate new construction and capital projects as they relate to the NRMP. The wildlife report and the recreation survey provided additional essential data on Forest Park that was incorporated into the POST.

Based on the NRMP goals for conservation and recreation, the following key findings are highlighted from each study. These documents can be found online at http://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/53425.

Forest Park Wildfire Risk Reduction (City of Portland, 2008)

• Forest Park is relatively resistant to fire because the forest is mostly young, with healthy deciduous trees and not much dead vegetation.

• Terrain: Steep ravines in Forest Park can cause fires to burn quickly upslope. South-facing slopes dry out more rapidly and tend to burn more quickly than cooler north-facing slopes.

• Weather: Much of Forest Park slopes to the east-northeast so gusty winds from the Columbia River Gorge are the greatest concern. East winds may tend to be strongest at the upper reaches of the park, near Skyline Blvd.

• Control: Vehicle access is poor with narrow roads and under-maintained fire lanes. There are limited water sources. Current access may hamper the ability to control wildfire.

• Homes and Buildings: Reducing fuels in the immediate surroundings of residences is the best way to prevent fire damage, along with making buildings more fire-resistant.

Forest Park Desired Future Condition (2011)

1. The DFC for Forest Park is:

• A mosaic of evergreen-dominated and mixed-deciduous forest

• Oak woodland along portions of the park’s eastern edge

• A diversity of native shrubs and open meadows within the disturbance corridors

2. The DFC structurally mirrors the current condition with a trajectory moving towards old-growth forest succession and reduction of wildfire risk at key interfaces.

3. Ecological Goals for Forest Park are:

• Protection of air and water quality

• A forest with structural complexity: vertically (canopy, mid-story and understory, snags, and downed wood) and at the landscape-level (mosaic of habitat types, natural gaps)

• Floristic native biodiversity with increased habitat opportunities for target wildlife species; avian, terrestrial, and aquatic native wildlife corridors (within and surrounding Forest Park)

• Intact native plant and animal communities with minimal disturbance from non-native species; invasive species populations controlled through management

• Reduction of catastrophic fire risk



Forest Park Ecological Prescriptions (2011)For each ecological goal in the DFC, a corresponding series of projects are identified in the Ecological Prescriptions as necessary to achieving that goal. The projects were vetted by a multi-agency partnership and evaluated to determine the highest priority projects for achieving these goals. Over 30 individual projects were identified, ranging from on-the-ground improvements to policy changes to recommended studies to fill data gaps.

Forest Park Recreation Survey (2012)PP&R contracted with the Portland State University (PSU) Survey Research Lab to conduct a baseline recreation survey for the park. PSU conducted intercept surveys over six days in three seasons; 2,277 park users completed the survey. This method was selected “because it is effective at capturing perceptions of park users as they occur in the park and allow for immediate reporting of experiences, attitudes, and behaviors before the effect of time has lessened reactions.” (Recreation Survey, page 3.) The report recommends that the next survey be completed within ten years. The survey highlights include:

• Predominant Users: 25-54 years old, white, with slightly higher than average household incomes and substantially higher levels of education relative to the Portland metropolitan area population

• Use: Majority of respondents use the park at least once a month or more

• Location: Majority of users (68%) live in Multnomah County

• Access: Thurman Gate is the most popular access point

• Motivations: Exercise/Fitness (49%) and Enjoy Nature and Be Outdoors (28%)

• Most Popular Activities: Hiking/Walking (38%), Jogging/Running (25%), Walking the Dog (14%), Plant/Wildlife Viewing (10%), and Cycling (8%)

• Important Natural Area Features: trails, forest, native plants, and wildlife

• Recommended Actions: Increase mountain biking trails, add restrooms, improve maps and signage

Forest Park Wildlife Report (2012)The Forest Park Wildlife Report provides a baseline inventory of general wildlife habitat, a broad description of wildlife found in the park, and detailed species information based on the best available data – historical, recent, anecdotal, or rigorously collected in research. The report also identifies gaps in knowledge about wildlife and their habitat, threats, and next steps for research. The key findings are:

1. Habitat

• Interior Forest: Dominates the park; the most abundant and well-distributed vertebrate species are associated with this Special Status Habitat type

• Powerline Corridors: Dominated by native shrubs and ground cover; provides habitat for shrub nesting birds, grazing mammals, insectivores, and pollinators

• Late Successional Stands: Contain old-growth individuals that are structurally complex with key wildlife components such as snags and coarse woody debris; this habitat complexity is important for all wildlife classes



2. Wildlife

• Vertebrate Diversity

• 104 avian and 45 mammalian species; of these, about 30% are Special Status Species within the City of Portland and few are non-native

• Relatively few species of amphibian, reptile, and fish likely due to a lack of perennial standing water, springs, and ponds; all are native

• Invertebrate Diversity

• 23 species of terrestrial and aquatic mollusks; most are native, several are common and abundant

• More than 400 species of insects are currently known to occur, with beetles and moths contributing at least 340 species (similar to dominance worldwide)

• Threats to Wildlife and Habitat (top 3 not listed in order of importance)

• Climate change

• Non-native invasive plants, insects, and other wildlife

• Habitat alteration outside the park

• Gaps in Wildlife Information

• Species level: Abundance, breeding, habitat use, distribution, seasonality

• Population: Trends and fluctuations

• Response: To management actions and park users

• Habitat: Number of snags, volume of coarse woody debris, use of habitat outside the park

SummaryThese studies show that Forest Park is generally in good health within the context of an urban natural area. It has a maturing mixed-deciduous/conifer forest that provides habitat for a wide variety of native wildlife species. Invasive plant and animal species management must remain a high management priority to preserve and enhance the forest. Measured progress on accomplishing projects to achieve the Desired Future Condition is necessary. Wildfire risk is low within the park but needs to be continually managed along the park and neighborhood edges. Park users surveyed are mainly local, in the 25-54 age range, and have a higher income and education level than the average household in the Portland metropolitan area.

The POST brings together the key objectives and technical information from each study to develop evaluation criteria and a scoring system against which projects proposals will be screened for their impacts to the ecology, wildfire risk reduction, and recreation of Forest Park.


Project Evaluation Process

POST provides PP&R staff a systematic method to screen proposed construction and capital projects within Forest Park. The initial screening determines if the proposed project and habitat enhancements can meet the goals and objectives for Forest Park as identified in the Forest Park NRMP and Desired Future Condition, and if a preliminary proposal moves on to full evaluation and processing.

Project proponents are encouraged to coordinate with PP&R Forest Park staff, including the Supervisor, Ecologist, and/or Trail Coordinator, to discuss proposed projects and the associated habitat enhancement before submitting the project for review. Each proposed project needs to include a narrative which explains how the project meets the goals of the NRMP, and identifies impacts and enhancements. In addition, project scale, proposed construction methods, maps, and other graphics must be provided.

To encourage stewardship and assist with the protection and enhancement of the park, proposed projects must include a habitat enhancement component.

Steps in the Screening ProcessThe following steps are an overview of how a proposed project would move through the PP&R evaluation process using the POST:

1. Construction project is proposed by a user group, PP&R staff, partner organization, or through the Non-Park Use Proposal process.

2. The project is initially screened using the POST.

3. If the project meets the screening criteria, but there is not funding or staff time available, the project is placed on PP&R’s Capital Improvement Project List until funding is prioritized through PP&R’s public engagement process during annual budget development. If the project is funded (e.g., by a utility company) and staff time is available, the proposal will be fully developed (#5 below).

4. If the proposed project does not meet POST criteria, PP&R may look for another location if appropriate.

5. When funding and staffing for the project are secured, a full proposal is developed.

6. Environmental Review is conducted by the Bureau of Development Services (BDS) based on the requirements in the Forest Park Natural Resources Management Plan.

7. The project is designed and constructed. Habitat enhancement coincides with construction.


Project Evaluation Process

Figure 2. Illustration of the Forest Park Capital Project Proposal Process

Proposed Construction or Capital Project

POST

Funded for full design application – money and staff time

Possible other location

NRMP Environmental Review by BDS

Design and build project and habitat enhancement

Capital Improvement Project List

Yes

Yes No


Methodology

Utilizing the goals established in the NRMP and the objectives stated in the five Forest Park studies, three categories of evaluation criteria were created:

• Ecology (Habitat, Vegetation, Wildlife)

• Wildfire Risk Reduction

• Recreation

These evaluation criteria are used to assess the habitat impacts and enhancements of a potential project. Each evaluation criterion is assigned a maximum numerical score. As the primary goals and objectives for Forest Park in the NRMP are to protect and enhance habitat, the methodology weighs Ecology higher than Wildfire Risk Reduction and Recreation. Compatible recreation with the protection and enhancement of habitat is a secondary goal for the park. When the proposed project is recreation-based, the evaluation criteria measure project compatibility with the NRMP, habitat, and safety of Forest Park users. The low numerical score assigned to Wildfire Risk Reduction reflects the low risk of wildfire in Forest Park as indicated in the City of Portland’s Forest Park Wildfire Risk Reduction Report.

Each category of evaluation criteria was further subdivided into criteria that reflect the goals and objectives of the category. PP&R staff then developed a list of possible metrics for those criteria and assigned a numerical score from 0 (low) to 5 (high) based on whether the proposed project met, did not affect/not applicable to, or did not meet the metric. A total score was calculated for each category with the highest possible total for all three categories of 100 points. Maximum points for each category are:

• Ecology = 60

• Recreation = 35

• Wildfire Risk Reduction = 5

Habitat protection and enhancement are the priority for the management of Forest Park. To reflect this priority, a baseline Ecology score of 20 has been established as the minimum score a proposed project must achieve in order to be further evaluated. If a project does not meet the minimum Ecology score, it will not advance through the POST. Proposed projects with adverse habitat impacts must include habitat enhancements that provide a net benefit to the site. Proposed projects that advance for further evaluation must receive a minimum of 51 points total to be considered for implementation.


Methodology

Infrastructure projects that do not contain a recreational component will be evaluated solely by the Ecology and Wildfire Risk Reduction evaluation criteria. These projects must receive at least 20 points in the Ecology category and at least 1 point in Wildfire Risk Reduction as components of the required minimum of 21 points.

A zero-based scoring system is used, meaning that proposed project elements can only receive no points or positive points.


POST Evaluation CriteriaFor Project Impacts & Enhancements – Direct and Indirect

Ecology – Habitat, Vegetation, WildlifeKey Objectives for Ecology

1. Manage to maintain a gradient of ecological health and value increasing from south to north with the exception of Balch Creek in the South unit.

2. Address data gaps in wildlife and forest ecosystem knowledge through continued research and regular monitoring.

3. Enhance the condition of the park in all management units through invasive species removal, restoration of damaged areas, and enhancement of forest structure.

4. Maintain forest health, enhance forest structure, foster succession to old growth, and develop core preserves.

5. Protect and enhance Special Status Species and Habitats.

6. Enhance riparian vegetation buffers, improve water quality, and increase channel complexity and fish habitat.

7. Monitor and respond to new invasive plant, animal, and pathogen populations.

8. Protect, enhance, and expand wildlife habitat features and wildlife corridors.

9. Conduct outreach to private landowners to address invasive species and the protection of wildlife resources beyond Forest Park boundaries.

Evaluation Criteria (Maximum 60 Points)

1. Habitat Connectivity (max = 9)

a. Trail density is not increased beyond NRMP recommendation (trail projects only) = 2

b. Special Status Habitat is not reduced, fragmented, or impacted = 3

c. Infrastructure includes maintenance or upgrades that provide opportunities for increased wildlife passage = 2

d. Barriers to dispersal of target species are not created (e.g., inappropriately sized culverts, fences, roads/trails, or areas of unfavorable habitat) = 2

2. Habitat Quality (max = 5)

a. Majority of project is in area with a Poor Ecological Health rating = 2

b. Majority of project is in area with a Fair Ecological Health rating = 1

c. No impact to areas within Healthy or Good Ecological Vegetation Unit = 3

3. Structural Complexity (max = 8) Enhancement of habitat features (See Appendix A)

a. Creates snags within a utility corridor or from an identified hazard tree = 2

b. Canopy protection through invasive vine removal = 2

c. Large wood (aquatic) = 2

d. Instream complexity = 2


POST Evaluation Criteria

4. Soil Health (max = 2)

a. Reduces erosion and compaction (e.g., physical changes or the removal of a disturbance) = 2

5. Protected Air and Water Quality (max = 13)

a. Reduces fine sediment load/turbidity = 2

b. Allows for improved conveyance of coarse sediments/water transport = 2

c. Improves water quality in the Balch or Miller subwatershed = 3

d. Improves water quality in a subwatershed other than Balch or Miller = 2

e. Reduces nutrient loading and/or bacterial contamination (ammonia, E. coli) = 2

f. Is fuel efficient and fuel safe (bio-fuels) = 1

g. Improves air quality, reduces need to drive to park (e.g., TriMet, ride to your ride), improves walkability = 1

6. Vegetation Composition (max = 5)

a. No disturbance of native vegetation = 5

b. Disturbance with enhancement = 2

c. Disturbance is larger than enhancement = 0

7. Cumulative Enhancement Size (max = 6) (see Appendix B)Disturbance must be less than enhancement to receive points in this category. Categories are defined based upon cumulative enhancement which is the enhancement minus the disturbance acreage. For example, a project with 6 acres of disturbance and 7 acres of enhancement equals 1 acre of cumulative enhancement and thus receives a small enhancement score of 2.

a. Small (0.25-1 acre) vegetation enhancement = 2

b. Medium (>1 acre and <5 acres) vegetation enhancement = 4

c. Large (>5 acres) vegetation enhancement = 6

8. Ecological Approach (max = 7)

a. Project identified in Ecological Prescriptions (EP) or NRMP = 3

b. Project identified as EP Priority Project = 4

c. Project supports landscape or watershed scale objectives that protect ecosystem services outlined in the City’s Watershed Management Plan = 2

d. Project includes outreach to adjacent landowners about resource enhancement or protection that impacts Forest Park = 1

9. Potential for Invasive Species Introduction (max = 5) (see Appendix C)

a. Project has a high invasive species introduction potential = 0

b. Project has a medium invasive species introduction potential = 2

c. Project has a low invasive species introduction potential = 5



Wildfire Risk ReductionKey Objectives for Wildfire Risk Reduction

1. Reduce fuel loads in the warmest, driest areas, especially the eastern edge of the park at low elevations.

2. Manage forest to reduce risk to nearby homes.

Evaluation Criteria (max = 5)

1. Maintains access for fire and other emergency vehicles = 1

2. Completes one of the potential risk reductions projects = 2

3. Removes/reduces surface and ladder fuels along park borders = 2

Recreation (including Project Review requirements from the NRMP)

Key Objectives for Recreation

1. Manage recreation use intensity on a gradient ranging from the most in the South unit to the least in the North unit (except for Balch Creek Canyon in the South unit).

2. Construct and maintain a sustainable, safe trail system.

3. Expand and develop appropriate facilities within limits of resource protection; work with partners.

4. Develop and divert access away from Leif Erikson at NW Thurman St. and Upper/Lower Macleay entrances to reduce parking difficulties, off-leash dogs, and other conflicts with adjacent neighbors.

Evaluation Criteria (Maximum points = 35)

NRMP and Environmental Review

1. Project allowed in NRMP (pages 119-126). Projects listed in the NRMP are allowed and the level of Environmental Review already determined (max = 3)

a. Allowed in the NRMP = 3

b. Improving existing trails/facilities with less than 10% increase in ground disturbance = 1

c. New activity not listed in the NRMP = 0

2. Management Unit Location, based on the recreation management gradient that allows for a higher density of trails and recreation in the South Unit to very limited trails and recreation use in the North Unit (max = 5)

a. South Unit, not Balch Creek Canyon = 5

b. Central Unit = 3

c. Balch Creek and allowed in NMRP = 2

d. North Unit and allowed in NMRP = 1



3. Level of Environmental Review required for the proposed project (pages 119-126) (max = 3)

Project Identified in the NRMP (number and level of Environmental Review listed)

a. Type I = 3

b. Type II = 2

c. Type III = 1

OR

Project not identified in the NRMP – level of Environmental Review determined by the Bureau of Development Services or from the NRMP

a. Type I = 3

b. Type II = 1

c. Type III = 0

Park Stewardship

4. Enhancing Park Stewardship by level of commitment of the project proponent. The highest score is a commitment of the proponents to become or remain active park stewards. The next level will educate users but does not directly increase or maintain active park stewards. (max = 5)

a. User group will assist with maintaining the project and ecological enhancements through a Stewardship Agreement or as required by the conditions listed in the local land use permit/environmental review = 5

b. Project includes environmental interpretation about Forest Park natural resources = 3

c. Increases need for enforcement by PP&R staff because group does not have the resources to assist with compliance = 0

User Experience

5. Park user interactions, safety, and reducing conflicts (max = 5)

a. Enhances the user experience and safety by reducing conflicts – separate facility, increases sight lines, removes blind intersections = 5

b. No change in present use patterns or mitigates speed differential in uses through trail design and other techniques = 3

c. Increases interactions of different user types, potentially creating more conflicts and making various users feel less safe – creates more intersections, concentrates uses in one area, mixes uses on soft surface trails = 0

6. Increases exercise and fitness opportunities (max = 3)

a. Proposed trail project creates a loop trail and improves the trail system for the entire loop = 3

b. Improves existing trail conditions to meet PP&R Trail Guidelines = 2

c. Maintains or fails to upgrade trail conditions (erosion, safety) = 0



7. Replaces a sub-standard trail or facility and closes/restores the sub-standard facility, enhancing the user enjoyment of nature and/or enhancing natural resources functions (max = 3)

a. Replaces half-mile or greater of trail or a major facility = 3

b. Replaces less than half-mile of trail or a minor facility or provides connection to other trail facilities = 2

c. Does not replace = 0

8. Corrects or constructs a facility that accommodates one or more disability, including mobility, visual, hearing impaired, and/or mental, and meets access codes, guidelines, and standards (max = 2)

a. Corrects or constructs an accessible facility = 2

b. Does not correct or construct an accessible facility = 0

9. Improves wayfinding or environmental interpretation in accordance with PP&R Interpretation Strategy Media Format (http://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/article/386031) (max = 3)

a. Improves wayfinding and/or provides environmental interpretation = 3

b. Improves existing wayfinding signs through replacement and/or improves existing environmental interpretation information = 2

c. Limited or no improvements to wayfinding and/or environmental interpretation = 0

Future Recreation DemandsEven though future recreation demands were not evaluated by the five Forest Park studies, PP&R included this criterion to aid in the evaluation of recreation needs for Forest Park. The Oregon Outdoor Recreation Demand Analysis – Multnomah County Summary, published on November 12, 2012, is used to develop the metrics for this criterion (http://www.oregon.gov/oprd/PLANS/docs/scorp/2013-2018_SCORP/Multnomah.pdf).

10. Project meets future regional recreational demands (max = 3)

a. Highest priority – soft surface walking trails and paths = 3

b. Second priority – nature and wildlife observation viewing areas and public access to waterways = 2

c. Third priority – play areas made of natural materials and off-street bicycle trails and pathways = 1



Ecology – Habitat, Vegetation, Wildlife(60 points, minimum of 20 points to continue evaluation)

SCORE NOTES

1. Habitat Connectivity (max=9)2. Habitat Quality (max=5)3. Structural Complexity (max=8)4. Soli Health (max=2)5. Protected Air & Water Quality (max=13)6. Vegetation Composition (max=5)7. Cumulative Enhancement (max=6)8. Ecological Approach (max=7)9. Invasive Potential (max=5)

Total Ecology ScoreWildfire Risk (5 points)Wildfire Risk Reduction (max=5)

Total Wildfire Risk Score

Recreation/Project Review Requirements (35 points)1. Project allowed in NRMP (max=3)2. Management Unit Location (max=5)3. Level of Environmental Required (max=3)4. Enhances Park Stewardship (max=5)5. Park User Interactions (max=5)6. Increase exercise & Fitness Opportunities (max=3)7. Replaces a sub-standard trail or facility (max=3)8. Corrects or constructs a facility that accommodates one or more disability (max=2)9. Improves wayfinding/environmental interpretation (max=3)10. Meets Future Regional Recreational Demands (max=3)

Total Recreation/Project Review Score

Total POST Score

POST Score Sheet


APPENDIX A: Habitat Structure Standards and Recommendations

Snags Specifications (Excerpted from TEES unpublished, Wildlife Trees, Down Wood and Brushpiles 2011 draft document)

• Locate snags away from trails, roads, buildings, and other structures.

• Conifers at least 14” diameter at chest height should be selected for snag creation.

• Top or girdle trees above the first whorl of branches, but at least 14 feet high (ideally, above the second whorl and much higher). Smaller trees may be useful for some cavity-nesting birds, as are stumps at least 3 feet high.

• If topping a tree, try to make a jagged top; it will decay faster and provide better habitat than a smooth-topped tree.

• Consider adding “roosting slits” and cavity “starts” in created snags at the time of topping or girdling.1 Cavity “starts” should be at least 6” deep and 4” high. Do not put these features (or bird boxes) on existing snags.

• Large branches extending at least 2 feet out from the trunk of the tree can be cut to create foraging habitat on live trees that are not intended to be used as snags.

• Snag density goals are 15-30 snags per acre.

Canopy Protection A minimum number of 30 trees in an area determined by PP&R should have tree ivy removed with a full lifesaver. A full lifesaver is defined as a 6-foot, ivy-free radius that is created around the base of a tree that has been girdled of tree ivy.

Instream EnhancementLarge wood installation and the creation of instream complexity will involve engineering, permitting, and planning through PP&R, the Bureau of Environmental Services, and regulatory agencies. If your project proposal includes large wood installation or the creation of instream complexity, anticipate additional time for planning and preparation. A first step will be communication with PP&R to determine potential sites for this type of enhancement. The Bureau of Environmental Services’ Willamette Watershed Subwatershed Plan for Forest Park anticipated in 2014 should help identify appropriate locations for instream enhancement.

1 Cavity “starts” allow decay-causing fungus to enter the tree wound. The cavities may be used by flying squirrels, swallows, kestrels, and small owls. In time, as rot progresses, the cavities may be used by a large variety of cavity-nesters, such as pileated woodpeckers, nuthatches, and chickadees.


APPENDIX B: Enhancement Guidelines

Enhancement is the removal of invasive species and the restoration of native plant community diversity and structure through the installation of native vegetation. Enhancement locations will be directed and guided by PP&R staff based on restoration priorities and the location of the proposed project. Enhancement projects can be small (>0.25-1 acre), medium (>1 acre and <5 acres), or large (>5 acres).

PP&R will assess a fee for enhancement based upon a per-acreage calculation for restoration. This fee will be collected prior to construction and put into the Forest Park Fund to be utilized within five years for ecological enhancement within Forest Park. These funds will be banked to be applied collectively to the most comprehensive and beneficial enhancement within the park. For example, the funds from several small enhancement fees may be combined until an enhancement project minimum of 5 acres can be undertaken.

Enhancement projects that are implemented using fees collected through this process will be subject to monitoring by PP&R utilizing the protocol listed below.

Monitoring Protocol(Derived from Vigil-Agrimis recommendations for restoration of disturbance sites)

Randomized plots (unique to each sample event) are to be used.

6-10 sample plots are recommended, assuming the disturbance area is approximately 0.25 acres.

• State the quadrant size (20cm x 50cm, for example).

• Photo-document each quadrant during each monitoring event before and after project.

Requirements years 1-5

• 80% of the original specified woody plants have survived and are showing healthy vigor.

• Bare ground and forest duff comprise not more than 25% of the ground cover strata in any monitoring plot.

Requirements years 3-5

• Native herbaceous plants cover at least 67% of the ground cover strata in any monitoring plot.

• No more than 2% of any monitoring plot is occupied by any one non-native invasive species and the total non-native invasive coverage is 8% or less.

• Multnomah County/City of Portland EDRR species are absent in all monitoring plots.


APPENDIX C: Potential for Invasive Species Introduction

The potential of invasive species introduction is evaluated based upon factors that may contribute to new introductions of or spread of existing populations of invasive species. Categories for introduction include:

• Project Proximity: Does a project include activities that will involve movement from an area infested with invasive plant species into an area where those plants do not yet exist? For example, this could include moving through an area of lower ecological health into one of higher ecological health or from the park’s edge into the interior.

• High vector potential: horses, bikes, vehicles/equipment not certified as weed-free.

• Early Detection Rapid Response (EDRR) populations: Does the project have the potential to increase the distribution of EDRR species?

Invasive species introduction potential levels are defined as follows:

High: Project has invasive potential due to proximity, vectors, and EDRR populations.

Medium: Project has invasive potential from two of the aforementioned categories.

Low: Project has invasive introduction potential from one of the introduction categories.


APPENDIX D: PP&R Resources to Consider (not scored)

1. Planning & Design

a. Staff time

b. Funding

c. Permitting

2. Capital Project or Improvement

a. CIP evaluation – where would the project fall on the list?

b. Funding

(a) PP&R Funded

(b) PP&R & Partner

(c) Fully funded by Partner/proponent

c. Construction

(a) Oversight staff

(b) PP&R staff

3. Maintenance

a. Level of maintenance required

(a) More than one time/year

(b) Once a year

(c) Every 2-5 years

(d) Self-sustaining

b. Responsibility

(a) PP&R Staff exclusively

(b) PP&R Staff & Partner (e.g., Forest Park Conservancy)

(c) PP&R Staff & Project Proponent

(d) No or very limited PP&R staff time

c. Funding – ongoing

4. Stewardship Activities

a. Organize work days

b. Partnership Agreement

Forest Park Project Objective Screening Tool

Documents

Transcript of Forest Park Project Objective Screening Tool