.~ ". \ i' .- / ,.• --- ./ \. \ ~ • I. • h j
. .LC .' \. \ \ '.', ."'- /_ ,I • ~, I • ,{ \ I j .' ,,'" "..', r -, " (. ) ./ ..~, / / --)" ( , / '- L • r-( ."• \ " • ." L •~ rr ('., r I" ~••. / r ~ ). ," , \ . ) / ) •. ~ \ '-: '.' / -' ", ,'; ---' -,
", - ( '..\~ , " '
'. ,J \. ) .~ .\ / -" ,e.' ·r ","." ~ METROPOLITAN - e> )~ .' \ I" e :\(?-reel1space~, :- J • 'f /' r: /. ..../ .J \ • ~.' / l .. 'v' /". • '> I / I e-, ~ ./ ,I \ • .>" ) Master-Piait )
e• .,/ r ", / Ij .'-..... L e "'" '. \ e ( r e /. e e, , --- '~. e j -.', ,. ;' r .. •er, ) r / -'. ~ \' - ( . ~ . ., ~ ~' -\ A Cooperative Regio!lal$ystem ofNa.tural Areas, "Open Space, T~f!:..ils a~¢ Gree.nways / /', ' '.)' " forWilcJlife and p,!ople . ./( . ./ ,... ' .... / r • '. X- •.\ / e ! -, "e- ( \ - '- '\ .J •
r~gional go~ernmeht (As' ofJuly 1992) "- (. • Metro is the 'directly elected thatserves , .. ,/ Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington cOUlities andilie 24 Policy Advisory COn:'!m,ittee M,ember;s: • \'citiesThat make up the P~rtlana metropolita~;rea. " "'- Ri~hard Devlin, Metro councilor and chair •e- Metr~is ;~spon~ible f~r soli~:~aste management, op~ration/of Ruth~cFariana, Metro,co~n;ilor rmd vice-chair ,_ .i ,'-- M~tro us~ \, the Washington Park Zoo, transportation-and land Sandi Hansen/Metro councilor " "- ~" ' pl~nping, 1da~inerstad, commissi~ne~ urban growth boundary management, technical ." J Judie Clackamas County . ,. services to local go\\ernments and, 'through the Metropolitan Pauline Anderson, Multnomah County commissioner ) r·, ) : fxposition)Recre,ation Gommission,man~gementofthe ' Eve Killpack, Wa~hington County commisSioner Orego~ ConveQt!onCenter, Memorial Coliseum, Civic , yobHathaway, Tualatin Hills Park and Recrea;ion District, • , St~dium ami the P61'~and Center for thc;:Performing Arts, .--= ".Mike Lindberg, cilj~fPortland commissivne~ " • j H.' Wide Byers,mayor'ofGladStone - \.. SG ' ~ ,) , \ - am .'o,x, mayor ofTroutdale- • Executive,Officer ..!- :'Shirley Huffman, 'inayor ofHillsboro -, , ~ / • 'Rena eusma ~ Mike H6uck,Audubon Society ofPortlarid4' ' ',1 • JackBr~()Ihe,IheWetlands Conservancy r,' " 7' : CC)uncilors by District are: Anne Nickel, Columbia Corridor Association ,\ • -/ Robert Evans, '(Robert Eviins f(ompany " , D;strict 1 ,S!;!.san ~cL<,!irf ~. • DorotheaI:.ensch, citizen"'" : District 2:: Jon Kvistad ' 1 1 ...-- • Susan-A. Lamb, citizen , /' J L -, Districtl 3 Jim Gardner ,'-- Ri~R~d Devlin- Dr. Judith Ramaley, president, Portland StateVniversity, • - Pisb-ic\:4 \ " Johh Magnano, Clark,County commisSioner -, J • l(istrict 5 Mike Gates ' '-I 'District6 _G~rge Van Bergen, Jane Van Dyke, Intergovernmental Resource Ce:Jter ' --- Doug Cottam;dtegonDepartment offish and Wi14life~ I ,- ) Di~trict r '. , 7_ ' Ruth ¥cFarland- , /.' Na:b~a; \' District 8 - Judy Wyers' , MargJIerire Orego'll State Parks 'Department , /.' ,,' -; I; ~District9 Russelt Peterson, U.S. Fish, an[Wildlife Service- " -.. Rod Monroe ,/ 'I ~.' ---- ) District, 10 Roger Buc~anan' ; \ , ' . ,) (~mmittee '~' W~sh1ngt6n- ,'. TecFinical Advisory Members: ./ r ,Distried 1 Ed r ,I • 1..- District 12 ~ ,'Sandi Hansen ,~ - RichardcDevlin, Metrocoun,cilor ';1nd chair', : \, 1,--) / • Dist[ic.03 Terry Moore. ,/ " Ruth McFaJrland, Metro councilor and vice-:fhafr / .- \ '/ r Sjuli~Dave j '--', ..-Jim Yarnashita,]!ortlandParks and Recriaiiiin Bureau • GreenspdCesPlalJ.~ing Staff:. ." Linda Dobson';;Com;;issione; LIndberg's Office, ~ ,~ • , city ofPortland, , ,'..; . A~dy Cotuggo"planning director: -;-- _Dan Zinzer,.ClackamasCounty Parks ..,'- " -/ • , -'\ Pat Lee~ regional planningsupervisor' , 'Ro~er B0wn" North C!ackamas-Parks an!!:..~e.creation. > _ . David Ausherma~h associate reffional planner Mel, Hui~, senior regional planner - ,.~ ) j r' District) "- '- -- " •.~ - • J er~i Bohard, Clark 'Operr Space ,Commission Staff '~ Ellen Lanier-Phelps,Jeni6r regiondlplanner r;0Z;1;f Eric Sample!program assistant '-- -:' ..-.- Charles Ciecko, !l!ultngmah County Paj-ks '\ . , \ L -- Nan,CX Chase, ¥ultnomah r;our:ty Parks - . .~ , ..--' -- '/ / i Hal Bergsl]la, Wa,shington County Laiid_lJse and ( ..- .' ~tro Transportation ' ,,/ I" .2000-SW First Ave. McEthin~y, a~d Re;;e~tionDisirict • \ Pottland, OR 97201-53Q.8 Jim Tud(atin.Hills Park ~ 'j) (5031.221-16_46 -, !
'. ) , • <..' '" t_ • • • • • • • Greenspaces • • Master Plan • Adopted July 1992 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • METRO • • • Preface • July 1992 e• • Defining the Metropolitan "Our options are expiring. Asfar connected with greenways and • Greenspaces program as open space is concerned, it trails. The objectives ofcreat • ing this system include main • During the past three years, the doem't make a great deal of taining the character and liv • Metropolitan Service District difference when the projected new ability ofthe region and provid has worked with cities, coun ing additional passive recre • popultJtion reaches target or • ties, park districts, state and ationaloppormnitiesand • federal agencies, businesses, whether it is going to be housed in improvements for existing and • nonprofit conservation organi- green-belted mega-struaures or fuOIre residents to enjoy and . zations, "friends" groups and experience. Protection would .'• interested citizens in develop linear cities or what. The land be accomplished through a • ing the Metropolitan Green that is still to be slJVed will have variety ofstrategies. spaces program. From this • to be saved within the nextfew • cooperative genesis, the major The second, and more subtle, • themes and initial policy and years. We hlJVe no luxury of level would cultivate a strong • implementation recommenda choice. We must make our sense ofstewardship for the • tions ofthisMetropolitan namral resources among the • Greenspaces Master Plan have commitments now and look to this region's constiments. It seeks • grown. landscape as the last one. For us to foster and shape a civic ethic • it will be." through which full implemen • The master plan details the tation ofthe plan may occur. • vision, goals and organizational Wtlliam H. Whyte framework ofa regional system The Last Ltmdscape, 1971 •'.e) ofnamral areas, open space, The need to protect eJ trails and greenways for wildlife open space and people in the Portland, Oregon • Vancouver, Washington, metropolitan area. Metro's adopted population forecast projects • that the Pordand-Vancouver metropolitan area • At this time, the document focuses on the will grow by more than 480,000 people between • Oregon component ofthe plan. Itwill be 1987 and 2010. Growth trends during the last • amended toinclude the Washington compo five years support this forecast. More homes • nent once a parallel planning effort is com and business oppormnities will be created to • pleted by Clark County and the city of serve anticipated growth. A crucial question is • Vancouver. The master plan and the regional how the communities in our region will work • system ofgreenspaces will then trUly serve the together to plan for, direct and adjust to the • larger metropolitan area. changes brought on by growth. • The master plan is a complex planning docu The quality oflife ofthis region is at a cross • ment with deliberately broad scope. It may best roads. It seems clear that, as communities • be understood as a document that functions on continue to develop, the land supply available • two levels. The first, and most tangible, level for open space and parks will be smaller and • articulates a desired system oflarge natural generally more expensive to purchase. What e• areas recommended for protection and inter- are our planning and funding priorities? Should • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • parks and open space continue to be among the The strucmre ofthe visual and natural charac • first items cut in public budgets? teristics ofthe region includes watersheds that • drain the land and topographic features that • Lands outside designated urban areas are also provide fonn and focus to the skyline. Each of • experiencing growth, and some real estate these landscape units is affected by human • speculation is occurring outside the urban settlement and the alterations that accompany • growth boundary. Should some ofthese lands development. • be set aside now as protected greenspaces? • In 1989, Metro inventoried and mapped the • It is our assertion that ifwe are to have parks remaining natural areas within the Oregon • and open space areas in the fumre, we need to component, a 372,682-acre smdy area. At that • reposition our planning and funding priorities time, approximately 29 percent ofthe land in • now to reflect the importance ofgreenspaces in the metropolitan region (including the Colum • our urban fabric. The protection, acquisition bia Gorge between the Sandy River and the Mt. • and active stewardship ofgreenspaces must Hood National Forest) was considered to be • become just as important as planning highways, largely without human-made strucmres. Only • transit, water and sewer lines, and other basic around 8.5 percent ofthe namralland in the public services. smdy area is in public parks ownership or '.• currently protected as namral areas or open • space. • The face of change • With more than 91 percent ofthe inventoried • From 1970 to 1990, the population in the tri natural areas unprotected, many greenspaces • county region increased from 878,676 to more can be developed tomorrow according to the • than 1.1 million. Changes in the face ofthe local land use and zoning plan. This simation • overall community reflect this increase. With underscores the fact that we cannot take for • this 33.8 percent increase in numbers, many granted that these green places will remain as • acres ofland that had been open space, forest we grow into the future. • lands and meadows, ridge lines and buttes, • wetlands and marshes have been built on. Decent housing, family wage jobs and an • Streams have been diverted and put into cul efficient transportation system are all important • verts. Land that had been taken for granted as to maintaining the livability ofour region. •(e protected open space or as unlikely to be built However, ifthe people ofthe Portland on because ofphysical constraints such as steep Vancouver area seek to retain livability and a • slopes is becoming increasingly desirable for green heritage as the region changes, we must • the development needed to accommodate a act aggressively and act now to protect signifi • flourishing community. As we provide oppor cant namral areas, open spaces, parks, forests, • tunities for all who seek to live and work here, wetlands, rivers and streams, riparian corridors • the landscape that has defined our region for and wildlife habitat. • cenmries is being changed irrevocably. • • • • •• • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 '. '.• • •• The Metropolitan Greenspaces Vision • •.' • We enjoy a high quality of itselfand is an integral element • life in the Pomand-Vancouver" in daily life. We seek to main • metropolitan area. The diver tain our cities as places to live • sity ofnarorallandscapes -" and work, to raise a family, • broad river valleys stippled with play, grow, relax and retire • wetlands, narrow river canyons where we forge a unique eco veiled by green strips ofripar logical relationship between .' ian vegetation, buttes and human and naroral communi • "Let us lelTUe a splendid legacy for • forests, mountains and mead ties. We seek to maintain our • ows, foothills and farms - all our children ... let us turn to cities as places where we can • impan a special sense ofplace them and soy, 'this you inherit: balance our drive for"a sus and character to this metropoli tained economy with our need •• guard it well, for it is far more • tan area. for sustained livability. • precious than money . .. and once • To ensure a green legacy for destroyed, nature's beauty cannot The Metropolitan Greenspaces • ourselves and furore genera program provides opportUni • tions, we have created the be repurchllSed at any price'. " ties for community awareness, Metropolitan Greenspaces involvement and education. It • AnrelAdams • program. Itis a cooperative offers us and furore generations • approach among governmental the prospect ofa living mu • and nongovernmental organizations to establish seum where all can learn to • an interconnected system ofnatural areas, open appreciate and protect the wildlife and natural • space, trails and greenways for wildlife and world in our own backyards. •e, people throughout the four-county metropoli tan area. The real potential for success lies within each • person in the region. We must nurture • It is our vision to protect, on a long-term basis, rather than destroy- nature's landscape. We • natural areas, open space, trails and greenways must instirotionalize a daily sense ofsteward • that lend character and diversity to our region ship for our remaining green places. • even as more and more people move here to • share our special place. It is our vision to The Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan • balance our urban focus and drive for economic proposes a cohesive strategy to realize our • health and prosperity with an array ofwildlife vision. Through sustained implementation of • habitat in the midst ofa flourishing cosmopoli its recommendations, we will continue to • tan region. celebrate our special sense ofplace. Future • generations will discover what living here has • Our vision is to conserve and enhance a diver always meant - that the "counrry" in our cities • sity ofhabitats woven into a lush web ofpro is trUly a legacy that has been saved for all to • tected greenspaces. We seek to maintain our enjoy. • cities as places where nature is valued in and of • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan,July 1992 • • • Table ofContents • • • Goalsfur the Metropolitan Greenspaces System 1 • Part One 3 • Planning and Courdinating a Cooperative Regional System • Planning a Regional System ofNamral Areas 5 • Cooperative and Coordinated Implementation 13 • Part Two 19 • Protecting, Managing and Financing Regionally Significant Natural Area Sites, • Interconnections and Areas Deficient in Greenspaces • Regionally Significant Namral Area Sites and Interconnections 21 • Significant Trails, Greenways and Wildlife Corridors 31 • Restoration and Enhancement ofAreas Deficient in Greenspaces 45 •.' Protection through Resource Management Plans 47 • Financing the Greenspaces System 49 • Part Three 55 • Protection and Enhancement ofthe System through Citizen Involvement, • Education and Technical Assistance •.' Protection and Enhancement through Citizen Involvement and Education 57 • Protection and Enhancement through Technical Assistance 61 Protection and Enhancement ofPublicly Owned, Quasi-Public and .' Private Tax Exempt Lands . • 63 • Protection and Enhancement ofWaterways and Floodplains 65 • Protection and Enhancement ofAgricultural and Timber Lands 67 • • •
.' Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 .'• • • • • Appendix One 69 • 71 • History and Impact ofHuman Settlement • Geographic Feamres and Watersheds ofthe Region 77 • • Historical Planning Efforts 107 • • Appendix Two 113 • References and Resources • Roles and Responsibilities Framework 115 • Parks Providers 120 • An Introduction to Metro 125 • Sponsors and Cooperating Organizations 126 '.• Namral Resource and Regulatory Agencies 127 • Land Conservation Techniques and Regulatory Tools 128 -.'. Land Use Regulations that Support the Greenspaces Effort 129 • List ofReferences 130 • Glossary ofTerms 131 • Appendix Three 135 •'. Goal One, Record ofPublic Meetings and Presentations 137 • Oanuary 1989 to Present) • •'. • • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan,July 1992 • • • ". \ , , • "Goalsfor:ihe ¥etropol~tan': • G~een~paces' System' • '. - •e- , . , 'rtie~opoli t~n, ~rea chan~es, co~rdiqa'te~ balanc~d • As the the.lmportal}ce of and, ' • ~lanning' p'rog~;ms :~~viro~me_nt guided~vel:~~e~t beco~e~ • ,to protect the 'and' in~reasing~~ ~v;ident. The'.Metropollt~n.Gr~~~spaces Maste~ Plan.i~. a 'star~ng ~6~nt .'• '" ,'" . \ • for integrating import~nt aspec~s_ofth~~amral environmentirito~'re~ion~\ sY~tem '. ;,' - - ( : - " . ofnamial areas, 'open space, trails and greenways for wildlife and people. It was' .' " . .' \.' . • .. . . . • formulated throug~ a cooperative process, and i.ts evolu~on. through a variety of • · . ,- -' .' . '.:' " ~ -,...... • c~ntinuirig plal?-ning.and implementation activities w;ill be guide~ by the fpllowing overriding goals:~, . ( : '.• . ", ~ ., . -'- -, , <
,1 '. " \, . , .. ' "" ,":". . '. . " ": .. ,..~. . , , ! '. ."-Create a cooperative regional sysiemofnatUralareas, opet.ispace;~ails.and • pebpl~ • .: greenways for .wildlife and in, the'four-county merropolitanarea .- " .'(Mulmomali,-Clackam,!s, Washirigto~and Clark counties). • " - • Protect and manage ~ignificant n~tural areas thro'ugh a partIiersh,ip with· ' • '. governments, 'nonprofit'organizat~ons, ,land trusts, interested busines~esand ' • citizens, and ·Metro. ' '.' -?res'erve the di~ersity of pla~~ and a~imall~fe in the urban efi"vironinent, . • ~ ha~is eco~ogical ~ • _ using watershed's as the f()r planning. ' . L •. Establish a system of tr~ils, g~ee~ways and wildlife coiridorsthat are, .' . 'interconnected. ,- . • •e- , • - Restore green and open spac'es in neighborhoods where namral areas are all • but eliminated.' ,/ • • Coordinate ma~agementand ope-rations at namral area sit~s in the regiop.al • Greenspaces system.' • . • Encourage environinent~lawareness, so that citizens will become active and 'irivoived.stewards ofnamral areas:' ',~ , • , . ". • • -Edu~ate citizens about the reito~al-systemofgre'enspaces through coordl~~ program~ advice,.i~terpretaPo~and • J nated ofinformatio,n, technical assistance. • • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 1 • , " • • Planning and Coordinating a Cooperative • Regional System • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3 • • Planning a Regional System • ofNatural Areas • • Purpose of the Metro "We must provide leadership in The patches ofnatural area • politan Greenspaces trtmsforming our institutions II1ld within our human-dominated • Master Plan urban landscape suppon the • cummunities. Our ultimate remnant systems ofnative flora • Protection ofnatural resource challenge is saving habitats, not and fauna that once flourished throughout the area. They also • areas in the public interest is just species. To achieve that, we • the primary objective ofthe fonn an integral pan ofthe • Metropolitan Greenspaces need every employee, volunteer, visual setting associated with • Master Plan. The master plan visitor, citizen as apartner in our metropolitan region. The is a policy document that Metropolitan Greenspaces • conservation ... only together can • includes specific tasks that need system serves not only the • to be carried out in the coming we jorge our way from here to urban passive recreational • years to achieve our goal of eternity. " needs ofhuman populations, • maintaining the quality oflife but also accommodates wildlife • for the region by protecting Y. Sherry Sheng, director, in the region by preserving • open space in perpetuity. Metro Washington Park Zoo, ecological connectivity through • 1991 the Portland,..Vancouver region • Accomplishing the objectives to roral and forested resource • ofthe Metropolitan lands that surround the urban- • Greenspaces system will require a long-term ized area. • commitment and sustained effon by Metro and • others involved in the program. Metro has As described in later portions ofthe plan, • assumed the leadership role in planning ,the assembling and protecting major components of • program. The master plan outlines key roles the Greenspaces system calls for cooperative • for protection and stewardship efforts in a efforts to: • variety ofstrategies. • 1. Acquire and otherwise protect a system of • The master plan is a program document, a greenspaces for wildlife and people through • planning activity that is the first step towards a out the metropolitan area including large • regional system ofgreenspaces. It is not regu acre natural areas ofhigh ecological and • latory nor is it site specific. The recommenda aesthetic value, a system oftrails and • tions are suggested guidelines to assist develop- . greenway interconnections among them. • ment ofan interconnected system. It is a docu • ment based largely on ecological studies that 2. Prepare management plans and standards • identify the remaining natural areas within the for components ofthe Greenspaces system • urban and urbanizing parts ofthe region, to guide facility development and manage • evaluates their significance and relationship to ment ofsites to ensure that appropriate • the ecology ofthe regional landscape, and levels ofaccess and passive recreational • proposes a system ofregional natural areas and opportunities are provided while protecting • connecting corridors to be designated for the natural values and functions ofthe • preservation, conservation and management. components. • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 5 • 3. Operate and maintain in a coordinated system. Develop interpretive programs as • fashion major components ofthe system. an integral pan ofMetro management of • the Greenspaces system. • In addition to protection ofsignificant sites • through acquisition efforts, a strong commu • nity stewardship ethic will be key to the success The planning basis: ecosystems • ofthe Metropolitan Greenspaces program. The • master plan specifically recommends that Greenspaces are an integral part ofthe region's • Metro, as coordinator ofthe cooperators in the quality of life. They provide a number of • system: values critical to the region's livability. They • enable residents to pursue activities that bal • 1. Develop and selVe as a clearinghouse for ance work with recreation on a day-to-day • informational, educational, financial, land basis. We have grouped these greenspace • use and legal functions related to values into three categories: resource-based, • greenspaces. human-use and economic. • 2. Develop an effective technical assistance Resource-based values include protecting • network to assist government, private natural vegetation and biodiversity so that fish • sector, nonprofit cooperators and the gen and wildlife will remain a significant pan ofthe • eral public in understanding ecological metropolitan landscape; protecting shorelines • systems, how daily routines affect and are and riparian vegetation for both their intrinsic • affected by them and instill in as broad a biological and habitat value, as well as their • reach ofthe public as possible a strong sense relationship to maintaining water quality in the • ofnatural resources stewardship. region's rivers, lakes and streams; and protect • ing watersheds and wellheads ofsurface and • 3. Educate individuals on how to manage their ground waters that are used for municipal,· • own landholdings and daily activities in an industrial and agricultural water supplies. • environmentally responsible manner. Assist • government cooperators in developing and Human-use values include providing opportu • implementing ecologically based land use nities for a variety ofexperiences that promote • and environmental regulations. healthy lifestyles, including low-intensity and • wilderness recreation experiences; providing a • 4. Advocate and selVe as a catalyst to secure visual setting for the metropolitan area includ • long-term funding for protection, opera ing many outstanding views and vistas; and • tions and sound management of maintaining the identity ofindividual commu- • greenspaces. .nities in an expanding metropolitan region. • Greenspaces are an integral pan ofour North • S. Continue to inform, engage and involve the west quality oflife and provide a sustainable • public in development and implementation balance to the hectic daily pace ofan urban • ofthe Greenspaces program over time. lifestyle. • 6. SelVe as a clearinghouse to link students of Economic values include those attributed to • all ages with educational service providers agricultural and forest resources, which are • to take advantage ofthe environmental vital elements ofour region's general economy. • education opportunities currently available Urban greenspaces also have been shown to • within the region and those to be offered in protect air and water quality and enhance • the future by the Metropolitan Greenspaces adjoining land values, often adding to the • marketability ofland nearby. Additional ben • efits related to greenspaces include lower • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 6 • • • health care costs, income from the sale ofsports 2. Consolidate natural areas as much as pos • . and recreation equipment, environmental sible to create or maintain relatively large • education programs supplies and eco-tourism. contiguous acreage because large areas, • especially when connected to natural habi • The landscape ofthe Portland-Vancouver tats outside the urban environment, gener • region is a mosaic oftopographic, geologic and ally have a greater potential to represent • biological features interacting with hwnan uses habitat diversity that can suppon more • that modify the natural landscape. It is a region species. • composed ofchanging land features dissimilar • in form and function butwoven together into 3. Protect, restore and recreate stream corri • interdependent ecosystems. This regional dor vegetation by replacing riparian vegeta • landscape ecology has been the framework that tion where it is lacking or dominated by • has shaped planning for the Metropolitan exotic species and removing barriers, where • Greenspaces system. possible, to maintain connections with • adjacent upland habitats. • The basic landscape unit ofour region is the • watershed or stream basin. It has a direct 4. Protect or restore naturally vegetated • impact on the hydrology ofthe local ecosystem, connections between watersheds at headwa • and activities within the watershed have a ters locations. • cumulative impact. Each use ofthe larid must • be balanced in order to maintain a healthy The destruction ofnatural habitats caused by • overall system. conversion ofland to other uses is the greatest • threat to the biodiversity ofrelatively intact • natural communities. Loss ofbiological diver • sity is a serious, sometimes irreversible, process • and is probably the most important effect of • habitat loss and environmental change. Provid • ing adequate habitat patches and defining • thresholds ofhabitat fragmentation are vital if • we are to ensure that desired species continue • to occupy habitats. • The remnant natural landscapes, as long as they • are not isolated within the urban area, are the • areas capable ofmaintaining viable fish and • wildlife populations. Some highly urbanized • In defining the vision and priorities for the . landscapes have been so greatly altered that • Greenspaces program, it is important to look at there is little hope ofproviding habitats of • the structure and use ofthe surrounding land sufficient quality and extent to assure the long • scape and how each natural area fits within the term existence ofmany naturally occurring • region as a whole. The following ecological species. In order to maintain or enhance the • principles are being pursued as a basis for diversity ofthe fish and wildlife species indig • protection and enhancement ofnatural areas: enous to the region, it is necessary to recognize • and plan for their specific habitat requirements • 1. Maintain biological diversity by protecting in the Greenspaces program. • and enhancing a variety ofhabitats, includ • ing wetlands, .riparian corridors, forests and • agricultural lands distributed throughout • the metropolitan area. • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 7 • Both the relative fragmentation ofhabitat and Linkage and enhancement opportunities may • the land uses and activities surrounding a occur through a variety oflandscapes, including • remaining patch ofnatural area can have sig fore-sted, cultivated, suburban and urban land • nificant effects on the species composition and scapes. Stream corridors and associated flood • diversity within some ofthe more isolated plains are among the most viable ecological • urban natural areas. Small natural areas are linkages among habitats. Their value increases • very vulnerable to human disruption and further when they connect to an upland or • require consistent management and protection ridgeline habitat. It is important to remember • to maintain their natural condition. that these linkages and corridors extend beyond • Oregon into Southwest Washington and in • An important strategy to preserve the quality clude the Columbia River, Vancouver Lake and • and integrity ofsmall isolated natural areas is to associated wetlands. • create and protect an integrated network of • existing public natural areas that connect to • larger more self-supporting sites through a The planning process • system ofcorridors. The ultimate aim ofan • interconnected system ofnatural patches and Because resources cross jurisdictional bound • corridors is to sustain both resource use and aries, natural resources planning and protection • species viability over generations. must be viewed from a regional perspective. It • cannot be carried out at the local level alone. A • A network ofcorridors provides a means for coordinated regional strategy to identify, pro • species to move between patches ofnatural tect, acquire and manage natural areas, open • areas. Corridors and linkages have become the space, greenways and trails for wildlife and for • only safe passageways for animals through the people is the hallmark ofthe Metropolitan • maze ofhuman-dominated land. They help to Greenspaces program. • retain biological diversity and ecological bal • ance and collectively provide sufficient quanti There are numerous regions across the country • ties ofhabitat for species that require large that have, to some degree, formulated regional • areas. open space and parks programs. We are looking • to these areas for guidance as we establish our • own regional approach to protection ofnatural • areas. Input into our master planning efforts • has come from Eugene/Springfield, Ore.; • Oregon Parks and Recreation Department; • SeattlelKing County, Wash.; East Bay Regional • Park District,Oakland, Calif.; Mid-Peninsula • Open Space District, Palo Alto, Calif.; San • Diego; Metroparks, Cleveland, Ohio; Greater • Vancouver, British Columbia Regional District; • Jefferson County, Colo.; Dallas, Texas; Hudson • River Valley Greenway, N.Y. ; and New York • City. • This information has helped us conclude that, • while the goals and objectives ofthe master plan • may not be new, our planning approach is. Bi • state cooperative planning efforts and parmer • ships involving more than 50 government • agencies, many conservation organizations, • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 8 • • • businesses, neighborhood associations, raise community awareness ofthe value of • "friends" groups and interested citizens have natural areas planning and protection to the • been undertaken to fonnulate the Metropolitan same level ofunderstanding and priority as • Greenspaces program. As a result ofthis coop other growth management issues, including • eration, all four counties and 22 ofthe 24 cities land use, transportation and infrastructUre • within the Metropolitan Service District planning. • boundaries have passed resolutions ofsupport • for the Greenspaces program since 1990. The master plan is primarily a planning activity • needed to implement RUGGO Objective 9, but • We have come together through consensus it also complements many other RUGGO • building, cost-sharing ofprojects, coordinated objectives and planning activities: • planning and use ofuniform data bases and • maps. We share, most importandy, a renewed Objective 7, Water Resources -A multi • understanding and appreciation ofthe fact that objective management approach for signifi- • we are dealing with an ecosystem that crosses a . cant greenspaces is embraced in the master • multitude ofpolitical boundaries and that plan. Ecological infonnation generated to • regional planning and cooperation are required date, and subsequent ecosystems planning • in shaping the future ofour bi-state commu called for in the plan, will be useful in • nity. identifying carrying capacities ofwater • resources important to the region for mu • nicipal and industrial water supply, irriga • The master plan relationship to urban tion, fisheries, recreation, wildlife, environ...; • growth management goals mental standards and amenities. • Growth management is a priority for Metro Objective 8, Air Quality - To the extent that • and for most local jurisdictions in the region. the master plan facilitates development of • Metro is responsible for coordinating the pedestrian and trail linkages providing • efforts ofall agencies within its boundary on alternatives to automobile use, objectives of • growth management issues in the region. the regional air quality management plan • Metro's Regional Urban Growth Goals will be supported. • and Objectives cover these growth manage • ment issues, specifically listing natural areas, Objective 10, Agriculture and Forest Re • parks and wildlife habitat as crucial issues to be source Lands - The master plan acknowl • addressed within the regional perspective under edges that continued economic use of • RUGGO Goal ll, Objective 9: resource lands outside the urban growth • boundary for resource production purposes • "Sufficient open space in the urban region shall be is an important tool in implementing master • acquired, or otherwise protected, and managed to plan objectives, which are consistent with • provide reasonable and convenient access to sitesfOr Objectives 10 and 10.1. • passive and active recreation. An open space system • capable ofsustaining or enhancing native wildlife Objectives 10.2 and IS.3 mandate designa • and plant populatiom should be estlZblished. " tion ofurban reserves, which, once estab • lished, could result in long-tenn urban • The master plan is not a functional plan nor expansion onto resource lands. The master • does it amend adopted urban growth boundary plan does not alter or supersede these • policies. Local comprehensive plans, the UGB objectives. In Objective 15.3 .2, however, • and adopted functional plans, including the the hierarchy of lands to be considered for • Regional Transportation Plan, are not affected establishing urban reserves identifies pri- • by the master plan. The master plan seeks to • Metropolitan GreenspacesMaster Plan, July 1992 • 9 • mary forest resource and agricu1rorallands nesses and industry relative to other poten • as the lowest priorities for inclusion in tiallocations on the West Coast and nation • urban reserves. ally. • Objective 12, Public Services and Facilities Objective IS, UrbanlRural Transition - The • The master plan direcdy responds to the master plan responds to many ofprovisions • provision ofadequate public parks to keep ofObjective 15. Specifically, the master • pace with growth, as called for in Objective plan identifies and recommends protection • 12. It emphasizes naroral parks as opposed oftopographic and biological fearores ofthe • to those dominated by active recreational landscape that contribute significandy to • facilities. Both categories ofparks are the region's identity and sense ofplace. • necessary to meet RUGGO. The multi • objective approach to detailed greenspaces Subsequent to adoption ofthe master plan, • planning and management that is to be srodies will be initiated to more specifically • initiated subsequent to plan adoption may define and assemble a system ofsignificant • result in protection for sensitive portions of greenspaces and greenway interconnections to • watersheds important for water supply and implement the plan. This continuing planning • preserving biological treatment options for provides the vehicle to define and protect • wastewater and stormwater that might greenbelts that could create clear distinctions • otherwise be lost due to the establishment between urban and rural lands and naroral • ofincompatible land uses. linkages between established communities as • called for in Objective 15.3 .l.c and planning· • Objective 13, Transportation - The master activity 4. • plan facilitates development ofpedestrian • and trail linkages providing alternatives to It should be noted that Objective 15 planning • automobile use and supporting many ofthe activity 1 calls for development ofa generalized • provisions ofthis objective. Coordination furore land use plan to accompany designation • ofmaster plan implementation with planned ofurban reserves. The planning effort will • state, regional and local transportation primarily be concerned with identifying and • projects may advance goals and objectives of protecting furore open space resources and • each. Many ofthe trails identified inthe development ofshon-term strategies needed to • master plan, such as the Springwater Corri preserve furore urbanization potential. The • dor, are eligible to receive state transporta master plan will be an important vehicle for • tion enhancement funds because they would responding to this planning activity. • provide efficient bicycle "and pedestrian • connections between destinations within the Objective 16, Developed Urban Land • region. Environmental mitigation ofthe 01;>jective 16.3 calls for evaluation and • impact ofplanned transportation facilities designation ofmixed use urban centers • on wedands and other naroral areas may within the region. Open space is specifi • also be considered for integration into the cally identified as one ofseveral compo • Greenspaces system. nents that needs to be included in such • centers. Identification ofopen space in the • master plan will assist designation and • Objective 14, Economic Opportunity • Protection ofa system ofgreenspaces will development of these. • maintain the green character ofthe metro • politan area. The physical attractiveness of Objective 17, Urban Growth Boundary • this region is often cited as a major advan Metro will consider the effect ofpermanent • tage in recruitment and retention ofbusi- greenspaces protection on the buildable • land supply at its periodic review ofthe • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 10 • • • As 1. Mixed use urban centers. • urban growth boundary. stated in Ob • jective 17, criteria for amending the UGB 2. Transportation links between mixed use • are derived from Statewide Planning urban centers designed to offer non-auto Goals 2 and 14. Metro will manage the mobility alternatives. • boundary to assure a 20-year urban land • supply. 3. Historic, cultural, topographic and biologi • cal fearores ofthe regional landscape that • Objective 18, Urban Design - The master contribute to the region's identity. • plan recommends protection ofnatural 4. An urban growth boundary with urban • areas, critical open space features, parks, reserves. • greenways and wildlife corridors that, • among other objectives, promote preserva These elements will be identified and mapped • tion ofthe identity ofthe region, existing in relation to each other and three to six future • communities and mixed use urban centers long-term urban form scenarios will be devel • within it. Information developed for the oped for consideration. Policy decisions may • master plan and its implementation directly be made as to the appropriate long-term bal • support Objective 18.i and 18.iii.e and ance, location and interrelationships among the • planning activities 1 and 2. elements that would be used to guide Metro's • management ofthe urban growth boundary, • preparation and amendment ofregional policy • and functional plans, including the master plan, • as well as local governments' comprehensive • and capital improvement plans. Because the • master plan identifies landscape features, • natural areas, open space, trails and greenways • ofregional interest, its policies and priorities • will be considered in shaping 2040 alternatives • and, in rom, be shaped by and implement • aspects ofthe 2040 recommendations. • The master plan is not a functional plan and • does.not mandate changes in adopted compre • henSIVe plans nor adopted regional functional • plans. Ifan amended master plan is recom • Metro's Region 2040 project will result in a mended for conversion to a functional plan, the • unified framework depicting the long-term regional planning process described in • urban form ofthe region. A significant and RUGGO Goal I will be pursued. • accessible greenspaces system, a balanced • transportation system, provision ofneeded The information developed through the pro • housing and stimulation ofeconomic develop gram will assist Metro and local governments • ment are all critical factors in maintaining the in meeting requirements ofOregon state • livability ofthe metropolitan area. All are planning laws. While not regulatory, the plan • interdependent, and long-term livability is the contains local government Statewide Plan • product ofsuccessfully balancing and synthe ning Goal S inventory information, new data • sizing all factors. Region 2040 will consider and analyses ofnatural resources. It, therefore, • several potential areas and activities ofmetro is recommended for consideration in prepara • politan significance in a common framework to tion, administration and periodic review of • guide the evolution ofregional urban form, comprehensive plans, implementing land use • including: regulations and regional functional plans. • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 11 • Regional partnerships Council and a vote on a general obligation • bond measure anticipated to be on the ballot in • Once a regional system ofinterconnected November 1992, policy advisory responsibili • natural areas, parks and open space is estab ties to the Metro Council will transfer from the • lished, it will be managed and operated by Metropolitan Greenspaces Policy Advisory • Metro in partnership with local park providers, Committee to the Regional Policy Advisory • state and federal agencies, nonprofit conserva Committee established by Goal I, Objective 2 • tion organizations, land trusts and other inter ofMetro's adopted Regional Urban Growth • ested resource agencies. Some lands will be Goals and Objectives. The Metropolitan • owned by Metro, some by other park providers. Greenspaces Technical Advisory Committee • Emphasis is on interagency cooperation and will continue to provide technical advice on the • partnerships. Management ofexisting parks or implementation and future revisions to the • natural areas owned or managed by other master plan, reporting directly to RPAC. • agencies will not be assumed by Metro unless by • consent ofthe current provider and the Metro Current and future planning partners include • Council. more than 150 elected officials and board • members, parks and land use planners, city and • The master plan will serve as the vehicle for county administrators, business people and • articulating and implementing a cooperative finance managers, conservation specialists, • and coordinated natural areas and open space biologists, geographers, educators, landscape • agenda for the region. It identifies the pro architects and citizen advocates who have • cesses and strategies for coordinating actions of served directly on Metro committees and • cooperators in further planning, assembly and working groups in developing the Greenspaces • management ofthe greenspaces system. It program to date. • recommends a variety ofactions to be under • taken by Metro and cooperators to realize the Private land trusts and their programs are also • goals ofthe program. important components in the coordination and • implementation ofthe master plan. Parmers in • Metro, as the lead agency in the development the cooperative effort include the 4O-Mile • and implementation ofthe Greenspaces Master Loop Land Trust, Columbia Land Trust, The • Plan, will seek protection for significant natural Namre Conservancy, Lake Oswego Land • areas and open space in subsequent actions Trust, The Wetlands Conservancy, and the • using its various powers. An initial means of Trust for Public Land. • protection consistent with this master plan is • the purchase ofidentified natural areas from • While the master plan will be reviewed and • willing sellers. Accomplishing this by Metro is updated regularly, active participation and • contingent upon approval by the voters for suppon ofcitizens are the most important • Metro authority and funds to acquire regionally components in saving our namral areas and • significant sites in a system ofinterconnected open space. Public understanding ofthe issues, • natural areas and parks. problems, needs, challenges and the concept of • private stewardship ofthe land will determine • All program recommendations and implementa the success or failure ofthe master plan. This • tion actions will continue to be developed in community commitment to protection ofour • consultation with policy and technical advisory natural heritage is an overriding objective ofa • committees and with input from citizens. After regional system ofnatural areas, open space, • adoption ofthe master plan by the Metro greenways and trails. • • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 12 • • • Cooperative and Coordinated. • Implementation • .------~- • Coordinated land "Further progress requires that dictions in the region that protection eHorts 'We go beyond cumpulsion IZ1Id /trws would need to continue the • established planning parmer • IZ1Id incentives to insure the • The planning process for the ship we have had during the • Metropolitan Greenspaces envir011Tltental integrity ofour past three years in order to program has been extensive, successfully implement the • nation IZ1Id our planet. we must • inclusive and characterized by overall regional plan. • unparalleled cooperation shift our orientation. We must • among local governments, state shift our consciousness. In short, Some ofthe resource agencies • and federal government agen that have a tremendous stake in • cies, nonprofit conservation 'We must engage the heart, 'Which is protection, restoration and • and neighborhood organiza se/dum reached by appeals to /trw or management ofthe region's tions, and Metro. Successful natural areas, including wet • econumics. Our task is to bring • implementation ofthe Metro lands, river and stream ecosys • politan Greenspaces Master our habits, choices, and lifestyles tems, are the federal Environ • Plan depends on continuation into harmony 'With the needs of mental Protection Agency, • ofthis cooperation through U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, • coordinated land protection nature. " Unified Sewerage Agency of efforts. Washington County, • Lt7JJis S. W. Crtimpton • Environmental Protection Agenry, Portland's Bureau ofEnviron • Local, regional, state and 1991 mental Services, Clackamas • federal government agencies, County Department ofUtili • nonprofit groups and other ties, the Oregon Department • stakeholders must work together to compl~ ofFish and Wildlife, Water Resources Depart • ment acquisition and protection programs. We ment, Department ofEnvironmental Quality, • must coordinate the development and applica Division of State Lands and Oregon State • tion ofland use and environmental regulations, Parks. • and educate and involve the public in issues and • decisions related to greenspaces. By working Metro will work closely with these agencies in • together, we will maximize all our resources and developing and implementing cooperative • the "on-the-ground" effects ofthe implementa Greenspaces-oriented projects that promote • tion actions called for in this master plan. multiobjective management ofthese natural • areas. Roles and responsibilities that coopera • A common understanding and philosophical tors in the program will assume in regard to • commitment to coordinated implementation of implementation ofthe plan through site acqui • the master plan among all cooperators in the sition, protection and enhancement efforts • program is critical to successful creation ofthe include: • system. "Cooperators" describes all govern • ments for which Metro has planning coordina 1. Metro should place a greenspaces funding • tion responsibilities as described in ORS.268 mechanism before the voters ofthe region, • and all others who are interested in being active that, ifsuccessful, would establish a regional • parmers in the program. Cooperators include revenue source for acquisition and capital • all citizens groups, resource agencies and juris- improvement ofgreenspaces. A regional • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 13 • general obligation bond measure is being to acquire the property, Metro will be • considered by Metto for referral to the responsible for funding the acquisition of • voters at the November 1992 general elec the greenspace with its own resources. • tion to fulfill this responsibility. Metto will 7. In evaluating priorities for acquisition, • also continue to pursue grants from state Metto will first determine whether.existing • and federal government agencies, private federal, state, regional and local land use, • foundations and other organizations to plan environmental or other applicable regula • for and assemble the system. tions provide adequate protection of • .2. Donations and dedications ofgreenspaces greenspaces. Ifnot, Metro will then deter • will continue to be accepted by public mine iflegally defensible new regulations • agencies and nonprofit land trusts in a could be adopted by appropriate govern • coordinated strategy. ment agencies within timeframes necessary • to protect significant greenspaces. Ifnot, • 3. Greenspaces to be administered at the local Metto will pursue acquisition based on fair • level will be the responsibility oflocal market value. • governments to secure and manage. • Greenspaces to be administered by Metro The complete roles and responsibilities frame • will be the responsibility ofMetro to secure work is located in Appendix 2 ofthis master • and manage. • plan. Appendices, and the information found • 4. Greenspaces ofcommon interest adminis in them, are held to be a full part ofthe master • tered by Metro will be the responsibility of plan and its implementation processes. • Metto to secure. Metro will offer a first • right ofrefusal to the local government The information developed through the • where the sites are located to acquire the Greenspaces program may assist Metto and • property. The first right ofacquisition will local governments in meeting requirements of • be offered only to local governments pro state planning laws. While not a regulatory • viding park services in whose service area document, the plan and supporting information • the greenspaces are located. It will not be are recommended for voluntary consideration • offered to local governments having com in preparation, administtation and periodic • prehensive planning responsibility that did review of comprehensive plans, implementing • not provide park services as ofjuly 1, 1991. land use regulations and regional functional • plans. Metro encourages agencies and local • S. Greenspaces ofcommon interest adminis governments to employ all tools at their dis tered at the local level will be the responsi posal to assist in implementation ofthe plan '.• bility oflocal governments to secure and and use master plan policies as guidance in • manage. Lower priority will be given for establishing a common agenda for natural • acquisition ofproperties adequately pro resource protection and stewardship. • tected by federal, state or local regulations. • 6. Ifthe local government accepts acquisition • responsibility from Metro,'the accepting' • government will be responsible for funding • the acquisition ofthe greenspace with its • own resources. Ifthe local government • expresses interest in acquiring a site, Metto • may enter into an intergovernmental agree • to • ment that includes provisions related • regional or joint funding ofthe local acqui • sition. Ifthe local government chooses not • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 14 • • • The specific policies in the master plan are not Protecting greenspaces at all • intended to be binding in the "functional levels of government • planning" or "land use decision" sense, as • addressed by Oregon state planning law, and Acquisition is only one tool to protect and • existing local responsibilities and regulatory preserve natural areas and open space. Metro • will continue to work with parks providers, city • tools are not directly affected in a regulatory • sense. However, when Metro and cooperators and county planning commissions to develop • articulate and commit to a cooperative planning techniques and strategies to protect green • and implementation agenda, it will allow the spaces. To ensure a regional continuity in • Greenspaces program to focus ongoing plan namral areas planning and protection and to • ning and fumre efforts, including specific policy assemble the interconnections among • and funding discussions, environmental and greenspaces, the master plan should be used in • land use regulatory actions at the appropriate regional development review processes as a • government level to ensure implementation of reference to potential public acquisition and • the plan. development activities. • Metro and cooperators in the Greenspaces Several ofOregon's land use regulations sup • program will work with state agencies such.as port the Greenspaces effort, especially Goal 5, • the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, which reads: "To conserve open space and • Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife, protect namral and scenic resources." As • Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board mentioned previously, the Greenspaces pro • and the Division ofState Lands to ensure gram is not to be construed as a substimte for • maintenance and expansion ofparks, refuge land use and natural resource management • areas, grant programs and enforcement of regulations at all levels ofgovernment. • adopted regulatory policies. We will encourage • these state agencies to address and fund the Inter- and intra-agency cooperation is critical • special urban needs ofthe region, including the in order to ensure areas identified as environ • identification, planning, acquisition and man mental wnes, areas ofsignificant environmen • agement ofnamral areas. Future state acquisi tal concern, interim protection wnes or basin • tions should include the metropolitan region as protection districts are considered as comple • a key target area. These lands, while owned mentary pans ofthe Greenspaces system. • and managed by the state, will be linked with Continued application ofsuch regulations to • and promoted as parts ofthe Metropolitan real property by appropriate levels ofgovern • Greenspaces system. ment are recognized as one ofseveral strategies • necessary to fully implement the master plan. • In addition, Greenspaces cooperators will urge • federal agencies such as the Fish and Wildlife Many habitats identified in Metro's natural • Service, Bureau ofLand Management, Forest areas inventory are partially protected from • Service, National Park Service, Bonneville and urban encroachment either by public owner • Northwest Power Planning Council to main ship or land use regulations. The Metropolitan • tain existing refuge and recreational areas and Greenspaces program will improve protection • identify new areas for acquisition. These lands, where needed and extend protection to addi • while owned and operated by the federal gov tionalland associated with these namral areas. • ernment, will also be linked with and promoted They will then become the nuclei or "anchors" • as pans ofthe Metropolitan Greenspaces around which an interconnected system of • system. greenways and namral corridors can be • planned. • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 15 • Policies related to cooperative land use planning • and implementation of Greenspaces system • • • Metro and cooperators in the Greenspaces 1.9. Coordinate policy development, imple • program will: mentation and enforcement ofGreenspaces • related policy across jurisdictional boundaries. • 1.1. Establish a natural area system based on • 1.10. Convene a focus group ofindividuals in • ecological principles that encourage • biodiversity and connections between water the building and development industry and • sheds. local government planners, to suggest urban • design measures that preserve greenspaces. • 1.2. Develop system-wide guidelines and • standards for operation and management of 1.11. Identify opportunities for streamlining • natural area and open space sites. and bringing consistency to development • review processes at various levels ofgovernment • 1.3. Prepare site-specific management plans for issues related to natural resources. • for areas assembled as pan ofthe Greenspaces • system. 1.12. Emphasize coordination among govern • mental agencies with regulatory and permitting • 1.4. Prepare and biannually update a five authority related to natural resource manage • year acquisition and capital improvement plan ment issues. • that will list land acquisition priorities and • capital improvement projects on regionally 1.13. Identify opportunities for streamlining • significant sites and trails. permit processes with multiple layers ofgovern • ment regulation, such as stream-corridor pro • 1.5. Execute inter-governmental agreements tection, stormwater runoff, buffer zones, wet • approved by the involved governing bodies lands identification, protection, enhancement • whenever Metro agrees to assume responsibili and mitigation. • ties for a component ofthe Greenspaces system • managed by another entity or, ifanother entity • wishes to assume management responsibilities, Metro will: • for a Metro-managed site. • 1.14. Coordinate efforts by appropriate local, • '1.6. Initiate a study ofthe long-term funding regional, state and federal agencies and citizen • needs and options available for operating sites based organizations to create a regional system • and programs in the Greenspaces system. ofnatural areas, open space, trails and • greenways for wildlife and for people in • 1.7. Review and improve planning policies Mulmomah, Washington, Clackamas and Clark • and ordinances that suppon greenspaces pro (Washington) counties. The geographic focus • tection, enhancement and management. for protection and acquisition efforts in the • Oregon component ofthe Greenspaces system • 1.8. Develop model greenspaces ordinances will be bounded to the east by the Mt. Hood • that can be adopted by local governments. National Forest boundary, to the south by • Oregon State Route 211 and the Chehalem • Mountains, to the west by the Coast Range and • '.• Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992. • 16 • • • to the nonh by the Columbia River. (Clark 1.22. Assume management responsibilities of • County is responsible for the Washington any park or natural areas owned and managed • component ofthe system.) by other entities only with the consent ofthe • governing body ofthe providerand the Metro • 1.15. Consider lands outside the urban Council. • growth boundary and Metro's jurisdictional • boundary for protection and potenti,al addition 1.23. Coordinate and publish the system-wide • to the regional system when these lands are acquisition and improvement plans and up • detennined to be ofdirect benefit to citizens of dates, to facilitate coordinated planning and • the region and enhance the system and protect implementation. • natural resources or features ofregional signifi • cance. 1.24. Update periodically the Greenspaces • Master Plan with the consultation ofappropri • 1.16. Negotiate public access agreements at ate policy advisory and technical advis~ry • key sites within greenspaces ofregional signifi committees, local, state and federal agencies, • cance, ifthe land is not in public ownership. land trusts, conservation organizations and • citizens ofthe region. • 1.17. Potentially acquire and protect historic • or cultural resource sites associated with urban 1.25. Use local park master plans and compre • natural areas. hensive plans to assist in identifying and imple • menting a regionally interconnected • 1.18. Acquire and/or protect land via Greenspaces system. • purchase, gift, dedication or conservation • agreement and pursue appropriate local, re • 1.26. Update the regional natural areas inven • gional, state, federal, foundation and private tory and mapping project every five years, with • funding sources in its acquisition and opera field verification and data collection continuing • tions strategies. on an ongoing basis as resources allow. • 1.19. Own and operate some ofthe lands that 1.27. Produce and update a consolidated • will be acquired. Some lands will be owned and regional parks directory/natural areas directory. • operated by other cooperators in the program, • including local governments, water quality 1.28. Participate in development ofpark and • agencies, nonprofit conservation organizations, open-space plans at federal, state, regional, • business corporations and land trusts. county, special district and city levels and assist • these agencies in implementing their open • 1.20. Negotiate acquisition agreements pri space land acquisition plans and regulatory • marily with willing sellers. Metro will exercise functions, as resources allow. • its powers ofeminent domain only in extraordi • nary circumstances. • 1.21. Have the option to use in-house services • or contract with other agencies or prIvate • vendors for operations and maintenance ofthe • sites and trails. • • • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan,July 1992 • 17 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 18 • • • Protecting, Managing and Financing Regionally • Significant Natural Area Sites, Interconnections • and Areas Deficient in Greenspaces • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 19 • • Regionally Sig;nificant Natural Area Sites • and Interconnections • Natural area sites "Destate ofciviliZlltion ofIl ofnatural areas should be • .emphasized at the regional • people m"J be mellS'Ured by its CIIre • Through a combination of level. In certain circumstances, • regional and local actions, the tmdforethought for the we/ftJre of however, it may be appropriate • master plan envisions protect generllti01lS to cume. " to acquire smaller parcels that • ing a regional system ofnatural have regional significance, such • areas and open space that Dr. John C. Merriam as in closing "gaps" along linear • preserves elements ofthe SlIVe the Redwoods Lellgue, 1931 corridors, in restoring • natural environment and the greenspaces to areas deficient • indigenous habitats that histori- in natural areas or to protect • cally characterized the landscape. We will the last available piece ofopen space ofa • evaluate several factors in determining the certain category or function. A small sites • importance and timing ofprotection ofsignifi program should be initiated and coordi • cant greenspaces, including: nated with local governments, neighbor • hood groups, nonprofit conservation orga • 1. The immediacy or threat of develop nizations and land trusts to evaluate and • ment. Lands where there is a high prob detennine the desirability and feasibility of • ability ofloss or conversion should be protecting them through locally based tools • protected prior to protecting lands where and programs. • there is a low probability ofloss or conver • sion. This should take into consideration 4. Expand and add on to existing regionally • physical constraints to urban development, significant protected areas. While Metro • comprehensive plan and zoning designa will establish regional funding sources for • tions, market pressures for development, the acquisition and management ofsignifi • particularly rural residential development, cant greenspaces, there will only be suffi • property division and ownership patterns. cient funding to acquire some ofthe key • parcels in the greenspaces system. Priority • 2. Accessibility to residents ofthe region. consideration for acquisition and protection • We should act to ensure a broad geographic efforts should be given to greenspaces that • distribution ofgreenspaces. In addition, expand, and thereby enhance, the value of • some parts ofthe region have been deter other protected adjacent or neighboring • mined to be deficient in natural areas. parks, forests, wildlife preserves, natural • However, there is also a need to protect the areas or other open spaces. • highest quality natural areas and open • spaces based on the location ofthe resource, To assemble the land for the Greenspaces • rather than on unifonn distribution system and develop appropriate facilities will be • throughout the region. When considering an incremental process accomplished over a • protection oflands ofsimilar character, number ofyears. While a five-year acquisition • these two factors must be continually and capital improvement plan will be prepared • weighed and evaluated. and peri~dically updated, it is also recognized • that taking advantage ofopportunities will be • 3. Protection oflarge contiguous blocks of an important strategy that will affect the actual • open space. Preservation oflarger blocks sequence ofimplementation ofthe plan. • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 21 • Cooperators in the Greenspaces program ral areas to large segments ofthe population. • should work together, for example, to establish Other building blocks for corridor connections • surplus land sale review policies for all public include existing parks (both with passive and • . properties and institute a surplus land sale active recreational facilities), schools, trails, • tracking and monitoring system. It is important utility easements, shorelines (where applicable), • that we not sell valuable land resources already buffers (both inter- and intra-urban), other • in public ownership that might be important to open spaces and natural areas. • the Greenspaces system. We will be able to • consider less valuable sites as potential reloca Maintaining rich and diverse flora and fauna • tion sites for facilities that can be economically .within the fabric ofthe region will enrich the • moved from existing locations with net envi lives ofall and provide diverse visual and recre • ronmental and greenspaces benefits. ational experiences for all segments ofthe • population. The richness offish and wildlife • After adoption ofthe master plan, much work that we currently enjoy in the region is the • will need to be done through continued plan result ofhabitat that has not been disturbed. Its • ning processes. We need to more specifically continuity is dependent on protection ofboth • delineate the boundaries ofsignificant natural habitats and the linkages that sustain the plant • area sites proposed for protection, to identify and animal populations. It is these systems that • the best opportunities for interconnections we must protect as healthy, biologically diverse • among them by greenways and corridors, and networks, in order to assure survival ofthis • to locate specific trail alignments. We recom heritage for future generations. • mend that this be pursued using watersheds as • the detailed unit ofanalysis as opportunities for Regionally significant components ofthe • building the system are identified. Greenspaces system will be evaluated case by • case, and the maximum or minimum size ofthe • Identification and definition ofhabitat sites and land parcel to be brought into protection • biological corridors will provide guidance for determined according to opportunities and • influencing the layout and management of factors at each location. There are four general • natural areas consistent with regional nature land-assembly action categories, however, into • conservation objectives. These studies will, in which individual sites may be placed: • turn, result in practical guidelines for conserva • tion ofsites, species and habitats ofmetropoli River access: Land sufficient for parking, • tan significance. We will also have the oppor limited picnic and passive recreation facili • tunity to identify and protect historic or relic ties, and maneuvering and launching facili • . habitats that have survived as remnant patches ties for small boats will be needed at key • and incorporate these into the overall system of points along selected rivers. Acreage size • Metropolitan Greenspaces. should be ample for design compatible with • namral features on the site and preservation • ofriparian vegetation. • In their natural and unaltered condition, bio • logical corridors, such as those associated with • riparian systems not suited for urban develop Restoration: Restoration sites, or groups of • ment, are ofgreat value to wildlife. They sites, will be located in highly urbanized • provide natural connections between habitats areas that are currently deficient in green • and food sources for the wildlife that use them. spaces. Fragmentation ofsites will be of • They also provide a potential concurrent use concern in this category, but the cumulative • for the recreational needs ofour exPanding impact ofrestoration sites may result in • population. For example, the network of restoration ofmuch-needed open space to • natural drainages throughout most ofthe the most densely populated areas ofthe • region opens the possibility ofaccessible nam- region. • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 22 • • • Additions: These are lands added to an exist Beaver Lake • ing protected open space, namral area or (Abernethy CreeklNewell Creek • park in order to buffer habitat or enhance watershed) • the open space reserve. Man-made reservoir, 20-30 acres in size, sur • rounded by large-acre parcel ofhilly forest and .,• . Reserves: Reserves are large, contiguous farm land that lies within single ownership. namral areas that vary in size. They require Fish ladder at dam for salmon. Increasing • minimal capital improvements or are ini pressure for development in the area. • tially oflower priority for capital improve • ment than the previous categories. Where Beggar's Tick Marsh Addition • possible, these will be connected to biologi aohnson Creek watershed) • cal corridors or other trail and greenway Oppormnity to add wildlife habitat and feeding •.i connections through the region but will also areas for migratory and wintering waterfowl in • function as large patches ofself-sustaining important]ohnson Creek floodplain. Near the • habitats ofhigh biological quality. Springwater Trail. • Boring Lava Domes • Descriptions of regionally significant aohnson Creek, Mt. Scott Creek, • natural area sites Clackamas River watersheds) • Group ofextinct rugged lava domes providing • The following namral areas are the major high-quality habitat close to rapidly urbanizing • components ofthe proposed Greenspaces areas. Second-growth forests; headwaters for • system. They have been identified at this time several urban creeks. • following an inclusive and cooperative planning • process coordinated by Metro. As the commu Bull Mountain • nity grows and opportunities arise, there will be both (Tualatin River and Fanno Creek • additions to and deletions from this list. watersheds) • A high point in the Fanno Creek watershed. • Existing regionally significant protected Remnant forest lands remain but are subject to • greenspaces as well as general geographic rapidly developing suburban residential areas. • locations where Metro and cooperators in the .'; Greenspaces program should aggressively Burlington Bottom Addition pursue additional large acreage protection have (Willamette River watershed) • been identified. Placement on this list does not Remnant wetland and slough landscape across • presume public acquisition, regulation or otherform the Mulmomah Channel from Sauvie Island. • ofpublic proteaion is slated. Protection options Would enhance ecosystem connections to • through landowner stewardship or nonprofit large-acre site acquired by The Namre Conser • land trusts are encouraged. vancy. Habitat for waterfowl, bald eagle, yel • low-billed cuckoo, red-legged frog, and other • The watershed in which the potential protected native species. • area is located is also identified. Once as • sembled, these sites will serve as "anchors" in Canemah Bluffs • the overall Greenspaces system. They will be (Willamette River watershed) • connected by the existing and proposed re Willamette River bluffs that are sheer-faced • gional trails system that will be described subse with large acre forest areas. Mark the place • quently. where the Willamette carved through basalt • before descending to the Columbia after flow • ing over the Willamene Falls. High-quality • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan,July 1992 • 23 • wetlands at foot ofcliffs. Historical cemetery CooperMountain • on northern edge ofbluffs. Oak and madrone (l'ualatin River and Fanilo Creek • growing on thinner soils. watersheds) • One ofhighest points in the Fanno Creek • Cedar Mill watershed. Some uncommon ponderosa pine • (Beaverton Creek watershed) stands remain. Remnants offorested head • Large stand ofWestern red cedar and limited waters of numerous streams draining into the • intact patches ofupland forest in area where Tualatin River are rapidly being lost or altered • much offorest cover lost or severely altered. by surrounding development. • Riparian connections along CedarMill Creek • provide habitat for waterfowl, kingfisher, red Council Creek • legged frog. (Council Creek watershed) • Parallels city limits ofCornelius and Forest • Clackamas River Grove. Narrow but fragmented riparian veg • (Clackamas River watershed) etation along creek. Heavy agricultural use • World-class salmon and steelhead stream that along its edge. • originates in the Cascades. Portions already • designated with state and national scenic river Deep Creek Canyon • starns. (Deep Creek watershed) _ • Originating in the Boring lava domes and • Clear Creek Canyon flowing to the Clackamas River. A dramatic • (Clackamas River watershed) canyon formed by Class 1 stream. Has retained • Large habitat base carved by Class 1 stream. much of its natural character, providing con • Second-growth forest ofmixed conifers and nectivity, food, shelter and water ~o a variety of • hardwoods support diverse species including wildlife species and both resident and anadro • big game, fur bearers and a variety ofsmall mous salmonids. • mammals and birds. Salmonid fisheries also • supponed. Fairview Creek PondsIWedands • (Fairview Creekwatershed) • Columbia Shoreline Important linkage between Columbia River, • (Columbia River watershed) Columbia Slough and forested buttes in • Mulmomah County's most extensive riparian Gresham. Support healthy native riparian I..' and wetland habitats. Excellent potential for vegetation. wetland restoration and linkage with Sandy • River Scenic Gorge. Fairview Lake-Blue Lake Addition (Fairview • Creek watershed) • Columbia River Island Reserves Mixed deciduous, riparian, open emergent and • (Columbia River watershed) forested wetland areas. Active farmlands near • Important wildlife refuges (osprey, bald eagles, valuable wildlife habitat. Significant develop • herons) and recreational resources on Gary, ment pressure. • Flagg, Government and West Hayden islands. • Fanno Creek Greenway • Columbia Slough Wedands (Fanno Creek watershed) • (Columbia River watershed) Fourteen-mile stretch through residential, • Floodplain containing remnant wetlands that commercial and industrial lands. Densely • have escaped alteration for agriculmre or forested land and scattered wetlands in upper • conversion to industrial or commercial uses. reaches. Cutthroat trout habitat in some areas. • High-quality habitat for resident and migrating • water fowl. • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 24 '.• • • Finley Nature Reserve Hedges Creek • (Wl1lamette River watershed) (Tualatin River watershed) •.' Namral area reselVe maintained by one family One ofWashington County's most diverse • for 100 years. Land contains potentially his and largest wetland ecosystems. Runs through • toric house and examples ofplant species shrubby and forested wetlands, open fields and • collected over the years. Fronts along the Oregon white oakIDouglas fir forests. Combi • Willamette area between Gladstone and nation ofupland and riparian habitats provides • Milwaukie, where there is not much available in valuable nesting and cover for many species of • a natural state. birds and mammals, including beaver. • Forest Park Inholdings Heron Lakes • (Willamette River and Tualatin River (Columbia River watershed) • watersheds) Blends wildlife viewing with important great • Scattered privately owned lands in 5,000-acre blue heron nesting site. Connection to 40-Mile . • city park, the largest protected naroral area in Loop, nearby Force Lake, Smith and Bybee •" metropolitan area. Part ofsignificant wildlife Lakes and adjacent wetlands. • habitat, providing ecological connection be • tween Columbia River, the Tualatin Valley and • the Coast Range. .1• Four Comers • (Columbia Slough watershed) • Several hundred acres ofwetland, riparian and • forested habitats. Site offurore wetland and • wildlife habitats mitigation associated with • industrial development in South Shore. • Complements 2,000-acre Smith and Bybee .!e\ Lakes as important wildlife (river otter, red tailed hawks, northern harriers) habitat node. • Holcomb Trail Ruts • Gales Creek (Clackamas River watershed) (Gales Creek watershed) Remnant signs ofsettlers that came along the • Barlow Trail. Within four miles ofthe end of One ofthe headwater streams for the Tualatin. • Mountain stream character in upper reaches, the Oregon Trail, where the wagons dis • supporting trout populations. Agricultural uses banded. Area is hilly, forested. Recent logging • predominate the lower watershed. has destroyed some ofthe ruts. • HaggLake Jackson Bottom Addition • (Tualatin River watershed) (Tualatin River watershed) • Man-made reselVoir formed by impounding a Would add valuable wildlife and waterfowl • tributary ofthe Tualatin (Scoggins Creek) for habitat to lowland areas in floodplain of • agricultural irrigation. Marks western edge of Tualatin. Some agricultural areas mixed with • Tualatin Valley settlement area. Surrounded riparian habitat along waterways and marshes. • by large Washington County park, it provides • access to recreational opportunities as well as • connections with forests ofthe Coast Range. • ei• Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan,July 1992 • 25 • Johnson Creek CanyontridemanJohnson McKaylDairy Creek Confluence • Addition . (McKay Creek and Dairy Creek water • Oohnson Creek watershed) . sheds) . Lower reach ofJohnson Creek flowing through .Significant wetland habitat enhancement '. a dramatic steep-sided canyon with small cas projects under way here as part ofJackson •.' cades and narrow flood plains. Oppormnities to Bottom Master Plan. Major water quality • add segments to the TidemanJohnson Park planning effort to reduce phosphorous loads in • would increase access to natural areas in this the Tualatin is related to this site. • densely populated section ofthe city. •.0 Milwaukie Waterfront Johnson Creek Greenway (Willamette River watershed) • Oohnson Creek watershed) Confluence ofJohnson Creek and Kellogg • Johnson Creek Corridor Committee has en Creek with the Willamette River. Juncture of '. couraged renewed restoration and enhancement four regionally significant trails. • interest along length ofcreek. Stimulated by • recent enactment ofwater quality standards for Mt. Scott • Johnson Creek and purchase ofthe Springwater (Kellogg Creek and Mt. Scott Creek • Corridor. Additions would enable expansion of watersheds) • riparian enhancement projects and water quality Outstanding view ofPortland skyline. Wooded • improvement efforts through private steward sides ofvolcanic butte provide wildlife habitat • ship. as well as green backdrop to east side ofurban • area. Significant development pressure. • Johnson Lake • (Columbia Slough watershed) Mt. Talbert • Site attracting large numbers ofwintering (Kellogg Creek and Mt. Scott Creek • waterfowl (hooded merganser, American watersheds) • widgeon, common merganser, gadwall). Natu Largely undeveloped, distinctive hill and valley • ral buffer to 1-205 and glass recycling plant. terrain providing a diversity ofwildlife habitats. •~. Accessible by bicycle from 1-205 bike path. Serves as green landmark on eastern edge of i. urban area. Some remnant "old-growth" size Kelly Butte East Slopes Addition trees. • (Willamette River watershed) • Prominent lava butte located in heavily urban Northeast/Southwest Portland Restoration • ized area. Forested peak and steep walls provide Opportunities • drama to urban landscape and natural visual and (Willamette River and Columbia River • recreation experiences for nearby residents. watersheds) • Opportunities to restore open and green spaces • Little Four Comers inside densely urbanized areas. • (Columbia Slough watershed) • Springs feeding clear water into Columbia Newell Creek Canyon • Slough. Habitat for hundreds ofwinter and .(Abernethy CreeklNewell Creek • resident waterfowl. watershed) • Nearly pristine canyon area including large old • trees and great habitat diversity. One ofthe • highest quality stream canyons in southeast • portion of metropolitan area. • • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 26 •'. • • North Peninsula Rock Creek Wedands • (Columbia Slough watershed) (Rock Creek watershed'- Washington • Habitat for Western pond turtle, belted king County) • fisher, killdeer, red-tailed hawk. Great blue Near Pordand Community College's Rock '. heron nesting colony. Access to 4O-Mile Loop Creek campus. Wedands restoration projects • with connections to Kelley Point Park, Smith under way by Washington County Educational • and Bybee Lakes and Fairview Lake. Service District and Cascadia Native Landscape • Center. • Petes Mountain • (Newland Creek and Willamette River Rocky Butte Addition • watersheds) (Willamette River watershed) • Remnant forest and stream corridor habitat for Important for its historic prominence as a • raptors, including osprey. Marks confluence of Pordand landmark. Large portions offorested • Tualatin and WI1lamette rivers. sides subject to increasing residential develop • ment. • Powell Butte,Addition • oohnson Creek watershed) Ross Island Complex • Would add to protection ofgreen backdrop for (Willamette River watershed) • the city. East slopes are highly visible from Important scenic and namral riparian habitat on • Gresham. Provides linkage between protected four-island complex. Adjacent to Oaks Bottom .' upland habitat on Powell and Jenne buttes and Wildlife Refuge near downtown. Nesting sites • Johnson Creek, which flows between them, for belted kingfishers and more than 55 great • contributing to the biodiversity ofboth sys blue heron pairs. .•\ tems. Sandy River Gorge • Rock Creek and Sieben Creek (Sandy River watershed) • (Clackamas River watershed) Important wildlife habitat (elk, bear, deer, • Originate in Boring Lava Domes in largely coyote, beaver, osprey, bald eagle) noted for • agriculmrallands. Both creeks flow through native salmon and steelhead populations. Ad • forested canyons containing fairly old cedar and joins Columbia River Gorge National Scenic • fir trees. Wedands and streamsides provide Area and extends scenic waterway systems. • high-quality wildlife and fisheries habitat. •' . Sieben Creek is one ofthe last pristine creeks Sandy River Tributaries • inside the urban growth boundary in Clackamas (Sandy River watershed) • County. Experiencing very high pressure for Would add important riparian and forest habi conversion to urban and suburban uses in tat for fish and wildlife, including steelhead, •.~ surrounding areas. trout and salmon. Would provide critical eco • logical linkage between Mt. Hood and Colum • Rock Creek bia River. • (Rock Creek watershed - Washington • County) Sauvie IslandlBybee-Howell Marsh • Complex system ofseveral tributaries passing Addition • through largely agriculmrallands. City of (Columbia River watershed) • Hillsboro and Tualatin Hills Parks and Recre Would add valuable wildlife habitat to low • ation District manage some natural areas along lying marshy lands at site ofhistorical signifi • this system. Habitat for beaver, mink, otter, cance. Adjacent areas are in agriculmral use. • coyote and birds ofprey. •.' Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 .'• 27 ,. Sentinel Tree Park Tualatin River Greenway and Access Points • (rualatin River watershed) (rualatin River watershed) • In forested ravine in Clackamas County, south Flows from headwaters in the Coast Range to • ofLake Oswego. Characterized by giant Dou confluence with the Willamette River. Runs • glas fir estimated to be at least 300 years old. through a mosaic ofagriculmral, commercial • and industrial land use areas. Lush riparian • TerwilIigerlMarquam Additions vegetation in some areas. • (Willamette River watershed) • Would protect integrity ofTerwilliger Parkway Wdlamette Narrows • and ensure connection between Terwilliger and (Willamette River watershed) • Marquam Nature Park. Forested canyon between Petes Mountain and • Wilsonville, the Canemah district ofOregon • Tonquin Geologic Area City and Molalla River State Park. Provide '. (Willamette River and Tualatin River east-west ecological connectors between the • watersheds) Cascade Foothills and the Coast Range. Link I.• Unique geologic feamre bearing 10,OOO-year upper and lower Willamene Valley and old scars associated with the Bretz floods. Tualatin Valley with the Tualatin Mountains. • Portions used for sand and gravel quarries. Willamene River Greenway addition. • Tryon Creek Linkage Wdlamette River Island Reserves • (Tryon Creek watershed) (Willamette River watershed) One ofthe major remaining free-flowing Provide habitat for plant and animal species '.• tributaries mnning from West Hills to the within increasingly urbanized area. Wetland, Willamette River. Tryon Creek Park provides riparian and shoreline oppormnities provided '.I,.• remarkable assemblage ofnamral vegetation by the islands are especially important. and wildlife habitat in the midst ofa very • urban area. • Tualatin Hills Nature Park Addition • (rualatin River watershed) • Floodplain with wooded, grassy uplands that • provide good wildlife habitat. Would comple • ment existing nature park and extend habitat • and natural resource values. '.• • '.• • • • • •• • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 28 • • • Policies related to regionally significant natural area sites • • • Metro and cooperators in the Greenspaces Criteria to be used in prioritizing site selections • program will: include: • 2.1. Develop a regionwide greenspaces Biological con,ponent • system that protects fish and wildlife habitats - Relative rarity ofecosystem • - Connectivity to other habitat needs • and provides passive recreational opporronities - Biological diversity designed and managed to conserve fish, wildlife - Parcel size • and botanic values. - Presence ofwetlands and waterways • - Feasibility ofecological restoration • 2.2. Plan for the Greenspaces system using • HUl1U1n component landscape ecology as a basis, and watersheds as - Geographic distribution .' primary units ofanalysis, so that protection and - Connection to other sites • enhancement ofnatural functions across juris - Natural qualities ofthe landscape • dictional boundaries will be assured as the - Proximity ofsites to public access • region continues to urbanize. - Views and vistas • - Local public support • - Historical/cultural significance • 2.3. Recommend programs to conserve, .) enhance and appropriately manage habitats and .' nature reserves. Variables in protective mechanisms Short-term decisions • - Inside urban growth boundary • - Few physical constraints on development • Metro will: - Transportation access - Planning/zoning for development • 2.4. Coordinate effortS to protect natural • areas and open space lands among local, re Medium-term decisions - Outside UGB • gional, state and federal agencies and nonprofit • - Relatively large parcel without services • land conservation organizations, to comple - Limited transportation access ment acquisition programs and maximize - Some physical limitations on construction .' financial and land-resource potential. • Long-term decisions - Extreme limitations on construction of •.' 2.5. Determine the importance and timing - No current access to transportation acquisition and protection ofregionally signifi - Remote from existing development .'• Gant greenspaces case by case, weighing human • and wildlife needs, as well as such factors as the Lands protected by other means immediacy ofpotential loss ofsite, cost, avail Regulation: • - State and federal wetlands fill and removal permit • ability, financing options, etc. ting programs • - Comprehensive plans and zoning, including flood • plain and environmental zone overlays to protect • significant Goal 5 resources Public Control: • - Lands currently in public ownership • - Land trust holdings • - Easements • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 29 • • • • • • • • •• • • I.• >.• •'. • • '.• '.• • • • • • • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan,July 1992 • 30 • • • Significant Trails, Greenways • and Wildlife Corridors • • .'. • The Greenspaces "A connected system ofparks and River trails: Rivers that are • Regional Trails System parkways is manifestly far more navigable by small craft. • They provide water-based • Establishing a network ofinter-: complete and useful than a series of recreational opportunities, • connected trails and corridors is isolated parks." offering connections that • a major proposal put forth in might not be feasible on • the Greenspaces Master Plan. The Obnsted Brothers land-based trails. Opportu A system oflinear linkages for Report to the Portland Park Board, nities for acquisition of • 1903 • human recreation, transporta additional lands along rivers • tion, wildlife movement and for public access will be • ecological connectivity is pro- explored. • posed. Ofimportance to the Metropolitan • Greenspaces system are trails that connect to The trails network should foster a sense of • regionally significant sites, are multijurisdic community throughout the region and • tional, multiuse and that connect to national, strengthen the connection to our culmral, • inter-regional or other regional trails. historical and natural heritage. • In identifying significant segments ofthe Existing trail systems that have been planned • Greenspaces Regional Trails System, we are and developed in the region will be key ele .' using the following definitions: ments, serving as a foundation for the intercon • nected regional system. The accomplishments • Land-based trails: Multiuse/recreational and cooperation achieved through years of • (hiking, biking, pedestrian, equestrian, etc.) planning and implementation will be built upon • alignments primarily used by people. Trails to implement the system, including the follow • will be designed with sensitivity to the mg: • natural environment, the landscape they • traverse. and the intensity ofanticipated use. 1. The metropolitan area has access to a larger • network oftrails that extends outside the • Greenways: Linear vegetated corridors often metropolitan area. Existing and proposed • associated with rivers and streams that could trails ofwider influence will provide a useful .' be shared by humans and wildlife. Designa framework for planning a four-county, bi • tion as a greenway does not presume public state system that connects areas within the • access to private property but does encour region to significant destinations outside • age consistent management by both public and to this larger network oftrails. • and private landowners to maintain ecologi • cal integrity. 2. The Greenspaces Regional Trails System • also will be planned to dovetail with the • Wddlife corridors: Linear namral areas and local trails networks planned by each parks • habitats primarily reserved for wildlife jurisdiction. It is envisioned that continuing • needs. They vary in width and composition trail planning and development will ulti •.' but enable movement ofwildlife between mately provide access to regional connec • habitats and food sources. Human access tions from each community. Inclusion of • will be discouraged in these corridors. designated regionally significant trails in • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan,July 1992 • 31 • local planning documents is mumally sup s. Availability ofoperations and maintenance • portive and could benefit implementation of funds. • both systems oftrails. • Local government and citizen participation will • 3. Inventory and regular update ofthe entire be encouraged in all implementation and • system oftrails in the region and provision operational stages. Development and manage • ofpublic information regarding the accessi ment oftransportation systems requires a high • bility oftrails throughout the region will be degree ofcooperation among all levels of • undertakenby Metro. government. Pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle trails are no exception. The degree ofcoopera •.' 4. Prioritization oftrail segments will be tion from these local governments will influ • recommended by a broad-based working ence priorities for trail development. group familiar with local needs and oppor '.• tunities. This working group will consist of The master plan will be periodically updated. A • Metro staff, cooperators and citizen advo strategic plan for trail development in the • cates representative ofthe region as a region will be prepared and incorporated into • whole. It will develop a process, based upon the five-year acquisition and capital improve '. the criteria listed, to rank individual projects ment plan for the Greenspaces system. Priori • in the context ofavailable funds. The group ties will be adjusted ifnecessary. Available • will regularly review the stams ofall seg funding will be allocated to mutually agreed • ments ofthe Greenspaces Regional Trails projects. • System and will recommend priorities for • continuing development to appropriate A variety offunding sources are potentially •8' agencies and organizations. available for trail development. Federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Enhance • ment Act funds are available through the Or • Implementation of the Regional egon Depamnent ofTransportation for devel • Trails System opment ofoff-road alternative transportation • systems. ODOT bicycle funds can be used • Implementation ofthe Greenspaces Regional within rights-of-way and can be used for street • Trails System will proceed incrementally as crossing safety devices for multiple use trails. • funding allows. Priority will initially be given • to acquisition ofcorridors, easements and • dedications that will enable development of The larger network of trails: • continuous trail alignments. Only when large trails of national significance • portions ofthe overall system have been as '.• sembled will emphasis be given to capital Trails ofnational importance pass through, or • improvements. These will be prioritized in close by, the metropolitan region. Some trails • order to address: are renowned culmral resources that are na • tionally and internationally known. These • 1. Safety for users and adjacent land owners. could be considered "trunk lines" in a hierarchy • ofpotential pedestrian movement. The • 2. Continuity with regional and local trail Greenspaces Regional Trails System will link • systems. directly with this existing network. The pro • gram will also make people aware ofthe poten • 3. Sensitivity to environmental conditions. tial for individual communities to connect with • the larger system, which could result in greater • 4. Local suPPOrt for trail improvements. enthusiasm for development oflocal trail • systems. • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 32 • • • Lewis and OarkTrail Gifford Pinchot National ForestTrails • This trail includes both a land-based trail and The Mt. St. Helens National Volcanic Monu • river route following the Columbia River. The ment has become the primary attraction for • western end is at Astoria, where the National these trails. The Forest Service is building a • Park Service has undertaken a project to locate trail system throughout the monument to • the original route relying on the Lewis and facilitate public access and encourage education· • Clark diaries. Lewis and Clark State Park on programs. The Gifford Pinchot Forest is • the Sandy River near Troutdale interprets working with the Chinook Trail Association to • botanical discoveries credited to the explorers. provide trail ties between the forest and the • The route follows the Columbia River through Vancouver urban area, as well as communities • the metropolitan area. along the Columbia River within the scenic • area. • Oregon TraillBarlow Trail • This historic trail was the primary means of Mt. Hood National Forest Trails • early settlement ofthe region by non-native The Mt. Hood National Forest is a mosaic • populations. Although not presently a com ofrecreation oppormnities scattered over • pletely accessible pedestrian trail, it has been 1 million acres of forest land in the north • recently surveyed and some sections identified Oregon Cascade Mountains. Mt. Hood, at • for preservation. Portions ofthe trail made use 11,235 feet, is the dominant feature ofthe • ofthe Columbia River, which provided a means forest. Mt. Hood is a nationally recognized • ofpassage through the rugged terrain ofthe name and is associated with Oregon as a desti • Cascade Range. The Barlow Trail, synony nation for national and international tourists. • mous with the Oregon Trail, is marked where There are 1,300 miles oftrails ranging from • it corresponds with existing highways in the paved and "boardwalk" trails, accessible to all • region. The End ofthe Oregon Trail Interpre users, to primitive trails in the 187,000 acres of • tive Center is currently being planned in wilderness. The Pacific Crest National Scenic • Oregon City. Trail goes from Mexico to Canada and • traverses the forest from north to south. It is • Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail the goal ofthe Forest Service to work coopera • This hiking trail could technically be consid tively and tie the forest to local communities, • ered an international trail since it follows the for example; linking the Clackamas River Trail • crest ofthe Cascade Range from Canada to to the Springwater Trail. • Mexico. In this region it passes through the • Mt. Hood National Forest in the Gorge, cross Columbia River Gorge Trails • ing the Columbia from Washington at the Since its designation as a national scenic area, .;• Bridge ofthe Gods. It is accessible to the the Gorge has risen in importance from a regional network by way ofthe Columbia River regional treasure to a national scenic resource. • Gorge system oftrails, through Mt. Hood Under the direction ofthe Forest Service and • National Forest and Gifford Pinchot National the Gorge Commission, an integrated system • Forest. oftrails will be developed in the course of • management. • Pacific Coast Trail • Known as Oregon Coast Trail in this state, the • overall system extends far beyond the borders • and provides a continuous alignment from • Canada to Mexico. Although it is known • primarily as a bicycle trail, adjacent lands • provide ilUmerous opportUnities for hikers, • campers and other tourist uses. • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 33 • The larger network of trails: Chinook Trail • inter-regional trails The Chinook Trail is a proposed Columbia • River Gorge loop trail that will connect • State trails form a network connecting many of Vancouver Lake, Maryhill State Park, Biggs • the cities and towns ofOregon. The system is and Pordand. It will travel in pan on existing • presently somewhat limited but will be supple trails. The concept was formalized in 1988 as a • mented by a series ofnewly proposed Rails-to rim-top trail where possible. • Trails projects. It is critical that state policy • includes a means for acquiring abandoned Willamette Greenway • rights-of-way as they become available since The 1967 and 1973, Oregon legislatures cre • these corridors are nearly impossible to replace ated the Willamette River Greenway program • once lost to private ownership. 'extending more than 255 miles between Cot • tage Grove and St. Helens. It was established • Portland to the Pacific Trail to protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the • This proposal has evolved from an ongoing natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, eco • interest in creating a wildlife corridor that nomic and recreational qualities oflands along • connects the Willamette Valley to the Coast the Willamette River. The program is coordi • Range and ultimately to the Pacific Ocean. nated by the Oregon State Parks and Recre • The current plan will include a recreational trail ation Division and implemented through • that will connect to the Coast Trail, linking not partnerships with governmental entities that • only the coastal cities ofOregon but also pro enforce setbacks and landscape management • viding a connection to Washington and Cali adjacent to the river. RUGGO Objective 9 • fornia. calls for a Willamette River Greenway plan for • the metropolitan region to be completed by the • Banks Vernonia Trail tum ofthe century. • This was the first attempt to complete a Rails • to-Trails project in Oregon. Public participa Tillamook State ParkTrails System • tion, in conjunction with state parks, will ulti Following a series offorest fires in the Coast • mately bring this project to fruition. This will Range, the state purchased the Tillamook State • become one ofthe most important components Forest in order to manage the resource more • ofthe system currently under study. carefully. Recent studies suggest that develop • ment ofthe recreational potential ofthe forest • is appropriate with the increasing tourism in • the region and population growth in the metro • politan region. • State ofOregon Rails-to-Trails Study • The state ofOregon has undertaken a study of • railway abandonment and potential for incor • porating segments ofthese alignments into • major inter-regional trails. The intended • outcome is a policy for acquisition and develop • ment ofan extensive statewide system oftrails • connecting major destinations in the state. • • • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 34 •.' • • Regional trails, greenways owned lands but encourages management • and wildlife corridors compatible with riparian preservation and • enhancement. Each greenway should: • The Greenspaces Regional Trails System • . proposes that the region be laced with trails 1. Provide continuous riparian habitat along a • that provide means ofaccess to commerce, stream or river as well as pedestrian, eques • recreation and natural areas. Human-powered trian and bicycling uses where possible. • commuting would be one benefit that can be • derived from development ofa regional system, 2. Provide access to a river trail with some • with these areas accessible direcdy or from the provision for parking and passive recreation • activities. • local trails network. Eugene's system of • bikeways is a model that should be examined in • the development ofour regional system. 3. Provide recreational opportunities such as • camping that are in short supply along river • In identifying regional trails, greenways and corridors. • corridors in the Greenspaces Regional Trails • System, we are using the following definitions: • Regional trail: A regional trail provides a • linear corridor, in a natural setting where • possible, that is primarily for pedestrian use and • might include equestrian and bicycling uses, as • appropriate. Regional trails provide links • between parks, local trails and local communi • ties and should accomplish at least one ofthe • following goals: • 1. Provide non-motorized access toa parkland Regional wildlife corridor: A regional wild • ofregional scale for a major population life corridor is a linear natural area that pro • center or mass-transit terminal. vides primarily for wildlife needs and uses. • Within the metropolitan region potential for • 2. Provide a connection between parklands of these preserves is clearly limited, and enhance • regional scale, especially between those that ment or extension of linkages between existing • provide overnight camping. areas must be considered. In order to be con • sidered a regional wildlife corridor, an area •e: 3. Provide a day-use loop or link through must: other regionally significant lands. • 1. Provide significant habitat for species that • Regional greenway: A regional greenway is a reside in and pass through the region along • linear corridor, in a riparian setting, that serves regular migratory routes. • wildlife needs and also accommodates pedes • trian, equestrian and bicycling uses. The 2. Improve or enhance an existing reserve. • master plan defines lands that the Soil Conser • vation Service has identified as prone to flood 3. Provide a link between habitats that is • ing as potential greenways. Regional green beneficial to wildlife and assists maintaining • ways provide linkages for wildlife between biological diversity. Opportunities for • habitat needs. Designation as a greenway does limited human interaction will be encour • not presume pedestrian access to privately aged only when it is possible that it will not •e detract from wildlife values.
• Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 35 • Proposed and evolving trails alignment generally follows Johnson Creek and • and greenways includes some extraordinary natural areas along • its course. The Gresham section is currendy in • The 40-Mile Loop System ofTrails the process ofbeing improved as a multiple-use • Originally proposed in the 1903 Olmsted recreational trail that will accommodate bicy • Report, the 4O-Mile Loop was the Pordand clists, walkers and equestrians. In conjunction • region's first recreational circulation system. with trail development, additional lands in the • As envisioned by the Olmsted brothers, ap floodplain ofJohnson Creek are also being • proximately 40 miles ofparkways, boulevards acquired. • and walkways would link major parks in the • Pordand area. The loop was revived in the late Tualatin River Greenway Trail • 1970s as an expanded system ofhiking trails This greenway has been proposed for many • and bicycle paths totalling 140 miles. The 40 years and has recendy enjoyed new interest. • Mile Loop has been incorporated into the Most ofthe Tualatin is outside the urban • comprehensive plans ofMulmomah County growth boundary. The wide floodplain and • and the cities ofPordand, Gresham and relatively few interruptions from transportation • Troutdale. Implementation has occurred corridors make this an extremely important • through voluntary easements, by conditioned focus for multiple-use low-intensity recreation. • developments and through local government As a river trail, the Tualatin is a fairly slow • acquisition and capital improvement programs. moving watercourse that is ideal for novice • canoeists. Active agricultural lands offer won • The 40-Mile Loop includes only the urbanized derful views along most ofits length. • portions ofMulmomah County, but its funda • mental premise is the same as the proposed Clackamas River Greenway Trail • Greenspaces Regional Trails System: to con The Clackamas flows from the Cascades into • nect significant natural areas and open spaces the Willamerre north ofOregon City. Most of • via a recreational trail system aligned with the upper reaches ofthe river are outside the • greenways and natural landscape feamres. UGB. East ofCarver Bridge, the river is • Important segments ofthe loop include: classified as a wild and scenic river, lending it • some protection from development that would • • Wildwood Trail impact its namral beauty. A greenway and trail • has been proposed along the north bank ofthe • • MarquamfTerwilliger Trails river from Oregon City to Barton Park, where • it intersects the Springwater Corridor Trail. It • • Springwater Corridor is also included as a river trail for canoes, kayaks • and even rafts in the upper reaches. • • Columbia Slough and Columbia Bikeway • Sandy River Gorge Trail • Springwater Corridor Trail This proposed trail will link Troutdale with • The abandoned Portland Traction Railroad numerous publicly owned parks along the lower • Company right-of-way purchased by the city of reaches of the Sandy, including the newly • Pordand provides a major east-west link from acquired Sandy River Delta, Lewis and Clark • the Willamette River to the foothills ofthe State Park and Dabney State Park, where it is • Cascades through some ofthe city's most currently proposed to terminate. The Sandy is • densely populated sections. The Springwater one ofthe most pristine rivers in the region and • Corridor originates at the Oaks Bottom Wild should be preserved to the maximum extent • life Refuge and continues east generally follow possible. • ingJohnson Creek to its end in Estacada. • Varying in width from 60 to 100 feet, the • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 36 • • • Johnson Creek Greenway is also a popular activity. There are remarkably • This greenway has experienced renewed inter few access points to the Columbia River in the • est with the formation oftheJohnson Creek metropolitan area. This is largely due to in • Corridor Committee, enacttnent ofwater tense development ofindustrial facilities along • quality standards for the creek and purchase of its shores and the privatization caused by water • the Springwater Corridor. Public agencies front residential development. • have begun to invest in riparian improvements • and private landowners along the creek are The Sandy and Clackamas Rivers • being encouraged to participate in water qual The Sandy and Clackamas rivers are cold, clear • ity improvement programs through steward water rivers typical. ofthe streams and rivers • ship oftheir holdings. . flowing out ofthe Cascade Mountains. The • streambeds are relatively narrow and flow • through scenic canyons and foothill valleys. It • River trails is unusual in this country for scenic beauty of • this quality to be found so close to a major • In addition to land-based trails, the system metropolitan area. • should also include river trails on navigable • water courses that can provide linkages that Both ofthese rivers have sections designated as • might otherwise not be feasible. Traditional state scenic waterways, which provides some • uses ofthese rivers by native Americans in- degree ofprotection to preserve their scenic • .volved the canoe, and getting out into the beauty. The Scenic Waterways Act prohibits • environment in the same way can elicit similar dams, reservoirs and placer mining in desig • sensations. Since rivers are publicly owned, the nated rivers. The act also stipulates that alter • accessibility ofriver trails can allow public uses ation ofthe stream channel or river bank re • while respecting private ownership ofthe quires a permit and that all land use changes • shorelines. Staging areas for water-based and development within one-quaner mile ofthe • excursions could lessen the need for further river must be reviewed. • acquisition along certain sections ofotherwise • inaccessible streams. The rapid flow and white-water rapids in the • upper reaches ofthese streams make them • Several rivers in the metropolitan area are popular drift and kayak rivers. Canoeing is • navigable by a variety ofwatercraft. This use feasible in the lower reaches. Narrow channels • should be encouraged as a means ofconnecting and white water prevent larger craft from using • otherwise fragmented land routes. Opportuni much ofthe Sandy and Clackamas rivers. Fish • ties for additional access points along these ing and water play are also popular recreational • rivers should be expanded whenever practi activities supponed by these rivers. • cable. A river route provides landing and • launching sites that enhance linkages for ap Like the Willamene and Columbia rivers, • propriately sized craft along navigable rivers in recreation areas along the Sandy and Clackamas • the region. and the rivers themselves are often crowded • during peak seasons. Crowding indicates their • The Columbia River value and popularity among recreationists. The • In spite ofits role as a major transportation high levels ofuse may be adversely affecting the • route for ships and barges, the Columbia River natural environment in the most popular areas. • is widely used by recreational boats in the • region. Fishing is pursued during all seasons, The Willamette River • but skiing and pleasure boating are particularly The Willamene River supports a wide variety of • popular in summer. Sailing ofcraft larger than recreational activities and is a major attractor to • is usually found in other local rivers or streams the parks along its shore. It is considered a • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 37 • medium-sized river and provides ample room for recreational uses more important. An • for waterskiing, sailing ofmodest-sized craft additional facility that allows for camping • and motor boating. It is small enough that would be a significant recreational addition • wind doesn't create heavy wave action, which along the river. • makes the river popular with oarsmen, begin • ning and intermediate windboarders and small The Columbia Slough • to-medium boats. The river's location in the The slough offers opportunities for non-mo • urbanized area and the variety and level of torized craft between Fairview Lake on the East • recreational activities it provides makes this a and the confluence with the Willamette River • popular and often crowded recreational re at Kelley Point Park. A number ofinteresting • source. greenspaces are accessible from the Slough • including Smith and Bybee Lakes, North • The Lower Willamette River is considered to Peninsula Canal, Four Comers and other • be the portion north ofthe falls in Oregon wetland habitats. A land-based trail will accom • City. This part ofthe river is widest, flows pany the water route as it is constructed over • through the most developed area and is used by time. • commercial and recreational craft. It is in this • area that the greatest number ofdeveloped • recreation sites can be found. It is also the area The proposed Greenspaces • ofgreatest congestion and, therefore, subject to Regional Trails System • the most conflicts in use. • There are a number ofpossible improvements LAND-BASED TRAILS • and developments that could enhance the • recreational and wildlife values ofthis section Beaver Creek Canyon Trail • ofthe river. These could include additional The northern section ofthis trail forms part of • launching facilities associated with human the 40-Mile Loop through Troutdale and then • powered craft, such as canoes and small sail follows Beaver and Kelly creeks to their head • boats, which could be rented by day-users of waters, terminating at Oxbow Park. • the river. • - Beaver Lake Trail • The Upper Willamette River flows through A detailed alignment has not been determined. • mostly undeveloped areas south ofthe falls. This trail could follow Newell Creek Canyon • The upper portion is characterized by a nar or Abernethy Creek from the proposed end of • rower channel and steeper banks. The variety the Oregon Trail Center to provide a connec • and intensity ofuse in this stretch ofriver is tion to the proposed Beaver Lake regional • considerably less than in the lower reaches, but natural area. • its scenic value is very high. The channel • width, steep banks and lack ofaccess discourage Beaverton Creek Trail • the level ofuse experienced by the lower river. The Beavenon Creek Trail begins at the • confluence with Bronson Creek, following the • The Tualatin River creek to its headwaters in the west Tualatin • The Tualatin River is typical ofthe slow Mountains. The route crosses the Tualatin • flowing, meandering small rivers and streams Mountains joining the Marquam Trail near • that flow through the Willamette Valley floor. Council Crest. • Its relatively low slope makes it ideal for canoe • ing and for amateur boaters. There are few Bronson CreekTrail • access points within metropolitan areas along The Bronson Creek Trail begins at the • its course, which makes its further development confluence with Beaverton Creek, following the • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 38 • • • creek to its headwaters in the west Tualatin Fanno Creek Greenway • Mountains. The route crosses the ridge linking This trail links the Tualatin River Greenway • with the Forest Park Trails. Trail with Beavenon Creek following the • Fanno Creek Greenway system. It provides an • Cazadero Trail alignment through natural areas and links up • This extension ofthe Springwater Division with other local trails. • Line, which links Boring to Estacada, is in • Oregon State Parks' ownership and is the Gresham to Fairview Trail • highest priority for trails in OregQn. It joins This trail is located along an abandoned spur of • the Clackamas River Greenway at Barton Park. the Springwater Line, which branches from • Linnemann Station in Gresham and runs north • Clackamas Bluffs Trail to the Columbia River near Blue Lake. • Beginning at the intersection with North • Clackamas Trail at Mt. Talbert, this route Hagg Lake Trail • extends south along the ancient bluffs ofthe Beginning in the foothills ofthe Coast Range at • Clackamas River. It joins the Clackamas Hagg Lake, this trail follows Scoggins Creek to • Greenway Trail at the confluence ofRock the confluence-of the Tualatin River. It passes • Creek with the Clackamas River. Fern Hill Wetland on the southern boundary • ofForest Grove continuing to the confluence • North Clackamas Trail with McKay Creek near Jackson Bottom. • Beginning at the Milwaukie waterfront, this • trail follows the Kellogg Creek watershed I-20S Corridor (bike route) • through North Clackamas Regional Park to While the Greenspaces Regional Trails System • newly acquired property that will include the will generally focus on trails through natural • swim center and other recreational facilities areas, this connector is extremely important in • planned by the North Clackamas'Regional bicycle linkages through the populated areas of • Parks District. Portland and provides a link with Clark County • and the county's developing system oftrails. • Columbia Bikeway/Columbia Slough Trail • Part ofthe 40-Mile Loop, the Columbia Marquatnrrerwilliger Trails • Bikeway follows the Columbia River from Blue Beginning across Sunset Highway from the • Lake to Kelley Point Park. Parallelling the zoo, these trails traverse the West Hills from • river along remnants ofthe Columbia Slough is Canyon Road to the Sellwood Bridge crossing • a pedestrian hiking trail that is primarily in the to East Portland. Points ofinterest along the • planning stages, but it will ultimately provide a route include Council Crest Park, Marquam • walking trail from Blue Lake through Smith Nature Park, Terwilliger Parkway, George • and Bybee Lakes to Kelley Point Park. The Himes Park and Willamette Park. The • northern section ofthe loop is comprised ofthe Marquam Trail extends through and around • Marine Drive Trail, a bikeway that parallels the the Marquam Nature Park and along neighbor • Columbia River, and the Columbia Slough hood streets to connect to Terwilliger Parkway. Trail, a pedestrian trail being developed along Its southern end is the riverfront Willamette •.' remnants ofthe natural system ofdrainages and Park, which is part ofthe Willamette • wetlands adjacent to the river. Large portions Greenway. • ofthe trail have been completed in conjunction • with private sector interests in the slough. • More partnerships continue to be formed. • • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 39 • McKay CreekTrail Portland Traction Line/Oregon • Extending north from the confluence with the City Alignment • Tualatin River, this trail follows the edge of The southern extension ofthe Pordand Trac • Hillsboro to the confluence with Dairy Creek, tion Railroad Line from Milwaukie to • continuing to North Plains where it joins the Gladstone is currendy being considered for • Pordand to the Coast Rails-to-Trails route. acquisition. This line once provided rail con • nections to Oregon City but has been aban • Mt. Scott Trail doned since the late 1950s. It offers a nearly • From the junction with the North Clackamas level trail connection, crossing primarily resi • Trail on Mt. Talbert, this trail extends north to dential streets as fur as Gladstone, where the • join the Springwater Trail near Powell Butte. bridge to Oregon City has been abandoned. • It crosses Mt. Scott and follows Johnson Creek • before intersecting with the Springwater Corri Powerline Trail • dor. This Bonneville Power and Pordand General • Electric easement extends from the northern • North ForkTrail end ofForest Park to the newly proposed • This segment ofthe Cazadero Trail connects Tualatin River National 'Wildlife Refuge near • the north fork ofDeep Creek with Barton Park. Sherwood. It crosses the Bronson Creek and • Beaverton Creek trails, passes through Tualatin • Oregon TraillBarlow Road Hills Namre Park, across Cooper and Bull • It is hoped that a more accurate alignment of mountains and joins the Tualatin River • this historic road can be defined as a multi-use Greenway Trail at the southern end. • trail along the southern part ofthe region. • Using early maps and other available research Rock CreekTrail • the corridor will be laid out as close to the From the confluence ofRock Creek and the • original route as possible. Tualatin River, the trail parallels the stream to • its confluence with Beaverton Creek. The trail • Portland to the Coast Trail follows Beaverton Creek to the confluence of • A segment ofthis Oregon State Parks' proposed Bronson Creek. • Rails-to-Trails project from North Plains to the • Sauvie Island bridge traverses the northwest Sandy River Gorge Trail • portion ofthe Greenspaces study area. A spur This trail follows the Sandy River, connecting • to this line, the Oregon Electric Railway, the Sandy River delta on the Columbia River • extends into the center ofBeaverton. with Lewis and Clark State Park and tenninat • ing at Dabney State Park. It may eventually • extend as far as Oxbow Regional Park, but at • present the connection will be restricted to the • proposed water-based river traiL • Scouters Mountain Trail • This trail forms a north-south link between the • Springwater Corridor and the Clackamas River • Greenway Trail. It follows Rock Creek from • the Clackamas crossing Scouters Mountain and • joins the Springwater near Powell Butte. • • • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 40 • • • • Springwater Corridor Willamette Greenway • Beginning beneath the Sellwood Bridge and The primary focus of the Greenspaces system • to • now in city ofPortland ownership, the route with regard to the Willamette Greenway is that • the east generally follows Johnson Creek pass portion that extends between Wilsonville and • ing through l'idemanJohnson Park, Beggars the confluence with the Columbia River. A • TickMarsh, Leach Botanical Garden, Powell priority ofthe Greenspaces Regional Trails • Butte, the Gresham Greenways and ultimately System is completion ofas much as possible of • to Barton Park. .this portion. This major north-south connec • tion links with many existing and proposed • TonquinTrail trails and natural areas. • The Tonquin Trail connects the Tualatin • National Wildlife Refuge to the Willamette West Willamette Greenway Trail: Camassia, • River near Wilsonville. It passes through the Mary S. Young, George Rogers, Willamette • Tonquin geological area and the Dammasch Park, Forest Park and Burlington Bottoms· • property recendy acquired by the Division of on the west side. • State Lands, before joining the Willamette • Greenway Trail. East Willamette Greenway Trail: • Clackamette Park, Meld~m Bar, Milwaukie • Lower TualatinTrail Waterfront, Oaks Bottom • Following the Tualatin River from the pro • posed Wildlife Refuge to confluence with the • Willamette River, this trail makes additional RIVER TRAILS • connections with Hedges Creek, Nyberg Creek • and Saum Creek Greenway. Clackamas River Greenway • The Clackamas River between River Mill Dam • Upper Tualatin Trail and Carver is designated as a scenic river by the • This trail follows the Tualatin River between Oregon Scenic Waterways Program. Access • Jackson Bottom and Rock Creek wedands along points, in association with the land-based trail • tight meanders in the river. It is anticipated proposal, should be considered at regular • that river access points near either end could intervals. • provide a parallel river trail route between these • two anchor sites. Columbia Slough • The remnant channel ofthe Columbia Slough • Wildwood Trail is navigable by canoe or kayak with occasional • From the north at the St. Johns Bridge, passing portage around culverted sections and across • through the largest protected natural area in the flood control dikes. • metropolitan area, this trail provides walkers .- access to a variety ofnatural systems. The Lewis and Clark Trai1lWillamette • 23-mile trail links the St. Johns Bridge with Greenway • Audubon House, Pittock Mansion, Hoyt Arbo The Lewis and Clark Trail follows the Colum • remm, Metro Washington Park Zoo and the bia River through the metropolitan area. Sev • International Rose Test Garden. It is primarily eral boat ramps and river access points also exist • a hiking trail since the grades required do not along the Willamene. These routes may be • allow for traditional bicyclists or handicapped less appealing for non-motorized craft due to • access. commercial and motorized recreational boat • use. • • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 41 • Sandy River • The Sandy is among the most pristine rivers in • the metropolitan region and already provides • superb recreational opponunities for non • motorized craft. Additional access points will • be considered in the course ofplanning the • regional trails system. • Tualatin River Greenway • The Tualatin River between the Willamette • and the confluence with Dairy Creek atJackson • Bottom has been designated as a river trail. • Oppormnities for additional access points will • be explored as planning for this route continues. . • • • •• • ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 42 • • • Policies related to significant trails, greenways • and wildlife corridors • • • Metro and cooperators in the Greenspaces 2.10. Integrate the Greenspaces Regional • program will: Trails System with on-road trail systems in the • regIOn. • 2.6. Use existing trail systems including the • 40-Mile Loop, the Willamette Greenway and 2.11. Identify biological corridors or opportu • trail systems in Clackamas, Clark and Wash nities to establish biological corridors through • ington counties as the initial framework for the restoration efforts that can potentially connect • Greenspaces Regional Trails System. significant natural habitat areas. • 2.7. Connect the Greenspaces Regional • Trails System to inter-regional trail systems Metro will: • that link the metropolitan region to destina • tions outside the planning area including: 2.12. Inventory and prepare a master map and • list oftrails, greenways and corridors for the • North: to Mt. St. Helens, Gifford Pinchot regIOn. • National Forest via the Clark County and • Washington systems oftrails. 2.13. Provide public information on the status • oftrails throughout the region. • South: along the Willamette Greenway to • Salem and Eugene including historic and 2.14. Coordinate and facilitate planning, • natural landmarks in the Willamette Valley. funding, acquisition, design, development, • constnlction, operations and maintenance of • East: to the Columbia River Gorge Na the Greenspaces Regional Trails System in • tional Scenic Area via the Chinook Trail; cluding: • the Mt. Hood National Forest Trails via • the Springwater and Barlow Road; estab - trail standards, surfacing and signs for the regional • lishing a strong connection to the Pacific system Crest National Scenic Trail. - accessibility standards • - user policies • - safety standards for trail design and development • West: to Astoria via the Pordand to the • Pacific Trail; Tillamook via the Banks • Vernonia Trail and other rail abandon • ments; and to Tillamook State Forest trails • system creating a link with the Oregon • Coast Trail. • 2.8. Link community and local trail systems • to the Greenspaces Regional Trails system. • 2.9. Encourage the Greenspaces Regional • Trails system to be included in local planning • documents. • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 43 • 2.1S. Coordinate a standing committee com- . • posed ofMetro staff, Greenspaces cooperators • and citizen advocates who will periodically • evaluate system development and advise Metro • on prioritization oftrails projects, review man • agement guidelines, and extend the system as • appropriate. The following criteria will be used • in setting priorities: • - inclusion in planning document(s) ofthe local • govemment(s) through which the trail is routed. • - potential for use as loop trails in conjunction with • local or regional trail segments. • - trails and corridors which interconnect natural areas, • parks, open space and destinations of regional • significance. • - segments which complete major systems. • - length and continuity oftrail and/or corridor; • connections to inter-regional trails. • - wildlife use. • - local support for the trail and/or corridor. • - immediacy ofdecision when opportunities to • establish corridors may be lost due to imminent • development or changes in property ownership. • - abandoned rail corridors. • - expanded access to river routes. • • • • • • • • • • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 44 • • • Restoration and Enhancement ofAreas • Deficient in Greenspaces • ,-----~----, • Opportunities to restore "MJm requires afieling of ment but would become part of • open space permonence to lIttIIin a sense of the education ofthose involved • in the restoration activities. • Ecologically deficient areas place, impqrtllnce and identity. For • must be addressed in the over ma11J pmons in the city, the Because an acquisition program all strategy for natural area will not benefit areas with little • presence ofnature is the harnumiz- • enhancement in order to pro or no open space remaining to • vide access to the richness of ing thread in tI1I environment purchase, Metro will give a natural settings to every resi priority in the overall strategy • otherwise ofman's 07JJn making. tt • dent ofthe region. In some for enhancement to neighbor • cases, areas ofthe metropolitan Columbia Regional Association of hoods that are deficient in open • region have been so intensely Governments, 1971 space and natural areas. In • urbanized that greenspaces some cases, restoration might • have been all but eliminated involve the "daylighting" of • from neighborhood access. The best option for culverted streams. Itcould also include en • providing natural areas in these neighborhoods hancement ofbackyard wildlife habitats or • may be to identify opportunities to restore street tree planting, which would help provide • lands as open space. additional green to offset the city's "heat • island" effects. • Through a series ofanalyses, potential open • space sites can be identified within these areas Restoration projects should be focused on, • ofdeficiency, which can then be individually but not limited to, river and stream corridors • examined more thoroughly for their potential. and the riparian zones along these waterways. • There might be opportunities for restoration of These projects support the Greenspaces objec • degraded vacant sites specifically to provide tive ofplanning by watersheds, working for the • small enclaves in densely populated areas. improvement ofwater quality and providing • There could also be enhancement ofexisting best management ofstormwater run-off • publicly owned lands, such as parks or schools problems. . • that would not only provide places for enjoy- • • • • • • • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 45 • Policies related to areas deficient in greenspaces • • • Metro and cooperators in the Greenspaces Metro will: • program will: • 2.17. Work with government agencies, citi • 2.16. Identify portions ofthe region deficient zens groups and the development community • in namral areas and identify oppormnities for to identify potential restoration sites in areas • major ecological restoration programs in these deficient in greenspaces. • deficient areas. • 2.18. Provide technical and financial assis • Criteria to be used in selection ofrestoration tance to local restoration projects, as resources • sites include: allow. • HtmUln component 2.19. Extend the potential for wildlife to • - Access to sites from large population groups coexist within a framework ofhuman settle • - Near schools ment by promoting land use design and man • - Potential linkages to regional trails system • - Community support for projects agement that encourages ecological diversity and restoration in areas deficient in • Ecological component greenspaces. • - Feasibility ofecological restoration • - Component ofthe existing open space system • (i.e., park) • - Nearness to other potential habitat or - corridors • - Sustainability ofecosystem relative to adjacent land • use • - Significance ofcontribution to other beneficial • environmental functions (Le., water quantity/quality, • floodplain protection) • • • • • • • • • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 46 • • • Protection through Resource • .Management Plans • • Coordinated operating "More than uverhunting, bad local governments. Local • practices ai,.,fouJed'l!Jater, or invading governments, special distriets • and Metro may choose to • To ensure consistency and organisms, habitlltfragmenta- contract with private entities, • continuity in operating prac tion - the chipping apart of nonprofit organizations and tices, Metro and local agencies other providers for develop • natural landscapes into patches • will maintain greenspaces ment, operation and mainte • included in the metropolitan isolated mnid human deve/op- nance, provided improvements • wide system in perpetuity in ment - deals biodiversity its and activities are consistent • accord,ance with management with adopted Greenspaces • plans. Acceptable maintenance, heaviest blows.» management plans. types and levels ofprogrammed • William Stolzenburg • use, and development standards The Nature Conservancy Metro will offer local govern • will be established for all com ments the opportunity to • ponents ofthe Greenspaces commit first to the manage • system by Metro, in conjunction with cooper ment responsibility by intergovernmental • ating parks providers. These plans will serve as agreement in order to protect and manage • the basis for local government, special district, greenspaces ofcommon interest. The first • nonprofit organization, or Metro improvement right to manage will only be offered to local • and operations ofthe sites and the site operator governments providing park services as of]uly • (Metro or local government) shall be respon 1, 1991, in whose service area the greenspaces • sible for operation and management in compli are located. Ifthe local government accepts • ance with the standards developed through the management responsibility from Metro, the • management plan. accepting government will be responsible for • funding the operation and maintenance ofthe • The management practices employed by greenspace with its own resources. Ifthe local • Metro, local governments, special districts or government chooses not to accept management • nonprofit groups for the operation and mainte responsibility and Metro does, Metro will be • nance ofgreenspaces will be consistent with the responsible for funding the operation and • adopted master plan and with specific site maintenance ofthese sites with its own re • management plans. Metro will budget for and sources, including private, federal and/or state • manage, operate and maintain all or portions of grants. • the greenspaces system that are ofregional • significance. Metro may make provisions with As a pan ofthe process ofdeveloping manage • local parks providers for management of ment plans, an inventory ofthe resources on • greenspaces ofregional significance through each site will be taken. \Vithin the context of • intergovernmental agreements. implementing a regional system ofnatural • areas, management planning teams will assess • Local agencies will budget and fund the opera and evaluate existing public land uses and land • tion and maintenance ofthose portions ofthe management practices and pursue answers to • greenspaces program to be administered by questions tha t clarify best use ofthe land. • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan,July 1992 • 47 • Policies related to resource management plans • • • Metro and cooperators in the • Greenspaces program will: • 2.20. Require owners and operators ofregion • ally significant namral area sites to manage • these sites in compliance with approved man • agement plans. • • Metro will: • 2.21. Prepare resource management plans for • all regionally significant namral area sites, in • cooperation with local and state governments, • special districts and nonprofit groups, in a • timely manner. In no event will site develop • ment or formal public use precede adoption of • management plans. • • 2.22. Potentially adopt interim protection • guidelines during preparation ofmanagement • plans for regionally significant sites. • • • • • • • • • • • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan. July 1992 • 48 • • • Financing the Greenspaces System • • ~ • r------~~----....., • Financing acquisition and "The livability ofOregon is our for this regional system coming • capital improvements cumpetitive edge in econumic from throughout the district. • The major source offunding • To date, major funding to devekJpment. Practicing healthy currendy available is a regional • initiate planning for the Metro environmentlll stewardship Un't general obligation bond. The politan Greenspaces program total assessed value ofland and • jurt a matter ofgood citizenship, • has been provided by the US improvements within Metro's • Department ofInterior Fish it's also a matter ofgood boundaries is more than $45 • and Wildlife Service. As this business. " billion. While there are many • federal source ofstart-up funds variables involved in estimating • ends in fiscal year 1993-94, we Richard Reiten, how far funds from a bond • must look elsewhere for support president, Portland General would go toward acquisition of • ofsite acquisitions and capital CorporatiOn, 1990 significant sites, a multi-million • improvements, as well as sup dollar bond might enable • port for general operations and Metro to begin the important • maintenance ofthe Greenspaces system. process ofnatural areas protection on a re • gional basis. • With Metro serving as coordinator ofthe • Metropolitan Greenspaces program, a key No other source ofpublic revenues can gener • strategy for public implementation ofthe ate an adequate amount offunds to "jump • Greenspaces system is possible. Because its Start" the land assembly process for the • focus and programs cross local jurisdictional Greenspaces system. Bond funds can only be • boundaries, Metro will be able to propose used for acquisition ofland and capital im • funding on a regional basis to secure significant provements. • natural areas for inclusion in the Greenspaces • system and thereby provide a solution to An overview offinance-related roles and re • greenspaces protection on a regionwide basis. sponsibilities ofcooperators in the Metropoli • tan Greenspaces system indicates that: • Acquisition, while one ofmany tools to protect • open space, is an essential strategy in develop 1. Metro will establish a Metrollocal govern • ing a regional system ofnatural areas, open ment split ofthe initial capital and acquisi • space and trails for the four-county area. With tion funds that are raised on a regional • a dedicated source offunds, lands will be pur basis. The regional (Metro) share ofthe net • chased as a means ofprotection; rights-of-way bond measure will be 75 percent; the local • may be purchased to establish trails and wildlife share will be 25 percent. Metro will use the • corridors; restoration ofexisting degraded regional portion offunds solely for acquisi • natural areas could be carried out, as well as tion and development ofgreenspaces of • negotiations ofeasements that preserve open regional significance. • space through a process that allows for contin • ued private ownership ofthe majority ofland. 2. The local share offunds will be distributed • to eligible parks providers as follows: • Any financial solution and long-tenn plan must • be developed on a regional basis, with funding • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan,July 1992 • 49 • a. the local share will be allocated on the A five-year plan will be created that will list all • basis ofassessed valuation by county. priority acquisition and constrUction/restora • tion projects on Metro-owned and managed • b. parks providers within each county will greenspaces. A planning, budgeting and project • negotiate an allocation fonnula for monitoring system will be developed between • distribution ofthe countywide total Metro and local park providers to oversee the • among each parks provider in that use ofthe local share offunds from a bond. • county. • Metro may make "extra-territorial" pUrchases • c. ifparks providers cannot agree to a ofland and conservation easements with poten • fonnula for distributing countywide tial revenues from a regional bond measure. A • shares, Metro will designate the for regional bond measure under Metro's bonding • mula. authority would allow the agency to buy lands • outside its boundaries for open space protection • 3. Funds are to be used for any locally deter ifthe residents within the district benefit. • mined open space, parks and recreational Many pristine and undeveloped lands impor • acquisition and capital needs. Funds may tant to the region are located outside ofMetro's . • not be used for operations and maintenance boundaries. • activities. Eligible local governments and • special districts may form consortiums to As the agency in charge ofthe bond, Metro • combine their allocations for eligible pur would issue the bonds, coordinate all purchases • poses. and capital costs, and be the legal authority • responsible to the U.S. Treasury and bond • Expendimre ofthe local share offunds is under holders. The bonds would be secured by a tax • local government control to the extent that on real property (land and improvements) • such expendimres conform to legal require within the Metropolitan Service District. • ments. The local share funds must adhere to • federal tax laws for tax-exempt bonds, to the • limits ofthe ballot measure authority and to Operations and maintenance issues • Ballot Measure 5 restrictions. Intergovern • mental agreements will be developed for each The Greenspaces program involves much more • local government project prior to local expendi than simply issuing general obligation bonds. • tures. Funding ofacquisition and capital improve • ments is one key component; the second is • Cooperative planning efforts and a regionaV • funding ofongoing operation and maintenance • local parmership are the foundations ofa ofthe acquired lands. • regional financing program. Metro and local • parks providers may contract with nonprofit The need to buy land before it is developed and • organizations to assist in site acquisition and before the purchase price increases is apparent. • capital improvements. All lands and conserva In the early phases ofthe Metropolitan • tion easements acquired by general obligation Greenspaces system, Metro may choose to • bond funds will be in public ownership as land-bank as much ofits purchases as possible • natural area/open space. Deed restrictions will in order to protect significant areas, yet still be • be used where appropriate. Bond funds for able to minimize operations and maintenance • capital improvement and restoration projects costs. • will be spent on lands, easements and/or im • provements owned by a public agency. Even ifMetro acquires or accepts donated • lands into the regional Greenspaces system, • public access can be limited or forbidden pend- • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 50 • • • ing the creation ofa complete operations fund. tion and capital costs from Metro. Metro may • Since the lands are to be kept as namral as also choose to enter into contracts with local • possible, minimal landscaping and grooming land trusts and nonprofit conservation organi • costs would be necessary. Metro will cover the zations to operate and maintain greenspaces • cost ofliability insurance, safety and security and trails. Local land trusts use volunteers and • costs for newly acquired greenspaces under its can receive liability insurance from national • self-insurance fund. and private organizations such as the Land • TrustAlliance. • A long-term funding source for Greenspaces • operations must be identified. Basic mainte Virtually all open space programs throughout • nance costs assume that the land would be the U.S. make extensive use ofvolunteers and • purchased and developed for passive, ifany, "friends" groups to provide some maintenance • recreational use. The funding ofoperational . and programming services. Services can range • protection ofthe land must be a comprehensive from general clean up to education and docent • approach that considers all available resources, activities. Correctional inmate programs and • including revenue generated internally by youth crews are other additional sources for • Metro, public funds, volunteer services and assistance. • fund-raising effons. • In the course ofacquiring lands for the • It is assumed that the land will be essentially Greenspaces program, it is likely that Metro • left as is and, consequently, operating costs will and cooperators in the program will use various • be low. Possible revenue sources that may means to secure the rights to land. This will • meet the needs ofoperations and maintenance include outright purchase ofthe title to land as • include: well as methods that do not include land own • ership but insure preservation ofthe character • • Greenspaces parking permit ofthe land in its natural state. • • Day-use fees and camping fees Outright land purchases may require assistance • from real estate professionals as well as non • • Concessions revenue profit land preservation organizations, such as • the Trust for Public Land, the Nature Conser • • Real estate taxes, such as a real estate vancy, the Conservation Fund or the American • transfer tax, a building permit charge or Farmland Trust. • square foot on new construction charge, • or a land comer preservation fee In some cases, Metro and other cooperators • may be able to accomplish the goals ofpreserv • • Vehicle rental charge ing land as greenspace without having to ac • quire title to the land. For example, a conser • • "Green" fees, such as an excise tax on beer vation easement can be obtained as a result of • and wine, special bottle deposit programs, an agreement between a landowner and a • container taxes or tire sale fees. public entity that limits the development rights • on the property. The easement itselfattaches • If Metro chooses to enter into an intergovern to the deed on the land and defines the future • mental agreement with another public agency uses ofthe land in perpetuity. The landowner • to maintain selected greenspaces and trails, the continues to own the land, but the develop • local authority would bear the cost ofopera ment restrictions placed on the property are • tions and maintenance at these sites. This recorded on the deed to the land. Conserva • increased cost to the local jurisdictions would tion easements may either be donated or sold • be offset, in pan, by the availability ofacquisi- by the landowner. In the case ofsale ofthe • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 51 • easement, the cost could be a small fraction of directors dedicated to the support of • the cost ofoutright purchase. Greenspaces programs and operations. Its • functiOli will be to encourage, facilitate and • Conservation easements are an effective means coordinate the donation ofproperty and con • ofretaining property as a scenic backdrop. In servation easements to the Metropolitan • such a case, public access to' the protected Greenspaces fund and/or other appropriate • property may be limited, but the namral quali public or private parks providers, land banks or • ties ofthe land will not be compromised by land trusts. It will also receive gifts from pri • fumre development. Conservation easements vate sources ofother assets such as cash, stocks • can be drafted, however, to allow for public or bonds that can be sold or used to further the • access through use ofa trail easement or other Metropolitan Greenspaces program goals. • mechanism set forth in the legal documents • establishing the easement. A Greenspaces foundation and all ofits pro • grams will be aimed at reaching the general • It may be possible that, ifnamral area sites held public and private donors with information and • by local agencies through tax-foreclosure or advice on conservation issues that will help • mitigation are sold, cooperators can dedicate a instill in the community a general sense of • portion ofthe revenues to Greenspaces acquisi stewardship for the community's namral re • tion and enhancement efforts. Ifvaluable source areas. The existence ofa nonprofit • resources are not to be retained in public suppon organization for Greenspaces will • ownership, we may also want to consider the enhance the effons ofMetro and expand its • sale or transfer oftitle with an imposition of outreach and funding capabilities. One impor • deed restrictions that would assure long-term tant program a foundation will undenake will • protection ofthe resources. be the establishment ofan endowment fund • that will ensure continued private suppon for • the Greenspaces system. • Donations and dedications • A Greenspaces foundation will encourage • Possibilities exist to augment operating re donations and dedications to the regional • sources through fund-raising activities, mem greenspaces system as well as to local park/open • berships to a Greenspaces organization, "adopt space systems. Donations and dedications will • an acre" programs, auctions and other targeted be reviewed case by case to see ifthey would be • fund-raising activities. Earnings could be used complementary to and cost effective to main • to build a Greenspaces endowment for use in tain in the regional system. Dedications of • additional acquisition and capital improve land, cash and other assets may be used to • ments. An endowment could also be managed endow the acquisition/capital improvement • to remrn interest income each year that could fund and/or the operations/maintenance fund. • be used for operation ofregionally significant • namral areas. • There are many individuals, businesses, private • foundations and other potential donors who • require or prefer that their support of • Greenspaces-related efforts be channeled • through a nongovernmental entity. To serve • these supponers, a Greenspaces foundation will • be established. Itwill be a private, nonprofit • organization with an independent board of • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • >2 • • • Policies related to financing the Greenspaces system • • • • Metro and cooperators in the Greenspaces 2.27. Facilitate establishment ofa Green • program will: spaces foundation, a separate, private nonprofit • organization dedicated to the support of • 2.23. Evaluate lands ofregional significance Greenspaces programs and operations that • case by case to determine the best method to would encourage and accept private donations • achieve system integrity, cost efficiency, and ofland, easements and other tangible assets • management efficiency and consistency. such as cash, stocks or bonds, which would • further the regional natural areas system. • Metro will: Acceptance ofmanagement responsibility for • areas ofmitigation will be considered case by • 2.24. Support development ofnew funding case. • resources for the Metropolitan Greenspaces • program and encourage, facilitate, and coordi 2.28. Establish, manage and fund a Metro • nate donations ofland and related scenic and politan Greenspaces dedicated fund for acquisi • conservation easements as part ofthe Green tion, operations, and maintenance ofsites, trails • spaces system. Dedications ofland, easements and corridors. • and cash to local jurisdictions will continue to • be promoted. 2.29. Propose, promote and implement a • funding strategy to address ongoing operations • 2.2S. Establish a Greenspaces acquisition and and maintenance requirements ofMetro • capital improvement fund to collect and man owned or Metro-operated greenspaces and • age funds dedicated for these purposes. parks. • 2.26. Make funding decisions consistent with 2.30. Serve as a regional planning and finan • the priorities ofthe master plan, acquisition and cial information clearinghouse for projects • capital improvement plans. related to the Greenspaces program regardless • ofhow they are funded. • • • • • • • • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 53 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 54 • • • Protection and Enhancement of the System • through Citizen Involvement, Education • and Technical Assistance • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 55 • • Protection and Enhancement through • Citizen Involvement and Education • Citizen involvement "Ifyou went out and took apicture In the early years ofthe Metro • politan Greenspaces system, • now and looked at that picture • As required through Statewide energy and resources will be • Planning Goal 1, the Metro 30yearsfrom now, wouldyou be devoted to acquisition and • politan Greenspaces Master satisfied with what you htnJe?" preservation efforts. It is also • Plan and its programs have important that we maintain a • been built on a strong base of Randy Fisher, director, biologically and socially bal • community cooperation and Oregon Dept ofFish and Wildlife anced approach to implementa • unparalleled communication tion ofour plans. It will be • about regional greenspaces important for Metro, as coordi • planning issues. To move ahead into the nator ofthe program, to integrate protection of • furore, we need to ensure that interested agen natural resources with economic development, • cies and citizens are informed, invited and citizen involvement and recreational challenges • involved at every level ofthe plan's implemen and opportunities. • tation. • Implementation efforts in Metropolitan • In implementing the master plan, it is impor Greenspaces that focus on citizen involvement • tant to acknowledge that not all lands will be and education will be targeted to: • protected through the acquisition and protec • tion ofa public agency. Therefore, it will be • increase awareness ofnatural areas and open • important for Metro and cooperators in the spaces in the region. • Greenspaces system to build and suppon a • communication network among citizens and • increase awareness that these areas are • resource groups, establishing stewardship being lost to urban development and poor • programs for private property owners, develop land management practices. • ers, builders, corporations, real estate industry • and others so that privately held lands will be • develop a broad constituency that will . • protected, developed or restored in a manner understand the need for a broad-based land • supponive ofthe Greenspaces theme. preservation strategy. • Communication is one ofthe keys to building • empower the public to become involved • in our citizens a better awareness oftheir with Metropolitan Greenspaces plans and • environmental options. Building regional programs through education and outreach • communication networks around programs activities. • related to greenspace issues will be vital to • successful implementation ofthe plan. As • involve community members in preserva • members ofthe public gain a comprehensive tion efforts centered around the stewardship • understanding ofurban greenspaces challenges ofregional, as well as private and neighbor • and opportunities, they will become active hood, natural areas and open spaces. • partners in our efforts to determine our future • planning choices and help us conduct periodic • establish the Metropolitan Greenspaces • public review ofthe master plan and other program as the clearinghouse and regional • related plans. coordinator for educational programming, • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 57 • technical assistance and general infonnation Metro will also establish a clearinghouse that • on natural areas and open spaces in the will maintain a library ofexisting educational • regIon. materials; provide marketing and informa • tional materials; make referrals, house maps, • • promote the implementation ofincentive brochures and periodicals; offer training and • programs that enhance the stewardship of workshops; coordinate programs and sched • natural resource values on private or ules for Greenspaces-related environmental • nonpublic lands. educational offerings. • As in all areas ofimplementation related to • Building environmental citizen involvement and education, Metro will •e education networks cooperate with local, state and federal park providers, natural area and wildlife refuge • The Metropolitan Greenspaces program will managers, as well as other nonprofit organiza • have a three-pronged focus for environmental tions to: • education services and programs: • • develop a coordinated Metropolitan • • work with local school districts and other Greenspaces sign system to be used • education providers, neighborhood groups, throughout the regional system ofsites • resource agencies, etc., to coordinate, inter that reinforces the concept ofthe area • pret and expand community knowledge wide system and the importance ofpre • about urban natural resources. serving our natural environment and its • related historical and cultural resources. • • develop and help seek ways to fund environ • mental education models that can be used at • develop brochures, books and facilities that • numerous greenspace sites by diverse stu interpret the Metropolitari Greenspaces • dents ofall ages. system and its various sites. • • provide at regionally significant sites, as Environmental education programs at re • funding resources become available, inter gional sites and facilities should be designed to • pretive services and centers such as urban attract participants ofdifferent ages, ethnic • rangers, naturalists, volunteer tour guides, groups, socio-economic levels and abilities. • etc., to enhance understanding, protection Environmental education programs also • and use ofour urban natural areas. should be designed to become an integral part • ofeveryone's lives, regardless ofwhere we live, • With a long-tenn commitment to establishing our age, ethnic, socio-economic group or level • effective communications systems among envi ofability. • ronmental education providers, Metro will • facilitate a holistic approach and ensure a greater • awareness and understanding by the general • public ofthe special qualities ofthe greenspaces • in the region. To this end, Metro will work with • Greenspaces cooperators to provide interpretive • materials and assistance to school districts, • teachers and environmental education providers • related to a variety ofsites and school use of • those sites. • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 58 • • • Policies related to citizen involvement and education • • • Metro and cooperators in the Greenspaces 2.37. Work with environmental education • program will: resource organizations and agencies to use • naroral areas as vehicles for learning about the • 2.31. Provide ongoing opporronities for environment, to prepare and provide materials • public information sharing and citizen involve and facilities, where appropriate, that interpret • ment in master plan implementation, land urban naroral areas and the regional • acquisition, resource development and opera Greenspaces system. • tions ofgreenspace-related programs. • 2.32. Serve as advocates for protection, resto • ration, conservation and management ofnaro • ral areas in and adjacent to the metropolitan • area, including management ofpassive recre • ational oppormnities where appropriate. • 2.33. Promote public appreciation and under • standing ofthe relationship between a healthy • environment and a sustainable economy and • encourage public involvement in naroral re • source management decisions. • 2.34. Provide mechanisms for the business • community to be involved in protection of Metro will: • natural areas. • 2.38. Continue to work with appropriate • 2.35. Work with neighborhood groups, advisory committees, including members ofthe • individual businesses, civic and community general public, planners and policy-makers, to • organizations to encourage volunteer suppon review key steps in greenspace acquisition and • ofoperations and maintenance programs and management planning. • encourage appropriate use ofpublicly owned • natural areas. 2.39. Host public forums to shape and review • greenspace site-management plans and thereby • 2.36. Initiate education programs to inform provide opportunities for people to know about • the public about oppormnities related to pro management and care ofgreenspaces in the . • tection, restoration or creation ofgreenspaces; region. • about soil and water quantity/quality chal • lenges; about responsible use ofsites and how 2.40. Periodically conduct public-opinion • the public impacts these and other natural polls and monitor the use and accessibility of • resources; and about how citizens can become greenspaces and related programs by the gen • involved in solving these problems. eral and special publics. •• • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 59 • 2.41. Facilitate and coordinate regional envi • ronmental education providers who have pro • grams related to greenspaces bybuilding and •• supporting a communication network among • these resource groups, including establishment • ofa clearinghouse for environmental education • related to greenspaces. • 2.42. Establish partnerships with appropriate public and private land-holding entities, geo •'. graphically based community land trusts and • "friends" groups throughout the metropolitan • area. • 2.43. Establish a clearinghouse, referral and • information center to provide to the public •• information on the private land trusts and • public agencies in charge ofopen spaces, natu • ral areas, wildlife corridors, trails and • greenways. • • • • •(8 • • • • • • • •.'• • • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 60 •• • • Protection and Enhancement through • Technical Assistance • ,....---~------, • Assistance in land "... become more skiUed in Jiving Metro will assist other partners • management issues in the Greenspaces program • 'With the eIlrth rather than on it.•." with preparation ofinforma- • tional displays about habitat As coordinator ofthe Metro East Bay Regional Park District • enhancement programs for politan Greenspaces program, brochure • Metro will develop technical protected natural areas so that • assistance capabilities to advise residents ofthe region may have • the knowledge needed to participate effectively • landowners, developers and public officials on • environmentally sound land management in public policy processes and natural resource • practices and design concepts for sensitively management issues. • integrating development with natural resources • and the landscape. Advice on biological and In providing technical assistance and teaching • natural resource management capabilities will conservation techniques, Metro will prepare • be provided local governments, private organi and provide educational and informational • zations and individuals to suppon implementa programs for planners, schools and interested • tion ofbest management practices for public groups on conservation techniques that • greenspaces. range from use ofstraw bales in construction to • how to establish conservation easements. • Through the Metropolitan Greenspaces pro • gram, Metro will serve as a clearinghouse to Tools for sharing this information may include • help provide information on technical assistance videos, brochures on conservation techniques eJ programs provided by a variety ofagencies and and development processes, handbooks, guides • programs. Additional assistance will be given to building permit processes and planning • the public and other agencies in locating infor issues, classes, one-on-one consultations, dem mation and finding guidance relevant to envi onstrations, maps and exhibits. • 1 ~onmental regulations related to greenspace Issues. .•.'' • .'• • • .'• • • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 .'.) 61 • Policies related to technical assistance •'. • • Metro and cooperators in the Greenspaces Metro will: • program will: • 2.46. Set management guidelines in consulta • 2.44. Propose and promote incentives for tion with appropriate advisors and cooperators • private landowners, developers, resource agen for habitat, species and recreational use
• residents. As with other watersheds in the The dendritic pattern ofthe tributaries pro • Tualatin basin, water quality is a concern. vides a foundation on which lengthy linear • Management plans and implementation ac riparian connections could be reestablished that .' tions for the Greenspaces program should be would improve habitat values and be accessible • coordinated with planning and actions of' to a large number ofthe region's residents. • water quality agencies. The city ofBeavenon is seeking to take advan • tage ofthese oppormnities and has specific • policies directed toward restoration and en .•' Beaverton Creek - Western Washington hancement ofthe Beaverton Creek Corridor. County in and surrounding city ofBeaverton As with all creeks in the urban portions ofthe • Tualatin River Basin, in-stream water quality is • a significant concern and remediation programs • Headwaters: Raleigh HillslTualatin are underway by the Unified Sewerage Agency • Mountains south ofForest and local jurisdictions. • Park •• Mouth: Rock Creek near Hillsboro • Geographic units: Tualatin MountainsIForest Fanno Creek - PortlandlBeaverton/T;gard • ParklW'est Hills, Tualatin Valley • Headwaters: West Hills near Sylvan • Watershed area: 18,219 acres within inventory • study area Mouth: Tualatin River, Tigard Geographic units: Tualatin Mountains/West • Tributaries included: Cedar Mill, Johnson (north Hills, Tualatin Valley • and south forks), Missinger, Watershed area: 20,799 acres within inventory • Golf, Bronson, Hall and study area • Willow creeks Tributaries included: Sylvan, Ivey, Ash, Ball and .' Natural areas: 4,820 acres within study area Summer creeks • (26 percent ofwatershed) • Natural areas: 3,792 acres within study area • Population: 98,106 within study area (18 percent ofwatershed) • Significant features: Foothills Park, Tualatin Hills Population: 99,821 within study area • Nature Park Significant features: Oregon Episcopal School' Marsh, Vista Brook Park, Greenway Park, Koll Creekside •.' Marsh, Summer Lake Park, • Discussion Englewood Park, Fanno Creek • Park • The Beaverton/Cedar Mill Creek system • originates in the Raleigh Hills and west slopes • ofthe Tualatin Mountains, where some intact Discussion • forests remain. It then flows through the • flatter and more densely developed residential The Panno Creek Corridor drains the west side • and commercial areas ofPortland, Beaverton ofthe Tualatin Mountains and West Hills, • and unincorporated Washington County. running through parts ofPortland, Mulmomah • Much ofthe forest cover in the headwaters County, Beavenon and Tigard. Fanno Creek • and tributaries has been lost or severely al meanders 14 miles through residential, com • tered, however some patches in the Cooper mercial and industrial lands before entering the • Mountain vicinity along the south fork of Tualatin River. The upper reaches and head .' Johnson Creek remain as well as in the Cedar waters ofFanno Creek slowly flow through • Mill area. • densely forested, privately owned residential • lands that contain tributaries to the creek. • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 •e\ 99 (. There are still scattered wedands throughout Portions ofBulllind Cooper mountll;ns are at • the upper reaches ofthe creek. Cutthroat trout the highest point in this watershed and are • are known to spawn in the few remaining silt some ofthe most rapidly developing suburban • free gravel beds. Much ofthe basin is within residential areas in the Pordand metropolitan the Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation Dis area. Because ofthis, protection and enhance '.• trict, which owns and operates many recre ment ofthe headwaters ofFanno Creek should • ational facilities and natural parks. be a top priority. Some ponderosa pine stands • remain that are uncommon in the metropolitan • The lower stretches ofthe creek continue to area. Remnants offorested headwaters of • show clear signs ofdegradation as pressure numerous streams draining into the Tualatin •• from urbanization, commercial, and residential River remain but are rapidly being lost and • uses increases. Associated with growth are significandy hydrologically altered by the • water quality problems resulting from storm surrounding development. It is critical to • water runofffrom impervious surfaces and maintain adequate forest cover along these individual properties. The Unified Sewerage streams and adjacent uplands, as well as to '.• Agency ofWashington County, the city of bolster viable vegetated connections and corri • Pordand Bureau ofEnvironmental Services, dors with larger systems draining to the • and others have embarked upon aggressive Tualatin River. • programs to address water quality issues in the • basin. • • • •• •'. • • • • • • • •• • '.• • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 100 • Ie• . .'• Tualatin Mountains/West Hills watershed • • • Framing the northern and eastern portions·of ridge top generally adjacent to Skyline Drive, • the Tualatin River Valley, these landscape much ofthe slope immediately below Forest • feamres are generally forested and provide an Park is within the regional urban growth • upland habitat link from the city ofPortland to boundary. In Washington County in particu I) .' the Coast Range. The Tualatin Mountains lar, the mountain slopes are experiencing sig • reflect most ofthe dramatic geologic histOly of nificant suburban development pressure. In • this region. Rising steeply up from the Co fact, Washington County has been the fastest • lumbia River and Mulmomah Channel, they growing county ofthe metropolitan area during • link the Columbia lowlands and Willamette the last decade. • Valley geographic units with the Tualatin • Valley. Extending almost into Portland's The West Hills are an extension ofthe Tualatin • central business district, these ridge lines are Mountains, reaching south beyond Lake Os • viewed every day by thousands ofcommuters, wego and Camassia Ridge to Petes Mountain • residents and workers providing that sense of near West Linn. They divide the Willamette • "counrry in the city" that distinguishes this and Tualatin valleys and provide an upland • metropolitan area from so many in the nation. ecological link between the two. The eastern • facing slopes in the Marquam Hill vicinity and • Northwest ofForest Park, the Tualatin Moun along Terwilliger Parkway provide a green •,.1 tains are outside ofthe urban growth boundary. backdrop that defines the Portland central Significant commercial foresrry operations have business district and CorbettlLair Hill neigh • been conducted in this portion ofthe metro borhood. However, a strong residential market • politan area over the last few years, some in on the steep slopes has developed over the last • anticipation ofexurban residential develop few years due to spectacular views ofthe • ment. Willamette and Cascades that the West Hills • offer. • Forest Park itselfis entirely within the urban • growth boundary. This magnificent amenity is Heavily logged by the turn ofthe cenrury, • the largest protected natural area within the conversion from forest and agriculmral uses to • Metropolitan Service District boundary, cover suburban uses began in the Automobile Era • ing nearly 5,000 acres. It has become a magnet with improvements and all-weather surfacing of • for high-end residential uses, with tremendous the historic Old Plank Road (now Canyon • development pressure nibbling at its fringes. Road) and Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway. • Although the landscape is now characterized by • South-facing slopes descending into Washing suburban development, there are still several • ton County from Forest Park offer sweeping remnant second growth forest "patches" and • views ofthe Tualatin Valley and the Coast numerous narrow riparian corridors along the • Range. Except for a narrow strip along the many low-order creeks and streams. • • • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 •e\ 101 Tryon Creek - Lake Owego vicinity Discussion '.• Tryon Creek is one ofthe major remaining free • Headwaters: West Hills near Mulmomah flowing tributaries descending from the West • Village Hills down to the Willamene at Lake Oswego. • Mouth: Willamette River Urbanized in its upper reaches, its middle • Geographic units: Tualatin MountainslWest reaches run through Tryon Creek State Park • Hills, Willamette Valley before crossing under State Route 43. Tryon • Creek State Park is rather unique for its large Watershed area: 4,620 acres within inventory • size and location, although it is somewhat study area \.• overshadowed in the metropolitan area by the Tributaries included: Falling Creek much larger Forest Park. Being surrounded by • Natural areas: 1,567 acres within study area residential development, the state park still • (34 percent ofwatershed) suppons a remarkable assemblage ofnatural • Population: 18,340 within study area vegetation and wildlife. Like Forest Park, it is • well used by residents ofthe metropolitan area. Significant features: Tryon Creek State Park • Much ofthe maintenance and upkeep is pro vided through the efforts ofFriends ofTryon .' Creek State Park, a nonprofit citizen organiza •.' tion. • • • I.• • • • • • • •• • • • • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 102 • e; .'• Willamette Valley watersheds • • • Like the Tualatin Valley, the Willamette Valley Geographic units: Willamette Valley, Tualatin • is characterized by productive agriculmral soils Valley, Clackamas River/ • and active farming operations outside ofthe Oregon City Bluffs, Petes! • urban growth boundary south ofWilsonville. ParrettlChehalem mountains, • Tualatin MountainsIForest • Inside the urban growth boundary the valley • floor and associated "terraces" are the most ParkIWest Hills, Columbia • intensively-developed portions ofthe metro River • politan area. Watershed area: 99,778 acres within inventory • study area • Rocky Butte, Kelly Butte and Mt. Tabor are Tributaries included: Molalla River, Mulmomah • visually prominent lava buttes located on both Channel and Beaver, Tanner, • sides of 1-205 north ofPowell Boulevard. Spring Brook,Johnson (West • While their original habitat value has been Mulmomah County), Balch, .)• compromised by surrounding urban develop Saltzman, Doanne, Miller, ment, forested peaks and steep walls provide McCarthy, Patterson, • drama to the urban landscape and a sense of Crabapple, Jones, Joy, Jackson • "country in the city." They provide close by (North Mulmomah County) • "namral" recreational experiences for nearby and Ennis creeks residents and are viewed by thousands ofcom • Natural areas: 33,499 acres within study area muters every day along 1-84 and 1-205. • (34 percent ofwatershed) • In the Progressive Era, the surrounding Port Population: 490,166 within study area land Terraces originally converted from agri Significant features: Molalla River State Park, •.' culture to suburban uses. Intensification ofuse Willamette Park (West Linn), • continued during the Automobile and Modem Willamette Falls, Oswego • ,Era. Pressure to develop the buttes was not Lake, Qackamette Park, • experienced until the Modem Era, due to their Meldrum Bar Park, Mary S. • rugged topography. Today, some forest cover Young State Park, George S. • remains on the top ofthe buttes, but with the Rogers Park, Elk Rock Island! • exception ofMt. Tabor, only small portions are Keller Park, Ira S. Powers Park, •eJ protected as open space. The entire east side Willamette Park (portland), e north ofPowell Boulevard has fewer remaining Ross Island, Oaks Bottom, natural areas than any other area ofthe region. Tom McCall Waterfront Park, • Cathedral Park, Kelley Point • Park, Bybee Howell Territorial Park, Sauvie Island Wildlife • Wl1lamette River - South ofWilsonville to the Refuge, Virginia Lakes, • Columbia (in study area) Burlington Bottom, Hampton .'• old-growth stand. • Headwaters: Cascade Mountains near Waido • Lake • Mouth: Columbia River • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 103 • Discussion The Tonquin Scablands are an extensive • geological area near Sherwood that was formed • Similar to the Columbia River, the Wi/lamette by the cataclysmic Missoula floods, which • lUver was once a mosaic ofbraided channels, occurred some 15,000-25,000 years ago. Huge • lakes, sloughs, creeks and wetland forests. Any volumes ofgravel, sand and small boulders • opportUnity to add to the existing wetland and deposited by the abating floodwaters shaped a • riparian parcels should be encouraged. Steep tousled landscape ofrocky soils. These are • slopes and forested hills define the viewshed actively exploited for fill and construction • from the Willamette, providing good wildlife materials. The rich, gravelly soils suppon an • habitat, and marking a distinct transition from unusual flora for the region. The topographic • urban to rural portions ofthe metropolitan area. diversity provides a variety ofecological niches. • The northern portion ofthe scablands drain to • The Molalla River Delta area lies northwest of the Tualatin, while the southern portion drains • Canby and includes the lower reaches ofthe to the Willamette. • Molalla and Pudding rivers, their confluence, • and within a mile, the confluence ofthe Molalla The Willamette River Narrows consist ofa • and Willamette rivers. Molalla River State forested canyon created by the Oregon City • Park includes some ofthis area and is the site bluffs and Petes Mountain shortly upstream of • ofa great blue heron rookery. Extensive bot the-confluence ofthe Tualatin and Willamette • tomland forests can be found along the Pud rivers above 'Willamette Falls. Outside ofthe • ding River, a meandering low-gradient stream urban growth boundary, they offer an excellent • similar to the Tualatin River. An opportunity oppormnity to create a broad riparian and • exists to create a large regional bottomland upland addition to the WilJamette River • park. This park would give this river system Greenway between 'Wilsonville, West Linn, • sufficient room to continue actively meander Canby and Oregon City. • ing without interference based on concerns • about flooding ofagricultural lands. The Camassia ridge area ofWest Linn lies ·on • hilly terrain just north of1-205 and west ofthe • The French Prairie area lies to the west ofthe Willamette River. It supports unique vegeta • Pudding River and may contain remnants of tion and is the home to The Nature Conser • original Willamette River prairie and marsh vancy's Camassia Preserve. Thin soils cover • habitats once common in the region prior to ing basalt bedrock suppon open forests and • European settlement. Such habitats are now savannah areas with oak, madrone, poison oak • extremely rare. and native wildflowers such as brodiaea and • camas. Areas with deeper soils support mixed • coniferous/deciduous forests, more typical of • the region. •f. The Southwest Hills, generally considered to be an extension ofthe Tualatin Mountains, • stretch along the Willamette River as far as • Oregon City. Traditionally these hills have '. formed a backdrop for downtown Portland. • The Portland section ofthe Southwest Hills • has b~en heavily built upon in recent years as {.'. land values have exceeded development costs • on the steep and unstable slopes. • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 104 '.• e\ .' These hills once boasted many small streams, value is limited, they provide welcome visual • but these have long since been contained in relieffrom the surrounding sea ofresidential, • underground drainage strUctures. The east commercial and industrial land uses on the east • slopes drain to the Willamene, while the west side ofPordand. Protection ofadditional land • slopes drain to the Tualatin. Although develop on these urban bunes, maintenance and rees • ment has largely displaced much ofthe wildlife tablishment offorest cover should be priorities. • that would have thrived in earlier years, a con Improving public access and developing view • siderable number ofsPecies still find habitat in points should also be pursued. • the wooded hills. Many lots are oversized and • remain covered with native vegetation. The Willamene River shoreline through the • metropolitan area has been much-:altered in the • The Willamette River Terraces, also known as course ofeconomic pursuits relating to shipping .' the Portland Terraces, are located on the east and industrial activities. Many ofthe associated • side ofthe Willamene River. The river's flood sloughs and lakes that once formed a part of • plain in ancient times, a drop in sea level altered this drainage system have been progressively • the course ofthe Willamene River and ulti filled to provide for expansion ofthe urban • mately abandoned the terraces. This area area. Resulting loss ofhabitat over the last • currently consists ofsingle-family residential century caused a decline in populations ofbald • neighborhoods with little interconnected eagles, yellow-billed cuckoos, Western pond .' greenspace. Priorities in this area are identifica turtles, red-legged frogs, as well as wapato and .' tion ofnatural area restoration and creation other sensitive plant species that once thrived in • opportunities. Connection ofcorridors by the Willamene River system. •e) linking backyards and existing natural areas and • open space should be encouraged, as well as It will be important to retain a corridor from • opportunities to "daylight" underground creeks. the Willamene River to the top ofthe ridge and • on to the West Hills and Forest Park for the • Mt. Tabor and Rocky and Kelly buttes are passage ofplants, birds, mammals, reptiles • visually prominent topographic features rising and amphibians. • up from the Portland Terraces. While habitat • • • •.'.) • • • • • • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992, .}• 105 • • • • •'. • • '.• • • • I.• •fe • '.• • • • • '.• '.• .'• I.•• • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 106 ' '.• • • Historical Planning Efforts. • • • Historical regional "]n one raped every 7IIlturlli arell torical plan recommendations. planning eHorts has II C07II11UJn uniqueness - it The challenges ofovercoming • different perspectives and • ttl • Stewardship ofthe land was takes everyone furever preseroe priorities within jurisdictional • carried out by the Native it, but one person lind one time ttl boundaries, limited long-tenn American population long funding mechanisms and a • destroy it. " • before the settlement ofthe general community assumption that "our green spaces will • region by European pioneers. E.]. Koestner • Much ofthe preservation ofthe always be here" have hampered • land has been taken for granted implementation ofa compre for years, but, in fact, protect- hensive strategy to protect .' ing naroral areas and acquiring open space and regional naroralareas and open space. '•.• park lands for the benefit ofthe public has been • in the realm ofgovernment since cities and It is imponant, nevertheless, to acknowledge • counties and the state ofOregon were estab that the roots ofa protected regional natural • lished. areas system lie deep within a history ofplan • ning efforts thathave time and again acknowl • The city ofPortland established one ofthe first edged a special quality given our region by the • public parks systems in the west when the Park naroral environment in which we live. The • Blocks were purchased for a linear park in following, then, are key events and dates that • 1870. Creating an interconnected system of have laid the foundation for today's Metropoli • parks and greenways for the Portland region tan Greenspaces program: • was first espoused in 1903 by the Olmsted brothers, nationally respected landscape archi Parks Plan for the City ofPortland - 1903 •.' tects and planners, when they were retained by Landscape architects Frederick Law Olmsted • the Portland Parks Board to develop a parks Jr. and John Charles Olmsted proposed the • master plan for the city. establishment ofan integrated and visionary •.) park system by asserting that"... a connected The Olmsted Report, and others that have system ofparks, parkways and trails (would be) • followed, emphasized the importance ofstriv far more complete and useful than a series of .;• ing for a balance in developing the urban isolated parks." Their recommendations cited environment and its surrounding areas. These the need for prompt public acquisition of • visionaries have cited not only the recreational natural areas and park lands, including lands • value ofopen space in the city but also the outside the populated areas ofthat period. The • visual appeal ofgreenspaces in the urban set concept ofstewardship by private landowners • ting. The significance ofeasily accessible, was also stressed. Terwilliger Parkway and "the • .protected viewpoints at various places in the 40-Mile Loop," a pedestrian-oriented recre • ational trail system that connects parks around • city has also been a recurring theme. • the urban area, are outgrowths ofOlmsteds' • Unfortunately, while there has been much plan. • wisdom invested in these earlier plans, limited • success has been attained in carrying out his- • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan,July 1992 • 107 • Regional Planning in the Pacific recommended to interconnect Forest Grove • Northwest - 1938 with large parks and forest preserves benefiting • In a report to the Northwest Regional Council areas beyond its own city limits. • and City Club ofPortland, sociologist and • urban planner Lewis Mumford recommended The Urban Outdoors: A New Proposal for • that a bi-state and regional approach to urban Parks and Open Space - 1971 • planning, growth management and namral The Columbia Region Association ofGovern • resources planning be undertaken in the Port ments (CRAG), a five-county/two-state plan • land-Vancouver region. He predicted that ning organization and Metro's predecessor, • economic benefits would occur ifgreenspaces completed a report on the "urban outdoors" • and namral areas were preseIVed, stating that that proposed a system ofinner city and large • ". .. greenbelt towns with low cost housing regional parks and open spaces, trails, and • should provide a special invitation to settlement namral areas in the Portland-Vancouver metro • by new industries." politan area. The primary goals ofthe plan • focused on "preserving and enhancing those • Post-World War n Comprehensive Plans environmental feamres (the rivers, streams, • for Cities - late 19405-605 floodplains, high points and historical sites) that • As the automobile, interstate highway system have already stamped the region with their • and low-interest loan programs for housing unique form and character, which make it a • construction all became part ofour domestic very special place to live." Once again, regional agenda, land was developed on a massive scale. planning, intergovernmental cooperation and '.'• With the widespread use ofthe automobile, immediate protection and/or acquisition ofland • suburban cities began to form' and parks farther were stressed. Much ofthe implementation of • away from population centers became more the plan's recommendations was dependent on • accessible. Many comprehensive plans for grant funding, however, that was not forthcom • cities and counties proposed large regional ing in adequate amounts. Little implementa • parks, scenic drives and parkways that were best tion was accomplished. '. reached and enjoyed by use ofan automobile. • Wl1lamette River Greenway Plan - 1974 • Parks Plan for the City ofForest The state ofOregon outlined (in ORS 390.310 • Grove -1958 368) protection and acquisition proposals for '. Due to its proximity to Portland, Forest Grove the Willamette River along its 150 land-miles • began preparing for fumre growth and a popu from Cottage Grove to the Columbia River. • lation increase in the mid-1950s. The preser The goals ofthe plan are to develop and main (.• vation ofopen space was a priority. To the tain a namral, scenic, historical and recreational '. city, "the fact that land development is most greenway on lands along the river, including healthy indicates that land for fumre park and the Mulmomah Channel (west side ofSauvie • recreational needs should be acquired soon or Island). Comprehensive planning, scenic • desirable sites will be difficult to acquire within easements, public access points, acquisition of • another decade." Indeed, the plan called for key recreational sites, farmland protection, • cooperative planning efforts between Washing environmental conservation, and intergovern '. ton County and its rural communities. Acquisi mental cooperation were viewed as essential • tion strategies and obtaining conservation elements to successful implementation ofthe • easements were seen as essential tools to pre plan. • serving namral areas and establishing parks. • Greenways, scenic drives and park strips along I.• Gales Creek and the Tualatin River were e re• • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 108 '.• • • LCDC/Comprehensive PlanninglLoca1 Recent momentum • ParkMaster Plans - late 1970s through • 1980s The following recent events have led direcdy to • The state ofOregon, through its land use laws the current progress found in the Metropolitan • and the Land Conservation and Development Greenspaces program. They may well prove to • Commission (LCDC), requires all cities and be key factors that differentiate our current • counties to develop comprehensive plans, efforts from historical planning endeavors. • including an inventory ofkey natural resource • areas and locally adopted policies to protect Metropolitan Wildlife Refuge System • them (Goal 5). Most cities and counties have 1988 to Present • adopted park master plans that oudine open The Audubon Society ofPordand proposed an • space, park and recreational needs and priori urban wildlife refuge system whose major • ties, including acquisition and improvement objectives were to promote a comprehensive, • strategies. regional approach for planning and manage • ment ofnatural areas. As means to expand the • Columbia-Willamette Futures Forum! number ofsites available for wildlife in the • Metropolitan Citizens League Study urban environment, it proposed limited use of • 1984-1985 sensitive natural areas by the public and gov • Two citizen groups met in the mid-1980s to ernmental agencies and encouraged establish '. address issues ofsignificance to the metropoli ment ofan appropriate organization to accept • tan region. Citing recreation and leisure ser private donations ofland and conservation • vices as critical issues related to the quality of easements. In order to institutionalize the • life in the Pacific Northwest, their reports natural areas system into a regional entity with • recommended that recreational planning be land use planning authorities and potential • addressed in a comprehensive manner through long-term financing and implementation • regional planning and multijurisdictional powers, this system has become pan ofthe '.'• cooperation and that a regional parks study and Metropolitan Greenspaces program. • inventory ofparks be undertaken. Improved • communication and cost-sharing ofplanning Country in the City Symposiums - 1988 • and operational activities among the various 1991 • park providers fn the region were also encour The symposiums were held at Portland State aged. Many ofthese recommendations have University for more than 2,000 people and • been acted upon already by Metro and its featured field trips and site visits to natural .'el planning parmers. areas such as greenways, creeks, rivers and lakes .' throughout the four-county metropolitan area • State ofOregon Comprehensive Outdoor and the Willamene Valley. Speakers, who •eJ Recreation Plan (SCORP) 1988-93 - 1989 came from the Northwest as well as from The most recent update ofthe SCORP docu around the world, shared information about • mented that recreational lands and facilities are their open space and natural areas planning • not available in sufficient amounts near the programs. Many encouraged the Portland • metropolitan area. It calls for the identification Vancouverregion to pursue a regional ap • and preservation ofthose lands and waters proach to natural areas planning and protec • necessary to meet dispersed recreation needs. tion. These symposiums were initiated and • planned by the Audubon Society ofPortland, in • cooperation with PSU's Geography Depart ment. They were supported with financial and .'• technical assistance from Metro, the U,S. • Environmental Protection Agency's Office of • Wedands, the city ofPortland's Bureau of • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 109 • Environmental Services, Unified Sewerage Tours to East Bay Regional Park District • Agency and many other local and state coop (Oakland, Calif.) - 1989 and 1990 • erators. Elected officials and park managers from the • Portland-Vancouver region visited East Bay, a • Greenprint for the Region 50-year-old two-county regional parks and • Symposium - 1989 open space district, to learn how our metropoli • Dr. David Goode ofthe London Ecology Unit tan area could develop a similar regional ap • met with representatives from local jurisdic proach to parks and natural areas planning. • tions and conservation organizations during a Clackamas, Clark, Mulmomah and Washington • two-day workshop to layout potential strate counties; the Tualatin Hills Parks and Recre • gies on how the Portland-Vancouver metro ation District; the cities ofPortland, Beaverton • politan area could develop a regional approach and Lake Oswego; Metro and the Audubon • to natural areas and open space planning. Society ofPortland were among the partici • Having developed similar programs in Great pants in the tour~. Regional planning strategies • Britain and Toronto, he cited the need for and financing techniques, such as a bond mea • regional cooperation as essential and cost sure, to implement a multijurisdictional ap • effective. The workshop was presented by the proach to namral areas planning were dis • Audubon Society ofPortland, with assistance cussed. Following these meetings, the travel • from Portland General Electric and Metro. ling elected officials drafted a resolution sup • porting a cooperative approach to parks and • Metro Regional Parks Study - 1989 natural areas planning for the Portland • With the support ofthe Oregon Parks Depart Vancouver metropolitan area. • ment; Clackamas, Mulmomah and Washington • counties; Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation Passage ofOpen Space Bond Measures/ • District and the city ofPortland, Metro under Park Levies - 1989-90 • took a study ofparks and natural areas planning Funding measures to support the acquisition of • and operations in the region. The results of greenspaces, natural areas, open space, parks • this effort are printed in the "Metro Recreation and trails have been passed by the cities of • Resource Study and Metropolitan Area Parks: Portland (1989), Tigard (1989), Tualatin • A Directory ofParks and Recreational Facilities (1989), Lake Oswego (1990) and Gresham • in the Region". The study found that there was (1990) and the North Clackamas Parks and • no regional coordination in natural areas plan Recreation District (1990). The passage of • ning; that most park departments did not offer these local bond measures appears to be in • natural area parks and preserves; but, impor response to increased environmental awareness, • tantly, that there was a general interest from the desire to maintain the quality oflife, pres !e'. park professionals, conservation organizations, sures, and changes brought about by growth "friends" groups and other citizens to address and development, traffic congestion and the • this missing link in the region's overall parks feeling ofurgency to save open space. • and recreation system. It was again recom • mended that a regional approach be undertaken • to meet such needs, reiterating that the ecosys • tem, natural features and wildlife do not respect • city/county/state boundaries. It was also deter • mined that coordinated planning and cost • sharing ofactivities would stretch the few • public dollars available for natural areas plan • ning. • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 110 • • • • Portland Future Focus - 1990-91 together as a community. A consensus was • The city ofPordand's strategic plan was devel reached to begin a regional partnership and • oped during a two-year period by citizens who cooperative approach to namral areas planning, • donated more than 25,000 volunteer hours to with Metro in the leadership role. Local re • that effon. Managing regional growth and sources in the form ofgrants, technical assis • maintaining livability were priority items in the tance, stafftime, and data-sharing were com • strategic plan. Implementation recommenda bined with Metro's financial and staffresources • tions supponed the linkage ofnatural areas, to create a parks and natural areas program, • open space, trails, greenways and significant which became the Metropolitan Greenspaces • landscape feamres into an integrated regional program in 1990. • system. Metro was recommended in the plan as .' the lead agency in the establishment ofthis Metro Council and Metro Executive Officer .' natural areas system. Pomand, other local park Policy Direction - 1989-present • and recreation providers, state and federal Since 1989, the Metro Council has adopted • agencies, nonprofit conservation organizations, various resolutions supporting a leadership role • private land trusts and citizens were all encour for Metro in regional planning ofparks and • aged to be partners with Metro. natural areas. The executive officer and Metro • Council have designated the Greenspaces • Resolutions ofSupport for Metropolitan program as a priority activity ofthe agency. • Greenspaces (parks and Natural Areas Metro budgets have reflected continued fund • Program) - 1990-91 ing for Greenspaces. In 1990, the council • During 1990-91, elected Metro officials and established two official groups, the policy and • staff contacted all the cities and counties within technical advisory committees, to assist in • the Metro boundaries about the above-men setting policies and priorities for the program. • tioned resolution. Outlining the need for a • cooperative regional approach to parks and Cooperative Regional Planning Efforts .'• natural areas planning, a partnership between 1989 to present • Metro and the local jurisdictions was stressed as The establishment ofthe Greenspaces program • critical to the program. Presentations about has led to many cooperative efforts in natural • the Greenspaces program were made at local resource identification and protection. In • staff meetings, parks advisory board meetings, partnership with more than 50 government • and at city counciVcounty commission meet agencies, nonprofit conservation organizations, • ings. All three county commissions and 22 of "friends" groups and private consulting firms, • the 24 cities within Metro's boundaries passed Metro undenook the role ofregional coordina • the resolution supporting regional cooperation tor for projects such as: an infrared aerial • to protect and preserve namral areas. The city photography project, which has become the • ofVancouver and Clark County, Wash., also basis for our namral areas inventory (spring .: passed the resolution, as did several nonprofit 1989); the Natural Areas Inventory and Analy conservation and neighborhood organizations. sis and a related mapping effon (1989 to 1991); • review oflocal park master plans and Goal 5 •.' Regional Parks Forum - 1988 to present natural resource inventories and policies in • More than 50 public and nonprofit park pro order to identify their relationship to the • viders, land trusts, conservation organizations, Greenspaces program (1991-92); Trip into "friends" groups and citizens in the region have Namre, a quarterly series offield tours for .'• been brought together periodically to improve citizens to learn about and appreciate existing cooperation on open space and parks issues. greenspaces (1991-92); initiation ofa process .'• For the first time in the region's history, all the that enables citizens to nominate specific sites • appropriate agencies and organizations met in and corridors for namral areas and open space • 1988 to talk, exchange ideas and begin planning protection (1992); the Greenspaces restoration Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 .'• 111 • grant program described above for cities, the direction ofthe Greenspaces program. • counties, special districts and nonprofit organi More than 500 participants voiced strong • zations (1992 to 1993); and formulation ofthe concern that protecting our remaining natural • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan (1992). areas before they are all developed was a critical • community goal. Livability issues, natural areas • close to home, trails and the fear ofoverdevel • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Grant opment were consistent themes at the forums. • 1991-:present These themes have also been reflected in other • Congress and the president designated the reports and forums. Citizens have stated that • Metropolitan Greenspaces program as one of government agencies need to work closely • two national demonstration projects for re together in protection efforts. Small sites and • gional natural areas and open space planning. neighborhood natural areas, as well as region With this designation, the Greenspaces pro ally significant sites, have been recommended '.• gram received $1.134 million in grants in two to be protected. The immediacy ofmoving • fiscal years to carry out planning and citizen forward with a greenspaces/open space plan is • involvement activities in the four-county re seen as critical. • gion. The work will be used by Congress and • the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to develop Preparation ofthe Metropolitan • model natural resource programs for other Greenspaces Master Plan - 1992 • urban areas around the country. Two major A public review draft of the Metropolitan • products ofthe grant that they are looking at Greenspaces Master Plan was released for • carefully are the Metropolitan Greenspaces comment in May of 1992. A series offive • Master Plan and a restoration grant program to citizen workshops, briefings before every • which cities, counties, special districts and interested city, county and parks district in the • nonprofit organizations can apply for funds to region and presentations to several interest • restore and enhance greenspaces, natural areas, groups were conducted to solicit input on the • wetlands, and riparian zones in the urban area. master plan prior to adoption by the Metro • Council. • Citizen Forums on Greenspaces - 1991 and • 1992 • DuringJuly 1991 andJanuary and February • 1992, Metro, with the assistance ofthe Na • tional Park Service, conducted 19 citizen fo • rums and workshops to solicit public input on • • • • • • • • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 112 • • • References and Resources • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 113 • • Roles and responsibilities framework • approved by the Metropolitan Greenspaces Policy Advisory Committee 6-24-92 • (includes references to text citations in the body ofthe plan) • • Program Goal: To create a oooperative regional system c) The local government-identified and Metro • ofnatural areas, open space, trails and greenways for identified systems will be "overlaid" to determine those • wildlife and people in the four-county bi-state Pordand greenspaces ofcommon interest. • OregonlVancouver Washington metropolitan area. • (referenced in the VISion and overall Program goals) d) Local governments and special districts providing • Approach: Through a cooperative effon that comple'=- parks services, as well as local governments with compre ments local government and special district open space, hensive planning responsibility, will meet with Metro to • parks and recreation programs in the metropolitan area decide whether the greenspaces ofcommon interest are • of Clackamas, Mulmomah and Washington counties, more appropriately administered by local governments • Oregon, Metro will identify, acquire and arrange for the or Metro. In the case where a Metro-identified • management ofa system ofgreenspaces of metropolitan greenspace designation would conflict with a local significance. A closely coordinated parallel effon will be government comprehensive plan designation, the .' undertaken with the city ofVancouver, Clark County affected parties will negotiate a resolution to the conflict. • and the state ofWashington so that the program will Acquisition and management responsibility for those • cover the entire metropolitan area. (referenced in the sites is discussed, respectively, in sections 3 and 4 ofthis • Vision and Part One, Sections 1 and 2, and Policy document. • 1.14) • 2) PLANNING OFGREENSPACES • Program Planning and Management: After adoption ofthe Master Plan by the Metro Council a) Metro in cooperation with local governments, • and the general obligation bond measure election, policy special districts, state and federal agencies, and nonprofit • advisory responsibilities to the Metro Council will organizations will develop a metropolitan-wide • transition from the Metropolitan Greenspaces Policy Greenspaces Master Plan that will identify and recom • Advisory Committee to the Regional Policy Advisory mend protection ofa system ofnatural areas, open space, • Committee established by Goal 1, Objective 2 ofMetro's trails and greenways (see section 1 ofthis document). adopted Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives. (referenced in the Vision and Part One, Sections 1 • The Metropolitan Greenspaces Technical Advisory and 2, and Policy 1.14) • Committee will continue to provide technical advice on • the implementation and future revisions to the Master b) Criteria will be delineated in the Master Plan to • Plan, reporting directly to RPAC. (referenced in Part assist in the establishment ofpriorities for inclusion of • One, Section 1) specific greenspaces into the system. However, some • flexibility will he retained in order to quickly respond to unexpected preservation opportunities that may arise or • Roles of Metro and Local Governments unforeseen changes in circumstances that may affect • (Oregon portion ofthe region) priorities. (referenced in Part Two, Section 1 and • Policy 2.S) • 1) IDENTIFICATION OF LOCAL AND • REGIONAL GREENSPACES SYSTEM c) The location oflarge-acre protection sites, restora (referenced in Part One, Section 1 and 2) tion sites, trail and other interconnections shown on the • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan system map are • a) Local governments and special districts providing representative. More site-specific definition ofsystem • park services, and local governments with comprehensive components will be undertaken in cooperation withlocal • planning responsibility, will identify greenspaces systems governments and other interests subsequent to Master in their jurisdictions. Plan adoption by the Metro Council. Balancing natural •; . resot'rce value and development value will he an impor b) Metro will identify a system oflarge-acre natural tant planning activity when determining the ultimate size • areas and open spaces that should he protected through and location of specific greenspaces system components. • out and proximate to the Metro boundary and a system (referenced in Part One, Section 1) • oftrails and greenways to interconnect them. • d) Management plans for specific natural area sites will • be prepared within a specified time frame after securing • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan,July 1992 • 115 • them. These plans will serve as the basis for local services as ofJuly I, 1991. (referenced in Part One, • government, special district, nonprofit organization, or Section 2) • Metro improvement and operations ofthe sites. Metro will initiate management plans for greenspaces secured (1) H the local government accepts acquisition • and/or managed at the regional level. Local parks responsibility from Metro, the accepting government • providers will initiate management plans for greenspaces will be responsible for funding the acquisition ofthe • secured and/or managed at the local level. Metro and greenspace with their own resources. (referenced in • local governments in whose jurisdiction greenspaces are Part One, Section 2) • located will work cooperatively to prepare management • plans and execute them through intergovernmental (2) If the local government expresses interest in agreement. Interim protection guidelines may be acquiring a site, Metro may enter into an • adopted by Metro and/or local governments during intergovernmental agreement which includes provi • preparation ofmanagement plans for protected sions related to regional or joint funding ofthe local • greenspaces. (reference in Part Two, Section 1 and acquisition. (referenced in Part One, Section 2) • Policies 1.2, 2.20 - 2.22) • (3) Ifthe local government chooses not to acquire e) Metro will be responsible for planning a the property, Metro will be responsible for funding • Greenspaces trail system. The trail system planning will the acquisition ofthe greenspace with its own • result in a blueprint for a regional trail system that can be resources. (referenced in Part One, Section 2) • adopted by all participating agencies. This trail system • will be developed in cooperation with local and state d) Greenspaces ofcommon interest administered at the • governments in Oregon and Washington, the U.S. local level will be the responsibility oflocal governments • Forest Service, the 40-Mile Loop Trust, the Greenway to secure and manage. (referenced in Part One, to the Pacific program, the Columbia Gorge Commis Section 2) • sion, the Chinook Trail and other interests. In the case • where a trails designation would conflict with a local e) Lower priority will be given acquisition ofproperties • government comprehensive plan designation, the adequately protected by federal, state or local regulations. • affected parties will negotiate a resolution to the conflict. The Greenspaces acquisition program will not be con • (referenced in Part Two, Section 1 and Policies 2.12 strued as a substitute for land use and natural resource 2.15) management regulations at any level ofgovernment, • including local comprehensive plans. Continued applica • f) Metro will be responsible for working with local tion ofsuch regulations to real property by appropriate • governments to delineate areas that are potential restora levels ofgovernment are recognized as one ofseveral • tion sites. Metro will give a priority to areas which are strategies necessary to fully implement the Greenspaces • deficient in open space and natural areas. Metro will Master Plan. (referenced in Part One, Section 2) • provide technical and financial assistance to local govern ments as appropriate. (referenced in Part Two, f) In evaluating priorities for acquisition, Metro will • Section 1 and Policies 2.17 - 2.19) first determine whether existing federal, state, regional • and local land use, environmental or other applicable • regulations provide adequate protection ofgreenspaces. • 3) ACQUISmON OF GREENSPACES Ifnot, Metro will then determine iflegally defensible new • regulations could be adopted by appropriate government a) Greenspaces to be administered at the local level will agencies within timeframes necessary to protect signifi • be the responsibility oflocal governments to secure and cant greenspaces. Ifnot, Metro will pursue acquisition • manage. (referenced in Part One, Section 2) based on fair marketvalue. (referenced in Part One, • Section 2) • b) Greenspaces to be administered by Metro will be the • responsibility ofMetro to secure and manage. (refer g) Metro will propose funding on a regional basis, to • enced in Part One, Section 2) establish both: • c) Greenspaces ofcommon interest administered by (1) a greenspaces acquisition and capital improve • Metro will be the responsibility ofMetro to secure. ment fund with which to acquire, in fee or easement, • Metro will offer a first right ofrefusal to the local or otherwise secure and improve greenspaces pro • government in which the sites are located to acquire the posed for inclusion in the regional greenspaces • property. The first right ofrefusal will only be offered to system by the Greenspaces Master Plan, and local governments currently providing park services in • whose service area the greenspaces are located. It will (2) a management and operation fund. (referenced • not be offered to local governments having comprehen in Part One, Section 2) • sive planning responsibility that do not provide park • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 116 • • • h) Seventy-five percent (75%) ofthe capital and The operator (Metro or local government) shall be • acquisition funds raised through the initial voter responsible for operation and management in compliance • approved regional general obligation bond, after netting with the standards developed through the management • out bond issuance costs, will be retained by Metro. plan. (referenced in PartTwo, Section 1 and in Twenty-five percent (25%) ofthe net initial and capital Policies 2.20 - 2.22) • and acquisition funds will be distributed by Metro to • local governments. Cities and special districts not b) The management practices employed byMetro, • providing park and recreation services as of]uly 1, 1991, local governments, special districts or nonprofit groups • are not eligible to receive funds. The funds will be for the operation and maintenance ofgreenspaces will be • distributed to counties, cities and special parks districts in consistent with the adopted Greenspaces Master Plan accordance with attachment "A" ofthis roles and respon and with specific site management plans. (referenced in .' sibilities document. Funds will be expended as follows: Part Two, Section 1 and in Policies 2.20 - 2.22) • (referenced in Part Two, Section 1) . • c) Metro will budget for and manage, operate and • (1) Metro will use the regional portion offunds for maintain those portions ofthe greenspaces program to • acquisition and development ofgreenspaces and be administered by Metro (see Section 1 ofthis docu • interconnections to be secured and administered by ment). Metro may make provisions with local parks Metro, for property transaction and associated providers for management ofMetro-administered • administrative costs, and for overall financial man greenspaces, section 3.b) notwithstanding, iflocal parks agement ofbond funds. Funds may not be used for providers express interest to Metro. Nothing in this .'• operations and maintenance activities. document shall be construed to preclude local govern • ments or Metro from entering into DRS Section 190 • (2) Funds distributed by Metro to local parks agreements regarding park and recreation operations and • providers are to be used for any locally determined maintenance. (referenced in Part Two, Section 1) open space, parks and recreational acquisition and . • capital needs consistent with applicable tax laws and d) Local agencies will budget and fund the operation • provisions ofthe regional funding measure. Funds and maintenance of those portions ofthe greenspaces • may not be used for operations and maintenance program to be administered by local governments (see • activities nor be used outside the Metropolitan· section 1). (referenced in Part Two, Section 1) • Service District's boundary unless Metro finds that such expenditures clearly benefit district residents. e) Local governments, special districts and Metro may • choose to contract with private entities, certified • (3) The "pass-through" ofregional funds to local 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations and/or local parks • parks providers will be executed through providers for development, operation and maintenance, • intergovernmental agreements. provided improvements and activities are consistent with • adopted greenspaces management plans. (referenced in • (4) Eligible local governments and special districts Part Two, Section 1) may form consortiums to combine their allocations • for eligible purposes. f) Metro will offer a first right ofrefusal to local • governments in which greenspaces ofcommon interest • i) Metro and local agencies will maintain greenspaces are located to provide management responsibility by • included in the metropolitan-wide system in perpetuity intergovernmental agreement. The first right ofrefusal • in accordance with management plans. Where possible, will only be offered to local governments providing park • deed restrictions will be included at the time oftransfer services, as ofJuly 1, 1991, in whose service area the ofproperty, from private property owner to Metro or greenspaces are located. (referenced in PartTwo, • local government, Metro to local government, local Section 1) • government to Metro, or Metro or local government to • nonprofit organization, which require use ofthe land for (1) Ifthe local government accepts management • open space purposes in perpetuity. (referenced in Part responsibility from Metro, the accepting government • Two, Section 1 and in Policies 2.20 - 2.22) will be responsible for funding the operation and maintenance of the greenspace with their own • resources, except as provided in subsection (2). 4) OPERATIONAND MANAGEMENT (referenced in Part Two, Section 1) .'• OF GREENSPACES • (2) When a regional funding source is available for • a) Using the resource management planning process operations and maintenance, Metro will enter into • (see section 2), acceptable maintenance, types and levels intergovernmental agreements with local parks ofprogrammed use, and development standards will be providers to defray all or portions ofthe operations • established for all components ofthe Greenspace system. • cost for locally administered or managed large-acre • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan,July 1992 • 117 • components ofthe greenspaces system where: recreational and environmental education programs • (referenced in Part Two, Section 1) initiated by other governments and private organizations to broaden participation in such programs by the resi • (a) The local parks provider agrees to dents ofthe metropolitan area. (referenced in Part • manage sites in accordance with the standards Two, Section 2 and in Policies 2.31 - 2.47) • established through adopted management plans • and policies; and • 6) ROLFS OFSTATE &: FEDERAL AGENCIFS (b) The local parks provider renders the • service at a cost less than that which Metro could a) Metro, local governments, special districts and non • provide under the adopted management plan and profit organizations will work with state agencies such as • regional operations and management policies. Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, Oregon • Department ofFish and Wildlife, Governor's Watershed • (3) Ifthe local government chooses not to accept Enhancement Board and Division ofState Lands, to • management responsibility, Metro will be responsible ensure maintenance, expansion oftheir parks, refuge for funding the operation and maintenance ofthese areas, grant programs and regulatory efforts in a coordi • sites with its own resources. (referenced in- Part nated and complementary approach with the Metropoli • Two, Section 1) tan Greenspaces program. These agencies should • address and fund the special urban needs ofthe region, • g) Metro will undertake studies to determine future including the identification, planning, acquisition and • regional financing options for greenspaces, parks and "management ofnatural areas. Future state acquisitions recreational facilities. The studies will be coordinated should include the metropolitan region as a key target • with local, state and federal agencies, and nonprofit area. These lands, while owned and managed by the • groups. The studies will address Metro's immediate state, will be linked with and promoted as parts ofthe • revenue needs to acquire and manage Metro-adminis Metropolitan Greenspaces system. (referenced in Part • tered greenspaces identified in the Greenspaces Master One, Section Two and in Policy 1.28) • Plan as well as a long-term financing options oflocal • governments, special districts and Metro for additional b) Federal agencies such as the Fish and Wildlife acquisition, capital improvement, operations and mainte Service, National Park Service, Bonneville Power • nance of greenspaces, parks and recreational facilities. Administration and Northwest Power Planning Council • (referenced in Part One, Section 1 and in Policy 1.6) should maintain existing refuge and recreational areas, • and identify new areas for acquisition. These lands, • while owned and operated by the federal government, • 5) ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION will be linked with and promoted as parts ofthe Metro politan Greenspaces system. (referenced in Part One, • a) Metro's role will be to actively pursue environmental Section Two) • education programs as both facilitator and provider. • Metro will ensure regional coordination among environ • mental education providers. (referenced in Part Two, 7) ROLES OF NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS • Section Two and in Policies (2.31 - 2.43) "AND LAND TRUSTS • b) Metro will cooperate with local, state and federal a) Metro will work closely with nonprofit organiza • park providers, and refuge/wildlife managers, as well as tions, land trUsts and "Friends" groups to explore • the Audubon Society ofPortland's Metropolitan Wildlife partnerships which include acceptance ofland donations, • Refuge System project, Wedands Conservancy and other conservation and other easements and management of • nonprofit organizations to produce informational bro;. sites. These sites may be owned by a local, state, federal • chures, signage and other interpretive materials for agency or Metro and operated by a nonprofit or the site environmental education for the general public. (refer- may be owned by a nonprofit and managed by a local, • .enced in Part Two, Section Two and in Policies state, federal agency.or Metro. (referenced in Part • (2.31- 2.43) Two, Section One) • c) Metro will develop a technical assistance program b) Metro will work with Portland State University and • that may include, but is not limited to, development of other educational institutions throughout the region interpretive facilities and environmental education including, Audubon Society ofPortland, Pordand • programs that relate to sites ultimately incorporated into Bureau ofParks and Recreation, Saturday Academy, • the greenspaces system and to assist in the implementa Mulmomah County and others, nonprofit organizations • tion ofthe Greenspaces Master Plan by local govern and agencies to develop a comprehensive environmental • ments, special districts, nonprofit organizations and other education program that uses the greenspaces system. • interests. Metro will also promote and coordinate (referenced in Part Two, Section Two) • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 118 • • • 8) ROLFS OF SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICTS • ANDWATERQUAUIYAGENCIES • a) Metro recognizes that agencies such as the federal Environmental Protection Agency, Unified Sewerage • Agency ofWashington County, Pordand's Bureau of • Environmental Services, Clackamas County Department • ofUtilities, state Water Resources Department and • Department ofEnvironmental Quality, and other • interested agencies and other surface water managers have a tremendous stake in protection, restoration and • management ofthe region's natural areas, including • wedands, and river and stream ecosystems. Metro will • work closely with these agencies in development and • implementation ofcooperative Greenspaces-oriented • projects which promote multi-objective management of • natural areas, regional streams, rivers and wedands. (referenced in Part One, Section Two, in Part Two, • Section Two, and in Policy 2.56) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 119 • Parks providers, as of July 1, 1991 • (eligible for local-regional general obligation bond split) • • Special Districts Attachment A • North Oackamas Parks and Recreation District • Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation District The local share ofbond funds, as described in Section 3h ofthis Roles and Responsibilities Framework, shall be • Counties apportioned among parks providers in each county on • Clackamas County the basis of county-wide totals established using FY • Mulmomah County 1991-92 assessed valuation within the Metropolitan • Washington County Service District boundary. Estimated county-wide totals • are as follows: • Cities Beaverton Clackamas County 19.56 percent • Cornelius • Durham Mulmomah County 50.20 percent • Fairview • Forest Grove Washington County 30.24 percent • Gladstone Gresham Formulas for allocating county-wide totals among parks • Happy Valley providers in each county are as follows: • Hillsboro • Lake Oswego • Oregon City • .Portland • Rivergrove Sherwood • Tigard • Troutdale • Tualatin • West Linn • Wilsonville • Wood Village • • • • • • • • • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 120 • • • • • Clackamas County Parks Providers Local Based on these statements, the distribution within the • Share Allocation Formula county will • be: • 1. The "local share" offunds raised from any bond • measure approved by the voters ofthe Metro region for a Gladstone 3.11 percent • Greenspaces capital and acquisition program apportioned Happy Valley 0.70 percent • to the parks and recreation providers ofOackamas Lake Oswego 13.82 percent County shall be distributed to such providers as follows: • (a) 50 percent shall be determined on the basis ofthe Milwaukie 6.92 percent • urban Clackamas County population (defined as those Oregon City 5.3 2 percent • county residents living within the boundary ofthe Portland 0.32 percent • "Metropolitan Service District) residing within the • boundary ofeach such provider. Those residents living Rivergrove 0.10 percent • within the city ofMilwaukie and the unincorporated Tualatin 0.90 percent areas ofClackamas County who also reside within the West Linn 6.61 percent • service area ofNorth Clackamas Park and Recreation • District shall be included in the population count ofthe Wilsonville 4.3 2 percent • North Oackamas Park and Recreation District; and North Clackamas • (b) 50 percent shall be determined on the basis ofthe Park and Recreation • assessed valuation. District 20.68 percent Clackamas County 37.20 percent • 2. The population used in this formula for the cities shall • be theJuly 1, 1991, Certified Population·Estimate • developed by the Center for Population Research and • Census, School ofUrban and Public Affairs, Portland • State University. The assessed valuation used in this • formula shall be from the FY 1991-92 assessment rolls. • 3. The unincorporated population used for NCPRD • shall be an estimate based on a GIS tracing ofthe district • boundaries and an adjustment to 1990 census data based • on the average percentage change for urban Oackamas • County cities as shown by the PSU data from 1990 to • 1991. • 4. The unincorporated Oackamas County share shall be • calculated on the basis ofall unincorporated population • (both inside and outside the Metro boundary, excluding • unincorporated population within the NCPRD) and assessed value ofunincorporated Clackamas County • within the Metro boundary outside ofNCPRD. • 5. Distribution to those cities included in more than one • county will be based on the population and assessed value • that lies within Clackamas County. • • • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan,July 1992 • 121 • • • • Multnomah County Parks Providers Local 3. Distribute "cities" share based on percentage of • Share Allocation Formula population* (1990 census information). • 1. Divide total Mulmomah County allocation into two * Population for distribution purposes is defined as the equal shares - 50 percent for the county; 50 percent for . sum ofthe populations from each municipality that was a • the cities. "park provider" as ofJuly I, 1991, Le., 518,611. • 2. From the county share, allocate 200,000 to each city • with a population ofless than 50,000 (Troutdale, Wood • Village and Fairview). • • Table 1 • Amount to be allocated: $24,786,250* • County share: 12,393,125** • Cities share: 12,393,125 ,.• • City Base Allocation % Total County Population Total • Population Allocation Allocation • Portland 0 84.3% $10,447,405 $10,447,405 • Gresham 0 13.2% 1,635,893 1,635,783 • Troutdale $200,000 1.5% 185,897 385,897 • Fairview $200,000 .5% 61,965 261,965 • 261,965 • Wood Village $200,000 .5% 61,965 • Totals 5600,000 100% 512,393,125 512,993,125 • • * Assumes $200 million bond sale; no interest • ** After adjustment for base allocation, county share =$11,793,125 • • • • • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 122 • • • • • 4. From the county share, establish a $5 million fund d. "City" cash contribution to be required for • cooperative projects. (Specific levels to be deter for the pursuit ofcooperative natural areas projects to be • administered by the county as follows: mined at later date.) • a. Each city with a population ofless than 50,000 to e.- Pro rata share ofinterest, ifany, to "county" • have $50,000 reserved for cooperative natural area portion ofallocation shall accrue to this fund. projects within their city limits. • f. Any city which has not identified cooperative • b. Pro rata shares ofthe balance in this fund to be natural area projeet{s) within three years from the • reserved for cooperative natural area projects in each time funds are available shall forfeit their access to • city as in "3" above. resources reserved in this section. See Table 2 for • details. • c. All cooperative projects to be consistent with the • Multnomah County Natural Areas Protection and • Management Plan. • Table 2 • • City Base Reservation % Population Population Total • Reservation Reservation • Portland 0 84.3% $4,088,550 $4,088,550 • Gresham 640,200 • 0 13.2% 640,200 • Troutdale $50,000 1.5% 72,750 122,750 • Fairview $50,000 .5% 24,250 74,250 • Wood Village $50,000 .5% 24,250 74,250 • Totals $150,000 100% $4,850,000 $5,000,000 • • • • • • • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 123 • • • • Washington County Parks Providers Local 4. The population estimate for the urban unincorpo • Share Allocation Formula rated area of the county shall be the population used by • Metro to determine the county's assessment for local • 1. The "local share" offunds raised from any bond government dues less the population ofthe urban cities • measure approved by the voters ofthe Metro region for a (excluding King City) and the estimated THPRD Greenspaces capital and acquisition program apportioned population. • to the parks and recreation providers ofWashington • County shall be distributed to such providers based on 5. For purposes ofthis program, estimated allocations • the percentage ofthe urban Washington County popula for "parks and recreation providers" based on PSU • tion (defined as those county residents living within the certified 1991 population data include: • boundary ofthe Metropolitan Service District) residing within the boundary ofeach such provider and where • those residents living within the unincorporated areas of Beaverton 19.29 percent • Washington County who also reside within the service Cornelius 2.14 percent • area ofthe Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District • shall be included in the population count ofTHPRD. Durham 0.26 percent • Forest Grove 4.66 percent 2. The population used in this formula for cities shall • be the most recentJuly 1 Certified Population Estimate Hillsboro 13.30 percent • developed by the Center for Population Research and Lake Oswego 0.00 ($357) • Census, School ofUrban and Public Affairs, Pordand Pordand • State University. 0.41 percent • Rivergrove 0.01 percent • 3. The population used for THPRD shall be based on a Sherwood 1.11 percent GIS tracing ofthe district boundaries excluding the • population ofthe city ofBeavenon and an adjustment to Tigard 10.38 percent • the 1990 census data based on the average percentage Tualatin 5.46 perce~t • change for urban Washington County cities as shown by Tualatin Hills Park • the PSU data from 1990 to the appropriate date as and Recreation • described in 2 above (most likely 1992 or 1993). District 31.85 percent • Washington County 11.12 percent • • • • • • • • • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 124 • • • An introduction to Metro • • • Metto is the regional government that spans the urban Center for the Performing Arts are a~so under Metto's • and urbanizing areas ofClackamas, Mulmomah and purview. • Washington counties in Oregon. The Metto area has a • population of 1,051,822 citizens,living in a land area Metto is governed by a 12 member council (13 after • covering nearly 500 square miles. In addition to portions . Januaryl, 1993) and an executive officer. Councilors are ofthree counties, there are 24 incorporated cities and elected by disttict and the executive officer elected • two special districts providing parks and recreational regionwide every four years. All positions are elected on • services within Metto's boundaries. a non-partisan basis. The executive officer serves as the • chief administtative official. The councilors serve in a • Metto was established in 1979 to manage issues of policy-making, budgeting and legislative role. • mettopolitan significance. These issues include ttans • portation, air, water quality, land use, and growth Metto has the regional perspective and possesses the management planning; solid waste management; and statutory authority (Oregon Revised Statute 268) to plan • recycling program coordination. Metto owns and for and implement the Mettopolitan Greenspaces • operates the Metto Washington Park Zoo, Oregon program. Regional financing options can be addressed • Convention Center and solid waste ttansfer stations. by Metto, including regional bonding authority for parks • Management and operation ofregional facilities such as and open space acquisition, pending voter approval. • the Memorial Coliseum, Civic Stadium and the Portland • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 125 • Metropolitan Greenspaces Program • sponsors and cooperating organizations • January 1991 • • 1. Metro 28. Clark County Natural Resources Council • 2. Audubon Society ofPortland 29. City ofBeaverton • 3. Portland State University - Geography 3O. City ofCornelius • Department 31. City ofDurham 32..City ofFairview • 4. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 33. City ofForest Grove • 5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 34. City ofGladstone • 6. U. S. Army Corps ofEngineers 35. City ofGresham • 7. National Park Service 36. City ofHappy Valley • 37. City ofHillsboro • 8. Oregon Parks Department 38. City of]ohnson City 9. Oregon Water Resources Department 39. City ofKing City • 10. Oregon Department ofLand Conservation 40. City ofLake Oswego • and Development 41. City ofMilwaukie • 11. Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife 42. City ofOregon City • 12. Oregon Division ofState Lands 43. City ofPortland • 44. City of Rivergrove 13. Clackamas County 45. City ofSherwood • 14. Clark County 46. City ofTigard Parks Advisory Board • 15. Multnomah County 47. City ofTroutdale • 16. North Oackamas Parks District 48. City ofTualatin • 17. Washington County 49. City ofWest Linn • 18. Unified Sewerage Agency ofWashington 50. City ofWilsonville • County 51. City ofWood Village 19. Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District • 52. 40-Mile Loop Land Trust • 20. Tri-Met 53. The Wetlands Conservancy • 21. East Multnomah County Soil and Water 54. Interlaken Neighborhood, Inc. • Conservation District 55. Linman Neighborhood • 22. West Multnomah County Soil and Water 56. League ofWomen Voters ofWest Oackamas • Conservation District County 23. Clackamas Water District 57. John Inskeep Environmental Learning Center • 24. Oak Lodge Sanitary District • 25. WolfCreek Highway Water District 58. Portland General Electric • 26. Intergovernmental Resource Center of 59. Esther Lev, environmental consultant • Clark County 60. Lynn Sharp, environmental consultant • 27. Bi-State Advisory Committee 61. Rittenhouse, Zeman and Associates • • • • • • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 126 • • • Natural resource and regulatory agencies • • • Federal Regional and Special Districts • us Department ofAgriculture: Metro • Forest Service (USFS) Planning Department • Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Solid Waste Department • Agricultural Stabilization and Intergovernmental Resources Center ofVancouver Conservation Service (ASCS) Clark County • Unified Sewerage Agency ofWashington County • US Army: Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation District • Corps ofEngineers North Oackamas Park District • Mulmornah Drainage District • US Department ofInterior: • Office ofEnvironmental Affairs County - Clackamas Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Transportation and Development Department • Bureau ofLand Management (BLM) Land Use Planning Division • National Park Service (NPS) Solid Waste Division • Community Environment Office • US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Department ofUtilities • Air Quality Section Vector Control • Hazardous Waste Section Animal Control • Water Quality Section County Forester • State - Oregon County - Clark • Oregon Department ofFish & Wildlife (ODFW) Cooperative Extension • Oregon Department ofForestry Parks and Recreation Department • Urban Forestry Office Environmental Services Oregon Division ofState Lands (DSL) Health Department • Oregon Department ofWater Resources Planning and Development • Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality (DEQ) Road Maintenance Department • Water Quality Division • Air Quality Division County - Multnomah • Hazardous and Solid Waste Division Department ofEnvironmental Services Oregon Department ofAgriculture (ODA) Planning and Development Division • Natural Resources Division Transportation Division • Soil and Water Conservation Districts . Parks Services Division • Oregon Department ofLand Conservation & Develop Environmental Sanitation Division • ment (DLCD) Vector Control Office • Land Conservation and Development Animal Control Office • Commission Mosquito Conn-ol Office Oregon Parks & Recreation Department • Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board (GWEB) County - Washington • Oregon State University (OSU) Land Use and Transportation • County Extension Services Planning Office • Dog Conn-ol and Animal Shelter • State - Washington Land Use, Code Enforcement and Zoning Office • Department ofWildlife Health and Human Services Department ofFisheries • Department ofNatural Resources City - Portland • Parks and Recreation Commission Bureau ofEnvironmental Services • Bureau ofParks and Recreation • Planning Bureau • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 127 • Land conservation techniques and regulatory tools • . (list partially derived from "Preserving Open Space: A Guide for New England" by Stacey Marx, • Kennedy School ofGovernment at Harvard) • • Development Regulations Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation • Techniques • Zoning/subdivision regulations and growth controls • large lot zoning Funding Sources • performance zoning bond funding carrying capacity zoning general fund appropriations • cluster zoning/planned unit development (PUD) real estate transfer taxes • conservation density subdivisions land gains taxes • incentive zoning tax return check-offs • service limits commodity taxes • adequate facility rules state/regional grants curb cut controls sale/transfer oftax default property • buffer and set-back requirements land and water conservation funds • viewshed protection land banks • phased growth land conservation grants • special district zoning tax abatement/credits • moratoria current use valuation • site plan review lotteries local comprehensive planning requirements loans • Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives • (RUGGOS) Transaction Types • Urban growth boundary (UGB) outright donation • bargain sale • State regulations fair market value (fee simple) statewide planning goals land exchange • coastal zone management restricted auction (to nonprofits) • state-created special districts eminent domain • state overrides oflocal zoning tax foreclosure • state-mandated dedication agency transfer • easement acquisition Environmental review partial development • local environmental ordinances leaseback/resale • critical environmental areas (CEAs) installment sale • conservation commissions/councilslboards undivided interest • other governmental review • (i.e., environmental impact analyses) Ownership Options • government ownership and management Financial mechanisms (regulatory fees, assessments) government purchase with intention for leaseback or • exactions!dedications resale • impact fees state/federal partnership • payments in lieu ofdedication statellocal partnership • preferential assessments government/nonprofit partnership • special assessment districts government partnership with corporate or other • transfer ofdevelopment rights (TORs) private entity density bonuses sale or transfer of tax default property • purchase ofdevelopment rights (PDRs) • • • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 128 • • • Land use regulations that support the Greenspaces eHort • • • Metro Regional Urban Growth • Goals and Obieclives • Statewide Land Use Planning Goals • Goall- citizen participation • Goal 2 - comprehensive plans to address • all state goals • Goal 3 - farmlands • Goal 4 - forest lands • Goal 5 - inventories (open spaces, scenic and • historic areas, and natural resources) • Goal 6 - air, water and land resources quality • Goal 7 - areas subject to natural disasters and hazards • (floodplains, potential landslide areas) • Goal 8 - recreation needs • Goal 14 - urban growth boundaries • Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenway • • • • • • • • • • • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 129 • Ust of references • • • Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals Public Awareness Plan • August 1991 • Metro Studies and Reports • Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives • Metro Recreation Resource Study September 1991 February 1989 • Natural Areas Report • Metropolitan Area Parks November 1991 ' • June 1989 • Ten Essentials for a Quality Regional Landscape • Attitudes Toward Natural Areas January 1992 October 1990 • Natural Areas Inventory: Phase ill Data Analysis • Environmental Baseline Report February 1992 (review draft) • July 1991 • Metropolitan Greenspaces Watershed-Based Analysis • Environmental Education in the Portland Area March 1992 (review draft) • July 1991 Favorite Metropolitan Greenspaces • Goals for Metropolitan Greenspaces March 1992 • August 1991 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 130 • • • Glossary of terms • • • accessible cooperators in the program • capable ofbeing entered or reached by a broad constitu all governments that Metro has functional planning or • ency ofindividuals derived from a widespread metropoli other land use authority over through O.R.S. 268 and • tan geographic distribution citizens groups, resource agencies, jurisdictions and others who are interested in being active partners in the • active recreation program • recreation that uses specially built facilities or that occurs· • in such density or form that it requires or results in a corridor • modification ofthe area or resource (i.e. campgrounds, linear natural areas and habitats primarily reserved for • golfcourses) (sometimes called high-intensity recreation) wildlife needs • agrarian disturbed site relating to or derived from cultivated land location where natural functions have been disrupted by • human-caused activities • anadromous fish • fish such as salmon that hatch in fresh water, migrate to Donation Land Ad (1865) • ocean water to grow and mature, and return to fresh guaranteed 640 acres to a couple or 320 acres to any • waters to spawn single man newly settling the region • aquatic habitat ecological connectivity • the water-based locality or geographic area in which a the degree to which separate ecosystems form linkages • plant or animal species naturally lives or grows that allow the physical and biological systems to interact; • the ability ofinterdependent ecological systems to • areas deficient in greenspaces support species' movement and varying survival needs parts ofthe metropolitan region that have been so • intensely urbanized that greenspaces have been all but ecosystem • eliminated the living and nonliving co)Ilponents ofthe environment • which interact or function together, including plant and • aspect animal organisms, the physical environment and the • the facing or fronting ofsomething (e.g., a slope) in any energy systems in which they exist direction; exposure • environmental education • biological diversity (biodiversity) planned, often comprehensive, and potentially long • variety ofplant and animal life co-existing in a specific term programs that focus on knowledge ofecological • habitat and natural systems; programs aimed at creating a deep • level ofunderstanding and at providing skills to change • buffer behavior that will lead to informed decision-making, • natural area or open space used as divider or barrier constructive action, and knowledge ofhuman effects on • between two developed or developing areas the natural world • conduit exurban • restricted natural passageway such as a stream; greater land outside ofthe regional urban growth boundary that • limitations than corridor transitions between suburban and rural settings; often • large-parcel tracts developed as very low density residen • confluence tial uses junction or union oftwo or more streams; body ofwater. • produced by the union ofseveral streams flow • the volume ofwater, often measured in cubic feet per • connectivity second, flowing in a stream • the ability to create functionally contiguous blocks of • land or water through linkage ofsimilar habitats • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan,July 1992 • 131 • IInew forestry'" landscape unit • selected harvesting oftrees, as opposed to clear-cutting discreet portion ofa landscape that can be defined by natural edges (e.g., a watershed) • fragmentation • isolation ofhabitats into single parcels ofland low-gradient stream • stream with low-sloping, mostly soil-lined streambed • geographic unit characterized by slow-moving water, pool-like conditions, • a landscape feature that is distinguishable as a topo meandering course • graphic form within the Oregon portion ofthe metro politan area low-intensity recreation • recreation not requiring developed facilities that can be • greenspaces accommodated without change to the area or resource • natural areas, open space, trails and greenways that (sometimes called passive recreation) • function for both wildlife and people low-order tributaries • greenway stream headwaters, spring inlets and other non-branching • generally linear vegetated corridors associated with rivers tributaries that combine to form creeks and rivers • and streams that are shared by both humans and wildlife • management plan • [natural] habitat set ofpolicies and actions, including delineation of • locality or geographic area in which a plant or animal potential capital improvements and natural resource • species naturally lives or grows management objectives, for specific units ofland as sembled as a part ofthe Metropolitan Greenspaces • habitat niche system • a place or position adapted to the character or capabili • ties or suited to the merits ofa specific plant or animal mitigation • within its natural habitat the creation, restoration or enhancement ofa wedand • area to maintain the functional characteristics and high-gradient stream processes ofthe wedand, such as its natural biological • stream with relatively steeply sloped stream bed; charac productivity, habitats, and species diversity, unique water • terized by fast-moving water, riffles, rocky bottoms features and water quality • high-intensity recreation multiple use • recreation that uses specially built facilities or that occurs a land management objective seeking to maximize several in such density or form that it requires or results in a economic, environmental andlor social values in the same • modification ofthe area or resource (i.e., campgrounds, geographic area (as opposed to concentrating on only one • golfcourses) (sometimes called active recreation) objective) • hydrology natural area • the study ofthe occurrence and properties ofwater a landscape unit composed ofplant and animal communi • ties, water bodies, soil and rock; largely devoid of indigenous human-made structures; maintained and managed in such • native to the region a way as to promote or enhance populations ofwildlife. • infrastructure neighborhood • systems such as roads, water, sewage, stormwater and geographically distinct areas within the region's commu • bridges and other facilities that are developed to support nities distinguished both by landmarks and the frequency • the functioning ofthe developed portions ofthe environ and patterns ofinteraction among residents and landown ment ers within the specific areas; recognized by many local • governments as planning organizations citizen participa • isolated urban natural areas tion organizations and the like to assist in public decision • natural area sites surrounded by human development making • landscape ecology neighborhood park • the mosaic oftopographic, geologic and biologic features public park, generally ofsmall size (1 -10 acres) is • that interact with human uses that modify the natural intended for use primarily by residents ofthe neighbor • landscape hood in which it is located • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 132 • • • old growth riparian community • a figurative expression indicating presence ofvery large specific plant associations adapted to living in riparian • trees within a habitat or particular site areas • open space sensitive wildlife and plant species • developed parks with active recreational facilities such as species negatively impacted by human activities • ball fields, tennis courts, playgrounds, community • gardens, golfcourses, cemeteries, vacant lands with the township system • potential ofbecoming a park or natural area. land surveying system designed by ThomasJefferson in • order to speed settlement ofthe western states and parkland established as a system by the U.S. government in the • land in public ownership designated largely for recre 18005; "township" is 36 square miles in size and subdi • ational human uses or park purposes vided into 36 one-square-mile "sections" • parks provider trail • government or agency directly involved in developing, multi-modal/recreational (e.g., hiking, biking, pedestrian, maintaining and operating public parks and recreational equestrian) alignment generally used by people • services • urban growth boundary • passive recreation a boundary th~t identifies urban and urbanizable lands • recreation not requiring developed facilities that can be needed during the 20-year planning period to be planned • accommodated without change to the area or resource and serviced to support urban development densities, and • (sometimes called low-intensity recreation) which separates urban and urbanizable lands from rural lands • patches • associations ofvegetative materials that are distinguish upland • able from adjacent associations along an edge or gradi high ground, as opposed to meadow or marsh; ground • ent; large contiguous blocks ofhomogeneous land uses, not liable to flooding especially open spaces and natural areas • view • plat field ofvision from a specific geographic location • the legally recorded document and map used for layout providing a general panorama that includes a variety of • or design ofa city or portion thereofor used to subdivide elements and features • real property for sale and/or development • vista • protect distant "wide-angled" view with controlled focus on a save or shield from loss, destrUction, or injury or for singe element (e.g., Mt. Hood is often used as the focus • future intended use ofvistas in Portland) • regional park watershed • public park oflarger size (often in excess of 100 acres) a topographically discrete unit or stream basin, including • intended for use by residents ofseveral cities andlor the headwaters, main channel, slopes leading from the • counties in a metropolitan area channel, tributaries and mouth area • regionally significant wetland communities • ofimportance to multi-jurisdictional constituents andlor land areas where excess water is the dominant factor • providing unique ecological value to plant and wildlife determining the nature ofsoil development and the types • communities ofplant and animal species living at the soil surface. • Wedand soils retain sufficient moisture to support remnant aquatic or semi-aquatic plant life. • a quantity ofopen space or natural area that is not • contiguous with another block ofopen space or natural • area • riparian • relating to the banks ofa water body • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan,July 1992 • 133 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 134 • • • Goal 1 • Record of Public Meetings and Presentations • January 1989 to Present • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 135 • • Goal 1 - Record of public meetings and presentations • January 1989 to present • • Meeting Location Daterrime • 40-Mile Loop Land Trust Board meeting Portland Thursday, Jan. 12, 1989 • Parks Forum VI Lake Oswego Tuesday,Jan. 17, 1989 • Parks Forum VI Gresham Wednesday, Jan. 18, 1989 • Parks Forum VI Beaverton Thursday,Jan. 19, 1989 • Parks Forum VI Portland Friday, Jan. 20, 1989 • Metro Intergovernmental Portland Tuesday, Jan. 24, 1989 • Relations Committee • PSU: Seminar in Natural Portland Tuesday, Jan. 31,1989 • Area Planning • Metro Council meeting - resolution Portland Thursday, Feb. 9, 1989 • supporting the Parks and Natural • Areas Planning Program • Sunnysidel205 Corridor Association Clackamas Thursday, Feb. 16,1989 • 2nd annual "Country in the City" Portland Friday-Saturday, Feb. 24-25, • Symposium and City Club meeting 1989 • Parks Forum VII Portland ~onday,Feb.27, 1989 • Forest Grove City Council Forest Grove ~onday,Feb.27, 1989 • Oregon Marine Board Salem Tuesday, Feb. 28,1989 • Wilkes Neighborhood Association Portland Thursday, March 2, 1989 • Economic Development Corridor Association Portland Friday, March 10, 1989 • Washington County area public meeting Beaverton Tuesday, March 28, 1989 • Portland area public meeting Metro Wednesday, March 29, 1989 • Clackamas area public meeting Lake Oswego Thursday, March 30, 1989 • Mulmomah area public meeting Troutdale Friday, April 1, 1989 • Parks Forum vm Portland Thursday, April 27, 1989 • Sunnyside United Neighbors of Sunnyside ~onday, May 8, 1989 • Clackamas County • Chinook Trail Association Vancouver Wednesday, May 31, 1989 • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan,July 1992 • 137 • Meeting Location DatelT'une • Greenprint for the Region Seminar Portland Monday-Tuesday, June 5-6, 1889 • Committee • Linnton Community and Sauvie Island Portland Tuesday, June 13,1989 • Parks Forum IX Portland Thursday, June 15,1989 • FAUNA Portland Tuesday, July 11,1989 • Metro Intergovernmental Relations Portland Tuesday, July 18,1989 • Committee • Metro Council Portland Thursday,July 27,1989 • Multnomah County Planning Portland Tuesday, Aug. 8, 1989 • THPRD Board meeting Beaverton Wednesday, Aug. 9,1989 • Metro IRC Vancouver Tuesday, Aug. 15 1989 • Parks Forum X Portland Tuesday, Aug. 22, 1989 • Oregon Parks and Recreation Bandon Thursday-Saturday, Sept. 21-23, • Conference 1989 • Parks Forum XI Portland Wednesday, Sept. 27, 1989 • Multnomah County Board ofCommissioners Portland Tuesday and Thursday, Oct. 10 • and 12, 1989 • Portland City Club Portland Friday, Oct. 13, 1989 • Parks Forum XII Portland Wednesday, Nov. 1, 1989 • Clackamas County Board ofCommissioners Oregon City Thursday, Nov. 2,1989 • Parks Forum XIII Portland Wednesday, Feb. 7,1990 • Natural Areas Workshop Portland Tuesday, Feb. 27,1990 • East and WestMultnomah Soil & Water Portland Tuesday, March 13, 1990 • Conservation District meeting • Lake Oswego City Council Lake Oswego Tuesday, April 3, 1990 • regarding Natural Areas Planning • Lake Oswego Work Session Lake Oswego Tuesday, April 17,1990 • regarding Natural Areas Planning • Natural Areas Planning Gresham Wednesday, April 18, 1990 • Coordination Resolution • City ofGresham Parks • Advisory Board • Regional Corridors and Portland Wednesday, May 9, 1990 • Trails • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 138 • • • Meeting Location DatelTune • Natural Areas Planning . Portland Wednesday, May 9, 1990 • Coordination Resolution • City ofPortland • Friday, May 11, 1990 • Bi-State Policy Advisory Committee Portland • Natural Areas Planning Milwaukie Tuesday, May IS, 1990 • Coordination Resolution • City ofMilwaukie • Parks Forum XIV Vancouver Wednesday, May 23, 1990 • Natural Areas Planning Portland Thursday, May 31, 1990 • Coordination Resolution • Mulmomah County • Natural Areas Planning Hillsboro Friday, june 1, 1990 • Coordination Resolution • Washington County Parks • Advisory Board • Natural Areas Planning Gresham Tuesday, june S, 1990 • Coordination Resolution • City ofGresham • Policy Committee meeting Portland Friday, june 8,1990 • Regional Corridors and Portland Wednesday, june 13, 1990 • Trails Committee • Natural Areas Planning Portland Thursday,june 14,1990 • Coordination Resolution • 40-Mile Loop Land Trust Natural Areas Planning Portland Monday,june 18,1990 • Coordination Resolution • Interlaken, Inc. Neighborhood • Natural Areas Planning Lake Oswego Tuesday,june 19,1990 • Coordination Resolution • City ofLake Oswego Natural Areas Planning Vancouver Wednesday, june 20, 1990 • Coordination Resolution • City ofVancouver, Parks • and Recreation Commission • Natural Areas Planning Vancouver Thursday, june 21,1990 Coordination Resolution • Intergovernmental Resource • Center, Clark County • National Parks Service meeting Vancouver Friday, june 22,1990 • Natural Areas Planning Vancouver Friday, june 22, 1990 • Coordination Resolution • Bi-State Advisory Committee • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 139 • Meeting Location DatelT'1D1e • Natural Areas Planning Gladstone Monday, June 25, 1990 • Coordination Resolution City ofGladstone, Parks • and Recreation Board • Natural Areas Planning Rivergrove Monday, July 9, 1990 • Coordination Resolution • City ofRivergrove • Natural Areas Planning Troutdale Tuesday, July 10,1990 • Coordination Resolution • City ofTroutdale, Parks • Advisory Board • Greenspaces Local Suppon Gladstone Tuesday, July 10,1990 • Resolution (formerly • Natural Areas Planning • Coordination Resolution) • City ofGladstone • East Multnomah County Portland Tuesday, July 10, 1990 Soil and Water Conservation • District Board meeting • Greenspaces Local Tualatin Wednesday, July 18, 1990 • Suppon Resolution • The Wetlands Conservancy • Greenspaces press Beaverton Monday, Aug. 13, 1990 • conference with Les AuCoin • re: federal grant • Clark County Open Space Vancouver Monday, Aug. 13, 1990 • Commission • Greenspaces Local King City Wednesday, Aug. 15, 1990 • Suppon Resolution • City ofKing City • Greenspaces Local Happy Valley Tuesday, Sept. 4, 1990 Suppon Resolution • City ofHappyValley • Greenspaces Local Johnson City Tuesday, Sept. 4, 1990 • Suppon Resolution • City ofJohnson City • Greenspaces Local Sherwood Wednesday, Sept. 12, 1990 • Suppon Resolution • City ofSherwood • Parks Forum XV Portland Monday, Sept. 17,1990 • Greenspaces Local Durham Wednesday, Sept. 19, 1990 • Suppon Resolution • City of Durham • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 140 • • • Meeting Location DatelT'une • Greenspaces Local Cornelius Monday, Oct. 1, 1990 • Suppon Resolution • City ofCornelius • Metro Natural Areas Portland Wednesday, Oct. 10, 1990 • Policy Advisory Committee • Greenspaces Local W rod Village Wednesday, Oct. 10, 1990 • Suppon Resolution • City ofWood Village • Greenspaces Local Cornelius Tuesday, Oct. 161990 • Suppon Resolution • City ofCornelius • Greenspaces Local Fairview Wednesday, Oct. 17, 1990 • Suppon Resolution • City ofFairview • Greenspaces Local Gresham Monday, Oct. 22, 1990 • Suppan Resolution • City ofMaywood Parle Greenspaces1A>ca1 West Linn Wednesday, Oct. 24,1990 • Suppon Resolution • City ofWest Linn • Greenspaces Local Tigard Tuesday, Nov. 13, 1990 Suppon Resolution • City ofTigard, ParIes,' • Advisory Committee .'• Greenspaces Local Troutdale Tuesday, Nov. 13, 1990 • Suppan Resolution • City ofTroutdale Greenspaces Local Wilsonville Wednesday, Nov. 19, 1990 Suppan Resolution •.' City ofWilsonville • Greenspaces briefing for Beaverton Wednesday, Nov. 21, 1990 • Beaverton Rotary • Metro Natural Areas Portland Wednesday, Nov. 28,1990 • Policy Advisory Committee • Greenspaces 1A>ca1 Forest Grove Monday, Dec. 10, 1990 • Suppan Resolution • City ofForest Grove • ParIes Forum XVI Hillsboro Thursday, Dec. 13, 1990 • Greenspaces briefing for Portland Friday, Jan. 4, 1991 • Leach Botanical Garden • president • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 141 • Meeting Location DatelTime • Greenspaces briefing for Wtlsonville Tuesday, Jan. 8, 1991 • Wilsonville Councilor • Sandra Chandler • Greenspaces briefing for Portland Tuesday, Jan. 8,1991 • Portland Garden Club • Greenspaces briefing for Beaverton Friday,Jan. 11, 1991 Beaverton Rotary • Greenspaces display at Portland Saturday,Jan. 12, 1991 • Friends ofTrees Conference • Greenspaces briefing for Portland Wednesday,Jan. 16, 1991 FAUNA Steering Conunittee '.• Greenspaces Technical Portland Friday, Jan. 18, 1991 • Advisory Conunittee • Bald Eagle Watch Portland Saturday,Jan. 19, 1991 • Greenspaces tour of Washington County Saturday, Jan. 19, 1991 • Washington County • Greenspaces briefing for Portland Monday, Jan. 21,1991 • Southeast Uplift Land Use • Committee • Environmental Education meeting Portland Wednesday, Jan. 23,1991 • Greenspaces briefing for Portland Wednesday, Jan. 2~, 1991 • Charles Little • FAUNAlGreenspaces Lecture Portland Thursday, Jan. 24, 1991 • Greenspaces briefing for Portland Tuesday, Jan. 29,1991 • League ofConservation • Voters • City Cub ofPordand Portland Thursday, Jan. 31,1991 Transportation and Planning • Committee Forum • Greenspaces briefing for Hillsboro Monday, Feb. II, 1991 • Washington County Public • Affairs Forum • Greenspaces Technical Portland Friday, Feb. IS, 1991 • Advisory Committee • Greenspaces display for Portland Feb. 16-25, 1991 • Home and Garden Show • Greenspaces briefing for West Linn Wednesday, Feb. 20, 1991 • West Linn City Council • Native Plant Society lecture Portland Wednesday, Feb. 20, 1991 • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan,July 1992 142 • • • • Meeting Location DateJT'lD1e • Biodiversity Lectore Series Portland Wednesday, Feb. 20,1991 • Greenspaces briefing for Gresham Tuesday, Feb. 26 1991 • Fairview Creek • Steering Committee • Greenspaces Policy Portland Wednesday, Feb. 27,1991 • Advisory Committee • Greenspaces briefing for Tualatin .Friday, March I, 1991 • Ridell Corporation • Greenspaces briefing for Portland Tuesday, March 12, 1991 • CH2MHill • Greenspaces briefing for Portland Tuesday, March 12, 1991 • People's Republic of • China delegates • Greenspaces Technical Portland Thursday, March 14, 1991 • Advisory Committee • Fairview Creele meeting Gresham Monday, March 18, 1991 • (Steering Committee) • Metro, USFW signed Portland Friday, March 22,1991 • interagency agreement to • allocate federal demo grant • Parles Forum xvn Gladstone Monday, March 25,1991 • Greenspaces briefing for Salem Tuesday, March 26,1991 • Oregon Recreation Council • Greenspaces briefing for Portland Tuesday, March 26,1991 • Senator Hatfield and staff • Greenspaces Policy Portland Wednesday,March27,1991 • Advisory Committee • Meeting with City Portland Monday, April1, 1991 • Managers Group Greenspaces Clarle County Vancouver Thursday, April 4, 1991 • Lowlands Tour • Tour ofproposed Tualatin Sherwood Thursday, April 4, 1991 • Wildlife refuge • Greenspaces briefing for Vancouver April 4-5, 1991 • Clark County • Meeting ofClarle County Vancouver Friday, April 5, 1991 • Open Space Commission re: • values ofnatural areas • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan,July 1992 • 143 • Meeting Location Daterrune • Greenspaces briefing for Portland Monday, April 8, 1991 • Friends ofForest Park Subcommittee • Metro Transportation and Portland Tuesday, April 9, 1991 • Planning Committee re: • approval ofdemo grants, • criteria and application • Coordinating meeting with NPS Portland Thursday, April 11, 1991 • Greenspaces Local Vancouver Monday, April 15, 1991 • Support Resolution • City ofVancouver • Greenspaces T echnica1 Portland Friday, April 19, 1991 • Advisory Committee • Greenspaces briefing for Portland April 20-24, 1991 • Oregon Congressional • delegation staff • NPS national training session Chattanooga, Tenn. April 20-26, 1991 • Fairview Creek Planning GreshamlFairview Monday, April 22, 1991 • Committee meeting • Friends ofOlmsted Parks Seattle Thursday, April 25, 1991 • NPS meeting Portland Friday, May 3,1991 • Tour ofFairview Creek Fairview Saturday, May 4, 1991 • Demonstration Grants Portland Monday, May 6, 1991 • Pre-Application Workshops • ODFW hearings on protection Portland Tuesday, May 14,1991 • ofnatural areas • Presentation ofGreenspaces Portland Wednesday, May 15,1991 • map to Portland Planning Commission • GreenspacesTechnica1 Portland Friday, May 17, 1991 • Advisory Committee • FAUNA training session Portland Saturday, May 18, 1991 • on public speaking • Greenspaces briefing for Portland Tuesday,May21,1991 • FAUNA Steering Committee • Greenspaces briefing for Tigard Wednesday, May 22, 1991 • CPO 4, Tigard • 1000 Friends ofOregon Portland Thursday, May 23,1991 • Study ofGoal 5 Work • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 144 • • • Meeting Location DatelTlDle • Meeting with City Portland Friday, May 24, 1991 • Managers Group • IDRmeeting with Portland Friday, May 24, 1991 ./ Forest Park • Greenspaces briefing for Portland Wednesday, May 29, 1991 • Portland Chamber of • Commerce Subcommittee • Great Blue Heron Week dedication Portland Thursday, May 30, 1991 • Friends ofForest Park re: Portland Friday, May 31, 1991 • citizen handbook on • conservation techniques • 1000 Friends ofOregon Portland Friday, May 31,1991 • Goal 5 Project • NPS meeting re: public forums Portland Monday, june 3,1991 • NPS trails meeting for Salem Tuesday, June 4, 1991 • Oregon, Idaho, Washington Greenspaces briefing for Portland Wednesday, june 5,1991 • Nob Hill Lions' Club • (Northwest Portland) • Demo Grant Review Committee Portland Thursday,June 6,1991 • meeting 1 • Greenspaces briefing for City Managers, Portland Friday, june 7,1991 • County Administrators and • Planning Directors • Transportation Planning Portland Tuesday, june 11, 1991 • Committee, program update • Presentation to MulOlomah Portland Tuesday,june 11, 1991 • County Board of • Commissioners • Open house at Tualatin Sherwood Tuesday,june 11,1991 • Wildlife Refuge • Greenspaces briefing for Vancouver Wednesday,june 12, 1991 • Seattle and King County • Meeting with Audubon Portland Friday, june 14, 1991 • Society re: wetlands • protection handbook • NPS meeting re: public forums Portland Monday, june 17, 1991 • Demo Grants Review Portland Tuesday,june 18,1991 • Committee to review • 14 applications • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 145 • Meeting Location Daterrune • Greenspaces Technical Portland Friday, June 21,1991 • Advisory Committee • Meeting with NPS staffre: Portland Tuesday,June.2S, 1991 • federal assistance to Metro • for greenways • Meeting with staffof Washington, D.C. Tuesday, June 25,1991 • Senator Hatfield and Representative AuCoin re: • seoond federal appropriation • ($800,000) for USFW • Transportation and Planning Portland Tuesday, June 25, 1991 • Committee meeting • Greenspaces Policy Portland Wednesday, June 26,1991 • Advisory Committee • Greenspaces booth at Washington County Saturday, June 29, 1991 • Tualatin River Discovery • Day Festival • Meeting with City Portland Monday, July 1,1991 • Managers Group • Country in the City IV Portland July 11-13,1991 • Metropolitan Greenspaces Portland Friday, July 12, 1991 • Program: A Four-County, • Bi-State Cooperative Initiative • Greenspaces Open Public Forum Milwaukie Monday, July 15,1991 • Greenspaces Open Public Forum Vanoouver Tuesday, July 16,1991 • Greenspaces Open Public Forum Vanoouver Tuesday, July 16,1991 • Greenspaces Open Public Forum Beaverton Wednesday, July 17,1991 • Greenspaces Open Public Forum Gresham Thursday,July 18,1991 • Greenspaces Open Public Forum Portland Saturday, July 20, 1991 • Work session, potential Portland Tuesday, July 30,1991 • bond measure meeting • Southeast 122nd Ave. • Portland • Metropolitan Greenspaces Vanoouver Tuesday, July 30,1991 • and Natural Areas program, dinner • Parks Forum vm Fairview Wednesday, July 31,1991 • Greenspaces Technical Portland Friday, Aug. 23, 1991 • Advisory Committee • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 146 • • • • Meeting. Location DateITime • Greenspaces Policy Portland Wednesday, Aug. 28, 1991 • Advisory Committee • Alpha Xi Delta Alumni Portland Thursday, Sept. 12, 1991 • Chapter's meeting • Friends ofCedar Mills Portland Saturday, Sept. 21, 1991 • Community Events Booth with • Greenspaces Material • Briefing for CPO 4 Beaverton Wednesday, Sept. 25,1991 • Metro Council meeting Portland Thursday, Sept. 26, 1991 • Portland Downtuwner newspaper Portland Monday, Sept. 30,1991 • article "Harmony Interviews" • on Mike Houck and Greenspaces • Briefing for CPO 9 Hillsboro Tuesday, Oct. I, 1991 • Salmon Festival- Greenspaces Booth Gresham Saturday-Sunday, Oct. 12-13, 1991 • Clean River Confluence Portland Saturday-Sunday, Oct., 12-13, 1991 • Briefing for Lane County Audubon Eugene Thursday, Oct. 17, 1991 • Society • Washington County Political Caucus Hillsboro· Thursday, Oct. 17, 1991 TAC meeting - approve in concept Portland Friday, Oct. 18, 1991, • roles and responsibilities • Transportation and Planning Committee Portland Tuesday, Oct. 22, 1991 • meeting • Fall FAUNA meeting - guest Portland Tuesday, Oct. 22, 1991 • speaker Ann Riley • PAC meeting - approve in concept Portland Wednesday, Oct. 23,1991 • roles and responsibilities • Environmental Educators Annual Conf. Portland Saturday, Oct. 26, 1991 • Presentation to Lewis and Clark Law Portland Tuesday, Oct. 29, 1991 • School • Regional Corridors and Trails Working Portland Tuesday, Oct. 29, 1991 • Group meeting OPB Radio Interview Portland Wednesday-Thursday, Oct. 30- • 31,1991 • on Greenspaces • Briefing for Larkin G. Franks' Mt Hood Gresham Monday, Nov. 4, 1991 • Community College Class • Briefing for NPO 7 meeting Tigard Wednesday, Nov. 6, 1991 • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 147 • Meeting Location DateJTime • Presentation to Beaverton Beaverton Thursday,Nov.7,1991 • High School Teachers • Presentation on AM Northwest (Channel 2) Portland Friday, Nov. 8, 1991 • Tour with Vera Katz ofGreenspaces Metropolitan area Sunday Nov. 10, 1991 • Slide presentation to Rose City Portland Sunday Nov. 10, 1991 • United Methodist Church • Briefing for Forest Grove City Forest Grove Tuesday, Nov. 12, 1991 • Council meeting • Briefing for Alpha Xi Delta Women's Beaverton Tuesday, Nov. 12, 1991 • meeting • Meeting with Friends ofCedar Portland Tuesday, Nov. 12, 1991 • Springs • TACmeeting Portland Friday, Nov. 15, 1991 • Regional Corridors, Greenways and Portland Tuesday, Nov. 19, 1991 • Trails Working Group meeting • Presentation to the United Portland Wednesday, Nov. 20, 1991 • Methodist Church on Greenspaces • North Qackarnas Parks and Milwaukie Wednesday, Nov. 20,1991 • Recreation District Public • Informational meeting • Meeting with Mulmomah County Parks, Portland Thursday, Nov. 21, 1991 • Audubon &US Forest Service • Parks and Natural Areas Inventory Portland Friday, Nov. 22,1991 • and Mapping Workshop • Revised Greenspaces update Oregon coast Saturday, Nov. 23, 1991 • article for Oregon Chapter • ofNational Wildlife Federation • Greenspaces briefing for the Wilsonville Wednesday, Nov. 27,1991 • City ofWilsonville • TAC meeting Portland Tuesday, Dec. 3,1991 • Trails, Greenways and Corridors Portland. Tuesday, Dec. 3, 1991 Working Group meeting • PAC meeting Portland Wednesday, Dec. 4,1991 • East County open house briefing Gresham Thursday, Dec. 5, 1991 • on Metropolitan Greenspaces • Greenspaces Field Trip Portland Monday, Dec. 9, 1991 • Burlington Bottoms Press Conference Portland Tuesday, Dec. 10, 1991 • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 148 • • • Meeting Location DatelTime • Cultural Resources (Landscape) Portland Wednesday, Dec. 11, 1991 • Inventory Workshop • Parks Forum XX Vancouver Thursday, Dec. 12, 1991 • Balch Creek Demonstration Grant Portland Saturday, Dec. 14, 1991 • Transportation and Planning Committee Portland Wednesday, Dec. 18, 1991 • meeting - approval ofroles, responsibilities • Greenspaces Finance Working Portland Friday, Dec. 20, 1991 • Group meeting • Greenspaces Demonstration Grants Portland Friday, Dec. 20, 1991 • Working Group meeting • Greenspaces Trails Working Group Portland ~onday,lan.6, 1992 • meeting • Briefing for League ofWomen Voters Portland Wednesday, lan. 8, 1992 • FAUNA Steering COmmittee meeting Portland Wednesday,lan. 8,1992 • Governor's Watershed Enhancement Portland Thursday-Friday,lan.9-10, • Board Conference 1992 • USFWS meeting Portland Friday,lan. 10, 1992 • Finance Plan meeting with Gresham Gresham Tuesday,lan. 14, 1992 • Clark County Trails meeting Vancouver· Wednesday,lan. 15, 1992 • West ~ult. County Soil & Water Consv. Portland Thursday,lan. 16, 1992 • Dist. meeting • Demonstration Grants Working Group Portland Friday,lan. 17, 1992 • meeting • Washington County ESD meeting Hillsboro Friday,lan. 17,1992 • re: demonstration grants • Greenspaces Public Forum Troutdale ~onday,lan. 20,1992 • on ~aster Plan • Greenspaces Public Forum Oregon City Tuesday, Jan. 21, 1992 • on ~aster Plan • USFWS meeting Portland Wednesday,lan. 22,1992 Greenspaces Public Forum Hillsboro Wednesday,lan.22,1992 • ~aster • on Plan • Greenspaces Public Forum Vancouver Thursday,lan. 23,1992 • on ~aster Plan • Technical Advisory Committee meeting Portland Friday,lan. 24, 1992 • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 149 • Meeting Location DatelTime • Greenspaces Public Forum Portland Saturday,Jan. 25,1992 • on Master Plan • Education Committee Advisory Portland Tuesday, Jan. 28, 1992 • meeting • Policy Advisory Committee meeting Portland Wednesday,Jan. 29,1992 • Briefing for Senator Hatfield Washington, D.C. Monday, Feb. 3,1992 • Briefing for Washington, D.C. Monday, Feb. 3, 1992 • Representative AuCoin's staff • Briefing for Washington, D.C. Tuesday, Feb. 4,1992 • Representative DeFazio's staff • Briefing for Washington, D.C. Tuesday, Feb. 4, 1992 • Representative Wyden's staff • Briefing for Washington, D.C. Tuesday, Feb. 4, 1992 • Representative Kopetski • Portland ParkslPDC Commission meeting Portland Tuesday, Feb. 4, 1992 • on Willamette River East Bank Project • Technical Advisory Committee • Briefing for Washington, D.C. Wednesday, Feb. 5, 1992 • Representative Unsoeld's staff • Briefing for Washington, D.C. Wednesday, Feb. 5, 1992 • Senator Packwood's staff • Willamette National Cemetery meeting Clackamas County Wednesday, Feb. 5, 1992 • on trails • City ofHappy Valley Parks and Trails HappyValley Wednesday, Feb. 5, 1992 • Tour • West Mult. County Soil & Water Consv. Portland Thursday, Feb. 6,1992 • Dist. meeting • Friday, Feb. 7,1992 • Metro Area Planning Directors meeting Portland • Regional Light Rail Summit meeting Portland Saturday, Feb. 8, 1992 • Oregon Parks Dept. staff meeting Portland Wednesday, Feb. 12, 1992 • TPL & Local Parks Providers meeting Portland Wednesday, Feb. 12, 1992 on potential acquisition areas • FAUNA planning meeting Portland Wednesday, Feb. 12, 1992 • Metro area city managers meeting on Portland Thursday, Feb. 13, 1992 • review ofparks & greenspaces • GreenCity Data Project meeting Portland Thursday, Feb. 13, 1992 • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 150 • • • Meeting Location DateITime • Greenspaces Boat tour ofWillamette Oregon City Friday, Feb. 14, 1992 • river for PAC & TAC members • Technical Advisory meeting Portland Friday, Feb. 14, 1992 • Earth Summit conference Portland Saturday, Feb. 15, 1992 • Presentation to Home Builders Association Portland Thursday, Feb. 20, 1992 • Education Committee meeting Portland Thursday, Feb. 20, 1992 • Presentation to Portland Environmental Portland Thursday, Feb. 20, 1992 • Commission • EPA Conference Portland Feb. 21-23,1992 • ~onday,Feb.24, • Public Forum Troutdale 1992 • Public Forum Oregon City Tuesday, Feb. 25, 1992 • Policy Advisory Committee meeting Portland VVednesday, Feb. 26, 1992 • Public Forum Hillsboro VVednesday, Feb. 26, 1992 • Government briefing on Master Wilsonville VVednesday, Feb. 26, 1992 • Plan for City ofWilsonville • Presentation to Rex Pumam H.S. Hillsboro VVednesday, Feb. 26, 1992 • Public Forum Vancouver Thursday, Feb. 27, 1992 • Technical Advisory Committee meeting Portland Friday, Feb. 28, 1992 • Public Forum Portland Saturday, Feb. 29, 1992 • Presentation at First Unitarian Church Portland VVednesday, March 4,1992 • Transportation and Planning Committee Portland Tuesday, March 10,1992 • meeting • Government briefing on Master Plan for Tigard Tuesday, March 10, 1992 • City ofTigard • Policy Advisory Committee meeting Portland VVednesday, March 11, 1992 • FAUNA meeting Portland VVednesday, March 11, 1992 • Presentation at Rose City United Portland Thursday, March 12, 1992 • Methodist Church • GreenCity Data Project kick-off Portland Saturday, March 14, 1992 • Briefing for Columbia Corridor Portland Thursday, March 19, 1992 • Association • Technical Advisory Committee meeting Portland Thursday, March 19, 1992 • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 151 • Meeting Location DatelTime • Parks Forum XXI Gladstone Friday, March 20, 1992 • Presentation for Business and Portland Friday, March 20, 1992 • Professional Women ofAmerican • Association ofUniversity Women • Trails Working Group meeting Portland Monday, March 23, 1992 • Presentation at First Presbyterian Portland Tuesday, March 24,1992 • Church • Public InvolvementlEducation Working Portland Wednesday, March 25, 1992 • Group meeting • Government Briefing on Master Plan for Lake Oswego Tuesday, March 31,1992 • the City ofLake Oswego • Northwest Week in Review (OPB TV)- Portland Friday, April 3, 1992 • program on Greenspaces • Streamwalk Conference Portland Saturday, April 4, 1992 • Metropolitan Greenspaces Portland Wednesday, April 8, 1992 • 1992 Lecture Series - • "Retaining our sense ofplace" • Technical Advisory Committee meeting Portland Friday, April 10, 1992 • World Forestry Center Open House Portland Saturday, April II, 1992 • Presentation to Mulmomah County Portland Monday, April 13, 1992 • Library • Presentation toJackson Middle School Hillsboro Monday, April 13, 1992 Neighborhood Group • Dedication ofFem Hill Wedands Forest Grove Saturday, April 18, 1992 • Restoration site/GrantAward Ceremony • Presentation to Southeast Uplift group Portland Monday, April 20, 1992 • Greenspaces display at Growth Portland Tuesday, April 21, 1992 • Conference • Presentation to Friends ofPowell Butte Portland Tuesday, April 21, 1992 • Government Briefing on Master Plan Sherwood Wednesday, April 22, 1992 • for the City ofSherwood • Metropolitan Greenspaces Portland Wednesday, April 22, 1992 • 1992 Lecture Series - • "Connecting to our Greenspaces System" • Greenspaces display at "Walk your Portland Wednesday, April 22, 1992 Talk" event • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 152 • • • Meeting Location DatelTime • Metro Council meeting Portland Thursday, April 23, 1992 • Presentation at Friends ofForest Park Portland Thursday, April 23, 1992 • meeting • Presentation at PSUlEarth Day Portland Friday, April 24, 1992 • celebration • Presentation to PDC Portland Friday, April 24, 1992 • Earth Day Children's Festival talk Portland Saturday, April 25, 1992 • Backyard Tree Farm Workshops talk Portland Saturday, April 25, 1992 • Earth Day talk Portland Sunday, April 26, 1992 • Policy Advisory Committee meeting Portland Wednesday, Aprl129, 1992 • Jackson Bottom Spring Hillsboro Saturday, May 2,1992 • Wetlands Celebration • Government Briefing on Master Plan for Portland Monday~ May 4, 1992 • U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service • Talk and slide show at Neighborhood Portland Tuesday, May 5,1992 • House Senior Center • Talk and slideshow at Cedar Hills Portland Tuesday, May 5, 1992 • Lions Club • Government briefing on Master Plan for Johnson City Tuesday, May 5, 1992 • the City ofJohnson City • Government briefing on Master Plan for Portland Tuesday, May 5, 1992 • the W. Mulmomah Soil & Water • Conservation Dist • Government briefing on Master Plan for Hillsboro Tuesday, May 5,1992 • the City ofHillsboro • Environmental Technology & Society: Portland Wednesday, May 6, 1992 • Issues in Sustainable Development • Conference • Metropolitan Greenspaces Portland Wednesday, May 6, 1992 • 1992 Lecture Series "Reclaiming • Neighborhood Greenspaces" • Government briefing on Master Plan for Wood Village Wednesday, May 6, 1992 • the City ofWood Village • Talk and slide show at Open Space Kitsap County, Wash. Thursday-Friday, May 7-8, 1992 • Preservation Conference . • Technical Advisory Committee meeting Portland Friday, May 8, 1992 • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan,July 1992 • 153 • Meeting Location DateITime· • Government briefing on Master Plan for Hillsboro Friday, May 8, 1992 • Washington Parks Adv. Bd. and USA Adv. • Bd. Commission • Young Presidents' Organization! Portland Saturday, May 9, 1992 • League ofWomen Voters' tour • ofGreenspaces sites • Trails Working Group meeting Portland Monday, May 11, 1992 • Government briefing on Master Beaverton Monday, May 11, 1992 • Plan for the City ofBeaverton • Government briefing on Master Plan for Rivergrove Monday, May 11, 1992 • the City ofRivergrove • Government briefing on Master Plan for Portland Tuesday, May 12, 1992 • East Mulmomah Soil & Water Conservation • Dist. • Transportation Planning meeting Portland Tuesday, May 12, 1992 • Government briefing on Master Plan Gladstone Tuesday, May 12,1992 • for the City ofGladstone • Polier Advisory Committee meeting Portland Wednesday, May 13, 1992 • Government briefing on Master Plan Oregon City Wednesday, May 13, 1992 • for the City ofOregon City • Government briefing on Master Plan Portland Thursday, May 14, 1992 • for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service • Metro Council meeting - briefing on Portland Thursday, May 14, 1992 • the Master Plan • Government briefing on Master Plan for Oregon City Thursday, May 14,1992 • N. Qackamas Parks and Recreation Dist. • Government briefing on Master Plan for Portland Friday, May 15, 1992 • the U.S. Forest Service • Second government briefing on Master Hillsboro Monday, May 18, 1992 • Plan for Washington Parks Adv. Bd. and • USA Adv. Bd Commission • Government briefing on Master Plan for Salem Monday, May 18, 1992 • Oregon Dept. ofParks and Recreation • Government briefing on Master Plan for Portland Monday, May 18, 1992 • the City ofPortland • Government briefing on Master Plan for Cornelius Tuesday, May 19, 1992 • the City ofCornelius • Talk and slide show at Wilsonville Wilsonville Tuesday, May 19, 1992 • Kiwanis Club • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 154 • • • Meeting Location Datetrune • Government briefing on Master Plan for Gresham Tuesday, May 19, 1992 • the CityofGresham • Government briefing on Master Plan for Happy Valley Tuesday, May 19,1992 • the City ofHappy Valley • Government briefing on Master Plan for Milwaukie Tuesday, May 19, 1992 • the City ofMilwaukie Talk and slide show atMontevi1la Kiwanis Portland Tuesday, May 19,1992 • Club • Government briefing on Master Plan for Portland Wednesday, May 20, 1992 • Oregon Dept. ofFish & Wildlife Comm. • Government briefing on Master Plan Oregon City Wednesday, May 20, 1992 • for Oackamas County • Government briefing on Master Plan for King City Wednesday, May 20, 1992 • the City ofKing City • Government briefing on Master Plan for Portland Wednesday, May 20, 1992 • the State Agency Council on Growth • Metropolitan Greenspaces Portland Wednesday, May 20, 1992 • 1992 Lecture Series • "Balancing Dollars & Sense • in Greenspaces" Government briefing on Master Plan for Fairview Wednesday, May 20, 1992 • the City ofFairview • Government briefing on Master Plan for Portland Wednesday, May 20, 1992 • the City ofPortland Government briefing on Master Plan for Portland Thursday, May 21, 1992 • the Portland Environmental Commission • Finance Working Group meeting Portland Thursday, May 21,1992 • Finance Committee Portland Thursday, May 21, 1992 • Technical Advisory Committee meeting Portland Friday, May 22, 1992 • Government briefing on Master Plan for Portland Tuesday, May 26, 1992 • MulOlomah County • Government briefing on Master Plan Portland Tuesday, May 26, 1992 • for Port ofPordand • Transportation and Planning meeting Portland Tuesday, May 26, 1992 • Government briefing on Master Plan Troutdale Tuesday, May 26, 1992 • for the City ofTroutdale • .Government briefing on Master Plan Durham Tuesday, May 26, 1992 • for the City ofDurham • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan,July 1992 • 155 • Meeting Location DatelT"lDle • Parks Forum XXII Wilsonville Wednesday, May 27, 1992 • Public Workshop on Wusonville Wednesday, May 27, 1992 • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan! • Government Briefing on the Master • Plan for the City ofWusonville • Government briefing onMaster Plan Portland Wednesday, May 27, 1992 • for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service • Policy Advisory Committee meeting Portland Wednesday, May 27, 1992 • Government briefing on Master Plan West Linn Wednesday, May 27, 1992 • for the City ofWest Linn • Metro Council meeting - first hearing Portland Thursday, May 28, 1992 • on parks resolution • Greenspaces Restoration Grants Portland Thursday, May 28, 1992 • Workshop • Government briefing on Master Plan for Portland Friday, May 29, 1992 • the City Managers Subcommittee • Regional Trails Working Group meeting Portland Friday, May 29, 1992 . • GreenCity Data Project Environmental Portland Saturday, May 30, 1992 • Education Pilot Project Final Conference • Public Workshop on Metropolitan Portland Saturday, May 30, 1992 • Greenspaces Master Plan • Public Workshop on Metropolitan Milwaulcie Monday,June 1, 1992 • Greenspaces Master Plan • Public Workshop on Metropolitan BeavertonIPortland Tuesday, June 2, 1992 • Greenspaces Master Plan • Public InvolvementlEducation Portland Tuesday, June 2,1992 • Working Group meeting • Public Workshop on Metropolitan Fairview Wednesday, June 3,1992 • Greenspaces Master Plan • Government briefing on Master Plan Tualatin Thursday,June 4, 1992 • for the City ofTualatin • Technical Advisory Committee meeting Portland Friday, June 5, 1992 • Greenspaces briefing to West Clackamas Lake Oswego Monday,June8,1992 • County League ofWomen Voters • Government briefing on Master Plan Forest Grove Monday, June 8, 1992 • for the City ofForest Grove • Regional Policy Advisory Committee Portland Wednesday,Junel0,1992 • meeting • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 156 • • • Meeting Location Daterrune • Policy Advisory Committee meeting Portland Wednesday, June 10, 1992 • Government briefing onMaster Plan Beaverton Wednesday,June 10,1992 • formeTIIPRD • Tal)( and slide show at Sierra Qub Portland Wednesday, June 10, 1992 • Technical Advisory Committee meeting Portland Friday, June 12, 1992 • Greenspaces volunteer meeting Portland Monday, June 15,1992 • Government briefing on Master Plan for Portland Wednesday, June 17, 1992 • the State Agency Council on Growth • Policy Advisory Committee meeting Portland Wednesday, June 17, 1992 • Ta& at Portland/Oregon Visitors Portland Thursday, June 18, 1992 • Association wee)(ly brealdast meeting • Technical Advisory Committee meeting Portland Friday,June 19, 1992 • Transportation and Planning meeting Portland Tuesday, June 23,1992 • Worbhop on Master Plan Gresham Tuesday, June 9, 1992 • for the City ofGresham • FAUNA annual meeting Portland Wednesday, June 24, 1992 • Policy Advisory Committee meeting Portland Wednesday, June 24,1992 • Presentation to League ofConservation Portland Thursday, June 25,1992 • Voters office • Greenspaces booth at Tualatin Washington County Saturday, June 27, 1992 • River Days • Greenspaces Restoration Grants Portland Thursday, July 2,1992 • Wor)(shop • Boundary Commission Hearing Portland Thursday, July 2,1992 • Metto Transportation and Planning Portland Tuesday,July14,1992 • Committee Hearing • Metto Finance Committee meeting Portland Thursday, July 16,1992 • Metto Council meeting - second Portland Thursday,July 22, 1992 • hearing for adoption ofMaster • Plan and Bond referral • • • • Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan, July 1992 • 157