Biodiversity Guide - The Intertwine

BiodiversityGuidefor the greaterPortland-vancouverRegionA companion to theRegional ConservationStrategy

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideContentsPreface............................................................................................................................................................................................... xiChapter 1 Current Conditions...........................................................................................................................1Data Sources and Limitations........................................................................................................................1Land Cover in the Greater Portland-Vancouver Region...........................................................................4Urban and Developed Areas.......................................................................................................................4Open Water and Wetlands...........................................................................................................................5Tree Cover and Forest Patches....................................................................................................................6Agriculture.....................................................................................................................................................9Derivatives of the Land Cover......................................................................................................................10Natural Lands and Natural Patches..........................................................................................................10Interior Forest Habitat................................................................................................................................10Land Management and Public Lands..............................................................................................................10For More Information........................................................................................................................................12Chapter 2 Biogeography of the Greater Portland-Vancouver Region..............................................13Focal Area.............................................................................................................................................................15Habitat Change in the Region, 1850-2010......................................................................................................17Limitations of the Data...................................................................................................................................18Vegetation Change over the Region..............................................................................................................18Vegetation Change by Subbasin.....................................................................................................................19Data Sources and Methods.............................................................................................................................20For More information.....................................................................................................................................21How the Biodiversity Guide Relates to Other Regional Planning Efforts.................................................21The Intertwine Alliance. 2012. Biodiversity Guide for the Greater Portland-Vancouver Region.A. Sihler, editor. The Intertwine Alliance, Portland, OR. www.theintertwine.orgCopyright © 2012 The Intertwine AllianceChapter 3 Major Habitat Types of the Region..........................................................................................25Rivers, Streams, and Open Waters...................................................................................................................25Historical and Current Occurrence..............................................................................................................26River, Stream, and Open-water Species........................................................................................................27Threats Specific to Rivers, Streams, and Open Waters...............................................................................27Likely Effects of Climate Change...................................................................................................................28Conservation Strategies and Opportunities.................................................................................................28For More Information.....................................................................................................................................29i

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideContentsShorelines and Mudflats.....................................................................................................................................29Examples within the Region......................................................................................................................51Historical and Current Occurrence..........................................................................................................30Entities Working on the Issue...................................................................................................................51Wildlife Use.................................................................................................................................................30Threats and Challenges..............................................................................................................................51Conservation Strategies and Opportunities............................................................................................31Likely Effects of Climate Change..............................................................................................................52For More Information................................................................................................................................31Important Management Strategies...........................................................................................................52Riparian and Bottomland Hardwood Forests...........................................................................................32Conservation Strategies and Opportunities............................................................................................52Historical and Current Occurrence..........................................................................................................32For More Information................................................................................................................................53Important Processes and Species..............................................................................................................32Upland Prairie, Wet Prairie, and Rocky Balds..........................................................................................53Threats and Challenges..............................................................................................................................33Historical and Current Occurrence..........................................................................................................54Likely Effects of Climate Change..............................................................................................................34Condition of Existing Prairies...................................................................................................................54Conservation Strategies and Opportunities............................................................................................34Important Flora and Fauna.......................................................................................................................55For More Information................................................................................................................................35Entities Working on the Issue...................................................................................................................56Shrub Habitat..................................................................................................................................................35Threats and Challenges..............................................................................................................................56Historical and Current Occurrence..........................................................................................................35Likely Effects of Climate Change..............................................................................................................57Important Processes and Disturbances...................................................................................................36Conservation Strategies and Opportunities............................................................................................57Shrub Species and Wildlife Use................................................................................................................36For More Information................................................................................................................................58Threats and Challenges..............................................................................................................................36Special Habitat Features................................................................................................................................59Conservation Strategies and Opportunities............................................................................................37Snags and Downed Wood..........................................................................................................................59For More Information................................................................................................................................37Forest Openings..........................................................................................................................................59Wetlands...........................................................................................................................................................38Rock Habitats..............................................................................................................................................59Major Wetland Types in the Greater Portland-Vancouver Region......................................................38Bretz Flood Features...................................................................................................................................60Historical and Current Occurrence..........................................................................................................40Springs and Seeps.......................................................................................................................................60Wetland Plant and Wildlife Species..........................................................................................................41Vernal Pools.................................................................................................................................................60Threats to Wetlands....................................................................................................................................42Fens...............................................................................................................................................................60Conservation Strategies and Opportunities............................................................................................42Off-Channel Habitats.................................................................................................................................60For More Information................................................................................................................................43Conservation Strategies and Opportunities............................................................................................61Upland Forests................................................................................................................................................43For More Information................................................................................................................................61Old-growth Forests and Changes since 1850..........................................................................................44iiCurrent Conditions....................................................................................................................................44Biodiversity..................................................................................................................................................44Landscape Issues.........................................................................................................................................45Threats and Challenges..............................................................................................................................45Conservation Strategies and Opportunities............................................................................................46For More Information................................................................................................................................46Oak Woodland and Savanna........................................................................................................................47Importance of Oak Habitat to Wildlife....................................................................................................48Flora of Oregon White Oak Habitats.......................................................................................................49Importance to Native Americans.............................................................................................................50Historical and Current Occurrence..........................................................................................................50Distribution of Oak Habitats in the Region............................................................................................50Condition of Existing Oak Habitats.........................................................................................................50Chapter 4 Flora of the Region.......................................................................................................................63How Does Flora Provide Habitat?...............................................................................................................63Rare Species in the Region............................................................................................................................64Threats and Challenges..................................................................................................................................64Habitat Loss and Fragmentation...............................................................................................................64Invasive Species...........................................................................................................................................64Population Genetics...................................................................................................................................65Lack of Knowledge.....................................................................................................................................65Lack of Plant Material Availability...........................................................................................................66Likely Effects of Climate Change.................................................................................................................66Priority Conservation and Restoration Strategies....................................................................................66Survey the Region’s (Rare) Plants.............................................................................................................66Conduct Site-level Surveys before Site-disturbing Activities................................................................67iii

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideContentsManage Known Rare Plant Populations..................................................................................................67Collect and Cultivate Plants......................................................................................................................67Habitat Needs and Opportunities for Conservation Strategy Species..................................................67Key Groups Working on Plant Conservation............................................................................................67Natural Resources Conservation Service, Corvallis Plant Materials Center (ORPMC)...................67Institute for Applied Ecology....................................................................................................................67Metro Regional Government, Native Plant Center................................................................................69For More Information: Regional Assessments and Plans........................................................................69Questions, Unresolved Issues, and Data Gaps..................................................................................... 101For More Information............................................................................................................................. 101Mammals....................................................................................................................................................... 102Conservation Issues and Key Threats to Mammals............................................................................ 103Special-status Species: Habitat Needs................................................................................................... 104Data Gaps.................................................................................................................................................. 105Conservation Strategies.......................................................................................................................... 105For More Information............................................................................................................................. 106Chapter 5 Fish and Wildlife of the Region.................................................................................................71Invertebrates....................................................................................................................................................71Conservation Issues and Threats..............................................................................................................72Conservation Strategies: Habitat Needs of Invertebrates......................................................................76Questions, Unresolved Issues, and Data Gaps........................................................................................77For More Information................................................................................................................................77Fish....................................................................................................................................................................78Conservation Issues and Key Threats to Fish.........................................................................................78Habitat Needs, Threats, and Opportunities.............................................................................................80Climate Change...........................................................................................................................................84Priority Conservation and Restoration Strategies..................................................................................84Questions, Unresolved Issues, and Data Gaps........................................................................................87For More Information................................................................................................................................87Amphibians.....................................................................................................................................................88Conservation Issues and Key Threats to Amphibians...........................................................................88Conservation Strategy Species: Habitat Needs, Threats, and Opportunities......................................89Priority Conservation and Restoration Strategies..................................................................................89Current Activities and Programs..............................................................................................................89Questions, Unresolved Issues, and Data Gaps........................................................................................90For More Information................................................................................................................................90Reptiles.............................................................................................................................................................91Conservation Issues and Key Threats to Reptiles...................................................................................91Conservation Strategy Species: Habitat Needs, Threats, and Opportunities......................................92Priority Conservation and Restoration Strategies..................................................................................93Current Activities and Programs..............................................................................................................93Questions, Unresolved Issues, and Data Gaps........................................................................................93For More Information................................................................................................................................94Birds..................................................................................................................................................................94Conservation Issues and Key Threats to Birds........................................................................................95Current State and Local Priority Conservation and Restoration Strategies.......................................98Priority Conservation and Restoration Strategies............................................................................... 100Chapter 6 Important Issues and Concepts.............................................................................................. 107Climate Change............................................................................................................................................ 107Strategies for Maintaining the Resilience of Natural Systems........................................................... 108For More Information............................................................................................................................. 109Fire................................................................................................................................................................. 109Effects of Fire on Prairie, Savanna, and Oak Woodland.................................................................... 109Effects of Fire on Upland Forests........................................................................................................... 110Implications of the Modern-day Lack of Fire...................................................................................... 110Strategies to Address the Need for Fire in the Landscape.................................................................. 110Likely Effects of Climate Change........................................................................................................... 111For More Information............................................................................................................................. 111Floodplains and Hydrology....................................................................................................................... 112Altered Hydrology................................................................................................................................... 113Ongoing Threats...................................................................................................................................... 113Strategies to Improve Hydrology and Floodplain Function.............................................................. 113For More Information............................................................................................................................. 114Pollinators and Pollinator Conservation................................................................................................. 114Importance of Protecting Pollinators.................................................................................................... 115Native Pollinators in the Region............................................................................................................ 116Pollinator Conservation.......................................................................................................................... 116Strategies for Pollinator Conservation.................................................................................................. 116For More Information............................................................................................................................. 117Patch Size and Anchor Habitats................................................................................................................ 117Strategies for Maximizing the Effectiveness of Large or Scarce Habitats......................................... 119For More Information............................................................................................................................. 119Biodiversity Corridors and Connectivity................................................................................................ 120Characteristics of Effective Corridors................................................................................................... 120Threats and Challenges........................................................................................................................... 122Strategies for Improving Connectivity.................................................................................................. 122For More Information............................................................................................................................. 122ivv

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guide ContentsChapter 7 Threats and Challenges............................................................................................................ 123Enhancing Biodiversity Corridors and Regional Connectivity.......................................................... 155Habitat Loss.................................................................................................................................................. 123Habitat Restoration and Enhancement................................................................................................... 156Barriers and Declining Landscape Permeability.................................................................................... 124Restoration Projects................................................................................................................................. 156Natural Versus Artificial Barriers.......................................................................................................... 125Enhancement Projects............................................................................................................................ 157Types and Impacts of Artificial Barriers............................................................................................... 125Overview of the Practice of Natural Area Restoration and Enhancement...................................... 157Effects of Barriers on Different Types of Biota.................................................................................... 126Conservation in Developed Areas............................................................................................................ 158How New Barriers Are Assessed........................................................................................................... 127Strategic Actions...................................................................................................................................... 159Strategies to Improve Regional Connectivity....................................................................................... 127Conservation in Working Landscapes..................................................................................................... 160For More Information............................................................................................................................. 127Threats and Challenges........................................................................................................................... 161Water Quality............................................................................................................................................... 128Strategic Actions...................................................................................................................................... 161Clark County – Clark County DES Perspective.................................................................................. 128Conservation Education............................................................................................................................. 161Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Perspective................................................ 131For More Information............................................................................................................................. 134Invasive Species............................................................................................................................................ 134Importance............................................................................................................................................... 135Habitats Affected...................................................................................................................................... 137Economic Impact..................................................................................................................................... 137Strategies to Combat Invasive Species.................................................................................................. 137Climate Change and Invasive Species................................................................................................... 139Successes................................................................................................................................................... 139For More Information............................................................................................................................. 140Human Activity............................................................................................................................................ 140Strategies for Reducing the Impact of Human Activity...................................................................... 141For More Information............................................................................................................................. 141Chemical Pollutants.................................................................................................................................... 142Strategies................................................................................................................................................... 142For More Information............................................................................................................................. 144Disease........................................................................................................................................................... 145Recommended Priority Strategies to Address Threats Linked to Disease....................................... 146Applicable Regulations............................................................................................................................ 146For More Information............................................................................................................................. 147Anthropogenic Hazards............................................................................................................................. 147Anthropogenic Hazards to Fish and Wildlife in the Region.............................................................. 148Strategies to Minimize Hazards to Fish and Wildlife......................................................................... 150Applicable Regulations............................................................................................................................ 151For More Information............................................................................................................................. 151AppendixesA Land Cover Mapping................................................................................................................................ 163B Habitat Prioritization Modeling..........................................................................................................................171C Natural Areas Ownership......................................................................................................................................179D Upland Forest Wildlife in the Region................................................................................................................189E Vertebrate Species in the Region.......................................................................................................................195F Rare Flora of the Region.......................................................................................................................................217G Butterflies of the Region......................................................................................................................................223H Special-status Amphibians and Reptiles in the Region..............................................................................227I Watersheds............................................................................................................................................... 2351. Clackamas River Subbasin................................................................................................................ 2352. Lewis River Subbasin......................................................................................................................... 2403. Lower Columbia – Clatskanie Subbasin......................................................................................... 2463a. Cathlamet Channel - Columbia River............................................................................................ 2473b. Kalama River - Frontal Columbia River......................................................................................... 2514. Lower Columbia – Sandy Subbasin................................................................................................. 2554a. Sandy River......................................................................................................................................... 2554b. Washougal River............................................................................................................................... 2614c. The City of Washougal – Columbia River.................................................................................... 265Overview of the Willamette River Watershed................................................................................... 2695. Johnson Creek Watershed................................................................................................................. 2726. Salmon Creek – Frontal Columbia River....................................................................................... 2767. Scappoose Creek – Frontal Columbia River Watershed.............................................................. 2808. Willamette River – Frontal Columbia River Subbasin and Hayden Island-Columbia RiverWatershed................................................................................................................................................. 284viChapter 8 Major Categories of Strategies............................................................................................... 153Preservation and Conservation................................................................................................................. 153Protection/Acquisition............................................................................................................................ 153Conservation............................................................................................................................................ 1559. Abernethy Creek–Willamette River Watershed (Greater Oregon City)................................... 29010. Chehalem Creek–Willamette River Watershed.......................................................................... 29411. Molalla-Pudding Subbasin............................................................................................................. 29912. Tualatin Subbasin............................................................................................................................. 305vii

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guide Contentsappendix J Contributors............................................................................................................................... 311Tables1-1 Land Cover by Watershed in the Greater Portland-Vancouver Region ...........................................21-2 Areas with Publicly Owned Prairie and Oak Habitats........................................................................91-3 Publicly and Privately Owned Lands, Forest Patches (FP,) and Interior Forest Habitat (IF)in the Region, by Watershed (WS) .....................................................................................................112-1 Subbasins Used for Analysis of Vegetation Change...........................................................................162-2 Important Natural Areas in the Greater Portland-Vancouver Region............................................172-3 Acreage, Percent of Total Area, and Percent Change for 11 Land Cover Types inthe Region................................................................................................................................................182-4 Regional Biodiversity Assessments Conducted since 1990 .............................................................223-1 Public Land with Known Oak Habitat................................................................................................493-2 Sites with Ongoing Prairie Restoration...............................................................................................544-1 Primary Threats to Rare Plants in the Greater Portland-Vancouver Region, by Type..................644-2 Conservation Strategies for Rare Plants in the Region That Are Focal Species of StateConservation Plans................................................................................................................................735-1 Examples of Native Terrestrial Macroinvertebratesof the Greater Portland-Vancouver Region........................................................................................735-2 Examples of Exotic Terrestrial Macroinvertebratesof the Greater Portland-Vancouver Region........................................................................................745-3 Roles of the Region’s Salmon and Steelhead Populations in the Recovery of Lower ColumbiaRiver Evolutionarily Significant Units: Summary of Designations for Each Population,According to the Preferred Recovery Scenario..................................................................................855-4 Strategies to Recover Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead Populations and TheirRelevance to General Threats Affecting Those Populations.............................................................865-5 Sample of Regional Habitats and Species Covered by Partner in Flight Conservation Plans......997-1 Land Use and Water Quality, Biological, and Stream Flow Indicators in Clark County,Washington.......................................................................................................................................... 1337-2 Land Use and Biological, Habitat, and Water Quality Indicators in Selected Willamette BasinSubbasins.............................................................................................................................................. 1347-3 Typical Invasive Species by Major Habitat Type............................................................................. 1367-4 Selected Persistent Pollutants in the Greater Portland-Vancouver Region................................. 143I-1 Watersheds in the Greater Portland-Vancouver Region, Organized by Subbasin...................... 236A-1 Regional Overview.............................................................................................................................. 165A-2 Watersheds........................................................................................................................................... 166A-3 Topography.......................................................................................................................................... 167A-4 Land Cover........................................................................................................................................... 168A-5 Forest Patches and Tree Cover........................................................................................................... 169A-6 Public Lands......................................................................................................................................... 170B-1 High-Value Habitat............................................................................................................................. 174B-2 Riparian Habitat Modeling................................................................................................................ 175B-3 High-Value Habitat–Urban Only...................................................................................................... 176B-4 Understanding Conditions at Multiple Scales................................................................................. 177I-1 Watersheds........................................................................................................................................... 234Figures1-1 The Region ...............................................................................................................................................21-2 Regional Conservation Modeled Output............................................................................................121-3 Understanding Conditions at Multiple Scales....................................................................................132-1 Relative Percent Change of Major Land Covers, 1850-2010, for the Region.................................192-2 Percent Change of Major Land Covers by Subbasin, 1850-2010.....................................................207-1 Clark County Stream Health by Watershed..................................................................................... 131viiiix

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guidePrefacePrefaceJonathan Soll, Metro, and Esther Lev,The Wetlands ConservancyThe prospect of developing a single documentthat captures basic but comprehensive informationabout the greater Portland-Vancouverregion’s biodiversity—while also proposing atransparent, data-driven approach to setting conservationpriorities—was simultaneously compellingand daunting. At the start of this effort, thedata to adequately map much of the region’s biotaat significant detail or accuracy was lacking, aswas funding to compile such information. At thesame time, conservation practitioners and policymakers have a great need for state-of-the artecological and mapping information, at multiplegeographic scales, to assist them in setting conservationpriorities.This Biodiversity Guide for the GreaterPortland-Vancouver Region is an effort to providea scientific baseline and framework to fill thatneed. Using a combination of new and previouslydeveloped data, published research, maps, andexpert opinion, this document begins to describethe current status of our region’s biota, changesthat have occurred since 1850, and potentialfuture changes and losses if conservation andrestoration actions do not take place. The BiodiversityGuide also addresses non-biological issuesof importance, such as fire, floodplains, and climatechange. It takes a high-level look at threatsto the region’s ecological health and strategicopportunities to protect and enhance the region’sbiodiversity. Finally, the Biodiversity Guide identifiesregional conservation priority areas; theseopportunities to strategically invest in meaningfulbiodiversity conservation in the region wereidentified through a combination of computermodeling and expert opinion.Although the Biodiversity Guide is useful as astand-alone reference document, it was preparedas a companion to The Intertwine Alliance’sRegional Conservation Strategy for the GreaterPortland-Vancouver Region; as such, theBiodiversity Guide provides the biologicalframework for the Regional Conservation Strategy’sdiscussions of issues, current conservationwork, and future strategic opportunities. Giventhat there is some overlap between the twodocuments, in this Biodiversity Guide we referthe reader to the Regional Conservation Strategyin cases where that document treats a particulartopic in greater depth.This Biodiversity Guide and RegionalConservation Strategy are not meant to replacecurrent assessments by state, federal, or localjurisdictions, agencies, or nonprofit organizations,such as watershed councils. Instead, thetwo documents place ecological data in a largerframework, geographical scale, and context. Wehope that new data generated by this project willbe useful for conservation efforts based on previousstudies and plans. Conservation prioritiesdepend on scale; what is important at one scalemay not be important at another. This does notmean that one is more valid than another, butinstead that geographic scale influences goal settingand the questions one asks. This project is nodifferent. For this effort, we wanted to ensure thatareas and resources that may have been overlookedor undervalued in larger biodiversity andxi

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideecological assessments are identified and valuedwithin their own geographic context.This effort both builds on and fill gaps leftby Oregon and Washington’s statewide conservationstrategies, 1 as well as other regional orlocal assessment efforts. (For a more thoroughdiscussion of this subject, see Chapter 3 of theRegional Conservation Strategy.) The BiodiversityGuide for the Greater Portland-Vancouver Regionillustrates how the region’s urban, suburban, andrural areas serve as a link between large areas ofpredominantly publicly owned lands in the CascadeRange to the east and the Coast Range to thewest, and between the Willamette Valley properand the southern Puget Trough, to the south andnorth, respectively. The assumption is that analysisand mapping done at this scale can supportsuccessful decision making regarding adaptationto climate change, the impacts of future urbangrowth, transportation planning, and—mostimportantly—conservation investment at a differentgeographic scale than previous efforts, largerand smaller.We chose to use subwatersheds (HUC 4 andHUC 5; see Chapter 1) as boundaries to definethe greater Portland-Vancouver region. Specificboundaries were selected to keep the extent of thearea reasonably small, to exclude most federallyowned land, and to moderate data processingcosts. Still, the region encompasses14 subwatersheds totaling 1.83 million acres inparts or all of 10 counties in two states.Ultimately, boundaries are human constructs.Some have real biological meaning, but many aresomewhat arbitrary delineations along a continuumof change. Whether a given area is just insideor just outside our assessment area says moreabout the vagaries of available data, our budget,and our group’s judgment than any hard and fastconservation biology axiom. Finally, the delineationof the greater Portland-Vancouver regionfor the purposes of this Biodiversity Guide isnot meant to imply any form of prioritizationor eligibility for any future support byThe Intertwine Alliance.xii1 The Oregon Conservation Strategy (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2006) and Washington Comprehensive WildlifeConservation Strategy (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2006).

Chapter 1 Current ConditionsCurrent ConditionsChapter1This chapter provides an overview of thecurrent land cover and land ownership withinthe greater Portland-Vancouver region, which, forthe purposes of this document and its companionRegional Conservation Strategy, is defined as thegeographical area shown in Figure 1-1. In general,the region consists of 1,829,575 acres (2,859square miles, or 7,404 square kilometers) primarilywithin the northern Willamette Valley andsouthern Puget Trough ecoregions, along withportions of the the Coast Range and the CascadeMt. foothills. The region spans parts of two states,parts or all of 10 counties, and parts or all of eightHUC-4 watersheds and 22 HUC-5 watersheds.(HUC stands for hydrologic unit code; see sidebaron page 3.) Figure A-2 in Appendix A and Table1-1 show the watersheds—at several differentHUC levels—that were delineated and exploredfor this Biodiversity Guide. 1Elevation, habitat, and development patternswithin the region are diverse. Elevation variesfrom just above sea level along the Willametteand Columbia rivers to more than 4,000 feet inthe foothills of the Cascades (see Figure A-3).Most of the region (75 percent) lies below 2,000feet in elevation, and 8 percent is below 50 feet.Land cover classes and land ownership alsoare diverse, and the process of classifying andestimating them within the region was intricateand involved (see Appendix A for a description).For ease in understanding, this chapter describesthe region’s land cover in terms of seven generalizedgroupings of land cover classes—agriculture,regenerating forest, developed land, low vegetation,sand bars, tree cover, and water—and twoderivatives of land cover: forest patches andforest patch interior. All of these classificationshave specific definitions for the purposes of thischapter (see Appendix A), as do categories suchas rural and urban areas and public and privatelands. For more information on land coverclasses, exactly what they indicate, and how theywere derived, see Appendix A and the tables inthis chapter.1 In a few cases, small portions of watersheds near the edge of the region were added to other watersheds in order to cover theentire Willamette Valley ecoregion.1

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 1 Current Conditionstable 1-1Land Cover by Watershed in the Greater Portland-Vancouver RegionWatershed (WS) or Watershed % of the Regen. Low Sand TreeSubbasin (SB) Acres Region Agriculture Forest Developed Vegetation Bars Cover WaterAbernethy Cr-Willamette R 87,000 5% 30%

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 1 Current ConditionsHow much of ournatural land coveris protected?The truth is, no oneknows exactly, in partbecause the meaningof the word “protected”is not consistentlydefined. Does it includeforestry lands or regulatedareas? Someproperties are managedfor multiple uses. Thebest we can do rightnow is to estimate howmuch of the naturallandscape is publiclyowned, but that doesnot guarantee protection,and it leaves outprotection by nonprofitssuch as land trusts,conservancies, andprivately ownedconservationeasements.4Christmas tree farms) and young natural forest,or between natural prairie from lawns and especiallycommercial grass fields or pasture. Patchesof field agriculture 4 acres or larger are reasonablywell mapped outside of urban areas, althoughsome low-stature natural vegetation may bemapped as agriculture and vice versa.Public lands and protected habitat also weredifficult to identify and categorize. At the time ofpublication there was no database or geographicalinformation system (GIS) layer that clearlydistinguished between public land and protectedhabitat. Public land is land owned by some formof government and can consist of natural habitat,public parks, schools, golf courses, or developedland. In some cases future development is notlegally prohibited on public land. In contrast,protected land may be in public or privateownership and refers to lands whose current andfuture management is constrained to—at the veryleast—prevent outright development.The mapping team for this Biodiversity Guidechose to use a draft version of Metro’s Recreation,Conservation, and Public Lands layer to estimateprotected habitat. Although this data set is stillbeing refined, it was determined that the benefitof having a tax lot based-layer, which differentiatedbetween federal, state, special district, regional,local, and nonprofit lands, was more useful forthe Biodiversity Guide than a more coarsely scaleddata set of Pacific Northwest protected lands fromthe ReGAP project.As with any large-scale mapping effort, theresulting representation of the land cover of ourregion is certain to have errors in some or evenmany specific locations, yet it still provides a reliablerepresentation of the overall patterns of mostcover types in the region. An accuracy assessment(see Appendix A) revealed a relatively highdegree of accuracy, as long as land cover typeswere somewhat generalized, as described below.Future mapping priorities may include differentiatinghabitats and cover types not adequatelyaddressed here such as prairie, oak types, treefarms, natural shrub cover, and small farms, anddifferentiating between high-structure and lowstructureagriculture. Improved land cover dataallowed us to improve habitat priority modelingfor the region as well (Appendix B). The landcover data and modeled results allow for ascalable, science-based approach to regionalpriority setting. The modeling effort is describedmore fully in Appendix A.Land Cover in the GreaterPortland-Vancouver RegionThe information below describes land coverin the greater Portland-Vancouver region andexplores some differences between urban andrural areas. The information is watershed-basedto illustrate the linkages among urban areas, ruralareas, predominantly publicly owned lands, andother habitat areas within the Willamette Valley,Puget Trough, and Coast Range and Cascades.Urban and Developed AreasWith the presence of two major and 48 smallercities, urban areas occupy one-fifth of the greaterPortland-Vancouver region and are a key focus ofthe conservation efforts described in the RegionalConservation Strategy (Figure A-1). Urbanareas are defined as urban growth boundaries inOregon and urban growth areas in Washington.About one-third of urban areas in the region havemapped tree cover, which includes forests as wellas many single trees and small clusters of trees.Although “urban” is defined as lands that liewithin official jurisdictional boundaries regard-less of land cover, “developed” is a specific landcover category created using remote sensinginformation. Developed areas include buildings,paved roads, and parking lots.Key Facts: “Urban” Areasn 20 percent of the greater Portland-Vancouverregion is classified as urban area, meaning thatit is within an urban growth boundary or urbangrowth area.n 31 percent of the urban area is classified astrees.n 9 percent of the urban areas is publicly owned.n Public landowners that own more than 1,000acres within urban areas include the cities ofPortland and Gresham, Vancouver-ClarkParks & Recreation, and Metro.The developed land cover category includesroads, parking lots, and buildings anywherewithin the region, but not the lawns associatedwith those buildings.Key Facts: “Developed” Landn The developed land cover classification covers13 percent of the region.n Within urban areas, 44 percent of the landcover is classified as developed.n Within rural areas (i.e., specifically not urban),5 percent of the land cover is classified as developed.Low vegetation is a mix of natural and nonnaturalcover types and includes an unknownbut likely significant amount of landscaped andagricultural types, along with natural cover types.Low vegetation covers about 8 percent of theentire region and 17 percent of the land classifiedas urban.Open Water and WetlandsThe open water land cover category includes rivers,large streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and waterbodies where GIS-based land cover classificationdetected a water signal. The open water landcover category generally excludes small streamsand some seasonal or heavily vegetated wetlands.(For a more detailed description of open waterand wetlands see Chapter 3.)Because water flows downhill and measures ofwater quality (i.e., temperature and chemical contamination)in rivers and streams generally reflectconditions throughout a watershed, the conditionof open-water habitats gives strong clues as to theecological condition of the surrounding region.Although the region’s river systems have beenaltered over the past 150 years, its water bodiescontinue to provide habitat, ecosystem services,biodiversity conservation benefits, and biodiversitylinkages that greatly exceed their collectivelylow percentage of total land cover. The openwater cover class includes large rivers, such as theWillamette and Columbia; major tributaries, suchas the Clackamas, Lewis, Molalla, Sandy, Tualatinand Washougal rivers; and important lakes, suchas Vancouver Lake, Sturgeon Lake, Lake Oswego,and Hagg Lake.Key Facts: “Open Water”n 3 percent of the region is classified asopen water.n 10 percent of the region is within the FederalEmergency Management Agency’s 100-yearfloodplain.n More than 5,500 miles of streams and rivershave been mapped within the region.The region’s water quality issues are primarily aresult of land use changes. Aside from dams, thegreatest impacts are typically from urban andagricultural land uses, with forestry practices alsoimpairing water quality. Most water bodies inthe region are greatly affected by dams, irrigationwithdrawal, or changes in hydrology andwater quality that have resulted from increasesin the amount of impermeable surfaces andother human influences in the watersheds. Keyeffects of these changes include flashier streams,increased flooding and property losses, damagedstreams, and pollution. These changes are reflectedin the existence of a total maximum daily load(TMDL) for the entire Willamette River and alsoa specific TMDL for the Tualatin Basin to limitfurther inputs of pollutants, including tempera-5

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 1 Current Conditionsture, fecal bacteria, and mercury. 3 (Chapter 7,“Threats and Challenges,” describes water qualityissues in the region in more detail.)Major rivers in the region whose hydrology isaltered by dams include the Willamette, Columbia,Clackamas, Tualatin, Molalla, Washougal,and Lewis. The Sandy River is the largest riverwithout any dams. Most of the smaller rivers andstreams have weirs, ponds, or other structuresto facilitate water withdrawal for fish hatcheries,irrigation, or other agricultural use. In the mostextreme examples, some streams in urban areashave been rerouted into pipes; this is the case ininner east and downtown Portland.Wetlands are typically—but not always—found in floodplains. Throughout much of theregion, wetlands have been drained, filled, ordisconnected from their water source by dikesin order to facilitate commercial, residential, oragricultural development. Some wetlands areincluded in the open water land cover categorybut not specifically identified. Therefore, we madean effort to collect more detailed information onthese special habitats.Key Facts: “Wetlands” 4n About 4 percent of the region consists ofwetlands.n The percent cover of wetlands in urban areasdoes not differ substantially from that in ruralareas.n About one-quarter of known wetlands arepublicly owned.Although the current extent of wetlands hascertainly declined over time, surveys from 1850vastly underrepresented wetlands; for this reasonit is not possible to estimate the degree of loss.Tree Cover and Forest PatchesForests in our region’s natural areas span arange of forest types and conditions, includingfloodplain forests dominated by hardwoods,remnant mixed oak-conifer forests, and riparianand upland forests that range from 100 percentdeciduous to 100 percent coniferous (the percentagedepending largely on the forest’s managementand disturbance history).Overall Tree CoverForested areas occur throughout the region.Trees, including street trees and all agriculturaltrees, cover 49 percent of the region (see Table1-1 and Figure A-4). Forests are patches of trees,and the size of a habitat patch generally correlateswith its biological diversity (see Chapter 7,“Biodiversity Corridors,” in the Regional ConservationStrategy). In addition to size, the shape ofa habitat patch is important to wildlife becauseinterior habitat, which is away from the edges ofthe habitat patch, is generally more valuable forsensitive species and contains fewer invasive plantand animal species than does edge habitat.Our land cover classification had the greatestsuccess in classifying trees within the region.LiDAR imagery was available for the majorityof the region, allowing identification not just oftree cover but of tree heights as well. Because theLiDAR data ranged in quality and source year,this chapter only reports on the presence of trees,with no attempt to specify height or tree type (i.e.,conifer or deciduous).Key Facts: “Tree Cover”n Trees of any kind cover about 49 percent ofthe region, which is equivalent to about 900,000acres.n 54 percent of the region is classified as trees orregenerating forest (i.e., regenerating clear cuts).This totals nearly 1 million acres.n 83 percent of the land cover that is classified astrees or regenerating forest occurs in patches thatare more than 30 acres in size.3 The Federal Clean Water Act is implemented at the state level under the TMDL process. In Oregon this is done by the Departmentof Environmental Quality and in Washington by the Department of Ecology. For more information see www.deq.state.or.us/wq/tmdls/tmdls.htm or http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/tmdl/index.html. Key facts about wetlands are based on ahybrid of mapping efforts, using the best available local data.4 Key facts about wetlands are based on a hybrid of mapping efforts, using the best available local data.The total amount of tree cover is clearly important,but the size and shape of forest patches alsoinfluence the region’s fish and wildlife, particularlythe more sensitive or declining species. Weanalyzed rough size and shape estimates throughforest patches and interior tree patches respectively,below.Forest PatchesWe differentiate between the tree land cover classificationand forest patches, with the latter beingpatches of trees plus areas of regenerating forest.For this analysis, a forest patch is defined as acluster of trees and/or regenerating forest (i.e.,clear cut) that is at least 30 acres in size. Landcover mapping for this Biodiversity Atlas does notdistinguish between 30 acres of 20-year-old treesmixed with weeds and 30 acres of old-growthforest with native understory that includes rareplants. Many of the region’s largest forest patchesare managed for timber harvest. These are workinglands. In terms of mapping, regeneratingforests are successional because under currentforest practices they are continually replanted. Inaddition, clear cuts and natural clearings withina forest are important to species such as elk.Research indicates that 30 acres is a reasonablelow end for what constitutes a large forest patch.Key Facts: “Forest Patches”n Forest patches (larger than 30 acres) cover45 percent of the region (see Figure A-5).n Forest patches cover about 10 percent of urbanareas, compared to 54 percent of rural areas.Forests are not equally distributed throughoutthe region. The watersheds that have the highestnumber of acres of forest are the Tualatin,Lewis, Lower Columbia-Sandy, and Clackamas;collectively these watersheds total 57 percent ofthe region and contribute nearly one-third of theregion’s forest. Similarly, some urban areas havemore tree cover than others, particularly wherethere are many streams or large protected naturalareas, such as nature parks.The largest contiguous areas of forestlands arein the eastern, northeastern, northern, and westernfringes of the region, in the foothills of theCoast Range and Cascades. However, three majorCoast Range spurs—Chehalem Ridge, ParrettMountain, and the Tualatin Mountains, includingForest Park and Tryon Creek State Park—supportsubstantial forested areas, as do the East Buttesarea of Clackamas County and the Sandy RiverGorge (Figures A-4 and A-5). In Washington,significant forested habitat is found near LacamasLake, Camp Bonneville, Whipple CreekPark, and Ridgefield National Wildlife Complex.Large forested areas also are found near outlyingcities such as Battleground and in areas near theCascade foothills.The age of trees and the condition of theunderstory help in determining the species mixand structure of a forest. Most actively managed,commercial, and private industrial forests in thegreater Portland-Vancouver region are composedmostly of Douglas fir trees (or occasionallyponderosa pine) that are between 1 and 60 yearsold. These stands typically have few snags, limitednative shrubs, and scant large wood on the forestfloor. As a result they are unlikely to support6 7

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 1 Current Conditionsspecies that depend on old-growth (i.e., mature)forest or species that require native shrub communities.This likely also is the case in stateownedforests managed by the WashingtonDepartment of Natural Resources and OregonDepartment of Forestry to produce income forstate school trust programs and, to a lesser extent,in so-called matrix lands owned and managedby the federal government (especially the U.S.Bureau of Land Management and U.S. ForestService), where a focus on commercial thinningrather than clear cutting may enhance shrubcommunities and create some larger trees. Exceptionsare likely to occur along streams protectedby Oregon and Washington state forest protectionacts, where species diversity and average age maybe higher. Family-owned forests may also havegreater age and species diversity, depending onmanagement approach.In urban areas and, increasingly, in ruralareas, forests are suffering from high levels ofinvasive plant species such as English or Irish ivy(Hedera sp.), garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata),invasive blackberry (Rubus sp.), Scotch broom(Cytisus scoparius), false brome (Brachypodiumsylvaticum), and traveler’s joy (Clematis vitalba),among others. This is especially the case alongunmanaged roadside and in riparian areas. (Formore on this issue, see Chapter 7, “Threats andChallenges.”)Old-growth/Mature ForestOld-growth and mature forest has largely disappearedwithin the greater Portland-Vancouverregion. No comprehensive layer of old-growthforest exists for the region, and conversationswith land managers suggest that only a tinyfraction of old-growth, mature, or previouslyunharvested forest remains. However, there area few small patches of old-growth forest withinthe region. Notable examples on the Oregon sideinclude two patches totaling less than 200 acreson public land on the Sandy River, a small patchalong the Clackamas River near Eagle Fern Park,and small amounts in or near Forest Park. InWashington, nearly 2,000 acres of patches thatinclude mature or old-growth forest have beenmapped; these are scattered throughout landsowned by PacifiCorp, mostly along the LewisRiver.The effort invested in mapping relatively smallareas of old-growth forest showcase the rare andvaluable nature of the region’s remaining oldgrowthforest.Table 1-2Regional Examples of Significant Prarie and Oak HabitatsThe mapping effort for this Biodiversity Guidedid not attempt to map oak and prairie habitats.Although these habitat types do fall withintree cover or other land use classes, there are nocomprehensive and accurate maps of oak andprairie habitats available for most of the regionfrom other sources. However, various Oregonentities have partial oak maps, and the WashingtonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife has mappedthousands of acres of oak and prairie habitats aspart of it Priority Habitats and Species program.The ReGAP project estimates that 3 percent(49,000 acres) of the greater Portland-Vancouverregion supports oak woodland. However, thatsmall number, which represents a 90 percent losssince 1850, is still likely to be an overestimate.This is so because, even though potentially suitablehabitat for oak woodland is widespread, fewlarge examples of oak woodlands are known toexist, and present-day oak is often mixed in withother types of trees. Data on oak savanna andprairie are similarly unreliable, although ReGAPestimates that less than 1 percent of the region(1,500 acres) is currently prairie. Reliable figuresfor the percent of oak woodland, savanna, andprairie in public ownership do not exist, but ahigh percentage is thought to be in private ownership.Table 1-2 lists some significant areas ofprairie and oak within the region.AgricultureThere are no accurate statewide or, in most cases,even county-level map layers for agriculture. Themapping effort for this Biodiversity Guide used acombination of a modeling approach and handdigitizing from aerial photographs to separateagriculture from other short-stature land covertypes. The mapping and acreage estimates inthis Biodiversity Guide lack precision aroundChristmas trees farms, nut and fruit orchards,and vineyards (all of which are likely included inother land cover categories) and probably underestimateeven row crops and grass fields becausethe hand-digitizing process excluded small areas.The hand digitizing substantially improved thequality of this land cover category.Prairie and Native OakIn 1850, prairie, oak savanna, and oak woodlandhabitats occupied about 25 percent of the greaterPortland-Vancouver region. Evidence for thiscan still be seen today in the small patches andKey Facts: “Agriculture”individual mature oak trees scattered throughoutn 22 percent of the region’s land cover —justresidential, commercial, and agricultural landsover 400,000 acres—is mapped as agriculture.and mixed within the region’s less intensivelyn 82 percent of the classified Agriculture landmanaged forestland at elevations below aboutfalls within four counties:2,000 feet. Although these habitats are scatteredn Clackamas County: 31 percent (approximatelythroughout much of the region, they are most125,000 acres)abundant in the southern end of the region,n Washington County: 23 percent (approximately93,000 acres)at the western edge of the Willamette Valley inOregon, along the Willamette River, and in then Clark County: 17 percent (approximatelyeastern edge of the region in the Columbia River68,000 acres)Gorge, especially in Washington.n Marion County: 11 percent (approximately8 45,000 acres)9Sauvie IslandWillamette NarrowsAreaCooper Mt. Nature ParkRidgefield National Wildlife Refuge ComplexWashougal Oaks PreserveLacamas Park and Lacamas PrairieLands in the Lake River/Columbia Riverlowlands between the Shillapoo Wildlife Areaand the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge ComplexOwner/ManagerOregon Department of Fish and WildlifeMetro, Oregon Parks and Recreationand The Nature Conservancy, among othersMetro, Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation DistrictU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceWashington Department of Natural ResourcesCity of Camas, Washington Natural Heritage Programand multiple private ownersPrivate

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 1 Current ConditionsMost of the region’s largest agricultural areaslie in the interface between urban areas and theouter large forested areas, where lands are relativelyflat, soils are good, and water is accessible.Depending on management and type of crop,agricultural lands can provide important habitatfor birds and other wildlife, such as grasslandbirds and wintering waterfowl. However, loss ofhabitat and management activities such as mowingduring nesting season can reduce wildlifepopulations.Derivatives ofthe Land CoverNatural Lands andNatural PatchesNatural lands weredefined by removingdeveloped and agriculturallands from theland cover and addingwetlands and smallwater bodies. Naturalland cover types witha cumulative contiguousarea larger than1 acre were groupedas “natural patches.”This was integral tothe subsequent habitatmodeling process (seeAppendix B) where wewanted to value smallnatural urban patchesin relationship to theirsurroundings. In thehabitat model, thiskept the urban patches from being eclipsed bythe larger, mostly publicly-owned patches in thefoothills of the region.Key Facts: “Natural Lands and Natural Patches”n 60 percent of the landscape was classified asnatural patches larger than 1 acre.n 53 percent of all the natural patches acres (orroughly 30 percent of the total region) are inpatches larger than 30 acres.n 25 percent of the urban area is classified asnatural patches that are larger than 30 acres. 5Interior Forest Habitat 6Table 1-3 provides information on the habitatdifferences between urban and rural areas asillustrated by the tree cover and forest patchsize statistics described above, as well as by theamount of interior forest habitat.Key Facts: “Forest Habitat”n 53 percent of the region’s tree cover occurs inareas classified as interior forest habitat (i.e., atleast 50 meters inside a forest patch).n 97 percent of all interior forest habitat liesoutside areas classified as urban.n About 14,000 acres of interior forest habitat arelocated within areas classified as urban.5 See Chapter 6, “Issues and Concepts,” for information on patch size and the relative importance of interior versus edge habitat.Table 1-3Publicly and Privately-Owned Lands, Forest Patches (FP) and Interior Forest Habitat (IF)in the Region, by Watershed (WS)Watershed or Subbasin Ownership Forest Patches > 30 Acres (FP) Interior Forest Habitat (IF)Abernethy Cr-Willamette R 4% 96% 31% 7% 3% 13% 10% 2%Chehalem Creek-Willamette R 1% 99% 21% 2% 2% 8% 1% 1%Clackamas Subbasin (Partial) 9% 91% 55% 15% 11% 35% 18% 11%Hayden Island-Columbia R 13% 87% 6% 53%

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 1 Current Conditionsfigure 1-1Regional Conservation Modeled Outputfigure 1-2Understanding Conditions at Multiple ScalesHigh-Value Lands in the RegionThis graphic shows ecologically high-value lands in the greater Portland-Vancouverregion, based on The Intertwine Alliance’s conservation priority model.High-value areas on the regional map ranked in the top one-third of all areasbecause of the type, location, and size of their habitat. In short, these areasrepresent regional priority lands within our nearly 3,000-square-mile region.Our scientifically based prioritization model divided the region into 5 meterpixels (5 x 5 meter squares) and analyzed them for a number of features,including: existing vegetation, wetlands, habitat patch size and shape, andthe presence of roads. To account for habitats in both urban and rural settings,pixels were scored independently and patch size was assessed in relative andabsolute terms. This approach generated information that can help prioritizeconservation strategies at a variety of geographic scales – from theentire region to the local neighborhood; and allows us to prioritizeurbanized habitats as part of a collective effort to preserve theregion’s biodiversity.In general, the results are consistent with, but moredetailed and geographically comprehensive than,previous efforts to prioritize wildlife habitat withinthe region. Because the region has both highlydeveloped urban areas and relativelyundisturbed landscapes, much of theBanksBanksWashingtonForestGroveCorneliusForestGroveCorneliusColumbiaNewbergNewbergHillsboroHillsboroSt. HelensSt. HelensScappooseScappoosehighest value habitats fall outside the region’s urban growthboundaries. However, more than 19,400 acres of regional highprioritylands occur within and around the region’s cities.Reliable, region-wide information for some important habitatssuch as oak woodlands, prairie, rare species and high-quality forests,was not available. For now, their inclusion in planning effortswill continue to require expert knowledge. It’s also importantto note that the model addressed biodiversity, not culturally orvisually significant landscapes. Future efforts of The IntertwineAlliance will address these important issues.BeavertonBeavertonTigardTigardTualatinSherwoodTualatinSherwoodRidgefieldRidgefieldWilsonvilleWilsonvilleLakeOswegoLakeOswegoPortlandPortlandMilwaukieMilwaukieVancouverOregonCityOregonCityBattleGroundBattleGroundVancouverHappyValleyHappyValleyCowlitzClarkCamasCamasGreshamGreshamDamascusDamascusTroutdaleTroutdaleWashougalWashougalSandyEstacadaSandyEstacadaSkamaniaMulnomahRegional 1”=6.3 miles, or 33,333 feetLocal 1”=0.85 miles, or 4,500 feetAn important benefit of our approach is the flexibility to analyze dataat any scale, from the 3,000-square-mile region to the local neighborhood.The following examples represent patterns of land coverand relative conservation value as one zooms in from the regional tothe neighborhood scale.RegionalAt the regional geographic scale, most small, local habitats are notapparent. Only the most prominent features stand out, such as riversand large forest blocks. The highest scoring areas reflect habitatsthat have significant conservation value within the 3,000-square-mileregion. Most highly fragmented urban habitats are not representedat this scale even though these areas are critical to regional biodiversity.LocalAt this intermediate scale, finer habitat patterns are more apparentwhile regional elements are still prominent. In this example, blocksof habitat barely visible at the regional scale become more dominant.For example, patterns of street tree density within east Portlandbecome recognizable as a potential regional planning element.Opportunities to create ecological connections between regionalsites are suggested. Only the highest scoring areas at this scale arelikely to have regional significance.NeighborhoodAt the local scale, the neighborhood, features that appear lesssignificant at the regional scale are apparent. Habitats barely or notrecognizable at larger scales, such as local parks, creeks, vegetatedhillsides, or tree patches can be woven into a meaningful frameworkand incorporated into local habitat conservation planning, neighborhoodby neighborhood.High Value Habitat(Top 30%)CanbyCanbyClackamasRiparian HabitatEvaluatedYamhillWoodburnWoodburnMarionMolallaMolallaNeighborhood 1”=0.19 miles, or 1,000 feetHighest ValueMedium-Low ValueHigh ValueMedium-High ValueLow ValueLeast Value12 13

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideKey Facts: “Publicly Owned Land”n 13 percent of the region’s land base is in publicownership.n 22 percent of the land classified as forestpatches is publicly owned.n 27 percent of the land classified as interior foresthabitat is publicly owned.n 28 percent of the land classified as natural landcover is publicly owned.Of the 28 percent of the region’s natural landcover in public ownership, significant acreage isowned and managed by the states of Oregon andWashington, U.S. Bureau of Land Management,U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Fish and WildlifeService. Key owners of natural land within urbanareas include Vancouver-Clark Parks, Metro, andthe cities of Portland, Gresham and Hillsboro.Many other jurisdictions and several nonprofitorganizations also own and manage natural habitats(Appendix C). These lands are managed for avariety of purposes, including commercial forestproduction, nature based recreation, and speciesand habitat conservation.The level of natural area protection is not thesame across watersheds. Although protectionequality at the watershed scale is not an importantgoal, it is important that land protectionpriorities be considered at multiple scales, andthat the most important lands at each scale beidentified and protected. This Biodiversity Guidecan provide important information for suchprioritizations.Appendix C describes the portfolios of theregion’s major public land managers and theirmanagement approaches (see also Figure A-6).For More InformationFinal Report on Land Cover Mapping Methods,Map Zones 2 and 7, PNW ReGAPE.B. Grossmann, J.S. Kagan, J.A. Ohmann, H.May, M.J. Gregory, C. Tobalske. 2008. Institutefor Natural Resources, Oregon State University,Corvallis, OR.“Actual Vegetation Layer”D.M. Stoms. 1994. A Handbook for Gap Analysis.“Assessing Land Cover Map Accuracy for GapAnalysis”D. Stoms, F. Davis, C. Cogan, and K. Cassidy.1994. A Handbook for Gap Analysis.How Can My Watershed Address Help Me FindUSGS Data? (And What Is a HUC?)http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/tutorial/huc_def.html14

Chapter 2 Biogeography of the Greater Portland-Vancouver RegionBiogeography of theGreater Portland-Vancouver RegionChapter2Focal AreaJonathan Soll, Metro and Esther Lev,The Wetlands ConservancyThe geographic area that is the focus of thisBiodiversity Guide for the Greater Portland-Vancouver Region includes 1,829,575 acres (2,859square miles), all or parts of seven Oregon andthree Washington counties (see Figure A-1), and14 subbasins (HUC 4 and HUC 5) (see FigureA-2 and Table 2-1). Nestled between the CascadeMountains and Columbia River Gorge to theeast and the Coast Range to the west, the regionlies at the northern tip of the Willamette Valleyand the southern end of Puget Trough. It encompassesboth the confluence of the Willametteand Columbia rivers and the upstream end ofthe Columbia‘s tidal freshwater zone. Within theregion are major cities (including Oregon’s largestmetropolitan area), world-class farm and forestland, two major ports, and two interstate highwaysthat connect the area to Mexico, Canada,and the east.Although most of the region lies between100 and 1,000 feet in elevation, elevation rangesfrom near sea level along the Willamette andColumbia rivers to highs of more than 4,000feet at the region’s eastern edge (see Figure A-3).Although climate varies with altitude, it is generallymild, with cool, wet winters and warm, drysummers that are conducive to plant growth. Precipitationis generally lowest in the rain shadowof the Coast Range at the low end of the CoastRange foothills, near the southwestern fringe ofthe region, and gradually increases in all directionsfrom there. The upper elevation portion ofthe region in the foothills of the Cascades getsthe most annual precipitation and is the only areawith significant winter snowfall.The current typical natural upland vegetationtype is mixed coniferous/deciduous forestless than 60 years old, generally dominated byDouglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and bigleafmaple (Acer macrophyllum). However, oakhabitats, prairie, riparian and floodplain forest,and wetlands also are key elements in supportingthe region’s beauty and biodiversity. Forestis widespread at the edges of the region but inurbanized areas is limited largely to riparian corridors,patches of less than 30 acres, and streettrees. These diverse habitats support more thanOaks Bottom WildlifeRefuge, less than threemiles from downtownPortland, highlights theregion’s complexity oflandscape.15

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 2 Biogeography of the Greater Portland-Vancouver RegionTable 2-1Subbasins Used for Analysis of Vegetation ChangeNumber Basin Acres1 Abernethy Creek-Willamette River 87,1052 Cathlamet Channel-Columbia River 21,9443 Chehalem Creek-Willamette River 78,1574 Clackamas River 158,2385 Johnson Creek 60,1106 Lewis River 220,7367 Molalla River 180,8668 Salmon Creek-Frontal Columbia River 137,3419 Sandy River 67,12310 Scappoose Creek-Frontal Columbia River 125,28711 Tualatin River 452,98112 Washougal (City)-Columbia River 47,69613 Washougal River 102,12814 Willamette River-Frontal Columbia River 89,032Total 1,828,745runs roughly east through the southern portionof the region and then turns north after passingWilsonville, before joining the Columbia northof Portland. The foothills of the Cascade Rangedefine the eastern portion of the region, whilethe Coast Range foothills define the northwest.The Tualatin Mountains form a forested spinethrough the city of Portland, running southeastnorthwestfrom Lake Oswego to the Coast Rangeabove Scappoose. The Chehalem Mountainsextend west and then northwest from Sherwoodto Forest Grove. A series of geologically recentvolcanic cones collectively named the East Buttesdot southeast Portland and the lower Clackamaswatershed.Near the end of the last ice age (approximately12,000 years ago), the Missoula Floods carvedout the Columbia River Gorge, flooded what isnow the Portland-Vancouver area, altered rivercourses, and deposited rocks and rich sedimentsonto the valley floor.The greater metropolitan areas of Vancouver,Washington, and Portland, Oregon, are hometo the lion’s share of the region’s residents: 2.1million, as of 2010, with approximately 1 millionmore residents expected over the next 25 years.Although urban areas extend throughout theregion, development is densest near its center,roughly at the confluence of the Willametteand Columbia rivers. The population generallybecomes sparser toward the perimeter. Oregoncities include Beaverton, Canby, Estacada, ForestGrove, Gresham, Hillsboro, Lake Oswego,Milwaukie, Newberg, Portland, Scappoose, St.Helens, Sherwood, Troutdale, Wilsonville, andWoodburn. Washington cities include BattleGround, Camas, La Center, Ridgefield, Vancouver,Washougal, and Woodland.As in much of the Willamette Valley, butin contrast to much of the rest of Oregon andWashington, the region’s land base has littlefederal land ownership. However, 239,352 acres(13.1 percent of the region) are in public ownership,with significant areas owned by Metro,the states of Oregon and Washington, and localjurisdictions (see Figure A-5). Federal ownershipis restricted mostly to three wildlife refuges andsome areas on the fringe of the region, such as thewestern end of the Columbia River Gorge ScenicArea. Some important natural areas are listedin Table 2-2. In addition, the states of Oregonand Washington manage substantial forestedareas—in the Coast Range foothills and Cascadefoothills, respectively—for income for schooltrusts and other public benefits.The south/southwest portion of the region ispart of the Willamette Valley proper. Like most ofthe valley, this former prairie and savanna area isdominated by agriculture, with significant acreagein grass seed. The lower, flatter, undevelopedareas of the Tualatin Basin also are predominantlyagricultural, as are the Columbia River lowlands(excluding Vancouver and other urban areas) andmuch of Sauvie Island. Vineyards have extendedthe reach of agriculture to steeper slopes inwarmer microclimates, especially in the rainshadow of the Coast Range at the western edge ofthe Willamette Valley. Nurseries occupy significantareas in the mid-elevation portions of ruralMultnomah, Clackamas, and Clark counties andelsewhere. Forests and forestry dominate undevelopedlandscapes elsewhere, particularly abovethe 1,000-foot level.With this unique geographic and culturalsetting, the region understandably hasunique and diverse flora and fauna, andcorrespondingly unique conservation challengesand opportunities.Habitat Change in the Region,1850-2010John A. Christy, Oregon Biodiversity InformationCenter, Portland State University 1Analysis of changing land cover in the greaterPortland-Vancouver region since 1850 indicateswhich habitats have sustained the greatestimpacts from settlement, and by proxy, whichTable 2-2Important Natural Areas in the Greater Portland-Vancouver Region409 species of native wildlife, including at least 47fish species, 18 amphibians, 14 reptiles, 219 birds,AreaOwner/Manager66 mammals, and 59 types of butterflies. TheseTualatin, Ridgefield, Steigerwald Lake, Franz Lake, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servicenumbers exclude thousands of other invertebrateand Pierce Lake National Wildlife Refugesspecies (see Appendices E, G and H).The region is blessed with several major rivers—theClackamas, Columbia, Lewis, Molalla,Sauvie Island, Multnomah Channel, and Palensky State Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,Wildlife Areas (Palensky Wildlife Area isMetro, and Bonneville Power AdministrationSalmon, Sandy, Tualatin, Washougal, and Willamette—andwithin Burlington Bottoms)many smaller rivers, creeks, andsloughs. Lakes are few and mostly have beenForest ParkCity of Portlandaltered for water supply and flood control; theyinclude Sturgeon, Smith, Bybee, Vancouver,Molalla River State Park, the Lower Sandy River Gorge, Multiple ownersLacamas and Hagg lakes; Lake Oswego; andthe Lower Clackamas RiverKellogg, Merwin and Scroggins reservoirs. Thesewater bodies support at least two dozen nativeWillamette NarrowsMetro and Oregon Parks andfish species, including iconic runs of salmon andRecreation Departmentsteelhead.Shillapoo Wildlife AreaWashington Department of Fish andThe Willamette and Columbia rivers divideWildlifethe region roughly into thirds (see Figure A-1).The Columbia runs west, dividing Oregon andWashington before heading north as it passes1 This section is abstracted from the report Changing Habitats in the Portland-Vancouver Metro Area, 1850-2010, produced by Johnthrough Portland and Vancouver. The WillametteA. Christy of the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center for the Regional Conservation Strategy and Biodiversity Guide project.Details on analytic methods are found in the full report, which is available on request from Metro’s Natural Areas Program).16 171

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 2 Biogeography of the Greater Portland-Vancouver RegionPre-settlement mappingefforts did not map orgrossly under-representedhabitats that existedas smaller patches(non-matrix types).As a result, data foremergent wetalnd,riparian forest, shrubswamp and shrublandlikely grossly under-estimate the degree ofloss since 1850.Table 2-3Acreage, Percent of Total Area, and Percent Change for 11 Land Cover Types in the Regionspecies assemblages are most at risk. In orderto provide information at both the regional andsubwatershed scales, data were analyzed for theregion as a whole and for 14 separate subbasins(HUC 4 and HUC 5 and Table 2-1). The mainsources of data were General Land Office landsurvey data from the 1850s, U.S. Forest Servicemaps of forest type from the 1930s, and— for2010 vegetation—ecological system life form datacreated for the U.S. Geological Survey’s gap analysisprogram. Eleven land cover types(Table 2-3) were used to analyze changes inhabitat. (For methods, see “Data Sources andMethods,” below.)Results indicate that agriculture and urbandevelopment have caused the greatest changesin land cover in the region, and oak, prairie,and savanna habitats have sustained the greatestlosses. Changes at the subbasin level vary widely,depending mostly on the location of subbasinrelative to urban development and farmland.Extensive areas of commercial forest at the edgesof the region keep overall forest cover high;1850 2010Land Cover Type Acreage % of Total Acreage % of Total % ChangeAgriculture 0 0.00 500,174 27.35 n/aEmergent wetland 7,164 0.39 21,457 1.17 199.50Mixed forest 1,205,245 65.90 778,118 42.55 -35.44Oak 198,995 10.88 49,244 2.69 -75.25Prairie and savanna 266,296 14.56 1,494 0.08 -99.44Riparian and wet forest 80,016 4.38 83,046 4.54 3.79Shrub swamp 7,721 0.42 6,562 0.36 -15.02Shrubland 428 0.02 3,265 0.18 662.94Unvegetated 669 0.04 1,573 0.09 135.14Urban 0 0.00 328,838 17.98 n/aWater 62,205 3.40 54,976 3.01 -11.62TOTAL 1,828,740 100 1,828,745 100although more urbanized subbasins have lostsubstantial forest cover.Limitations of the DataSource data are generally accurate for large-scalefeatures but commonly misclassify or underestimatethose types occurring in small areas. Consequently,less emphasis should be placed on figuresfor small-patch cover types, including emergentwetland, riparian forest, shrub swamp, shrubland,and unvegetated land. The use of small-patchcover types here is limited to analysis of whathistorical types were converted to agriculture andurban cover.Vegetation Change over the RegionHistorically, about 50 percent of the region wascovered by conifer/mixed forest and 16 percentwas burned forest, with most of the remainingarea covered in prairie or savanna (14.6 percent),and oak (10.9 percent). By 2010, nearly half of theregion had been converted to either agriculture(27.4 percent) or urban and suburban development(18 percent). Prairie, savanna, and burnedforest had essentially disappeared, and oak wasreduced to 2.7 percent. Combined non-oak forestcover declined about 35 percent. Changes in thesix small-patch cover types (Table 2-3) in thestudy area are difficult to explain and to a largedegree represent differences in classification inthe underlying data sets.More detailed vegetation change by subbasinis presented in each subbasin description (seeAppendix I).Vegetation Change by SubbasinThe 14 subbasins vary greatly in size, historicaland current species composition, and relativeamounts of agricultural and urban development(see Table 2-3). Changes in the subbasins largelyreflect differences in the history of settlementand development. Basin-by-basin changes in thefour cover types of greatest conservation concernare shown in Figure 2-2. Prairie/savanna andoak showed consistent losses across all subbasinsexcept the Sandy River (this exception probablyis attributable to misclassification in the data set),averaging 85 percent and 63 percent, respectively.Mixed forest declined an average of 35percent in all subbasins except for the Chehalem,where it showed an 81 percent gain, presumablybecause—in the absence of fire—Douglasfir and other upland forest trees invaded prairie/savanna and oak habitats. Water showed declinesin the Cathlamet, Salmon, Scappoose, and Willamettesubbasins but increases in the Clackamasand Molalla subbasins. Losses in the formerpresumably are due to drainage and diking foragriculture, while the gains in the Clackamasand Molalla subbasins may be attributable to thecreation of gravel pits. The large increase in waterin the Lewis River subbasin is attributable to theconstruction of flood control reservoirs after1931. Agriculture and urban forest were excludedfrom Figure 2-1 because they were not presentin 1850.Historically, the following basins consisted ofmore than 20 percent prairie or savanna habitat:Molalla River (37 percent), Chehalem Creek(29 percent), Clackamas River (27 percent), AbernethyCreek (26 percent), and Cathlamet Channel(25 percent). With the exception of the CathlametChannel subbasin, prairies in Washington weresmall and scattered but relatively numerous. Veryfew are left today in the region, and prairies are ofgreat conservation concern. Oak habitat coveredmore than 20 percent of two subbasins—Chehalem Creek (60 percent) and Tualatin River(20 percent)—but never was extensive in theWashington portion of the region.Today, urbanized land represents more than20 percent of the following subbasins: JohnsonCreek (69 percent), Willamette (62 percent),Salmon Creek (32 percent), Abernethy Creek(26 percent), and Tualatin River (21 percent). Innine basins, agriculture represents more than 20percent of the land; these basins are ChehalemCreek (67 percent), Molalla River (51 percent),FIGURE 2-3Relative Percent Change of Major Land Covers, 1850-2010,forfigurethe Region2-1Excludes Relative Emergent Percent Wetland Change and of Shrubland Major Land Because Covers, of Differences 1850-2010, in Data Setsfor the RegionExcludes Emergent Wetland and Shrubland Because of Differences in Data Sets18 191000-100AgricultureMixed forestOakPrarie andSavannahRiparian andWet ForestShrub swampUnvegetatedUrbanWater

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guide-100Chapter 2 Biogeography of the Greater Portland-Vancouver RegionPercent changefigure 2-2Percent Change of Major Land Covers by Subbasin, 1850-2010*400.00300.00200.00100.000.00-100.00-200.00-300.00AbernethyCathlametWaterOakChehamlem*Total habitat loss for anarea cannot exceed 100%.However, the stacked barformat used here showspercentage loss for each individualhabitat in an additivefashion in order to show therelative change for each type.ClackamasJohnsonLewisMolallaSalmonPrarie/SavannaMixed ForestSandyScappooseTualatinWashougal (City)Washougal RiverAbernethy Creek (39 percent), CathlametChannel (34 percent), Clackamas River (28 percent),Tualatin River (28 percent), Salmon Creek(27 percent), Scappoose Creek (20 percent), andSandy River (20 percent). In general, the amountof relic habitat of conservation concernis inversely proportional to the extent ofurban and agricultural land cover.WillametteData Sources and MethodsAssessments of 1850 vegetation for the regionwere derived from 1850s General Land Office(GLO) land survey data, which were augmentedwith 1930s maps of forest type developed by theU.S. Forest Service. Assessments of 2010 vegetationwere derived from the ecological system lifeform (ESLF) data created for the U.S. GeologicalSurvey’s (USGS) Gap Analysis Program. Vegetationattributes in the General Land Office layerwere reduced to 13 types and translated to theESLF layer (see Table 2-3).The 13 land cover types were reduced to 11 in thefinal comparison of historical and current vegetation.Key points are as follows:n Two historical cover types—burned forestand woodland—disappeared completely becauseof fire suppression and were divided betweenconiferous/mixed forest and oak, depending ondominant species, in order to better assess overallchange in forest cover.n Most forest in the General Land Office layerwas classified as coniferous because it was dominatedby conifers, although most stands containedhardwoods. The ESLF cover classified mostforest as mixed. As a result, coniferous and mixedforest stands were combined for analyses.n Agriculture and urban cover did not exist in1850 but are of major importance in 2010.n Because of technical challenges, it is likely thatoak is overestimated in the modern layer.n Although the General Land Office layer delineatedlarge stands of historical riparian-floodplainforest, it did not include small stands, particularlyin the interiors of sections. In contrast, mostlarge floodplain forests are now gone, but theESLF cover included the extensive network offorest along smaller streams. As a result, the dataindicate an increase in riparian forest, when logicsuggests that it has actually declined.n Together, emergent wetland, scrub-shrubwetland, shrubland, and unvegetated land madeup only 0.87 percent of the landscape in 1850 and1.80 percent in 2010; these figures are suspectbecause of differences in scale and classificationin the underlying datasets.For More informationThe 1930s Survey of Forest Resources inWashington and OregonC.A. Harrington (compiler). 2003. USDAForest Service General Technical ReportPNW-GTR-584. 10 pp. + appendices and CD.Habitat Change in the Greater Portland-VancouverMetro Area, 1850-2010John A. Christy. 2011. Oregon BiodiversityInformation Center, Portland State UniversityGLO Historical Vegetation of SouthwesternWashington, 1851-1910J.A. Christy. 2011. ArcMap shapefile, Version2011_05. Oregon Biodiversity InformationCenter, Portland State University. Scale 1:24,000.Available athttp://www.pdx.edu/pnwlamp/glo-historicalvegetation-maps-oregon-0GLO Historical Vegetation of the WillametteValley, Oregon, 1851-1910J.A., Christy, E.R. Alverson, M.P. Dougherty,S.C. Kolar, C.W. Alton, S.M. Hawes, L. Ashkenas& P. Minear. 2009. ArcMap shapefile, Version2009_07. Oregon Natural Heritage InformationCenter, Oregon State University. Scale 1:24,000.http://www.pdx.edu/pnwlamp/glo-historicalvegetation-maps-oregon-0Ecological system life form (ESLF) dataJ.S., Kagan, E. Nielsen, C. Tobalske, J. Ohmann, E.Grossmann, J. Bauer, M. Gregory, J. Hak, S. Hanser,S. Knick, Southwest Regional GAP Project RS/GIS Laboratory (Utah State University), Nature-Serve, USGS/EROS Data Center. 2010. Institutefor Natural Resources, Portland State University.Scale 1:100,000. Available at http://www.pdx.edu/pnwlamp/existing-vegetationHow the Biodiversity Guide Relates to OtherRegional Planning EffortsOver the past 20 years, several regional, state, and local conservationpriority-setting efforts have been completed that overlap, are adjacentto, or are fully within the boundary of the greater Portland-Vancouverregion (see Table 2-4). The larger regional analyses generally share anoverall project goal with the Biodiversity Guide and Regional ConservationStrategy—i.e., identifying where best to direct conservationactions so as to preserve overall biodiversity at the regional scale.Previous conservation planning efforts focused on the WillametteValley (e.g., the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s OregonConservation Strategy in 2006 and the Nature Conservancy-ledWillamette Synthesis project in 2009), the Willamette Basin (thePacific Northwest Ecosystem Research Consortium’s Willamette RiverBasin Planning Atlas), or even multi-state ecoregions like the CascadeMountains or Coast Range (The Nature Conservancy and its partners’ecoregional assessments in 2006 and 2007). In contrast, more localefforts, such as those conducted by Metro, counties, cities, soil andwater conservation districts, watershed councils, and other nonprofitorganizations, tend to address individual areas or single watershedswithin the region and do not evaluate the areas within the context ofthe larger regional landscape. Finally, projects like U.S. Fish and WildlifeService recovery plans focus on particular species or habitats. Theresulting lack of consistent data sets, methods, and project objectivesmake it difficult to align and adequately integrate larger and smallerscale priorities into the specific geography of the greater Portland-Vancouver region.One of the principal weaknesses of the previous regional efforts wastheir lack of attention to urban and near-urban areas. Historically, thevalue of urban areas in supporting regional conservation efforts hasbeen underrated; analyses have been skewed by the available data sets,the large scale of analysis, and the lack of appreciation of the role thaturban natural areas can play in connecting sites and watersheds, bothwithin the region itself and in linking the region to the larger ecologicallandscape.This Biodiversity Guide aims to build on the previous regional andlocal-scale analyses and prioritizations by filling in the gaps betweenplans done with a larger landscape context and local plans. The finalproduct will allow for conservation priorities to be set at a geographicscale that matches the region but that can also integrate smaller,watershed-based plans and nest within larger bioregional analyses.20 21

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 2 Biogeography of the Greater Portland-Vancouver Regiontable 2-4Regional Biodiversity Assessments Conducted since 1990Plan or Project Geography and Project Leader and CommentsPurposeKey ParticipantsPlan or Project Geography and Purpose Project Leader and CommentsPurposeKey ParticipantsClark County Legacy Lands Greater VancouverClark County and a coalition of public Expert opinion-based effort; for informationWashington Conservation Washington stateOregon Department of Fish and No specific conservation opportunity areasabout projects and data contact pat-Strategy, 2006Washington Department of Fish and are identified. Scale is too large to provideProject, 1992 and onward metropolitan regionagencies, nonprofit conservationIdentified priority species andorganizations, private landowners, rick.lee@clark.wa.gov or see http://www.Wildlife and many stakeholders the level of detail needed in the greaterIdentify and implementhabitats; conservation opportunityareas as in Oregon’sand the communityco.clark.wa.us/legacylands/index.htmlPortland-Vancouver region.actions to protect, conserve,and restore the system ofstrategy were not mappednatural areas, trails, andopen spacesNature Conservancy Pacific Oregon and Washington The Nature Conservancy withThe Biodiversity Guide links to theseNorthwest Coast Ecoregional Coast Rangestakeholders and expert review by assessments, for the most part notOregon Biodiversity Project, Oregon statewideDefenders of Wildlife and many Identified about 18% of the state. TheAssessment, 2006Identified focal area formany agencies and organizations overlapping with them.1993-1999stakeholdersvalue of urban areas largely is overlookedHigh-priority conservationbiodiversity conservationat that scale.areas in OregonNatural Features Project, Addressed much of the Coalition of government agency and Expert opinion-based effort, polygonsWillamette Basin Alternative Willamette BasinPacific Northwest EcosystemDoes not include Washington portions of2006greater Portland-Vancouver nonprofit organizations under the are not delineated, and there are noFutures: Conservation andResearch Consortium, led by the the greater Portland-Vancouver regionregion (excluding Washington) auspices of Metro Greenspaces Policy attributes.Presented an achievableRestoration Option, 2002University of Oregon and OregonAdvisory Committeevision of conservation andState University, with many partnersrestoration opportunity areasand many stakeholders providingNature Conservancy East Oregon, Washington, and The Nature Conservancy with stakeholdersand expert review by many assessments, for the most part notThe Biodiversity Guide links to thesethat would still allow forfeedbackand West Cascade Mts. EcoregionalAssessment, 2007agencies and organizationsoverlapping with them.Northern Californiaanticipated growthIdentified focal areas forMetro Title 13 Regionally Extends to one mile outside Metro staff, jurisdictions, Department Focused on a smaller watershed-specificbiodiversity conservationSignificant Fish and Wildlife the urban growth boundary of Land Conservation and Development,scale. Oregon portion of the region only.and stakeholder steeringWillamette Synthesis Project, Willamette BasinThe Nature Conservancy with stake-Provides a good starting point; however,Habitat Inventory, 2005Used to provide scientificcommittee2009holders and review by many agencies as with the state conservation strategies,context for meeting Oregon’sIntegrated previous assessmentsand updated state ofand organizationsthe scale is too large to provide the levelland use Goal 5 requirementsof detail needed in our region.Oregon conservation opportunityActions for Watershed Health: City of PortlandCity of Portland Bureau ofCity of Portland boundary.areas with better dataPortland Watershed ManagementPlan, 2005Oregon and Washington Lower Columbia watersheds ODFW in Oregon and Lower Columbia Information from this plan is used in theEnvironmental ServicesGuides City decisions andprojects by providing aRecovery Plans for Lower of Oregon and Washington Fish Recovery Board in Washington, Biodiversity Guide.comprehensive approach toColumbia River Salmon andwith participation by many stakeholdersrestoring watershed health.Set programmatic and geographicpriorities for salmonSteelhead, 2010Framework for Integrated City of PortlandCity of Portland Bureau ofCity of Portland boundary. Includes annualand steelhead recoveryManagement of WatershedEnvironmental ServicesreportsScience to guide City decisionsthat affect watershedHealth, 2006U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Willamette Valley and Institute for Applied Ecology for U.S. Information from the recovery plan isRecovery Plan for the Prairie southern Puget Trough Fish and Wildlife Service; many partnersprovided inputused in the Biodiversity Guide.health; ensures cross-bureauSpecies of Western Oregonconsistency; establishesIdentified actions and goalsand Southwestern Washington,2010goals, objectives, indicatorsfor prairie and savannaof success.conservation to benefit listedspeciesOregon ConservationOregon statewideOregon Department of Fish and Limited information on urban areas. TheStrategy, 2006Identified priority species andWildlife and many stakeholders scale is very coarse.Watershed-based AssessmentsPlans and assessments Developed by watershed councils and Factored into the Biodiversity Guide.habitats and conservationThe strategy will be updated in the nextand Plans (various). typically tied to watershed or similar groups or agenciesopportunity areasfew years. Conservation opportunity areassubwatershed boundariesin the greater Portland-Vancouver areawill be based on work of the WillametteSynthesis project.22 23

Chapter 3 Major Habitat Types of the RegionMajor Habitat Types of the RegionChapter3Rivers, Streams, and Open WatersJane Hartline, West Multnomah Soil and WaterConservation District, and Ted Labbe, KingfisherEcological ServicesThe aquatic habitats discussed in this sectionare flowing and standing bodies of water,meaning rivers, streams, lakes, bays, ponds,and sloughs. Hundreds of interconnected lakes,ponds, and streams thread their way across theregion, connecting large rivers and bays withheadwater wetland and upland environments.As open, linear systems, streams reflect the healthof the entire watershed. Food webs in open waterdepend on organic matter that originates fromforests along the water’s edge and from upstreamcontributing areas. Thus it is difficult to separatethe ecological health of these water bodies fromthe health of their watersheds and associatedshoreline, mudflat, and floodplain ecosystems.(For descriptions of these other habitats, see the“Riparian and Bottomland Hardwood Forests,”“Wetlands,” and “Shorelines and Mudflats”sections of this Biodiversity Guide).Organisms, water, energy, sediment, andorganic matter move laterally (across the land/water boundary), longitudinally (upstream/downstream), and vertically (between open water,groundwater, and flood-prone lands), continuallyreshaping and restructuring aquatic ecosystemsand thus creating and maintaining habitat. Fallenleaves, woody debris, terrestrial insects, and otherorganic matter is swept downstream and formsthe foundation of open-water food webs, sustainingaquatic insects, small fish, and amphibiansand ultimately their predators, which includesalmon, birds, bats, and mammals.Rivers, streams, and open waters performimportant though often underappreciated ecologicalservices. These water bodies attenuate andreduce flood flows, recharge groundwater, storesediment, transform and ameliorate harmfulnutrients, deliver clean water, cool urban areasduring summer heat spells, and provide numerousrecreational opportunities. In the PacificNorthwest, open-water riparian areas supportsome of the highest levels of biodiversity andrepresent important movement corridors for bothaquatic and terrestrial species.The character of rivers, streams, and openwaters is determined by such factors aswatershed geology, topography, land use/landcover, and riparian vegetation. The most immedi-Rivers, streams andopen waters providemany importantbenefits, includingrecreationalopportunity.25

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 3 Major Habitat Types of the Regionate influences include water depth, flow, temperature,substrate materials such as sand and gravel,bank conditions, and the presence or absence offloating and submerged logs and debris. Seasonalfluctuations of water level, temperature, and floware important in all of the region’s waters but havebeen significantly modified in many areas by surfaceand groundwater withdrawals, dams, dikes,and other water control structures. In rivers andsloughs, upstream flow regulation has reducedthe impact of spring freshets and winter floodsand severed or undermined connections betweenopen-water habitats and surrounding ecosystems.Other human-caused disturbances includeimpacts associated with stormwater runoff, filland channelization, toxic and nutrient pollution,erosion and sedimentation, removal of riparianvegetation, alteration of banks and shorelines,and the creation of barriers to fish and wildlifemovement. Natural processes that influence thedevelopment of streams, rivers, and open-waterhabitats include flooding, drought, accretion,siltation, and tidal influence.Historical and Current OccurrenceThe amount of open-water habitat in the greaterPortland-Vancouver region has declined by morethan 49 percent since 1806. Several lakes in theregion were drained or filled decades ago fordevelopment and agriculture, and most remainingopen-water habitat has been significantlyaltered. Dams have altered stream and river flowpatterns, reducing peak flows and moderatingseasonal fluctuations. Levees, dikes, and pumpshave disconnected streams and rivers from theirassociated floodplains and wetlands. The proliferationof roads, buildings, and other impervioussurfaces has radically transformed stream hydrology,increasing pollution and the frequency andseverity of winter scouring flows.Many streams, particularly in the urban area,have been put into underground pipes. Roadsthat crisscross drainage networks create numerousculvert barriers to fish and wildlife movement,and they alter the delivery of large woodand sediment to receiving waters downstream.Removal of riparian vegetation has resulted inhigher water temperatures and reduced inputs oflarge woody debris and organic matter—materialsthat are critical for stream health. Revetments forflood protection along shorelines have eliminatedrefugia for young fish, amphibians, and turtlesand diminished habitat values for many otherspecies. Salmon, lamprey, and sturgeon speciesare among the casualties of the degradation of theregion’s rivers, streams, and open waters.River, stream, and open-water habitats in theregion include the following:n The Columbia, Willamette, Clackamas, Tualatin,Lewis, Washougal, Sandy, and Molalla rivers,as well as many smaller tributary rivers, streamsand sloughsn Lakes and permanent large wetlands, includingSturgeon Lake and other lakes on Sauvie Island,Smith and Bybee Wetlands Natural Area, BlueLake, Fairview Lake, Vancouver Lake, Hagg Lake,Oswego Lake, and Force Laken Crystal Springs and several other permanentspring-fed streams, ponds, and wetlandsn Scappoose Bayn Numerous ponds, including natural and smallfarm ponds, stormwater ponds, impoundmentsbehind weirs and dams, and golf course waterhazardsn Sloughs, including Multnomah Channel andColumbia SloughRiver, Stream, and Open-water SpeciesThe Pacific Northwest’s salmon and steelhead arethe iconic residents of the region’s water bodies,along with sturgeon, lamprey, and various smallernative fish, mollusks, turtles, amphibians, andgarter snakes. However, a majority of the region’swildlife species spend at least part of their lives inor near rivers, streams, or open water, and purplemartins, swallows, and other birds and bats feedon insects above these habitats. Many birds, suchas gulls, cormorants, osprey, bald eagles, kingfishers,and white pelicans, feed on fish and aquaticinvertebrates in the region’s streams, rivers andopen waters.Because the greater Portland-Vancouverregion is part of the Pacific Flyway, legions ofgeese, ducks, loons, grebes, and swans winter onlocal waters, while other birds stop over as theymigrate through. Eagles migrate and winter inthe region, and more eagles are staying throughthe summer to nest. Wood ducks and mergansersalso nest in the region, using both the waters andthe snags and cavities in adjacent riparian habitat.River otters, mink, muskrats, and beavers livetheir lives in and near water bodies. Beavers actuallycreate ponds and other habitats characterizedby slow-moving water. Two species of nativeturtles, several species of frogs, freshwater mussels,and pond-breeding newts and salamandersuse quiet open waters. Other amphibians, such astorrent salamanders and tailed frogs, rely moreon the region’s clear, cold-water streams.Plants are less abundant in streams and largeopen rivers than in shallower bodies of water, butwapato, plantago, duckweed, polygonums, andother floating plants are present in quiet waters.Threats Specific to Rivers, Streams,and Open WatersHumans have profoundly influenced the region’sbodies of water. Some threats to this habitat areresidual from a more cavalier era when peopledid not understand the consequences of theiractions and land use regulations were less protectiveof aquatic resources, but many threats areongoing.Approximately 80 percent of stream milesin the lower Willamette subbasin are severelydisturbed, primarily from urban and agriculturalland uses. Streams that originate in forestlandsshow significantly less instream and riparianhabitat degradation than streams whose headwatersare not within forestland. Stream temperatureand disturbance of streamside vegetationare the most prevalent stressors, affecting 75 to90 percent of all stream miles. Other importantstream health stressors include fine sediment,streambed stability, nutrient impairment, and lowdissolved oxygen, which the Oregon Departmentof Environmental Quality estimates affect 30 to60 percent of stream miles in certain watersheds.The following actions degrade, diminish, oreliminate the region’s aquatic habitats:n Draining and filling lakes and pondsn Alteration of natural flow and water level fluctuationsthrough dam operation and stormwaterrunoffn Surface and groundwater withdrawal, whichlowers water tables and diminishes stream flowsn Channelization, hardening, and other alterationsof banks and shorelinesn Small “check-dams” and artificial farm ponds,which impede fish passage and diminish waterqualityn Erosion of banks from removal of vegetationn Dredgingn Construction of water crossings, which impedefish and wildlife movements and disrupt deliveryof sediment and large wood, which are essentialfor healthy habitat2627

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 3 Major Habitat Types of the Regionn Introduction of pollutants via stormwater runofffrom residential, commercial/industrial, andagricultural areasn Avoid development in floodplains and alongshorelines, and remove existing structures inthese areas where possible.detention in developed areas by installing andmaintaining bioswales, detention facilities, raingardens, and downspout disconnections.Oregon Willamette Valley watershed councilshttp://oregonwatersheds.org/oregoncouncils/willamette-mapn Removal of riparian vegetation (This increaseswater temperatures.)n Introduction of invasive plants and animals,such as carp, nutria, and reed canarygrassn Development and agriculture along shorelinesLikely Effects of Climate ChangeThe full effects of climate change on regionalaquatic habitats are unknown. However, climatechange models point to probable declines in winterand spring mountain snowpacks, which willalter the hydrology of large rivers like the Columbia,Willamette, Clackamas, Lewis, and Sandy. Itis likely that for these rivers and their associatedwetlands downstream, spring snowmelt flows willbe lower and rainfall-driven high flows in the fall,winter, and spring will be flashier.Warmer, drier summers may induce higherrates of water extraction to irrigate crops andsupply urban populations. It is likely that thegrowing demands on groundwater and surfacewater withdrawals will reduce stream flows andavailable open-water habitat. Lower water levels,in turn, may contribute to higher summer watertemperatures, further stressing the region’s nativecold-water species (such as trout and salmon) andfavoring introduced warm-water species, such asbass and carp.It also is likely that sea-level changes will alterthe extent of Columbia-Willamette bottomlandsthat are under tidal influence.Conservation Strategies and OpportunitiesBecause hydrologic alterations are the primarycause of declines in aquatic habitats, strategies torestore natural hydrology are key solutions, alongwith improving water quality. The EndangeredSpecies Act listing of numerous runs of salmonand steelhead and regulations related to the CleanWater Act have brought an influx of funds foropen-water projects. However, additional work isneeded. Selected strategies include the following:n Remove dams, dikes, and levees where feasibleto reconnect low-lying ponds, lakes, and wetlandsto their neighboring streams and rivers and toattenuate flooding downstream.n Remove or repair stream crossing structuressuch as culverts that block passage of fish andwildlife and interfere with the transport of keyhabitat-forming materials, such as sediment andlarge wood.n Ensure that river dredge spoils are disposed ofproperly, outside of flood-prone areas.n Remove pilings along the river if they arepotential sources of contamination (because ofcreosote) or if they serve as habitat for introducedwarm-water fish species; provide alternate birdnesting structures to replace the removed pilings.n Modify water releases from dams and stormwatermanagement facilities to better resemblenatural fluctuations in water levels.n Reduce the impacts of ship and boat wakes inhigh-impact areas by reducing maximum speedand designating travel routes as far from shore aspossible.n Improve transient flood storage in low-lyingenvironments by protecting and restoring floodplains,requiring balanced cut and fill, removinghistorical fill (as is happening in the JohnsonCreek floodplain), and creating or restoringwetlands.n Protect and restore vegetation throughout thewatershed, especially in floodplains and alongrivers, streams, and wetlands.n Restore natural stream channel and shorelinemorphology where feasible by re-meandering anddaylighting streams, stabilizing streambanks byplanting native vegetation, and adding large woodto streams.n Reduce impervious surfaces near streams, inthe floodplain, and throughout the watershed.n Increase onsite and near-site stormwatern Continue work to improve water qualitythrough voluntary approaches (e.g., river cleanupdays, providing dog waste bags in parks) andregulatory approaches (e.g., addressing Superfundand brownfield sites, effectively implementing theClean Water Act).n Aggressively control aquatic invasive plant andanimal species such as Asian carp and zebra andquagga mussels. Prevent new inadvertent introductionsby supporting monitoring and enforcementof ballast water discharge, aquarium trade,and boat transfer regulations.For More InformationClark County Stream Monitoring Reportshttp://www.co.clark.wa.us/water-resources/documents-monitoring.html#strmacWillamette Basin Rivers and Streams AssessmentReportOregon Department of Environmental Qualityhttp://www.deq.state.or.us/lab/wqm/assessment.htmColumbia River Investigation Reports on UrbanStreamsOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/oscrp/CRI/publications.asp#UrbanEffects of Urbanization on Stream Ecosystems inthe Willamette River Basin and Surrounding Area,Oregon and WashingtonI.R. Waite, Steven Sobieszczyk, K.D. Carpenter,A.J. Arnsberg, H.M. Johnson, C.A. Hughes, M.J.Sarantou, and F.A. Rinella. 2008. U.S. GeologicalSurvey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5101-D, 62 p.http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5101-D/PSU Center for Lakes and Reservoirshttp://www.clr.pdx.edu/River Plan-North Reachhttp://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?c=42540DocumentsLower Columbia Salmon Recovery FundingBoardhttp://www.lcfrb.gen.wa.us/default1.htmLower Columbia River Estuary Partnershiphttp://www.lcrep.org/City of Portland Watershed Management Planhttp://www.portlandonline.com/bes/index.cfm?c=38965Shorelines andMudflatsLori Hennings, MetroMudflats, sandbars,beaches, and othersparsely vegetatedhabitats are found borderingriver islands,deltas, and river shoresand around wetlandsand lakes. Shorelines andmudflats are rich withinvertebrates and provideunique and importantforaging and migrationstopover habitats forshorebirds, waterfowl,terns, gulls, and otherwildlife.Shorelines and mudflats are a product ofhydrology and sediment transport/deposition.Slower moving water deposits sediments in lowlyingareas, along stream and river bends, andin wetlands and floodplain pools. As the level,volume, and velocity of the water change, theeasily eroded sediments may be moved around;this results in a shifting inventory of typicallysmall and sometimes linear habitats where landand water meet. River deltas sometimes form28 29

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 3 Major Habitat Types of the RegionWildlife Usen Federal rules, such as the Clean Water Act,Mudflats are nutrient-rich and thus denselyRiver and Harbor Act, National Environmentalpopulated with surface and subsurface invertebrates;Policy Act, and Coastal Zone Management Act.larger sandbar, mudflat, and rocky areas becausethis makes mudflats particularly important(See the Washington Department of Ecology’sthey are highly depositional, and they can also be for shorebirds. The lower Columbia River is onesummary at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tidally influenced. Logs and other debris sometimesof the most important areas in the Pacific Flywaysea/pubs/90031/index.html#RTFToC22.)are deposited on shorelines and mudflats. for migrating shorebirds, with peak counts in then Washington’s Shoreline Management Act. ThisThe sparse vegetation condition is maintained Columbia River estuary of almost 150,000 birdsact regulates alteration of wetlands associatedby regular inundation and, in some cases (such and substantial numbers using other areas alongwith the shoreline of lakes 20 acres or larger;as pure sand or rocky beaches) by low nutrient the Columbia River up to Sauvie Island and instreams with flows greater than 20 cubic feet per For More Informationlevels. Human activities also create or maintain the Willamette Valley (Pacific Coast Joint Venturesecond; and all lands within 200 feet of shorelines “Foraging Ecology of Bald Eagles in a Freshwaterthese habitats, which include river dredge spoil 1994). Reductions in the amount of mudflatsof the state (measured from the ordinary high Tidal System”deposits and—during the rainy season—plowed and shorelines in the region have had the effectwater mark), plus associated marshes, bogs, and C.M. Thompson, P.E. Nye, G.A. Schmidt, andfarm fields.of fragmenting habitat needed by shorebirds,swamps.D.K. Garcelon. 2005. Journal of Wildlifewhich travel along the major rivers of the PacificManagement 69:609-617.n Washington’s Growth Management Act ofHistorical and Current OccurrenceFlyway during migration. Shorebirds are aptly1990. This act requires cities and counties with “Foraging Shorebird Response to Trail UseThe floodplain downriver from Portland to Deer named, and are known to partition these resourcespopulations of more than 50,000 or that are around San Francisco Bay”Island historically was where most of the region’sthrough foraging strategy and bill type. Forrapidly growing (see http://www. commerce. L.A. Trulio and J. Sokale J. 2008. Journal ofmudflats and sandbars were located and is where example, birds with relatively long bills can foragewa.gov/site/395/default.aspx) to develop plans Wildlife Management 72:1775-1780.most of the remaining sandbars and mudflats are next to short-billed species without targeting thethat designate and protect “critical areas,” includingwetlands.Joint Venture Implementation Plans:found today. This floodplain includes the Vancouversame invertebrates. Gulls and terns target surfaceLower Columbia Riverlowlands, Sauvie Island and other islands prey on shorelines and mudflats and also rely onn Oregon’s statewide land use planning program Pacific Joint Coast Venture/Oregon Wetlandsin the Willamette and Columbia rivers, the Sandy these habitats for resting, as do geese and someand city and county land use plans. These address Joint Venture. 1994. West Linn, OR. http://www.River Delta, and the Ridgefield, Scappoose, and other waterfowl. Streaked horned larks are knownwetlands under a number of state policies, includingohjv.org/pdfs/lower_columbia_river.pdfGoals 5 (Open Spaces, Scenic and HistoricWoodland areas. Within the floodplain, undevelopedmainstem and island areas with shallow dredge spoils.Areas, and Natural Resources) and 16 (Estuarineto use such shorelines and mudflats, includingU.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan: Northern PacificCoast Regional Shorebird Management Planwater provide important ecological functions and Coyotes, mink, and weasel take advantage ofResources).M.S. Drut and J.B. Buchanan. 2000.are critical for young salmonids.the resulting abundance of larger prey species,n No-wake, low-speed boating rules. These boatingMudflats and sandbars have been substan-and river otter have a particular taste for therules have been implemented along severalfreshwater clams and mussels that live along riverreaches of the Columbia and Willamette rivers toreduce adverse shoreline effects.30 31tially reduced from historical levels because ofhuman activities that alter hydrology. Dams alterthe natural ebb and flow of water levels, ofteneliminating important seasonal flooding andlow flows. Dams also trap sediments upstream.Sudden water releases may wash away beaches.Dredging deepens channels and can pull sedimentsback into the river. Ships and boats createlarge wakes that can damage shorelines andproperties and wash away sandbars and mudflats.Development, dikes, and other changes in majorfloodplain areas have greatly reduced the circumstancesunder which these habitats form. Sandyand rocky beaches are particularly vulnerable toweedy species that thrive in disturbed conditions.and streambanks. A variety of small shorebirds,such as western sandpipers and greateryellowlegs, are closely associated with this habitat.Additionally, bald eagles are known to key inon sandbars and mudflats for hunting, possiblybecause these features indicate shallow-waterhabitat with readily available fish and waterfowl.Inland marine mammals such as the Californiasea lion may come ashore on sandbars and mudflatsto loaf.Conservation Strategies and OpportunitiesSeveral regulatory, nonregulatory, and planningapproaches have been implemented to protect thequantity and quality of shoreline, sandbar, andmudflat habitat:A potential future strategy to improve the quantityand quality of shoreline and mudflat habitatsis to strategically manage dams to providehydrologic conditions that are more similar tothe pre-dam conditions (i.e., implement so-calledsustainable flows projects); this would involvereleasing higher high flows and lower low flowsthan are currently allowed. A partnership ledby The Nature Conservancy and the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers is currently exploring suchmanagement of some Willamette River dams.The Pacific Joint Coast Venture’s LowerColumbia River plan documents the importanceof mudflats and sandbars to wildlife. The U.S.Shorebird Conservation Plan recommends theColumbia River estuary as a site of internationalshorebird significance and recognizes the WillametteValley as regionally important. Planning forconnectivity between these habitats by strategicallyaddressing hydrology in specific areas mayhelp migrating and foraging birds. Avoiding newdevelopment and diking and, where possible,removing existing structures can conserve andre-create shoreline and mudflat habitat.

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 3 Major Habitat Types of the RegionRiparian and BottomlandHardwood ForestsElaine Stewart, MetroAs transitional areas between aquatic and terrestrialenvironments, riparian forests are exceptionalin their diversity and habitat value. Morethan 90 percent of the region’s wildlife speciesregularly use water-associated habitats, and nearly50 percent are closely associated with them. Thesedynamic areas experience frequent and patchydisturbance events such as floods, windstorms,and disease outbreaks that over time create amosaic of habitats with varying stand ages andcompositions. In the greater Portland-Vancouverregion, riparian forests include cottonwoodgallery forests, Douglas fir, western red cedar,Oregon ash/Pacific willow swamps, and variousmixes of Oregon ash, red alder, big leaf maple,Oregon white oak, and black cottonwood. Bottomlandhardwood forests (BLH) are wetlands,with associated hydric soils and regular flooding;they are dominated by Oregon ash and sometimescottonwood.Historical and Current OccurrenceHistorically, the region’s broad floodplainsincluded a diverse mix of riparian forests, bothupland and wetland. Before major settlementbegan in the mid-nineteenth century, floodplainforests along the Willamette River (especiallysouth of Albany) were as much as 3.2 kilometerswide; near major confluences, floodplainforests were up to 10.5 kilometers wide. Theseforests provided organic matter in the form ofleaf litter and downed wood. They stored carbon,recharged aquifers, and shaped streams. The vastfloodplains flooded frequently, trapping sedimentand nutrients from floodwaters. Stream channelstypically were braided and frequently changedcourse as trees fell and shifted on the floodplain.Sections of the Willamette River had more than500 snags per kilometer; snagging records indicatethat many snags were more than 50 meterslong and up to 2 meters in diameter. Althoughthe floodplains in the greater Portland-Vancouverregion are smaller than those along the upperWillamette, they probably had similar structuresand processes.Throughout the greater Portland-Vancouverregion, riparian zones have been significantlyaltered by harvest, development, clearing foragriculture, construction of dams, irrigation, andremoval of wood in streams to facilitate navigation.Loss of BLH wetland is estimated to bemore than 70 percent in the Willamette Valley.Remaining riparian areas often are reduced tothin strands, with frequent gaps and lack of connectivityto upland habitat. Loss of riparian andBLH forests and development within floodplainsdisrupted the wood cycle, resulting in decreasedthe structural complexity of rivers, streams andriparian habitats and reduction of the region’s riversto a single channel; this has decreased habitatcomplexity and the amount of active floodplainand shoreline in the region.Some of the best remaining examples of BLHwetlands are along Multnomah Channel, on thenorth end of Sauvie Island, at Smith and BybeeWetlands Natural Area, and in the Columbiafloodplain areas in Washington, including RidgefieldNational Wildlife Refuge Complex and thestate-owned Shillapoo Wildlife Area. Relativelyintact riparian habitat can be found in areas ofthe Clackamas and lower Molalla and Puddingrivers, the lower Tryon Creek watershed and oneof its tributaries, Arnold Creek, as well as at theheadwaters of Kelley Creek, which is a tributaryof Johnson Creek in Multnomah County.Other notable areas include West Hayden Island,Government Island, and Meldrum Bar Park inGladstone.Important Processes and SpeciesRiparian and BLH forests provide many ecosystemservices, including stream shading andassociated temperature regulation and provisionof large wood to streams. These vegetated zonesfilter sediments and other pollutants in stormwaterand stabilize streambanks, thus preventingerosion. Trees and shrubs store carbon and helpmoderate air temperatures. Forest leaves interceptrainfall, while root systems help soils hold waterand release it more slowly to streams, thus reducingthe flashiness of urban streams.The beaver is a keystone species of riparianand BLH habitats. Its tree-felling and dam-buildingactivities create openings and ponds that providefish habitat, trap sediments, provide refugiafor aquatic species during droughts, and kill treesthat then become snags for wildlife. Other keystonespecies include Chinook and coho salmonand steelhead trout, whose spawning migrationsreturn nutrients to tributaries and headwaters.Black cottonwood trees provide food and habitatfor migrating and nesting songbirds, nest sitesfor bald eagles and great blue heron, and downedwood for terrestrial and aquatic species.Myriad species use the region’s riparianhabitats. Neotropical migratory birds travelthrough riparian zones, and species such as theSwainson’s thrush, Wilson’s warbler, and westernwood-pewee nest there. Resident birds such asbrown creeper and black-capped chickadee mayuse riparian forests year-round, while others (e.g.,Steller’s jay and ruby-crowned kinglet) spendwinters there and return to higher elevationsfor breeding. Mammals in the region’s riparianzones range from black-tailed deer and riverotter to Pacific shrew. Native amphibians spendmuch time foraging in riparian areas, and manyamphibians and reptiles use riparian habitats foroverwintering.The Oregon and Washington state conservationstrategies list a number of species that relyon healthy riparian and BLH habitats. The willowflycatcher and yellow-breasted chat require shrubhabitats near streams and wetlands. The westernpond turtle needs basking logs in streams andwetlands, open areas in the riparian zone fornesting, and a suitable duff layer for hibernationand summer dormancy. The Oregon spotted frogdepends on riparian habitats and spends most ofits life in riparian areas. Aquatic species that areidentified in the state conservation strategies asbenefitting from high-quality riparian and BLHhabitat include the Willamette floater (a freshwatermussel); brook and Pacific lamprey; Chinookand coho salmon; and steelhead and cutthroattrout. BLH wetlands provide refugia and rearinghabitat for juvenile salmon.Threats and ChallengesWetland and riparian protection programs areslowing and reducing the loss of remaining riparianand BLH forests, and a number of initiativesand grant programs are rehabilitating degradedriparian zones and previously converted floodplainsthroughout the region. However, manychanges on the landscape are irreversible, andmany threats remain. Dam operations on majorrivers have reduced the historical disturbanceregime (i.e., flooding) to a fraction of its formerextent and amplitude. The region’s iconic cottonwoodforests depend on this disturbance; withreduced flooding, new forests are no longer beingcreated. Development in floodplains has permanentlydisconnected many of them from theirrivers.Threats in remaining riparian and BLH forestsinclude invasive species such as reed canarygrassand English and Irish ivy that (1) prevent nativeplants from becoming established, or (2) in thecase of ivy, can topple trees from the weight oflarge vines. The invasion of the emerald ash32 33

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 3 Major Habitat Types of the Regionborer—a non-native insect—is imminent; if notcontrolled, the emerald ash borer could decimateremaining BLH forests. Increases in the amountof impervious surface from development increasethe flashiness of streams, causing down cutting;the associated lowering of the water table stressesriparian vegetation.Likely Effects of Climate ChangeClimate change may affect riparian and BLHforest habitats both directly and indirectly. Intidally influenced areas of the lower Columbiasystem, sea-level rise could stress BLH forests bypreventing the seasonal drying that they require.If summers become hotter and drier, as expected,increased demand for water for irrigation, municipaluse, and power generation may exacerbatedrought stress by drawing down groundwater.This may be offset if increased flood frequencyand magnitude in winter and spring expandfloodplains, store water longer, and increasegroundwater recharge.Conservation Strategies and OpportunitiesConservation of riparian and bottomland hardwoodforest must focus on reconnecting floodplainsto their rivers, so as to reestablish ecologicalprocesses such as recruitment of large wood tostreams. Strategies are as follows:n Reconnect broken strands of riparian zonesand increase the patch size of riparian and BLHforest complexes. This will supply intact corridors,improve riparian habitat function, andmake interior habitat available for area-sensitivespecies.n Reconnect and restore large floodplain areasto increase flood storage capacity, which couldbecome increasingly important if climate changebrings more severe and frequent winter stormsand reduces storage capacity in snowpack, asmany models predict.n Implement revegetation projects to reestablishhabitat and the historical recruitment of wood tostreams.n Increase riparian plantings in agricultural areasthrough easements and farm bill programs.However, perhaps the greatest opportunity forriparian habitat conservation is prevention of furtherdecline, because the greatest threat to theseareas is urban and agricultural development.Prevention of further decline can be accomplishedthrough the following:n Protect remnant BLH and riparian forests,which are the last reserves of these habitat types.BLH forests that are not protected should be ahigh priority for conservation.n Restore some marginal agricultural lands infloodplains as BLH and riparian areas and reconnectthem to their rivers.n Where riparian zones are narrow, use adjacentupland forests and shrublands as buffers againstthe effects of development and to help preserveriparian functions.For More InformationEcological Issues in Floodplains and RiparianCorridorsS.M. Bolton and J. Shellberg. 2001. WA-RD 524.1.Washington State Department of Transportation,Olympia, Washington.Oregon’s Living Landscape: Strategies andOpportunities to Conserve BiodiversityDefenders of Wildlife. 1998. Defenders ofWildlife, Portland, Oregon. 218 pp.“Wildlife of Riparian Habitats”J.B. Kauffman, M. Mahr, L. Mahrt, and D. Edge.Pp 361-388 in Johnson & O’Neill, 2001. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington.Oregon State University Press.“The Ecology, Restoration, and Managementof Southeastern Floodplain Ecosystems:A Synthesis”S.L. King, R.R. Sharitz, J.W. Groninger, and L.L.Battaglia. 2009. Wetlands 2009(2): 624-634.Metro’s Technical Report for Fish and WildlifeHabitat, April 2005. Exhibit F—Ordinance No.05-1077C.The Oregon Conservation StrategyOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2006.Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,Salem, Oregon.www.dfw.state.or.us“Importance of Streamside Forests to LargeRivers: The Isolation of the Willamette River,Oregon, USA, from its Floodplain by Snaggingand Streamside Forest Removal”J.R. Sedell and J.L. Froggatt. 1984. Verh InternatVerein Limnol 22:1828-1834.“Role of Refugia in Recovery from Disturbances:Modern Fragmented and Disconnected RiverSystems”J.R. Sedell, G.H. Reeves, F.R. Hauer, J.A. Stanfordand C.P. Hawkins. 1990. Environmental Management14(5): 711-724.Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation StrategyWashington Department of Fish and Wildlife.2006. 778 pp.Shrub HabitatLori Hennings, MetroShrubs are woody-stemmed plants that reachrelatively low heights (1 to 20 feet) at maturity.Biologists consider shrub habitat either in termsof its structural condition—meaning the heightof its woody vegetation, including young trees—or its species composition. Johnson and O’Neil(2001) consider shrubby areas with less than 10percent tree cover to be shrubland, subdivided bypercent cover and height classes.Shrubs add complexity to other habitats,greatly increasing the amount of area availablefor cover and nesting. Numerous studies in thePacific Northwest document the importance ofshrubs to a wide variety of arthropods, amphibians,small mammals, and birds. The fruit andflowers of shrubs—particularly deciduousones—host abundant pollinator and prey species.The diets of deer and elk consist largely of shrubbrowse. Shrubs also provide important habitatconnectivity and may effectively widen a forestedbiodiversity corridor.In the greater Portland-Vancouver region,shrub habitats occur most often in riparianareas or as an early successional stage followingdisturbance such as clear-cuts, insect kill, or fire.Shrubs also are key components of many habitattypes, including deciduous and coniferous forests,bottomland hardwood forests, and Oregon whiteoak habitats—the latter particularly where fire hasbeen suppressed. Shrubby wetlands are discussedunder “Wetlands” in this section of the BiodiversityGuide.Historical and Current OccurrenceUnlike eastern Oregon and Washington, thegreater Portland-Vancouver region has noexplicitly described climax shrub habitat types;therefore, it is difficult to estimate the degree ofloss or change in shrub habitat from the 1850sto today. However, it is likely that the decrease infire frequency and increased density and activemanagement of forests—particularly industrialor commercial forest types—has produced lessManagement Recommendations for Washington’sPriority Habitats: Riparianhttp//wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00029/Washington34 Department of Fish and Wildlife. 199735

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 3 Major Habitat Types of the RegionColumbia SedgeMeadowsColumbia sedgemeadows areconsidered a criticallyimperiled habitat typein Oregon. Historicallyabundant, most sedgemeadows have beenlost as a result of filling,draining, agriculturaland grazing practices,and fire suppression.Remaining Columbiasedge meadows aremost threatened byinvasive plant species.Remnants occurat Metro’s Smith andBybee Wetlands NaturalArea in north Portland.WetlandsEsther LevWetlands are swamps, marshes, bogs, and othertransitional lands between terrestrial and aquaticsystems where the water table is usually at ornear the surface or the land is covered by shallowwater; wetlands can also exist in a slope ordepressional setting that is not associated withanother water body. Typically, wetland soils aresaturated with moisture, either permanently orseasonally, but each wetland is different. This isbecause of variations in soil, landscape, climate,water regime and chemistry, vegetation, andhuman disturbance. Wetlands may be coveredpartially or completely by shallow pools of waterthat is salty, brackish, or fresh.Wetlands are among the most importantecosystems on earth. These complex habitatsstore, clean, and filter water, prevent soil erosion,and control flooding. They provide habitat forthousands of species of birds, fish, and mammals.They are also, in effect, natural libraries thatcontain information on climate, history, adaptation,and evolution embedded in peat, muck, clay,and silt. Yet historically people did not recognizethe value of wetlands, regarding them as “wastelands,”barriers to development, and breedinggrounds for mosquitoes, insects, and disease.Consequently, many of the nation’s wetlands havebeen drained, filled, and paved over for otheruses.The greater Portland-Vancouver region hasretained a variety of different types of wetlands,from freshwater marshes to wet prairies. Thedescriptions below include examples of whereeach major wetland type can still be found in theregion. Such areas can serve as reference sites forwetland enhancement and restoration projects.Major Wetland Types in the GreaterPortland-Vancouver RegionAquatic BedsAquatic beds are composed mostly of submergedvegetation, the upper portions of which may floatat the surface. Aquatic beds occur in near-shoreareas along the coast, in estuaries, and in rivers,ponds, lakes, and sloughs on most topographicsurfaces throughout the state. Plants may berooted, suspended in the water column, or freefloating.They provide critical food and coverfor fish, amphibians, and invertebrates and areusually directly linked to riverine and emergentwetlands by hydrology, chemistry, and food webs.A large variety of invertebrates and vertebratesuse both aquatic beds and emergent wetlandsduring part of their life cycles. Since 1850, muchaquatic bed habitat has been lost to river channelization,siltation, and filling for agricultureor urban development. Examples of aquatic bedhabitat can be found at Sturgeon Lake, Smith andBybee Wetlands Natural Area, and the Vancouverlowlands.fensMost wetlands in Oregon that have been calledbogs are actually fens, because they are hydratedby mineral-rich surface water or groundwater,lack a domed peat profile, and have a pH generallyhigher than 5.5. However, many fens containlocalized hummocks or lawns of Sphagnum witha pH as low as 4, and these are classified as “poorfens.” Oregon’s fens occur in depressions on variouslandforms, particularly in troughs betweendunes and in headwall basins and floodplains.Fens can also occur around the edges or overthe surface of mid-slope slump or sag pondsin landslide areas. Fens are usually perenniallysaturated, but local areas of surface drying are notuncommon. Fens may include patches of shrubswamp and forested wetland occurring on peatsoils. Drainage, filling, peat mining, conversionto commercial cranberry or blueberry production,and plant succession have destroyed manyfens, and losses continue to occur despite wetlandregulations that were designed to protect them.The only known fen left in the Willamette Valleywas recently protected by Metro.Forested WetlandsSometimes called swamps, forested wetlandsoccur on seasonally or perennially wet flats,depressions, or stream terraces. Hydration occursvia precipitation, groundwater discharge, orinflowing streams. Forested wetlands sometimesare located within riparian zones but differ fromriparian wetlands in their higher water tablesand longer duration of surface water. Forestedwetlands typically are flooded for several weeksduring the growing season (seasonal flooding),and are differentiated from riparian stands thatmay have surface water for only a few days duringa temporary flood. Examples of forested wetlandscan be found at the Vancouver Lake lowlands, onSauvie Island, and along the Columbia River.Freshwater MarshesFreshwater marshes occur in depressions andaround the edges of lakes, ponds, rivers, andstreams where surface water is present for all ormost of the growing season and the soil is perenniallywet. (Freshwater tidal marshes are treatedseparately in the following section.) They arecharacterized by emergent herbaceous vegetationsuch as spikerush (Eleocharis spp.), sedges (Carexspp.), bulrushes (scirpus spp.), bur-reed (Sparganiumspp.), cattails (Typha spp.), and variousgrasses. Broadleaved herbs and shrubs may alsobe present. Freshwater marshes are particularlywell known as breeding or foraging sites for birds.Freshwater marshes are found throughout thestate, but many thousands of acres have beendiked, drained, and farmed. Ridgefield WildlifeRefuge Complex, Tualatin Wildlife Refuge,Fernhill Marsh, Wapato Lake, Jackson Bottom,and Shillapoo Lake offer examples of freshwatermarshes.Riparian WetlandsRiparian wetlands occur along rivers and streamsthroughout the state and are often intermixedwith upland portions of floodplains in a jumbleof units that are difficult or impossible to mapseparately. Riparian wetlands usually are associatedwith seasonal flooding of adjacent streamsand rivers, but they also can be hydrated byperennial or seasonal seepage, tributary streams,or flooding caused by tidal cycles. Vegetation inriparian wetlands can be forested, scrub-shrub,or herbaceous but is usually a mixture of alternatingpatches of all three different types. Historically,most riparian areas were grazed intensivelyby livestock and severely degraded as a resultof soil compaction, denudation, down cuttingof streams, and subsequent invasion by uplandor non-native invasive species. These impactsalso degraded streams and have impaired fishand other aquatic species. Over the last 20 years,extensive areas of riparian vegetation and hydrologyhave been restored by improved managementpractices. Examples of riparian wetlands canbe found along Multnomah Channel, ShillapooLake, and the Sandy, Clackamas, Columbia, andLewis rivers).Scrub-Shrub WetlandsScrub-shrub wetlands include areas dominatedby woody vegetation less than 6 meters (20 feet)tall. Characteristic species include true shrubs,young trees, and trees or shrubs that are small orstunted because of environmental conditions. Allwater regimes except subtidal are included. Willow,spirea, and red twig dogwood are commondominant shrub species found in scrub-shrubwetlands in the region. Examples of scrub-shrubwetlands can be found at Killin Wetland, BeggarsTick Marsh, Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge,38 39

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 3 Major Habitat Types of the Regionand oak and madrone dominated areas. Deciduoustrees filled an important role as early occupiersafter disturbance, occupying openings (i.e.,gaps) or constituting the understory in establishedforest (especially red alder [Alnus rubra]and big leaf maple [Acer macrophyllum] but alsomany others). Stands of Douglas fir or ponderosapine mixed with Oregon white oak (Quercusgarryana) and Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii)occupied the drier and more fire-prone areasof the region, with the oak also being a typicalcomponent of some riparian areas.Historically, fire and wind (and to a lesserextent disease) were the disturbance typesresponsible for initiating new forests or shapingestablished ones. Fires, including those purposefullyset by Native Americans, covering manythousands of acres initiated or altered standdevelopment in much of the Pacific Northwest.Full canopy closure often developed over manydecades, frequently after stands were re-burned.Many features were retained from the burned forest,including large standing living and dead treesand large fallen trees. Long establishment periodsallowed for a diverse, mature shrub componentin developing forests. Wind generally producessmaller, localized disturbances. The resultingopenings create habitat for sun-dependent forband shrub species that support many insect andbird species.Current ConditionsCurrently, old-growth forest occupies a tinyfraction of the greater Portland-Vancouverregion. Most upland forests in the region haveoccupied areas of former prairie or oak habitat.Forests managed for timber production (i.e.,much of the foothills of the Coast Range andCascades) typically are less than 60 years old, aredensely planted with Douglas fir, and generallylack a significant shrub and tree layer beneath thecanopy. Although clear-cut harvest creates openconditions favorable for many species, it doesnot typically leave important elements of biologicallegacies from the previous stand. Large deadwood in most commercial stands is limited to thefew remaining old stumps of the original forest.Forests in conservation areas that have developedfollowing harvest and abandonment (e.g., SandyRiver, Gresham Buttes) or fire (Forest Park) varygreatly in species composition, depending on harvestmethod, fire intensity, and conditions immediatelyafter harvest. Such stands range fromalmost pure conifers (this is uncommon withoutactive stand management) through mixed coniferand broadleaf stands to almost pure deciduousstands dominated by big leaf maple, alder, anddiverse shrubs.BiodiversityPlant and animal use of forests follows thechanges in forests over time and environmentalconditions that influence forest composition andstand structure. At each stage of development,forests provide different conditions that, in turn,provide habitat for different types of living things.Very young natural stands with open conditionssupport a high diversity and productivityof shrubs and forbs and the wildlife species thatdepend on them (see Appendix D). As the forestcanopy closes, biodiversity drops dramatically.When a forest reaches the old-growth stage andhas more open canopy and extensive gaps, itbegins to once again provide habitat for manylight-dependent plant species while also providinghabitat for species that depend on large trees,snags, cavities, and large wood on the forest floor.Species that depend on older forests tend to behabitat specialists. For example, the northern flyingsquirrel (Glaucomus sabrinus) depends on thedecayed logs, dense canopy, and understory coverthat occur in old-growth forests. The endangeredspotted owl (Strix caurina) relies on the northernflying squirrel as a primary food source and alsouses old-growth forest as primary nesting areas.Significant population reductions in habitat-specialistspecies associated with old-growth forest,such as northern spotted owl, flying squirrel,pileated woodpecker, and many cavity- nestingspecies, reflect modern changes in overall foreststructure across the region.Landscape IssuesThe size, shape, and distribution of forest habitatpatches affect their value in terms of biodiversity(see Chapter 6 of this document and Chapter 7of the Regional Conservation Strategy for a moredetailed discussion of this issue). Patches of 30acres begin providing habitat for species thatrequire interior habitat, but true interior conditionsand population viability probably requirespatches of 300 acres or more. Before 1850, forestsin the greater Portland-Vancouver region werewell connected, with patches of thousands oreven hundreds of thousands of acres. Althoughlarge areas of contiguous forest still exist aroundthe edges of the region (mostly in commercialforestry and related riparian areas), there hasbeen a profound trend toward smaller patch sizeand increased isolation in more developed areasof the region.Threats and ChallengesThe major threats to biodiversity in establishedforest include lack of important habitat features,invasive species, fire suppression that can lead tocatastrophic wildfire, and habitat loss or fragmentationas a result of development and conversionto agricultural lands.Invasive Non-native SpeciesNon-native plants and animals represent a substantialthreat to forest health and are the primarythreat to protected forests, especially in the nearurbanarea. Climbing species such as Englishand Irish ivy and old man’s beard can kill ortopple mature trees. Shade-tolerant weeds such asEnglish and Irish ivy, garlic mustard, and spurgelaurel can smother and eliminate native plants onthe forest floor. These species and more lightlovingones such as Himalayan blackberry canprevent establishment of young trees in gaps createdby dying canopy-dominant trees. Non-nativemammals such as squirrels and Virginia opossumcompete for habitat resources and prey directlyon native species, including cavity-nesting birds.Non-native insects such as the Asian gypsy moththreaten entire stands of trees. Although no nonnativediseases currently threaten our primaryforest species, non-native diseases have beenresponsible for the loss of dominant species suchas American chestnut and American elm in otherparts of the country. Forests managed for singlespecies are particularly vulnerable to the impactsof non-native species.Habitat Loss and IsolationPoorly planned conversion of remaining forestlands to residential areas, agriculture, or roadscould compromise the existence of (1) forestpatches of a size sufficient to maintain biodiversity,and (2) the remaining biodiversity corridorsthat connect upland forests and other habitats.The issue is more severe in the near-urban area,but care should be taken to build and maintainconnections between patches of forest managedfor biodiversity values throughout the region.Lack of Important Habitat FeaturesAlthough commercial forests provide manybenefits, they have limited value for many plantand wildlife species because they are dominatedby small Douglas fir, lack the range of age classestypical of natural forests, have a poorly developed44 been harvested multiple times or have recently45

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 3 Major Habitat Types of the Regionshrub layer, and lack snags and large wood on theforest floor. The emphasis on creating old-growthconditions in public forests and the short rotationsand rapid reforestation—often using herbicides—inprivate forests have created a regionalshortage of forests with abundant mature shrubs.Likely Effects of Climate ChangeThe region’s dominant tree species are expected tobe largely tolerant of near-term climate changes.However, climate change is expected to causehotter, drier summers that may lead to increasesin catastrophic wildfire or increased vulnerabilityto native or non-native diseases or insects; thesechanges could result in substantial damage toforest and stream systems. In addition, resourcesmight be diverted toward fighting forest fires andaway from conservation management.Conservation Strategies and OpportunitiesImproving the Habitat Quality of Our Forests:Creating “Old-Growth Like” ConditionsIt is possible to mimic some aspects of old-growthforest ecosystems by actively managing to createits key structural and compositional components.Wider initial spacing or aggressive thinning ofyoung forests with interplanting of native forbsand shrubs can (1) facilitate faster productionof large trees, (2) maintain or encourage thedevelopment of a deep, complex canopy, with adiverse understory and canopy gaps; and (3) insome cases, help defray the costs of managementthrough timber receipts. Girdling or topping livetrees can produce snags for wildlife. Felled hazardtrees can be left in large pieces onsite. Small treesharvested for thinning purposes can be piled tomimic the effects of larger single trees on the forestfloor.Land ConservationStrategic protection or restoration of large patchesof forest and functional connectivity corridorswill not only help protect forest-dependentbiodiversity but will also provide a substantialreturn on investment in terms of air and waterquality protection and provision of other ecosystemservices. Such protection and restoration canpayments for ecosystem services, or other incentivesto private landowners, along with carefullyconceived regulation.Invasive Species Control ProgramsAdequately funded and regionally coordinatedinvasive species control programs that includeearly detection and rapid response programs areessential in protecting the health of the region’sforests. The framework for coordination is wellestablished with the 4-County Cooperative WeedManagement Area, which covers Multnomah,Clackamas, Washington, and Clark counties.However, funding has not been adequate toaddress the issue even within natural areas, letalone within the unmanaged and privately ownedundeveloped areas of the region.adaptation to Climate Change ImpactsA system of healthy, well-connected forests isthought to offer the best chance of resilienceand adaptation to climate change, whether thatresilience is expressed through response to fireand disease or species migrations. A successfulstrategy will include cooperation on fire managementthrough community wildfire protectionplans and fuel load management, as well as plansfor early detection of and rapid response to newdiseases or insects.For More InformationManagement of Wildlife and Fish Habitats inForests of Western Oregon and WashingtonE.R. Brown. USDA Forest Service, PublicationR6-F&WL-192-1985.“How Dead Trees Sustain Live Organisms inWestern Forests”F.L. Bunnell, I. Houde, B. Johnston, B., and E.Wind. In W.F. Laundenslayer Jr., P.J. Shea, andB.E., Valentine, Proceedings of the Symposiumon the Ecology and Management of Dead Woodin Western Forests. General Technical ReportPSW-GTR-181, 291-318. 2002. Reno, NV, U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, PacificSouthwest Research Station.Ecological Characteristics of Old-growthDouglas-fir ForestsJ.F. Franklin, K. Cromack Jr., W. Denison, A.McKee, C. Maser, J. Sedell, F. Swanson, and G.Juday. 1991. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-118.Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.Fire History and Pattern in a Cascade RangeLandscapeP.H. Morrison and F.J. Swanson. 1990. Gen.Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-254. Portland, OR: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, PacificNorthwest Research Station. 77 pForest Stand DynamicsC.D. Oliver and B.C. Larson. 1990. McGraw-Hill.467p.Forest Fragmentation, Wildlife and ManagementImplicationsJ.A. Rochelle, L.A. Lehmann, and J. Wisniewski.1999. Brill Publ. 301 p.Viability Assessments and Management Considerationsfor Species Associated with Late-Successionaland Old-Growth Forests of the Pacific NorthwestScientific Analysis Team. 1993. USDA ForestService Research. 525pp.“Coarse Woody Debris in Douglas-fir forests ofWestern Oregon and Washington”T.A. Spies, J.F. Franklin, and T.B. Thomas.Ecology 1988;69:1689-1702.“Status of Mature and Old-Growth Forests in thePacific Northwest”J.R. Strittholt, D.A. Dellasala, and Jong Jiang.2005. Conservation Biology, 20:2, 364-374.Oak Woodland and SavannaMary Bushman, City of Portland; Dan Bell, TheNature Conservancy; Mark Wilson, City of Portland;Jonathan Soll, Metro; Ed Alverson,The Nature ConservancyOregon white oak (Quercus garryana) is theonly oak species native to the greater Portland-Vancouver region. Mature white oak habitat (i.e.,savanna, woodland, and forest) provides importantwildlife habitat, and its abundant acorns are akey element of the food chain.Oak woodlands are characterized by an opencanopy (i.e., 30 to 70 percent coverage) dominatedby Oregon white oak; depending on conditions,oak woodlands may also have ponderosapine, Douglas fir, Oregon ash, or big leaf maplecomponents. The understory generally is composedof grasses, forbs, and scattered low shrubs.As tree cover increases toward oak or mixedoak-conifer forest, shrubs replace grasses in theunderstory.Oak savanna is essentially prairie with a fewtrees per acre. Like prairie, savanna ground coveris characterized by wildflowers (forbs) and grasslikeplants (grasses, sedges, and rushes) but alsoincludes tree cover of up to 25 percent and scatteredclusters of shrubs. Archetypical savanna inour region has a few widely spaced large Oregonwhite oaks, typically with a mushroom-shapedcanopy and well-developed limbs. However, pre-1850 vegetation data show that the WillametteValley’s savanna was more structurally diverseand also supported Douglas fir, ponderosa pine,and Oregon ash.White oak savanna and woodland are amongthe most endangered ecological communities inthe Pacific Northwest. Both are identified as focalhabitats in the Oregon and Washington state conservationstrategies. Mapping of these importanthabitats is incomplete within the greater Portland-Vancouverregion, and few large examplesare known.Natural Vegetation of Oregon and WashingtonJ.F. Franklin and C.T. Dyrness. Oregon StateUniversity Press. Corvallis.be accomplished through acquisition, easements,46 47

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 3 Major Habitat Types of the Region48Several factors influence the location of Oregonwhite oak habitat and explain its current scarcity:n Large Oregon white oaks are fire resistant. Inlocations where low-intensity fire occurs frequently,large white oak trees are able to thrive forcenturies, with small trees generally re-sproutingafter fire. Douglas fir and big leaf maple, whichfavor similar soils and site conditions, tolerate fireless well.n Oak trees are drought and fire tolerant but donot tolerate shade and decline or die with competitionfrom taller but more fire-sensitive species,such as Douglas fir, or more shade-tolerantspecies, such as big leaf maple.n Oregon white oak can occur on a wide rangeof topographic types, including floodplains, bluffsands terraces, rocky outcrops, and gentle slopes.n Oregon white oak grows on a wide range ofsoils, from seasonally flooded clay soils to xericsites—conditions to which its competitors arepoorly adapted. Historically, Oregon white oakgrew primarily in areas that today are dominatedby residences or agriculture and on south-facingslopes within riparian areas.Importance of Oak Habitat to WildlifeLarge oak trees provide many of the structuralfeatures desired by 140 wildlife species associatedwith oak habitat; these features include thepotential for cavities, high acorn production, andlarge, horizontal, moss-covered branches. Thefollowing species are common to oak woodlandsand savanna:n Western red-backed salamander (Plethodonvehiculum)n Pacific tree frog (Pseudacris regilla)n Rubber boa (Charina bottae)n Northern alligator lizard (Elgaria coerulea)n Common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis)n Western wood-pewee (Contopus sordidulus)n Northern pygmy-owl (Glaucidium californicum)n Lazuli bunting (Passerina amoena)n Red breasted nuthatch (Sitta canadensis)n Cassin’s vireo (Vireo cassinii)n Common bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus)n Purple finch (Carpodacus purpures)n California quail (Callipepla californica)n Bullock’s oriole (Icterus bullockii)n Black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus)n Roosevelt elk (Cervus canadensis roosevelti)n Coyote (Canis latrans)At least 12 bird species are at risk and wouldsuffer further declines if oak habitats were lostor degraded (see Appendix E). Species at riskinclude the following insects, birds, and mammals,all of which are oak habitat-dependentspecies of concern in the Oregon and Washingtonstate conservation strategies:n Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioidesfenderi)n Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryaseditha taylori)n American kestrel (Falco sparverius)n Western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis)n Savanna sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis)n Oregon vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineusaffinis)n Chipping sparrow (Spizella passerine)n Lewis’s woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis)n Western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata)n Band-tailed pigeon (Patagioenas fasciata)n “Slender-billed”white-breasted nuthatch(Sitta carolinensis)n Acorn woodpecker(Melanerpes formicivorus)n Western bluebird(Sialia mexicana)n Western meadowlark(Sturnella neglecta,only in very open oaksystems)n Western gray squirrel(Sciurus griseus)Flora of Oregon WhiteOak HabitatsNotable common species among the approximately375 species of native plants known to relyon savanna and prairie habitats include most ofthe typical prairie species (see “Upland Prairie,Wet Prairie, and Rocky Balds,” below), as well asnotable savanna or woodlands species, includingthe following:n Blue wildrye (Elymus glaucus)n Fawn lily (Erythronium oregonum)n Oregon sunshine (Eriophyllum lanatum)n Celery leaf lovage (Ligusticum apiifolium)n Oregon grape (Berberis aquifolium)n Hound’s tongue (Cynoglossum grande)n Wood fern (Dryopteris arguta)n California fescue (Festuca californica)n White-topped aster (Sericocarpus oregonensis)n Birch-leaf spirea (Spirea betulifolia)n Trillium (Trillium parviflorum)n Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa)Table 3-1Conservation Land with Known Oak HabitatElk Rock IslandAreaMt Talbert, Canemah, and Willamette NarrowsCooper MountainCamassia Natural AreaChampoeg State ParkSauvie Island Wildlife AreaRidgefield and Tualatin National Wildlife RefugesWashougal Natural AreaLacamas ParkFanno Creek GreenwayCity of Portlandn Cascara (Rhamnus purshiana)n Snowberry (Symphorocarpus albus)n Poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum)n Sword fern (Polystichum munitum)n Bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum)n Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii)Owner/ManagerMetro and Clackamas Countyn Western serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia)Appendix F presents a more extensive list.Metro and Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation DistrictThe Nature ConservancyOregon State ParksOregon Department of Fish and WildlifeU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceWashington State Department of Natural ResourcesCity of CamasTualatin Hills Parks and Recreation DistrictAt least three plant species that are listed as priorityspecies in Oregon or Washington are knownto occupy oak habitats (see Appendix F): Kincaid’slupine (Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii),white-topped aster (Sericocarpus rigidus), andwhite rock larkspur (Delphinium leucophaeum).The entire range of the larkspur is within thegreater Portland-Vancouver region. Given thegenerally inadequate mapping of the habitat andthe limited plant inventory for oak habitat, thereare many species whose status is poorly understood,and many may be sharply declining withinthe region. More discussion of savanna understoryvegetation can be found in “Upland Prairie,Wet Prairie, and Rocky Balds,” following).49

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 3 Major Habitat Types of the RegionImportance to Native AmericansThe history of oak habitat in the region includesthe indigenous people that managed this areafor thousands of years before approximately1840. The Cowlitz and Upper Chehalis Indiansof the Puget lowlands and the Kalapuya tribes ofthe Willamette Valley regularly set fires to favorplants on which they depended for food andmedicine. Beyond oak, important savanna plantswere camas (Camassia sp.), wild onion (Alliumsp.), and tarweed (Madia sp.). Some woodlandswere deliberately left unburned to provide areaswhere deer, elk, grouse, and other game wouldconcentrate. The imprint left by that history continuestoday.the situation is likely worse within the Portland-Vancouver region than in the more rural upperWillamette Valley—especially within the Oregonportion of the region, where urban and agriculturaldevelopment has replaced nearly all theformer oak areas. Few large known examples ofthe habitat remain.Distribution of Oak Habitats in the RegionBecause oak habitat has not been well mapped,its distribution is not known with precision.Remnant habitats within the more urbanizedportion of the greater Portland-Vancouver regionprovide connectivity to areas with more extensivehabitat. Patchy but mostly contiguous—althoughdegraded—areas of oak stretch along the WillametteRiver, east and south through Milwaukie,Oregon City, and Wilsonville to the WillametteValley. Oak habitats also are found as remnants ofthe historical floodplain forests of the ColumbiaRiver. These habitats extend upslope to rockyoutcrops in the Coast Range foothills and into theColumbia River Gorge National Scenic Area tothe east. The farmlands of the Tualatin Valley andin Clackamas, Clark, Marion, and Yamhill countiesare populated by the remnants of oak habitats.Large single oaks and patches of oak oftenare located on the hillsides and along streamsand wetlands in the rolling hills of the greaterPortland-Vancouver region, perhaps because ofthe difficulties in developing or planting fieldcrops in these areas.Large, often isolated oaks found along roads inurban or rural areas, in rural residential settings,and in agricultural fields are clues to the formerregional extent of oak habitat. These ecologicallyvaluable reminders of our region’s natural historyare decreasing as they decline with age, areharvested, or are cut down for development. Evenon good soils where Oregon white oak grows at arelatively fast rate, the replacement of large-diameteroak trees that are favored by wildlifecan take more than a century.conversion, and invasive species. These factorshave led to the decline or loss of many speciesof native plants and wildlife populations thatdepend on large, open-grown oak trees or nativebunchgrass prairie such as western bluebirds,white-breasted nuthatches, acorn woodpeckers,and western gray squirrel.Lack of fire over the past 150 years has allowedconifers and big-leaf maple to overtop and shadeout oaks. Evidence for this can be seen in the narrowcanopies or skeletons of formerly large oaks(and madrones) in existing Douglas fir and maplestands. In some areas, oaks have increased in density,with dense stands of narrow-crowned oaktrees replacing the open-grown oak so valuableto wildlife. Small, shaded, or crowded oak treesproduce fewer acorns, make fewer and smallercavities, are more vulnerable to fire and mayeventually succumb to other forest types. Firesuppression may also be a cause for reduced oakreproduction in the region.Conversion of oak habitats to farms, productionforest, or residential areas has led to smallerpatch size and increased isolation. This not onlylimits the use of oak habitats to species with smallhome ranges, but decreases the viability of plantand wildlife populations within the patch, leadingto loss of local biodiversity.The understory of many remaining oak habitatsis degraded by non-native invasive speciessuch as English and Irish ivy (Hedera sp), nonnativeblackberries (Rubus armeniacus andlaciniatus), Scot’s broom (Cytisis scoparius),and various non-native grasses. As a result, moststands have low diversity and cover of nativegrasses and forbs (i.e., wildflowers) and theanimals that depend on them.Entities Working on the IssueRestoration of oak habitats is under way bynonprofit institutions such as The Nature Conservancy,Tualatin Riverkeepers, Columbia LandTrust, and the University of Portland, and by governmentagencies such as Clean Water Services,the Natural Resources Conservation Service,Metro, the City of Portland, Tualatin Hills Parksand Recreation District, and the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service. The Oregon Oak CommunitiesWorking Group meets occasionally to shareinformation and projects.Threats and ChallengesMeaningful conservation of oak habitats is difficultfor several reasons. The habitat is poorlymapped, and protected areas generally are smalland isolated. Much of the original oak landscapein its various forms has been developed, andwhat remains generally is degraded. Finally, oakand prairie habitat need ongoing active managementthat requires some degree of staff expertiseand resources (although several useful guidesdo exist). The following are issues specific to themanagement of oak habitats:n Valley woodlands once dominated by widelyspaced oaks are becoming forests crowded withconifers and shade-tolerant trees. White oakssurvive only a few decades in such conditions.n Those legacy oaks that persist in residentialareas or on pastures and woodlots are being cutdown as agricultural practices intensify, or theyare aging and not being replaced.Historical and Current OccurrenceExplorers and settlers arriving in the WillametteValley in the 1800s found vast areas of prairieand oak habitat. In 1841, explorer Charles Wilkesn Vineyard development on land once unsuitablefor farming threatens some remaining oakdescribed the landscape as being “destitute oftrees, except oaks.” Oak woodland and savannahabitat.once covered about 400,000 acres in the WillametteValley; this was in addition to 1 millionExamples within the Regionn The lack of a strong market for oak creates littleacres of prairie. Today less than 7 percent of theMuch of the remaining oak habitat in the regioneconomic motivation to maintain oak stands andoriginal habitat remains in the Willamette Valley.is in private ownership. Oak is found throughout favors conversion to conifers.Approximately 460,000 acres of oak and prairiemost of the region at elevations below 2,000 feet,were present in the greater Portland-Vancouverbut especially in the southernmost and westernmostn Invasive, non-native plants such as Scot’sregion in 1850. Lack of accurate current habitatareas of our region. Table 3-1 lists known broom, Himalayan blackberry, and non-nativemapping makes accurate estimates of the degree Condition of Existing Oak Habitatsexamples of oak habitat within the region. grasses reduce the survival and growth rate ofof loss for the region impossible to determine, but The structure and composition of remaining oakoak seedlings and compete against wildflowershabitats often are degraded by lack of fire, habitat50 51

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 3 Major Habitat Types of the Regionand native grasses that are associated with oakhabitats, thus reducing native biodiversity.n Park managers and homeowners seldom plantwhite oak for landscaping because of its reputationfor slow growth.n Low availability and the high price of appropriatenative seed limits the effectiveness of restoration.Likely Effects of Climate ChangeMost climate models predict warmer, wetter wintersand more prolonged drought during summer,leading to more frequent and intense forestfires in the Pacific Northwest. If such a scenarioproves true, it may favor fire-adapted species andhabitats such as oak woodlands, savanna, andprairie. Unfortunately, rapidly changing climateis likely to have the greatest negative impact onspecies that occupy small, isolated habitat patchesbecause they may not be able to migrate anddisperse.Important Management StrategiesOak woodlands and savanna are a high priorityfor protection and restoration for two primaryreasons:n The oak habitats in the region provide connectivitybetween the Willamette Valley to the southand Puget Trough to the north; both provideoak habitats critical for the survival of decliningspecies.n Conservation of the Oregon white oak ecosystemis necessary to protect associated species andculturally important historical sites, includingmany plant and animal species at risk of local orglobal extinction.Management strategies to ensure the survivalof oaks and related species should include thefollowing:n Manage competing woody vegetation, especiallyby removing competing trees and overgrownshrubs, to protect oaks and open habitat andreduce fire intensity.n Implement prescribed fire or actions suchas grazing, haying, and mowing that mimic itseffects.n Reduce invasive species using mechanical,biological, or chemical approaches.n Enhance existing and restored habitat by collecting,cultivating, and planting oak-associatedspecies.n Identify areas that may increase the range ofoak habitats as climate change alters conditionswithin the species’ current range.Conservation Strategies and OpportunitiesBecause much of the remaining oak and prairieis in private ownership, conservation strategiesneed to include actions that can be successful onboth public and private lands. Those actions thatcan increase the extent and connectivity of oakhabitats should receive high priority.n Map oak habitat and prioritize patches andconnections.n Restore and maintain remaining examples onpublic land in strategic locations.n Conserve and restore the best remainingprivately owned sites through acquisition andeasements and by encouraging landowners toparticipate in incentive programs.n Complete an inventory of remaining oak sitesto determine the status of oak-dependent plants.For More InformationConservation Strategy for Landbirds in Lowlandsand Valleys of Western Oregon and WashingtonR. Altman. 2000. Oregon and Washington Partnersin Flight. 138p.A Bibliography for Quercus garryana and OtherGeographically Associated and BotanicallyRelated OaksC.A. Harrington and M. A. Kallas. 2002. Gen.Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-554. Portland, OR: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, PacificNorthwest Research Station. 124 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr554.pdfA Practical Guide to Oak ReleaseC.A. Harrington and W.D. Devine. 2006. Gen.Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-666. Portland, OR: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, PacificNorthwest Research Station. 24 p.“Post-Planting Treatments Increase Growth ofOregon White Oak (Quercus garryana Dougl. exHook.)” W.D. Devine, C.A. Harrington, and P.L.Lathrop. 2007. Seedlings Restoration Ecology Vol.15, No. 2, pp. 212–222Washington Department of Fish and WildlifeOak Habitat Guidelines:http//wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00030/Oregon Oak Communities Working Group:http://www.oregonoaks.org/Recovery Plan for the Prairie Species of WesternOregon and Southwestern WashingtonU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. xi + 241 pp.http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/plans.htmlWildlife Conservation in the Willamette Valley’sRemnant Prairie and Oak Habitat: A ResearchSynthesisD.G. Vesely and D.K. Rosenberg 2010. OregonWildlife Institute, Corvallis, Oregon. InteragencySpecial Status Sensitive Species Program U.S.Forest Service / Bureau of Land Management,Portland, OregonDraft Willamette Subbasin PlanWillamette Restoration Initiative, David Primozich,and Rick Bastasch 2004. Prepared forthe Northwest Power and Conservation Council.748p, 18 appendices.Wildlife on White Oak WoodlandsWoodland Fish and Wildlife 1991. http://www.woodlandfishandwildlife.org/pubs/whiteoak.pdf.(Written by Boreas, An Ecological Consultancy:Daniel Gumtow-Farrior, Catherine Gumtow-Farrior,539 E. Fir Street, Union, Oregon 97883.Upland Prairie, Wet Prairie, andRocky BaldsMary Bushman, City of Portland; Dan Bell, TheNature Conservancy; Jonathan Soll, Metro; MarkWilson, City of Portland; Ed Alverson, The NatureConservancyPrairies are natural or uncultivated areas composedof bunchgrasses (grasses that grow inclumps), grass-like plants (sedges and rushes),herbaceous plants (forbs, commonly referred toas wildflowers), mosses, and lichens. Trees andshrubs occasionally are present. Before 1850,prairies were the most extensive vegetation typein the Willamette Valleyand, together withoak savanna, occupied15 percent (270,000acres) of the greaterPortland-Vancouverregion. The nativeprairies of westernOregon and southwesternWashingtonare now among themost endangered ecosystemsin the UnitedStates and are identifiedas focal habitats inthe Oregon and Washingtonstate conservationstrategies.n Especially in urban or urbanizing areas, smallstands (i.e., stands of less than 1 acre, or 0.4 hectare)or single oak trees may be considered prioritiesfor conservation. Important examples includen Protect remaining oak habitats—even singletrees in important connectivity areas.areas near other oak or prairie sites (becauseA Landowners Guide for Restoring and Managingthey provide connectivity) or oaks that containOregon White Oak Habitatscavities, have a large diameter and canopy, or areD.G. Vesely, G. Tucker, and R. Okeefe. 2004.known to be used by priority species.USDI Bureau of Land Management, SalemDistrict. http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/salem/52 files/white_oak_guide.pdf53

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 3 Major Habitat Types of the RegionTable 3-2Sites with Ongoing Prairie RestorationSiteOwner/ManagerPrairies include arange of habitats:Cooper MountainGraham OaksGotter and Lovejoy PrairieSt Johns’ LandfillDurham PrairieBaltimore WoodsMetroClean Water ServicesCity of PortlandWet prairies.Wet prairies typicallyoccuron poorly drainedclay soils orfloodplains. Wetprairie plantstolerate soils thatare saturatedor occasionallyflooded during winter or at times of high water infloodplains.Upland prairies. Upland prairie soils typically arewell drained, although sometimes rocky. Historically,upland prairie often was near or integratedwith oak savanna, a habitat type distinguishedfrom prairie largely by chance survival of scatteredor small patches of trees.Rocky balds. Rocky balds are found in areas withthin soils that are wet in the winter and dry inthe summer. In the greater Portland-Vancouverregion, many rocky bald sites were formed whenglacial floods scoured soil from rock outcropsalong area rivers. Balds also typically form onexposed ridge tops with thin soil. They arefound along the Columbia, Willamette, Tualatin,Clackamas, and Sandy rivers and along LacamasCreek in Washington.Historical and Current OccurrenceBefore 1850, approximately 1 million acres ofwet and upland prairie existed in the WillametteValley, with additional acres scattered throughthe Washington portion of the greater Portland-Vancouver region. In all but the shallowest rockysoils, prairies historically were maintained viaperiodic fire, which effectively kills or suppressesmost trees and shrubs. Native perennial grassesand forbs have a relatively high tolerance fordrought and late-season fire, so historically theycould persist on well-drained soils or the shallowsoils of rocky balds.Because prairie habitats are typically in locationsthat are also convenient for agriculture andresidential development, most prairie was lostover the last 160 years through farming, grazing,and urban and suburban development. Firesuppression has contributed to habitat loss, withunburned prairie eventually converting to forestor woodland. Estimates suggest that less than 2percent of the original 1 million acres of prairiepresent at the time of the 1851 Government LandOffice surveys still remain in the Willamette Valley.Prairies with a substantial componentof native vegetation are even rarer.Currently, prairie habitats within the nearurbanportions of the greater Portland-Vancouverregion generally are rare, small, and heavilydegraded. Examples can be found along theWillamette, Columbia, Clackamas, and Tualatinrivers; these mostly are rocky balds. The remaininglarger areas of remnant prairie are presentwithin oak savanna and at restoration sites inrural Washington, Clackamas, and Clark countiesor intermixed with agriculture fields. Becauseremote sensing technology cannot effectivelydistinguish prairie from pasture or commercialgrassland, there may be unknown examples ofprairies on private lands in the more rural areasof the region.Examples of oak-prairie habitats within thegreater Portland-Vancouver region include ElkRock Island (City of Portland), Clear Creek NaturalArea (Metro), Cooper Mountain (Metro andTualatin Hills and Park and Recreation District),the Camassia Natural Area (The Nature Conservancy),and privately owned rocky bluffs aboveSt. Helens. Additional areas of importance areknown among various private ownerships alongthe Tualatin and Willamette rivers.Condition of Existing PrairiesRemnant prairies in the near-urban environmenttypically are small, with few native speciesand high cover of non-native species. Typically,native bunchgrasses, rushes, and sedges havebeen replaced by non-native grasses such as theperennials velvetgrass (Holcus sp.), bentgrass(Agrostis sp), tall fescue (Schedonorus phoenix),and meadow foxtail (Alepocurus pratensis) andannuals such as dog-tail (Cynosurus echniatus)and cheatgrass (Bromus sp). Invasive shrubs suchas Himalayan blackberry and Scot’s broom oftendominate unmanaged grassland areas.Remnant plants of prairie habitats, includingrare species, sometimes are found between roadsand fences on public or private property wherethey are threatened by roadside maintenanceactivities. Remaining larger, unplowed areas thatonce were prairie generally have been managedas pasture for domestic animals or as hay fields.Although commercial grassland or pasture mayprovide some habitat benefits for prairie wildlife,many grassland- and prairie-dependent species,such as western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta),streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestrisstrigata), Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia icariodesfenderi), and Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly(Euphydryas editha taylori), have declined—oftendramatically—in response to habitat loss anddegradation.Important Flora and FaunaFloraNative Willamette Valley prairies have extraordinarilydiverse plant life. Approximately 375 nativegrass and forb species are highly or moderatelydependent on prairie or savanna habitat in thegreater Portland-Vancouver region. The followingare some common native grasses found inprairies:n Roemer’s fescue (Festuca roemeri)n California oatgrass (Danthonia californica)n Prairie junegrass (Koeleria macrantha)n Blue wildrye (Elymus glaucus)n Lemmon’s needlegrass(Achnatherum lemmonii)n Tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia cespitosa)n Meadow barley (Hordeum brachyantherum)Dense sedge (Carex densa) also is common.Native forbs that are commonly intermixed withthe grasses include the following:n Fragrant popcorn flower(Plagioborthrys figuratus)n Camas (Camassia quamash ssp. maxima andC. leichtlinii ssp. suksdorfii)n Oregon sunshine (Eriophyllum lanatum)n Slender cinquefoil (Potentilla gracilis)n Meadow checkermallow (Sidalcea campestris)n Heal-all (Prunella vulgaris)n White pussy ears (Calochortus tolmiei)n Oregon Iris (Iris tenax)54 55

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 3 Major Habitat Types of the Region56The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has listed fiveprairie and savanna plant species that occur in theregion as threatened or endangered, and six otherspecies that either are being considered for listingor are species of concern (see Appendix F); theseinclude Kincaid’s lupine (Lupinus sulphureus ssp.kincaidii), shaggy horkelia (Horkelia congesta ssp.congesta), Willamette daisy (Erigeron decumbensvar. decumbens), white-topped aster (Sericocarpusrigidus), golden paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta),and white rock larkspur (Delphinium leucophaeum).FaunaBirds that depend on prairies include the streakedhorned lark, western meadowlark, Northernharrier hawk, American peregrine falcon, yellowbreastedchat, western bluebird, purple martin,and nighthawk. Mammals include deer and elk,the little brown myotis bat, and the big brown bat.Appendix E provides a more complete list.At least 13 fauna species associated with prairiesin the greater Portland-Vancouver area arelisted by the states or federal agencies as threatenedor declining (see Appendixes E and G):n Western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta)n Streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestrisstrigata)n Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioidesfenderi)n Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryaseditha taylori)n American kestrel (Falco sparverius)n Western bluebird (Sialia mexicana)n Western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis)n Savanna sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis)n Oregon vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineusaffinis)n Chipping sparrow (Spizella passerine)n “Slender-billed” white breasted nuthatch(Sitta carolinenses aculeate)n Lewis’s woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis)n Western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata)Entities Working on the IssueRestoration of prairie habitats is under way bynonprofit groups such as The Nature Conservancyand Tualatin Riverkeepers and by governmentalagencies such as Metro, the City of Portland,the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and TualatinHills Park and Recreation District. Table 3-2lists sites that have examples of ongoing prairierestoration. In addition, the Port of Portland isconsidering prairie restoration on GovernmentIsland.Threats and ChallengesDevelopment and AgriculturePrairie and undeveloped former prairie are athigh risk for development because the typicalsites are easy places to build homes, graze livestock,and plant vineyards. Wet prairies are moredifficult to develop because of permitting requirementsbut they may be vulnerable to hydrologicalteration.Invasive SpeciesEncroachment of invasive species is found inevery known prairie throughout the region. Pressurefrom these new plants may be even greater inthe urban areas, where agriculture, industry, andhorticultural influences have greatly influencedthe natural habitats for many decades.Plants that invade the prairie when there is alack of management include native woody speciessuch as Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii),Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), and Nootka rose(Rosa nutkana) and non-natives such as one-seed(Douglas’) hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna),Scot’s broom (Cytisus scoparius), Himalayanblackberry (Rubus armeniacus), reed canarygrass(Phalaris arundinacea), and St. John’s wort(Hypericum perforatum). Non-native, perennialsod-forming grasses that are fire tolerant anddifficult to control are perhaps the worst weedthreat.Fire SuppressionThe exclusion of fire as a natural disturbancefactor that promotes prairie conditions is a keythreat to grassland and prairie. Fire suppressionaffects prairie habitats in several ways:n Thatch buildup (i.e., roots and dead organicmaterial at the soil surface) alters soil conditionsand reduces the availability of the mineralsoils on which many prairie species depend forgermination.n The absence of disturbance (i.e., fire and grazing)favors long-lived perennial and woody speciesover short-lived species, especially annuals.n Except in the shallowest soils, fire suppressionleads to encroachment of trees and shrubs andeventual conversion to forest.Lack of Understanding, Need for Educationand InformationUnderstanding the importance of prairie plantsand wildlife and their management requirementshas grown, as evidenced by the inclusion ofprairies in both Oregon and Washington’s state’sconservation strategies as a conservation target.Volunteer stewardship and public support forlong-term funding are two keys to the future successof prairie habitat restoration.Likely Effects of Climate ChangeOak and prairie habitats are relics from warmer,drier periods that were present in the region7,000 to 10,000 years ago. As the climate warmedand became wetter, indigenous people maintainedoak and prairie habitats through burning.Many climate models predict warmer, wetter falland spring seasons followed by drier and warmersummers. This combination may produce conditionsin the region that will bring more frequentfire. Change closer to the historical pattern islikely to favor upland prairie, but changingseasonal patterns may also disrupt relationshipsbetween pollinators and plants and the food websthey support.Conservation Strategies and Opportunitiesn Conserve and restore existing prairie,especially any remaining large examples, andincrease the connection between sites. Thisshould be a primary strategy.n Implement conservation approaches that canbe applied on both public and private lands.Actions to increase the range and connectivityof prairie habitats should receive high priority.n Map prairie habitats and prioritize patches andconnections, beginning with the areas describedabove.n Restore and maintain remaining examples onpublic land in strategic locations.n Encourage landowners to participate in existingand new incentive programs through soil andwater conservation districts, the Oregon Departmentof Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Departmentof Forestry, Natural Resources ConservationService, and others to restore habitat in privateownership.n Increase the availability of genetically appropriateplant materials through cooperative collectionand production of prairie and savanna species.57

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 3 Major Habitat Types of the Regionn Actively manage existing and restored prairies:n Manage woody vegetation to protect openhabitat and reduce fire intensity.n Implement prescribed fire or actions such asgrazing, haying, and mowing that mimic fire’seffects.n Control invasive species using mechanical,biological, or chemical approaches.n Protect and enhance existing habitat by collecting,cultivating, and reintroducing prairieassociatedspecies.n As climate models become more predictable,look for suitable areas in which to expandprairie habitats under new climate conditions.n Reinstate appropriate hydrology for wetprairies.n Study key at-risk species and conduct researchon the following subjects to fill data gaps andinform prairie restoration:n The potential role of small-scale prairiepatches or gardens (i.e., backyard habitat)as pollinator habitat. Important examples ofsmall-scale prairies are found in urban andurbanizing areas and near other oak or largerprairie sites. These small sites provide connectivityto larger restoration sites and serveas buffers between larger sites and urban ornear-urban lands.n The importance of partial restoration withmixed native/non-native grasses and nativeforbs.n The key attributes of urban/near-urban prairierestoration sites.n Effective methods for mimicking fire.n Techniques for restoration at difficult sites—i.e., sites with disturbed soils, weed seed banks,altered hydrology, soil compaction, and rodentimpacts.Because of landownership patterns, the degree ofhabitat loss, and the expense of managing prairies,successful prairie conservation will necessarilyinvolve careful prioritization, substantial workwith private landowners, and good partnerships.Prairie habitats should be defined based on thekey functions they provide for prairie fauna.For More Information“Historical Vegetation of the Willamette Valley,Oregon, circa 1850”J.A. Christy and E.R. Alverson 2011. NorthwestScience, 85(2):93-107Prairie Habitat Restoration and Maintenance onFort Lewis and within the South Puget SoundPrairie LandscapeP. Dunn. 1998. The Nature Conservancy.Ecology and Conservation of the South PugetSound Prairie LandscapeP. Dunn and K. Ewing. 1997. The NatureConservancy.Wet Prairie Swales of South Puget SoundR. Easterly and D. Salstrom. 2005. Saltrom &Easterly Eco-logic (SEE) Botanical Consultingtogether with Chris Chappell of WashingtonDepartment of Natural Resources, NaturalHeritage Program.Seattle pollinator program; http://www.pollinatorpathway.com/Recovery Plan for the Prairie Species of WesternOregon and Southwestern WashingtonU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, Portland, OR. xi + 241 pp. Availableat http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/documents/100629.pdfWildlife Conservation in the Willamette Valley’sRemnant Prairies and Oak Habitats: A ResearchSynthesis.D.G. Vesely and D.K. Rosenberg. 2010. OregonWildlife Institute. Corvallis, OregonThe Oregon Conservation StrategyOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2006.Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem,Oregon. www.dfw.state.or.usThe Willamette Valley Landowner’s Guide toCreating Habitat for Grassland BirdsOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (AnnKreager, editor). 2011. Produced as supplementalinformation to The Oregon Conservation Strategy.Special Habitat FeaturesSusan Barnes, Oregon Departmentof Fish and WildlifeSome natural communities and landscape featuresare not adequately represented through the“coarse filter” of major habitat or land cover types.So-called special habitat features often occur atthe local scale, have a patchy distribution, andmay host rare or endemic species. The historicaloccurrence of some special habitat features is notwell known, and, because special habitat featurescan be difficult to map, they are poorly representedin regional data sets. Historically, specialhabitat features were created through the effectsof volcanic activity, seasonal floods, and wildfire,but many special habitat features have been lostas a result of altered hydrology and fire regimes,urbanization, conversion to farming or forestry,and mining. Today, remnant special habitat featuresare threatened by factors such as encroachingurbanization, recreational pressures, andinvasive species. Regional conservation partnersare endeavoring to protect and preserve specialhabitat features, which include the features below.Snags and Downed WoodStanding dead or dying trees are called snags.Once on the ground or in streams, snags arereferred to as downed wood or large woodydebris. The loss of snags and downed wood is oneof the main limiting factors for fish and wildlifein the greater Portland-Vancouver region,particularly in the region’s urban areas. Snags anddowned wood have been widely removed becausethey are not seen as having any value, they areperceived as “unsightly,” or they are deemed hazardous.Snags and downed wood host a varietyof plant and animal life, such as salamanders andwoodpeckers, and they provide nesting cavitiesfor many wildlife species including wood ducks.Without these natural cavities, many wildlifespecies cannot thrive, or they attempt to findshelter in human structures. Historically, streamsin the greater Portland-Vancouver region werefull of large wood that helped create and maintainpools, riffles, and otherelements of structuraldiversity that are crucialto maintaining healthystreams that couldsupport species such assalmonids. (Snags anddowned wood are alsodiscussed in “UplandForests,” above.)Forest OpeningsDisturbances such aswildfire, disease, andinsect outbreaks resultin openings (i.e., gaps)in forests with highforb and shrub diversityand structure, such as large snags and logson the ground. Such openings provide essentialstructural complexity and plant diversity. Theyprovide foraging and nesting habitat for deer, elk,black bear, ruffed grouse, olive-sided flycatcher,willow flycatchers, MacGillivray’s warblers,white-crowned sparrows, and common nighthawk.Open areas with snags are important forpurple martins and western bluebirds. Terrestrialsalamanders such as the clouded salamanderlive in large logs and stumps in forest openings.With management emphasis on older forest successionalstages on public forestlands and moreintensive management of private forestlands, thenumber of forest openings has declined, resultingin a declining food base for a variety of wildlifeand the loss of nesting and foraging habitat.(Forest openings are also discussed in “UplandForests,” above.)Rock HabitatsRock habitats include geologic features such ascliffs, rim rock, rock outcrops, and talus slopes.These habitats are important for a variety of floraand fauna, including terrestrial salamanders,peregrine falcons, cliff swallows, bats, snakes, andrare invertebrates and plants. Some rock habitatsare susceptible to human disturbances such as58 59

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 3 Major Habitat Types of the Regionmining and recreational uses (e.g., rock climbing).One such site is Madrone Wall, formerlyknown as the Hardscrabble Quarry, located inClackamas County southeast of Carver. Nestingperegrine falcons were discovered on theMadrone Park site in 2010. A large unprotectedexample of rock habitats is situated above St.Helens, Oregon.Bretz Flood FeaturesThe Tonquin Geologic Area comprises approximately17 square miles of land in Washingtonand Clackamas counties, extending from thecommunities of Tualatin and Sherwood south toWilsonville. The area supports extensive evidenceof the Bretz (or Missoula) Floods that scouredthe Columbia River Gorge and extended intothe Willamette Valley multiple times betweenapproximately 13,000 and 15,000 years ago. Thesefloods left behind geologic formations such askolk ponds and channels, basalt hummocks, andknolls, which are widely present in the area todayand which support considerable and diverseplant, fish, and wildlife habitat.Springs and SeepsSprings and seeps are places where groundwateremerges, sometimes under pressure, with variabletemperature and chemistry. Water from springsand seeps usually flows into a local wetland orforms the headwaters of streams and rivers.Springs and seeps provide cold water to wetlandsand streams, making them particularly importantto native fish and invertebrates that needcool water to thrive. Several rare and decliningamphibian species, such as torrent salamandersand the coastal tailed frog, are closely associatedwith springs, seeps, and headwater habitats. Somesprings are important sources of minerals that areneeded by wildlife, including band-tailed pigeons.Many springs have been tapped for domesticwater supplies or farm and ranch uses. At suchsites, water typically has been piped or divertedand sometimes is polluted. The wetlands createdby springs and seeps may be altered or degraded.Vernal PoolsVernal pools are one of Oregon’s rarest wetlandtypes. They form on impervious basalt bedrockor on soils cemented by a calcareous or siliceoushardpan that impedes drainage. Pools can rangein size from 1 acre (0.4 hectare) or more topatches as small as 10 to 225 square feet (1 to 5square meters) and can occur singly or in groupscovering many acres. Vernal pools usually fillwith water in the fall or winter and dry up inspring or early summer, but seasonal precipitationcan be highly variable, so pools may fill foronly brief periods or not at all. They are home toa large variety of plants and animals adapted tothese harsh conditions, including some globallyrare species. Vernal pools are threatened primarilyby urbanization on the typically flat and easilyaccessible landforms in which they occur. Vernalpools are important habitats for amphibians,rare plants, and fairy shrimp and other invertebrates.(For more on vernal pools, see “Wetlands,”above.)FensFens are a unique type of wetland that includesa shallow lake with a floating peat mat. Fensare habitat for unique and rare plants as well asa variety of declining wildlife species, such asamphibians and turtles. It takes up to 10,000 yearsfor a fen to form naturally. The only known fenleft in the Willamette Valley was recently protectedby Metro. (For more on fens, see “Wetlands,”above.)Off-Channel HabitatsOff-channel habitat features such as beaverponds, oxbows, stable backwater sloughs, andside channels are important ecological componentsof river systems, especially large systemssuch as the Columbia and Willamette rivers andtheir major tributaries. Many species and ageclasses of native fish select off-channel habitatinstead of the main channel to feed, avoidpredation by other fish, escape fast water, or seekout cool water in the summer. Native turtlesand amphibians, birds, freshwater mussels, anddragonflies are attracted to alcoves, oxbows, andside channels because of unique physical andwater quality characteristics. In the last 150 years,off-channel habitats have disappeared becauseof channelization, revetments, diking, drainageof wetlands, removal of large wood, agriculturalpractices, and changes in seasonal flows thathave resulted from the construction of damsthroughout the Willamette and Columbia basins.Off-channel habitats now are uncommon in theregion, especially in the lower reaches of the WillametteRiver. (For more on the importance ofthese habitats to fish, see Chapter 5.)Conservation Strategies and OpportunitiesA priority strategy for managing and restoringspecial habitat features is to protect and maintainthose features that remain on the landscape.Because not all remnant SHF are known andmapped, land use policies should be in place toprotect them once their locations are known. Insome cases, special habitat features should bebuffered from activities on adjacent lands becausethe features themselves typically are vulnerable todegradation; buffering also is needed because themany species of flora and fauna associated withspecial habitat features tend to be sensitive tohuman-caused disturbances.The following conservation strategies also arerecommended:n Control invasive species.n Restore natural flow regimes and re-createoff-channel habitats.n Manage beaver populations to provide forbeaver-created off-channel habitats.n Provide buffers for springs and seeps.n Enforce seasonal closures to protect sensitivewildlife (e.g., birds nesting on cliffs).n Site recreational trails away from special habitatfeatures.n Employ forest management practices to createand maintain forest openings.n When addressinghazard trees, leave asection standing (highstumpmethod) toprovide some wildlifebenefit; leave woodonsite in large pieces asmuch as possible.n Retain existing snagsand downed woodwhere they occur; managefor future snags anddowned wood by girdlingor topping trees.n Evaluate methods to imitate natural vernalpool function in old ditches and depressions inagricultural fields.n Improve mapping of all special habitat features.For More InformationOregon State Conservation Strategyhttp://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/read_the_strategy.aspWashington State Comprehensive Wildlife ConservationStrategyhttp://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/cwcs/cwcs.htmlSnags: The Wildlife TreeWashington Department of Fish and Wildlife.http://wdfw.wa.gov/living/snags/Oregon Wetlands Explorer: Major Wetland Typeshttp://oregonexplorer.info/wetlands/DiversityandClassification/WetlandTypesInformational Guide: Streams, Springs and SeepsCity of Portland Oregon, Bureau of DevelopmentServices, Land Division. http://www.portlandonline.com/bds/index.cfm?a=72543&c=45482Draft Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems inCalifornia and OregonU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/vernal_pool/6061

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 4 Flora of the RegionTable 4-1Primary Threats to Rare Plants in the Portland-Vancouver Region, by TypeUpland Forest (Primarily Old-Growth)Oak Woodland, Savanna, and PrairieRiparian, Bottomland Hardwood,and Shorelines and MudflatsWetlandsShrublandsHabitat TypeAquatic/Open WaterPrimary Threats to Plant Diversity and Rare Plant PopulationsHabitat loss from logging and developmentHabitat loss resulting from conversion to residences, farming, or forest;alteration of habitat as a result of lack of natural disturbance (e.g., fire), invasionof exotic species and natural succession to woody plant communitiesAlteration of habitat as a result of diking or bank hardening, flow alterationsrelated to dam operations, stormwater inputs, or invasive species; loss ofhabitat as a result of development and conversion to agricultural usesAlteration of habitat as a result of changes in flow patterns (hydrologicmodification) or exotic species invasion; loss of habitat as a result ofresidential or agricultural developmentLoss of habitat as a result of development and intensive forestmanagement.Alteration of habitat as a result of hydrologic modifications, contamination,or invasive speciestight relationship between some plants and someinsects, the loss of a plant species can mean a lossof one or more insect species as well. Insects arethe basis of the food web for birds associated withrare habitats, and they also pollinate agriculturalcrops in the region. Oak trees provide importanthabitat for the western grey squirrel and acornwoodpecker, both of which require mature oakswith bountiful acorn production as a food source.Rare Species in the RegionIn the greater Portland-Vancouver regionapproximately 100 plant species have federal orstate legal status or may be of concern locally (seeAppendix F). In addition, hundreds more are tiedto declining habitats such as oak and prairie andare at risk because of isolation and habitat degradation.In general, rare species declines in ourregion can be attributed to three variables: loss ofhabitat, habitat degradation, or, for species occurringnear the edge of their range, fluctuations inmicroclimate. Table 4-1 describes the primarythreat to rare plants, by habitat.Threats and ChallengesNatural areas in the greater Portland-Vancouverregion continue to support rare plant populations.However, these populations are threatenedby habitat loss and fragmentation, invasive species,loss of genetic diversity, lack of knowledgeregarding species status, and lack of availability ofplant materials.Habitat Loss and FragmentationPlants move only by dispersal of seeds or vegetativepropagules (such as root fragments). Thecontinuing loss of land to development reducespotential habitat for uncommon and rare species.Beyond the effect of outright habitat loss is theeffect of road building and other development onthe size of and connectivity of habitat patches.Smaller, more isolated individual patches result insmaller, less genetically diverse populations thatare more vulnerable to local extinction.Invasive SpeciesNon-native plants that are introduced unintentionally,as horticultural species, or for agriculturalpurposes pose a fundamental threat to nativeand sometimes rare plant populations. Speciessuch as reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea),invasive knotweeds (Polygonum spp.), and falseindigo (Amorpha fruiticosa) readily out-competenatives in riparian and floodplain areas along theWillamette and Columbia rivers. In oak habitatsand rock outcrop areas, false brome (Brachypodiumsylvaticum) and shining-leaf geranium(Geranium lucidum) wreak havoc on rare plantcommunities that are generally dominated byannual or short-lived perennial species thatdepend on fire.Population GeneticsGenetic diversity gives populations the ability toadapt to changing conditions. When populationsdrop to a very small size, they can lose importantelements of diversity and adaptability througha bottleneck effect (i.e., inbreeding depression)that is irreversible even if the population size laterrecovers. Historically, plant populations maintainedgenetic diversity through migration andmixing of populations and the adaptation of connectedgroups of small populations (meta-populations)to localized conditions. Over the past150 years, development of the region has resultedin the loss of genetic diversity and inbreeding insome species.Hybridization between introduced and nativespecies increasingly is recognized as a problem inthe conservation of native plant populations. Inthe greater Portland-Vancouver region, hybridshave been well documented for natives such asPrunus emarginata (wild cherry), Malus fusca(crabapple), and Crataegus suksdorfii (hawthorn).Hybrids threaten species viability through loss ofgenetic diversity and local adaptation. Eventually,natives can be reduced or replaced by hybrids.A primary but often overlooked element ofgenetic conservation is the coordination and prioritizationof restoration across the landscape. Ingeneral, funding is site-based rather than speciesbased, and restoration projects may not addressgenetic issues such as inbreeding that threatenpopulations. This problem is exacerbated by thefocus of much regional restoration funding on“starting fresh” rather than preserving or conservingexisting sites, which is generally viewed asmaintenance or operations rather than restoration.Lack of KnowledgeThe lack of comprehensive site inventories bycapable botanists results in a lack of knowledgeabout the status of many plant species andhampers our ability to make informed decisions.Although there are records of many taxa collectedor observed, there has been no thorough floristicstudy of the Portland metropolitan area beyondthe information gathered in Urbanizing Flora ofPortland (Christy et. al 2009). Analysis of historicaland modern herbarium collections, cross-referencedto regional plant lists, revealed an overalllack of information about the status of many rareplant populations. Out of 581 species defined as“native, rare” that occurred in the region historically,approximately 320 are documented to still64 65

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 4 Flora of the RegionTable 4-2Conservation Strategies for Rare Plants in the Region That are Focal Species of State Conservation PlansSpeciesBradshaw’s lomatium(Lomatium bradshawii)Columbia cress(Rorippa columbiae)Golden paintbrush(Castilleja levisecta)Water howellia(Howellia aquatilis)Kellogg’s dwarf rush(Juncus kelloggii)Kincaid’s lupine(Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii)Nelson’s Sidalcea (checkermallow)(Sidalcea nelsoniana)Status and HabitatEndangered—Federal, Oregon, WashingtonPrairie and savannaEndangered—WashingtonColumbia River riparian zoneThreatened—FederalEndangered—Oregon and WashingtonPrairie and savannaThreatened—Federal, Oregon,* and WashingtonWetlands, seasonal ponds (“ponds in the woods”)Endangered—WashingtonWet meadowThreatened— Federal and OregonEndangered—WashingtonSavanna and prairieThreatened—Federal and OregonEndangered—WashingtonWet prairieStrategiesSurvey potential habitat for populations, maintain orrestore occupied habitat, maintain and augment populations,reintroduce new populations, collect and storeseeds.Survey potential habitat for populations, maintain orrestore occupied habitat, maintain and augment populations,reintroduce new populations, collect and storeseeds.Survey potential habitat for populations, continue experimentalreintroduction.Maintain or restore seasonal wetland habitats, controlinvasive plants at priority sites, survey for additionalpopulations.Survey potential habitat, maintain or restore existinghabitat. Augment populations, reintroduce new populations,collect and store seeds.Maintain or restore habitat, survey for new populations,introduce and augment populations.Maintain or restore habitat, maintain and augmentpopulations, continue experimental reintroduction.Metro Regional Government, Native PlantCenterMetro’s plant materials center produces commerciallyunavailable plant materials for use in restorationefforts by Metro and its partners. In recentyears, the Metro Native Plant Center has takenthe lead on collection and seed increase of locallyrare species in the Portland metropolitan area.For More Information: Regional Assessmentsand PlansRare, Threatened and Endangered Speciesof OregonOregon Biodiversity Information Center. 2010.http://orbic.pdx.edu/rte-species.htmlThe Oregon Biodiversity Information Center isresponsible for listing rare, threatened, and endangeredspecies in Oregon. Using a database of species occurrencesthroughout the state and by consulting withagencies, specialists, academics, and citizen scientists,ORBIC reviews and publishes this list every two tothree years. The latest revision of the list was updatedin 2010. Species ranks are used to prioritize naturalresource management, restoration, and conservationefforts and to highlight species that need more researchor protection.Oregon sullivantia(Sullivantia oregano)Peacock larkspur(Delphinium pavonaceum)Smooth goldfields(Lasthenia glaberrima)Thin-leaved peavine(Lathyrus holochlorus)White-rock (Pale) larkspur(Delphinium leucophaeum)White-topped aster(Sericocarpus rigidus)Willamette daisy(Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens)Endangered—WashingtonMoist cliffs near waterfallsEndangered—OregonWet prairie, forested wetland edges, oak woodlands,along roadsides and fence rowsEndangered—WashingtonWet stream banks and vernal poolsEndangered—WashingtonOak, grasslands or shrublandEndangered—Oregon and WashingtonRocky balds, prairie, savanna, open oak woodlandThreatened—OregonRocky balds, prairie, savannaEndangered—Federal and OregonWet and dry prairiesSurvey potential habitat for populations, especially in theColumbia River Gorge. Research on threats (e.g., rockclimbers, hydrology?) is needed.Maintain or restore habitat, maintain and augmentpopulations, reintroduce new populations, collect andstore seeds.Maintain and restore habitat, survey for new populations,reintroduce populations to suitable habitat.Research on threats is needed.Survey prairie and oak habitat remnants for populations.Maintain or restore habitats, augment populations.Maintain and restore habitat, survey for new populations,reintroduce populations to suitable habitat.Maintain or restore prairie, maintain populations, collectand store seeds, develop stock for outplanting to suitablehabitats.Survey potential habitat for populations, develop plantstock for outplanting, reintroduce populations to suitablehabitats and protect and manage occupied sites.Washington Natural Heritage PlanWashington Natural Heritage Program. 2011.http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/plan/VascularPlantList.pdfInventory of Natural, Scenic and Open SpaceResources for Multnomah County UnincorporatedUrban Areas, Final ReportCity of Portland, Bureau of Planning and AdolfsonAssociates. Prepared for Multnomah CountyDepartment of Environmental Services, Jan.2002.In 2002, Multnomah County and the City of Portlandprovided the County Board of Commissionerswith a compliance report and set of recommendationsdesigned to meet the requirements of the UrbanGrowth Management Functional Plan, especiallyStatewide Planning Goal 5, which requires all Oregoncities and counties “to conserve open space and protectnatural and scenic resources.” Within this plan, locallyrare species were identified at sites within the unincorporatedareas of Multnomah County.Oregon Flora Projecthttp://www.oregonflora.orgOregon Flora Project Rare Plant Guidehttp://www.oregonflora.org/rareplants.phpThe Oregon Rare Plant Guide provides informationon some of Oregon’s rare, threatened, and endangeredvascular plants. The information for each taxon isorganized into a fact sheet that is designed to aid in theidentification of rare plants in the field. Search featuresallow users to select a subset of taxa that share featuressuch as geographical region, habitat, survey time, orstatus of rarity. Fact sheets contain additionalinformation, photographs, illustrations, and maps.* Species has been listed federally, but Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR 603-073) have not yet been updated.All federally listed plant species occurring in Oregon are administratively protected by the State of Oregon6869

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideUrbanizing Flora of Portland, Oregon, 1806-2008J.A. Christy, A. Kimpo, V. Marttala, P.K. Gaddis,and N.L. Christy. 2009. NPSO Occasional Paper3.319 pages.This compilation of the vascular plants of the Portland-Vancouverarea analyzes changes in the region’svegetation since 1806 based on herbarium specimens,publications, and unpublished manuscripts. A total of1,556 taxa in 125 families are represented. The paperincludes a history of botany in Portland, a gazetteer ofhistorical and modern place names, botanical miscellanea,and lists of rare species for use by local plannersand land managers.Natural Resource Inventory UpdateCity of Portland, Bureau of Planning andSustainability. 2009.http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/40540Updated in 2009, the inventory includes a number ofitems that categorize natural resources within the cityof Portland. Inventory products include the following:Updated natural resource feature information, geographicinformation system (GIS) data, and mapsUpdated special-status animal and plant speciesLists and maps of Special Habitat Areas (SHAs)Criteria and models to evaluate the relative functionand quality of the resources usingGIS technologyRelative ranking maps for riparian areas, wildlife habitat,and combined resourcesDocumentation of the project approachField Guide to the Rare Plants of WashingtonP. Camp and J. Gamon, eds. 2011. University ofWashington Press. 392 pages.Field Guide to the Rare Plants of Washington providesinformation on Washington’s endangered, threatened,and sensitive vascular plants. The guide includesdescriptions and information on identification, distribution,and habitat for all plant species with conservationstatus in Washington.Recovery Plan for the Prairie Species of WesternOregon and Southwestern WashingtonU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010.http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Prairie-Species/default.asp70

Chapter 5 Fish and Wildlife of the RegionFish and Wildlife of the RegionChapter5InvertebratesScott Hoffman Black and Matthew Shepherd, XercesSociety for Invertebrate Conservation; James R.LaBonte, Oregon Department of Agriculture; DanaRoss, Lepidopterist Consultant; Aaron Borisenko,Oregon Department of Environmental QualityInvertebrates eclipse all other forms of life onEarth, not only in sheer numbers, diversity, andbiomass, but also in their importance to functioningecosystems. Invertebrates are found in everyhabitat type and perform vital services such aspollination, seed dispersal, and nutrient recycling.Detailed surveys are lacking, but it is likelythat many thousands of invertebrate species canbe found in the greater Portland-Vancouverregion. These organisms can be divided into tobasic groups: terrestrial and aquatic. The terrestrialgroup includes the insect orders Hymenoptera(bee, wasps and ants), Lepidoptera (butterfliesand moths), and Hemiptera (true bugs), as wellas non-insect taxa such as Arachnida (spiders,mites, and their relatives), Diplopoda (millipedes),and Chilopoda (centipedes). The aquaticgroup includes Plecoptera (stoneflies), Ephemeroptera(mayflies) and Trichoptera (caddisflies), aswell as freshwater mussels (in the class Bivalvia).Some species inhabit both terrestrial and aquaticenvironments; examples include Coleoptera(beetles), Diptera (flies), Odonata (dragonfliesand damselflies), and Gastropoda (snails andslugs). Table 5-1 lists examples of native terrestrialinvertebrates in the greater Portland-Vancouverregion (see also Appendix G for a list of theregion’s butterflies).There is a growing consensus that invertebratesare underrepresented when it comes toconservation attention and research. This lack ofknowledge may limit conservation funding andprevent the funds that are available from conservingthe majority of at-risk species. Anecdotalevidence suggests severe decline for some species.For instance, the western bumble bee (Bombusoccidentalis) was once commonly found in thePortland-Vancouver region but is now thought tobe extirpated. Freshwater mussels are in declinethroughout the West, but species such as thewestern pearlshell (Margaritifera falcata) recentlyhave been found in Portland-area creeks. Fender’sblue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi), afederally endangered butterfly, was thought to beextirpated from the greater Portland-Vancouverregion, but a small population was recentlydiscovered at Hagg Lake. The zerene fritillary71

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 5 Fish and Wildlife of the RegionTable 5-1Examples of Native Terrestrial Macroinvertebrates of the Greater Portland-Vancouver RegionSpecies or Group Population Status Causes or CommentsNative Slugs and Snails Declining Habitat loss or alteration, competition with exotic slugs andsnails, exotic predators and parasitesNative Earthworms (e.g., Oregon giant Declining or extinct Habitat loss or alteration, competition with exotic earthworms, exoticearthworm, Driloleirus macelfreshi)earthworms, exotic predators and parasitesClown Millipede, Harpaphe haydeniana Uncertain or declining Habitat loss or alteration; possible keystone species of detritusnutrient cycling(Speyeria zerene) and field crescent (Phyciodestharos) butterflies may also be extirpated from theregion.Invertebrates are found in every habitat typein the greater Portland-Vancouver region, fromthe soil to the tops of trees, and in every body ofwater, including streams, rivers and wetlands. Thesheer number and mass of invertebrates reflecttheir enormous ecological influence. Althoughsome invertebrates have a negative impact onhumans (either directly as disease agents or byattacking food crops), the adverse effects pale incomparison to invertebrates’ essential beneficialactions. Invertebrates are a critical part of nearlyevery food chain; they serve both as food forother animals and or as agents in the endlessrecycling of nutrients in the soil. Food webs oftendepend on critical species performing essentialservices such as pollination or seed dispersal(see “Pollinators and Pollinator Conservation” inChapter 6).Conservation Issues and ThreatsInsects are threatened by the same destructiveforces that affect many other animals. Accordingto the International Union for Conservation ofNature, the leading causes of decline are habitatdestruction, displacement by introduced plantand animal species, alteration of habitat by chemicalpollutants (such as pesticides), hybridizationwith other species, and overharvesting.Conservation Issues and Threats inTerrestrial HabitatsHabitat Loss, Degradation, and FragmentationHabitat loss and fragmentation are often citedas the most significant factors in decline ofinvertebrate species. Factors causing habitat lossand fragmentation include increasing urbanization,expansion of intensive agriculture, invasiveplants, and climate change.Introduced Plant and Animal SpeciesThere are few studies of the direct effects ofnon-native plants on native insects. Introduced,non-native plants compete with native plants forresources, alter habitat composition, and causesignificant reductions in the abundance anddiversity of pollinators and other herbivorousinsects (see Table 5-2). There is also evidence thatnative pollinator insects prefer native plants, eventhough many native insects will feed on nonnativeplants when few natives are available.The Oregon Department of Agricultureestimates that there are about 1,000 species ofexotic terrestrial invertebrates in Oregon. BecausePort of Portland facilities have been the primarypoint of entry for exotic terrestrial invertebratesin Oregon, most of these 1,000 exotic species arefound in the greater Portland-Vancouver region.Unlike with habitat alteration or loss, once anexotic animal or plant species is established itspresence is usually permanent unless aggressiveefforts are made to eradicate it. These efforts mayharm native invertebrates and cost a lot of timeand money.Pacific Black-legged Tick, Ixodes pacificus Increasing Increased urban/forest interface, more deer; vector of LymediseaseWahkeena Falls Flightless Stonefly, Unknown Known only from Wahkeena Falls, westernZapada wahkeenaColumbia River GorgeGrasshoppers (several species) Increasing Disturbance specialists; conversion of woodlands to pastureor agricultureGiant Silkmoths (e.g., Polyphemus moth, Unknown, some species may be declining Habitat/host destruction,Antheraea polyphemus)invasive plants, non-target biocontrol agent effects, exotic bird predatorsSome Predatory Carabid Beetles Increasing Habitat generalists(e.g., Pterostichus algidus,Scaphintous marginatus)Carabid Beetle, Promecognathus crassus Unknown Specialist predator of clown millipedeCarabid Beetle, Acupalpus punctulatus Unknown or declining Wetland specialist; until recently only known from Forest Grove in 1941Carabid Beetles, Unknown Waterfall plunge pool splash zones in western Columbia RiverPterostichus johnsoni and P. smetaniGorge; P. smetani known only from that areaTrout Stream Beetles (e.g., Amphizoa striata) Unknown or declining Require fast, clear, clean water; specialist predators of stonefly larvaeEctoparasitic Mammal Beetles Unknown L. aplodontiae on mountain beaver; P. castoris on true beaver; abundance(e.g., Leptinullus aplodontiae anddepends on host abundancePlatypsyllus castoris)Metallic Wood-boring Beetle, Buprestis gibbsii Declining? Specialist on large, fallen oak branches or trunksNative Ladybird Beetles Some declining Competition and predation by exotic ladybird beetles (e.g., Coccinellaseptempunctata and Harmonia axyridis)Mountain Beaver Flea, Dolichopsylla stylosus Unknown Only host is mountain beaver; abundance depends on host abundance;world’s largest fleaNative Ants (e.g., species of Formica) Increasing Disturbance specialists; anthropogenic habitats favor many ant speciesNative Bumblebees Declining Habitat alteration or loss, exotic pathogens and parasites, competition(e.g., Bombus occidentalis)with exotic bumblebeesNative Butterflies Declining Habitat loss and alteration(e.g., Icaricia icarioides fenderi ;Erynnis propertius; Pyrgus communis;Atalopedes campestris; Parnassius clodius)72 73

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 5 Fish and Wildlife of the RegionTable 5-2Examples of Exotic Terrestrial Macroinvertebrates of the Greater Portland-Vancouver RegionExotic Crop PestsSpecies or GroupTerrestrial Flatworm, Bipalium sp.;Predator slug, Testacella haliotideaExotic Slugs and SnailsExotic EarthwormsChinese Mantid, Tenodera aridifolia sinensisBedbug, Cimex lectulariusBrown Marmorated Stink Bug, Halyomorpha halysSeed Bugs (e.g., Metapoplax ditomoidesand Raglius alboacuminatus)European Gazelle Beetle, Nebria brevicollisBark and Ambrosia Beetles (e.g., Anisandrus dispar,Scolytus multistriatus, & Scolytus rugulosus)Cabbage White Butterfly, Pieris rapaeCherry Bark Tortrix, Enarmonia formosanaEuropean Crane Flies (Tipula oleracea & T. paludosa)Mosquito, Ochlerotatus japonicusHousefly, Musca domesticaSpotted Wing Drosophila, Drosophila suzukiiExotic Ants (e.g., Odorous House Ant,Tapinoma sessile, and Pavement Ant,Tetramorium caespitum)EffectsEconomic loss; increased pesticide use; introduction of exotic, generalist biocontrol agentsPredators of native and exotic slugs, snails, and earthwormsCrop and ornamental damage, increased pesticide use, competitors of native slugs and snails,vetors of novel pathogens and parasites (affecting vertebrates and humans as well)Change soil structure favoring exotic weeds and detrimental to native earthworms; competitorsof native earthworms; vectors of novel pathogens and parasites of native earthworms; supporthigh populations of exotic and native predators that also eat native earthwormsGeneralist predator of native insects, including beneficials and pollinatorsMajor nuisance, increased pesticide useMajor nuisance pest, is becoming a major crop and ornamental plant pest, increasedpesticide useSignificant nuisance pests, increased pesticide useCompetitor of native carabid beetles, possible novel predator of non-adult stages of threatenedand endangered butterfliesDamage, stress, or kill crop, ornamental, and forest shrubs and trees; increased pesticide usePest of cabbage, lettuce, etc.; increased pesticide useKills orchard and ornamental cherries, plums, etc.; increased pesticide use; costs associatedwith biocontrol implementationCrop, ornamental, and turf damage; increased pesticide useDisease vector, nuisance, increased pesticide useDisease vector, nuisance, increased pesticide useCrop pest increased pesticide useNuisance, crop damage by protecting sap-sucking insects from predators and parasites,competitors of native ants, predators of native soil terrestrial invertebrates, increasedpesticide usePesticidesPesticides, which include insecticides and herbicides,harm invertebrates. Insecticides not onlykill insects outright, but sublethal doses can affecttheir foraging and nesting behaviors. Pesticidesintended for a specific target often harm a host ofother species.Herbicides can kill plants on which insectsdepend, thus reducing the amount of foraging oregg-laying resources. The broadcast applicationof a non-selective herbicide can indiscriminatelyreduce flowers, caterpillar host plants, or nestinghabitat, causing a decline in pollinators and otherinvertebrates.Insecticides are widely used in urban areasthroughout the United States to control bothnative and non-native species. These chemicalsare designed to kill insects and their allies, andthere is little doubt that they have led to significantdecline of both terrestrial and aquaticinsects. Their use should be avoided whereverpossible.Conservation Issues and Threats inAquatic HabitatsPortland’s urban drainages are characterized bystorm-driven runoff patterns, soil erosion andsedimentation, chemical pollutants from lawnfertilizers and pesticides, channelization, and,in some areas, steep eroding banks and generalchannel instability. These influences harminvertebrates through toxicity, reduced oxygenin the water, habitat loss, habitat simplification,and habitat alteration. (For more information, seeChapter 7, “Threats and Challenges”).ChannelizationThe process of channelization destroys pools andriffles, cuts off meanders, reduces stream length,deepens channels, and destroys riparian vegetation.Loss of pools and riffles reduces habitatdiversity for aquatic organisms. Loss of riparianvegetation can increase water temperature, destabilizebanks (thus causing erosion), and affectaquatic invertebrate food resources.DewateringDewatering activities influence rivers and streamsby altering the channel, flow, water temperature,and water chemistry, all of which in turn affectaquatic organisms. Freshwater mussels, which canlive for decades, have been documented in severalurban streams. Dewatering can eliminate entirepopulations of this long-lived invertebrate, evenif the dewatering is for a short period of time forrestoration purposes.SiltationDevelopment reduces water quality for invertebratesin two primary ways: by increasingsedimentation loads during construction and byincreasing flow after storms. Sedimentation canaffect aquatic insect respiration, rendering thehabitat unsuitable for many organisms.Fertilizers and PesticidesThe application of fertilizers and pesticides andtheir subsequent runoff in the greater Portland-Vancouver region is highly destructive to invertebratelife. Chemically polluted streams are generallycharacterized by high densities of midgesand worms and a lack of sensitive species such asstoneflies, mayflies, and caddisflies. In many casesthe volume of pesticides and fertilizers used peracre on urban lawns and gardens is greater thanthat used on agricultural crops.74 75

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 5 Fish and Wildlife of the RegionConservation Strategies: Habitat Needs ofInvertebratesAlthough the status of most of the region’sinvertebrates is unknown, residents can still takeaction to maintain and increase the diversity ofinvertebrates in both terrestrial and aquatic environments.A variety of native habitats will meetthe needs of many species. Planting native plantsin yards and parks and along streams, leavingareas “unmanaged,” and limiting the use of pesticidesall can have a positive impact. Managingfor healthy invertebrate populations can be doneby anyone—homeowners with only a small yard,business and industry, roadside managers, andpeople who care for parks and natural areas.Recognize HabitatInvertebrate habitat can be found anywhere, andeven small patches can contribute to supportingregionwide invertebrate populations. Forexample, warm, sunny habitat areas attract a goodvariety of invertebrates. Conserving the followingfeatures will benefit many invertebrates:n Natural or semi-natural grassland. Grasslandcan support a diverse native flora.n Hedgerows or small patches of shrub. Thesecan provide both habitat and connectivity tolarger habitat areas.n Roadsides. Carefully managed roadsides canprovide good herbaceous and shrub habitat forinvertebrates.n Urban gardens and parks. These areas provideimportant habitat in a fragmented landscape. Ifmanaged properly, they can serve as biodiversityreservoirs.n Stream, ditches, wetlands, and ponds. Allof these can be important in harboring invertebrates.Freshwater mussels inhabit many urbanwaterways. Although they are hard to see, theyare important in helping to keep these waterwaysclean.Protect Existing HabitatProtecting existing habitat and managing naturalareas with invertebrates in mind are primaryconservation activities. The Regional ConservationStrategy will help identify some key biodiversityhabitats, but there is more information aboutwoody habitats than grassland and prairie, whichare critical to a large group of invertebrates. It willbe important to identify, conserve and restoregrassland and prairie in future conservation workto protect butterflies and other species.Aquatic systems are vitally important to invertebrates.Maintaining all existing wetlands andephemeral, intermittent, and permanent streamsand streamside areas is vital to the maintenanceof a healthy aquatic invertebrate community.Enforcement of newer construction requirementsdesigned to protect waterways from harmfulsedimentation, maintain more natural hydrology,and protect riparian habitat can help preventfurther harm.habitat are too fragmented and widely spaced,they may not be able to support species whoseflight range is limited. The Backyard HabitatCertification program (a partnership betweenColumbia Land Trust and the Audubon Societyof Portland) encourages homeowners to helpbiodiversity; identifying gaps in connectivity forinvertebrates and other animals can help focusprograms such as these where they will be mosteffective. The following are some restoration principlesto consider for invertebrate conservation:n Control and remove invasive weeds.n Use native forbs and grasses to enhance thediversity of grasslands.n Use flowering native shrubs to create hedgerows,and lengthen the flowering period by usinga variety of species.n In urban parks and gardens, create flowerborders, ecolawns, and ornamental plantings thatfeature native plants.n Consider a green roof (i.e., an ecoroof) roof onbuildings and structures.n Relocate mussels found during aquatic restorationusing a standard relocation protocol (http://www.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/mussel-relocation-position-statement.pdf).Manage HabitatThe following techniques for managing habitatsare of particular relevance to urban areas:n Reduce pesticide use, consider less toxicalternatives, and implement an integrated pestmanagement (IPM) plan.system. This approach can be expensive but canhelp in developing targeted strategies.Mowing is a common practice in urban areas,usually to maintain the height of grasses in parksand lawns. Mowing should be avoided in areasthat offer insect habitat, such as those wherebees are actively foraging or nesting. Alternately,mowing can be conducted in the evening, wheninsects are less active. Other mowing techniquesthat help avoid harm to insect populationsinclude mowing only one part of the area peryear, leaving unmanaged areas for pollinators,avoiding mowing during major bloom periods,and allowing habitat to grow back between mowings.Questions, Unresolved Issues, and Data GapsMore systematic surveys of the greater Portland-Vancouver region are needed to better understandthe region’s fauna. One very useful exercisewould be to pull all of the information that isalready available into one place. Metro has implementedbutterfly surveys at several of its naturalareas. Surveys of the snail fauna of Forest Parkhave been implemented. The Xerces Society andlocal watershed groups are conducting musselsurveys across the Portland-Vancouver region.Unfortunately this information is not in anyone place and is hard to access. A clearinghousewhere all of this type of data can be house andeasily accessed would be ideal.For More Information:Kaufman Field Guide to Insects of North AmericaEric Eaton and Ken Kaufman. 2007. HoughtonMifflin Harcourt, New York.Restore HabitatRestoration in urban areas should include establishingnative flowering herbaceous plants, providingnesting materials for bees, and reducingpesticide use, to encourage bees and other insectsto colonize parks, gardens, and other urban areas.Pavement, buildings, and turf eliminate habitatfor ground-nesting insects and reduce the areaavailable for plants. If gardens and other potentialn Pesticides that are not allowed on bloomingcrops to protect beneficial insects may still beallowed on roadsides, gardens, and parks. Targetededucation can reduce these uses.n A chemical sampling protocol can be designedfor urban streams to determine what types andamounts of chemicals are entering the system.Once these chemical inputs have been determined,steps can be taken to limit them in theField Guide to Insects and Spiders of NorthAmericaArthur V. Evans. 2007. Sterling Publishing Co.,Inc., New York.Insects of the Pacific NorthwestPeter Haggard and Judy Haggard. 2006.Timber Press, Portland.76 77

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 5 Fish and Wildlife of the RegionThe Butterflies of Cascadia: A Field Guide to all theSpecies of Washington, Oregon and SurroundingTerritoriesRobert Michael Pyle. 2002. Seattle AudubonSociety, Seattle.Life Histories of Cascadia ButterfliesDavid G. James and David Nannallee. 2011.Oregon State University Press, Corvallis.Dragonflies and Damselflies of the WestDennis Paulson. 2009. Princeton University Press,Princeton.Freshwater Mussels of the Pacific Northwest (2ndedition)E. Neadeau, A.K. Smith, J. Stone, and S. Jepsenwww.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/pnw_mussel_guide_2nd_edition.pdfWestern Freshwater Musselswww.xerces.org/western-freshwater-mussels/Information on aquatic macroinvertebrate andwater quality monitoring in streams and wetlandswww.xerces.org/aquatic-invertebrates/www.deq.state.or.us/lab/techrpts/docs/DEQ03LAB0036SOP.pdfwww.oweb.state.or.us/OWEB/docs/pubs/wq_mon_guide.pdfPollinator conservation and other invertebrateinformationhttp://www.xerces.orgFishTodd Alsbury and James Byrne, OregonDepartment of Wildlife, and Jeff Azerrad,Washington Department of WildlifeAt least 72 species of fish spend some or all oftheir life history within the greater Portland-Vancouver region (see Appendix E). Of these,47 are native species and 24 are non-native. Onenative species, the Oregon chub, is extirpated inthe region. Many of the region’s fish species spendtheir entire life within a specific home range thatcan vary in size from feet to several miles. Theregion also hosts anadromous species such assalmon, steelhead, sturgeon, Pacific eulachon(smelt) and Pacific lamprey that spend a portionof their life history within the region, as rearingjuveniles and spawning adults, but live the bulkof their lives in the ocean. 1 All native fish speciesin the region are highly dependent on habitat andwater quality conditions at every stage of life inorder to maintain viability or prevent declinesor potential extirpation. Connectivity and accesswithin and among various habitat types withinthe region is critical in maintaining viable populations.Development and the associated streambarriers and road crossings create challenges formany fish species in the region.Conservation Issues and Key Threats to FishFish occupy the following major habitat typeswithin the region:n Estuary (i.e., the Lower Willamette andColumbia River tidally influenced lowlands)n Rivers and streams (e.g., the Willamette,Columbia, Clackamas, Lewis, and Washougalrivers; Tryon, Johnson, Butte, and Boardmancreeks in Oregon; and Mason, Salmon, Gee, andLacamas creeks in Washington)n Lake/wetland (e.g., Smith and Bybee, Beaver,Blue, Fairview, Steigerwald, Vancouver andColumbia River Gorge lakes and wetlands)n Pond (e.g. Salish and Laurelhurst in Oregon;King’s Pond in Washington)n Off-channel/wetland (e.g. Oaks Bottom, theRidgefield and Tualatin National WildlifeRefuges, and Sauvie Island Wildlife Area)Fish occupying every habitat type in the regionface challenges related to management of landand water. More than 160 years of development,particularly in the Portland-Vancouver metropolitanarea, has altered once-important habitatareas in the Lower Willamette River, ColumbiaRiver estuary, and tributaries that supported fishspecies native to the region.The Columbia River estuary (including theLower Willamette below Willamette Falls)provides essential habitat for all native fish species,including juvenile salmon, steelhead, andother anadromous fish as they grow to a size andcondition that increases their survival duringtheir ocean migration. Historically, the estuarycontained substantial amounts of shallow-waterhabitat that provided excellent conditions forgrowth and survival of native fish species. Humanland and water management activities have modifiedthese estuarine habitat conditions, resultingin a loss of habitat complexity and access tooff-channel habitats. Combined with the effectsof the hydropower/flood control system, theprimary activities that have determined currentestuary habitat conditions include riparian habitatloss, channel confinement (primarily via dikingand seawall construction), channel manipulation(e.g., dredging and bank stabilization), floodplaindevelopment, and water withdrawal for urbanizationand agriculture. With the exception ofhigh summer water temperatures, water qualityhas generally improved in the lower WillametteRiver over past decades as a result of pollutantreductions. Yet high pollutant and thermal loadsthat still occur in some areas, during certain timeperiods, may be lethal to fish that spend even alimited amount of time in the area.Tributary stream habitat conditions are alsomoderately to severely degraded within much ofthe region. Widespread development and landuse activity affect habitat quality and complexity,water quality, and watershed processes in lowerWillamette and Columbia tributaries. Streamhabitat degradation is primarily due to past andcurrent land-use practices that have affectedproperly functioning stream channels, riparianareas, and floodplains, as well as watershed processes.The following land management activitiescreate threats and lead to conditions that limitsurvival of native fish species within the region:water temperature, and destabilized streambanks,which has led to increased input of fine sediment.Active removal of large wood contributed significantlyto reductions in the amount of complexinstream habitat. Removal of wood in an attemptto reduce risk and damage from floods continuesto this day but is not as extensive as past effortsto completely remove all wood from the region’sstream systems.n Agricultural development throughout thelowlands in the region. Agricultural developmenthas directly affected riparian areas andfloodplains. Historical floodplain habitats werelost through the filling of wetlands, channelization,and construction of levees and seawalls.Runoff and erosion from agricultural lands wherepesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers are appliedreduce water quality, to the detriment of nativefish and other aquatic species.n Construction of dams, culverts, and otherbarriers. These structures limit access to spawning,rearing, and foraging habitats for nativefish. Dams alter overall flow, reduce high andlow flows, and change temperature patterns andhydrologic and geomorphic processes in waysn Timber harvest and development withinriparian areas. This has reduced stream shade1 “Anadromous” refers to fish that spend most of their adult lives at sea but return to fresh water to spawn.and the input of large woody debris, increased78 79

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 5 Fish and Wildlife of the Regionthat can result in erosionand reduced naturalscour and coarsesediment movementin rivers where damsare located. A numberof fishspecies—in particularseveral populations ofanadromous salmonids—havealteredtheir normal life historypatterns to reflectchanges in flow and/or temperature patternsthat result fromthe operation of damsin the Columbia andWillamette rivers.n Increased rates of competition with and predationon naturally spawned populations.In recent years, some hatchery programs havebeen designed to conserve or recover naturalpopulations of salmon.Coho SalmonCoho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in theColumbia Basin have been in decline for the last50 years. The number of wild coho returningto the Columbia River historically was at least600,000 fish; at a recent low point in 1996, thetotal return of wild fish may have been as few as400. Coinciding with this decline in total abundancehas been a reduction in the number ofself-sustaining wild populations. All ColumbiaBasin coho populations upstream of Hood Riverhave been extirpated. Of the 24 historical populationsthat made up the Lower Columbia Rivercoho evolutionary significant unit (ESU), onlyin the Clackamas and Sandy subbasins is theredirect evidence of persistence during the adverseenvironmental conditions of the 1990s. Since2000, the numbers of wild coho have increased inboth the Clackamas and Sandy subbasins. Duringthis same period, naturally reproducing cohopopulations have become re-established in theScappoose and Clatskanie subbasins. In Washington,the East Fork Lewis and Lower Gorge cohopopulations are targeted as primary populationsto be restored in order to increase the long-termviability of coho.in the Clatskanie, the late fall population in theSandy, and the spring Chinook populations in theSandy and Clackamas. Washington has substantialruns of fall Chinook in the Lewis, Kalama,Washougal and Wind River systems, but many ofthese are hatchery-origin fish, which pose a riskto naturally produced fish through interbreeding.In Washington, the Kalama, North Fork Lewis,East Fork Lewis, and Washougal populations aretargeted for intensive recovery actions to increasethe likelihood of long-term persistence, whereasthe Lower Gorge population can potentially contributeto Chinook recovery.Habitat Needs, Threats, and OpportunitiesThe resident and anadromous salmonid speciesfound within the region (i.e., Chinook, coho, andchum salmon, steelhead/rainbow trout, bull trout,and resident and coastal cutthroat trout) occupymultiple habitat types during their varied lifehistories. Unfortunately, because of populationdeclines, local populations of salmon, steelheadand bull trout are listed as threatened underSteelheadthe federal Endangered Species Act and coastalAlthough wild steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)cutthroat trout are identified as a state speciesin Oregon’s portion of the Lower Columbia Riverof concern. Salmonids within the region requiresteelhead distinct population segment (DPS) areconnectivity within and among various habitatdepressed relative to historical levels, no knownn Urban and rural types, water quality that meets current standards,population extirpations have occurred. However,development throughout the region. Developmentand riparian areas that provide shade and thecurrent extinction risk estimates for these popula-has led to the degradation of riparian and potential for woody debris to maintain habitattions are large enough that they all are classifiedfloodplain conditions and an increase in stormwaterrunoff from roads, ditches, and imperviousand viable populations.as being at at least moderate risk of extinction;Salmonids are found in most of the region’sthis is considered a non-viable status. Key Washingtonpopulations targeted for restoration effortssurfaces. The result is dramatically altered hydrologyand a decrease in water quality (because ofwater bodies, with the exception of blocked andimpaired stream reaches and small, isolatedto ensure steelhead survival include the Kalama,pollutants associated with development) that canwetlands that do not connect to flowing water.East Fork Lewis, Washougal (for summer steelhead),and Lower Gorge (for winter steelhead).severely limit the productivity and survival ofnative fish species.Various trout species are found in a number ofChinook Salmonisolated, often constructed, ponds in the region;In general, the numbers of Chinook salmon Chum SalmonMany species of fish in the region—particularlythese ponds either currently are or historically(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the lower ColumbiaBasin are thought to be substantially lower sporadically observed in several Oregon tributar-the anadromous salmonids—also are affectedChum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) have beenhave been stocked by fish and wildlife agenciesby management activities associated with theor private landowners for recreational purposesproduction of hatchery fish to support sportthan they were historically. Coinciding with this ies, most notably Big Creek; however, there are nobut are not supported by natural production ofand commercial fisheries. According to NOAAdecline in total abundance has been a reduction data that lend themselves to a quantitative statusFisheries, recent studies and scientific works havenative trout species. Anadromous salmonid speciesthat return to the region after growing andparticularly in the case of fall Chinook in Oregon. River coho, Chinook, and steelhead species.in the number of functioning wild populations, assessment as performed for Lower Columbiaidentified the following potential adverse effectsof artificial propagation:maturing in the ocean spawn in major tributaries(At the ESU level, spring Chinook populations Chum salmon have not been routinely observedof the lower Willamette and Columbia rivers,also have declined.) In addition, the significant in recent years during spawning surveys con-n Behavioral differences that result in diminished such as the Clackamas, Sandy, and Lewis rivers;presence of stray hatchery fish is thought to be ducted for coho and Chinook in lower Columbiafitness and survival of hatchery fish compared to in numerous minor tributaries on the Oregoncommon throughout most of the range of Lower tributaries. This lack of chum spawners indicatesnaturally spawned fish.side of the Columbia River, including Abernethy,Columbia River fall Chinook. Up to 90 percent of that the fish are no longer present. As a result,Tryon, Kellogg/Mt. Scott creeks and Johnsonthe naturally spawning fall Chinook in Oregon’s Oregon’s Columbia River chum salmon populationsare considered either extremely depressedn Genetic effects that result from poor broodstockand rearing practices; these effects includeCreek/Crystal Springs; and in many tributaries inportion of the Lower Columbia River Chinookevery subbasin on the Washington side.ESU are believed to be stray hatchery fish. Ofinbreeding, outbreeding, and domesticationor functionally extirpated. In Washington, theA host of state and federal funding, research,selection.the 12 historical naturally reproducing Chinook East Fork Lewis, Washougal, and Lower Gorgeeducational, and regulatory programs are in placepopulations in Oregon’s portion of the Lower populations are key populations targeted forn Incidence of disease.to support the region’s native fish populations,Columbia River ESU, only four can be confirmed recovery efforts. Chum are routinely foundincluding salmonids.as present: the early fall Chinook population spawning in Washington’s Grays River, in the area80 81

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 5 Fish and Wildlife of the Regionupstream of the I-205 Bridge (at Woods Landingand Riverside), and in an area below BonnevilleDam (at Ives Island and Duncan, Hamilton,Horsetail, Multnomah, and Hardy creeks). Thehatchery program for these populations uses localbrood stock to augment the wild populationswith the same genetic stock.Other Fish SpeciesThe greater Portland-Vancouver region alsoincludes important habitats for other culturallyimportant, sensitive, and declining species suchas federally listed bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus),Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata),coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkiclarki), Pacific eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus),North American green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris),and white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus).These species have been affected by manyof the same factors that have resulted in declinesin salmon and steelhead, such as habitat loss anddegradation, alterations in flows and sediments,declines in water quality, and loss of access toimportant areas. Many of the conservation andrestoration actions that are being implementedfor salmon and steelhead are helping to improveconditions for these and numerous other nativespecies, although there are times when opportunitiesto benefit other species can be missed ifthey are not considered explicitly. Fortunately,efforts are under way to try to fill the gaps in ourknowledge and practices for some of the lessunderstood at-risk species in the region.Bull TroutBull trout are native throughout western NorthAmerica (Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Nevada,Montana, and British Columbia) and werehistorically found throughout the Columbia andWillamette rivers and in their tributaries. Givenbull trout’s long incubation time and need forvery cold water, the species is more sensitive toincreased water temperatures, poor water quality,and degraded stream habitat than many othersalmonids. Bull trout are now rarely found in thegreater Portland-Vancouver region. The U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service listed bull trout as threatenedin 1998 and designated critical habitat forthe species in 2005; these criteria were revised in2010. Critical habitat in the region includes themainstem Columbia River and portions of theLewis River. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serviceis in the process of updating its draft bull troutrecovery plan (scheduled for publication in 2012),although recovery actions are already under way.For example, in 2011, in cooperation with theOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and otherpartners, an experimental population of bulltrout was reintroduced into the upper ClackamasRiver basin.Eulachon (Smelt)In 2010 NOAA Fisheries listed the Pacificeulachon (commonly called smelt, candlefish, orhooligan) as threatened in the greater Portland-Vancouver region, as part of the southern DPS.Eulachon typically spend 3 to 5 years in salt waterbefore returning to fresh water to spawn in theirnatal streams. Within the Columbia Basin, themajor and most consistent eulachon spawningruns occur in the mainstem of the Columbia Riveras far upstream as Bonneville Dam, and in theCowlitz River. Critical habitat designated in 2011includes the lower Columbia River up to BonnevilleDam and the lower portions of the Sandy andLewis rivers, which provide important spawninggrounds, with sandy and course gravel substrates.Most eulachon adults die after spawning. Larvaeare carried downstream and are dispersedby estuarine and ocean currents shortly afterhatching. Recovery planning for the species isexpected to occur now that the listing process hasbeen completed. Threats to the species includehabitat loss and degradation, hydroelectric dams(which block access to historical eulachon spawninggrounds and affect the quality of spawningsubstrates via flow management), altered deliveryof coarse sediments, and siltation. Other concernsinclude dredging activities (which can entrainand kill fish or otherwise result in decreasedspawning success), chemical pollutants, andthe potential impacts of climate change, such asocean warming trends that may alter prey, spawning,and rearing success.Pacific LampreyAlthough the Pacific lamprey has not been listedunder the Endangered Species Act, recent dataindicate that the abundance and distribution ofthis species have been reduced in many riverdrainages. Historically, Pacific lampreys werethought to be distributed wherever salmon andsteelhead occurred. The U.S. Fish and WildlifeService considers Pacific lamprey to be a speciesof concern and has been leading a Pacificlamprey conservation initiative to improve thestatus of the species in collaboration with NativeAmerican tribes and other federal, state, and localagencies. In 2010 the agency released the document,Best Management Practices to MinimizeAdverse Effects to Pacific Lamprey. In 2011, theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finalized its PacificLamprey Assessment and Template for ConservationMeasures, which contains an overalldescription of the status of the species, threatsaffecting them, and the relative risk of populationgroupings within specific geographical regionsthroughout the range of the species in the UnitedStates. The document also describes conservationactions and research, monitoring, and evaluationefforts that are occurring and needed within eachregion. Lower Columbia and Willamette riverPacific lamprey populations were found to be atlower risk than populations in other parts of theColumbia Basin. Needed actions identified withinthis area include passage improvements, lampreyspecificsurveys and identification workshops,water quality improvements, stream and floodplainrestoration, and outreach and education.The next phase of the initiative will involve developmentof regional implementation plans. Effortsare being made to address the specific needs oflamprey in fish passage and habitat restorationprojects, and to protect lamprey during and afterconstruction projects when ammocoetes (i.e.,lamprey larvae) are living in stream substrates.Coastal Cutthroat TroutThe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is leadingdevelopment of a similar conservation plan forcoastal cutthroat trout under the multi-agencyCoastal Cutthroat Trout Conservation Initiative.Although the coastal cutthroat trout has beenproposed for listing under the federal EndangeredSpecies Act in the past, as recently in 2010the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has foundthat listing of this subspecies was not warranted.However, coastal cutthroat trout are consideredto be a sensitive species because of many ongoingthreats. Under the species initiative, partneringagencies and organizations will develop a rangewidecoastal cutthroat trout conservation planthat will assess coastal cutthroat trout populations,identify threats and conservation needs,and be used to help coordinate conservationefforts. This initiative, with the development ofthe conservation plan and other tools, will resultin the implementation and evaluation of importantconservation measures for coastal cutthroattrout.White SturgeonWhite sturgeon are not currently listed underthe Endangered Species Act, but the species hasreceived special conservation attention. TheLower Columbia River downstream from BonnevilleDam is the most productive in the species’range. The Oregon Department of Fish and82 83

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 5 Fish and Wildlife of the RegionWildlife released its Lower Columbia River andOregon Coast White Sturgeon Conservation Planin 2011 to address requirements under Oregon’sNative Fish Conservation Policy. The plan coversthe white sturgeon population segment withinthe mainstem lower Columbia River downstreamof Bonneville Dam and gives consideration tofish inhabiting the lower Willamette River andOregon’s coastal rivers, bays and estuaries. Theaim of the plan is “to ensure a healthy, viableand productive white sturgeon population in thelower Columbia River downstream of BonnevilleDam for use and enjoyment of present and futuregenerations.” In 2011, the Oregon and Washingtondepartments of fish and wildlife issued the2011 Joint Staff Report: Stock Status and Fisheriesfor Fall Chinook Salmon, Coho Salmon, ChumSalmon, Summer Steelhead and White Sturgeon,which describes catch limits for white sturgeon inspecific watershed areas; these catch limits vary innumber and size depending on various watershedzones. Numbers are being watched carefully toensure appropriate management of this speciesover time.Green SturgeonThe southern Distinct Population Segment forNorth American green sturgeon, which includesfish in the Columbia River from the estuary upto Bonneville Dam, was listed as threatened byNOAA Fisheries in 2006; the agency is working toconserve green sturgeon. The species is primarilyassociated with oceanic waters, bays, and estuaries.Critical habitat designated in 2009 includesthe Columbia River estuary from the mouth upto River Mile 74 but not the area from River Mile74 to Bonneville Dam (which is at River Mile146). In addition to Endangered Species Actprotections, Oregon and Washington fisheriesregulations that protect this species are currentlyin effect in the Columbia River.Climate ChangeIt is likely that all of the region’s fish species,both native and non-native, will be affectedby the potential increase in water temperatureand hydrologic changes associated with globalclimate change. Many non-native fish species mayactually expand their range as increasing watertemperature allows them to successfully forageand reproduce in rivers and streams flowingthroughout the region. Most isolated lakes andponds and the entire Columbia River estuary,which includes the Lower Willamette River, providehabitat conditions suitable for non-native,warm-water fish species to thrive. Introduced,non-native fish species often compete with nativefish for food and space; many non-native fish feedon other fish species and have the potential tofeed on native fish species if they co-occur in thelower Willamette and Columbia rivers and lowerreaches of larger tributary streams. Conversely, itis likely that the range of cold-water fish, includingsalmonids and lamprey, will be reducedbecause of climate change-related increases instream temperature, alterations in hydrology, andcompetition with non-native species.Priority Conservation and Restoration StrategiesCoordinated recovery efforts for Oregon andWashington currently are being implemented.In Oregon, the Oregon Department of Fish andWildlife completed the Lower Columbia RiverConservation and Recovery Plan for OregonPopulations of Salmon and Steelhead in 2010 andadopted the Upper Willamette River Conservationand Recovery Plan for Chinook Salmon andSteelhead in 2011. In Washington, the LowerColumbia River Fish Board completed the LowerColumbia Salmon Recovery and Fish & WildlifeSubbasin Plan in 2004 and updated it in 2010.These documents outline threats and limitingfactors for the survival and recovery of ESA-listedfish populations that spend part of their life cyclewithin the greater Portland-Vancouver region.The Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery and Fish& Wildlife Subbasin Plan identifies watersheds ofimportance to threatened and endangered salmonidsin the lower Columbia River (Table 5-3). Inboth states’ recovery plans, limiting factors andthreats are divided into specific groups relatedto habitat, hydropower/irrigation/flood control,hatcheries, and harvest. Actions are identifiedTable 5-3Roles of the Region’s Salmon and Steelhead Populations in the Recovery of Lower Columbia River EvolutionarilySignificant Units: Summary of Designations for Each Population, According to the Preferred Recovery ScenarioP = primary = targeted for restoration to high persistence probabilityC = contributing = low to medium improvements needed to reach moderate persistence probabilityS = stabilizing = to be maintained at current levels (generally low persistence probability)Watershed Fall Chinook Fall Chinook Spring Chum Winter Summer Coho(Tule) (Bright) Chinook steelhead steelheadScappoose P -- -- P n/a 1 -- PKalama C -- C C P P CNF Lewis X P* P X C S CEF Lewis P -- -- P P P PSalmon S -- -- S S -- SWashougal P -- -- P C P CSandy C P* P P P* -- PClackamas C -- -- C P -- P*Lower Gorge C -- -- P* P -- P1 Not listed under U.S. Endangered Species Act.Source: Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery and Fish & Wildlife Subbasin Plan, 2010.X refers to subset of larger population.Primary populations designated for a very high level of viability are denoted with *.Dashes indicate that the species is not present.84 85

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 5 Fish and Wildlife of the RegionTable 5-4Strategies to Recover Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead Populations and Their Relevance toGeneral Threats Affecting Those PopulationsProtect and conserve natural ecological processes that supportthe viability of wild salmon and steelhead populations and theirlife history strategies throughout their life cycle.Restore floodplain connectivity and function and maintainunimpaired floodplain connectivity and function.Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment, and maintainunimpaired conditions.Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impairedby artificial barriers, and maintain unimpaired passage and connectivity.Restore and maintain hydrologic regimes that support theecological needs of wild salmon and steelhead populations.Restore channel structure and complexity, and maintain unimpairedstructure and complexity.Restore impaired food web dynamics and function, and maintainunimpaired dynamics and function (both impacts of competitionfor food resources and altered ecosystem function).Restore degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired waterquality.Restore degraded upland processes to minimize unnatural ratesof erosion and runoff, and maintain natural upland processes.Reduce the impact of non-native plants and animals on wildsalmon and steelhead populations and prevent the introductionof new non-native plants and animalsReduce predation on wild salmon and steelhead that has beenexacerbated by anthropogenic changes to the ecosystem.Manage fisheries so that harvest impacts do not compromisethe recovery of wild salmon and steelhead populations.Manage hatchery origin fish in ways that support the recoveryof wild salmon and steelhead populations.Reduce or eliminate other source anthropogenic sources ofmortality (e.g. beach stranding of juveniles due to ship wakesin the estuary) and prevent them from becoming a problem inareas where they currently do not occur.General Threat Category AddressedFish Hatchery Hydro/Flood Land InvasiveStrategy Harvest Mgmt. Control Use SpeciesSource: : Lower Columbia Salmon Recover and Fish & Wildlife Subbasin Plan 2010 and ODFW 2010.n n n n nnnnnn n nn n n n nnnnnn n n nnn n n n nnnnnnfor each threat category and are prioritized basedon what is determined to be the most effectivemeasure for achieving viability and subsequentdelisting of salmon and steelhead populationsin the lower Columbia and Willamette rivers(Table 5-4). In general, several strategies can beimplemented throughout the greater Portland-Vancouver region to improve conditions for allsalmonids:n Protect intact headwaters and existing nativevegetation.n Protect and increase riparian corridor widthand shade to reduce temperatures, increase theavailability of wood, and provide cover and invertebrateprey.n Increase the amount of off-channel habitat formigrating salmonids and provide additional refugiaand rearing areas for juvenile salmonids.n Improve connectivity with floodplains.n Restore fish passage at culverts, dams, andother barriers.n Manage forests and urban and rural growthand development to protect and restore watershedprocesses.n Reduce the amount of impervious surfaces andretrofit sites to improve stormwater managementand add green infrastructure in urban areas.n Increase channel complexity and the amount oflarge wood in streams.n Monitor action effectiveness to ensure thatmeasures produce the intended effect.Questions, Unresolved Issues, and Data GapsResearch, monitoring, and evaluation are neededto assess the status and trends of fish speciesand their habitats, track progress toward achievingrecovery goals (for ESA-listed species), andprovide the information needed to refine strategiesand actions to recover depressed populationsthrough the process of adaptive management. Thestatus of most non-salmonid native fish species islargely unknown because of an inability to effectivelymonitor smaller populations of fish thatoccupy varied habitats. Populations that do notreceive sufficient monitoring to track abundanceand productive capability may be at increased riskof extirpation because of reduced diversity withinthe population and an inability to survive unsuitablehabitat conditions over time.For More InformationHistory of the Willamette Riverhttp://www.willamette-riverkeeper.org/WRK/riverhistory.htmlLower Columbia Salmon Recovery and Fish &Wildlife Subbasin Plan SummaryLower Columbia Fish Recovery Board. 2010.http://www.lcfrb.gen.wa.us/default1.htmLower Columbia River Conservation and RecoveryPlan for Oregon Populations of Salmon andSteelheadOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2010.Available at http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/CRP/lower_columbia_plan.aspNative Fish Conservation PolicyOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.Revised, September 12, 2003.http://dfw.state.or.us/fish/CRP/nfcp.aspOregon Native Fish Status ReportOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2005.http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/ONFSR/Recovery Plans for Salmon and Steelhead PopulationsOregon Department of Fish and Wildlifehttp://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/CRP/conservation_recovery_plans.aspSalmonid Stock Inventory (SaSI)Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.2002.Willamette River Basin Planning AtlasD. Hulse, S. Gregory, and J. Baker (eds.) for thePacific Northwest Ecosystem Research Consortium.2002.http://www.fsl.orst.edu/pnwerc/wrb/Atlas_web_compressed/PDFtoc.html86 87

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 5 Fish and Wildlife of the RegionLand Use Planning for Salmon, Steelhead andTrout: A Land Use Planner’s Guide to SalmonidsHabitat Protection and RecoveryWashington Department of Fish and Wildlife.2009.http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?id=00033NOAA Fisheries Pacific Eulachon/Smelt (Thaleichthyspacificus) web sitehttp://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/pacificeulachon.htmU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service bull trout websitehttp://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout/Index.cfmU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Coastal CutthroatTrout Conservation Initiativehttp://www.fws.gov/columbiariver/cctinitiative.htmlU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific lampreywebsite http://www.fws.gov/pacific/Fisheries/sphabcon/Lamprey/index.cfmhttp://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/PacificLamprey/Lower Columbia River and Oregon Coast WhiteSturgeon Conservation PlanOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, OceanSalmon and Columbia River Program,Clackamas, OR. 2011.AmphibiansChar Corkran, herpetologist and consultant,and Laura Guderyahn, City of Greshamforests, ponds next to upland woods or prairies,and side channels of rivers lined with riparianhardwoods are examples of adjacent habitat pairsthat are important to amphibians in the region.Conservation Issues and Key Threats toAmphibiansAmphibians are facing unprecedented threatsat local, regional, and global levels. Worldwide,200 amphibian species may now be extinct, andone-third of the remaining amphibian species arethreatened. Of the 19 species found in the greaterPortland-Vancouver region, 12 are consideredfederal species of concern and/or are state listedas sensitive species in Oregon or Washington (seeAppendix E); it is likely that the Oregon spottedfrog has already been extirpated from the greaterPortland-Vancouver region.Research is linking global amphibian losses tohabitat destruction and fragmentation, diseases,non-native species, global climate change, pesticidesand other pollutants, and poaching for thepet trade. Amphibians in the greater Portland-Vancouver region are affected by most of thesefactors, but the most significant conservationissue is loss and degradation of habitat. Amongamphibian habitats in the region, wetlands havesuffered the most drastic losses in acreage andquality.The filling or draining of wetlands for residentialor industrial development and agriculture hasbeen a major issue for most amphibian species,but especially for western toads and Oregonspotted frogs. The introduction of non-nativeplants and animals into wetlands and open wateralso is implicated in the decline of amphibians.For example, introduced bass, other warmwaterfish, and American bullfrogs all prey onnative amphibian species. In addition, Americanbullfrogs are carriers of a fungal disease thathas caused amphibian declines and extinctionsthroughout the world. In urban areas, stormwaterrunoff has the seasonal pattern of water levels inmany of the remaining natural; this has been aprimary driver of native plant communities andassociated biota being replaced by invasiveIn stream systems, increased water temperaturescan be lethal to Cascade torrent salamanders,while siltation can prevent all stream-breedingamphibians from using sites for cover andegg laying. In some streams, introduced crayfishmay threaten rare native amphibian species. Inforested habitats, short harvest rotations preventthe recruitment of large logs that otherwise wouldprovide habitat for terrestrial salamanders andwinter refugia for some frogs.Predicted climate changes include warmingtemperatures, erratic weather patterns, and earliersummer drying of ponds and streams. Theseimpacts are likely to disrupt breeding cycles formany amphibians. Stream-breeding amphibiansand the Cascades frog, which is limited tohigh-elevation wetlands, may be the most sensitive,although the temperature requirements ofnorthern red-legged frog eggs make this speciesvulnerable, too. The limited mobility of amphibiansalso is a challenge because it makes it difficultfor them to shift their range in the face of climatechange.Conservation Strategy Species: Habitat Needs,Threats, and OpportunitiesThe Oregon Conservation Strategy identified 17amphibian species in Oregon that need attention,and Washington’s Comprehensive WildlifeConservation Strategy identified five amphibianspecies needing attention in that state. Of these,14 salamander species and five frog species nowlive in at least the edges of the greater Portland-Vancouver region; one other frog species, theOregon spotted frog, apparently has been extirpatedfrom the area.The 12 extant amphibian conservation strategyspecies in the region share habitat needs, facesimilar threats, and may have the same opportunitiesfor conservation and restoration (seeAppendix E). Most of the 12 species, includingpond-breeding northern red-legged frogs andterrestrially breeding clouded salamanders, needmature upland forest with abundant logs anddebris for at least some of their life. Four of thespecies, including the coastal tailed frog and thestreams in forests, and four other species occurat least seasonally along such streams. The LarchMountain salamander and three other speciesneed talus or forests with rocky soil. The specializedhabitat needs of these species and the isolationof appropriate habitat patches make localizedextirpations likely.Several amphibian species occur in the regiononly in its northeast corner; these include thestream species, the Cascades frog, and the LarchMountain salamander. Other important sectionsof the region for amphibians designated in theOregon and Washington conservation strategiesare Forest Park and the forested buttes that areadjacent to wetlands, such as Powell, Jenne, andGrant buttes. Finally, forested stream corridorswith adjacent floodplains, pocket wetlands, andstormwater ponds, such as Johnson Creek, theTualatin River, Multnomah Channel, La CenterBottoms, Ridgefield National Wildlife RefugeComplex, Green Lake Wetlands, and BurntBridge Creek, are important hiding and overwinteringplaces for amphibians in urban areas.Of the 36 amphibian species known to occur inOregon and Washington (34 of which are native),18 native amphibians and one non-native livein the greater Portland-Vancouver region (seeAppendixes E and G). We are now beginning tounderstand the important roles of frogs, toads,newts, and salamanders in energy and nutrientcycling. Their potential as indicators of environmentalhealth is a function of both their life historyand the permeability of their skin to toxins.Priority Conservation and Restoration StrategiesMost amphibian species have an aquatic larvaln Incorporate knowledge of amphibians’ needsstage before they metamorphose into a terrestrialinto planning efforts in the region. The presence,adult form, so they are closely tied to both waterhabitats, movements, and seasonal activity patternsof amphibians can be addressed in planningand land habitats. Streams surrounded by coniferspecies.Cascade torrent salamander, require cold, silt-free88 89

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 5 Fish and Wildlife of the Regionfor trails, transportation and development projects,invasive species control, and habitat restorationon publicly owned lands and encouraged onprivate properties. As an example, managementfor amphibians in the Oregon portions of theregion currently includes wetland restorationand creation efforts, with a focus on northernred-legged frogs, western painted turtles, andwestern pond turtles.n Continue current management efforts to providelarge woody debris and develop new standsof forest for future recruitment of large logs.n Expand current protection of fish-bearingwaters from siltation and pollutants to includeheadwater streams and ephemeral ponds.Current Activities and ProgramsConservation assessments and strategies havebeen developed by federal and state agenciesfor several rare or declining amphibian speciesto summarize their status, biology, threats, andmanagement (see “For More Information”).Paired with efforts on behalf of declining amphibianspecies in the Oregon Conservation Strategyis the goal of keeping currently common speciesfrom becoming rare.In 1999 the Oregon Spotted Frog RecoveryTeam was formed as a partnership by PacificNorthwest zoos, aquariums, governmentaljurisdictions, and conservation organizationsthroughout Oregon, Washington, and BritishColumbia. In 2007, the Oregon Zoo began acaptive rearing program to reintroduce Oregonspotted frogs to a site in Washington. To date,there are no efforts to reintroduce the species inthe greater Portland-Vancouver region.Several citizen science programs engage volunteersin monitoring pond-breeding amphibians inthe region. The cities of Portland, Gresham, andHillsboro, Metro, the Vancouver Water ResourcesEducation Center, and Clark, Cowlitz, andWahkiakum counties recruit and train hundredsof volunteers each year to identify and record thenumbers of egg masses and larvae of northernred-legged frog and more common species. Thegoal of these programs is to create a regionaldatabase that will allow assessment of regionalpopulation trends.Questions, Unresolved Issues, and Data GapsThe design of amphibian protection measures canbe improved by filling knowledge gaps such astheir range extents, habitat needs, dispersal capabilities,and movement dynamics. For example,understanding the dispersal abilities of Cope’sgiant salamanders and which populations aremore apt to metamorphose would allow streambarriers to be prioritized for removal. Determiningthe extent and role of fungal and viral diseasescould help protect vulnerable amphibian populationsfrom extirpation. Basic reproductive historyand habitat needs for some of the terrestrial salamandersstill are not fully known. Assessing thedistribution of amphibians such as the Oregonslender salamander in urban areas could guidethe provision of healthy and connected habitats.More could also be done to assess water qualitythresholds that may be important for sustainingviable populations of amphibians that use stormwaterfacilities.Washington State Status Report for the OregonSpotted Frog.Kelly R. McAllister and William P. Leonard.July 1997. 47 pp. A publication of the WashingtonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife. Availableat http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?id=00382Clark County Community Based AmphibianMonitoring. Summary of 2008 and 2009 FieldDataPeter Ritson and Laura Guderyahn. July 2009.19 pages. http://home.comcast.net/~cportfors/Report/clark%20county%20amphibian%20report.pdfOregon Spotted Frog Pilot Reintroduction Project:2007-2012Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.Updated 2009. Available at http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00403/wdfw00403.pdfConservation Assessment for the Larch MountainSalamander (Plethodon larselli)C. M. Crisafulli, D.R. Clayton, D.H. Olson. October28, 2008.Version 1.0. USDA Forest ServiceRegion 6 and USDI Bureau of Land Management.Interagency Special Status and Sensitive SpeciesProgram. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna-amphibians.shtmlConservation Assessment for the California SlenderSalamander in Oregon (Batrachoseps attenuatus)D.H. Olson. October 20, 2008. Version 1.0. USDAForest Service Region 6 and USDI Bureau ofLand Management. Interagency Special Statusand Sensitive Species Program. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna-amphibians.shtmlCitizen Science programs: See Chapter 10,“Species-specific Initiatives,” of the RegionalConservation Strategy for the Greater Portland-Vancouver Region.Special Status Amphibians and Reptiles(see Appendix H)For More InformationA Conservation Assessment for the OregonSpotted Frog (Rana pretiosa).K.A. Cushman and C.A. Pearl. March 2007.Metro’s bird, mammal, and amphibian/reptileUSDA Forest Service Region 6, USDI Bureauwildlife checklists for the Portland areaof Land Management, Oregon and Washington.http://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/Available at http://fresc.usgs.gov/products/by.web/id=15421papers/1578_Pearl.pdfWashington Herp Atlas: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/90 nhp/refdesk/herp91ReptilesChar Corkran, herpetologist and consultant,and Laura Guderyahn, City of GreshamOf the 31 species of reptiles in Oregon andWashington (28 of which are native), 16 speciesoccur in the greater Portland-Vancouver region(see Appendix E): two native and two non-nativeturtle species, four lizards, and eight snakes.Although most of these reptiles are characteristicof the drier habitats of the region—i.e., oak habitats,grasslands, and shrublands, which regionallyare limited in extent—a few species occurin upland conifer forests. However, the turtles(including the introduced species) and two of thegarter snakes are closely tied to open water andto adjacent upland habitats such as oak savanna,grassland, and riparian forest—a combinationthat occurs in several portions of the region.Conservation Issues and Key Threats to ReptilesOn a global scale, the status of the vast majorityof reptile species is unknown. Within the greaterPortland-Vancouver region, 11 of the 14 nativereptile species are considered secure in bothOregon and Washington. However, the westernpond turtle is listed by the state of Washington asendangered and is considered Sensitive–Criticalby the state of Oregon. The western painted turtlehas the same Sensitive–Critical status in Oregonbut is not considered rare in Washington becauseof large populations east of the Cascades. Thesharptail snake is a federal species of concern andis considered Sensitive-Critical in Washington; itmay not be present on the Oregon side. The racerand the gopher snake, which still are commonelsewhere in the two states, may have been extirpatedfrom the Puget Lowlands.Worldwide threats to reptiles include habitatloss and fragmentation, excessive collectionfor food and the pet trade, non-native species,predation, vehicles, climate change, diseases,pollution, and mining. Habitat loss or degradation,including loss of connectivity, is the mostserious issue in the greater Portland-Vancouverregion, with wetland and pond habitats being the

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 5 Fish and Wildlife of the Regionmost severely affected. The decreasing acreage ofoak habitats, grasslands, and shrublands raisesconcern for local populations of northern alligatorlizard, southern alligator lizard, racer, andring-necked snake.Furthermore, all of the region’s reptile speciesare affected by collection for pets, road mortality,predation by non-native species, and disturbancethat interferes with basking and nesting. Gartersnakes and alligator lizards are particularly susceptibleto predation by house cats, as they oftenlive in wood piles or house foundations. Vehiclescause mortality, particularly when reptiles movebetween basking, breeding, and overwinteringsites. Gopher snakes are mistaken for rattlesnakesand killed. Disturbance by hikers, unleasheddogs, bikers, and rock climbers can limit criticallyimportant basking time for many reptiles. Thesecretive behavior of the ring-necked snake andrubber boa makes it difficult to understand factorsthat could threaten their populations.Climate change models forecast earlier runoff ofrivers, drying of ponds, and warming temperatures.Although many snake and lizard speciesmay not be affected by these changes, the moreaquatic species would be. The native turtleswould lose productive summer habitat, includingshallows with aquatic vegetation that are criticalfor hatchlings and small juveniles. If ponds dryearly and strand frog tadpoles, both habitat anda major food resource for common garter snakesand western terrestrial garter snakes would belost. Warmer temperatures may skew sex ratiosin turtle populations because gender is determinedby nest temperature during early stagesof egg development.Conservation Strategy Species: Habitat Needs,Threats, and OpportunitiesThe Oregon Conservation Strategy and Washington’sComprehensive Wildlife ConservationStrategy designate four reptiles as species ofconcern: western pond turtle (in both states),western painted turtle (in Oregon), and the racerand the gopher snake (in Washington, PugetTrough only) (see Appendix E). Both turtlespecies live in ponds, lakes, and slow-movingstream channels. Within aquatic habitats, thesespecies need logs and other sites for basking,which is critical to thermoregulation for effectiveforaging and the production of eggs. However,these turtles also require nearby, sparsely vegetatedupland areas for nesting, such as grasslands,oak savanna, or openings in riparian forests. Inaddition, the western pond turtle winters in oakor riparian woodlands. Both of the snake speciesoccur in grassland habitats and require communalwinter den sites.Both turtle species have suffered from thefilling and draining of wetlands for agricultureand development. Remaining aquatic habitats aredegraded by pesticides and pollutants. Invasivereed canarygrass has choked many open-watersites, while exotic blackberry species shadenesting sites and hamper movement on land.Non-native turtles compete with native speciesand infect them with diseases and parasites.Non-native fish and American bullfrogs preyon turtle hatchlings and small juveniles, andunleashed dogs kill and disturb adults. Raccoonsand coyotes, albeit native species, are at relativelyhigh densities in urban areas; these animals preyon turtles and dig up nests to eat their eggs. Atmany western pond turtles sites there is little orno successful nesting or recruitment of juvenilesinto the population, so the population consistsmostly of adults. When female turtles are nestingor moving to and from nesting habitats, they areparticularly vulnerable to predation, disturbance,vehicle mortality, and illegal capture for pets.Both the racer and the gopher snake have lostgrassland habitats in the Portland-Vancouverregion and are vulnerable to road mortality andagricultural and landscaping practices. In addition,gopher snakes and occasionally juvenileracers are killed because of their resemblance topoisonous rattlesnakes.Priority Conservation and Restoration Strategiesn Continue to restore aquatic and upland habitats(includes enhancing water quality), especiallyat important areas for native turtle, i.e., SauvieIsland, the Columbia Slough, and other naturalareas along all rivers in the region. High-quality,appropriate connecting corridors and wildlifecrossings are important for reptiles and amphibiansbecause these animals generally do not movevery fast or very far.n Provide key habitat features for reptiles, such aslarge logs for turtle basking (both now and in thefuture), various sizes of woody debris (i.e., logsand smaller debris), and rocky outcrops.n Control invasive species.n Educate the public about area closures toprotect turtle nesting, controlling dogs, the needto restrict raccoon and coyote access to pet foodand garbage, and the importance of leaving nativeturtles in the wild and pets in captivity; this latterpoint may need to be backed up with regulationsand enforcement.Current Activities and ProgramsConservation assessments and strategies forreptiles in the region have focused on nativeturtle species (see “For More Information”).Conservation assessments for the western paintedturtle and western pond turtle in Oregon werecompleted in 2009, and the Washington Departmentof Fish and Wildlife wrote a state recoveryplan for the western pond turtle in 1999. Seattle’sWoodland Park Zoo, the Washington Departmentof Fish and Wildlife, the U.S. Forest Service,and the Oregon Zoo developed a program forwild-caught hatchling pond turtles to be raisedin captivity and released when large enough toavoid most predation. Since 1990, more than1,500 pond turtles have been reared in zoos andreleased into the wild.The Lower Willamette Valley Turtle WorkingGroup and the Western Pond Turtle RecoveryProject are partnerships among local, county, andstate jurisdictions and nonprofit groups. Theyhave shared goals of implementing conservationassessments and recovery plans and sponsoringresearch into limiting factors.Besides efforts for reptiles designated asconservation strategy species in the OregonConservation Strategy and Washington’s ComprehensiveWildlife Conservation Strategy, a primaryobjective is to keep currently common speciesfrom becoming rare. Educational efforts shouldfocus on protecting known nesting and overwinteringsites, re-creating such habitats, reducinginvasive species, providing rocks and logs forbasking and cover, and controlling domestic catsand dogs. Another key is educating the public toleave native turtles, snakes, and lizards in the wildand refrain from releasing non-native reptiles tothe wild.Questions, Unresolved Issues, and Data GapsAppendix H includes a list of current researchneeds by species. In addition to general habitatand range information, data on the impacts ofdiseases spread or introduced by invasive species,impacts of predators, and population genetics forthe region’s native turtles and lesser known snakesand lizards would greatly increase our ability tomanage local reptile populations. To accuratelygauge current threats to native reptile populations,an overall focus is needed on increasingthe body of knowledge of basic life history, rangeextents, and habitat.92 93

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 5 Fish and Wildlife of the RegionBirdsFor More Informationtory stopover areas, for birds and other wildlife.Washington State Recovery Plan for the WesternThe Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife andPond TurtleKaty Weil and Lori Hennings, Metrothe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service consider urbanD.W. Hays, K.R. McAllister, S.A. Richardson, and Birds make up the majority of the greaterareas critical for migrating birds. In fact, becauseD.W. Stinson. August 1999. Available at http:// Portland-Vancouver region’s vertebrate species.the greater Portland-Vancouver region is locatedwdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?id=00398 At least 219 native bird species use habitat inalong the Pacific Flyway, large concentrations ofOregon Zoo Headstart Program for the Western the region, as do eight non-native species. Twobirds migrating along the flyway use key habitatsPond Turtle http://www.oregonzoo.org/Conservation/westernpondturtle.htmspecies are likely extirpated. The sheer diversitywithin the region—including habitats in urbanin bird species and ranges in the region createsareas. The City of Portland signed an Urban Con-Conservation Assessment for the Western Paintedcomplex management needs.servation Treaty for Migratory Birds with the U.S.Turtle in Oregon (Chrysemys picta bellii)Birds provide valuable ecosystem services suchFish and Wildlife Service in 2003 to demonstrateJ. Gervais, D. Rosenberg, S. Barnes, Claire Puchy, as insect predation, pollination, seed dispersal,the City’s long-term commitment to the protectionand E. Stewart. September 2009. Version 1.1. and scavenging. They also create tree cavities usedand conservation of migratory birds and theSponsored by USDI Bureau of Land Management by many other species and exert strong controlscontributions that urban areas can make towardand Fish and Wildlife Service, USDA Forest Serviceon invertebrate populations. For example, morebird conservation.Region 6, Oregon Department of Fish and than 90 percent of birds rely on an insect popu-The North American Bird Conservation Initia-Wildlife, City of Portland, and Metro. Available lation to successfully raise juveniles, therebytive’s 2011 State of the Birds report notes thatat http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/docu-reducing damage to plants (including trees) frompublic lands also provide essential habitat for thements/planning-docs/ca-hr-chrysemys-picta-bellii-2009-09.pdfinsects such as tent caterpillars and bark beetles.survival of hundreds of bird species. Approximately40 percent of the bird species that inhabit These particular threats are described in moreBirds control termites and carpenter ants, thusConservation Assessment of the Western Pond protecting human structures. Birds also can bethe United States have at least 50 percent of their detail in Chapters 6 and 8 of this BiodiversityTurtle in Oregon (Actinemys marmorata), Version reliable indicators of a healthy ecosystem—thedistribution on public lands and waters.Guide (see “Patch Size and Anchor Habitats”1.0proverbial canary in the coal mine. When nativeand “Biodiversity Corridors and Connectivity”D. Rosenberg, J. Gervais, D. Vesely, S. Barnes,Conservation Issues and Key Threats to Birdsbirds decline in an ecosystem, it is likely that theL. Holts, R. Horn, R. Swift, L. Todd, and C. Lee.Given the mobility and complex life history of in Chapter 6 and “Conservation in Developedhealth of that system is deteriorating.2009. Report prepared for the USDI Bureau ofsome bird species, the threats they face are many Areas” in Chapter 8), along with Chapter 6 of theBirds are highly mobile and use every naturalhabitat type and many man-made structuresLand Management and Fish and Wildlife Service,and varied. The following threats to birds are Regional Conservation StrategyUSDA Forest Service Region 6, Oregon Departmentof Fish and Wildlife, City of Portland andincreasingly common at the global, regional, andin the greater Portland-Vancouver region, withlocal scales:Special-status SpeciesMetro. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/habitat defined as the areas that birds need forIn 2001, a presidential executive order mandatedsfpnw/issssp/documents/planning-docs/ca-hractinemys-marmorata-2009-11.pdf.from predators, dispersal, and migration. Becausefeeding, nesting, roosting, resting, protectionn Degradation, loss, and fragmentation of habitatthat federal agencies protect migratory birds. Thisn Disturbances such as roads, noise, and artificial order emphasized the importance of protecting“species of concern” that have been identi-of their flight capability, birds can respond to andNative Turtle Working Group, Native Turtles oflightsuse non-contiguous resources and habitats. ForOregonfied under the Endangered Species Act and insome species, gaps in the forest serve as importanthabitat, so the number, size, and condition ofmigration)nhttp://www.oregonturtles.com/Building strikes (particularly duringregional lists provided by the North AmericanSpecial Status Amphibians and ReptilesBird Conservation Initiative and Partners inforest gaps can influence bird populations.(see Appendix H)nBird species can be highly specialized. Examplesinclude the acorn woodpecker and slender-Invasive species (both avian and plant)Flight, a Neotropical migratory bird conservationMetro’s bird, mammal, and amphibian/reptileinitiative. Within the greater Portland-Vancouverwildlife checklists for the Portland arean Urbanizationregion, one species that may occur in the outskirtsof the region is currently listed as federallybilled (white-breasted) nuthatch, which rely onhttp://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/stands of Oregon white oak, and the streakedn Predation by domestic cats and disturbanceby.web/id=15421threatened: the northern spotted owl. The baldhorned lark, which requires sparse vegetationand predation by domestic dogsWashington Herp Atlas:eagle was originally federally listed as endangeredwith little structure. Other species use a variety ofhttp://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/herp/index.n Land management and restoration practices in 1967, but it was downlisted to threatened inforested, agricultural, shoreline or other habitats.htmlthat conflict with nest success1995 and has now recovered to the point that itSome species, such as pileated woodpeckers andwas removed from the list (i.e., officially delisted)Swainson’s thrushes, require large forested areas.n Reduction in insect populations, which arein 2007. The peregrine falcon has gone through aUrban centers and their surrounding lands canimportant food resourcessimilar process. The California condor, a feder-provide important avian habitat, including migra-94 95

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 5 Fish and Wildlife of the Regionally listed endangered species, is extirpated fromthe region (although the Oregon Zoo’s breedingprogram is augmenting the world’s small remainingcondor population). The yellow-billed cuckooalso is likely extirpated from the region; it and thestreaked horned lark are candidates for listing.Twenty-nine bird species found in the greaterPortland-Vancouver region are listed as eithersensitive or priority species of concern in Oregonor Washington; this includes four species listedas threatened or endangered in Oregon and/orWashington: the northern spotted owl (Oregon),American white pelican (Washington), sandhillcrane (Washington), and bald eagle (Oregon).The City of Portland has a more extensive list of58 special-status bird species that are supportedprimarily by riparian and riverine habitats,grassland, oak woodland or savanna, or matureconiferous forest.sity of Pacific Northwest forests require a detailedregional conservation effort aimed at reducing thepotentially deleterious effects of multiple land-usemanagement activities on ecosystem function andon important land bird breeding habitat.In the greater Portland-Vancouver regionthousands of publicly and privately owned acresare managed for timber harvest. These are verylarge forested areas with scattered clear-cutsand earlier successional shrub and forestlands.Forest age is a significant habitat limitation forbirds within the region because timber rotationon most commercial forests occurs about every40 years and the forests do not achieve matureor old-growth conditions. In addition, reforestingfor timber harvest tends toward Douglas firmonoculture without tree species diversity ormature, berry-producing shrubs in the understory.However, current practices typically resultin smaller clear-cuts than in the past, and timberharvesters have worked to reduce impacts onstreams, leave a few trees and snags, and generallycreate a more heterogeneous landscape in place.these species, so small patches of oak within theregion were considered inconsequential. However,recent research has begun to demonstrate thateven small patches of uncommon habitats may beimportant for regional conservation.A shift from open to more dense or closedcanopyoak habitat (because of fire suppression)has altered wildlife communities. For example,more open oak habitat such as savanna can supporthigher numbers of grass-nesting birds, aswell as species that use large, open-grown trees.Larger trees tend to have more nesting cavitiesand produce more lichens, which are a seasonallyimportant food resource for deer and elk, andacorns, which are important to many animals.The shift from savanna to woodland has also substantiallyreduced associated prairie habitat. Thedouble jeopardy of habitat loss and higher treedensity in remaining oak habitats has resultedin substantial declines of oak-associated wildlifespecies.Loss of Riparian HabitatsRiparian-associated birds, including birds thatuse small stream corridors, wetlands, floodplains,and bottomland hardwood forests, are decliningbecause of habitat loss and other factors. Nearlyall of the region’s wildlife uses water-relatedhabitats at some point in their lives. Only fivebird species—two of them non-native—are notassociated with any water-related habitat. Of the227 bird species known to occur annually in theManagement of Coniferous ForestsPortland-Vancouver region (see Appendix E), 92Coniferous forests in the Pacific Northwest supportsome of the highest densities of breedingof them (40 percent) rely on or are strongly associatedwith riparian areas and wetlands. Althoughland birds in North America, including manythe yellow-billed cuckoo has been consideredNeotropical migrants. A 2004 report by EnvironmentCanada 2 extirpated in the region, a single yellow-billedLoss and Degradation of Oak Habitatindicated that songbirds respond Among important avian habitats in the greatercuckoo was observed in 2009 in the Sandy Riverpositively not only to larger habitat patches, but to Portland-Vancouver region, aside from prairie,Delta. This sighting is a hopeful sign and a goodthe total amount of tree cover in a given region. oak habitats have shown the most significantreason to continue restoring contiguous bottomlandhardwood habitat. The yellow-billed cuckooIt is likely that part of this response is due to reduction in acreage and quality. Focal speciessuch as the white-breasted (slender-billed)increased connectivity in areas with more trees.does an excellent job controlling tent caterpillarA Seattle area study suggested 42 hectares (104 nuthatch and acorn woodpecker depend on thisinfestations and, unlike European cuckoos, doesacres) as a patch size at which most native forest habitat for the majority of their life cycle. Previouslyit was thought that only large, contiguousnot rely on other species to raise its young (i.e., itspecies were present (see also “Patch Size” inis not a nest parasite).Chapter 6). The unique habitats and avian diver-sections of oak habitat were enough to sustainRiparian forests are highly productive, providingleaves, dead wood, and abundant inverte-2 How Much Habitat Is Enough? A Framework for Guiding Habitat Rehabilitation in Great Lakes Areas of Concern.96 97brates to the nearby ground and water. A healthyriparian forest has complex vegetation structurewith lots of native shrubs. Birds and other wildlifeuse these resources for food, cover, breeding,and—importantly—movement. The fairly linear,contiguous nature of streamside vegetation, coupledwith these resources and the availability ofwater, make riparian forests excellent movementcorridors for birds and other wildlife. In fact,riparian forests provide the majority of remainingconnectivity in urban and agricultural areas.Disruptions in these corridors come in the formof roads, bridges, and development and farmingpractices that fail to maintain sufficient riparianvegetation.Removal of Dead and Dying TreesApproximately 30 percent of bird species usestanding dead and dying trees (i.e., snags). Privateand some public landowners tend to remove deadand dying trees because of perceived hazards andaesthetics. Sometimes this is justified, but cuttingdown dead and dying trees also removes key elementsfrom ecosystems, thus diminishing theirfunctional value for birds and other wildlife.Nearly 100 wildlife species use snags in westernOregon and Washington forests, and morethan half of these species depend on cavitiescreated by birds. Primary cavity users are thosethat actually create cavities, such as woodpeckers.Secondary cavity users cannot create cavities;instead, they use cavities created naturally orby other species. For cavity-dependent species,absence of snags can be a primary limitingfactor, and long-term breeding bird survey datadocument declines in many cavity-dependentbirds. Local examples of cavity-dependent speciesinclude woodpeckers, western bluebirds,American kestrels, small owls, some bats, houseand Bewick’s wrens, nuthatches, chickadees andnorthern flying squirrel. Many other reptile,amphibian and small mammal species use cavitiesfor roosting and thermal protection. Hawks,eagles, and olive-sided flycatchers use snags forperches, and snags frequently serve as nestingsites for eagles and osprey.

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 5 Fish and Wildlife of the RegionBecause different species require differentsnag sizes and decay classes, retaining a variety ofsnag types will benefit more species. In general,snags that are at least15 inches diameter are mostuseful to wildlife, and conifer snags last longerthan most hardwoods. Large live trees with deador broken tops sometimes serve similar functionsto snags.Agricultural PracticesThreats related to agricultural lands and practicesinclude conversion from native habitats, loss ofconnectivity, and poor timing of mowing andother management activities. The habitat value ofcroplands diminishes as field size increases andthere are fewer fencerows, hedges, and grassyfield margins, which provided some habitat valuefor perching, nesting and movement. However,some grassland species such as the streakedhorned lark need larger fields without woodystructure. Areas of unplowed pasture representmuch of the remaining prairie or prairie-likehabitat in the region. Pastures and grain and grassseed fields attract wildlife and provide some valueto prairie or grassland-associated birds, as well asmoles, voles, and gophers. However, these habitatsdiffer from native grasslands and prairies andare subject to management practices that harmwildlife, such as mowing or harvesting duringnesting season.Climate Change and Invasive Plant SpeciesIn North America, monitoring already has documentedthe earlier arrival of migratory birds intobreeding territories because of warmer temperaturesfarther south. In addition, winter ranges areshifting northward; data from the National AudubonSociety’s nationwide annual Christmas birdcount reveal a northward shift averaging 35 milesfor all species over the last 40 years. Rates of birdrange shifts are correlated with rates of temperaturechange; urban and suburban birds shiftedthe most, and forest birds shifted the secondmost. Grassland birds were the only group thatshifted to the south more than to the north. Thisprovides clues about how to focus conservationactions on the species likely to be most affected.Climate change may also increase invasivespecies problems as new plants and animals moveinto the region without their corresponding populationcontrols (disease, natural predators, etc.).Avian populations may decline as the vegetationwith which they are associated is out-competedby new invaders. In addition, invasive speciesmay simplify the habitat structure and reduce theplant species diversity that is critical to so manywildlife species.Other IssuesIn urban areas within the greater Portland-Vancouver region, where cats, dogs, and othersmall predators abound, surveys of breeding birdsindicate that birds that nest close to the groundare declining compared to birds with other nestinghabits. Neotropical migratory birds that breedhere but overwinter south of the U.S.-Mexico borderhave been shown in Portland and other U.S.urban areas to be declining disproportionatelycompared to other species. Migratory songbirdsseem to be sensitive to habitat fragmentation.They are associated with native shrub cover,require stopover habitat over long distances, andmay be sensitive to human disturbance.Current State and Local Priority Conservationdeveloped out of an urgent need to (1) monitorpopulations where decline has been suspected, (2)communicate that information to land managersand others, and (3) develop recommended managementguidelines where necessary and possible.Within the greater Portland-Vancouver region,bird conservation efforts include the following:n Oregon Habitat Joint Venture, which promotesprotection, restoration, and enhancement ofimportant habitats for birds and the systems onwhich they depend.n Important Bird Areas program, administeredby the National Audubon Society and BirdlifeInternational.n Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship(MAPS) Program, which assesses andmonitors the vital rates and population dynamicsof land birds to provide critical conservationand management information. The Institute forBird Populations established the MAPS Programin 1989. Within the greater Portland-Vancouverarea, MAPS stations are located at RidgefieldNational Wildlife Refuge Complex in Washingtonand at Oak Island (on Sauvie Island) in Oregon.Bird lists and more information are availableonline at http://www.birdpop.org/.n North American Bird Conservation Initiative(NABCI), which is a coalition of 22 governmentagencies, private organizations, and bird initiativesin the United States. NABCI’s mission is toensure the long-term health of North America’snative bird populations based on sound scienceand cost-effective management.n Partners in Flight, an international cooperativeeffort that involves partnerships among federal,state, and local government agencies, foundations,professional organizations, conservationgroups, industry, the academic community, andprivate individuals. Partners in Flight developsbird conservation plans that address characteristichabitats and focal species. Examples in thegreater Portland-Vancouver area are shown inTable 5-5.Table 5-5Sample of Regional Habitats and Species Covered by Partner in FlightConservation PlansGeneral Habitat Type Number of SpeciesFocal SpeciesConiferous Forest 20 Pileated woodpeckerPacific (winter) wrenRed crossbillBand-tailed pigeonOrange-crowned warblerWestside Lowlands andValleys (includes bottomlandhardwood, oaksavanna, and at least fourother distinct habitats)urban area planning, using multiple tools to meetconservation goals. The document incorporateshabitat considerations into other conservationefforts (such as water quality/quantity), alongwith urban solutions such as green roofs andnaturescaping; it also encourages cooperationacross jurisdictional boundaries.The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service createdthe Urban Conservation Treaty for MigratoryBirds program in 1999 to help municipal governmentsconserve birds that live, nest, overwinter,or migrate through their cities. Portland joinedthe program in 2003 as one of the nine participatingcities committing to conserve migratorybirds through education, habitat improvement,and bird conservation actions. In a February 14,2011, letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,the City of Portland renewed that commitment.In support of that effort, the City has developeda bird agenda. Next steps in the bird agenda havebeen identified, and the City is currently in theprocess of determining how the following majorcategories of action will be implemented:n Habitat protection and improvementnand Restoration StrategiesHazard reductionThe many programs, projects, and efforts thatn Invasive species managementare currently in place to conserve birds haveAt the state level, the Oregon ConservationStrategy identifies urban priorities related to newn98Education and outreach99Nearly 30Common nighthawkHouse wrenPurple martinWestern meadowlarkSwainson’s thrush

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 5 Fish and Wildlife of the RegionPriority Conservation and Restoration StrategiesStrategies to ensure the persistence of key birdspecies must begin by incorporating knowledgeof the species’ habitat needs into planning effortswithin the greater Portland-Vancouver region.Avian habitat use, movements, and seasonalactivity patterns can be addressed in planning fortrails, invasive species control, and habitat restorationon publicly owned lands and encouragedon private properties.Management actions taken within the greaterPortland-Vancouver region can be effectivelymonitored by tracking bird use, thus addingvaluable knowledge as to the efficacy of certainmanagement practices. The following are someuseful management practices for maintaining orimproving bird habitat in the region:n Selective forest thinning /oak release (i.e.,removing Douglas fir that overtops and shadesoak trees).n Maintaining a variety of seral stages, includingnative shrub habitat, in forested landscapes.n Creating and retaining snags and dead woodon the ground.n Focused management of forest gap size andcondition.n For particularly sensitive or rare habitats, orsmall populations, use of rotational vegetationmanagement to avoid changing a large area all atoncen Identifying and improving biodiversity corridors.Although some birds may not rely on fullyconnected habitat, others likely do. Connectivityfor birds can be particularly important in urbanareas, where habitat patches can be few and farbetween. Because narrow corridors can attractpredators, increasing the width of movement corridorsand the number of “entries and exits” of ahabitat patch can help species find and safely usethe corridor.n Planning habitat thoughtfully into future urbanarea design.n Identifying important conservation areas in theworking landscape.n Siting trails and other recreational facilitiescarefully to avoid affecting high-quality birdhabitats.Best management practices are available for varioushabitats within the region, including coniferousforest and lowlands and valleys. For example,see A Landowner’s Guide for Restoring and ManagingOregon White Oak Habitats (Vesely and G.Tucker, 2004) and B. Altman’s two conservationstrategies for landbirds in western Oregon andWashington in “For More Information,” below.Urban landscapes can be made more inviting tobirds by increasing tree and native shrub cover,preserving special habitat areas such as oaksavanna and native prairie, creating and improvinghabitat on private lands through educationand outreach (such as the Audubon Society ofPortland and Columbia Land Trust’s BackyardHabitat Certification program), and focusing onconserving and connecting large, intact habitatareas. A helpful resource is the AudubonSociety of Portland’s recently released BirdFriendly Building Guidelines.Opportunities to improve bird conservationon agricultural lands include Farm Bill fundedprogramssuch as the Conservation ReserveEnhancement Program CREP, which is a voluntaryland retirement program that helps agriculturalproducers protect environmentally sensitiveland, decrease erosion, restore wildlife habitat,and safeguard ground and surface water. Suchprograms enhance habitat and food resourcesand provide surrogate habitat for some species,including grassland birds.Many owners of small woodlands and lotsadjacent to public greenspaces and streams inthe greater Portland-Vancouver region want toimprove the condition and habitat value of theirforests. Continuing to implement favorable managementpractices on public lands and supportingprivate timberland owners can provide morevaluable wildlife habitat within current land usepatterns (see “Upland Forests” in Chapter 3 formore on changes in forest landscapes).The City of Portland’s Bureau of EnvironmentalServices is developing guidelines for how touse “wildlife trees,” downed wood, and brushpiles to benefit wildlife. This may encouragelandowners not to remove dead and dying treesthat help maintain ecosystem functions. The Cityalso has adopted guidelines for protecting nestingbirds and developed other resources and projectsas described in Portland, Oregon’s Bird Agenda.Questions, Unresolved Issues, and Data GapsThere are knowledge gaps about the needs of birdspecies that use the greater Portland-Vancouverregion. Examples include whether certain plantspecies (e.g., ocean spray) are particularly goodhosts for invertebrates that serve as prey for birds,and whether certain bird species in the regionhave a fall moult (i.e., feather drop and replacement)that represents a distinct life history, withdifferent habitat requirements. If so, which speciesare these, and what are their habitat needs?Regarding climate change, there is a need toidentify bird species whose activities are tied tothe timing of plant flowering or seeding, plantspecies or communities whose populations arelikely to increase or decrease as a result of climatechange, and the potential implications of thesechanges for birds. Another pressing question ishow habitat for Neotropical migratory songbirdscan be better managed in urban areas.In some cases, existing data, such as thatfrom the breeding bird survey and Christmasbird count, can be used to guide managementrecommendations, such as by identifying birdspecies whose ranges are shifting. In other cases,additional research, monitoring, and evaluationefforts are needed. Nest success studies are oneexample, particularly relating to habitat patch size(singing males do not always indicate nesting).For More InformationConservation Strategy for Landbirds in ConiferousForests of Western Oregon and Washington.B. Altman. 1999. Prepared for Oregon/WashingtonPartners in Flight.Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in Lowlandsand Valleys of Western Oregon and WashingtonB. Altman. 2000. Prepared for Oregon/WashingtonPartners in Flight.http://audubonportland.org/backyardwildlife/brochures/protectingbirdshttp://www.partnersinflight.org/pubs/BMPs.htmLandbird Monitoring Strategy for Oregon andWashington, Version 1.0J.L. Stephens. 2011. Oregon-Washington Partnersin Flight and Klamath Bird Observatory. Ashland,OR.A Landowner’s Guide for Restoring and ManagingOregon White Oak HabitatsD.G. Vesely and G. Tucker. 2004. USDI Bureau ofLand Management: Salem, OR.The State of the Birds 2011: Report on PublicLands and WatersNorth American Bird Conservation Initiative,U.S. Committee. 2011. U.S. Department ofInterior: Washington, D.C.“Northward Shifts in Early Winter Abundance”D.K. Niven, G.S. Butcher, and G.T. Bancroft.2009. American Birds 63:10-15.100 101

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 5 Fish and Wildlife of the RegionThe Oak Woodland Bird Conservation Plan: AStrategy for Protecting and Managing Oak WoodlandHabitats and Associated Birds in California.California Partners in Flight. Version 2.0.S. Zack. 2002. Point Reyes Bird Observatory,Stinson Beach, CA. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/plans.htmlThe Oregon Conservation StrategyOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2006.Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem,Oregon.www.dfw.state.or.usThe Willamette Valley Landowner’s Guide toCreating Habitat for Grassland BirdsOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.Portland, Oregon’s Bird AgendaCity of Portland, Bureau of EnvironmentalServices and Portland Parks and Recreation. June27, 2011. Available at http://www.portlandonline.com/bes/index.cfm?a=354681&c=55194Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide toBreeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forests inthe Pacific NorthwestB. Altman and J. Hagar. 2006. USGS ScientificInvestigations Report 2006-5304, prepared incooperation with the American Bird Conservancy.Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5304/.Willamette Valley Focus Area PlanOregon Habitat Joint Venture. August 2004.Bird Friendly Building GuidelinesAudubon Society of Portland. 2012.Metro’s bird, mammal, and amphibian/reptilewildlife checklists for the Portland areahttp://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=15421MammalsSusan Barnes and Liz Ruther, Oregon Departmentof Fish and Wildlife, and Jeff Azerrad, WashingtonDepartment of Wildlifenon-natives, occur within the greater Portland-Vancouver region. Mammals are extremelydiverse and are present at every level of the foodweb as herbivores, granivores, insectivores,omnivores, and carnivores. Habitat quality andquantity are the main predictors of mammal speciesdiversity. Mammals typically are divided intoseven subgroups:n Rodentsn Rabbits, hares, and pikasn Batsn Shrews and molesn Ungulates (i.e., hoofed mammals)n Omnivoresn CarnivoresSmall and medium-sized mammals, especiallythose that eat grain, are the most abundantmammals in urban and suburban environments.Suburban residential areas often make excellenthabitat for medium-sized omnivores, such asraccoons and skunks. In general, urban environmentssupport fewer species of mammals than dosurrounding rural and undeveloped areas. Thespecies that occur in urbanized environmentstend to be habitat generalists rather than specialists.Urbanized areas can support high populationsof non-native mammal species such as thehouse mouse, Norway rat, Virginia opossum, andeastern fox squirrel. In less urbanized areas wherelarger patches of intact habitat remain, a greatervariety of species is likely to be encountered.Mammals play a variety of ecosystem roles.Predatory mammals regulate herbivores (i.e.,plant-eating animals) populations; this in turnaffects grazing patterns and influences thedevelopment and quality of vegetation and thuswildlife habitat. For example, cougar limit deerand elk populations, thereby reducing habitatovergrazing. Another example of mammals asregulators is the relationship between bat andinsect populations. Bats in Oregon and Washingtonconsume only insects, with an adult bat eatingabout 1,000 insectsper hour. Bats also area source of naturalfertilizer (guano) thatis important to ecosystemhealth. Mammalssuch as squirrelsand chipmunks playan important role inhabitat regeneration bydispersing seeds. Mammalsprovide stabilityto entire food webs andlife cycles, althoughthese functions oftenare disrupted by humanactions.Some mammals areconsidered keystone species, meaning that theirrole in the ecosystem has a ripple effect on everyspecies below them, as well as on the ecosystemwithin which they live. Pocket gophers are anexample of a keystone species. Pocket gopherslive in grasslands and create extensive tunnelsystems, thus aerating the soil (which promotesplant health), creating burrows for other species,and creating areas of bare earth that are used byother species, including birds, insects, and reptiles.Another keystone species is the Americanbeaver, which often is referred to as an “ecosystemengineer” because it creates extensive wetlandcomplexes through its dam-building activities.Beaver-created wetland habitats provide a mosaicof water/land interfaces, resulting in greater plantand animal diversity than would otherwise bepresent. There is increasing evidence that beaversplay a critical role in overall ecosystem health andinfluence water quality and quantity, plant regeneration,and fish and wildlife production.Mammals such as raccoons, coyotes, andeastern fox squirrels are habitat generalists, whileothers, such as the gray fox, western gray squirrel,and Douglas squirrel, are habitat specialists.Generalists are more adaptable to fragmentedhabitats, while specialists typically require larger,more intact habitats or specific habitat types andConservation Issues and Key Threats to MammalsConservation of mammal species diversity isa concern locally, regionally, and globally. Allmammals face a variety of threats, although somethreats are more obvious than others. Rare specieswhose distribution naturally is limited are mostsusceptible to environmental degradation andat greatest risk of extinction or local or regionalextirpation. Small mammals are just as likely tobecome extinct as larger species, but ungulates(i.e., hoofed mammals) and large carnivoresreceive disproportionate attention with respect toconservation activity and research. Many of thesesmaller mammal species are classified as nongamewildlife. Nongame species generally receiveless conservation attention, primarily becausefederal and state fish and wildlife managementagencies traditionally have been structured andfunded based on fish and game species.The majority of mammal species in the greaterPortland-Vancouver region receive some levelof protection by federal and/or state wildlifemanagement agencies. In Oregon, some fall intothe category of non-protected nongame wildlife(OAR 635-044-0132) and therefore are notprotected from take (i.e., being killed or removedfrom the wild). In Washington, nongame speciesOregon has at least 122 mammal species andWashington has 111, not including marine mammals.At least 76 mammal species, including eightare less tolerant of urbanization and human102presence.103

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 5 Fish and Wildlife of the Regionclassified as protectedmay not be hunted,killed, possessed, orcontrolled (WAC232-12-011). It is alsoillegal in Washingtonto use body-grippingtraps to capture anymammal for recreationalor commercialpurposes (WAC 232-12-142). Washington’sGrowth ManagementAct requires that allcities and countiesdesignate areas thatare critical to fishand wildlife (primarilynongame species).Under the Growth Management Act, local policiesand regulations must be enacted (WAC 365-196-830) to conserve and protect these areas.Land ownership and how a mammal speciesinteracts with its human-influenced environmentcan dictate species management. OregonDepartment of Agriculture statutes and rulesclassify certain mammals as predators on privatelands when they are “causing damage, are a publicnuisance, or are posing a public health risk” (ORS498.012) on those lands. This allows private landownersto take (i.e., kill) animals such as mice,voles, American beaver, mountain beaver (apolodontia),various squirrels, chipmunks, muskrat,rabbits, and coyote.Habitat loss and fragmentation are the mostsignificant threats to overall mammal diversityand population viability. These threats and theassociated loss of special habitat elements suchas large dead and dying trees and large downedwood have caused localized losses and declinesof some mammals, particularly those associatedwith interior forest habitats (e.g., Americanmarten). Habitat degradation from invasive plantand animal species also poses a threat to nativemammals. Some mammals, such as bats, face persecutionthat is rooted in fear or ignorance. Largecarnivorous mammals such as cougar also oftenface persecution, or people are simply unwillingto tolerate their presence. Even native mammalsthat people often view as “cute” and harmless,such as deer and tree squirrels, sometimesbecome nuisance wildlife and then are harassed.Physical barriers such as roads and culvertspose a significant threat to a variety of mammalspecies and affect daily, seasonal, and dispersalmovement patterns. Other key threats to mammalsare poaching and over-harvest, pollutionand chemical contaminants (including impactson non-targeted species), disease, invasivespecies, predation by off-leash dogs and freeroamingcats, encroachment by humans, injury ormortality resulting from collisions with movingvehicles, artificial feeding, and other sourcesof injury or mortality, such as entanglement infences, monofilament fishing line, and sticky gluestrips and traps.Lack of survey and breeding informationposes another challenge to mammal speciesmanagement and conservation, especially in theface of expanding urbanization and decreasingbudgets at public agencies. Some mammal speciesare inherently difficult to study or monitor; theseinclude species that naturally occur at low populationlevels, underground species such as molesand shrews, arboreal species such as the red-treevole, secretive species, and those—such as thefisher—that have large home ranges and requirelarge patches of remote and intact habitats.the region. In Oregon, these species may not behunted, trapped, pursued, killed, caught, angledfor, or possessed, whether dead or alive, whole orin part (OAR 635-044-0130) (see Appendix E).Several special-status species (e.g., Americanmarten, fisher, red tree vole) need large patchesof intact, late successional mixed conifer habitatswith multi-layered canopies. These species needa high density of snags and logs for den sites andforaging and typically have low survival ratesin fragmented forests. The red tree vole, whichoccurs only in western Oregon and northernCalifornia, has a small home range but requirestree-top connectivity for post-breeding dispersal;this species. A recent U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servicedecision listed the North Oregon Coast redtree vole population, whose range includes thewestern portion of the greater Portland-Vancouverregion, as a distinct population segment; thispopulation is a candidate for federal EndangeredSpecies Act listing.The Columbian white-tailed deer is a federallylisted species that historically occurred throughoutColumbia River bottomland hardwoodforests. Now only remnant populations occur inriparian habitats on remaining islands along thelower Columbia River.Many of the region’s special-status species arebats. Although many bat species are known to usehuman structures such as crevices in bridges forroost sites, bats within the greater Portland-Vancouverregion typically are associated with matureforests and will use large snags, hollow trees, anddowned wood for roost sites.Data GapsThere are knowledge gaps for many of the mammalspecies that occur within the greater Portland-Vancouverregion, particularly for nongameand special-status species. Additional informationon basic species distribution, population densitiesand trends, dispersal patterns, seasonal movements,overwintering locations and the level ofhuman-caused mortality would improve conservationefforts for mammals within the region andacross species’ ranges.Conservation Strategiesn Prevent additional habitat fragmentationwithin the region, both in developed areas andtoward the outer fringes of the region.n Improve habitat connectivity within the regionand with key habitat areas outside the region.n Incorporate the needs of wildlife when implementingculvert replacement and fish passageprojects, to allow animal movement.n Develop and use measurable indicators ofhigh-quality habitats.n Evaluate the effectiveness of providing passagearound barriers to mammal movement, toenhance species migration and habitat connectivity.n For species that depend on habitats that alreadyhave a high degree of fragmentation or isolation,determine the patch sizes and configurationneeded to maintain viable populations.n Complete conservation assessments for specialstatusspecies that summarize status, life history,threats, and conservations strategies.n Fill species data gaps, focusing on the highestpriority special-status species first.n Determine the impacts of introduced mammalspecies (i.e., nutria, eastern fox squirrel, easterngray squirrel, eastern cottontail rabbit, Virginiaopossum) on native wildlife.n Control invasive plant species to address habitatdegradation.n Develop new cost-effective and efficient techniquesfor studying species that are elusive ordifficult to study.n Enact harsher penalties (e.g., fines) for wildlifecrimes.Special-status Species: Habitat NeedsOf the 68 native mammal species found in thegreater Portland-Vancouver region, 16 are eitherclassified by Oregon or Washington as a sensitivespecies or have a more critical designation, and21 are identified as state strategy species in oneor both state conservation strategies. The graywolf is listed as endangered in both Oregon andWashington, and the Columbian white-taileddeer is listed as endangered in Washington.At least 15 of the 25 mammal species that theOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife classifiesas protected nongame wildlife occur within104 105

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guiden Amend state Department of Wildlife administrativerules to eliminate the non-protectednongame wildlife category, in recognition of theinherent value of all native species of wildlife andthe ecosystem services they provide.n Amend state Department of Agriculturestatutes to redefine predatory animals and theprocess for addressing wildlife damage.n Implement educational and informationalcampaigns and policy related to the effects ofdogs (on and off-leash) and free-roaming cats onwildlife.n Enact local and/or state laws that prohibit theartificial feeding of wild mammals (with certainexceptions, such as when necessary for wildlifescientific or research purposes, or when approvedby the state fish and wildlife department).For More InformationUrban Habitats: A Landscape PerspectiveL.W. Adams 1994. Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press. 186 p.The Atlas of Oregon Wildlife: Distribution,Habitat, and Natural HistoryB. Csuti (editor) et al. 1997. OSU Univ. Press.Pages 323–443.Mammal Species of Oregonhttp://www.dfw.state.or.us/species/mammals/index.asp“Endemism, Vulnerability and ConservationIssues for Small Terrestrial Mammals from theBalkans and Anatolia”B. Kryštufek, V. Vladimír, and J. Obuch. 2009.Folia Zool. 58(3): 291–302. http://www.ivb.cz/folia/58/3/291-302_MS1494.pdfOregon Conservation StrategyOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2006.http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation StrategyWashington Department of Fish and Wildlifehttp://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/cwcs/cwcs.htmlOregon Department of Fish and Wildlifehttp://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/Wildlife Habitat Relationships in ForestedEcosystemsD.R. Patton. 1992. Timber Press, Inc., Portland,OR.“Natural Die-offs of Large Mammals:Implications for Conservation.”T.P. Young. 1994. Cons. Biol. 8: 410–418.Guidelines for Relocation of Beaver in OregonOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012.http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/living_with/docs/Guidelines_for_Relocation of_Beaver_in_Oregon.pdfMetro’s bird, mammal, and amphibian/reptilewildlife checklists for the Portland areahttp://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=15421106

Chapter 6 Important Issues and ConceptsImportant Issues and ConceptsChapter6Protecting wildlife habitats and vegetationcommunities is key in establishing and maintainingan ecologically robust and healthy interconnectedsystem of natural areas and, in turn,protecting regional biodiversity, air and waterquality, and other ecosystem services. Althoughplant communities and wildlife habitat are visibleand tangible units, they are in turn affected by avariety of external processes and functions. Whenprioritizing conservation actions and identifyingdesired future conditions, it is important toconsider the role that climate, fire, hydrology,pollination, anchor habitats, and habitat connectivityplay in achieving conservation goals forecosystems, watersheds, and the entire greaterPortland-Vancouver region.Climate Change 1Mike Houck, Urban Greenspaces Institute andKaitlin Lovell, City of PortlandClimate change will affect all aspects of conservationwithin the greater Portland-Vancouverregion. That climate change already is occurringhas been well documented. Over the last century,the Pacific Northwest has seen an increase inaverage temperature (by 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit),the loss of snowpack in the Cascades, and shiftsin the timing and volume of stream flows. Projectedchanges to aquatic systems include changesin hydrology, water supply, and stream flows;reduced water quality; degradation of wetlandecosystems; and an increase in breeding groundsfor waterborne diseases. The region can expect tohave reduced air quality, along with higher averageannual air temperatures and more frequentextreme heat events.Current models predict that the region’sterrestrial resources also will experience negativeeffects from climate change; these effects includeincreased incidents of short-term drought,increases in the frequency and intensity ofwildfires, and more frequent landslides. There arelikely to be shifts in the quantity and quality offish and wildlife habitat and refugia for sensitivespecies. Generally, specialist species and speciesthat require specific habitats or ecosystem processesmay be more adversely affected by climatechange than generalist species. It is likely that certainspecies’ ranges will be further constricted, or1 This discussion is excerpted from a more in-depth piece written for the Regional Conservation Strategy (Chapter 5).107

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 6 Important Issues and Conceptsthey will become locally extirpated; this is likelyto be the case for species that rely on spatiallylimited habitats such as wetland, prairie, or oaksavanna and species that depend on cold water,are not mobile, are capable of only limited mobility,have already been isolated, or already are atthe edge of their range. The loss of these specieswill reduce the region’s biodiversity. Conversely,generalist species, common species and habitats,and highly mobile species could benefit fromclimate change. Species that can migrate and arealready in a hospitable environment are likely toexpand their ranges.There are also likely to be changes in interspeciesinteractions and life history timing, such aspredator-prey relations, pollinator-pollen dependence,other food web dynamics, and, potentially,the timing of species’ life cycles. Other impacts onthe region’s native fish and wildlife species mayinclude loss of genetic diversity, shifts in species’gender balance, shifts in migration patterns andhabitat range, an increase in invasive species, andincreased fragmentation of biodiversity corridorsand habitats.Strategies for Maintaining the Resilienceof Natural SystemsThe cumulative and synergistic effects of climatechange on both natural and built systems maybe dramatic. According to the state of Oregon’sframework on adaptation for fish and wildlife,immediate action is needed to proactively adaptto the predicted consequences of climate change.Potential impacts to climate change, both negativeand positive, must be evaluated through thelenses of uncertainty; cumulative, synergisticeffects; and scale, both temporal and geographic.The greater Portland-Vancouver region needsto produce a suite of solutions that are appliedsystematically to a range of problems. Above all,our responses should be based on the precautionaryprinciple, which advises that, in the face ofuncertainty, when an action could result in harmto human health or the environment, precautionarymeasures should be taken even if some effectshave not been fully established scientifically.With these factors in mind, the following shouldbe incorporated into all of the region’s climateadaptation strategies:n Protect the best and restore the rest. We shouldprotect the region’s best functioning natural systemsand strategically restore degraded systems.n Manage natural resources to allow for dynamicsin the landscape—i.e., ensure that floodplainsare allowed to expand in order to absorbthe expected more frequent high flow events,fire regimes are allowed to function, and otherchanges in the landscape are allowed that accommodatethe needs of natural systems.n Protect and restore the natural diversity ofhabitat types and species. Apply ecosystem-basedapproaches to establish an effective network ofterrestrial and aquatic habitats.n Mimic natural systems and integrate theircomponents into the built environment wherepossible and practicable.n Integrate regional growth management strategieswith local land use and water planning toproactively mitigate for and adapt to climatechange.n Develop and use the best available science.n Incorporate back-up strategies and redundancy.Redundancy is a positive attribute of ecosystemmanagement because it confers resilience.Multiple approaches should be pursued to ensuresuccess. Fortunately, there are multiple ways torestore stream flows, reduce water temperature,and protect habitat.n Use adaptive management. Incorporating monitoringand research into ecosystem management,continuously evaluate performance, and adjustresponses accordingly.n Seek solutions that yield multiple benefits.Adopt integrated approaches to maximize benefits.n Share results and success stories. Strengthencommunication within and between the environmentalmanagement and research communitiesthrough the Urban Ecosystem Research Consortiumand Portland State University’s expandingurban ecosystem research initiatives and improvecommunication with the general public throughThe Intertwine Alliance.n Link the climate change adaptation strategiesin this document and the Regional ConservationStrategy to the Oregon Conservation Strategy,Washington’s Comprehensive Wildlife ConservationStrategy, and recommendations outlined inOregon’s guidance for adapting to climate changefor the state’s fish and wildlife.n Build strong partnerships and coordinate acrosspolitical and jurisdictional boundaries. This canbe accomplished in part by increasing the diversityand number of partners in The IntertwineAlliance.For More InformationBuilding Climate Resiliency in the LowerWillamette Region of Western Oregon: A Report onStakeholder Findings and RecommendationsClimate Leadership Initiative, 2011Oregon Climate Assessment ReportOregon Climate Change Research Institute, 2010The Oregon Climate Change AdaptationFrameworkState of Oregon, 2010Preparing Oregon’s Fish, Wildlife, and Habitats forFuture Climate Change: A Guide for State AdaptationEffortsOregon Global Warming Commission’s Subcommitteeon Fish, Wildlife, and Habitat Adaptation,2008Climate Change website (includes policy andpreparation documents)Washington Department of Ecologyhttp://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/Conservation in a Changing ClimateU.S. Fish and Wildlife Servicehttp://www.fws.gov/home/climatechange/Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife:http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/climate_change108 109FireJonathan Soll, MetroFire has played a pivotal role in shaping thevegetation of the western United States—nowheremore so than in the Willamette Valley and southernPuget Trough. Frequent fires (purposefully)set by people were responsible for the vast extentsof prairie and savanna in the Willamette Valleyand southern Puget Trough observed in the earlyand mid-19th century, and natural and anthropogenicfire was central in shaping the forestlandscape. The end of widespread anthropogenicfire, the implementation of active fire suppression,and the replacement of fire by timber harvestas the primary method of regenerating foresthas had profound impacts on the condition anddistribution of fire-dependent habitats and thecomposition and structure of forests throughoutthe greater Portland-Vancouver region.Effects of Fire on Prairie, Savanna, andOak WoodlandLow-intensity fire helps maintain the structureof prairie, savanna, and oak woodland habitatsby killing or suppressing small trees and shrubs,but it has little effect on large oaks, pines, and firs,which generally are able to withstand even moderate-intensityfire. Thus, historically, fire in whatis now the greater Portland-Vancouver region

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 6 Important Issues and Conceptsresulted in a mosaic of prairie, savanna, and openwoodland; these habitats occupied significantportions of the region when it was first surveyedand mapped around 1850. By exposing mineralsoil, fire can create a favorable environment forthe establishment of annual and perennial forbsamong perennial grasses. However, the presenceof non-native grasses in modern habitats complicatesthe use of fire in restoration; this is sobecause perennials such as velvet grass (Holcussp), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinaceae),and bentgrass (Agrostis sp) and annuals such ascheatgrass (Bromus sp) and dog-tail (Cynosurussp) can capitalize on the additional nutrients andgrowing space to increase their cover followingfire, unless supplemental treatments are part ofthe restoration plan.Although data are scarce, observations of theresponse of prairies and savanna to the cessationof fire suggests that frequent fire (i.e., every 1 to10 years) must have played an important rolein maintaining these habitats. Mid-nineteenthcentury residents of the region reported rapiddevelopment of shrubs and oaks in prairie andsavanna. Evidence of the role of fire in maintainingprairies and savanna also exists in the manyexamples of formerly open-grown oak or fir treesthat now are surrounded by younger, dense forests.These changes, together with the wholesaleconversion of prairie and oak habitats to agriculture,Douglas fir forestry, and residential development,have resulted in the loss of more than 98percent of former prairie and 85 percent of all oakhabitat types in the Willamette Valley. Most of theremaining oak habitat in the Willamette Valleyremains threatened with conversion to Douglasfir. The situation is most severe in the greaterPortland-Vancouver region.that even high-intensity, stand-replacing-typefires burned erratically, leaving unburned treesand patches of different ages in a mosaic acrosslarge landscapes. Full canopy closure followingfire appears to have developed over severaldecades (creating valuable shrub habitat), andmany biological legacies were retained from theburned forest, including large standing living,damaged, and dead trees and large fallen treesthat served as habitat for a variety of species, frombacteria and insects to salamanders and woodpeckers.In drier forest types, especially thoseadjacent to prairie and savanna, it is likely thatlow-intensity fires kept stands relatively open,favored large individuals of fire-resistant speciessuch as Douglas fir and Ponderosa pine, andhelped maintain a diverse shrub community.Implications of the Modern-day Lack of FireThe lack of fire in the modern landscape threatensthe region’s biodiversity and creates challenges forregional resource managers, in part because firealso represents a risk to valuable infrastructure,human lives, and livelihoods. However, withoutfire or management approaches that effectivelymimic its impact, we will be unable to maintaina rich diversity of prairie, savanna, and open oakwoodland habitats. In all habitats, the buildup offuel loads in areas with a history of burning ora high chance of ignition creates a risk of higherintensity, so-called catastrophic wildfire, with thepossibility of substantial losses of mature forestfrom the region’s conservation portfolio and damageor destruction of valuable property.Strategies to Address the Need for Firein the Landscapeperspectives are an important element of capacitybuilding and public outreach and educationefforts.n Improved landscaping practices. Creatingfire-resistant landscapes around natural areas canreduce the chances of fires spreading into or fromnatural areas and increase the safety and effectivenessof fire control measures when fires occur.n Forest management with fire in mind. Planssuch as those developed by the City of Portlandfor Forest Park that integrate fire resistance andresilience into resource management plans willincrease the likelihood that entire natural areaswill not be lost to fire, and that, when fire doesoccur, it will provide benefits rather than bedestructive.n Research fire alternatives. Resource managersand academics should continue to develop, test,and report on alternatives to prescribed fire.Likely Effects of Climate ChangeAlthough the future climate remains uncertain,models currently forecast wetter winters and drierwarmer summers. Such a scenario would increasefire risk and heightens the need for the strategicmeasures identified above.For More InformationIndians, Fire and the Land in the Pacific NorthwestR. Boyd (editor). Oregon State University Press.1999.“Fire, Mowing, and Hand-Removal of WoodySpecies in Restoring a Native Wetland Prairie inthe Willamette Valley of Oregon”D.L. Clark and M.V. Wilson. Wetlands 2001;21:135-144.Preparing for Climate Change in the UpperWillamette River Basin of Western OregonR. Doppelt, R. Hamilton, and S. Vynne. 1-47.2009. Climate Leadership Initiative, Institute forSustainable Environment, University of Oregon.“Dynamic Responses of a British ColumbianForest-grassland Interface to Prescribed Burning”K. Ducherer, Y. Bai, D. Thompson, and K.Broersma. Western North American Naturalist2009;69:75-87.“Simulating Cumulative Fire Effects in PonderosaPine/Douglas-fir Forests”R.E. Keane, S.F. Arno, and J.K. Brown. Ecology1990;71:189-203.“Small Mammal Responses to Fine Woody Debrisand Forest Fuel Reduction in Southwest Oregon”J.A. Manning and W.D. Edge. Journal of WildlifeManagement 2008;72:625-632.“Prescribed Fire and the Response of WoodySpecies in Willamette Valley Wetland Prairies”K.L. Pendergrass, P.M. Miller, and J.B. Kauffman.Restoration Ecology 1998;6:303-311.“Traditional Ecological Knowledge and RestorationPractice”n Strategic use of prescribed fire. In placeswhere the risks associated with prescribed fire are“Climate Change and Forest Disturbances”Effects of Fire on Upland Forestsreasonable (i.e. in larger, more isolated locationsV.H. Dale, L.A. Joyce, S. McNulty, R.P. Neilson,R. Senos, F. Lake, N. Turner, and D. Martinez.Before 1850, conifer-dominated forests also were and where fire control infrastructure is good),M.P. Ayres, M.D. Flannigan, P.J. Hanson, L.C.In: Restoring the Pacific Northwest, The Art andshaped by fire. At that time fires covering many resource managers should partner with local fireIrland, A.E. Lugo, C.J. Peterson, D. Simberloff,Science of Ecological Restoration in Cascadia.thousands of acres initiated and modified stand districts, federal agencies, and professional fireF.J. Swanson, B.J. Stocks, and M.B. Wotton.Apostol D, & Sinclair M (editors) Island Press.development in both the Coast and Cascade crews to execute safe, effective prescribed fires.BioScience 2001; 51:723-734.2006.ranges and foothills. Vegetation data collected inThe Use of Fire as a Tool for Controlling InvasiveRegional Strategies for Restoring Invaded Prairiesthe 1850s show that 16 percent of the region’s forestshad recently been burned. It is likely however, ation between agencies and the public to developJ. Di Tomaso and D. Johnson. USGS / Cal IPC.n Community wildfire protection plans. Cooper-PlantsA.G. Stanley, T.N. Kaye, and P.W. Dunwiddie.110 and implement plans that address fire from many2006.111

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 6 Important Issues and ConceptsFinal technical report. 1-34. 2010. Corvallis, ORand Seattle, WA, Institute for Applied Ecologyand The Nature Conservancy.“Fire Alters Emergence of Invasive Plant Speciesfrom Soil Surface-deposited Seeds”L.T. Vermeire and M.J. Rinella MJ. Weed Science2009;57:304-310.“Urban Restoration”M.G. Wilson and E. Roth. In: Restoring the PacificNorthwest, The Art and Science of EcologicalRestoration in Cascadia. Apostol D, & Sinclair M(editors) Island Press. 2006.Floodplains and HydrologyLori Hennings, Metro, and Leslie Bach,The Nature ConservancyFloodplains are low-lying lands adjacent tostreams or rivers that become inundated duringperiods of increased streamflow caused byheavy rainfall and rapid snowmelt. Floodplainssometimes extend a significant distance from themain channel to outlying areas along the stream,depending on topography. The degree to whicha given floodplain is active depends on season,climate, precipitation, soil characteristics, andlocal topography. Legally, floodplains are definedby the Federal Emergency Management Agencybased on the expected extent of water in floodthat reaches a particular elevation, typically thatof a 100-year or 500-year flood event.In practical terms, floodplains store floodwater,thus reducing the intensity of floodingdownstream and increasing the quantity of wateravailable late in the season. By passing waterthrough the ground, floodplains contribute towater quality protection and cooling.The hydrologic cycle (or the hydrology ofan area) is synonymous with the water cycleand describes the occurrence, pattern, timing,distribution, movement, and properties of waterand its relationship with the environment. Whenhydrologic patterns are altered, so too are waterbodies and floodplains.In general, small streams high in a watershedlack floodplains and have limited riparian areas.Further downstream, where the topography isgenerally less steep, small floodplains may formand riparian areas widen. Stream channels areformed, sustained, and changed by the interactionof the underlying geology and landform with thewater, sediment, and organic material they carry.During the dry season, water tables near thesurface sustain stream flow. When streams jointo form larger rivers and these rivers reach lowelevations with relatively flat topography, largefloodplains may form that are subject to periodicwater inundation. Annual flooding plays a majorrole in the productivity of and biological interactionsin river-floodplain systems.The diverse plant and animal communitiesthat live in or depend on floodplains are adaptedto and may depend upon unique hydrologicconditions. Floods disturb vegetation, depositsediments, and store surface and groundwater tocreate changing but more or less stable conditions,because the disturbance is regular. Thedynamic equilibrium of floodplain inundationand draining may be disrupted by human activities,causing a loss of important functions.Altered HydrologyUnder pre-settlement conditions, lowlands inthe greater Portland-Vancouver region weresubject to high water and frequent, widespreadflooding in winter and early spring, with flowstapering through fall. Many areas of the regionhad extensive active floodplains, especially thelower elevation portions of the Tualatin, Molalla-Pudding, and lower Columbia rivers, the confluenceof the Columbia and Willamette rivers, andthe mainstem Willamette near the southern edgeof the region.More recently, urbanization, agriculture, andtimber harvest have altered historical floodplainsand stream channel morphology, primarilythrough the loss of vegetation and soil permeabilitybut also because dams, floodwalls, and leveeshave disconnected historical floodplains fromthe river. Dams are designed to store and releasewater in a controlled way, which can result in significantlyaltered flow and temperature patterns,reduced fish survival, and fish passage problems.Perhaps less appreciated are the changes to thelow-water end of the hydrological spectrum.Dams operations can result in higher flows andchanging temperature gradients during the springand summer, which also affect fish behavior andriparian and floodplain vegetation. One consequenceof failing to achieve adequately low flowsis the failure to successfully establish cottonwoodgallery forests.Vegetation in floodplains slows and storesrainwater and upstream runoff, thus reducing thedelivery of water downstream and allowing waterto seep into the soil and recharge groundwater.Significant loss of vegetation loss allows waterto run off quickly, causing erosion that widensand deepens stream channels as they accommodatehigh flows. This effect is exacerbated by thepresence of impervious surfaces such as roads,parking lots, and buildings. The result sometimesis “flashier” streams, in which high water movesthrough the system quickly, causing localizedflooding, while in the dry season the stream haslow flow or dries out completely. The impactsof vegetation loss and impervious surfaces canalter stream structure and composition, increasepollutant loads, simplify habitat, and disrupt theriver’s connection to its floodplains. Such changesare cumulative within watersheds. In fact, studieshave shown that increasing the amount ofimpervious (i.e., hardened) surface in a watershedreduces the number of aquatic macroinvertebratesin stream systems.Ongoing ThreatsAltered hydrology, which can be caused by manmadebarriers and development in floodplainsand elsewhere in the watershed, can render astream incapable of dispersing water, soil, andnutrients to the floodplain. Such changes do morethan reduce the ability of floodplains to providevaluable water quality protection; they also canlead to greater flood damage to property andinfrastructure. Solutions to the problem of alteredhydrology are not easy, particularly in light ofexpected increases in the human population ofthe region. The impacts of altered hydrology arenearly ubiquitous, and most land use changes willnot allow a return to natural hydrologic processesand conditions. This underscores the need toavoid further floodplain development whereverpossible.Strategies to Improve Hydrology andFloodplain Functionn Continue thoughtful land use planning in andnear urban areas. Plan new urban areas to minimizehydrologic alterations. Use zoning, streamcorridor protection, and site design to protectstreams, floodplains, wetlands, and wildlifehabitat.n Plan at watershed scales to protect and restoreecological processes and functions.n Avoid development in floodplains (presentand future). If such development is unavoidable,reduce impacts by limiting development tothe higher elevations of the floodplain, reducingimpervious footprint, and creating onsite stormwaterstorage.112 113

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 6 Important Issues and Conceptsn Prioritize and reconnect isolated habitats byacquiring strategic properties and removingbuildings, impervious surfaces, berms, levees, andfloodwalls.n Retrofit developed areas for stormwater detention;develop and implement strategies to reducethe area of effective impervious surfaces andincrease vegetation cover.n Increase riparian corridors and stream channelcomplexity through plantings, maintenance ofnative vegetation on stream and riverbanks, andthe addition of large woody debris.n Engage in projects that help mimic naturalflow conditions—e.g., “sustainable flow” dammanagement, water conservation, and purchaseof floodplain easements and water rights forinstream use.n In upper and middle watershed areas, useforest practices that leave riparian areas intact,reduce habitat fragmentation, and reduce sedimentand chemical loads.n In mid-elevations, implement strategic land useplanning and work with rural landowners, ranchers,and farmers to implement best managementpractices to increase vegetation and the width ofriparian corridors, and to reduce the effects ofagriculture on streams, rivers, and floodplains.Stream and floodplain restoration can be complicatedin human-influenced landscapes. Takingthese approaches can add up over time to helpstabilize hydrology and improve stream andfloodplain conditions.For More InformationEcological Issues in Floodplains and RiparianCorridorsS.M. Bolton and J. Shellberg. 2001. WA-RD 524.1.Olympia, WA, Research Office, Washington StateDepartment of Transportation.Urban Stream Rehabilitation in thePacific NorthwestD.B. Booth, J.R. Karr, S. Schauman, C.P. Konrad,S.A. Morley, M.G. Larson, P.C. Henshaw, E.J.Nelson, and S.J. Burges. 2001. EPA GrantNumber R82-5284-010. Seattle, WA, Universityof Washington.“An Ecosystem Perspective of Riparian Zones”S.V. Gregory, F.J. Swanson, W.A. McKee, andK.W. Cummins. 1991. BioScience 41:540-551.The Flood Pulse Concept in River-floodplainSystemsW.J. Junk, P.B. Bailey, and R.E. Sparks. 1989.Canadian Special Publications in Fisheries andAquatic Sciences, Paper #106.The Natural Flow RegimeN.L. Poff, J.D. Allan, M.B. Bain, J.R. Karr, K.L.Prestegaard, B.D. Richter, R.E. Sparks, and J.C.Stromberg. 1997. BioScience 47:769-784.Disturbance and Recovery of Large FloodplainRiversR.E. Sparks, P.B. Bayley, S.L. Kohler, and L.L.Osborne. 1990. Environmental Management14:699-709.“Flood Disturbance in a Forested MountainLandscape. Interactions f Land Use and Floods”F.J. Swanson, S.L. Johnson, S.V. Gregory, and S.A.Acker. 1998. BioScience 48:681-689.“Stream Restoration in Urban Catchmentsthrough Redesigning Stormwater Systems:Looking to the Catchment to Save the Stream”C.J. Walsh, T.D. Fletcher, and A.R. Ladson. 2005.Journal of the North American BenthologicalSociety 24:690-705.Pollinators and PollinatorConservationMace Vaughan, Xerces SocietyPollination is the transfer of pollen within orbetween flowers, resulting in the production ofseeds. In most cases pollen transfer is accomplishedeither by the wind or by an animal. Morethan 75 percent of plant species require insectsto successfully move pollen between plants. Thenon-native European honey bee (Apis mellifera)is the most well-known insect pollinator,yet North America is home to more than 4,000species of native bees, along with countless otherpollinators such as butterflies, various beetles,flies, solitary wasps, hummingbirds, and otheranimals. Of these species, bees are consideredamong the most important to temperate NorthAmerican terrestrial ecosystems.Importance of Protecting PollinatorsPollinators are essential to our environment andeconomy. The ecological service that pollinatorsprovide is necessary for the reproduction ofnearly 75 percent of the world’s flowering plants.Fruits and seeds that are derived from insectpollination are a major part of the diet of approximately25 percent of birds and mammals, fromred-backed voles to bears. In addition, insect pollinatorsare direct food for other wildlife species;for example, more than 90 percent of bird speciesrequire insects as a primary food source duringat least one stage of their life. The conservationof biological diversity benefits from a frameworkthat guides conservationists to work at multiplelevels of the food chain. Pollinator conservationprovides such a framework by focusing onthe foundational elements of all terrestrial foodwebs—i.e., native plants and invertebrate communities.Pollinators also play a key role in agriculture,enabling production of more than two-thirds ofthe world’s crop species, whose fruits and seedstogether provide more than 30 percent of ourfoods and beverages. The United States alonegrows more than 100 crops that either require orbenefit from pollinators. The economic value ofinsect-pollinated crops in the United States wasestimated to be $20 billion in 2000. Oregon andWashington are among the world’s largest producersof insect-pollinated crops, such as berries,tree fruit, alfalfa seed, and vegetable seed.In many places, the essential service of pollinationis at risk. Pesticide use and the loss, alteration,and fragmentation of habitat contribute topollinator declines, especially in landscapes withhigh levels of urban or agricultural development.On October 18, 2006, the National Academy ofSciences released the report Status of Pollinatorsin North America, which called attention to thedecline of pollinators and urged nonprofit organizationsto collaborate with land managers topromote and sustain these important species.Native Pollinators in the RegionLocated at the north end of the Willamette Valleyand the south end of Puget Trough, the greaterPortland-Vancouver region is home to at least250 native bee species. Declines of a few of thesespecies are well documented. The western bumblebee (Bombus occidentalis)—formerly one of themost common bumble bee species in Oregon—has declined dramatically in recent years and nowis at immediate risk of extirpation throughout thewestern United States. Although an exotic diseasehas been implicated in the decline of the westernbumble bee, pollinator biologists also recognizeother factors, such as pesticide use and theloss, fragmentation, and degradation of naturalhabitat.Beyond bees, the greater Portland-Vancouverregion is home to other imperiled pollinators,such as the Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioidesfenderi), whose dependence on the threatenedKincaid’s lupine (Lupinus sulphureus subspkincaidii) makes it critically vulnerable to extinction.(The lupine’s range has become restrictedto a handful of locations in western Oregon and114 115

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 6 Important Issues and ConceptsWashington.) In addition,several hummingbirdspecies inthe greater Portland-Vancouver region haveexperienced ongoingdeclines. Studies suggestthat hummingbirdsmay requirecontiguous corridorsfor movement, even ifthe corridor is narrow.The greater Portland-Vancouverregionis home to a wide varietyof pollinators. Beespecies in the regioninclude the mining,long-horned, bumble,sunflower, mason, leafcutter,sweat, carder,carpenter, and cuckoobees. Butterfly speciesin the region includethe swallowtail, painted lady, admiral, skipper,blue, ochre ringlet, duskywing, copper, hairstreak,and fritillary butterflies. Although the region’surban areas do not host the same diversity ofpollinators as rural landscapes do, they are stillplaces where beneficial insects can be abundantand conserved, and urban habitats play a role inpollinator habitat connectivity.Pollinator ConservationPollinator conservation is the protection,enhancement, and creation of high-qualityhabitat that supports important pollinators. Suchhabitat includes (1) diverse and abundant nativeshrubs and wildflowers that provide nectar andpollen for pollinators, (2) nesting habitat, suchas areas of bare or semi-bare ground for groundnestingbees, hollow pithy stems and beetleriddledsnags for tunnel-nesting bees, and snags,brush piles, rock piles, and abandoned rodentnests for bumble bees, and (3) larval host plantsfor butterflies and moths.The time is right for pollinator conservationin the Portland-Vancouver region. Over the past3 years, the widespread declines in honey beecolonies from colony collapse disorder have beencovered extensively in the media. The decline ofboth honey bees and native bee and other insectpollinator species makes it imperative that naturalresource agencies work with diverse public andprivate partners to actively incorporate the needsof wild native pollinators into land managementefforts and goals.It is likely that the region’s open habitats suchas meadows, prairies, oak savanna, and forestunderstories have been proportionately mostaffected by changes since 1850. Both wet and dryprairies have been nearly eliminated from theregion, and the amount of early successional forestdominated by shrubs and flowering plants alsohas been reduced, as a result of changes in forestmanagement and the dominance of invasivespecies in many unmanaged semi-natural areas.This has likely led to a commensurate decline inpollinator species that depend on the diverse floraof these once common habitats.Implementing pollinator conservation measuresmeans creating landscapes that support agreater diversity and abundance of bees, butterflies,hummingbirds, and other pollinators. Arobust system of natural areas in the region canserve as pollinator refuges and source habitats foradjacent landowners, gardeners, and farmers. Theend result should be a landscape with an abundanceof native plants known to provide pollenand nectar for bees; nectar for butterflies, flies,wasps, and hummingbirds; host plants for butterflies;and ultimately, a landscape with greaterbiodiversity.Strategies for Pollinator Conservationn Manage natural areas for the greatest diversityand abundance of pollinator-friendly plants,nest sites, and butterfly larval host plants. Landmanagers need to continue efforts to removeinvasive species that eliminate diverse floweringplant communities. Although some invasivespecies (e.g., Himalayan blackberry) providelimited resources for pollinators, they do so at theexpense of diverse native plant communities thatcan supply nectar and pollen for a greater varietyof animals over a longer period of time.n Develop incentive programs and partnershipsthat help the region’s landowners to createpollinator-friendly, flower-rich habitats in naturaland working landscapes.n Educate urban and rural landowners on how toeliminate, minimize, and/or mitigate the impactsof insecticide use on pollinators.n Emphasize the role of backyard habitat, greenroofs, bioswales and other dispersed vegetation inpollinator connectivity.n Educate urban landowners about the diversityof bees and other pollinators in the region.For More InformationStatus of Pollinators in North AmericaNational Academy of Sciences. 2006. October 18,2006.Attracting Native PollinatorsXerces Society. 2011. Storey Publishing.http://www.xerces.orghttp://www.xerces.org/pollinator-resource-center/http://www.xerces.org/pollinator-seed/ (forpurchase of a Willamette Valley native wildflowerseed mix, available soon)“The Economic Value of Ecological ServicesProvided by Insects”Losey and Vaughan. 2006. Bioscience.56(4):311-323.Attracting Native PollinatorsE. Mader, M. Shepherd, M. Vaughan, S. Black,and G. LeBuhn. 2011. Storey Publishing. NorthAdams, MA. 371 pp.Status of Pollinators in North AmericaNational Research Council. 2007. The NationalAcademies Press. Washington, D.C. 307 pp.Bees of the WorldO’Toole, C., and A. Raw. 1999. Blandford,London, U.K. 192 pp.(A comprehensive introduction to bee biology,behaviors, and lifecycles)Bee Conservation: Evidence for the Effects ofInterventionL. Dicks, D.A. Showler, and W.J. Sutherland. 2010.Pelagic Publishing. Exeter, UK. 139 pp.www.conservationevidence.comThe Natural History of Bumblebees: A Sourcebookfor InvestigationsC. Kearns and J. Thomson. 2001. University Pressof Colorado, Boulder, CO.The Natural History of PollinationM. Procter, P. Yeo, and A. Lack. 1996. TimberPress, Portland, OR. 472 pp.(Probably the best single volume on pollinationand plant/pollinator relationships)How to Reduce Bee Poisoning from PesticidesH. Riedl, E. Johansen, L. Brewer, and J. Barbour.2006. Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR. 25pp.(This publication discusses methods and techniquesto protect bees from hazards associatedwith pesticide application. Tables provide specificinformation regarding toxicity of insecticides,miticides and blossom and fruit thinning agentsto honey bees; to alfalfa leafcutting bees; to alkalibees; and to bumble bees.)The Butterflies of CascadiaR.M. Pyle. 2002. Seattle Audubon Society.Seattle, WA. 420 pp.Patch Size and Anchor HabitatsLori Hennings, MetroHabitat area, or patch size, is one factor thatdetermines the conservation value and wildlifeuse of a given area. Although patch size requirementsvary from one species to the next, there iswide agreement among conservation biologiststhat conserving relatively large areas that meetthe needs of many species is an important partof a successful regional conservation approach.In fact, relatively large patches are sometimesreferred to as “anchor habitats” because they not116 117

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 6 Important Issues and Conceptsonly sustain populations of many species overlong time periods, but, if connected to smallerareas, can help repopulate areas where specieshave become locally depleted.Large habitat patches tend to have fewer edgeeffects 1 , support more wildlife species per unit ofarea, and can accommodate area-sensitive speciesthat require relatively large home ranges. Whatconstitutes a “large” habitat patch depends on factorssuch as the species in question, habitat type,setting (e.g., urban, agriculture, or rural), andgeographic region.The value of a habitat patch to a given speciesdepends not just on size, but also on its shapeand relationship to surrounding habitats. Forexample, the streaked horned lark—a grasslandspecies that has declined precipitously in theregion—uses a relatively small breeding territory,but it selects territories within much larger areasthat lack tall structures such as trees or buildings.Some area-sensitive species may be able to usehabitat patches that are individually too small bycomposing a home range made up of multiplehabitat fragments. Pileated woodpeckers, particularlyin the non-breeding season, may be onespecies in the region that does this.The typical patch size of every natural habitattype in the region has, on average, been reducedcompared to historical conditions. Vegetationmaps generated from data collected during landsurvey work done by the General Land Officebetween 1851 and 1895 show large blocks of forest,wetland, prairie, and riparian areas. Forestedhabitats have lost extensive acreage, but wetlands,oak woodlands, and prairies have proportionatelylost much more (see “Habitat Change in theRegion, 1850-2010” in Chapter 2). The result hasbeen widespread fragmentation of habitat andsmaller, more isolated habitat areas.Research suggests that the size of habitatpatches may even influence human health. APortland, Oregon, study found that Hantavirus,which is spread by rodents and can be deadlyto humans, was less prevalent in habitat patcheswith higher small mammal diversity, and thatlarger patches had higher diversity. A study ofLyme disease in the eastern United States showedsimilar results.According to local field research conductedby Portland State University and Metro, in thisregion 30 acres (12 hectares) seems to be the minimumsize at which habitat patches provide someof the wildlife species typically associated with“large” patches. In general, patches of this sizeare where area-sensitive small mammal and birdspecies and improved habitat conditions begin toappear. Studies elsewhere suggest a lower, 25-to30-acre threshold for some species; this is the casein studies of birds in eastern England, understoryinsectivorous birds in the Amazon, birds acrossmultiple seasons in Georgia, and headwater-associatedamphibians in northwestern California.Some species require much larger habitat patches,and anchor habitats that benefit a wide range ofnative species typically are much larger than 30acres. For example, true interior old-growth foresthabitat begins only at the center of a 100-acrecircle.Studies suggest that the following species inthe region may be sensitive to habitat patch sizeduring the breeding season:n Forested habitats: Black-capped chickadee,black-headed grosbeak, brown creeper, Cassin’svireo, downy woodpecker, golden-crowned kinglet,hairy woodpecker, Swainson’s thrush, hermitthrush, varied thrush, Pacific-slope flycatcher,pileated woodpecker, red-breasted nuthatch,red-eyed vireo, ruby-crowned kinglet, Steller’s jay,Pacific wren, yellow-breasted chat, and severalsmall mammal species, including the short-tailweasel, Oregon vole, northern flying squirrel,shrew-mole, white-footed mouse, Trowbridge’sshrew, vagrant shrew, Douglas squirrel, westerngray squirrel, and Townsend chipmunk.n Grassland/ savanna/oak habitats: Northernharrier, short-eared owl, western meadowlark,streaked horned lark, and white-breastednuthatch (also need large oaks).Large or anchor habitat patches benefit many ofthe region’s most sensitive species and are vitallyimportant to retaining the region’s biologicaldiversity. They are also likely than smaller habitatsto be more resilient to the negative impacts of climatechange. However, the value of even relativelylarge patches is enhanced by increasing overalllandscape permeability: the more vegetation inurban areas, the more permeable the landscape.Anchor habitats in a more vegetated setting arelikely to hold more species and more animalsthan large patches embedded within an entirelyurban matrix. Smaller habitat patches, backyardtrees and shrubs, street trees, rights-of-way, andgreen roofs all can provide valuable opportunitiesto increase landscape permeability, thus enhancingthe value of anchor habitats.Strategies for Maximizing the Effectivenessof Large or Scarce Habitatsn Protect or expand existing patches.n Limit the area of edge habitat through strategicrestoration (e.g., strive for more round or rectangularshapes).n Connect habitat patches with well designedand strategically located corridors.n Enhance areas surrounding habitat patches byadding vegetation, especially shrubs and trees.For More Information“Invasion of Matrix Species in Small HabitatPatches”S. Ås. 1999. Conservation Ecology 3(1):Article 1.Available at www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol3/iss1/art1/inline.html“How Area Sensitivity in Birds Is Studied”T.S. Bayard and C.S. Elphick. 2010. ConservationBiology 24(4):938-947.“Habitat Loss and Population Decline:A Meta-analysis of the Patch Size Effect”D.J. Bender, T.A. Contreras, and L. Fahrig. 1998.Ecology 79(2):517-533.“Habitat Patch Size and Nesting Success ofYellow-breasted Chats”D.E. Burhans and F.R. Thompson III. 1999.Wilson Bulletin 111(2):210-215.“Matrix Matters: Effects of Surrounding LandUses on Forest Birds near Ottawa, Canada”W. Dunford and K.E. Freemark. 2005. LandscapeEcology 20(5):497-511.“Effects of Edge Type and Patch Shape on AvianCommunities in a Mixed Conifer-hardwoodForest”R.Y. Hawrot and G.J. Niemi. 1996. The Auk113(3):586-598.Wildlife Corridors and Permeability:A Literature ReviewL.A. Hennings and J. Soll. 2010. Metro RegionalGovernment, Portland, OR.“Demographic Processes: Population Dynamicson Heterogeneous Landscapes”H.R. Pulliam and J.B. Dunning. 1994. Pages 179-205 in Principles of Conservation Biology. SinauerAssociates, Inc., Sunderland, MA.1 Edge effects also depend on shape; see Chapter 7, “Biodiversity Corridors,” in the Regional Conservation Strategy for a morethorough discussion.118 119

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 6 Important Issues and ConceptsBiodiversity Corridors andConnectivity 1Nathan Poage, Clackamas Stewardship Council;Shannah Anderson, City of Portland; and LoriHennings, MetroBiodiversity corridors are key landscape elementsthat provide and increase connectivity betweenhabitat patches, thus allowing species to dispersefrom natal areas, escape predation, locate betterhabitat, find a mate, or access habitat they needat various times. Biodiversity corridors are notnecessarily continuous and are best defined byfunctionality. Corridors often follow streams butmay also consist of greenways, hedgerows, orother features that add more natural characterto developed or agricultural landscapes.Over time, the loss of habitat, forest structuraldiversity, and downed wood reduces connectivity,thus altering wildlife populations and contributingto local species extirpations. These lossesare common in urban areas. Longer isolationmeans fewer species. Corridors help maintaingenetic diversity, allow locally extirpated speciesto recolonize, and increase the likelihood of speciespersistence. Without explicit yet broad-scaleplanning, connectivity tends to be haphazard,accidental or absent.Characteristics of Effective CorridorsCorridor function is affected by length relativeto target species movement abilities, the numberof gaps or barriers and habitat quality, includingcorridor width. Surrounding matrix features (e.g.,urban or rural) also influence corridor value.Several corridors are more effective than asingle option.Wide corridors can increase animals’ movementrates between patches and accommodatelarger animals and more species. The key is toprovide connectivity between populations andprevent reproductive isolation. Selecting focalspecies for each habitat area and planning for thespecies with the most rigorous corridor requirementscan accommodate the needs of a variety ofspecies. More specific corridor needs for differentclasses of animals are described below.Corridor Needs of FishThe greater Portland-Vancouver area provideshabitat for dozens species of native fish, includingat least seven anadromous salmonid species.Salmonids depend on stream corridors with coolwater, dissolved oxygen, invertebrate prey, andinstream features such as pools, riffles, gravelbeds, and off-channel habitat. Large wood is animportant aspect of habitat; its documented lossin urban streams degrades fish habitat quality.It is important to provide cold-water refugiafor fish in the region’s major rivers, which boththe Oregon Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) and Washington Department of Ecologyhave identified as having water temperatureproblems. (In 2006, DEQ issued a total maximumdaily load [TDML] for temperature, mercury, andfecal bacteria for the Willamette River). Remediesinclude creating off-channel cold water fishhabitat, planting vegetation, reducing pollutants,improving fish passage, and reducing erosion andsediment inputs to streams. Fish passage projectsoffer excellent and sometimes inexpensive waysto improve wildlife connectivity. For example,a shelf or boulders in a culvert can allow smallanimals to pass during high water.Corridor Needs of Terrestrial Wildlife SpeciesConnectivity research varies widely by geographicarea and species, but it is clear that narrowcorridors, hedgerows, field margins, fencerows,and street trees can improve connectivity forsome animals, such as songbirds, pollinatinginsects, and small mammals. However, it is likelythat many of the region’s species require widermovement corridors. In general, birds are mostmobile and can travel along many types of corridors,mammals have a diverse range of corridorneeds, and reptiles and amphibians have the mostdifficulty finding connectivity between habitats.For many species, corridors link differenthabitat types (such as aquatic and terrestrial) thatare important to the species’ life history requirements.For species that are highly susceptible tohuman disturbance, corridors should be wider,limit or exclude trails, and be placed away frombusy roadways. Some species such as butterfliesand bluebirds depend on open habitat and maybe best accommodated by early successional corridorsembedded within a forested matrix.Research suggests that large habitat patches,connectivity, native shrub cover, and downedwood significantly improve habitat conditionsfor many wildlife species. Mobile species withlarge home ranges may not use available habitat ifthey are behaviorally sensitive to human activityor built features. For homeowners, leaving theproperty somewhat “messy,” with leaves, woodydebris, and snags, can improve onsite wildlifehabitat. Within identified corridors or whereroad kill is a known issue, removing barriers andinstalling appropriate wildlife crossings can helpmaintain wildlife diversity in the region.AmphibiansOf all the classes of animals, amphibians maybe the most vulnerable to extinction because ofhabitat isolation and climate change. Amphibianshave small home ranges and cannot travel asfreely as other animals. Corridor habitat qualityis particularly important for this group. Mostamphibians require aquatic habitat, terrestrialhabitat near water, and ample woody debris. Itmay be difficult or impossible for these speciesto navigate an urban matrix without functionalcorridors. Stormwater detention facilities areemerging as a key factor in wetland connectivityand provide regular feeding and breedinghabitat for a variety of native amphibians. Passagebetween habitats can be enhanced with appropriatewildlife under-crossings and by augmentingcover. However, it will be necessary to continueto assess the quality and value of these facilities asamphibian habitats.ReptilesReptiles are a diverse group that may requireupland habitat, riparian habitat, or both, dependingon species. Woody debris and rocks provideimportant habitat and connectivity for manyspecies. Western pond turtles and painted turtlesare susceptible to isolation because of their lowreproductive rates and their need for both slowmovingwater and uplands. Because femalestravel upland for nesting and move slowly, roadspresent a major barrier and mortality issue.Conserving, restoring, and creating wetlandsand important nearby upland habitat will benefitturtles and many other species. Careful placementof woody debris, rocky substrate, and nativeplants can significantly enhance connectivity forreptile species.BirdsBirds travel extensively along riparian corridorsbut can also use stepping stones such asbackyards, hedgerows, field margins, and streettrees. Species that prefer large areas sometimesrequire wider movement corridors, while habitatspecialists sometimes require specific vegetationstructure or composition to move well between1120 This discussion is excerpted from a more in-depth piece written for the Regional Conservation Strategy (Chapter 5).121

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 1 Current Conditionspatches. Some birds seem reluctant to crossvegetation gaps wider than 50 meters. Increasingthe amount of habitat distributed throughoutthe landscape and strategically addressing gapswithin corridors and the matrix can help thesespecies’ movement.MammalsMany mammal species require complex habitatstructure, good connectivity, access to water,and—particularly for small mammals—woodydebris and a duff layer. Larger species tend tohave larger home ranges and require wide corridors.Bats need snags and crevices and tendto move and forage along riparian corridors,including intermittent streams; they often roost inartificial structures. Bat-friendly habitats can beprovided in new and existing bridges and otherstructures at little or no extra cost.Threats and ChallengesSound planning that includes consideration formaintaining habitat connectivity is a criticalchallenge for protecting regional biodiversity,especially in the face of looming climate change.Corridor efficacy is reduced by trails, roadsand bridges, and invasive vegetation. Trails oftenrun along the same narrow riparian areas asbiodiversity corridors, roads and bridges canincrease mortality and prevent wildlife passage,and invasive vegetation reduces habitat qualityand requires expensive intervention and management.Narrow corridors may present issues suchas predation, poor habitat conditions, invasivespecies, competition with generalist species, andhuman disturbance. However, research suggeststhat in many instances, a narrow corridor may bebetter than none. Many potential disadvantagesof corridors can be avoided or mitigated throughthe use of wider corridors.Strategies for Improving ConnectivityTools to improve connectivity include conservation/protection,restoration, and invasive speciescontrol. These are described in more detail inChapter 7 (“Major Categories of Strategies”) ofthis Biodiversity Guide and in Chapter 7, “BiodiversityCorridors,” of the Regional ConservationStrategy for the Greater Portland-VancouverRegion. Other strategies to improve connectivityinclude the following:n Protect large habitat areas and connectionsbetween them.n Create wide rather than narrow biodiversitycorridors.n Identify and remove barriers to the movementof fish and wildlife.n Increase the natural component of urban andother developed landscapes through native landscaping,green streets and other approaches.n Combine biodiversity corridor protection orcreation with other, non-ecological objectives(i.e., remove or avoid creating barriers to wildlifemovement during road construction).For More InformationThe following two citations both havecomprehensive bibliographies.Wildlife Corridors and Permeability:A Literature ReviewL.A. Hennings and J. Soll. 2010.Metro Sustainability Center, Portland, OR.Wildlife Crossings: Providing Safe Passage forUrban WildlifeMetro Regional Government. 2009. Portland, OR.Additional resources can be found through theWashington Wildlife Habitat ConnectivityWorking Group: http://waconnected.org/122

Chapter 7 Threats and ChallengesThreats and ChallengesChapter7Currently in the greater Portland-Vancouverregion we face the challenge of providing forgrowing human populations and needs whilesimultaneously addressing the needs of nativefish, wildlife, and plants and protecting importantecosystem services such as water quality andplant pollination. Unfortunately, maintainingthe status quo is not good enough. Many nativespecies already are at risk, from habitat loss anddegradation, the presence of contaminants fromurban and agricultural sources, diseases bothfamiliar and new, and hazards associated withhuman activity. If the predicted influx of peopleto the region becomes a reality, many more nativespecies are likely to decline across the regionunless we become better at conserving andenhancing their habitat.The information in this Biodiversity Guide andthe Regional Conservation Strategy can help usconsider the needs of native species as we identifyhow our activities can be modified to improvefish and wildlife habitats. For each threat there arestrategies we can choose to implement to reduceboth current and future impacts to native species.The chapter describes each threat, its impact,and provides possible strategies for conservingthe region’s biodiversity. This chapter does notprioritize among the threats. Instead, the descriptionsof threats and challenges are meant toprovide a reasonably comprehensive frameworkto guide individuals and organizations in makingsound decisions about how they invest their timeand resources, given their unique priorities andinterests.Habitat LossHabitat can be defined as an area that providesthe food, cover, water, and space that living thingsneed to survive and reproduce. Species diversityand population numbers can be attributed to thequality, extent, distribution, and size of particulartypes of habitat. When a watershed or individualnatural area is changed by human activities—suchas agriculture, commercial or residential development,logging, road construction, or water diversion—thearea may no longer be able to providethe necessary food, water, cover, and space toenable adult survival and successful reproduction.Obviously people need places to live and work,yet our patterns of settlement typically reduce theavailability, quality, and function of habitat for123

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 7 Threats and Challengesnative fish and wildlife. What is the scale of suchhabitat loss? Worldwide, approximately half theEarth’s land area already has been transformedfor human use: 11 percent each for farming andforestry, 26 percent for livestock pasture, and 2to 3 percent for development (housing, industry,infrastructure, services, and transportation).In the greater Portland-Vancouver region, 22percent of the land is identified as agriculture, 13percent as developed, and an unknown but largenumber of acres is managed for forestry(see Table 1-1). Loss and degradation of habitathas resulted in the regional decline and extirpationof many plant, fish, and wildlife species,including the spotted frog, Lewis’ woodpecker,western rattlesnake, black bear, and many plantsand Neotropical migratory birds The most commontypes of habitat loss are habitat conversion,habitat fragmentation, and habitat degradation:as removing standing dead trees), and disruptionof ecosystem processes such as natural hydrologicalfluctuations and fire are some of the ways thathabitats can become so degraded they no longersupport native wildlife.Of all land uses, development is considered themost lasting form of habitat loss, because thepresence of pavement and buildings practicallyprecludes a return to natural conditions.Not all human modifications of the landscapeare harmful to fish and wildlife. In some cases,human manipulation of land can improve habitatquality for some species. For example, agriculturalareas and flooded fields have created habitatfor some bird species, and structures such as tallbuildings, cell phone towers, power line supports,and bridges have proven valuable for nestingraptors. Warm water created by dams and otherimpoundments are excellent habitat for warmwaterfish such as perch and bass (although mostwarm-water species are non-native ).ecological connectivity is a fundamental aspectof maintaining or restoring regional biodiversity.Thus, identifying and removing barriers thatreduce ecological connectivity must be a highconservation priority. In some cases, federaltransportation funding sources will increaseproject dollars for projects that retain or improvewildlife connectivity.find refuge in neighboring habitat patches whenthe one they are occupying becomes unsuitablebecause of reductions in food and nutrientresources, shelter, breeding conditions, or otherfactors. Isolation also reduces breeding interactionamong subpopulations, thus fosteringinbreeding, which over time reduces the geneticdiversity, vigor, and adaptability of the regionalmetapopulation.Natural Versus Artificial BarriersAnything that prevents or reduces the free Types and Impacts of Artificial Barriersmovement of native organisms among appropriateUrbanization and land use changes in the greaterhabitat patches is a barrier. Barriers reduce Portland-Vancouver region have created a highlylandscape permeability, which refers to ecological fragmented landscape with many human-madeconnectivity and an organism’s ability to move barriers and declining ecological permeability.freely within the landscape to meet its basic life The two most common types of human-madeneeds.barriers stem from structural development, suchNatural barriers, such as mountain ranges, as housing, and transportation infrastructure,large bodies of water, and areas of unsuitable habitatsuch as roadways, railroads, and trails. Otherbetween suitable habitat patches, are a normal types of artificial barriers that effectively discon-n Habitat conversion. Habitat conversion refersaspect of landscape-level biology and contribute nect habitat patches include large agriculturalto the outright loss of habitat and includes constructionto the evolution of species and the creation of a fields without brushy margins and hedgerows.of roadways, conversion to farms, andindustrial, commercial, and residential development.The activities typically involve filling in Landscape PermeabilityBarriers and Decliningdiversity of habitats. Natural barriers generally For species that depend on old growth, largeexist at the landscape scale and can take hundreds blocks of commercial forest can act as barriers toor even hundreds of thousands of years to divide movement because they represent large areas ofwetlands, dredging rivers, mowing fields, and Curt Zonick, Metroa large population into two smaller but still quite unsuitable habitat.cutting down trees.Most biological communities remain stable onlylarge subpopulations. In contrast, human-maden Habitat fragmentation. Habitat fragmentation when they exist as a network of many smaller,barriers such as roads, subdivisions, cities, andrefers to conversion that results in larger, connectedfunctionally connected subpopulations. Together,farms can carve a population into hundreds ofhabitat patches being split into smaller, the linked subpopulations form a regional meta-very small subpopulations in just a few years ormore isolated ones. Development and roadways—especiallypopulation that is able to withstand occasionaldecades.those without adequate wildlife local extirpations by reoccupying empty habitatThe isolation of small, remnant subpopulapopulationcrossings—have been the major cause of habitat patches that have remained in spite of the extirpations.tions can reduce the landscape’s ability to supportfragmentation in the greater Portland-VancouverIn addition, a biological community gener-native fish and wildlife as much as habitat lossregion. For aquatic species, habitat also has been ally is healthier if it has abundant suitable habitatfrom development can. However, if habitat fragmentsremain functionally connected, nativefragmented by dams, improper culverts, andin large patches. As habitat patches becomewater diversions. The loss and fragmentation ofsmaller in size and the number of suitable patchesplant and animal species that might otherwise behabitat make it difficult for migratory species todeclines, chances increase that the subpopulationsoccupying those patches will disappear. Thising, despite declines that result from habitat lossextirpated will instead have a chance of persist-find places to rest and feed along their migrationroutes and reduces the viability of local residentpopulations.is basic island biogeography theory. However, justand associated factors, such as edge effects.as important as the number or size of patches isConnectivity creates options, while barriersn Habitat degradation. Habitat degradation how well they are connected. A patch of suitableremove them. When organisms are able to moverefers to actions that, although they do not eliminatehabitat isolated from other patches may notfreely among remaining fragments, they have ahabitat, reduce the value of a given habitat serve a true functional role for native species orgreater chance of responding to stress and locallypatch for supporting biodiversity. Pollution, regional biodiversity.harsh conditions. Restricting or eliminatinginvasive species, structural simplification (such Given the dynamics of metapopulationsmovement among habitat patches reduces the124and habitat patches, preserving and improvingability of subpopulations of plants and animals to125

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 7 Threats and ChallengesThe effects of development are relativelyobvious. A row of houses or commercial buildingsreplaces habitat with a mosaic of pavement,structures, and fencing that, collectively, can forman impassible barrier for most native terrestriallife forms.Roads may seem more innocuous (especiallysmaller ones), but they can create barriers that areimpermeable to some wildlife species. Wildlifeimpacts associated with road barriers includedirect mortality from vehicular impacts, habitatloss and fragmentation, noise, light, and reducedair and water quality in adjacent habitats. Manywildlife species avoid roads altogether; thisbehavior protects them from vehicular impactsbut also fragments their populations. Railroadsand even poorly planned pedestrian trails canhave many of the same barrier effects.Incidental features associated with humanmadebarriers, such as artificial noise and light,can greatly amplify their harmful effects. Excessivenoise can disrupt the normal habitat use andactivity patterns of many wildlife species, increasingstress, drowning out breeding calls and otherforms of communication, increasing predationrisk, and reducing reproductive success. Artificiallight can serve as a barrier by repelling ordisorienting some species. Many bird and insectficial lighting. Human disturbance also can serveas a virtual barrier for some species. For example,foot or bicycle traffic along trails can repel somebirds or other animals or cause them to flush orabandon nests.A significant effect of most human-madefeatures is an increase in harmful, non-native speciesthat tolerate people and developed habitatsand even exploit the nooks, crannies, crusts, andcrumbs of human infrastructure. Norway rats,skunks, raccoons, crows, starlings, and othergeneralist species can have devastating influenceson native populations and form a sort of bioticbarrier to native populations that are unable tocompete with these opportunistic species forfood, shelter, and breeding niches.Roads and trails function most effectively forhumans when they are connected to other roadsand trails, and residential developments functionbetter when they are located near commercialdevelopment and schools. In this way, regionalplanning that drives human transportation anddevelopment toward efficiency and higher humanconnectivity may drive native species towarda system of disconnected habitat fragments,reduced landscape permeability, and low biodiversity.Effects of Barriers on Different Types of BiotaAs described under “Biodiversity Corridors andConnectivity” in Chapter 6, a feature’s influenceon different guilds of plants and animals variesdepending on the organism’s size and its modeof travel or dispersal. A small road or swath ofEnglish ivy may be merely a nuisance to a deeror coyote but an insurmountable barrier to anamphibian. Flying animals can overcome barriersthat block dispersal of some terrestrial animals.Culverts may allow adequate dispersal of fish,amphibians, and even some small mammals,provided that the culverts are partially or periodicallydry; however, some terrestrial animals avoidsmall culverts, instead either crossing the road orturning back, thus aborting dispersal. Increasingthe size of the culvert in a road often can promotepassage by more species, but many animals thatnot to do so because of factors discussed above,such as light (often too little, but excessive artificiallight can also be a barrier), artificial noise,moisture, or vegetation characteristics (too muchor too little).Additionally, indirect effects associated withculverts, such as their influence on water velocitywhen used to convey a stream beneath a road, canact as a functional barrier to fish and other guildsof wildlife that otherwise would be expected topass through the barrier.Plants that disperse by wind generally are ableto traverse barriers better than those with heavyseed or that require animal vectors. Similarly,plants that require animal pollinators are moreeasily isolated than species that do not.How New Barriers Are AssessedThe ecological impacts of artificial barriers oftenare assessed solely by their direct impacts. Forexample, the acreage of habitat directly lost whena building or a road is built often defines theamount of habitat restoration required (if any) tomitigate environmental damage from the project.This strategy is grossly insufficient, especiallywhen the artificial barrier has a protracted lineardimension; examples include roads, canals, ortrails. In fact, the impact of direct habitat lossresulting from a poorly designed road or trailproject often is dwarfed by the damage done tolocal wildlife by separating previously connectedhabitat areas and wildlife populations. Althoughroads are carefully designed to allow water to passbeneath them (to preserve the integrity of theroad), roads usually have only the most cursorywildlife crossing features, if they have any at all.Because of the Endangered Species Act, manyroad projects in the greater Portland-Vancouverregion incorporate features designed to allowsalmonids and other native fish to pass beneaththem but they ignore the needs of terrestrialwildlife.are to be protected and restored. It certainly ispossible to build roads and human developmentsthat pass through habitats without isolating thewildlife on either side. The solution requires thatroad projects be designed and budgeted to incorporatewildlife crossing features—and that suchfeatures be considered just as essential as waterpassage features or features to prevent subsidencewhen the project inevitably threatens toexceed the planned budget. Housing developerscan set aside greenbelts that are sufficiently wideand thoughtfully designed to be not just tokenfeatures, but functional corridors that preservetrue landscape permeability and connect wildlifepopulations and their habitat patches.Improving regional connectivity can probablybest be accomplished through implementation ofthe following strategies:n Work creatively, collaboratively, and proactivelyto design new road and development projectsto ensure that they are truly ecologically permeable.n Assess current roads and other transportationsystems to identify, characterize, and prioritizebarriers that can be modified to increase functionalpermeability.n Use resources such as Metro’s Green Trailsand Wildlife Crossings guidebooks to reduce theimpacts of barriers and human disturbance.n Identify and prioritize the region’s potentialcorridors and barriers within them.n Conserve and restore key parcels in prioritycorridors through acquisition or incentive programsin partnership with private landowners.For More Information“How Do Highways Influence Snake Movement?Behavioral Responses to Roads and Vehicles”K.M. Andrews, J.W. Gibbons, and T.W. Reeder.Copeia 2009;2005:772-782.“Mitigation Measures to Reduce Highway Mortalityof Turtles and Other Herpetofauna at a NorthFlorida Lake”M.J. Aresco. Journal of Wildlife Management2005;69:549-560.Strategies to Improve Regional ConnectivityProtecting and improving regional landscape permeabilityfor native biota must be a high priority126species have shown aberrant behavior near arti- have the capability to cross a barrier still chooseif the region’s biodiversity and ecosystem services127

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 7 Threats and ChallengesUse and Effectiveness of Wildlife Crossings:National Wildlife Crossing Decision Guide ProtocolJ.A. Bisonnette and P. Cramer. NCHRP 25-27.2007. National Academy of Sciences and Engineering,Transportation Research Board, NationalCooperative Highway Research Program.“Quantifying the Road-effect Zone: ThresholdEffects of a Motorway on Anuran Populations inOntario, Canada”F. Eigenbrod, S.J. Hecnar, and L. Fahrig. Ecologyand Society [online] 2009;14:Article 24.“Estimate of the Area Affected Ecologically by theRoad System in the United States”R.T.T. Forman. Conservation Biology 2000;14:31-35.“Behavioral Barriers to Non-migratory Movementof Birds”R. Harris and M.J. Reed. Ann Zool Fennici2002;39:275-290.Final Report on Oregon Wildlife LinkageWorkshops Hosted by ODFW in 2007A. Hatch, S. Wray, S.L. Jacobson, M. Trask, andK. Roberts. 1-23. 2007. Salem, Oregon, OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife.Wildlife Crossings: Development and Field Test ofMethods for Assessing Corridor Permeability in thePortland Metropolitan RegionK. Keller. Thesis dissertation, 2009. Portland, OR,Portland State University.Highway Median Impacts on Wildlife Movementand MortalityA.P. Klevinger and A.V. Kociolek F/CA/MI-2006/09, 1-128. 2006. Sacramento, CA, Stateof California Department of Transportation.Green Trails: Guidelines for EnvironmentallyFriendly TrailsMetro Regional Government. 2004. Portland, OR.Wildlife Crossings: Providing Safe Passage forUrban WildlifeMetro Regional Government. 2009. Portland, OR.“A Southern California Freeway Is a Physical andSocial Barrier to Gene Flow in Carnivores”S. Riley, J.P. Pollinger, R.M. Sauvajot, E.C. York, C.Bromley, T.K. Fuller, and R.K. Wayne. MolecularEcology 2006;15:1733-1741.“Limitations to Wildlife Habitat Connectivity inUrban Areas”M. Trask. In C.L. Irwin, D. Nelson, and K.P.McDermott, International Conference on Ecologyand Transportation. Proceedings of the 2007International Conference on Ecology and Transportation.2007. Raleigh, NC, Center for Transportationand the Environment, North CarolinaState University.“Assessing Functional Landscape Connectivity forSongbirds in an Urban Environment”M. Tremblay. In C.L. Irwin, P. Garrett, and K.P.McDermott. Proceedings of the 2005 InternationalConference on Ecology and Transportation.2005. Pp. 561-564. Raleigh, NC, Centerfor Transportation and the Environment, NorthCarolina State University.“Road Crossing Structures for Amphibians andReptiles: Informing Design through BehavioralAnalysis”H. Wolz and Gibbs. In C.L. Irwin, P. Garrett, andK.P. McDermott. Proceedings of the 2007 InternationalConference on Ecology and Transportation.2007. Raleigh, NC, Center for Transportationand the Environment, North Carolina StateUniversity.Water QualityLori Hennings, MetroHistorically, forest was the predominant landcover in the greater Portland-Vancouver region.Clearing for agriculture, followed by increasingurbanization and rural residential development,has markedly influenced overall water quality.Scientific research shows that water qualityresponds predictably to changes in land cover,typically declining as tree cover is removed andthe amount of hard surfaces increases. Comparisonsof land cover to overall stream healthsuggest that streams in the region have followedthis general pattern.Clark County – Clark County DES PerspectiveThe 2010 Clark County Stream Health Report(Clark County Department of EnvironmentalServices, 2010) indicates that many Clark Countystreams are moderately to severely degraded.The report analyzes aquatic health in 10 countydefinedwatershed areas using water quality, biological,and stream flow indicators. The analysisis based on a significant amount of data collectedsince 2004, including nearly 900 water qualitysamples, 125 samples of aquatic invertebrates, and19 continuous stream flow gages.Forest cover and riparian vegetation conditionstrongly influence stream health issues inClark County. Stream temperature issues areubiquitous and typically stem from lack of shadeand low summer stream flows. Channel erosionand habitat loss caused by altered stream hydrologyis compounded by insufficient streamsidevegetation and loss of instream woody debris.Inadequate riparian areas contribute to increasedturbidity and fecal coliform bacteria pollution.The report recommends protection and rehabilitationof forest and riparian zones as criticalcomponents in improving stream health.Overall stream health at the county watershedscale is summarized in Table 7-1. For detailedresults at a scale covering 78 county subwatersheds,the complete 2010 Clark County StreamHealth Report is available at http://www.clark.wa.gov/water-resources/watersheds.html.Condition of Individual Watersheds inClark CountyA summary of conditions and conservation issuesin each watershed in the RCS area is provided inAppendix I.West Slope WatershedSubwatersheds in the West Slope range from 18to 38 percent forest and 11 to 25 percent hardsurface. Significant additional urbanization isexpected in the future. Water quality, biologicalhealth, and flow all are rated as poor. Water qualitystudies indicate widespread issues, includingfecal coliform bacteria and elevated turbidity.Salmon Creek WatershedSubwatersheds in Salmon Creek range from 7to 68 percent forest and 10 to 51 percent hardsurface. This watershed contains some of themost urbanized and least urbanized areas in thecounty, with significant additional urbanizationexpected. Salmon Creek also contains some ofthe least healthy and most healthy subwatershedscountywide. Water quality and flow are ratedas fair, with biological health rated as poor. Thewatershed has temperature, fecal coliform, andturbidity issues.East Fork Lewis River WatershedSubwatersheds in the East Fork Lewis Riverrange from 20 to 90 percent forest and 4 to 20percent hard surface. The upper watershed isprimarily forested, while the middle and lowerwatershed has mostly been cleared for agricultureand development. Water quality and biologicalhealth are rated as fair, and stream flow is rated asgood. Water quality studies indicate issues withfecal coliform bacteria, particularly in the lowerwatershed.North Fork Lewis River WatershedSubwatersheds in the North Fork Lewis Riverrange from 39 to 75 percent forest and 3 to 14percent hard surface. Timber management continuesto be the primary land use, and very littlefuture urbanization is expected. Water qualityis rated as good and biological health as fair. Nostream flow data are available. Cedar Creek hasstream temperature issues.128 129

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 7 Threats and ChallengesLacamas Creek WatershedSubwatersheds in Lacamas Creek range from12 to 83 percent forest and 6 to 40 percent hardsurface. Significant continued urbanization isexpected in the already cleared areas in the westernand southern watershed. The heavily forestedupper watershed is protected within the CampBonneville military reservation. Water qualityand biological health are rated as fair, and streamflow is rated as good. Lacamas Lake is a regionalresource in this watershed; studies indicate thatthe lake is eutrophic and significantly alteredfrom its natural historical condition. General lakehealth is fair.Washougal River WatershedSubwatersheds in the Washougal River rangefrom 18 to 91 percent forest and 5 to 28 percenthard surface. Urbanization is concentrated in thelower watershed, with limited additional growthexpected. Water quality and stream flow are ratedas good, and biological health is fair. The watershedhas the highest overall health rating in thecounty, but stream temperatures are an issue.Gibbons Creek WatershedSubwatersheds in Gibbons Creek range from13 to 54 percent forest and 8 to 15 percent hardsurface. Urbanization is confined to the CampenCreek area in the western watershed. Limitedfuture development is expected; much of thewatershed is protected as part of the ColumbiaRiver Gorge Scenic Area. Biological health israted as fair; data on water quality or stream floware insufficient to determine a rating. Studiesindicate issues with fecal coliform and, to a lesserdegree, turbidity.Vancouver Lake/Lake River WatershedMuch of this watershed is within the historicalColumbia River floodplain, so forest cover in thearea is naturally limited. Urbanization is concentratedin the eastern and southern portions of thewatershed, within the city of Vancouver. Limitedadditional urbanization is expected, except forexpansion at the Port of Vancouver. Data areavailable only for the heavily urbanized Lakeshorearea, where water quality and biological healthare rated as poor; stream flow data are unavailable.Vancouver Lake is a significant regionalresource in this watershed but is in poor health.Studies indicate that the lake is hypereutrophicand significantly altered from its natural historicalcondition.Burnt Bridge Creek WatershedSubwatersheds in Burnt Bridge Creek rangefrom 4 to 10 percent forest and 50 to 58 percenthard surface. This is the most heavily urbanizedwatershed in Clark County. A limited dataset wasanalyzed for the report, which rated water qualityas poor. Studies indicate widespread issues withfecal coliform bacteria and stream temperature.Historical datasets suggest that Burnt BridgeCreek is the least healthy stream in Clark County.Columbia Slope WatershedSubwatersheds in the Columbia Slope rangefrom 5 to 15 percent forest and 28 to 54 percenthard surface. This area is heavily urbanized, andsurface water consists primarily of hillslope seepsthat drain to the Columbia River. No water quality,biological, or stream flow data are available.Trends in Stream Health for Clark CountyWatershedsTrend information is somewhat limited for ClarkCounty streams. Samples collected at 15 locationsindicate that water quality is improving at fourlocations, degrading at five, stable at four, andvariable at two. Overall, improving trends are inareas with poor current water quality that havelong been degraded; declining and mixed trendsare in areas with increased urbanization and ruralresidential development.Data sets of aquatic invertebrates in ClarkCounty are insufficient for statistical trend calculations.General patterns based on samples from10 locations suggest that locations with decliningbiological health or consistently low scores arein heavily developed or rapidly urbanizing areas.Improving or consistently high scores are in relativelyundeveloped areas with higher amounts ofintact forest. Figure 7-1 shows the general healthof Clark County watersheds.Strategies for Clark County WatershedsThe report suggests that protection and rehabilitationof forest and riparian zones are criticalcomponents in improving stream health in manyClark County watersheds, along with effectivestormwater management, appropriate developmentregulations, and wetland enhancement.The following strategies are recommended forforest and riparian zones in many Clark Countywatersheds:n Control invasive species.n Reforest previously cleared forest lands.n Restore streambanks, floodplains, and riparianvegetation.n Support healthy riparian managementpractices in residential areas.n Conserve intact forested areas.Oregon Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) PerspectiveA 2009 study by the Oregon Department of EnvironmentalQuality (DEQ) used aquatic chemical,habitat, and biological indicators to measurethe health of the 12 subbasins in the WillametteBasin. Land use and land cover were the criticalfactors associated with aquatic and streamsideconditions. Substantial data demonstrated thatfish, amphibians, aquatic insects, and waterquality strongly depend on the trees, shrubs, andfigure 7-1Clark County Stream Health by WatershedStream Healthpoor healthfair healthgood healthVancouver LakeLake RiverWest SlopeBurnt Bridge CreekEast Fork Lewis RiverSalmon CreekColumbia Slopegroundcover along streams. Agriculture, urbanization,and forest practices throughout the basindiminish the health of the Willamette Basin’srivers and streams by causing habitat loss andaltering hydrology.The most significant problem is stream temperaturesthat are too warm for salmon and otheraquatic species, in part because of loss of streamsidevegetation. The report finds that restoringand maintaining native streamside vegetationmay be the best and most practical solution toseveral problems.Specific water quality issues in the Clackamas,Lower Willamette, Molalla-Pudding, Tualatin,and Yamhill subbasins that make up much of thegreater Portland-Vancouver region are summarizedbelow, with a focus on the ecologicallyimportant indicators of macroinvertebrates,vertebrates, fine sediment, riparian vegetation,stream temperature, and total nitrogen (Table7-2). The complete report is available online atwww.deq.state.or.us/lab/wqm/docs/Willamette-BasinAssessment2009.pdf.North Fork Lewis RiverLacamas CreekWashougal RiverGibbons CreekStream HealthPoorFairGood130 131

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 7 Threats and ChallengesCondition of Individual Subbasins in OregonClackamas SubbasinThe Clackamas subbasin is 89 percent forested,with the remaining 11 percent being a combinationof urban and agriculture land uses. Of thefive Oregon subbasins in the greater Portland-Vancouver region, the Clackamas has the fewestimpaired stream miles: 15 percent of the streammiles are in poor condition for macroinvertebratesand 26 percent are in poor condition forfish and amphibians.The extent of poor habitat structure conditionsis fairly low for the stressors that were evaluated.Riparian vegetation and fine sediment are extensivestressors in the Clackamas subbasin. Theoverall chemical water quality is generally good.The extent of streams with excessive nitrogen isamong the lowest of the five Oregon subbasinsin the greater Portland-Vancouver region, butelevated water temperatures are fairly extensive(i.e., 50 percent of the stream length).and is the basin’s most extensively urbanizedsubbasin. A total of 51 percent of the Lower Willamettesubbasin is in urban land use, 21 percentis agricultural, and 28 percent is forested. Of thefive Oregon subbasins in the greater Portland-Vancouver region, the Lower Willamette has thehighest proportion of stream miles that are inpoor condition for aquatic macroinvertebratesand aquatic vertebrates (77 percent and 41 percentof stream miles, respectively).High fine sediment loads and poor riparianvegetation are key habitat impairments, andwater quality is the lowest among all subbasinswithin the Willamette Basin. Temperature is thekey water quality impairment, with 82 percent ofstream miles exceeding the temperature standard.Excess nitrogen is a major stressor.Molalla-Pudding SubbasinLand uses in the Molalla-Pudding subbasin areprimarily forestry and agriculture (49 percent and45 percent of the subbasin, respectively). Of thefive Oregon subbasins in the greater Portland-Vancouver region, only the Yamhill has a higherpercentage of agricultural land use. The Molalla-Pudding subbasin ranks second lowest in thepercentage of stream miles in poor condition foraquatic vertebrates and aquatic macroinvertebrates(30 percent and 38 percent, respectively).The most extensive water quality stressors inthe Molalla-Pudding subbasin are high watertemperature (87 percent of stream miles rated aspoor) and excess nitrogen (71 percent of streammiles rated as poor). The extent of poor riparianhabitat conditions is fairly high (i.e., 45 percent ofstream extent). Approximately 30 percent of thestreams had high levels of fine sediment. Manyimpaired stream sites are in the agriculturallydominated Pudding River subbasin.table 7-1Land Use and Water Quality, Biological, and Stream Flow Indicators in Clark County, Washingtonsubbasins in the greater Portland-Vancouverregion, the Tualatin has the second highestnumber of stream miles in disturbed biologicalcondition for both aquatic vertebrates and aquaticmacroinvertebrates (37 percent and 71 percent,respectively).Many of the streams in the Tualatin subbasinare in an undesirable condition to support aquaticlife, with high levels of excess fine sediment (81percent of stream miles) and poor riparian vegetation(50 percent of stream miles). The Tualatinsubbasin has more stream miles disturbed byexcess fine sediment than any of the five Oregonsubbasins in the greater Portland-Vancouverregion and ranks second in terms of the extentof poor riparian vegetation. It is estimated that100 percent of streams in the Tualatin subbasinviolate the temperature standard and 35 percentof them are in poor condition for nitrogen.Land Use (range of % Water Quality Biological Stream Flowin subwatersheds Indicator Indicator IndicatorForest Hard surface Oregon Water Benthic Index of TQmeanQuality Index Biological IntegrityWest Slope 18-38 11-25 Poor Poor PoorSalmon Creek 7-68 10-51 Fair Poor FairEast Fork Lewis R 20-90 4-20 Fair Fair GoodNorth Fork Lewis R 39-75 3-14 Good Fair NALacamas Creek 12-83 6-40 Fair Fair GoodWashougal River 18-91 5-28 Good Fair GoodGibbons Creek 13-54 8-15 NA Fair NAVancouver Lake/Lake River 8 17-47 Poor Poor NABurnt Bridge Creek 4-10 50-58 Poor NA NAColumbia Slope 5-15 28-54 NA NA NAYamhill subbasin has a moderate (and variable)level of impaired biological condition for aquaticvertebrates (17 percent of stream miles are ratedas poor) and aquatic macroinvertebrates (63percent of stream miles are in the most disturbedcondition).DEQ’s survey indicated a moderately highlevel of habitat impairment. Of the five Oregonsubbasins in the greater Portland-Vancouverregion, the Yamhill subbasin ranked highest inthe number of stream miles impaired by sparseriparian vegetation (53 percent) and third in thenumber that are impaired by excess fine sediment(43 percent). High water temperature is the leadingstressor, impairing 37 percent of the streammiles in the subbasin, but the basin is second best(after the Clackamas) for total nitrogen impairment(only 6 percent of stream miles).Conclusions Regarding Oregon SubbasinsTualatin SubbasinYamhill SubbasinWarm water is the single most extensive impairmentin subbasins in the Oregon portion of theLower Willamette SubbasinThe Tualatin subbasin is the second most urbanizedsubbasin in the Willamette Basin, withland use (48 percent) of the five Oregon sub-greater Portland-Vancouver region. The propor-The Yamhill subbasin has the most agricultureMost of the Portland metropolitan area is withinthe Lower Willamette subbasin, which is located nearly 27 percent of the subbasin in urban landbasins in the greater Portland-Vancouver region tion of stream miles (by subbasin) that violate theat the downstream end of the Willamette Basin use. The watershed includes all or part of the citiesof Beaverton, Hillsboro, Forest Grove, Tigard,in terms of the amount of urban and forested percent. Protection for sensitive cold-water fishand is similar to the Molalla-Pudding subbasin temperature criteria range from 37 percent to 100Tualatin, and Lake Oswego. Of the five Oregonarea (8 percent and 44 percent, respectively. The such as salmon and trout is lacking. Dependingon subbasin, between 11 percent and 53 percent132 133Watershed

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 7 Threats and Challengestable 7-2Land Use and Biological, Habitat, and Water Quality Indicators in Selected Willamette Basin SubbasinsSubbasinLand Use Biological Indicators Habitat Indicators Water Quality Indicators(% of watershed) % of stream miles % of stream miles % of stream milesin poor condition in poor condition in poor conditionurban Ag Forest Macros Fish & Riparian Fine Temp. TotalAmphibians Vegetation Sediment NitrogenClackamas 7 5 89 15 26 11 20 50 0Lower Willamette 51 21 28 77 41 27 51 82 22Molalla-Pudding 6 45 49 38 30 45 32 87 71Tualatin 27 35 38 71 37 50 81 100 35Yamhill 8 48 44 64 17 53 43 37 6Invasive Species150 years has resulted in a landscape that bearsscant resemblance to its pre-developed state, withaltered habitats for native plants and wildlife.This remaining, fragmented habitat is degradedby invasive species that already have becomeestablished and is under threat from new invadersthat are continually and increasingly being introduced.The influx of invasive species is particularlypronounced in the greater Portland-Vancouverregion, which not only supports two major ports,but also has interstate highways, powerline andgasline corridors, and commercial and recreationalshipping/boating that serve as pathwaysfor new introductions of invasive species.Although invasive species initially increasediversity by adding new species to an area, thetemporary increase in the total number of speciesin a community is followed by an eventualdecrease in regional-scale diversity as the region’s(and world’s) biota is homogenized toward fewer,dominant invasive species.Invasive species can pose threats to both nativespecies and human well-being. Invasive speciesaffect watershed health by increasing erosionrates and sedimentation levels of waterways, andby eventually reducing canopy cover, which canincrease water temperature. The dense growthof English and Irish ivies and old man’s beardweighs down trees, increases fuel loads, and altersfire dynamics, resulting in increased fire severityand risk. Invasive plants alter and homogenizevegetation cover types; this can result in dramaticallyreduced stormwater interception ashabitats are converted to an invasive monoculture.Aquatic animal invasives such as the NewZealand mudsnail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum)and quagga mussel (Dreissena bugensis), bothof which have become established east of thegreater Portland-Vancouver region, impose largeand sometimes restrictive maintenance costs onfish hatcheries and hydroelectric power plants.Finally, invasive animals such as nutria (Myocastorcoypus) and non-native mosquitoes can carrydiseases such as Salmonella spp. and West Nilevirus to which humans are susceptible.of stream miles lack riparian vegetation to providecanopy cover. Elevated fine sediment is alsoImportanceDominic Maze, City of Portland; Tania Siemens,an important stressor in these subbasins, impairingfrom between 20 percent and 81 percent ofWhen invasive species become dominant or evenOregon State University Extension Service; andmerely common, populations of native speciesMary Logalbo, West Multnomah Soil and Waterstream miles (with the amount varying by subbasin).The Clackamas subbasin is not impairedtypically decline as a result of outright competitionor secondary effects, such as changesConservation Districtby total nitrogen, but in other subbasins, the proportionof stream miles that are nutrient impaired invasive species. Perhaps the most robust andintensity of fire. New invaders often out-competeThere are several commonly used definitions ofin stream bank stability or the frequency andranges from 6 to 70 percent.succinct defines invasive species as “non-nativenative species for food, light, and space. Examplesto the ecosystem under consideration and whoseinclude the English and Irish ivies (Hedera helixStrategies for Oregon Subbasinsintroduction causes or is likely to cause economicor environmental harm or harm to humanconifer, riparian and floodplain forests, or Englishand H. hibernica) that dominate many mixedThe single most important strategy that shouldbe adopted for Oregon subbasins within thehealth.” A key element to all definitions is thatstarlings that compete with western bluebirdsgreater Portland-Vancouver region is riparianinvasive species can actively displace other (i.e.,and birds in narrow riparian corridors for nestprotection and restoration measures. Improvingnative) species and have long-lasting or evencavities. Competition may be direct, as in the caseriparian conditions will reduce stream temperatures,sediment, and pollutant inputs and increasepermanent detrimental effects on various habitatsof bullfrogs that actively prey on native amphibians,but less direct effects also are important. Forand the organisms that depend on them.large wood delivery and overall fish and wildlifeNext to outright conversion of land, invasiveexample, the grey garden slug (Deroceras reticulatum)prefers to eat native, annual forb seedlings,habitat.species and climate change are generally consideredthe most important threats to biodiversity.thus creating opportunities for non-native plantsFor More InformationInvasive species play a significant role in alteringthe landscape and fundamental ecosystemslender false brome (Brachypodium sylvaticum),to flourish. When non-native grasses, such asClark County Stream Health Report (2010)http://www.clark.wa.gov/water-resources/watersheds.htmlprocesses, decreasing biodiversity, and damagingdominate the forest understory, it provides coverinfrastructure. In an urbanized and fragmentedfrom predators, allowing rodents to eat nativeWillamette Basin Rivers and Streams Assessment area, invasive species pose a particularly acuteseedlings. Invasive garlic mustard can grow inOregon Department of Environmental Quality. threat to remaining habitats.interior forests, where its fungicidal properties2009. http://www.deq.state.or.us/lab/wqm/docs/ Invasive species such as non-native rats, insectmay impair native plant establishment and health.WillametteBasinAssessment2009.pdfpests, human and animal diseases, and manyFinally, the loss of one native species may resultplants that now are considered weeds were firstin the loss of other native species that rely on theintroduced to the greater Portland-Vancouverfirst for essential resources, as in the dependenceregion by European trappers, explorers, and earlyof Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi)settlers. The subsequent agricultural developmenton Kincaid’s lupine (Lupinus sulphureus var.134 and urbanization of the region over the lastkincaidii).135

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 7 Threats and Challengestable 7-3Typical Invasive Species by Major Habitat TypeHabitat Type examples of Invasive Species effectsUpland Conifer andMixed ConiferBroadleaf ForestRiparian ForestFloodplain ForestWet and Upland PrairieOak Woodlandand SavannaWetlandsFreshwater andUpper EstuarineEnglish and Irish ivy (Hedera helix andH. hibernica)Garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata)English holly (Ilex aquifolium)Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus orRubus discolor)Scots’ broom (Cytisus scoparius)Old man’s beard (traveler’s joy, Clematis vitalba)Spurge laurel (Daphne laureola)Gypsy moths (Lymantria dispar)Knotweeds (Polygonum spp.)Himalayan blackberryGreen alder sawfly (Monsoma pulveratum)Old man’s beardBlack stem borer (Xylosandrus germanus)Non-native grasses, thistles, blackberry, ScotsbroomNon-native slugs (Arion ater complex, Derocerasreticulatum)One-seed hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna)Scot’s broomHimalayan blackberryPasture grassesEastern gray squirrelReed canarygrassCommon reed (Phragmites australis ssp.australis)NutriaBrazilian elodea (Egeria densa)Water primrose (Ludwigia spp.)New Zealand mudsnail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum)Siberian prawn (Exopalaemon modestus)Vines climb and topple trees.Brooms prevent reestablishment of trees following harvestor blow-down.All species can dominate understory.Some species poisonous to animals and can causedermatitis in humans.Insects can cause severe defoliation of hardwoodsand conifers.Alterations in streambank erosion dynamics and the largewood cycle; decreased structure variability.The sawfly defoliates and weakens alders (Alnus spp.)Increases in fire severity and return intervalShading of understoryPlants attack numerous tree species, spreading symbioticfungal disease (Fusarium sp.)Possible extirpation of Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia)populationsGrasses form dense, rhizomatous (root) mats that preventgrowth of natives and decrease habitat for ground-nestingbirds.Slugs preferentially consume native annual forbs.Displacement of native forbs/grassesRestricted Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana) recruitmentEastern gray squirrel out-competes western gray squirrel forresourcesDisplacement of native vegetation and avian nesting habitatErosionNutria out-competes native muskrat.Dense monocultures that increase sedimentation andreduce water quality, navigational ability and recreationalopportunitiesDramatic alterations in trophic interactions and nutrientcycling, resulting in decreased growth rates for nativeanimal speciesHabitats AffectedThe greater Portland-Vancouver region supportsmany habitat types, including pure andmixed coniferous forest, floodplain forest, wetand upland prairie, oak savanna and woodland,wetlands, and riparian and open-water ecosystems.(See Chapter 3 for descriptions of these andother habitat types.) These habitats all supportdiverse and unique assemblages of native species.Although invasive species have heavily affectedmany of these habitats (see Table 7-3), the extentof the effect differs. There is evidence that prairies,oak savanna, and wetlands have been themost altered by invasive species. This alteration ofthe vegetation leaves little habitat or resources formany at-risk species (see Chapter 3 for details).Aquarium turtles that have been released tothe wild, such as red-eared sliders, out-competenative turtle species in wetlands and can spreaddisease to native animals. The spread of exoticgrass species, such as reed canarygrass (Phalarisarundinacea), in wet and seasonally wet habitatsresults in dense monocultures that can create anecological desert where virtually all the biomassof the habitat is one species and is of little use tomost native wildlife species.Economic ImpactInvasive species result in lost resource potentialand are being managed at the regional, state, andfederal level. By the end of the 1990s, invasiveplants alone cost the U.S. economy $13 billiondollars annually. These costs are primarily due tolosses in crop and livestock production, controlefforts, damage to property values, and reducedexport potential and are being passed on to consumersthrough higher costs in the agriculturalproducts consumers buy in the marketplace. TheOregon Department of Agriculture estimates that21 invasive plant species in Oregon have reducedpersonal income in the state by $83 million peryear.In a study of 12 different invasive species,the median cost of early detection, control, anderadication was $1 dollar for every $17 dollars offuture potential damagethat would have beencaused by that species.In 2008, Oregonspent an estimated $26million on invasivespecies-related activities.This figure doesnot include resourcesexpended by privateentities such as homeownersand timbercompanies.Estimates of theeconomic impact ofinvasive species donot account for futureimpacts such as the collapseof native pollinatorservices or the introduction of diseases thataffect humans and domestic animals. Less tangibleimpacts include the loss of native bird andamphibian species that are essential componentsof a healthy ecosystem and that, for many people,increase the aesthetic value of the landscape.Himalayan blackberry eradication has takenon new importance with the introduction of thespotted wing drosophila (Drosophila suzukii).This new pest of berry and tree fruit uses theinvasive blackberry as a host and can build uphuge populations to infest nearby crop land.Strategies to Combat Invasive SpeciesStrategies to combat invasive species includeprevention, early detection and rapid responsecontrol programs, research, monitoring, implementationof best management practices, effectivepolicy, and education. Coordination at the appropriategeographic level is essential to successfulinvasive species management because invasivespecies can travel quickly over the landscapeacross multiple land ownerships and jurisdictions.Example of species that require nationalcoordination include zebra and quagga musselsand the Emerald ash borer. To achieve success inthe implementation of these strategies, additional136 137

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 7 Threats and Challengesnew locales. Perhaps the greatest future threatwith regard to invasive species is apathy: as thepublic becomes more aware of the risks, costs,and damage inflicted by these species, a sense offutility may emerge. However, it is essential to theintegrity of the region’s ecology and inhabitantsthat these efforts continue.For More InformationOnline ResourcesFour County Cooperative Weed ManagementAreahttp://www.4countycwma.orgWeed Watchers EDRR (Early Detection and RapidResponse) ID Guide for Multnomah County &Sandy River Basinhttp://www.wmswcd.org/public/file/EDRR%20Booklet/book_intro%20proof.pdfOregon Invasives Hotlinehttp://oregoninvasiveshotline.org/Oregon Invasive Species Councilhttp://www.oregon.gov/OISChttp://www.oregon.gov/ODA/PLANT/index.shtmlCity of Portland, Invasive Plant Managementhttp://www.portlandonline.com/bes/index.cfm?c=45696iMapInvasiveshttp://www.imapinvasives.org/Northwest Weed Management Partnershiphttp://www.westerninvasivesnetwork.org/index.phpSpecies Identification GuidesUrbanizing Flora of Portland, Oregon 1806-2008John A Christy, Angela Kimpo, Vernon Marttala,Philip Gaddis, Nancy L Christy. 2009.Weeds of the WestWestern U.S. Cooperative Extension ServicesTom Whitson, Editor. 2001.Northwest WeedsRonald J. Taylor. 2003.Field Guide to Weeds of the Willamette ValleyInstitute for Applied Ecology. 2008.Human ActivityBruce Barbarasch, Tualatin Hills Parks andRecreation Districtpredation. Migrating birds are known to be confusedby tall buildings lit up at night, sometimesstriking a building and falling to their deaths.Lights can also form barriers to large predatorswho avoid well-lit areas. In some cases, artificiallighting causes birds or frogs to sing at night orearlier in the morning than they naturally would,and waste valuable energy.Although trails allow people access to natureand give them a sense of connection, trails alsohave a subtle but direct impact on wildlife. Physically,trails create edge habitat, cause soil compactionand erosion, serve as corridors for invasiveplant species, and fragment habitat at a smallscale. Trails can attract nest predators such ascrows and jays. In addition, human use of trails innatural areas alters wildlife behavior; for example,nearly all birds will flee if approached too closely,although larger species and those that nest closeto the ground may more tolerant of disturbances.Some wildlife appear to acclimate to humanactivities, while others become less abundant inareas with trails. Wildlife seem to be less affectedby slower moving walkers than by joggers orbicyclists and are the least affected by people inslow-moving or stopped vehicles.Dogs on or near trails have negative impactsbeyond those of people alone. In one study, deerand small mammals stayed twice as far awayfrom trails with dog activity than they did fromtrails with human use only; another researcherobserved a 35 percent reductions of birds andsmall mammals near trails used by dogs comparedto trails used just by people. Domestic catsmay be abundant in urban natural areas and areprolific hunters who kill birds, snakes, lizards,and small mammals.Strategies for Reducing the Impact ofHuman ActivityAlthough human activity can significantly alterwildlife habitat and behavior, there are manyopportunities to foster nature in the city throughthe use of best management practices andbehavior changes:n Draw on the increasing body of knowledgeabout wildlife’s response to roads—includingmanuals on wildlife crossings—to help providefor wildlife movement in new projects or toimprove movement when retrofitting existingroads.n Lessen unnecessary artificial lights throughlocal building codes and other measures. Groupssuch as the International Dark-Sky Associationalready are working on this issue.n Design and redesign trails to both provideaccess to nature and allow wildlife to pursue theirnormal activities.n Engage in public education, create and enforceappropriate park rules, and actively manage sitesto reduce the numbers of domestic animals inwildlife areas.For More InformationLights Out PortlandAudubon Society of Portland. Online informationabout bird kill studies and efforts to reduce lightpollution. www.audubonportland.org/issues/metro/bsafe/loFor as long as humans have lived in the PacificNorthwest they have modified the environmentto suit their needs. As post-1850 settlement progressed,roads, homes, businesses, and industrialareas were built across the region. These changesdirectly affected habitat and indirectly affected thebehavior of wildlife in transition or edge areas.Although some wildlife benefit from humanchanges to the environment, most are negativelyaffected. For example, roads create edges betweendeveloped and natural areas or fragment naturalareas. There are nearly 4 million miles of roadsin the United States. Urban areas with high roaddensities can be deterrents, permanent barriers,or sources of mortality for wildlife when theyattempt to cross these roads. Although somespecies of plants and animals thrive in edgeenvironments created by roads, many others findroads problematic. In addition, roadways can becorridors for invasive and non-native weeds Areview of wildlife studies found that the negativeeffects of roads on wildlife outnumbered positiveeffects by a factor of five.Noise from roads primarily affects wildlifenegatively, although in a few circumstances certainspecies may benefit. Road noise and relatedtraffic can cause flight behavior in large mammals,increase stress response, and disrupt reproduction.Many native bird species—particularlyneotropical migrants—are less attracted to areaswith busy or many roads or avoid them altogether.A number of studies show that birds and frogsalter the pitch of their songs in the presence ofroad noise, possibly to be heard over the noise inorder to attract mates or defend territories.Artificial light from streetlamps, homes, andbusinesses often finds its way into natural areas.Lights allow for extended foraging time forcertain reptile and bird species and enhanced foragingfor bats that follow insects attracted by thelights. Some nocturnal animals are disoriented bylight or experience navigation issues or temporaryblinding, which can lead to an increase in140 141

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 7 Threats and Challenges“Effects of Artificial Night Lighting on TerrestrialMammals”P. Beier. 2006. P. 19-42 in C. Rich, and T. Longcore[eds.], Ecological Consequences of ArtificialNight Lighting. Island Press, District of Columbia,U.S.“Quantifying the Road-effect Zone: ThresholdEffects of a Motorway on Anuran Populations inOntario, Canada”Eigenbrod, F., S. J. Hecnar, and L. Fahrig. 2009.Ecology and Society [online] 4:Article 24.“Human-caused Disturbance Stimuli as a Formof Predation Risk”A. Frid and L. Dill. 2002. Conservation Ecology[online] 6:Article 11.International Dark Sky Association. Internationalnonprofit. Online resource available at http://www.darksky.org/.Ecological Impacts of Recreational Use of Trails:A Literature ReviewM. Jordan. 2000. The Nature Conservancy, ColdSpring Harbor, NY. Available online at www.parks.ca.gov/pages/1324/files/ecological%20impacts%20of%20recreational%20users.pdf“Ecological Light Pollution”T. Longcore and C. Rich. 2004. Frontiers inEcology 2:191-198.“Wildlife Responses to Pedestrians and Dogs”S.G. Miller, R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 2001.Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:124-132.Noise Pollution Clearinghouse. Nationalnonprofit. Online resource available athttp://www.nonoise.org/index.htm.“Disturbance by Traffic of Breeding Birds: Evaluationof the Effect and Considerations in Planningand Managing Road Corridor”R. Reijnen, R.R. Foppen, and G. Veenbaas. Biodiversityand Conservation 6(4), 567-581. 1997.Green Trails: Guidelines for EnvironmentallyFriendly TrailsMetro Regional Government. 2004. Portland, OR.Wildlife Crossings: Providing Safe Passage forUrban WildlifeMetro Regional Government. 2009. Portland, OR.Chemical PollutantsLori Hennings, MetroChemical pollutants affect water quality, fish andwildlife, and potentially human health. Sources ofchemical pollutants include households, industry,agriculture, soil erosion, roads, and wastewaterdischarge; in the case of air pollution, sources canbe local or global. Persistent pollutants are toxicsthat persist in the environment or bioaccumulatein the tissues of humans, fish, wildlife, or plants.Some persistent pollutants are known carcinogens,disrupt endocrine (i.e., hormone) functions,or are harmful via other mechanisms. Legacypersistent pollutants are those that have beenbanned or restricted for several years but remaindetectable in sediment and tissue samples; thebreakdown products of DDT are one example.Table 7-4 lists some of the persistent pollutantsfound in the greater Portland-Vancouver region.Local, state, and federal concern over persistentpollutants has grown in recent years becausescientists are more aware of harmful effects, morepollutants are being manufactured and used,and detection methods have improved. Recentstudies in Oregon and Washington attest to theseconcerns. U.S. Geological Service studies in theWillamette Basin and U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency studies of the Columbia River haveshown significant levels of pesticides and othertoxic pollutants, such as polychlorinated biphenyls(PCBs) and mercury, in water and somespecies of fish. These findings resulted in fishconsumption advisories and restrictions in someareas.StrategiesBoth Oregon and Washington have statewideplans in place to reduce persistent chemicalpollutants. The plans generally focus on preventionstrategies, but some sites are being cleanedup under federal Superfund designations (seesidebar). The Washington Department of Ecologytable 7-4Selected Persistent Pollutants in the Greater Portland-Vancouver RegionPolycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)Halogenated/Polybrominated Flame RetardantsPesticides and HerbicidesPharmaceuticals and PersonalCare Product IngredientsPerfluorinated SurfactantsMetalsPollutantStabilizers for Polymersand PlasticizersPolychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)Polychlorinated Naphthalenes (PCNs)Dioxins and FuransCombustion byproducts. Many of these have been identified as carcinogenic.Flame retardants such as PBDEs or PBEs (polybrominated diphenyl ethers); are usedubiquitously. Many have been banned in Europe since 2003. Some are regularlyfound in breast milk or throughout the body. Long-term effects on humans caninclude liver damage, reproductive problems, severe skin irritation, and damageto the nervous system.Used for agricultural, groundskeeping, and urban pest and weed control. Legacypesticides often enter streams through eroded soils. Includes chlordane, DDT,dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, and mirex. Some are carcinogenic, bioaccumulative, orendocrine disrupters. The breakdown products of DDT were responsible for severalbirds being listed under the Endangered Species Act listings because eggshellthinning caused reproductive failure.Includes synthetic hormones, antipsychotics, antidepressants, sedatives, caffeine,food additives, and disinfectants. Some of these are suspected of disrupting endocrinefunctions. Increasingly are found at low but detectable levels in local rivers.Anti-stain coatings.Uses/Examples/Potential EffectsArsenic, tributyltin, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, selenium. Some of these havebeen identified as carcinogenic. Mercury, copper, and lead at some locations in thegreater Portland-Vancouver region were found at levels of concern for fish and/orhuman health. Mercury and lead are especially hazardous to children.Includes bisphenol A (BPA), which is used to make polycarbonate plastic and epoxyresins. Polycarbonate plastic is used to make products such as compact disks,eyeglass lenses, water bottles, and baby bottles. Many food and drink cans are linedwith epoxy resins that contain BPA. Possible endocrine disrupter.Used for cooling and insulating fluid in closed electrical systems (e.g., transformers).Frequently carcinogenic, tend to bioaccumulate, and may have endocrine orneurologic effects.Used in insulating coatings for electrical wires, in wood preservatives, and as rubberand plastic additives. In very limited production since 1976.Dioxins are petroleum-derived and used to bleach paper and manufacture certainpesticides; furans are a byproduct of chemical manufacturing and metal refining.Likely carcinogens that tend to bioaccumulate. High levels found locally near industrialsites.142 143

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 7 Threats and ChallengesPortland Harbor Superfund Site CleanupPortland Harbor is a heavily industrialized stretch of the Willamette River northof downtown Portland that was designated as a Superfund site in 2000. Riversediments are contaminated with various toxics, including metals, PAHs, PCBs,chlorinated pesticides, and dioxin. River pollutant levels are highest near contaminatedsites that sit adjacent to the river on the shore. The U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency and Oregon DEQ, along with many other agencies, tribalgovernments, community groups, and companies, are working to investigateand clean up contamination in Portland Harbor. The EPA is the lead agencyresponsible for investigating and cleaning up contaminated sediments in theriver itself, and the DEQ is the lead agency for investigating and cleaning upcontamination on upland sites, working with individual property owners.Alcoa Superfund Site CleanupThe Alcoa aluminum smelter site is located 3 miles northwest of Vancouver, onthe north bank of the Columbia River. The smelter was closed in 2007, whencleanup began. Industrial and solid wastes from construction and operationof the smelter were stored in waste piles and consolidated in onsite landfills.Hazardous contaminants include hydrocarbons, PCBs, cyanide, fluoride, trichloroethylene(TCE), low-level organic chemicals, and metals. In December 2008,Alcoa and the Washington Department of Ecology agreed on a Cleanup ActionPlan and Consent Decree for the upland cleanup and remediation of PCB-contaminatedsediments in the Columbia River; groundwater cleanup beneath thelandfill was not included in the decree. Alcoa finished dredging PCB-contaminatedsediments from the Columbia River in early 2009. Smelter demolitionand final removal of contaminated soils from the site were completed in March2010. The Port of Vancouver purchased the site from Evergreen Aluminum andAlcoa, Inc., in 2009 and is redeveloping the area into a bulk storage andtransport terminal.recommends the following prevention strategies(www.ecy.wa.gov/toxics/):n Prevent toxic chemicals from being used in thefirst place. Averting toxic exposures and avoidingfuture costs is the smartest, cheapest, and healthiestapproach.n Assist business in reducing or managing theamount of toxic chemicals that enter the environment.n Clean up after toxics have polluted the air,land, or water. Cleanups are necessary but costlysolutions to avoidable contamination.Both Oregon and Washington toxics websitesoffer detailed information about toxics andwhat citizens can do to keep toxics out of theland, water, and air, as well as homes and food.DEQ and Metro offer support for recycling anddisposing of hazardous household waste. DEQ’stoxics website links to resources for electronicsrecycling, lawn, garden and household toxicsalternatives and disposal venues, and other toxicsadvice: www.deq.state.or.us/wq/SB737/#work.For More InformationReducing Persistent Pollutants in Oregon’s Waters:SB 737 Legislative ReportOregon Department of Environmental Quality.2010. Portland, OR. http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/SB737/USGS Toxic Substances Hydrology Program, 2010H.T. Buxton. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet2010-3011.http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2010/3011.Columbia River Basin Toxics Reduction PlanU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region10, and the Columbia River Toxics ReductionWorking Group. 2010.http://www.epa.gov/region10/pdf/columbia/toxics-action-plan_sept2010.pdf.144 145DiseaseSusan Barnes, Julia Burro and Colin Gillin,Oregon Department of Fish and WildlifeLike people, fish and wildlife and their habitatscan get sick. Diseases caused by viruses, bacteria,fungi, and protozoans are a natural part of theweb of life, but they can cause illness or death.Some diseases affect individual animals, someaffect large numbers of animals, and some affectlocal or regional populations. Disease spreadsmore quickly when wildlife are concentrated.People can do their part to prevent diseaseoutbreaks by not feeding wildlife, by vaccinatingpets, and by managing habitat for wildlife.Many diseases that affect the region’s fish andwildlife are endemic (i.e., they are naturallyoccurring in the region). Examples include adenoviralhemorrhagic disease of deer and caninedistemper in mammals, low pathogenic avianinfluenza in birds, and infectious hematopoieticnecrosis virus and viral hemorrhagic septicemiavirus in fish, plus many bacterial pathogens andparasites like trichinosis and a variety roundwormsand tapeworms. However, some of thegreatest disease concerns center on non-nativepathogens that are introduced by non-native floraand fauna. Non-native diseases can have devastatingeffects on native organisms, human health,recreational opportunities, and local economies.The following are some introduced diseases thatcould affect biodiversity:n Chronic wasting disease—affects deer and elk.Is endemic to the United States but not Oregon.n Highly pathogenic avian influenza strains.Could be introduced or endemic.n Whirling disease—affects juvenile fish, includingsalmonids.n White-nosed syndrome—affects bats. Couldbe introduced (from Europe) or endemic.n Sudden oak death.Some of these diseases have not yet been detectedin the greater Portland-Vancouver region.Infectious diseases in wildlife (particularlyintroduced species) areemerging at unusuallyhigh rates aroundthe world. There issignificant concernthat disease may posea substantial threat tobiodiversity. Infectiousdiseases havethe potential to playa significant role inregulating the composition,diversity, andrichness of speciesfound within communities,adding tonatural mortality. Thismay occur because diseases can facilitate declinesin local populations, cause contraction in thegeographic ranges of populations, and evolve toinfect numerous hosts. At the global scale, infectiousdisease has not been considered as significanta driver of species extinction as forces suchas habitat loss and overexploitation, but the roleof disease in global biodiversity loss may changewith accelerated changes in global climaticconditions.Although disease is well recognized as a threatto biodiversity, there is new evidence that the lossof biodiversity results in increased emergence,transmission, and spread of infectious disease.The connection between two developing crises—emergingnovel diseases and unprecedenteddeclines in biodiversity—has long been suspected,is difficult to quantify, and is not completelyunderstood. Recent scientific analyses indicatethat biodiversity seems to protect organisms,including humans, from transmission of infectiousdiseases. For example, research indicatesthat high microbial diversity on the skin of frogscan prevent infection with a lethal fungus that isdevastating many amphibian populations aroundthe world. In addition, there is a strong correlationbetween low bird diversity and increasedrisk of disease transmission (West Nile virus) tohumans in the United States. In addition, a local

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 7 Threats and Challengesstudy has shown thatincreased diversity ofsmall mammals is tiedto decreases in occurrenceof hanta virus.Finally, communitieswith low avian diversitytend to be dominatedby species thatamplify the virus—thus increasing theprevalence of infectionin mosquitoes andpeople—while communitieswith highavian diversity havemany species that areless competent hosts.On the other hand, fornovel diseases, greater diversity may provide alarger potential pool of hosts. Hotspots for noveldisease emergence sometimes occur in areaswhere growing human populations come in contactwith many wild animal species. Theoretically,the more host species present, the more pathogenspecies they will harbor and the greater theopportunity for transmission to people. In otherwords, naturally high biodiversity should increasethe potential pool of sources for new pathogens.Recent studies indicate that although biodiversitycould be a source of new diseases, once a diseaseemerges, greater biodiversity appears to protectagainst the spread of the new disease.Despite the unanswered questions, connectionsbetween biodiversity and disease aresufficiently clear to support increased efforts topreserve natural ecosystems and the biodiversitythey contain. Conservation of biodiversity, to thegreatest extent possible, may be our best strategyto guard against harmful infectious disease.Other actions needed to address disease concernsare related to surveillance, hygiene protocols,management of wildlife-human interactions, andcontrol of non-native species. Public education isa key component of any effort.Recommended Priority Strategies to AddressThreats Linked to Diseasen Preserve large intact areas of natural habitatwhere it exists.n Restore habitats to endemic plant communitiesto protect and increase biological diversity (bothplant and animal).n Enforce existing regulations and develop newregulations, policies, and protocols to preventor minimize the spread of disease and minimizehuman contact with wildlife (e.g., ban feeding ofwildlife, conduct disease surveillance, and restrictunregulated animal translocation).n Strengthen regulations and policies related to(1) handling, moving, and relocating native fishand wildlife, and (2) importing, possessing, andreleasing non-native species, to prevent the introductionand spread of non-endemic disease.n Improve systems at multiple scales (city,county, state, and regional) for the surveillance,detection, and control of emerging diseases.n Increase public awareness of the issues surroundingdisease through interagency and multiorganizationcommunication efforts.n Support and continue research on emerginginfectious diseases that adopts a multidisciplinaryapproach to identifying their underlying causesand controlling their spread.Applicable RegulationsThe Lacey Act of 1900The Non-Indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Preventionand Control Act of 1990Oregon Revised Statute 498.052 (Release ofdomestically raised or imported wildlife withoutpermit from ODFW prohibited)Oregon Administrative Rule 635-056 (regulatesimportation, possession, confinement, transportationand sale of non-native fish and wildlife)OAR 635-007-0960 thru 0995 Fish Health ManagementPolicyOAR 635-044-0200 Wildlife Rehabilitation rulesOAR 635-049- 0065, 0067 Diseases and CaptiveCervids rulesVarious Oregon Department of Agriculture ORSsand OARs that are designed to prohibit diseaselike CVI and that require animal import permitting.For More Information“Emerging Infectious Diseases of Wildlife:Threats to Biodiversity and Human Health”P. Daszak, A.A. Cunningham, and A.D. Hyatt.2000. 21 January 2000 Vol 287 Sciencewww.sciencemag.org Pages 443–449.http://irceb.asu.edu/amphibians/pdf/science.pdf“Wildlife Diseases Threaten Biodiversity andHuman Health”Global Biosecurity Media Release. Dec. 9, 2009.“Impacts of Biodiversity on the Emergence andTransmission of Infectious Diseases”Keesing, F., L.K. Belden, P. Daszak, A. Dobson,C.D. Harvell, R.D. Holt, P. Hudson, A. Jolles,K.E. Jones, C.E. Mitchell, S.S. Myers, T. Bogich,and R.S. Ostfeld. 2010. Nature, Vol. 468, Pages647–652.http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7324/full/nature09575.htmlhttp://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2010/dec/nature-study-loss-biodiversity-can-increasedisease-transmissionhttp://www.nature.com/news/2010/101201/full/news.2010.644.html“Local Scale Effects of Disease on Biodiversity”K.F. Smith, M. Smith, D. Behrens, and D. F. Sax.2009. EcoHealth 6, 287–295.“Naturally Occurring Fish and Wildlife Diseases”Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2006.Pages 372-375 in Oregon Conservation Strategy.http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/read_the_strategy.aspODFW’s Wildlife Health Programhttp://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/health_program/An Overview of Contemporary BiologicalDiversity Conservation in Oregon: A White Paperfor the Oregon Board of ForestryA. Yost (editor). 2011. Feb. 1, 2011http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/BOARD/docs/2011_March/BOFATTCH_20110309_03_01.pdf?ga=tAnthropogenic HazardsSusan Barnes, Oregon Department of WildlifeUrbanization and, to a lesser extent, developmentfor agriculture are characterized by builtstructures such as buildings, roads, electricallines, fences, lights, and communications towersthat, together with associated human activities,can displace, injure, or kill fish and wildlife orotherwise alter wildlife behavior. Although somehuman activities involve intentional killing ofwildlife—for commercial purposes, as food, orout of fear—many anthropogenic injuries andmortalities occur purely by accident, such aswhen motor vehicles collide with animals on theroadway.The degree of impact of anthropogenic injuriesand mortalities depends not simply on the numberof incidents but also on the kinds of wildlifekilled (male vs. female, adult vs. juvenile, reproductivevs. non-reproductive) and the timing ofmortality (e.g., before or after the reproductiveseason). It is difficult to quantify the impact ofanthropogenic activities on a given species, andestimates by individual cause of injury or mortalityoften vary by an order of magnitude. However,cumulative mortality from anthropogenic hazardsis believed to be significant—for example, up to1 billion birds a year in the United States.146 147

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 7 Threats and ChallengesAnthropogenic Hazards to Fish and Wildlifein the RegionCollision HazardsAutomobiles, Trains, and BoatsAll types of wildlife are at risk from collisionswith motor vehicles, trains, boats, and evenbicycles. Each year some of Oregon’s native turtles(western pond and western painted) are foundinjured or killed on roadway and railroad tracks.Many of these are pregnant females migrating tonesting sites.AirplanesBirds are especially susceptible to injury andmortality resulting from collisions with airplanes,either on runways or in the air. Portland InternationalAirport staff actively haze wildlife from theairfield to minimize wildlife-related air strikes.Buildings and WindowsConservative estimates are that windows kill onebillion birds annually in the United States. Windowsare basically invisible to birds, and casualtiesoccur from head trauma after a bird leaves aperch from as little as 1 meter away in an attemptto reach habitat seen through—or reflected in—clear and tinted panes. There is no window size,building structure, time of day, season of year, orweather conditions that allows birds to elude thelethal hazards of glass in urban, suburban, andrural environments.Communication Towers, Aviation Lights, and Guy WiresCommunication towers and the aviation lightingand high-tension lines or guy wires that aresometimes associated with them pose a hazard tobirds in flight, especially night-migrating birds.Communication towers kill an estimated 4 to 5million birds in the United States each year.Wind TurbinesWind energy facilities can adversely affectwildlife, especially birds and bats, with the greatesthazard during spring and fall bird and batmigration. Mortality occurs from direct impactwith turbines or by changes in air pressure nearthe rotating blades. In the Oregon portion of theColumbia Plateau ecoregion, it has been estimatedthat the existing wind energy facilities resultin a mean of 2.5 bird fatalities per megawatt peryear and a mean of 1.2 bat fatalities per megawattper year.Electrical Power LinesUtility poles and electrical lines can benefit raptorsand other birds by providing perching ornesting structures where there are few naturalperching or nesting options. However, utilitypoles and electrical lines also pose electrocutionand collision threats, most typically withlarger birds such as raptors and great blue herons,although smaller birds also are at risk. Nationwidemortality estimates from electrocution arenot available.Hazards from MaterialsMonofilament Fishing Line, Hooks, and NetsImproperly discarded fishing gear—especiallybarbed hooks and nets—are a hazard to a varietyof wildlife, from herons and seabirds to turtlesand otters.Baling Twine, Plastics, and StyrofoamBirds and other wildlife are injured or die frombecoming entangled in these materials. Balingtwine is the cause of death for many adult ospreyand their chicks. It has been estimated that, insome areas, baling twine alone kills about 10percent of osprey chicks.Glue Strips and TrapsSometimes used by people to catch and kill“pests” such as house mice, rats, and flyinginsects, sticky glue traps and strips can be hazardousto native small mammals, such as bats.Licensed wildlife rehabilitation facilities regularlyreceive bats that have been trapped by sticky gluefly strips. In most cases these bats do not recover.Hazards from Human BehaviorArtificial Feeding of WildlifeWhether deliberate or accidental, artificial feedingis hazardous to all wildlife for a variety ofreasons. Introduced food is often unhealthy. Artificialfeeding unnaturally concentrates animals,thus increasing the spread of disease, changingwildlife behavior and migratory patterns, andmaking animals more susceptible to anthropogeniccauses of injury, death, and predation.PersecutionSome species have historically been subject tosystematic mistreatment by humans, out of fear,hostility, or competition for resources. Individualspecies usually are targeted. Coyotes, snakes, andbats often are persecuted because they are viewedas dangerous, gross, and carriers of disease.Even more “popular” wildlife species such asdeer, squirrels, and woodpeckers are subject topersecution if they are viewed as pests. Althoughnot all causes of persecution can be addressed,attitudes can be changed over time through educationand the provision of alternative solutionsto common nuisance wildlife situations.Illegal Take (Poaching)Despite laws that regulate hunting and fishing,many species are threatened by poaching, whichaffects species viability at local and regionalscales. A recent ODFW research study of deerestimated that poachers are killing almost thesame number of animals as legal hunters are.Although the poaching of game fish and wildlifespecies is most often highlighted, no species isexempt from poaching. In addition, ODFW hasconfirmed the illegal collection of native turtlesfor the pet trade industry and local and overseasfood markets.Other HazardsRodenticides and Other PoisonsAll wildlife are at risk from poisonous substancesdispersed into the environment deliberately orby accident. Poison meant for Norway rats orhouse mice may be consumed by native rodentsand other small mammals such as squirrels andchipmunks. Localized die-offs occur in winteringgoose populations that have foraged on agriculturalfields treated with rodenticide (e.g., zincphosphide). Other wildlife that are frequentlyexposed include carnivores such as mountainlions, bobcats, hawks and owls; omnivores suchas coyotes, foxes, skunks, and raccoons; and granivoresand herbivores such as squirrels and deer.FencesAlthough fences can help reduce wildlife-humanconflicts, such as motor vehicle collisions withwildlife, they also can be hazardous to a varietyof wildlife species. Fences can restrict or alteranimal movement patterns, thus disrupting daily,seasonal, and dispersal movements and potentiallyreducing the probability of survival of somewildlife populations.Introduced PredatorsAs the most common introduced predators, catsand dogs pose a real hazard to biodiversity, causingnearly 100 million bird deaths in the UnitedStates annually. Birds that spend the bulk of theirlife cycle in the low- to mid-canopy vegetationlayer are particularly susceptible to cat predation.Cats and dogs also prey on small mammals,reptiles, and amphibians. Even when onleash, dogs are hazardous to most wildlife. Dogsdirectly injure or kill wildlife, and their presencecan alter normal feeding, mating, and parentalbehaviors. When chased by dogs (even if thechase is unsuccessful), the potential prey wastessignificant energy, subjecting them to higher rates148 149

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 7 Threats and Challengesof mortality. Catsand dogs also cantransmit pathogens,including parvovirus,muscle cysts,leptospirosis, andexternal parasitessuch as ticks, keds,tapeworms, andfleas. Free-roamingdogs also degradehabitat by tramplingvegetationand adding nitrogento the soil (viafeces); both of theseimpacts encouragethe growth ofnon-native plantsat the expenseof natives. Dogsalso cause mortalityof salmonid oramphibian eggs orjuvenile salmon bydirect disturbanceor by causing eggsto be covered withsediment.Lack of KnowledgeAn often overlooked but very real hazard to allfish and wildlife and their habitats is the lackof knowledge or awareness by the public aboutbiodiversity issues and values, conservation practices,and applicable regulation that is intendedto protect and enhance biodiversity. Sometimesbecause of ignorance, even well-intentioned individualscan harm and create hazards that threatenand challenge the health of fish and wildlife andtheir habitats.Strategies to Minimize Hazardsto Fish and Wildlifen Reduce collisions by doing the following:n Work with partners to inventory, prioritize, andremove wildlife movement barriers, leveragingcurrent work done by state wildlife managementagencies and their partners.n Maintain and restore habitat to ensure habitatconnectivity, especially in urban centers.n When planning transportation projects, considerthe movement needs of fish and wildlife;incorporate safe passage features into transportationdesigns. Work with public transportationdepartments and railroad companies to identifyand address wildlife mortality. Where significantwildlife mortality is known to occur, installwildlife underpasses or overpasses and directwildlife to safe crossing areas.n Implement efforts similar to the Audubon Societyof Portland’s BirdsSafe Program to promoteeducation, monitoring, and proper response tobird injuries and mortalities caused by buildingsand windows. Educate boaters on how toreport and safely respond to injured wildlife.n Continue wildlife management efforts atairfields aimed at preventing and reducingwildlife-related airplane strikes. Employ hazingtechniques, modify habitat, and install physicalbarriers.n Implement existing and future guidance on thesiting and design of communication towers,wind energy facilities, and electrical powerlines and supporting structures. The EdisonElectric Institute’s Avian Power Line InteractionCommittee (APLIC) and U.S. Fish and WildlifeService have developed guidelines on electricalpower lines, and the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService has guidance regarding communicationtowers.n Compile information on the effects on fish,wildlife, and habitat of hazards from dogs, fences,and materials (i.e., monofilament fishing line,hooks, nets, baling twine, plastics, Styrofoam, andglue strips and traps). Compile information onthe effects of rodenticides and other poisons onnon-target animals and habitat.n Enact stronger laws and regulations to ban thefeeding of certain wildlife species (state and localregulations), stop persecution of wildlife (federal,state, and local regulations), reduce illegal takeof wildlife (federal and state regulations), andregulate the use and application of various chemicalsthat are known to affect non-target fish andwildlife species (federal and state laws).n Support and expand existing programs toprovide seasonally appropriate informa¬tion onpreventing and resolving conflicts with wildlife.Based on ODFW’s, WDFW’s and Portland Audubon’sexisting Living With Wildlife series, initiatea broad-scale campaign to educate the generalpublic regarding common “nuisance” wildlife situationsand provide alternative legal and biologicallyappropriate solutions. Continue to promotenaturescaping as the wildlife-friendly and moreeconomical alternative to artificial feeding.n Because human-wildlife conflict issues oftenare biologically and socially complex, createmulti-stakeholder/interagency task forces toad¬dress major issues.n Reduce impacts from domestic cats and dogs.Work with the Feral Cat Coalition, the HumaneSociety, county animal control departments, statefish and wildlife agencies, and others to reducehazards posed by outdoor cats, especially feralcats, and work with dog organizations and othersto promote observance of leash laws, particularlyin areas designated as natural or wildlife areas.Initiate a local pilot project to better understandthe effects of dogs on wildlife and wildlife habitats.n Initiate a campaign to educate the generalpublic about the issues, values, and ecosystemservices related to biodiversity; hazards thatthreaten and challenge biodiversity; and recommendedactions to address hazards.n Improve coordination and communicationbetween conservation partners to maximize benefitsfrom various educational efforts.Applicable RegulationsFederal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C.703-712)http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/intrnltr/mbta/mbtintro.htmlThe Federal Bald and Golden Eagle ProtectionAct (16 U.S.C. 668-668d)Federal Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C.1531-1544)ORS 498.002 Wildlife as state property; taking,angling, hunting or trapping in violation ofwildlife law or rules prohibitedORS 498.046 Making toxic substances accessibleto wildlife prohibitedORS 498.022 Purchase, sale or exchange ofwildlife prohibitedORS 498.006 Chasing or harassing of wildlifeprohibited.ORS 498.102 Use of dogs to hunt or tack gamemammals or birds. Regulates dogs hunting,running or tracking any game mammals or gamebird.For More Information“A Place for People and Wildlife: Conservation inUrban Areas”Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2006.Oregon Conservation Strategy.http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/read_the_strategy.aspEvery year, windowstrikes kill millions ofbirds like this mourningdove.150 151

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAdditional ResourcesTopicCollisions with Autos, Trainsand BoatsCollisions with AirplanesCollision with Buildings and WindowsCollisions with CommunicationTowersCollisions with Wind TurbinesElectrical Power LinesBaling Twine, Plastic, StyrofoamHuman DimensionsIllegal Take (Poaching)Introduced PredatorsRodenticides and Other PoisonsresourcesA Summary and Comparison of Bird Mortality from Anthropogenic Causes with an Emphasis onCollisions. W.P. Erickson, G.D. Johnson, and D.P. Young Jr. 2005. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech.Rep. PSW-GTR-191.http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr191/psw_gtr191_1029-1042_erickson.pdfhttp://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/08034/08.cfmhttp://www.portofportland.com/PDX_WldLife_Mngmnt.aspxhttp://audubonportland.org/issues/metro/bsafehttp://training.fws.gov/EC/Resources/mig_birds/handouts/avian_mortality_at_windows.pdfhttp://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htmhttp://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/com_tow_guidelines.pdfhttp://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr191/Asilomar/pdfs/1051-1064.pdfhttp://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr191/Asilomar/pdfs/1051-1064.pdfhttp://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?id=00294http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/APP/AVIAN%20PROTEC-TION%20PLAN%20FINAL%204%2019%2005.pdfhttp://www.aplic.org/uploads/files/2643/SuggestedPractices2006(LR-2).pdfhttp://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr191/Asilomar/pdfs/1051-1064.pdfhttp://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/living_with/docs/osprey.pdfhttp://www.nature.nps.gov/socialscience/docs/archive/SSRR_6.pdfhttp://www.democratherald.com/news/local/article_7a25ad0a-a9e8-5a11-a409-9aa808393c96.htmlhttp://audubonportland.org/backyardwildlife/brochures/cats/?searchterm=catshttp://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/cats/materials/predation.pdfhttp://www.sfromp.org/rodenticides_mitigation_decision.pdf152

Chapter 8 Major Categories of StrategiesMajor Categories of StrategiesChapter8The complex mix of land uses, habitat types,and lifestyles in the greater Portland-Vancouverregion requires an equally broad arrayof approaches to conserving and enhancingthe region’s biodiversity and related ecosystemservices. As with the strategies in the RegionalConservation Strategy, the set of strategies presentedin this chapter is neither prescriptive norprioritized. Instead the strategies are meant toprovide a reasonably comprehensive frameworkof important ways that individuals and organizationscan make sound, strategic investments oftheir time and resources, based on their own prioritiesand interests. It is hoped that, within thesestrategies, each stakeholder group, jurisdiction,agency, and individual in the region can find away to positively engage in protecting our region’smost crucial natural assets or to better frame theirefforts in light of regional priorities.Naturally, the content of this chapter overlapssubstantially with that of the Regional ConservationStrategy for the Greater Portland-VancouverRegion. In fact, four of the six topics addressedhere (biodiversity corridors, conservation indeveloped areas, conservation in working lands,and conservation education) are explored in moredepth in the Regional Conservation Strategy andare presented here in shortened form. Two othersections (preservation/conservation and habitatrestoration and enhancement) are treated mostcomprehensively here.Preservation and ConservationEsther Lev, The Wetlands Conservancy, andJonathan Soll, MetroGovernments, nonprofit organizations and privatelandowners have a variety of tools to choosefrom to protect or conserve natural areas and toconnect or restore habitat. Many approaches offerprivate landowners ways to realize financial benefits,including direct income, estate tax reductionsand, in some cases, income and property taxreductions. Approaches can be roughly dividedinto protection/acquisition and conservation.Protection/AcquisitionProtection/acquisition generally implies takingland out of the economic system. Permanent protectionis most appropriate for areas that are veryhighly sensitive to use, rare or irreplaceable, oressential to the protection of landscape processes,habitat, or species. Permanent protection preventsthese critical lands from being lost or degraded.Education and outreachare vital in promotingthe use of appropriateconservation tools.153

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 8 Major Categories of StrategiesGenerally, there aretwo ways to achievepermanent protectionof land:n Permanent, fullfee,title ownershipthrough acquisitionof all property rights.This can be accomplishedthrough sale ordonation of the land.n Partial ownership ofthe development oruse rights to the landthrough a conservationeasement.Sale Options (TitleTransfer withCompensation)Landowners canchoose from four saleoptions, each of whichhas advantages:n Fair market value:The landowner sellsthe property for itsfair market value. Thisallows the landownerto receive full value forthe property.n Bargain sale: The landowner sells the propertyto a land trust, conservation organization,or agency at a price below the fair market value,with the difference between the sale price and thefair market value being considered a donation.The seller may qualify for a tax deduction and areduction in capital gains taxes.n Installment sale: The landowner sells theproperty to a land trust, conservation organization,or agency and defers all or part of theconsideration, which is paid in successive years.In installment sales, payment of the capital gainstax can be deferred until the seller has the cash inhand with which to pay the tax.n Right of first refusal: The landowner gives aland trust, conservation organization, or agencythe option to match a purchase offer and acquirethe land if another buyer approaches the landowner.Right of first refusal can give land trustsand other conservation organizations time toacquire the funds needed to purchase the land.The disadvantage of all types of property salesis that, if the land value has appreciated since itwas purchased; the seller becomes liable for theincome tax on the capital gain.Donation Options (Title Transfer withoutCompensation)Landowners can choose from three types ofdonations: outright donation, donation at thetime of death, and donation with a reserved lifeestate. Each of these has advantages and drawbacks.Outright donation grants full title and ownershipto the conservation organization, community,or government agency that receives thedonated property. Outright donation has severaladvantages: money is not needed to protect theproperty, so the donation frees resources for othersites; it is a simple, clean, and efficient transferof responsibilities and rights, and it offers themaximum tax benefit for donor. However, theproperty owner loses all value, and some propertyowners may not be able to take full advantage ofthe tax benefit.Donation at the time of death transfers propertythrough a will and allows the property ownerto use the property until death. Like outrightdonation, donation at the time of death doesnot require money to protect the property, so itfrees resources for other sites, plus it is a simple,clean, and efficient transfer of responsibilities andrights. Its disadvantages are that heirs may contestthe will, tax benefits for the donor may be less,and society does not begin reaping the benefits ofdonation until the donor’s death.Donation with a reserved life estate permitsthe landowner to use the donated property duringhis or her lifetime and the lifetimes of designatedfamily members. This eliminates the risk of heirscontesting the will and allows the property ownerto use the property until death. In addition,well-written life estates begin providing publicbenefit immediately. However, donations with areserved life estate can create a complex relationshipbetween the donor and the land manager.Other disadvantages are that tax benefits for thedonor are less than those with outright donationand society does not reap the full benefits untilthe donor’s rights expire.Conservation EasementsLandowners can restrict how land may be usedthrough written agreements, called easements.These become part of the property deed and staywith the land, binding subsequent property ownersto the terms of the agreement. With a conservationeasement, the landowner retains title to theproperty but transfers certain property rights to aland trust, government agency, or nonprofit conservationorganization. Through the easement,the landowner can restrict the type and amountof development on a piece of property in orderto protect significant natural features, includingwildlife or habitat. Each conservation easementis tailored to the particular piece of property andthe wishes of the landowner. The parties involvedcan renegotiate the easement if circumstanceschange (although there may be tax implications).Advantages of Conservation Easementsn Easements provide income tax, estate tax, andgift tax benefits if the easement is donated or soldat less than market value.n The property owner retains ownership of theproperty while potentially receiving income tax,estate tax, and property tax reductions.n The easement holder generally pays less thanfor full fee ownership.Disadvantages of Conservation Easementsn Easements can involve giving up someproperty usage rights.n The landowner may need to maintain the landand be responsible for expenses, including taxes.n Because easements run with the deed, theholder has a relationship with unknown futurelandowners.n Management responsibility can becomplicated.ConservationConservation allows for the active use of the landwhile habitat values and ecosystem services aremaintained over time. Conservation can apply toareas used for resource production. For example,owners of land used for agriculture and forestryare encouraged to apply best management practicessuch as no-till seed drilling, riparian andwetland buffers, or longer harvest rotations.Conservation also applies to urbanizing areaswhere changes in land use might adversely affecta resource. Conservation of natural areas is aconcern in urbanizing settings where adjacentuse by humans affects wetlands, streams, riparianareas, meadows, and forest lands. Improvedmanagement practices on the part of homeownerassociations, private landowners, land developers,watershed councils, schools, and volunteergroups can help to reduce impacts. Education andoutreach are vital in promoting the use of appropriateconservation tools.Enhancing Biodiversity Corridorsand Regional ConnectivityLori Hennings, MetroPreservation, conservation, restoration, and invasivespecies control are some of the tools availableand necessary to improve regional connectivityamong the priority conservation areas andpotential biodiversity connectivity areas shownon maps that accompany this Biodiversity Guide.The maps depict potential biodiversity corridorsbased on aerial photo interpretation, modeling,and local knowledge, but they alsosuffer from significant data and research gaps.Additional work is needed to assess the functionalityof these biodiversity corridors anddetermine what is necessary to make them fullyfunctional. The following strategies outline steps154 155

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 8 Major Categories of Strategiesto address these gaps, improve corridor function,and better prioritize restoration and enhancementactivities:1. Gather available information on barriers, existingwildlife crossing structures, and solutions. Forexample, various agencies have identified prioritiesfor removing culverts that block fish passage.2. Establish a wildlife connectivity communicationvenue and/or working group consisting ofpartners and stakeholders identified through theBiodiversity Guide’s biodiversity corridors mappingprocess and other interested parties.3. Collaborate closely with organizations andindividuals that work in or near corridors or thatown land there (e.g., transportation and trailsorganizations, industry, homeowners’ associations,parks providers, and large-lot landownersor groups of landowners where action or educationis needed). Talk with them about why thecorridor is important and provide maps andinformation. Ask them to help identify potentialconflicts and opportunities, and how we mightpartner with them; they may know more than wedo.4. Conduct research to assess the condition andactual function of mapped corridors in order toimprove corridor function and regional prioritysetting:n Assess which wildlife species actually use orare likely to use mapped corridors and whichspecies could or should be using them. A logicalearly step in this process is to assign focalspecies to each corridor based on the habitatareas it connects.n Assess current habitat conditions and identifyand characterize existing partial or full barriers,including gaps in vegetation.n Use the information from the previous steps toprioritize restoration and enhancement actions.n Correct barriers and gaps strategically butopportunistically. For example, major roadwork may occur infrequently in a given areabut can provide key construction and fundingopportunities to address barriers. Major trailwork may provide similar opportunities.n Conduct pre- and post-monitoring on wildlifecrossings for several years. Sometimes it takesa few years for target species to use a crossing,and small adjustments can make all thedifference.5. Periodically refine the maps and priorities asdata and analytical tools improve.Habitat Restoration andEnhancementEsther Lev, The Wetlands Conservancy, andJonathan Soll, MetroMost natural areas and the surrounding landscapesin the greater Portland-Vancouver regionhave been significantly altered. Impacts includedirect changes such as ditching, drain tile installation,stream channelization, sedimentation,removal of vegetation, grazing, logging, loss ofhabitat structure, and planting or invasion ofnon-native species. Even when direct humanimpacts on a site have been slight, their effectsmay be significant because of changes in thenatural environment and the processes that historicallymaintained the region’s biological communities.Natural area managers must deal withthe impacts of such threats as invasive non-nativespecies, fire exclusion, altered streams and watersystems, and landscape fragmentation as a resultof roads, pipelines, and development in orderto maintain or improve the biodiversity of theregion and its natural areas. Fortunately, in mostcases even natural areas that are severely out ofbalance in composition, structure, and functionand have been highly altered from their originalcondition or isolated from other similar habitatcan be move toward a healthier and ecologicallyproductive condition through carefully designedand implemented restoration or enhancementprojects.Restoration ProjectsGenerally speaking, restoration projects seek toreestablish conditions similar to the original conditionof an area that has been highly altered byhuman activity. Successful restoration usually isbased on re-establishing an area’s original hydrology,topography, and natural processes, such asflooding, and commonly includes re-establishingthe original native plant cover.Examples of Restoration ProjectsMany urban streams have been filled, covered, orstraightened. A restoration project might involvedaylighting a stream (i.e., re-routing it out of anunderground pipe and back onto the surface),re-meandering a channelized stream (i.e., makingit curvy), or installing fish- and wildlife-friendlyculverts. As other examples, agricultural fieldscan be restored to wetland or upland prairie habitat,or an even-age single-species forest can bemanaged toward a diverse forest with old-growthcharacteristics.Enhancement ProjectsAlthough there is no hard and fast distinctionbetween restoration and enhancement, enhancementprojects generally are less extreme andstrive to maintain or increase a particular set offunctions of an existing natural area. Enhancementcompensates for natural processes that nolonger exist or mitigates the effects of historicalimpacts, thereby helping to move moderately oreven severely degraded natural areas to a higherquality condition. Generally, enhancement projectstarget improved wildlife habitat and nativevegetation diversity. Specific enhancements mightinclude prescribed burns, invasive species control,native plantings, or adding nest boxes or largewood for wildlife.Enhancement can also change the physicalcharacteristics of a largely functioning naturalsystem, such as by impounding water behind adike or dam, or by dredging a pond in a relativelyundisturbed wetland. Enhancement techniquesshould be evaluated carefully because one-timeenhancement projects can cause unintendedproblems for future projects on the same site.Examples of Enhancement ProjectsMany natural areas are severely degraded byinvasive plants. Invasive species removal projectsaim to increase overall plant and animal diversityvia active management of the undesirablespecies. An example of a management/enhancementplan for a degraded oak woodland wouldbe to reduce fuels by removing competing woodyvegetation, initiate a prescribed burn, eliminatethe invasive plant species, and plant native speciesto encourage wildlife habitat and nesting areas.Other examples of simple enhancement actionsare planting cedar trees underneath the canopyof a maple-dominated forest, planting shrubs in agrass-dominated wetland, and removing competingconifers from an oak woodland.Overview of the Practice of Natural AreaRestoration and EnhancementRestoration or enhancement of natural systemsand communities is an adaptive process thattypically plays out over many years. A successfulproject requires a good understanding of thecritical elements of a site, its ecological dynamics,and the functions it plays in the greater landscapeand in maintaining watershed health. It also isimportant to have a clear goal and well-definedstatement of the desired future conditions. forthe site. Ideally the goal of every project wouldbe return to historical conditions, but not allsites can be returned to their historical state. Forexample, the manager may control only part ofthe original site, or some ditches might need to156 157

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 8 Major Categories of Strategiesbe retained so that adjoining properties do notflood. Onsite or watershed hydrology might havebeen altered. Neighbors may not cooperate, orsome elements that are inconsistent with historicalconditions may need to retained for social oreconomic reasons. Despite these sorts of limitations,in most cases meaningful enhancementand restoration can still occur if they are carefullyplanned and executed.Forces of nature, climate change, andunknown elements of a site can alter even thebest-planned design. Climate modeling suggeststhat, in this region, temperatures and theamount of winter precipitation will increase,while summer precipitation will decrease. Somenatural areas may prove to be sensitive to changingclimate because they depend on precipitationas their primary hydrologic input (although thetiming of the predominant rainfall is predicted toremain somewhat consistent, mostly falling fromNovember through March). As a result, monitoring,adaptive management, and long-term maintenanceare as important as the initial planning ofsuccessful projects.A typical restoration project involves thefollowing:1. Site visits and research. In the early stages ofbrainstorming, take a trip around the watershedand subbasin. Look for potential reference sitesthat model the desired future conditions for therestoration project and identify similar types ofprojects within the subbasin and region. Learnwhat worked, what changes were necessary, andwhat might be done differently if the project werebeing done today.2. Planning. Once there is a general concept forthe project, define specific measures of success.Design a very detailed plan to achieve those measuresof success and develop a task list, timeline,and budget. Expect to experience unexpectedresults and delays and be prepared to adapt yourplan accordingly.3. Long-term view. Restoration is a long-termcommitment. Developing the desired future conditionis likely to take years or decades, or possiblyeven centuries. Make sure that your organizationhas the long-term staffing or volunteers andthe funding needed to stay involved for the longterm and ensure a truly successful project.Although sometimes expensive and usually challenging,restoration and enhancement of habitatcan be essential in building and maintaininga healthy ecosystem in the greater Portland-Vancouver region. Restoration and enhancementcan directly improve habitat quality, return andrestore missing ecological functions and processes,remove and mitigate for existing stressors,connect isolated habitats, and improve regionalconnectivity, thereby improving our region’sbiodiversity, water quality, wildlife habitat, andresilience to climate change.Conservation in Developed AreasIn the greater Portland-Vancouver region,developed lands are all lands except natural areas,waterways, wetlands, biodiversity corridors,working agricultural lands, and working forests.The developed landscape includes industrial,commercial, and residential properties, developedparks, schoolyards, golf courses, cemeteries, airports,and the streetscape. The intensity of developmentranges from skyscrapers in downtownPortland to suburban and rural neighborhoods insurrounding communities.Nearly 22 percent of the land within thegreater Portland-Vancouver region is covered byresidential, commercial, and industrial developmentand roadways. Developed areas includeactive open spaces such as ball fields, schoolyards, and cemeteries, which can provide someof the ecological functions that natural areas do.With more ecological foresight we might havecarefully nested our developed areas among aninterconnected system of natural features in a waythat prioritizes the function of natural systems.However, today’s developed lands are situatedsuch that remnant natural areas are highlyfragmented, the tree canopy is only a fraction ofhistorical levels, and historical streams, wetlands,and floodplains have been degraded, filled in, orcovered over. In addition, our urban landscapesare replete with an array of wildlife hazards thatincludes buildings, powerlines, roadways, freeroamingdomestic animals, and toxins. Despitethese challenges, a huge diversity of wild animals,both migrant and resident populations—includingsome highly imperiled species—make use ofour developed landscapes for some or all of theirlifecycle. In addition, nearly 80 percent of the U.S.population now resides in cities, creating a cultureof conservation that will depend on engagingpeople in wildlife stewardship where they live,work and play.Developed are have a vital role to play inpreserving regional biodiversity and protectingenvironmental health. When effectively managed,developed lands increase the urban landscape’soverall permeability for wildlife, enhance thefunctionality of natural areas and biodiversitycorridors, and engage the public in wildlife stewardship.When we choose to integrate nature intoall aspects of the built environment, developedlands have the potential to do the following:n Increase the permeability of the overall urbanlandscape for migrating wildlife populationsn Reduce direct and indirect impacts on naturalareasn Reduce hazards to wildlifen Protect critical resident wildlife populationsn Support equity and community healthn Foster stewardship and communityengagement in conservationThe desired future condition for developed areasis one in which nature is incorporated into thebuilt environment at all spatial scales—from thesmall urban home lot to towering skyscrapersand expansive industrial parks. We envision adeveloped landscape where each developmentand redevelopment project incorporates elementsthat provide habitat and reduce wildlife hazards,where green infrastructure meets habitat andbiodiversity objectives (among others), and wherethe public is actively engaged and supported instewardship of native plants and wildlife in theiryards, neighborhoods, business districts, andcommunities.This vision of the future condition of developedlands acknowledges that there is no cleardividing line between the built environment andthe natural environment. Native plants and wildanimals do not recognize our arbitrary boundaries,and the impacts of our developed landscapesextend far beyond their actual footprint. Inshort, we all have a role to play in the protection,restoration, and management of our native plantcommunities and local wildlife populations.Strategic ActionsThe Regional Conservation Strategy identifies thefollowing strategies to ensure that the full biodiversitypotential of the built landscape is realizedand that detrimental impacts on wildlife areminimized. These include the following:n Increase the permeability of the developedlandscape for wildlife populations by integratingthe built and natural environments. The integrationof green infrastructure at all scales ofdevelopment activity can dramatically increasethe ability of wildlife to traverse the urban landscapeand meet their needs at different phases oftheir lifecycle. Examples include habitat-focusedecoroofs, street trees, backyard naturescaping,wildlife crossings on roadways, and bank restorationat river industrial sites.n Identify and manage at-risk species that havecritical populations residing on the built landscape.A number of at-risk species use the built landscapefor some portion of their lifecycle. Examplesinclude (1) the tens of thousands of migrat-159158

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideChapter 8 Major Categories of Strategiesing Vaux’s swifts that use Chapman School’schimney for roosting during their fall migration,and (2) peregrine falcons, for whom Portland-Vancouver area bridges provide significantnesting habitat (i.e., more than 5 percent of theirknown nesting sites).n Identify and reduce wildlife hazards in the builtenvironment. Tremendous numbers of wildanimals die each year as a result of collisions withmanmade structures, predation by free-roamingdomestic animals, and exposure to toxins. Identifyingand addressing the most significant hazardsis critical in ensuring that both the built andnatural environments meet their full potential.Examples of proven effective strategies includereducing nighttime non-essential lighting on tallbuildings during bird migration and adoptingbird-friendly building guidelines to reduce collisions.local wildlife populations for special management,and promoting wildlife stewardship amongurban residents, we can help ensure that the builtlandscape enhances rather than underminesregional biodiversity.Conservation in developed areas is discussedmore thoroughly in Chapter 6 of the RegionalConservation Strateg.yeconomic return enables land managers to continuenatural resource protection on their landwhile increasing their ability to produce foodand fiber. This results in a sustainable farm andforestland base to be managed by future generations.Working lands that are economically viableare more likely to stay in production and retainthose qualities that serve conservation purposes.In the long run, working lands will be as importantto the region’s sustainable future as housingand other forms of development, and they will becritical in addressing our future needs for localfood, clean water, healthful air, and other ecosystemservices.The desired future condition for workinglands is preservation and enhancement of theirintegrity and function as critical components ofboth regional conservation and a sustainable localfood and fiber economy. We envision a futurein which funding opportunities exist for a newgeneration of farmers to purchase or lease land,and landowners who lease out property do so in amanner that encourages long-term conservationinvestments. We envision streams and riparianareas on working lands functioning at a level thatmirrors pre-settlement conditions to the extentpossible, and farms and forestland that help tomaintain the resilience of natural systems in theface of climate change. We envision individualsof all economic backgrounds being able to obtaina majority of their food needs locally, agriculturebeing incorporated into new developmentsthrough community gardens, and viable farmsand forest lands being protected from developmentcaused by an expanding human population.n Challenges of transferring land to the nextgenerationn Short-term farm leasesn Limited funding for conservationStrategic Actionsn Increase financial support for conservationactivities on working lands.Conservation in Working LandscapesWorking lands are farms and forests that supportthe production of natural resource-based commoditiesthat sustain rural lifestyles and contrib-n Explore better integration of farming and forestryinto natural area management, including onute to the regional economy. The physical andpublicly owned lands.chemical characteristics of working lands allownthem to support the production of plants and animalsfor sale in the marketplace, contribute someIncrease farm and forestland easements toprevent conversion to other uses and support thelong-term economic viability of local farm andhabitat and ecological functions, and provideforestland.some ecosystem services such as air and watern Engage the general public in wildlife stewardship.With 80 percent of the U.S. populationpurification, sequestration of carbon, and floodn Provide funding and support for new farmersattenuation. Unlike developed and natural lands,to purchase or lease farms, so that they are notresiding in cities, raising awareness and promotingstewardship in the built environmentworking lands are actively managed with intentdeveloped.to yield an economic return through harvest andis essential in reconnecting people to the landscapeand promoting a culture of conservationmanagement activities.Conservation Educationin future generations. Programs that promote Working lands are an integral part of theConservation education is education thatresidential rain gardens, backyard naturescaping, economy, identity, and culture of the greaterexplores people’s place in and connection withand schoolyard restoration can engage new and Portland-Vancouver region. Working lands alsothe natural world. Whether structured or nonformal,diverse audiences in biodiversity conservation are vital to regional conservation. Lands usedconservation education increases people’sand send an important message that each of us for agriculture and timber production serve asenvironmental literacy by showing how theirhas a role to play in restoring wildlife populations. critical connectors between the region’s urbanactions affect the natural world around them,Surprisingly, the greater Portland-Vancouver areas (located at river confluences), and state andboth positively and negatively 1 . Content andregion’s most popular wildlife viewing spot is federally managed land at the headwaters of themodes of instruction vary, but most conservationnot found in one of the region’s natural areas or region’s many watersheds.education programs focus on individuals’wildlife refuges. Rather, it is in a schoolyard in When properly cared for, working lands aredecisions as part of the learning process andNorthwest Portland, where each evening in the part of the matrix of lands that capture, retain,strive to connect students of all ages to the localfall hundreds and sometimes thousands of people and filter water. In some areas, streams and riversenvironment; thus, students are encouraged toThreats and Challengesgather to watch tens of thousands of Vaux’s swifts overflow onto working lands during the winter,“act locally” even as they learn to “think globally”nserving to protect downstream areas from floods.Urban developmentdescending into the Chapman School chimney,about the connections between human behaviorwhich serves as a substitute for increasingly rare Standing timber and agricultural plants sequestern Conversion to “hobby” farmsand natural processes and conditions.hollowed-out old-growth trees that the swifts carbon, while soil holds carbon underground.The conservation, sustainability, and environmentaleducation programs of the region striven Declining revenues for food and fiberhistorically roosted in on their annual southward Working lands serve as buffers for natural areasproductionmigration. As the Vaux’s swifts demonstrate, the and can help support connectivity between naturalto improve participants’ understanding andareas within the region.ngreater Portland-Vancouver region will remainLack of recognition of the importance of appreciation of the natural world. An intendedcritical habitat for myriad wildlife populations, Working lands can be successfully managedprotecting working landslong-term outcome of these efforts is creation ofboth resident and migratory. By increasing both for production and for their conservationpermeability, reducing hazards, targeting critical values, with mutually beneficial results. A strong1 The Oregon Environmental Literacy Plan, prepared by the Oregon Environmental Literacy Task Force in 2010, defines environmentalliteracy as an individual’s understanding, skills, and motivation to make responsible decisions that take into consideration160 his or her relationships to natural systems, communities, and future generations.161n Improve management of working lands forhabitat value and water quality.

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guidean environmentally literate and engaged populace,meaning a citizenry that can make informedconservation-related decisions, is motivated totake appropriate actions, and promotes thosebehaviors to others. A goal that already has beenachieved is the establishment of the IntertwineConservation Education Council (i.e., Con EdCouncil) to represent all conservation, sustainability,and environmental education providersin the region. The Con Ed Council currently isworking to strengthen providers’ roles in theregion’s conservation education efforts. Identifiedconcerns stem from a central belief that decreasedrecognition of people’s place in and connectionwith the natural world can negatively affect theenvironment. Consequently, the Con Ed Councilenvisions the greater Portland-Vancouver regionas a place where everyone shares a connectednesswith nature.A variety of educational services and activitiesalready are taking place within the regionand among Intertwine Alliance partners. Theseactivities blend service learning, personal andgroup development, conservation and environmentaleducation, and direct conservationefforts. Intertwine Alliance partners are a diversegroup, with varied constituencies. Some partnersare geographically limited and concernedwith a specific resource or site; examples include“friends” groups and watershed councils. Otherpartners address larger portions of the regionbut single out specific animals or natural featuresto focus on. Public agencies such as city governments,soil and water conservation districts,and service districts play a role in conservationeducation. Schools and school districts also arevaluable partners, generating and using servicelearning and conservation resources for studentsand teachers. Notably, schools are an institutionalsupport for environmental literacy as called for inthe 2010 Oregon Environmental Literacy Plan.Much conservation education in the regionoccurs outside the formal education institutions.Non-formal conservation education may meetclearly defined objectives through organizededucational activities such as field trips, grouprestoration work and other work crews, campprograms, scouting, afterschool programs, orcommunity classes. Some conservation educationis self-directed, taking place during visits toparks, natural areas, refuges, and demonstrationgardens.The Intertwine’s current network of parks,trails, and natural areas is the result in part of earlierinvestments in conservation education. In thesame way, the effectiveness of future communityengagement and decision making on conservationissues will depend on continued—andpossibly improved—environmental literacy. Onecritical issues in which conservation educationis likely to influence policy outcomes is managementof human population growth in the region.In addition, conservation education is key to nonregulatorycontrols, such as prevention of illegaldumping and invasive species control. Nationally,formal education increasingly incorporates volunteerism,service learning, and other strategiesto address science, engineering, technology, andmathematics learning and student achievement.And many current conservation efforts in theregion, such as development and protection ofbackyard habitat, watershed restoration, treecanopy protection, and wildlife monitoring, relyon adequate levels of volunteer knowledge andengagement. Moreover, key regional conservationdocuments, such as Building Climate Resiliencyin the Lower Willamette Region of WesternOregon, 2 recommend environmental literacy aspart of implementation. Clearly, environmentalliteracy has the potential to affect everything fromdaily lifestyle choices to community and politicalengagement.1622 Building Climate Resiliency in the Lower Willamette Region of Western Oregon: A Report on Stakeholder Findings and Recommendations(Climate Leadership Initiative, 2011).

appendix A Land Cover MappingA. Land Cover MappingThis appendix briefly describes the process of creating the landcover map for the Biodiversity Guide for the Greater Portland-Vancouver Region. Land cover statistics are presented inChapter 1, “Current Conditions,” of the Biodiversity Guide.Understanding land cover or vegetation patterns and theirdistribution on the landscape is an important part of identifyingand prioritizing conservation opportunities. Having suchinformation in a standardized, digital format allows for sophisticatedmodeling approaches that support data-driven decisionmaking. The geographic scale at which the land cover mappingoccurs determines the finest scale at which subsequent analysesof conservation value can occur. Put more simply, coarsescalemapping efforts fail to capture habitat that exists at a finerscale, and unmapped habitat cannot be prioritized.There is a direct tradeoff between data scale and the sizeof subsequent data sets. As landscapes are analyzed at a finescale, data sets grow larger. Thirty-six 5-meter pixels fit into asingle 30-meter pixel. As data sets get larger, more computingpower and time are necessary, making some forms of analysischallenging or even impossible. For large geographic areasanalyzed at a fine scale, the issue of database size becomesincreasingly limiting. As a result, despite the existence of aerialimagery with 0.5-meter resolution or better, most regionalmapping efforts have worked at a pixel size of 30 meters orlarger, consistent with the resolution of Landsat ThematicMapper (TM) satellite imagery. A 30-meter-resolution map isappropriate to address conservation efforts at a whole ecoregionor statewide scale. However, higher resolution is requiredto address the more localized conservation objectives in anurban environment that occur at a relatively fine scale.In order to capture the finer scale land cover patterns of thegreater Portland-Vancouver region, the Regional ConservationStrategy working group contracted with Portland State University’sInstitute for Natural Resources (INR) in 2011 to producea land cover map of the greater Portland-Vancouver region at5-meter pixel resolution (i.e., 25 square meters).Land CoverINR generated the initial land cover grids using a combinationof 1-meter resolution LiDAR imagery (a laser based remoteimaging technology that accurately measures the elevationand the height of objects), 1-meter 2009 National AgriculturalImagery Program (NAIP) imagery, and 30-meter LandsatTM satellite imagery. For areas of the region in which LiDARwas available (approximately 88 percent of the region), INRgenerated a 22-class land cover data set at a 4-meter resolution.Where LiDAR data were unavailable—mostly on the region’sfringes, where land cover patterns occur in larger patterns—INR used Landsat TM satellite imagery and aerial photographsto create a 30-m, 10-class land cover grid. The first draft of theland cover map was created by combining these two data setsinto a 5-meter land cover data set with 25 classes.The resulting data were then augmented by the projectteam using a combination of modeling and hand digitizingfrom color and color infrared aerial photography. These stepsallowed us to more fully distinguish land covers and land usesthat computer-based approaches were unable to adequatelydistinguish among, such as bare ground, agriculture, and sand/cobble bars.n Agriculture. In order to successfully model conservationpriority areas, we needed to be able to separate agriculturallands from other low-height vegetation classes (i.e., vegetationless than 13 feet tall), a task that the initial land cover didnot attempt. The first draft of the land cover had 585,000 acres(32 percent of the region) combined into these low-vegetationclasses. We analyzed various 30-meter land cover/vegetationdata sets to see how we could accurately identify agriculturallands without writing over our more detailed land cover data(for example, the 30-meter data may not capture a narrow treecorridor that appears in the 5-meter data). We established rulesbased on elevation, patch size, and whether or not the patchoccurred inside or outside urban growth boundaries/areas.Both modeled and manual techniques were used to create theagriculture class. Patches of low vegetation outside urban areas,below 600 feet, and greater than 2 acres in size were reclassifiedas agriculture. Within urban areas, patches larger than 4 acreswere manually examined and reclassified where appropriate.Above 600 feet, polygons larger than 4 acres were manuallyclassified. Through these processes we were able to reclassify75 percent (440,000 acres) of low vegetation classes as eitheragriculture or clear cuts.163

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideappendix a Land Cover Mappingn Bare ground. Approximately 55,000 acres originally classifiedas bare ground (developed) included several land covercategories. We created polygons of these areas and examinedthem on high-resolution aerial photographs. Roughly 51,000acres were reclassified as low vegetation, agriculture or clearcuts; with the remaining 3,500 acres added to the bare ground(developed) category.n Sand/cobble bars. The initial modeled results brought to ourattention that sand/cobble areas next to rivers were classifiedas pavement (i.e., developed) and consequently received a lowhabitat value. In order to more accurately capture this importanthabitat, we buffered major rivers by 50 feet and reclassifiedany developed land cover in that area (approximately 1,500acres) into its own class.After reaching the limit of our resources to improve theaccuracy of several priority land cover classes, we createdthree levels of detail at which one can view data or calculatestatistics: Land Cover Levels 2, 1, and 0.Land Cover Level 2 (33 classes)The most complex of the three outputs, Level 2 retains theinterim values that we used to refine and improve the initialland cover data set. Low-structure vegetation classes are differentiatedby whether or not they fall within urban areas.Agriculture areas within urban areas are separated out, as areagricultural areas higher than 600 feet in elevation. Clear cutshave separate classes based on whether they were defined fromwithin the LiDAR extent or by Landsat data.Land Cover Level 1 (15 classes)For a simpler though still very rich land cover, we combined anumber of Level 2 categories to create a data set with 15 classesfor which we had high confidence.Accuracy Assessment of Land Cover DataThe project team completed a formal accuracy assessment byphoto interpreting seven categories of the Level 2 mapped landcover to 2009 NAIP aerial photographs using 891 geographicallystratified, random points. Overall accuracy was determinedto be 94.3 percent.Limitations of the Data SetDespite our best efforts, funding and technological limitationsprevented us from accurately mapping the following covertypes of interest:n Lawns, ball fields, golf courses and other grass-dominatedfields typically associated with development were not mappedas a unique type but were included within other cover types ofsimilar height.n Agricultural trees such as orchards or Christmas tree farmsand street trees were merged with tree cover types of similarheight.n Oak trees were not specifically identified.n Vineyards were not specifically identified and are likelyincluded in natural vegetation of similar height.n Native prairie was not identified as a unique type and wasmerged with the lowest stature vegetation classes.n Old-growth forest is not specifically mapped, although treeheights are available for the 88 percent of the region (i.e., thearea with LiDAR coverage).figure A-1Regional OverviewTillamook26BanksWashingtonForestGroveCorneliusYamhillColumbiaNewbergHillsboroMarion2699W30ScappooseWoodburnSt. Helens217BeavertonTualatinSherwood55Ridgefield30520526Milwaukie205Tigard LakeOswegoWilsonvilleOregonCity99ECanbyLaCenterPortland503VancouverMolallaBattleGround1484HappyValleyCowlitzClarkCamasTroutdaleGreshamDamascusClackamasWashougalEstacadaSandySkamaniaMulnomah26Land Cover Level 0 (Six classes)For regional statistics, modeling, and cartographic purposes,Level 0 may be the most useful of the three. Here we groupland cover types into six classes: trees, agriculture, developedland, low vegetation, water, and sand bars.The RCS region: 1,829,500 acres (2,850 square miles)Oregon (1,334,800ac / 73% of RCS)- Clackamas County (458,000ac / 25% of RCS)- Columbia County (102,400ac / 5.6% of RCS)- Marion County (69,300ac / 3.8% of RCS)- Multnomah County (228,400ac / 12.5% of RCS)- Tillamook County (700ac / 0.01% of RCS)- Washington County (412,200ac / 22.5% of RCS)- Yamhill County (63,800ac / 3.5% of RCS)Washington (494,700ac / 27% of RCS)- Clark County (395,100ac / 21.6% of RCS)- Columbia County (57,800ac / 3.2% of RCS)- Skamania County (41,800ac / 2.3% of RCS)0 10 MilesUrban areas(372,500ac / 20% of RCS)within Oregon(284,000ac / 15.5% of RCS)within Washington(88,500ac) / 4.8%164165Washington within - City (88,500ac) city of of Vancouver (64,000ac) (255,000ac / 14% of RCS)72% of RCS urban areas in WA

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideappendix a Land Cover Mappingfigure A-2Watershedsfigure A-3TopographyKSt. HelensHRidgefieldLaCenterFSt. HelensRidgefieldLaCenterScappooseBattleGroundScappooseBattleGroundJBanksLForestGroveCorneliusHillsboroPortlandMVancouverDCamasWashougalTroutdaleGreshamGBanksForestGroveCorneliusHillsboroPortlandVancouverCamasWashougalTroutdaleGreshamThe extent ofthe Intertwineregion was definedto encompass thePortland-Vancouvermetropolitan area and itssurrounding landscapesand watersheds. It connectswith, but largely excludes,the main Cascade and CoastalRanges and the heart of theWillamette Valley; these areas arewell represented by previousprioritization efforts. This mapdepicts the watersheds reported on inthe RCS report, which include HUCsub-basins, partial sub-basins, andNewbergBWoodburnBeavertonTigardTualatinSherwoodWilsonvillewatersheds. The region includes eight HUC-4 sub-basins; in thecase of two—the Lower Willamette and the Middle Willamette—wechose to report on the watershed (HUC-5) level.LakeOswegoAMilwaukieCanbyIEOregonCityMolallaHappyValleyDamascusCEstacadaSandyNewbergBeavertonTigardTualatinSherwoodWilsonvilleAlthough land use in theIntertwine region is diverse, it islargely consistent with elevationzones. This hypsometric map colorsthe region in five elevation classes.WoodburnLarge patches of forest are generallyconstrained to the highest elevationzones. Agriculture and (sub)urbandevelopment dominate the 50-200’ and 200-600’ zones, withagriculture extending above 600’ mostly in the eastern portion ofthe region, where it often intergrades with forest.LakeOswegoMilwaukieCanbyOregonCityMolallaHappyValleyDamascusSandyEstacadaRCS Defined WatershedsHUC 5 watersheds are lightly outlined * Represents a partial sub basinA - Abern ethy C reek-Willamette River Watershed (87,000 ac)B - Ch ehalem Creek-Willamette River Watershed (78,000 ac)C- Clackamas Su b Basin * (158,500 ac)D - Hayden Island-Co lu mbia River Watershed (18,500 ac)E - John so n Creek Watershed (60,000 ac)F - Lewis Su b Basin* (221,000ac)G - Low er Colum bia-Sand y Sub Basin* (217,500ac)H - L ower Columbia-Slatskan ie Sub Basin* (22,000ac)I - Molalla-Pu dding Sub Basin* (181.000ac)J - Salmon Creek-Fro ntal Columbia River Watershed (131,500ac)K - Scappoo se Creek-Fro ntal Columbia River Watershed (181,000ac)L - Tualatin Sub Basin (453,500ac)M - Willamette River-Fro ntal Columbia River Watershed (78,000ac)Elevation range 0 - 50 feet8.2% of the Region (150.000 acres)ColumbiaRiver and lower portions of the Willamette RiverElevation range 50 - 200 feet19.3% of the Region (354.000 acres)Mostly Floodplain, Urban and Agriculture areasElevation range 200 - 600 feet34.2% of the Region (627.000 acres)Mostly Agricultue and Urban areasElevation range 600 - 1,000 feet16.4% of the Region (301.000 acres)Transition lands; mix of agriculture and forestElevation range 1,000 - 4,380 feet21.6% of the Region (396.000 acres)Natural and industrial forest lands166 167

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideappendix a Land Cover Mappingfigure A-4Land Coverfigure A-5Forest Patches & Tree CoverSt. HelensLaCenterSt. HelensRidgefieldRidgefieldScappooseBattleGroundScappooseBattleGroundBanksVancouverBanksVancouverForestGroveCorneliusHillsboroPortlandCamasWashougalTroutdaleGreshamForestGroveCorneliusHillsboroPortlandCamasWashougalTroutdaleGreshamBeavertonTigardLakeOswegoMilwaukieHappyValleyDamascusBeavertonTigardLakeOswegoMilwaukieHappyValleyDamascusSherwoodTualatinOregonCitySandyTualatinSherwoodOregonCitySandyLack of consistent landNewbergcover data has previouslybeen one of the majorinformation gaps for groupsseeking to prioritizeconservation goals across theregion. This land cover, created bythe Institute for Natural Resourcesand Metro, uses high resolution colorWoodburnaerial photography, LiDAR, satelliteimagery, and hand digitization tocategorize the region's land cover.This map depicts the most general level of land coverclassification; the full dataset supports many more classifications,including by tree height and type (deciduous/coniferous).WilsonvilleCanbyMolallaEstacadaNewbergTree cover provides avariety of useful functions;even a single tree canenhance air and water quality,provide wildlife habitat, andregulate temperature. However,patches of forest habitat that are 30Woodburnacres or larger provide valuableinterior habitat and are more likely tosupport sensitive species. Landoccupied by these large forest patchesrepresents 44% of the total RCS extent but only 24% of landwithin urban areas (even including Portland’s Forest Park).WilsonvilleCanbyMolallaEstacadaConifers & hardwoods over 14ft tall49.1% of the Region (898,000 acres)Agriculture22.1% of the Region (405,000 acres)Forest patches 30 acres or larger- 44% of the region. The largest of these patches are in themountainous, sparsely-populated fringes of the region.Clear cuts or recently modified forest5.0% of the Region (92,000 acres)Sparse vegetation/grasses/low shrubs 0-13ft7.7% of the Region (141.500 acres)Developed - paved areas and buildings12.9% of the Region (235,000 acres)Water3.1% of the Region (57,000 acres)Trees in patches smaller than 30 acresAll other land cover types- 54% of the region. Urban areas contain substantialtree cover but few large forest patches.- 46% of the region. This category includes developedlands, agriculture, grasses, water and shrubs.168 169

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guidefigure A-6Public LandsSt. HelensLaCenterRidgefieldScappooseBattleGroundBanksVancouverForestGroveCorneliusHillsboroPortlandCamasWashougalTroutdaleGreshamAlthoughcomprehensiveland ownership datais available, landprotection data is not.Not all public lands areundeveloped, protectedfrom development, ormanaged for conservationpurposes. Many parcels inpublic ownership—such as parks,golf courses, schools, andforests—have mixed uses and values.For this publication, the term'publicly owned' refers to all“undeveloped” tax lots of federal,state, regional, county and city-ownedNewbergWoodburnBeavertonTigardTualatinSherwoodWilsonvillelands including: golf courses, parks, schools, farms, and specialdistricts, as well as obviously natural and semi-natural landscapes.It excludes lands owned by non-profits and private entities.LakeOswegoMilwaukieCanbyOregonCityMolallaHappyValleyDamascusEstacadaSandyPublic lands in the RCS:- 13% of total acreage- 9% of urban acreage (UBGs, UGAs)- 14% of non-urban acreageFederal: 3.8%State: 6.1%Local, regional, and special districts: 3.2%Federal: 0.2%State: 0.5%Local, regional, and special districts: 8.2%Federal: 4.8%State: 7.5%Local, regional, and special districts: 1.9%170

appendix B Habitat Prioritization ModelingB. Habitat Prioritization ModelingIn November 2010, when The Intertwine Alliance launched theeffort to produce a regional conservation strategy and biodiversityguide for the greater Portland-Vancouver region, therewas no data-driven map of priority areas for conservation thatadequately covered both the urbanized and rural portions ofthe region. Previous efforts either worked on a larger regionalscale that for the most part discounted the habitat value ofurban areas (this was the case with the state conservationstrategies and Willamette Valley Synthesis Project), focusedon localized geographies and abruptly ended at jurisdictionalboundaries (e.g., Title 13), or covered most of the region butwere based solely on expert opinion (e.g., the Natural Featurescharrette process). The goal of the Regional ConservationStrategy for the Greater Portland-Vancouver Region and theaccompanying Biodiversity Guide was to add a unified regionalperspective to local efforts and to encourage a shared visionthat could facilitate cooperation to protect remaining valuablehabitat.We aimed to develop data-driven, science-based scalablemodels for determining the relative conservation valueof habitat in a way that would complement and support theRegional Conservation Strategy and accompanying BiodiversityGuide. We also wanted to (1) represent urban habitat in a waythat makes the best fine-scale habitat within or near urbanareas “competitive” with large, intact habitat blocks in theurban fringe, (2) cooperate with stakeholders to ensure theirbuy-in on the resulting product, and (3) create a foundationof work that others throughout the region could use for futureconservation efforts, such as wildlife connectivity mapping andconservation and restoration prioritization.Overall ApproachThe modeling effort was overseen by the GIS Subcommittee ofthe Regional Conservation Strategy (RCS) Steering Committee,which included representatives of federal, state, and localjurisdictions and nonprofit organizations. The Institute forNatural Resources (INR) conducted the primary data developmentand modeling with input from the GIS Subcommittee.INR provided multiple drafts and iterations for review by theGIS Subcommittee and RCS Steering Committee. In establishingthe criteria, methods, and threshold values for the models,the modeling team took into consideration the results ofextensive stakeholder consultation and basic conservationscience principles and incorporated scientific expertise.The modeling effort produced two regional map outputs(with accompanying GIS data): a high-value habitat map (FigureB-1) and a riparian habitat map (Figure B-2). Each mapwas based on a distinct set of criteria for relative habitat value.We used a raster-based analysis format to map and analyzethe region as square pixels in a rectangular grid. Each pixel wasscored uniquely based on the science-based criteria. A highresolution(5-meter) regional land cover map that INR createdfor The Intertwine Alliance (Figure A-4) served as a foundationaldata set for several criteria, but the models also requiredregional data on wetlands, bodies of water, floodplains, soiltypes, and roads. In several cases, we faced a tradeoff betweenusing the best available local data and creating or using aregionally consistent data set. In general, we used or createddata sets that provided consistent spatial information acrossthe region. In limited cases, such as with wetlands, we integratedlocal and regional data sets to produce a composite thatwe thought was more accurate while still reasonably consistent.Compiling data from numerous sources can cause variableresults. For example, the density of mapped wetlands in ClarkCounty is higher than in the rest of the region in part becauseof the mapping methods used to compile this data set.Two Habitat Models, Two Sets of CriteriaThe approach used to determine the conservation value ofhabitats consisted of developing two separate models—one forthe entire region (the high-value habitat model) and one forriparian areas (the riparian habitat model). For each model,the modeling team developed spatial data sets that representedcriteria for calculating the value of habitat.171

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideappendix B Habitat Prioritization ModelingHigh-value Habitat ModelThe high-value habitat model covered the entire region (seeFigure B-1). Every pixel received a score from 0 (lowest priority)to 100 (highest priority), yielding a multi-scale habitatprioritization for the entire greater Portland-Vancouver region(1,829,500 acres, or 2,812 square miles).Pixel scores for the high-value habitat model were assigned byconsidering the following criteria:n Habitat interior. Interior forest patches typically are morevaluable than edge habitat because they have better threedimensionalstructure, contain proportionately more nativeplant and animal species, and are further away from disturbances.Interior habitat was defined as areas more than50 meters from the forested patch edge. Pixels located withininterior habitat received higher scores. Pixels within the50-meter buffer received progressively smaller scores as distancefrom the interior increased, with the increase droppingto zero at 50 meters.n Influence of roads. Roads harm wildlife through direct mortality,loss of connectivity, and disturbance. To create a measureof habitat disruption, pixels adjacent to roads were assignedlower scores for habitat value.n Total patch area. Larger habitat patches better supportnatural processes and provide more habitat value than smallpatches. Accordingly, pixels located within the largest patches(larger than 30 acres) received a relatively high score. Pixelsin patches between 10 and 30 acres in size received somewhatlower scores.n Relative patch area. Because the region has a widely diverseset of land uses and patch sizes, we also scored habitat patchesaccording to their size and abundance relative to surroundingpatches. This contextual approach accounts for the differencein conservation value between a 30-acre patch within a denseurban area and an identical 30-acre patch surrounded bywildlands.n Habitat friction. In general, this criterion estimates howdifficult it is for organisms to move from one pixel to the nextacross the landscape. To represent habitat friction, land covervalues were reclassified with values that were cross-walkedwith professional input from previous studies.n Wetlands. Wetlands were not mapped as a land cover typein our 5-meter RCS land cover. However, wetlands and theirimmediate surroundings provide very valuable habitat resourcesand support water quality and groundwater recharge. Pixelsthat fell within wetlands received higher scores than similarpixels that were not within wetlands. Pixels within 100 feet of awetland were scored progressively based on proximity.n Hydric-rating soils. Hydric soils are strongly associated withwetlands. Pixels within hydric soil areas received slightlyhigher scores than similar pixels outside hydric soil areas. Thismetric was helpful in differentiating habitat within agriculturalareas and other areas with incompletely mapped wetlandfeatures.Criteria layers were combined by adding assigned valuesor varying weights of the criteria to create a high-value habitatmetric for each pixel. Throughout the process, we regularlyevaluated model results for consistency with known areas ofhigh-value habitat and used these comparisons to adjust themodel.Because of a lack of region-wide data, the model is limitedin accounting for certain high-value habitats or habitat attributes,including:n Oak savanna and woodlandsn Prairies and grasslandsn Old-growth forestsn Habitat composed of native species versus non-nativespeciesThe Intertwine Alliance intends to address these shortcomingsover time, but for the near term, consideration of thesehabitat types in conservation planning will continue to requirelocal expert knowledge.Riparian Habitat ModelThe extent of the riparian habitat model was determined by thelocation of the region’s water features and an appropriate bufferaround them. Buffers for major streams and water bodies werecalculated using a variable model that assigned buffer widthsto stream reaches by considering each reach’s attributes, suchas stream flow, stream volume, surrounding land cover, and thepresence of salmonids. All perennial streams mapped in theU.S. Geological Society’s National Hydrography Dataset—eventhose lacking stream reach attributes—received a minimumbuffer and thus were included in the analysis. All FederalEmergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplains and allwetlands (buffered by 30 meters) within 200 feet of streamswere included. Altogether, nearly 464,000 acres received scoresin the riparian habitat model. This figure accounts for nearly25 percent of the greater Portland-Vancouver region (FigureB-2). Within urban areas alone, 80,000 acres were evaluated;this accounts for 21 percent of the urban areas in the region.As with the high-priority habitat model, the fine-scaled rasterbasednature of this approach provides for a high level of localdetail.Pixel scores for the riparian habitat model were assigned byconsidering the following criteria:n Curve value-surface runoff (i.e., infiltration potential) of anarea based on its land cover type. In urban and agriculturalareas, high volumes of water entering streams at high velocitycan wreak havoc on stream function. Vegetation, particularlytrees and shrubs, slow the flow, stabilize banks, and promotehealthy channel structure. We derived surface runoff for eachpixel by reclassifying our 5-meter land cover using previouslypublished research on soil and land cover absorption rates.n Cost distance from various bodies of water, including wetlands,target stream, floodplains, and other streams and river edges.Riparian areas vary in width, depending largely on elevationchanges. Cost distance is a combination of linear distance andtopography and is a measure of how closely a particular pixelis associated with a stream. This criterion helps capture thestrength of the influence that the surrounding land form andcondition have on the water body.Features and buffered areas were then weighted and combinedin a similar manner as the high-value habitat metric to create ariparian habitat metric for each pixel.ResultsThe models can depict areas of significant conservation valueacross the region (Figure B-1), or only within a specified geographye.g., only within urban areas (Figure B-3). At a regionalscale, the results align with those of previous efforts, such asthe Willamette Valley Synthesis Project. As one zooms in, themodels have much richer detail than any previous regionalmaps for the region. Preliminary comparisons with local conservationmapping efforts and expert knowledge have validatedthe overall modeling approach.Although we initially intended to create polygonal conservationopportunity areas, as in the Oregon ConservationStrategy and Willamette Valley Synthesis Project, we decidedto publish the model results in raster format. Publishing in thisformat allows the raster data sets to provide useful maps anddata at a range of scales (Figure B-4) for a wide variety of usersand applications. End users can generate their own polygonsbased on their specific area of interest, conservation strategy,or criteria. For example, an Intertwine partner working in asubset of the region can create maps showing the top-priorityhabitat within a particular boundary (e.g., Clark County, theTualatin River watershed, or the city of Gresham). However,drawbacks to this decision are that the data sets are large,analysis may require GIS skills or custom software, and somepractitioners and decision makers prefer to use polygon data.Conclusions and Next StepsThis data-driven approach is meant to complement rather thanreplace local knowledge by validating and challenging whatwe know and informing us about areas we know less well. Ourintent was to provide a common metric for diverse stakeholdersacross the region. With limited funding available forconservation activities and a diverse set of stakeholders, thereis a need for regional priority setting that can assist jurisdictions,agencies, and nonprofits in making more efficient andeffective conservation decisions. Moving forward, we hope thatthis modeling effort will continue to undergo refinement andanalysis as partners begin to apply the results to their particulargeography and approaches. The following are some immediatepotential uses for the model results:n Helping nominate urban additions to the Willamette ValleySynthesis Projectn Identifying conservation opportunity areas (i.e., focal areas)for subregions where partners may have fundingn Helping to create potential biodiversity corridorsn Helping regional partners create programmatic priorities forinvestmentn Linking particular strategies for conservation or restorationto specific areas identified by the models172173

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideappendix B Habitat Prioritization Modelingfigure B-1High-Value Habitatfigure B-2Riparian Habitat ModelingSt. HelensLaCenterSt. HelensLaCenterRidgefieldRidgefieldScappooseBattleGroundScappooseBattleGroundBanksVancouverBanksVancouverForestGroveCorneliusHillsboroPortlandCamasWashougalTroutdaleGreshamForestGroveCorneliusHillsboroPortlandCamasWashougalTroutdaleGreshamBeavertonTigardTualatinSherwoodThis graphic presents thetop 30% output from theNewbergWilsonvillehabitat prioritizationmodel scored at the scale ofthe entire 1,829,500 acreregion. The model, developedfor the Regional ConservationStrategy Steering Committee by ateam of regional experts, used araster-based approach to combineWoodburnnumerous features, including: landcover type, wetlands, absolute andrelative patch size, interior habitatand the presence of roads. Because our region contains both denseurban areas and large tracts of forestlands, much of the highestvalue lands fall outside of urban areas.LakeOswegoMilwaukieCanbyOregonCityMolallaHappyValleyDamascusEstacadaSandyTop 30% High-Value HabitatThis graphic presents theRiparian Habitat modeledwithin the region. Theextent of the RiparianHabitat model wasdetermined by bufferingriparian features, includingstreams, wetlands, and floodplains.NewbergWoodburnBeavertonTigardTualatinSherwoodWilsonvilleLakeOswegoMilwaukieCanbyOregonCityMolallaHappyValleyDamascusEstacadaSandyRiparian Habitat evaluatedHigh-Value Habitat - Top 30% of the RCS region, based on modeled outputOf the 552,000 acres in the top 30%:- 381,000 acres are in Oregon (28.5% of Oregon RCS extent; 20.8% of total RCS)- 171,000 acres are in Washington (34.6% of Washington extent; 9.3% of total RCS)- 19,400 acres are in RCS urban areas (5.2% of urban areas; 1.1% of total RCS)Extent analyzed by the Riparian Modelnumbers below include water featuresThe area analyzed by the riparian model includes:- 463,500 acres total (25.3 of RCS extent)- 323,000 acres in Oregon (24.2% of Oregon RCS extent)- 140,000 acres in Washington (28.3% of Washington RCS extent)- 79,500 acres in urban areas (21.3% of RCS areas)174 175

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideappendix B Habitat Prioritization Modelingfigure B-3High-Value Habitat - Urban onlyfigure B-4Understanding Conditions at Multiple ScalesSt. HelensLaCenterAn important benefit of our approach is the flexibility to analyzedata at any scale, from the 3,000-square-mile region to the localneighborhood. The following examples represent patterns of landcover and relative conservation value as one zooms in from theregional to the neighborhood scale.BanksForestGroveCorneliusNewbergHillsboroScappooseBeavertonTigardTualatinSherwoodWilsonvilleThis graphic presents the top30% output of the habitatprioritization model for the region'surban areas (UGBs and UGAs). The5-meter pixel size of our raster-baseddata allows for effective analysis ofWoodburnthe conservations value at a variety ofscales, and is especially useful in thehighly fragmented habitats of themore developed portions of the region. The raster output allowsfor targeted prioritizations within a smaller area of interest: in thiscase, urban areas.RidgefieldLakeOswegoMilwaukieCanbyPortlandVancouverOregonCityMolallaBattleGroundHappyValleyCamasGreshamDamascusTroutdaleWashougalEstacadaSandyUrban Top 30%High-Value HabitatHigh-Value Habitat - Top 30% of urban areas, based on modeled outputOf the 114,000 acres in the urban top 30%:- 85,400 acres are in Oregon (30.1% of Oregon RCS urban areas; 4.7% of total RCS)- 28,600 acres are in Washington (32.3% of Washington RCS urban areas; 1.6% of total RCS)Regional 1”=6.3 miles, or 33,333 feetLocal 1”=0.85 miles, or 4,500 feetNeighborhood 1”=0.19 miles, or 1,000 feetHighest ValueMedium-Low ValueRegionalAt the regional geographic scale, most small, local habitatsare not apparent. Only the most prominent features standout, such as rivers and large forest blocks. The highest scoringareas reflect habitats that have significant conservationvalue within the 3,000-square-mile region. Most highly fragmentedurban habitats are not represented at this scale eventhough these areas are critical to regional biodiversity.LocalAt this intermediate scale, finer habitat patterns are moreapparent while regional elements are still prominent. In thisexample, blocks of habitat barely visible at the regional scalebecome more dominant. For example, patterns of streettree density within east Portland become recognizable as apotential regional planning element. Opportunities to createecological connections between regional sites are suggested.Only the highest scoring areas at this scale are likely to haveregional significance.NeighborhoodAt the local scale, the neighborhood, features that appearless significant at the regional scale are apparent. Habitatsbarely or not recognizable at larger scales, such as localparks, creeks, vegetated hillsides, or tree patches can bewoven into a meaningful framework and incorporatedinto local habitat conservation planning, neighborhood byneighborhood.176High ValueMedium-High ValueLow ValueLeast Value177

appendix C Natural Areas OwnershipC. Natural Areas OwnershipLand protection and public ownership are not identical. Whilenumbers for public ownership are available (statistics for ourregion are presented in Chapter 1, p14), the future managementstatus of most public properties is legally uncertain.Furthermore, definitions of current management conceptslike “natural area,” “nature park,” and “multiple use area” areuneven at best. Here we present brief descriptions of the landportfolio and management philosophy of many of our regionspublic and private land managers who have biodiversityconservation as at least part of their organization’s mission.Each organization submitted draft text which was edited forconsistency in style and brevity by the Biodiversity Guide steeringcommittee, which takes full responsibility for all errors oromissions. We apologize in advance to those organizations orentities our funding limitations did not allow us to include.Audubon Society of PortlandThe Audubon Society of Portland owns or manages the150-acre Audubon Sanctuary adjacent to Forest Park in SouthwestPortland. The site consists of 64 acres owned by Audubonand 86 acres owned by Metro. Management of this mature forestthat supports minor streams focuses on biodiversityprotection. The site is bisected by Cornell Road, contains asmall parking lot, visitor center, and wildlife recovery center.Public access is permitted via a pedestrian trail system.Bureau of Land ManagementThe Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages 35,285 acresin the greater Portland-Vancouver region. The majority is inthe Salem District and is currently managed under the WesternOregon Plan Revision (WOPR). A total of 339 acres are managedby the BLM’s Spokane Office.Under the current management framework, 5,530 acreswere administratively withdrawn from the harvest land basefor specific purposes (e.g., species management, recreation,roads). Much of the remainder is for timber management(20,704 acres). There also are 6,269 acres in riparian managementareas, 134 acres in late-successional management areas,60 acres in deferred timber management areas, and 2,391 inNational Landscape Conservation System (NLCS). Other BLMdesignations within the greater Portland-Vancouver regioninclude the Horning Seed Orchard (806 acres), Larch MountainEnvironmental Education Site (176 acres), Oxbow CountyPark (267 acres), Sandy River Gorge Area of Critical EnvironmentalConcern (ACEC) (437 acres) and Wilhoit SpringsACEC (147 acres).BLM’s NLCS lands include wild and scenic rivers, includingparts of the Clackamas, Sandy, and Salmon rivers (see www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/rod/files/wopr_salem_RMP.pdf). Inaddition, congressionally designated areas under BLM administrationinclude the Mt. Hood Corridor (4,644 acres), which ismanaged to protect and enhance scenic quality and fire safety,and the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit (658 acres),which is managed to protect and enhance water quality.Large habitat areas are distributed throughout much of thelandscape in the greater Portland-Vancouver region, and largescaleplanning helps guide timber harvest and habitat protection.Some areas are managed for federally listed species, suchas salmon, northern spotted owl, and marbled murrelet. Theharvest land base results in a heterogeneous landscape importantto many wildlife species.Clackamas County ParksClackamas County Parks owns or manages 22 propertieswith more than 1,000 acres of park and natural areas withinthe northwest portions of Clackamas County. These areas aremostly within the urban-rural interface and in rural settings;very few are in urban areas. Most sites are located along threemajor regional rivers—the Clackamas, Molalla, or Willamette—orone of their tributaries.Clackamas County Park’s mission is to provide park recreationareas but also to preserve the natural environment.Management focuses on both developed parks, including a golfcourse; parks with fishing access, trails, camping, and otherpark elements; and undeveloped open spaces. Most of theseparks and open spaces still retain large tracts of healthy, predominantlyforested and riparian habitat with some wetlandsand open water. Unique elements include natural mineralsprings, old-growth forest, rocky cliffs with madrone stands,and salmonid spawning habitat. Stone Creek Golf Club islocated on 165 acres, is a certified as an Audubon CooperativeSanctuary, and in 2009 was voted the eighth most environmentallyfriendly golf course in the country by Links magazine.179

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideappendix C Natural Areas OwnershipCity of HillsboroThe City of Hillsboro owns more than 850 acres of non-builtpark and greenway lands. The city’s Parks and Recreationdepartment owns and manages 448 acres of the 725-acresJackson Bottoms Wetlands Preserve. More than 300 acres ofgreenways and open spaces (riparian tracts) are preservedfor natural resource, stormwater management, aesthetic, andpotential passive recreation values. Other notable natural areaparks include good examples of older Douglas fir and riparianforests, such as Noble Woods Park (39 acres), Rood BridgePark (73 acres), Dairy Creek Park (24 acres), Orchard Park(21 acres), and the Rock Creek Trail (42 acres). Hillsboro alsoowns and manages numerous smaller, neighborhood-scaleparks in a mixture of natural and landscaped settings. Someof these include playing fields and playgrounds that providea mixture of outdoor recreational amenities. A map of Hillsboro’sparks is available at www.ci.hillsboro.or.us/ParksRec/documents/HillsboroParksMap.pdf.City of PortlandPortland Parks and Recreation (PP&R) is the steward of 11,000acres of land at more than 250 locations. PP&R City Naturewas formed in 2004 to raise awareness of the importance ofnatural areas and their contribution to the livability of thecity. City Nature promotes and implements the stewardship ofnatural areas. City Nature manages more 8,000 acres of naturalareas within the city limits, ranging from Forest Park (at more5,000 acres) to a web of small natural areas along the WillametteRiver and throughout the city. Additional natural areasare managed as part of developed (i.e., hybrid) parks. Habitatsrepresented in PP&R natural areas and parks include oakhabitat, upland forest (including interior coniferous forests),diverse wetland types, grasslands (not native prairie), andriparian and bottomland forests.In 2003, PP&R was the nation’s first park system to beSalmon Safe Certified. In 2010 PP&R completed a natural arearestoration plan that includes a prioritized list of projects withtheir objectives and desired ecological outcomes for naturalareas. This plan will guide PP&R in reaching the desiredoutcome of protecting and enhancing the biodiversity andecological health of the City’s natural areas, provide directionfor near- and long-term actions, and establish managementpriorities.Clark County/Vancouver-Clark Parks and RecreationClark County has almost 80,000 acres of land managed bypublic agencies for their natural resource and recreation values.Major landowners include the Washington Department ofNatural Resources (60,000 acres), the Washington Departmentof Fish and Wildlife (3,067 acres), the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService (6,243 acres), the Gifford Pinchot National Forest(1,239 acres), and Clark County/Vancouver-Clark Parks andRecreation (7,277 acres).Vancouver-Clark Parks and Recreation (VCPR) land ownershipspans a variety of lands for recreation and conservation,including several regional parks larger than 50 acres thatprovide diverse recreational activities for residents from ClarkCounty and beyond. Designed to accommodate many people,regional park facilities may include sports fields, trails, largepicnic areas, and significant natural areas. VCPR’s regionalparks plan recommends maintaining the development levelin theses parks at 18 percent of the site. Master planning helpsguide various parks’ functions, values and desired futureconditions. Throughout Clark County, VCPRD’s 17 regionalpark sites encompass 2,314 acres. Regional natural areas, trailsand greenways, and special-use areas cover an additional 3,350acres. Urban parks within the City and its urban growth areacover more than 1,000 acres on 136 sites. Urban natural areasthat may have some degree of public access conserve an additional533 acres on 36 sites.VCPR’s parks include a variety of habitat types and uniquenatural features. Camp Lewisville contains fragments of oldgrowthforest that escaped the Yacolt Burn. Lacamas Parkincludes a population of camas lilies on a rock outcropping.Frenchman’s Bar and William Clark parks include ColumbiaRiver floodplain forest remnants, and East Fork, Burnt BridgeCreek, and other parks conserve wetlands, floodplains, andriparian corridors.Concentrations of public ownership occur from VancouverLake north to the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge Complex,Lower Salmon Creek from Lakeshore Drive to I-5, theLower East Fork of the Lewis River from its mouth to LewisvillePark, the north and south ends of Lacamas Lake, andthe Cottonwood Beach-Steigerwald National Wildlife Refugevicinity east of Washougal. The Columbia River Gorge NationalScenic Area encompasses land from the first ridgeline northof the Columbia River from east of Washougal to the SkamaniaCounty border. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR)manages concentrations of forest lands south of Lake Merwinand east of Yale Lake, south of the East Fork Lewis River toCamp Bonneville. The Gifford Pinchot National Forest extendsfrom east of the DNR lands south of the East Fork to the SkamaniaCounty border. Once ordnance remediation is completed,Camp Bonneville, too, will become a significant componentof the legacy lands system.Columbia Land TrustThe Columbia Land Trust owns or manages 1,050 acres withinthe greater Portland-Vancouver region. Ownership includes285 acres over 14 sites that together protect riparian, wetland,and forest habitats along the East Fork Lewis, Clackamas,Tualatin, Sandy, and Columbia rivers. A total of 505 acres in18 conservation easements adjacent to public natural areassuch as Forest Park expand the conserved areas and protectwetlands, wet prairie, oak habitat, upland forest, and riparianareas in several watersheds. Columbia Land Trust holds 230acres of land in partnership with Clark County that will betransferred to the County to become part of its system of parksand natural areas. Management aims to maintain and restorenative plant and wildlife communities with public accessallowed within that context.Forest Park Conservancy (FPC)The Forest Park Conservancy owns and manages the 38-acre“Ancient Forest Preserve” and eight conservation easementstotaling roughly 300 acres north of Forest Park and adjacent toa Metro natural area. The preserve is managed for old-growthforest conditions and contains 29 acres of never-harvested forestand a section of Burlington Creek. Limited public access ispermitted via a 0.4-mile pedestrian trail. Terms of the conservationeasements support the goals of surrounding naturalareas by limiting timber harvest, restricting future development,and supporting onsite restoration.MetroMetro owns or manages 16,000 acres of natural areas and parksscattered throughout the Oregon portion of the region in 27“target areas.” Roughly 12,000 acres were acquired since 1995through two bond measures. Included are three developednature parks totaling 695 acres with visitor facilities and maintainedtrails, along with approximately 600 acres of land leasedfor agriculture. Roughly 3,400 acres include Oxbow RegionalPark, Blue Lake Park, Smith and Bybee Wetlands, and ChinookBoat Landing; all of these areas provide substantial ecologicalbenefit but contain developed portions, too. Metro anticipatesacquiring 2,000 additional acres with funds from the 2006bond.Metro’s holdings represent diverse habitats, includingupland forest, riparian and bottomland forest, oak habitats,wetlands, and prairie. Significant regional natural areas arescattered throughout the region, including substantial holdingsin the lower Sandy River, lower Clackamas River, Clear Creek,Johnson Creek, Willamette Narrows, middle Tualatin, NewellCanyon, East Buttes, Chehalem Ridge, Lower Gales Creek,greater Forest Park (including Multnomah Channel), and theSmith and Bybee Wetlands.Management generally aims toward pre-1850 conditions,but the desired future condition is selected based on the site’sposition in the landscape, soils and hydrology, and local opportunitiesfor water quality and wildlife habitat enhancement andpublic enjoyment.The Nature ConservancyThe Nature Conservancy owns 489 acres of natural areas inthe greater Portland-Vancouver region. Most (471 acres) are inthe lower Sandy River Watershed between Dodge and Oxbowparks and help protect large contiguous tracts of floodplain,riparian, and upland forest within the Wild and Scenic RiverCorridor. The 27-acre Camassia Natural Area and 12-acreLittle Rock Island are in the Willamette Narrows area and protectrelatively high-quality remnants of prairie, oak savanna,and mixed woodland.Biodiversity conservation and the needs of the priority conservationtargets are the overwhelming management priority;public access is allowed within that context. Although managementgoals generally align with pre-1850 conditions, desiredfuture conditions are selected to be consistent with the needs ofthe site’s conservation targets, position in the landscape, soils,and hydrology.North Clackamas Parks and Recreation DistrictNorth Clackamas Parks and Recreation District (NCPRD)owns or manages 800 acres of parks, open spaces and naturalareas within a 36-mile radius of the North Clackamas urbanarea, including unincorporated Clackamas County, the Cityof Milwaukie, and Happy Valley. Although these parks andnatural areas are spread throughout the north Clackamas area,many of the larger natural areas are located along Mount ScottCreek; this includes Mount Talbert Nature Park (230 acres),which is co-owned by Metro.180181

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideappendix C Natural Areas OwnershipNCPRD’s mission focuses on developed parks and recreation;however, recently NCPRD’s management has expandedto also focus on natural resource areas. Although most of theparks are developed, with trails and other park elements, a fewof the sites are designated as open space. NCPRD’s lands hosta range of habitat types, including upland woodlands (includesclosed-canopy Douglas fir and oak habitat), mixed oak, riparianand floodplain, wet prairie, open water, and forested wetlands.Although these areas are fragmented urban islands, theysupport an array of native habitats and species, some which arenow a concern because of their limited distributions, such asthe western gray squirrel at Mount Talbert.Oregon Department of ForestryThe Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) owns approximately23,000 acres of land at the western edge of the greaterPortland-Vancouver region, mostly in the Gales Creek,Sunday Creek, and Scoggins Creek basins, which are headwatersto the Tualatin River. This area, which is part of theTillamook State Forest, is composed mostly of a mix of youngto middle-aged stands, with a smaller component of matureupland conifer forests. ODF ownership blocks range in sizefrom 5 to 7,000 acres. The two largest blocks are contiguouswith the rest of the Tillamook State Forest, which comprisesa block of approximately 320,000 contiguous acres of forestmanaged by ODF. Ownership between ODF blocks is primarilyprivate, with a smaller component owned by the cities ofForest Grove and Hillsboro and BLM. The majority of ODFownership was involved in a series of fires between 1933 and1945 that are referred to as the Tillamook Burn. The land wasdeeded to ODF in the 1940s and 1950s to be reforested andmanaged. The forest receives substantial recreational use. TheGales Creek area, a non-motorized recreation area, is host tothe Gales Creek Campground, Gales Creek Overlook, SummitTrailhead, Storeyburn Trailhead, and Gales Creek Trail. Motorizedrecreation occurs in an area called Rogers Basin just southof Gales Creek. Rogers Camp Trailhead and the Rogers CampRoad trail are found in this area.ODF Board of Forestry lands are managed for the “greatestpermanent value” for the citizens of Oregon, under theNorthwest Oregon Forest Management Plan (April, 2010).Greatest permanent value is defined as “healthy, productive,and sustainable forest ecosystems that over time and acrossthe landscape provide the full range of social, economic, andenvironmental benefits to the people of Oregon” (OAR 62-035-0020(1)).” These lands are retained as forests and managedto provide sustainable timber harvest as well as other forestresource values such as clean air and water, wildlife and aquatichabitat, and recreational opportunities.Oregon Department of Fish and WildlifeThe Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) ownsapproximately 12,100 acres of land within greater Portland-Vancouver region, excluding “developed” properties suchas office facilities and fish hatcheries. The great majority iscontained within the Sauvie Island Wildlife Management Area(SIWA) (approximately 11,500 acres). The remaining approximately600 acres consists of dispersed parcels that primarilywere acquired to provide public recreational fishing access.The SIWA was established in 1947 primarily to protect andimprove waterfowl habitat, and to provide public waterfowlhunting opportunities. The SIWA contains a number of diversehabitats, including extensive wetlands of several types, openwater, riparian and bottomland hardwood forests, grasslands,oak habitat/savanna, beach, and areas in agricultural productionfor wildlife forage. Several are identified as priorities in theOregon Conservation Strategy, and management is focused onprotecting, maintaining, and restoring habitats to benefit fishand wildlife species.Public fishing access areas owned by ODFW range insize from several acres up to 260 acres. Most remain largelyundeveloped and provide angling access to major rivers suchas the Sandy, Clackamas, and Molalla, although several provideaccess to man-made ponds (e.g. Wilsonville Pond, WoodburnPond, and the St. Louis Ponds public fishing area). Public fishingareas support upland conifer and hardwood forest, riparianareas, wetlands, open water, grasslands, and wet prairie. Habitatmanagement at these sites varies, with a primary objectivebeing to minimize damage associated with public uses andmaintain existing habitat values.Oregon Parks and Recreation DepartmentOregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD) ownsmore than 11,000 acres in the Oregon portion of the greaterPortland-Vancouver region and manages an additional 2,200acres on Government Island. OPRD’s ownership includes largeparks such as Stub Stewart State Park, Tryon Creek State NaturalArea, Rooster Rock State Park, Milo McIver State Park, andChampoeg State Historic Area, popular parks on the SandyRiver and in the Columbia River Gorge, and several smallerparks and properties scattered throughout the region. Majorrecreational uses in these parks range from disc golf and equestrianto swimming, hiking, and camping. The larger parkscontain significant tracts of undeveloped or lightly developedacreage (e.g. low-impact trails).A diverse array of native habitats can be found in the stateparks in the region, including riparian and bottomland forest,upland forest, oak savanna and prairie, wetlands, and aquatichabitats. OPRD’s mission is multi-fold, providing and protectingnatural, scenic, cultural, historic, and recreational resources.OPRD works to restore and enhance the natural resourcesin the state’s parks, often working with partners in the region toidentify opportunities and leverage resources. Natural resourcemanagement is guided by park master plans, natural resourcemanagement plans, and state and regional conservation plans.In addition to restoration and enhancement, OPRD works toprotect natural resources from damage associated with publicuse and park development.PacifiCorp Lewis River Wildlife Habitat Management LandsPacifiCorp owns approximately 11,105 acres in the LewisRiver basin in Southwest Washington. These lands, knownas Wildlife Habitat Management Plan lands (WHMP lands),fulfill Federal Energy Regulation Commission license obligationsby offsetting habitat impacts resulting from the continuedoperation of the Lewis River Hydroelectric Projects (Merwin,Yale, and Swift No. 1 Hydroelectric Projects). For the durationof the 50-year license, WHMP lands are managed to benefit abroad range of wildlife, fish, and native plant species, including,but not limited to, large and small game, amphibians,bats, forest raptors, neotropical migrant birds, and culturallysignificant native plants. Management decisions are approvedby the Terrestrial Coordination Committee, a partnership ofthe Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, Cowlitz Indian Tribe, and Rocky MountainElk Foundation.Approximately 10,000 acres of the WHMP lands lie withinthe greater Portland-Vancouver region, mostly surroundingMerwin Reservoir with a small portion to the north andeast near Yale Reservoir. The dominant cover type is a mix ofDouglas fir, western red cedar, hemlock, and bigleaf maple typicalof low-elevation Western Cascades forest. Most stands arethe typical young, closed-canopy forests of the region, but theyrange in age from recently planted following timber harvestactivities to mature and old-growth (approximately 5 percent).Other forested habitats include mixed stands of deciduous andconiferous trees, upland deciduous stands dominated by redalders, and small oak sites that exist on rocky outcrops.WHMP lands support many other habitats and severalWashington Department of Fish and Wildlife priority habitatsand species. Many of the non-forested habitats are managed toprovide optimum wildlife forage and include natural and createdmeadows, farmland pastures, orchards, shrublands, and—where possible—the transmission line right-of-way. There isa diverse array of natural and created wetlands. All wetland,riparian, and shoreline areas are buffered to protect habitat.Significant habitat features such as talus slopes, large snags,and rock outcrops are also protected where possible. The landswithin the greater Portland-Vancouver region are within twospotted owl management circles, have known Larch Mountainsalamander locations, and currently support two bald eaglenesting territories, two bald eagle roosts and a staging area,and numerous osprey and red-tailed hawk nests.Port of PortlandFounded in 1891, the Port of Portland is one of the largestlandowners in the Portland metropolitan area, with more than10,000 acres of property holdings. These include three airports,four marine terminals, industrial and commercial parks, undevelopedland available for development, dedicated open space,and 764 acres of wetland mitigation, re-vegetated sites alongthe Columbia Slough, and riverbank enhancements. Over3,000 acres are natural areas.The Port implements an environmental managementsystem that sets standards for environmental performance andencourages continuous improvement. Guided by a comprehensiveenvironmental policy (adopted by the Port Commission)and a specific natural resources policy, Port staff look foropportunities to enhance and sustain natural resources, goingbeyond regulatory compliance by using practices that increasehabitat value and function. The Port works closely with regionalpartners such as the Northwest Ecological Institute, XercesSociety, Oregon Wildlife Institute, and Oregon Departmentof Fish and Wildlife to monitor and conduct surveys on Portproperties and evaluate overall biological function. Currentprojects focus on western painted turtles, amphibians, grasslandpollinators, and aquatic invertebrates on Port-owned sites.Port facilities are located along and near significant ecologicalresources, including the Columbia and Willamette rivers,the Columbia Slough, and Smith and Bybee Wetlands NaturalArea. Wetland mitigation sites are managed to ensure highfunctioninghydrology and connectivity to neighboring sites.182183

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideappendix C Natural Areas OwnershipVanport Wetlands, a 91-acre mitigation site in North Portlandnear Smith and Bybee Wetlands Natural Area, has beenrestored from a reed canarygrass-dominated site to a diversewetland ecosystem dominated by native species.The Port owns more than 800 acres on the west side ofHayden Island, one of the largest undeveloped tracts in thePortland metro area. This area features shallow-water habitat,riparian forest dominated by black cottonwood stands, andupland meadows. The site is being evaluated for 500 acres ofopen space and 300 acres of industrial development via a Cityof Portland annexation process. Approximately 100 acres of the300-acre proposed development site is an active dredge materialplacement site.The Port recently acquired a 453-acre industrial site inTroutdale consisting of 366 acres of developed or developableland, 75 acres of open space, and 12 acres of wetland mitigationland.The Port partnered with the Oregon Department of Transportation,Clean Water Services, and the City of Hillsboro torestore and enhance wetlands at the Jackson Bottom WetlandsPreserve for wetland mitigation credit; the “Bobcat Marsh”project will also enhance the educational and recreationalvalue of the preserve.Over the next few years, the Port will be implementing anew initiative on a portion of Port-owned land on GovernmentIsland, part of a 2,220-acre island complex in the ColumbiaRiver. The Port will be mitigating for future aviation-relatedimpacts to grasslands on Portland International Airport landby improving 300 acres of upland grassland habitat on theisland. Government Island also is home to the 426-acre JewettLake mitigation site, which was enhanced in the early 1990s tocompensate for development at PDX. The island is being evaluatedfurther for use as mitigation for several other anticipatedPort-related developments.Port of VancouverThe Port of Vancouver USA is a multi-purpose port authoritylocated in Vancouver, Washington, within the Vancouver Lakelowlands. Established in 1912, the Port ensures public ownershipof trade docks on the Columbia River. Port lands include1,970 acres along 4 miles of the Columbia River in southwestClark County. Operations occur on an 800-acre area of landzoned for heavy industrial use. Port ownership includes morethan 600 acres of natural areas adjacent to the developed propertythat may be developed for heavy (500 acres) or light (100acres) industrial use in the future. An additional 570 acres ofnatural areas—primarily contiguous lowlands—have been setaside in perpetuity for habitat to mitigate current and futuredevelopments. In addition to the 570 acres, the Port of Vancouveris establishing a 157-acre wetland mitigation bank, the firstof its kind in Clark County, which will make mitigation creditsavailable to developers within the Lower Columbia Riverwatershed. The port is adjacent to and part of a larger bi-statesystem of natural areas that includes Washington State Fishand Wildlife’s Shillapoo Wildlife Area, U.S. Fish and WildlifeService’s Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge Complex, theVancouver Lake lowlands, and—on the Oregon side—HaydenIsland, Sauvie Island, and the confluence of the Columbia andWillamette rivers.Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation DistrictThe Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District owns or manages1,300 acres of natural areas in more than 100 different sites inthe greater Beaverton area, including 220 acres co-managedwith Metro at Cooper Mountain. The district has owned naturalareas for more than30 years and has taken an increasinglyactive role in maintaining them since the 1990s. Most sites providesome public access for wildlife viewing, hiking, or biking.The park district’s land includes upland forest, oak habitat,wetlands, remnant prairie, and riparian corridors. The mostsignificant properties include the Tualatin Hills Nature Park(233 acres), Cooper Mountain Nature Park, and a string ofproperties along Rock Creek and its tributaries, as well as alongBeaverton’s South Johnson Creek.District staff strive to support robust urban ecosystemsthat approximate pre-1850 conditions to benefit wildlife andprovide the community with an understanding of the historicalhabitats representative of their region.USDA Forest ServiceThe U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Serviceadministers 27,462 acres in the greater Portland-Vancouverregion. About half of this area (13,830 acres) falls in theColumbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (CRGNSA),andthe remainder is on the other portions of the Mt. Hood andGifford Pinchot National Forests (7,768 acres and 5,864 acres,respectively). The CRGNSA lands are managed for their scenicvalue. Other national forest lands provide valuable wildlifehabitat, wilderness, water, fish habitat, and related naturalvalues.All of the area falls within the Northwest Forest Plan area.Of the total 27,462 acres, 14,316 acres are administrativelywithdrawn from timber harvest to provide for the special recreationarea of the CRGNSA or special interest areas (botanical,historical archaeological, geologic, and scenic purposes,and research natural areas), or they are designated as wildlifehabitats and conservation areas. Of the remaining 13,146 acres,5,816 acres are designated as late-successional reserves in orderto meet the habitat needs of the northern spotted owl andother species associated with old-growth forest. Two acres fallwithin Congressionally withdrawn wilderness. The remaining7,328 ac are considered “matrix” in the Northwest Forest Plan.These lands have a multiple-use emphasis, including timberextraction.U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceThrough the National Wildlife Refuge System, the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service manages five national wildlife refuges(NWRs) within the greater Portland-Vancouver region. Fourare adjacent to the Columbia River and managed as the RidgefieldNWR Complex; they are the Ridgefield NWR downstreamof Vancouver, Washington (5936 acres), SteigerwaldLake (1,356 acres), Franz Lake (695 acres), and Pierce (329acres) NWRs between Washougal, Washington, and BonnevilleDam. The two units of the Tualatin River NWR (Wapato andTualatin, totaling 7,370 acres) are in the southeastern portionof the study area.The region’s national wildlife refuges support diverse habitats,including riparian, floodplain and upland forest; wetlands;oak savanna and wet prairie; and farmland managed for grainproduction for waterfowl.Refuges must be managed to fulfill the National WildlifeRefuge System’s mission and the specific purpose(s) for whichthe refuge was established as specified in or derived from therelated laws, regulations, and proclamations or administrativememorandum. When a conflict exists between the refugesystem mission and the purpose of an individual refuge, therefuge purpose supersedes the mission. Management strategiesare identified in comprehensive conservation plans (CCPs),which have been completed for the Ridgefield, SteigerwaldLake, Franz Lake, and Pierce national wildlife refuges. TheTualatin River NWR is in the process of developing a CCP.Washington Department of Fish and WildlifeThe Shillapoo Wildlife Area and a portion of the Mount SaintHelens wildlife area are located within the greater Portland-Vancouver region. The 2,370-acre Shillapoo Wildlife Area,which is located within the floodplain of the Columbia Riverin Clark County, is managed as three units. Annual floodingand scouring, which formed the area’s topography, have beensubstantially reduced as a result of hydropower, irrigation, andflood control projects upstream.The area is currently a mix of agricultural land and developedpasture intermixed with fragmented pieces of naturalhabitat of varying quality. Himalayan blackberry and reedcanarygrass are two exotic plants that limit habitat quality inalmost all habitat types. Sharecrop and grazing agreementswith local farmers and ranchers have been used to maintainhabitat for migrating and wintering waterfowl and sandhillcranes. Corn and small grains are left standing for forage.Recent and ongoing major projects focus on restoring a largeportion of the agricultural land to wetland habitat.As a major wintering area for waterfowl in the Pacific Flyway,the Shillapoo supports Canada geese, mallards, and otherdabbling ducks. Bald eagles nest in adjoining areas and can bepresent in significant numbers on the wildlife area, particularlyin winter. Sandhill cranes use the wildlife area and surroundinglands primarily as a staging area during the fall and spring, buta few overwinter in the area. The area also supports mink, greatblue heron, black-capped chickadee, western meadowlark,yellow warbler, and other species. Listed salmonids found inthe Columbia River, Lake River, and Vancouver Lake adjacentto the wildlife area lands include lower Columbia coho andChinook salmon, Columbia River chum salmon, Snake Riversockeye, and steelhead. Shillapoo is also within the historicalrange of the Columbian white-tailed deer and western pondturtle (both state endangered) and is considered potentialhabitat for both species.Four smaller units of the Mount Saint Helens Wildlife Areaare also located in the greater Portland-Vancouver region.Although these units represent only a segment of the wildlifearea as a whole, they do provide habitat and recreationalopportunities. The Eagle Island unit is the agency’s most recentaddition to the wildlife area. At 279 acres, this is the largest ofthe four Saint Helens units in the planning area. Although alarge portion of this island is covered by invasive scotchbroom,much of the interior is made up of tall stands of cottonwood,Douglas fir, and western red cedar. The island’s margins, wetlands,and side channels provide some of the most important184185

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideappendix C Natural Areas Ownershiprearing habitat for wild fall Chinook salmon that make theirway along the Lower Lewis River.All WDFW wildlife areas in the greater Portland-Vancouverregion are in the Willamette Valley-Puget Sound-GeorgiaBasin ecoregion with the exception of the Mount Saint Helens’Cedar Creek unit. This 127-acre unit lies just in the WestCascades near La Center, Washington. Cedar Creek, a tributaryof the Lewis River, demarcates the unit’s northern boundary.Dominant habitat features include Douglas fir/westernhemlock forest, mixed riparian forest, and mineral springs. TheCedar Creek unit is managed primarily for band-tailed pigeonsand includes a mineral spring used by the birds. Stream restorationhas also occurred to benefit salmon and steelhead.The last two units are quite small. At just under 50 acres, theTwo Forks unit lies just west of La Center. This unit is foundat the confluence of the East Fork Lewis and Lewis rivers. It isprimarily used for river access and is managed for the protectionof critical riparian habitat. Just to the northeast of TwoForks is the Jenny Creek unit. This 20-acres site once sustainedmineral springs used by band-tailed pigeons. The site is dominatedby pasture but also includes hardwood and Douglas firforest.Washington Department of Natural ResourcesThe Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR)owns nearly 50,000 acres within the greater Portland-Vancouverregion, including approximately 45,000 acres of trustlands managed for timber income. The largest holdings are inthe western Yacolt Burn State Forest (40,000 acres) and landsaround Lake Merwin and Yale; timber is typically harvested at50- to 60-year intervals.DNR also owns lands in the state’s Natural Area Preserves(NAP) program. Washougal Oaks NAP (214 acres) protectsone of the state’s largest high-quality Oregon white oak habitats,including three animal and four plant species listed aspriorities in the Natural Heritage Plan. Columbia Falls NAP(514 acres) lies at the edge of the boundary of the greaterPortland-Vancouver region, protecting two state threatenedand four sensitive plant species and nine plant species that onlyin the Columbia River Gorge. Lake Merrill NAP (114 acres) isan important conifer-hardwood shoreline forest and is primehabitat for birds of prey, including osprey. DNR is also activelypursuing acquisitions in the Lacamas Prairie Natural AreaPreserve, where Clark County and Columbia Land Trust haveacquired 249 acres.The Wetlands ConservancyThe Wetlands Conservancy owns 13 wetland preserves in thegreater Portland-Vancouver region, totaling 131 acres. Thesepreserves range in size from small pocket wetlands in Multnomah,Clackamas, and Washington counties to the 31-acreHedges Creek Marsh and Pascuzzi Pond in Tualatin. Thepreserves protect a wide variety of wetland and upland habitattypes, including ponds, forested wetland, and scrub shrub andupland prairie.Biodiversity conservation and the needs of the wetlands’functions and values are the overwhelming management priority;public access is allowed within that context. Restorationgoals and desired future conditions are selected to be consistentwith the needs of the site’s conservation targets, position inthe landscape, soils, and hydrology.The information provided in this section is not comprehensive.Most local jurisdictions within the RCS extent own or managenatural areas or parks. They may be small, but such areas canprovide very important access to nature, as well as habitat andstepping-stones for birds and other wildlife to move betweenlarger habitat patches. For example, the City of Camas ownsLacamas Park, a 311-acre natural area with a lake, oak habitatand public amenities, as well as smaller and more developedparks. Trees in developed parks can still provide importanthabitat and elements of wildlife connectivity. Collectively, allof these natural areas, parks and open spaces conserve a greatdeal of habitat in the region. The following table summarizesthe information provided above.Table C-1Major Owners of Natural Areas in the RegionApprox. Acres in GreaterOwner Portland-Vancouver Region DescriptionAudubon Society of Portland 150 Adjacent to Forest Park. Audubon manages all, but part is owned byMetro.Bureau of Land Management 35,285 Majority is in the Salem District. Includes timber lands and Wild andScenic River segments of the Clackamas, Sandy, and Salmon rivers.Clackamas County Parks 1,000 Most within the urban-rural interface and in rural settings along threemajor regional rivers or their tributaries: the Clackamas, Molalla, andWillamette.City of Gresham 800 Includes public parks with natural areas such as Main City Park,significant holdings along the Springwater Corridor on Johnson Creek,water quality areas, and a few parcels that are slated for futuredevelopment.City of Hillsboro 850 Includes a large portion of Jackson Bottom Wetlands preserve.City of Portland 11,000 Includes more than 8,000 acres within city limits, including 5,000 acresin Forest Park.Clark County/Vancouver 7,277 Includes 17 regional parks and a variety of park types andClark Parks & Recreationuses. Regional natural areas, trails and greenways, and special useareas cover 3,350 acres.Columbia Land Trust 1,050 Manages 1,050 acres; 505 acres in conservation easements, partnerswith Clark County on 230 acres, owns 285 acres.Forest Park Conservancy 300 Owns and manages a 38-acre “Ancient Forest Preserve” and eightconservation easements totaling roughly 300 acres north of ForestPark.Metro 16,000 Includes three developed nature parks (695 acres) and approximately600 acres of land leased for agriculture; remaining acres are naturalareas.North Clackamas Parks and 800 Owns or manages 800 acres of parks, open spaces,Recreation Districtand natural areas, including holdings in unincorporated ClackamasCounty, Milwaukie, and Happy Valley.Oregon Department of Forestry 23,000 Mostly in the Gales Creek, Sunday Creek, and Scoggins Creek basins,which are headwaters to the Tualatin River, in the Tillamook StateForest.Oregon Department of Fish 12,100 Most (11,500 acres) in the Sauvie Island Wildlifeand WildlifeManagement Area.Oregon Parks and Recreation 11,000 Includes Stub Stewart, Tryon Creek, Rooster Rock, McIver,DepartmentChampoeg, and other state parks. Manages an additional 2,200 acreson Government Island.PacifiCorp 10,000 All in the Lewis River basin in southwest Washington; offsets habitatimpacts from hydropower.Port of Portland 3,133 Includes owned mitigation and natural areas along the ColumbiaSlough, three river islands, and open space in Troutdale.186187

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideTable C-1 (continued)Major Owners of Natural Areas in the RegionApprox. Acres in GreaterOwner Portland-Vancouver Region DescriptionPort of Vancouver 1,327 Includes 600 acres of natural areas that may be developed and570 acres of dedicated natural areas; is establishing a new 157-acrewetland mitigation bank.Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation 1,300 Owns or manages 1,300 acres of natural areas in more thanDistrict100 different sites, including 220 acres co-managed with Metro atCooper Mountain.The Nature Conservancy 489 Includes 471 acres in the lower Sandy River watershed betweenDodge and Oxbow parks, plus the 27-acre Camassia Natural Areaand 12-acre Little Rock Island.The Wetlands Conservancy 131 13 wetland preserves totaling 131 acres in Oregon, including manysmall wetlands and the 31-acre Hedges Creek Marsh and PascuzziPond in Tualatin.U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service 27,462 About half is in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, withthe remainder in the Mt. Hood and Gifford Pinchot national forests.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 15,357 Includes the Ridgfield, Steigerwald Lake, Franz Lake, Pierce, andTualatin River (Wapato and Tualatin) National Wildlife Refugecomplexes.Washington Department of 2,370 Includes Shillapoo and part of the Mount St. Helens wildlifeFish and Wildlifeareas, plus several smaller holdings.Washington Department of 50,000 Includes 40,000 acres in the Yacolt Burn State ForestNatural Resourcesmanaged for timber harvest, plus four natural area preserves.Total 229,381188

appendix D Upland Forest Wildlife in the RegionD. Upland Forest Wildlife in the RegionThis appendix lists examples of terrestrial vertebratespecies that find optimum habitat for foraging ornesting or both in Douglas fir-western hemlock forestecosystems of early, middle, and old growth successionalseral stages.Light shading = associated with habitat.Dark shading = strongly associated with habitat.Under “Status,” “Federal” refers to the federal EndangeredSpecies Act, “State” refers to fish and wildlifeagencies; “Heritage” refers to NatureServe/NaturalHeritage Network ranks, “ORBIC” refers to OregonBiodiversity Information Center, and “PIF” refers toPartners in Flight. Information sources are below thetable.Information Sourcesn Oregon Biodiversity Information Center. Rare,Threatened and Endangered Species of Oregon.2010. Available online at http://orbic.pdx.edu/documents/2010-rte-book.pdf.n Partners in Flight. Species Assessment Database.2012. Available online at http://pif.rmbo.org/n Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. WashingtonState Priority Habitats and Species List. 2008.Available online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/.Codes and AbbreviationsFederal StatusLE = Listed as an endangered speciesLT = Listed as a threatened speciesPE = Proposed as an endangered speciesPT = Proposed as a threatened speciesC = Candidate for listing as threatened or endangeredSOC = Species of concern. Taxa for which additionalinformation is needed to support a proposal tolist under the ESA.State Status—Animals (Oregon)LE = Listed as an endangered speciesLT = Listed as a threatened speciesPE = Proposed as an endangered speciesPT = Proposed as a threatened speciesSC = Sensitive – CriticalSV = Sensitive – VulnerableState Status—Animals (Washington)SC = State candidate for listingSS = State sensitiveST = State threatenedSE = State endangeredLE = Listed as an endangered speciesLT = Listed as a threatened speciesPE = Proposed as an endangered speciesPT = Proposed as a threatened speciesSV = Sensitive – vulnerableNatural Heritage RanksG1 = Critically imperiled throughout its rangeG2 = Imperiled throughout its rangeG3 = Rare, threatened, or uncommon throughout itsrangeG4 = Not rare, apparently secure throughout its rangeG5 = Widespread, abundant, and secure throughout itsrangeS1 = Critically imperiled in OregonS2 = Imperiled in OregonS3 = Rare, threatened, or uncommon in OregonS4 = Not rare, apparently secure in OregonS5 = Widespread, abundant and secure in OregonT = Rank for a subspecies, variety, or raceQ = Taxonomic questionsH = Historic, formerly part of the native biota with theimplied expectation that it may be rediscoveredX = Presumed extirpated or extinctU = Unknown rank? = Not yet rankedB = Rank of the breeding population (migratory birds)N = Rank of the wintering population (migratorybirds)ORBIC Lists1 = Threatened or endangered throughout range2 = Threatened, endangered, or extirpated fromOregon, but secure or abundant elsewhere3 = Review4 = Watch189

APPENDIX DUpland Forest Wildlife in the RegionStatusForest Seral StagesUsed*StateHeritageORBICGroup Common Name Scientific Name Early Middle Old Associated Attributes Rank Federal OR WA list PIFAmphibian Clouded salamander Aneides ferreus Forest or burned areas.Large decaying logs. G3, S3 SV 4 N/AAmphibian Dunn’s salamander Plethodon dunni Talus, logs, springs. SC N/AAmphibian Ensatina Ensatina eschscholtzii Logs, woody debris, or moist N/Atalus w/wood.Amphibian Larch Mountain salamander Plethodon larselli Esp. forest w/gravel, fracturedrock in soil. G3, S2 SOC SV SS 2 N/AAmphibian Northern red-legged frog Rana aurora aurora Pond breeder; adults require G4T4, SV 4 N/Aforested uplands.S3S4Amphibian Northwestern salamander Ambystoma gracile Also needs ponds, streams. N/AAmphibian Oregon slender salamander Batrachoseps wrighti Large older conifer logs, G3, S3 SOC SV 4 N/Abark debris, talus.Amphibian Pacific treefrog Hyla regilla Needs breeding ponds, uplands. N/AAmphibian Western red-backed salamander Plethodon vehiculum Talus, logs, springs. N/ABird American Kestrel Falco sparverius Secondary cavity nester; hunts inopen areas.Bird American Robin Turdus migratorius More abundant in youngmediumforests.Bird Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapilla Associated with alder/hardwoods.Bird Black-throated Gray Warbler Dendroica nigrescens Associated with alder/hardwoods.Bird Brown Creeper Certhia americana Probes for insects in bark crevices.Bird Chestnut-backed Chickadee Poecile rufescens Depends more on hemlock CS, RSin winter.Bird Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis Abundant in heavily thinnedyoung forests.Bird Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens May be associated with alder/hardwoods.190

APPENDIX D (continued)StatusForest Seral StagesUsed*StateHeritageORBICGroup Common Name Scientific Name Early Middle Old Associated Attributes Rank Federal OR WA list PIFBird Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus Low tree density, possibly alderin spring.Bird Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa High tree density. RC, RSBird Gray Jay Perisoreus canadensis Found at middle–higherelevations.Bird Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus Older forest with fewertrees/acre.Bird Hammond’s flycatcher Empidonax hammondii Older forest with fewer trees/acre,good mid-story.Bird Hermit Warbler Dendroica occidentalis Closed canopy. CS, RSBird House Wren Troglodytes aedon Associated with alder/hardwoods.Bird Hutton’s Vireo Vireo huttoni Assoc. with shrub cover, RSdeciduous sub-canopy.Bird Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis May feed over younger G5, S3 SOC SV SC 4forests.Bird Northern Pygmy-owl Glaucidium gnoma May be associated with RSalder/hardwoods.Bird Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis Generally nests in snags. G3T3, LT LT SE 1 RCS3Bird Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi Assoc. w/ older forest nr. G4,clearing w/snag(s). SB3 SOC SV 4 RCBird Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata Associated with shrub cover. RSBird Pacific (Winter) Wren Troglodytes pacificus Dense trees, complex forest floor,dead wood.Bird Pacific-slope Flycatcher Empidonax dificilus Dense tree cover, hardwood, CS, RShemlock, cedar.Bird Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus Large snag, conifer, also forage G5, S4 SC 4early succession.191

APPENDIX D (continued)StatusForest Seral StagesUsed*StateHeritageORBICGroup Common Name Scientific Name Early Middle Old Associated Attributes Rank Federal OR WA list PIFBird Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enucleator Associated with conifer G5, S2? 3cone crops.Bird Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus Associated with conifercone crops.Bird Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra Associated with conifer RC, RScone crops.Bird Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis Low tree density; conifers,esp. grand fir.Bird Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia Associated with shrub layer.Bird Townsend’s Warbler Dendroica townsendi Closed overstory forest for RSforaging and nesting.Bird Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius Mid-story tree layers. SCBird Vaux’s Swift Chaetura vauxi Large snags. Will also forage RSover clearings.Bird Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana Associated with upper canopy.Bird Western Wood-peewee Contopus sordidulus More open canopy, goodshrub layer.Bird White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Early successional shrublands.Bird Little Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii brewsteri Associated with shrub cover. G5T3T4; SV 4 RC, RSS3S4BBird Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata Canopy for feeding, breeding;tends to flycatch.Mammal American Marten Martes americana May den in snags, down logs, G5, S3S4 SV 4 N/Arock outcrops.Mammal Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus Snags, cliffs, caves, bridges; N/Aforage older forest.Mammal Black bear Ursus americanus Dens: Large root wads, hollow N/Alogs, trees, snags.Mammal Coast mole Scapanus orarius Soil texture is important. N/A192

APPENDIX D (continued)StatusForest Seral StagesUsed*StateHeritageORBICGroup Common Name Scientific Name Early Middle Old Associated Attributes Rank Federal OR WA list PIFMammal Douglas squirrel Tamiasciurus douglasii Feeds on cones. N/AMammal Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus May roost in snags. G5, S3 SV 4 N/AMammal Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis Roosts in large stumps, logs, G5, S4 SOC 4 N/Ahollow trees, cavesMammal Long-legged myotis Myotis volans Dens in larger snags, down G5, S3 SOC SV 4 N/Alogs, rock outcrops.Mammal Northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus May nest in snags. N/AMammal Red tree vole Arborimus longicaudus Feeds medium-age, breeds/ G3G4, S3S4 SOC SV 4 N/Afeeds in old forest.Mammal Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans Feeds forest/openings, breeds G5, S3S4 SOC SV 4 N/Ain older forest.Mammal Western red-backed vole Clethrionomys californicus Associated with Cascade Range. N/AReptile Northern alligator lizard Elgaria coerulea Logs, rock outcrops. N/AReptile Ring-necked snake Diadophis punctatus Logs, rock outcrops. N/AReptile Rubber boa Charina bottae Logs, rock outcrops. N/A193

appendix E Vertebrate Species in the RegionE. Vertebrate Species in the RegionAbout This AppendixThis appendix lists:n All known native vertebrate species that currently exist inat least one location within the greater Portland-Vancouverregion for at least a portion of the year and could be found inthe region through diligent search by a knowledgeable person.Vagrant species (those that do not typically occur every year)are not included in this appendix.n Some extirpated (i.e., locally extinct) native vertebrate speciesknown to have inhabited the region in the past.n Nonnative vertebrate species with established breedingpopulations in the region.This appendix is based on the opinion of numerous localwildlife experts, augmented by information from Johnson andO’Neill’s 2001 Wildlife-habitat Relationships in Oregon andWashington, state natural heritage programs, and the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service. Taxonomic standards for bird commonand scientific names are from the American OrnithologicalUnion’s Check-list of North American Birds, 7th edition.Key to Special-status SpeciesFEDERAL STATUS (see http://www.fws.gov/endangered/)LE = Listed as an endangered species.LT = Listed as a threatened species.PE = Proposed as an endangered species.PT = Proposed as a threatened species.PS = Partial status. Taxa for which some, but not all, intraspecifictaxa have status.C = Candidate for listing as threatened or endangered.SoC = Species of concern. Taxa for which additional informationis needed to support a proposal to list under theEndangered Species Act.FD = Delisted.State Status—Oregon (see http://orbic.pdx.edu/documents/2010-rte-book.pdf)LE = Listed as an endangered speciesLT = Listed as a threatened speciesPE = Proposed as an endangered speciesPT = Proposed as a threatened speciesSC = Sensitive – CriticalSV = Sensitive – VulnerableState Status—Washington Priority Habitats and Species List(www.wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/endangered/lists/search.php?searchby=All&orderby=AnimalType)SC = State candidate for listingSS = State sensitiveST = State threatenedSE = State endangeredState Strategy Species refers to Oregon andWashington’s statewide conservation strategies.Oregon: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/read_the_strategy.aspWashington: http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdfNatural Heritage Network Ranks (see state status websites)Global rank begins with a “G.” If the taxon has a trinomial (asubspecies, variety, or recognized race), this is followed by a“T” rank indicator. State rank begins with an “S.”G1 = Critically imperiled throughout its rangeG2 = Imperiled throughout its rangeG3 = Rare, threatened, or uncommon throughout its rangeS1 = Critically imperiled in OregonS2 = Imperiled in OregonS3 = Rare, threatened, or uncommon in OregonT = Rank for a subspecies, variety, or raceQ = Taxonomic questionsH = Historic, formerly part of the native biota with the impliedexpectation that it may be rediscoveredX = Presumed extirpated or extinctU = Unknown rank? = Not yet rankedB = Rank of the breeding populationN = Rank of the wintering populationORBIC Lists1 = Threatened or endangered throughout range2 = Threatened, endangered, or extirpated from Oregon, butsecure or abundant elsewhere195

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideappendix E Vertebrate Species in the Region3 = Review4 = WatchBirdsStatus of Birds in the Region and Migratory HabitsMany bird species have migratory habits that vary acrosspopulations and among individuals, making precise categorizationdifficult. These are general categories that indicate either(a) the dominant trend for the majority of individuals withinthe region, or (b) patterns vary but the species can be reliablyfound each year during the indicated season. For example,greater white-fronted geese are predominantly migrants, butsome wintering white-fronts may be found in very low numbersin some but not all years; this species’ code is W.M = Migrates through the region without stopping for longtime periods (for example, some shorebirds). May also beN.W = Winters in the region; some individuals may also migratethrough the region without wintering.R = Resident. Some individuals live in the region year-round.All resident species are also “B.”B = Known to breed in the region.N = Neotropical migratory species. The majority of individualsbreed in the region or northward and migrate south ofU.S./Mexico border for the winter.Partners in Flight Focal SpeciesCode = “yes” or “no”(See http://cain.ice.ucdavis.edu/prbo/orwapif/consplan.html)Partners in Flight uses a focal species approach to set biologicalobjectives and link priority species with specific conservationrecommendations. This is a multi-species approach in whichthe ecological requirements of a suite of focal species are usedto define an “ideal landscape” to maintain the range of habitatconditions and ecological processes required by land birds andmany other species. Focal species are considered most sensitiveto or limited by certain ecological processes (e.g., fire or nestpredation) or habitat attributes (e.g., patch size or snags). Therequirements of a suite of focal species are then used to helpguide management activities.Audubon Watch List(2007: http://audubonportland.org/issues/state-of-oregonsbirds/audubon-watchlist)The National Audubon Society used the latest availableresearch from the bird conservation community along withcitizen science data from the Christmas Bird Count and theannual Breeding Bird Survey to identify species in the continentalUnited States that are in need of immediate conservationhelp. The data track trends over a 40-year period. Notethat Audubon also keeps a Common Birds in Decline listonline at http://birds.audubon.org/common-birds-decline.n Red. Species in this category are declining rapidly and/or have very small populations or limited ranges, and theyface major conservation threats. These typically are species ofglobal conservation concern.n Yellow. This category includes species that are either decliningor rare. These typically are species of national conservationconcern.Habitat TypesOpen Water: Year-round bodies of water—rivers, lakes, bays,ponds, and sloughs.Shorelines and Mudflats: Mudflats, sandbars, beaches, and othersparsely vegetated habitats found bordering river islands, deltas,and river shores and around wetlands and lakes.Riparian and Bottomland Hardwood Forests: Forests alongsideflowing water, including perennial and intermittent streams,springs and seeps, and floodplain habitat. The latter is characterizedby frequent and patchy disturbance events such asfloods that over time that create a mosaic of habitats with varyingstand ages and compositions.Shrub: Woody-stemmed plants that reach relatively low heights(1 to 20 feet) at maturity or that are in early successional stages(young forests). Shrub habitat occurs most often in riparianareas or as an early successional stage following disturbancesuch as clear cuts and fire.Wetlands: Swamps, marshes, bogs, and other transitional landsbetween terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table isusually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallowwater. May be herbaceous/forbs, shrubs, forested or a combination.Upland Forests (by general seral stage: young, mid, mature):Conifer and mixed conifer/deciduous forest outside of theriparian zone dominated by conifers, hardwoods or a mix ofthe two. Riparian habitat is typically embedded within largerblocks of upland forest.Oak Habitat and Savanna: Characterized by an open canopy(i.e., 30 to 70 percent coverage) dominated by Oregon whiteoak; depending on conditions, may also have ponderosa pine,Douglas fir, Oregon ash, or big leaf maple components.Upland Prairie, Wet Prairie, and Grassy Balds: Natural or uncultivatedareas composed of bunchgrasses, grass-like plantsTable E-1Fish Species That Occur Annually in the Region(sedges and rushes), herbaceous plants (forbs, commonlyreferred to as wildflowers), mosses, and lichens. Trees andshrubs occasionally are present.Agriculture and Pasture: Areas actively managed as croplands,including hayfields, grain, fruit, nurseries, grass seed farms,and areas grazed by livestock.This list includes a total of 70 fish species, including 22 non-native species (bold) and one extirpated species.Special status speciesFederal State Status State ORNHP ORBICcommon Name genus/Species Status OR / WA Strategy Species Rank ListPacific Lamprey Lampetra tridentata SoC OR=SV OR WA S3 4River Lamprey Lampetra ayresi SoC WA=SC WA S3? 3Western Brook Lamprey Lampetra richardsoni OR=SV OR 4Green Sturgeon Acipenser medirostris SoC WA=SC OR WA G3 S3 4White Sturgeon Acipenser transmontanus WAAmerican ShadAlosa sapidissimaCoastal Cutthroat Trout, Oregon Coast ESU Oncorhynchus clarki SoC WA T3Q S3 4Coastal Cutthroat Trout, SW WA/Columbia R ESU Oncorhynchus clarki SoC OR=SV OR WA T3Q S2 1Coastal Cutthroat Trout,Upper Willamette R. ESU Oncorhynchus clarki SoC OR TNQ S3? 4Pink Salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha WAChum Salmon, Columbia River ESU Oncorhynchus keta LT OR=SC OR WA T2Q S2 1WA=SCCoho Salmon, Oregon Coast ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch LT OR=SV OR T2Q S2 1Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia R. ESU Oncorhynchus kisutch LT OR=SE OR WA T2Q S2 1Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss WASteelhead (anadr. rainbow trout),OR Coast ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss SoC OR=SV OR T2T3Q S2S3 1Steelhead, Lower Columbia R.ESU winter/summer Oncorhynchus mykiss LT OR=SC WA=SC OR WA T2Q S2 1Steelhead, Upper Willamette Riverwinter ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss LT OR=SV OR T2Q S2 1196197

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideappendix E Vertebrate Species in the RegionTable F-1 (continued)Table E-1 (continued)Special status speciesFederal State Status State ORNHP ORBICcommon Name genus/Species Status OR / WA Strategy Species Rank ListSteelhead, Middle Columbia Riversummer ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss LT OR=SC OR T2Q S2 1Steelhead, Middle Columbia Riverwinter ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss LT OR T2Q S2 1Steelhead, Snake River Basin ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss LT OR=SV OR WA T2T3Q S2S3 1WA=SCSockeye Salmon, Snake River ESU(extirpated in OR) Oncorhynchus nerka LE WA=SC WA T1Q SXB, S1 1-exChinook Salmon, Lower Columbia R.ESU, fall and spring Oncorhynchus tshawytscha LT OR=SC OR WA T2Q S2 1WA=SCChinook Salmon, Upper Will. R spring run Oncorhynchus tshawytscha LT OR=SC OR T2Q S2 1Chinook Salmon, Snake River Fall-run ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha LT OR=LT OR WA T1Q S1 1WA=SCChinook Salmon, Snake River Spr/Summer-run Oncorhynchus tshawytscha LT OR=LT OR WA T1Q S1 1WA=SCChinook Salmon, Upper Col. R. Spring-run Oncorhynchus tshawytscha LE WA=SC WA xx xxMountain WhitefishProsopium williamsoniBull Trout Salvelinus confluentus LT OR=SC OR WA G3T2Q S2 1WA=SCBrown TroutSalmo truttaEulachon (Columbia River Smelt) Thaleichthys pacificus LT WA=SC WA S3? 2Tiger MuskieChiselmouthGoldfishGrass CarpCommon CarpPeamouth ChubE. masquinongy x lucius orE. lucius x masquinongyAcrocheilus alutaceusCarassius auratusCtenopharyngodon idellaCyprinus carpioMylocheilus caurinus(Oregon Chub – locally extirpated) Oregonichthys crameri LT OR=SC OR G2S2 1Northern Pikeminnow (Squawfish)Longnose DacePtychocheilus oregonensisRhynichthys cataractaeLeopard Dace Rhynichthys falcatus WA=SC WASpeckled DaceRhynichthys osculusRedside ShinerBridgelip SuckerLargescale SuckerSpecial status speciesFederal State Status State ORNHP ORBICcommon Name genus/Species Status OR / WA Strategy Species Rank ListRichardsonius balteatusCatostomus columbianusCatostomus macrocheilusMountain Sucker Catostomus platyrhynchus WA=SC WAYellow BullheadBrown BullheadChannel CatfishBanded KillifishThree-spined SticklebackMosquitofishSand RollerOriental Weatherfish (Weather Loach)Amur GobyStriped BassPumpkinseed SunfishGreen SunfishWarmouthBluegillSmallmouth BassLargemouth BassWhite CrappieBlack CrappieYellow PerchWalleyeCoastrange SculpinPrickly SculpinShorthead SculpinReticulated SculpinTorrent SculpinStarry FlounderAmeiurus natalisAmeiurus nebulosusIctalurus punctatusFundulus diaphanusGasterosteus aculeatusGambusia affinisPercopsis transmontanusMisgurnus anguillicaudatusRhinogobius brunneusMorone saxatilisLepomis gibbosusLepomis cyanellusLepomis gulosusLepomis macrochirusMicropterus dolomieuMicropterus salmoidesPomoxis annularisPomoxis nigromaculatusPerca flavescensStizostedion vitreum vitreumCottus aleuticusCottus asperCottus confususCottus perplexusCottus rhotheusPlatichthys stellatus198199

Table E-2Amphibian Species that Occur Annually in the RegionThis list includes a total of 20 amphibian species, including one non-native species (bold) and one species that likely has been extirpated. Habitat associations are as follows: 1 = stronglyassociated, 2 =occurs in habitat, =not typically found in habitat. Habitat associations are not meant to be comprehensive or definite, but are based on the best knowledge available at this time.Common NameGenus/SpeciesFederalStatusSpecial status speciesStateStatusStateStrategySpeciesORNHPRankORBICListOpen waterShorelines& mudflatsRiparian &bottomlandShrubWetlandsYoungUplandForestsMidMatureOak woodland& SavannahPrairies (wet &dry) and baldsAgricultureand pastureNorthwestern salamander Ambystoma gracile 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2Cope’s Giant Salamander Dicamptodon copei OR=SV OR G3G4 2 1 2 2 2S2Coastal Giant Salamander Dicamptodon tenebrosus 1 1 2 2 2Columbia Torrent Salamander Rhyacotriton kezeri OR=SV OR G3 S3 4 1 2 2 1Cascade Torrent Salamander Rhyacotriton cascadae OR=SV OR G3 S3 4 1 2 2 1WA=SC WARough-skinned Newt Taricha granulosa 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2Larch Mountain Salamander Plethodon larselli SoC OR=SV OR G3 S2 2 2 1 1WA=SS WADunn’s Salamander Plethodon dunni WA=SS WA 1 2 1 1Western Red-backed Salamander Plethodon vehiculum 1 1 1 1Ensatina Ensatina eschscholtzii 1 2 1 1 2 2Clouded Salamander Aneides ferreus OR=SV OR G3 S3 4 2 2 1 1 2Oregon Slender Salamander Batrachoseps wrightorum SoC OR=SV OR G3 S3 4 2 2 1 1Western Toad Anaxyrus boreas SoC OR=SV OR S3 4 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2WA=SC WACoastal Tailed Frog Ascaphus truei SoC OR=SV OR S3 4 1 2 2 1Pacific Tree (Chorus) frog Pseudacris regilla 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2Northern Red-legged Frog Rana aurora aurora SoC OR=SV OR S3S4 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2Cascades Frog Rana cascadae SoC OR=SV OR G3G4 S3 4 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2Oregon Spotted Frog Rana pretiosa C OR=SC OR G2 S2 1 1 2 2 1 1(likely extirpated) WA=SE WAAmerican Bullfrog Lithobates catesbeianus 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2201

Table E-3Reptile Species That Occur Annually in the RegionThis list includes a total of 16 reptile species, including two non-native species (bold). Habitat associations are as follows: 1 = strongly associated, 2 = occurs in habitat, = not typically foundin habitat. Habitat associations are not meant to be comprehensive or definite, but are based on the best knowledge available at this time.Common NameGenus/SpeciesFederalStatus 3Special status speciesStateStatus 4StateStrategySpeciesORNHPRank 5ORBICList 6Open waterShorelines& mudflatsRiparian &bottomlandShrubWetlandsYoungUplandForestsMidMatureOak woodland& SavannahPrairies (wet &dry) and baldsAgricultureand pastureCommon Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina 1 1 2 1 2 2Western Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta bellii OR=SC OR S2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2Western Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata SoC OR=SC OR G3G4 S2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2WA=SE WARed-eared Slider Trachemys scripta elegans 1 1 2 1 2 2Northern Alligator Lizard Elgaria coeruleus 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Southern Alligator Lizard Elgaria multicarinatus 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2Western Fence Lizard Sceloporus occidentalis 2 2 2 2 1 2 2Western Skink Plestiodon skiltonianus 2 2 2 2 1 2 2Rubber Boa Charina bottae 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Racer Coluber constrictor 2 2 2 2 1 1 2Sharptail Snake Contia tenuis SoC WA=SC WA 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2Ringneck Snake Diadophis punctatus 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Gopher Snake Pituophis catenifer 2 2 2 2 1 1 2Western Terrestrial Garter Snake Thamnophis elegans 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2Northwestern Garter Snake Thamnophis ordinoides 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Common Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2202

Table E-4Bird Species That Occur Annually in the RegionThis list includes a total of 229 bird species, including eight non-native species (bold) and two species that likely have been extirpated. Habitat associations are as follows: 1 = strongly associated, 2 =occurs in habitat, = not typically found in habitat. Habitat associations are not meant to be comprehensive or definite, but are based on the best knowledge available at this time.Common NameGenus/SpeciesMIgratoryStatusFederalStatus 3StateStatus 4Special status speciesStateStrategySpeciesOR NHICRank 5ORBICList 6Parrtnersin Fllightfocol speciesAudubonWatch ListOpen waterShorelines& mudflatsRiparian &bottomlandShrubWetlandsYoungUplandForestsMidMatureOak woodlandPrairies (wet &dry) and baldsAgricultureand pastureGreater White- Anser albifrons M 1 1 1 1fronted GooseSnow Goose Chen caerulescens W WA 1 1 1 1Ross’s Goose Chen rossii M 1 1 1 1Cackling Canada Goose Branta hutchinsii minima W 1 1 2 2 1 1Aleutian CacklingBranta hutchinsiiGoose (wintering) leucopareia W OR S2N 2 1 1 2 2 1 1Canada Goose Branta canadensis Var. 1 1 2 2 1 1Dusky Canada Goose Branta canadensis M OR S2S3N 1 1 1 2 2 1 1occidentalisTundra Swan Cygnus columbianus W WA 1 1 2 1 1Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator W WA S1?B, 2 Yellow 1 1 2 1 1S3NWood Duck Aix sponsa R/B WA 1 1 1 1 2 1 1Domestic waterfowl Various, incl. R/B 1 2 1 1 2mallard hybridsGadwall Anas strepera W 1 1 1 2Eurasian Wigeon Anas penelope W 1 1 2 2American Wigeon Anas americana W 1 1 2 1 1Mallard Anas platyrhynchos R/B 2 1 1 2 1 2Blue-winged Teal Anas discors N/M 1 1 1 1Cinnamon Teal Anas cyanoptera N/B 1 1 1 1Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata W 1 1 1 2203

Table E-4 continuedCommon NameGenus/SpeciesMIgratoryStatusFederalStatus 3StateStatus 4Special status speciesStateStrategySpeciesOR NHICRank 5ORBICList 6Parrtnersin Fllightfocol speciesAudubonWatch ListOpen waterShorelines& mudflatsRiparian &bottomlandShrubWetlandsYoungUplandForestsMidMatureOak woodlandPrairies (wet &dry) and baldsAgricultureand pastureNorthern Pintail Anas acuta W 1 1 2 1 2Green-winged Teal Anas crecca W 2 1 2 1 2Canvasback Aythya valisineria W 1 1 1Redhead Aythya americana M/B 1 1 1Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris W 2 2 1 1Greater Scaup Aythya marila W 1 2Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis W 1 2 1Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus W SoC WA S2B, S3N 2 1 2 1 1 1 1Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicillata W 1Bufflehead Bucephala albeola W OR S2B 2 1 2 1WACommon Goldeneye Bucephala clangula M WA 1 2Barrow’s Goldeneye Bucephala islandica M OR S3B, 4 1 2WA S3NHooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus R/B WA 1 1 1 2 2Common Merganser Mergus merganser W 1 2 1 1 2 2Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator W 1 2 2Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis W 1 1 1Mountain Quail Oreortyx pictus R/B SoC OR=SV OR 4 Yellow 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2WACalifornia Quail Callipepla californica R/B 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus R/B 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus R/B 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2Sooty Grouse Dendragapus fuliginosus R/B 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo R 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2204

Table E-4 continuedCommon NameGenus/SpeciesMIgratoryStatusFederalStatus 3StateStatus 4Special status speciesStateStrategySpeciesOR NHICRank 5ORBICList 6Parrtnersin Fllightfocol speciesAudubonWatch ListOpen waterShorelines& mudflatsRiparian &bottomlandShrubWetlandsYoungUplandForestsMidMatureOak woodlandPrairies (wet &dry) and baldsAgricultureand pastureRed-throated Loon Gavia stellata W 1 2Pacific Loon Gavia pacifica W 1 2Common Loon Gavia immer W WA=SS WA 1 2Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps R/B 2 2 1Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus M S2B 2 1 1Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena M OR=SC S1B 2 1 2 1Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis M 1 1Western Grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis W WA=SC WA S3B, 4 1 1S2S3NClark’s Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii W WA=SC WA S3B,S2N 4 Yellow 1 1Doubled-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus R/B 1 1 2 2 2 2American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos N/M OR=SV OR G3 2 1 1 2WA=SE WA S2BAmerican Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus N/B 1 2Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias R/B WA 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1Great Egret Ardea alba W 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2Green Heron Butorides virescens N/B 1 1 2 1 2 2 2Black-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax W WA 1 1 2 1 1Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura N/B 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2California Condor Gymnogyps californianus R/B LE G1SX 1-ex Red 2 2(extirpated)Osprey Pandion haliaetus N/B 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2White-tailed Kite Elanus leucurus R/B S2B, S3N 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus R/B FD OR=LT OR 4 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2SOC WA=SS WA205

Table E-4 continuedCommon NameGenus/SpeciesMIgratoryStatusFederalStatus 3StateStatus 4Special status speciesStateStrategySpeciesOR NHICRank 5ORBICList 6Parrtnersin Fllightfocol speciesAudubonWatch ListOpen waterShorelines& mudflatsRiparian &bottomlandShrubWetlandsYoungUplandForestsMidMatureOak woodlandPrairies (wet &dry) and baldsAgricultureand pastureNorthern Harrier Circus cyaneus R/B Yes 2 2 2 1 1Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus R/B 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2Cooper’s Hawk Accipiter cooperii R/B Yes 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis W SoC OR=SV OR S3 4 2 2 2 2 2 1 2WA=SC WARed-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus R/B Yes 2 2 2 2 2 2Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni N/M OR=SV OR S3B 4 Yellow 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis R/B 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus W 2 2 2 2 2 1American Kestrel Falco sparverius R/B Yes 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2Merlin Falco columbarius W SHB 2-ex 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus R/B FD OR=SV OR S2B 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2SOC? WA=SS WAPrairie Falcon Falco mexicanus W 2 2 2 2 2Virginia Rail Rallus limicola R/B 1 2Sora Porzana carolina N/B 1 2American Coot Fulica americana R/B 1 1 1 2Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis M WA=SE OR S3N 4 1 1 1WABlack-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola M 2 1 1Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus N/M 1 1 2Killdeer Charadrius vociferus R/B 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia R/B 2 1 1 2 1 1Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria N/M 2 1 1 2 1 2Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca M 2 1 2 2 1 2 2206

Table E-4 continuedCommon NameGenus/SpeciesMIgratoryStatusFederalStatus 3StateStatus 4Special status speciesStateStrategySpeciesOR NHICRank 5ORBICList 6Parrtnersin Fllightfocol speciesAudubonWatch ListOpen waterShorelines& mudflatsRiparian &bottomlandShrubWetlandsYoungUplandForestsMidMatureOak woodlandPrairies (wet &dry) and baldsAgricultureand pastureWillet Tringa semipalmata M 2 1 2 1 2 1Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes M 2 1 2 2 1 2 2Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus N/M OR=SV OR S3B 4 Yellow 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla M Yellow 2 1 2Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri M Yellow 2 1 1 2Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla M 2 1 2 1 2Baird’s Sandpiper Calidris bairdii N/M 2 1 2 1 2Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos N/M 2 1 1 2Dunlin Calidris alpina W 2 1 2 1 1Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus M 2 1 2 2Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus M 2 1 2 1 1Wilson’s Snipe Gallinago delicate R/B 2 1 1 2 1Wilson’s Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor N/M 1 1 2 2Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus N/M 1 1Bonaparte’s Gull Chroicocephalus M 2 1 2philadelphiaMew Gull Larus canus W 1 1 2Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis W 1 1 2 2Western Gull Larus occidentalis W 2 1California Gull Larus californicus M 1 1 2 2Herring Gull Larus agentatus W 1 1 2 2Thayer’s Gull Larus thayeri W Yellow 1 1 2 2Glaucous-winged Gull Larus glaucescens W 2 1Glaucous Gull Larus hyperboreus W 1 1 2207

Table E-4 continuedCommon NameGenus/SpeciesMIgratoryStatusFederalStatus 3StateStatus 4Special status speciesStateStrategySpeciesOR NHICRank 5ORBICList 6Parrtnersin Fllightfocol speciesAudubonWatch ListOpen waterShorelines& mudflatsRiparian &bottomlandShrubWetlandsYoungUplandForestsMidMatureOak woodlandPrairies (wet &dry) and baldsAgricultureand pastureCaspian Tern Hydroprogne caspia N/M OR 1 1 1Common Tern Sterna hirundo M 2 1Rock Pigeon Columba livia R/B 2 2 1Band-tailed Pigeon Patagioenas fasciata R/B SoC OR S3B 4 Yes 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2WAEurasian Collared-Dove Streptopelia decaocto R/B 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura R/B 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1Monk Parakeet Myiopsitta monachus R/B(ext.?) 1 1 2Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus N C OR=SC WA SHB 2-ex Yes 1 1(likely extirpated)WA=SCBarn Owl Tyto alba R/B 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1Western Screech-Owl Megascops kennicottii R/B Yes 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus R/B 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Northern Pygmy-Owl Glaucidium gnoma R/B 2 2 2 1 1 2 2Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina R/B LT OR=LT OR G3T3 1 Yes Red 1 2WA=SE WA S3Barred Owl Strix varia R/B 2 2 2 1 1 2Long-eared Owl Asio otus W 1 2 2 1 2 2Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus W OR Yellow 1 1 1 1Northern Saw-whet Owl Aegolius acadicus R/B 2 2 2 2 2 1 2Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor N/B OR=SC OR 4 Yes 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2Black Swift Cypseloides niger N/B SoC OR S2B 2 Yes Yellow 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2Vaux’s Swift Chaetura vauxi N/B WA=SC WA Yes 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2Anna’s Hummingbird Calypte anna R/B 2 2 2 2 2 2 2208

Table E-4 continuedCommon NameGenus/SpeciesMIgratoryStatusFederalStatus 3StateStatus 4Special status speciesStateStrategySpeciesOR NHICRank 5ORBICList 6Parrtnersin Fllightfocol speciesAudubonWatch ListOpen waterShorelines& mudflatsRiparian &bottomlandShrubWetlandsYoungUplandForestsMidMatureOak woodlandPrairies (wet &dry) and baldsAgricultureand pastureCalliope Hummingbird Stellula calliope N/B Yellow 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1Rufous Hummingbird Selasphorus rufus N/B Yes 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon R/B 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2Lewis’s Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis M SoC OR=SC OR S2S3B 2 Yes Red 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2WA=SC WAAcorn Woodpecker Melanerpes formicivorus R/B SoC OR=SV S3 4 Yes 2 2 2 1 2Red-breasted Sapsucker Sphyrapicus ruber R/B 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens R/B Yes 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus R/B 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus R/B 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus R/B OR=SV OR 4 Yes 2 2 2 1 1 2 2WA=SC WAOlive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi N/B SoC OR=SV OR S3B 4 Yes Yellow 2 2 1 1Western Wood-Pewee Contopus sordidulus N/B Yes 2 2 1 1 2 2 2Little Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii brewsteri N/B OR=SV OR S3S4B 4 Yes Yellow 1 1 1 1 2 2Hammond’s Flycatcher Empidonax hammondii N/B Yes 1 1 2Dusky Flycatcher Empidonax oberholseri N/M 2 2 2 2 2 2Pacific-slope Flycatcher Empidonax dificilus N/B Yes 2 2 2 2 1 2Black Phoebe Sayornis nigricans R/B 2 1 2 2 2Say’s Phoebe Sayornis saya N/M 2 2 2 2 2Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis N/B 2 2 2 2 1 2 2Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus N/B 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor W 1 2 2 1Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludocicianus N/M SoC OR=SV OR S3B 4 2 1 1WA=SC WA209

Table E-4 continuedCommon NameGenus/SpeciesMIgratoryStatusFederalStatus 3StateStatus 4Special status speciesStateStrategySpeciesOR NHICRank 5ORBICList 6Parrtnersin Fllightfocol speciesAudubonWatch ListOpen waterShorelines& mudflatsRiparian &bottomlandShrubWetlandsYoungUplandForestsMidMatureOak woodlandPrairies (wet &dry) and baldsAgricultureand pastureCassin’s Vireo Vireo cassinii N/B 1 1 1 1Hutton’s Vireo Vireo huttoni R/B Yes 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus N/B 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus N/B Yes 1 2 1 1 1 1Gray Jay Perisoreus canadensis R/B 2 2 2 1 1Steller’s Jay Cyanocitta stelleri R/B 2 2 2 1 1 2 2Western Scrub-Jay Aphelocoma californica R/B 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos R/B 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1Common Raven Corvus corax R/B 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris W 2 1 1Streaked Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris strigata R/B C OR=SC OR S2B 1 Yes 2 1 1WA=SE WAPurple Martin Progne subis N/B SoC OR=SC OR S2B 2 Yes 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2WA=SC WATree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor N/B Yes 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2Violet-green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina N/B 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Northern Rough-winged Stelgidopteryx serripennis N/B 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2SwallowBank Swallow Riparia riparia N/M 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota N/B 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica N/B 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapilla R/B 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Chestnut-backed Chickadee Poecile rufescens R/B 2 2 2 1 2 2Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus R/B Yes 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis R/B S3 2 2 2 1 1 2 2210

Table E-4 continuedCommon NameGenus/SpeciesMIgratoryStatusFederalStatus 3StateStatus 4Special status speciesStateStrategySpeciesOR NHICRank 5ORBICList 6Parrtnersin Fllightfocol speciesAudubonWatch ListOpen waterShorelines& mudflatsRiparian &bottomlandShrubWetlandsYoungUplandForestsMidMatureOak woodlandPrairies (wet &dry) and baldsAgricultureand pastureSlender-billed (White- Sitta carolinensis aculeate R/B SoC OR=SV OR 4 Yes 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2breasted) Nuthatch WA=SC WABrown Creeper Certhia americana R/B Yes 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2Bewick’s Wren Thryomanes bewickii R/B Yes 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2House Wren Troglodytes aedon N/B Yes 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Pacific (split from Troglodytes pacificus R/B Yes 2 1 2 1 1 2Winter) WrenMarsh Wren Cistothorus palustris R/B 1American Dipper Cinclus mexicanus R/B 1 1 1 1 2 2 2Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa R/B 2 2 2 1 1 2Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula R/B 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Western Bluebird Sialia mexicana R/B OR=SV OR 4 Yes 2 2 2 2 1 2 2Townsend’s Solitaire Myadestes townsendi M 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Swainson’s Thrush Catharus ustulatus N/B Yes 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus W 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2American Robin Turdus migratorius R/B 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius R/B Yes Yellow 1 1 2 2European Starling Sturnus vulgaris R/B 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1American Pipit Anthus rubescens W Yes 2 2 2 2 2 2 1Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum R/B 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Orange-crowned Warbler Oreothlypis celata N/B Yes 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2Nashville Warbler Oreothlypis ruficapilla N/M Yes 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2MacGillivray’s Warbler Geothlypis tolmie N/B 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas N/B 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2Yellow Warbler Setophaga petechia N/B Yes 1 1 1 2 2211

Table E-4 continuedCommon NameGenus/SpeciesMIgratoryStatusFederalStatus 3StateStatus 4Special status speciesStateStrategySpeciesOR NHICRank 5ORBICList 6Parrtnersin Fllightfocol speciesAudubonWatch ListOpen waterShorelines& mudflatsRiparian &bottomlandShrubWetlandsYoungUplandForestsMidMatureOak woodlandPrairies (wet &dry) and baldsAgricultureand pastureYellow-rumped Warbler Setophaga coronata R/B 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2Black-throated Gray Warbler Setophaga nigrescens N/B Yes 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2Townsend’s Warbler Setophaga townsendi N/B 2 2 2 2 1 2 2Hermit Warbler Setophaga occidentalis N/B Yes Yellow 2 2 2 2 1 2 2Wilson’s Warbler Cardellina pusilla N/B 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens N/B SoC OR=SC OR 4 Yes 1 1 1 1 2 2Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus R/B 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina N/B OR Yes 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Oregon Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis N/B SoC OR=SC OR, S2B, 2 Yes 1 2 2 2 1 1WA=SC WA S2NSavannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis M/B 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca R/B 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia R/B 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2Lincoln’s Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii W Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 2Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana W 1 1 1 2White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis W 2 2 2 2 2 2White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys R/B 2 1 2 1 2 2 2Golden-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla W 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis R/B 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana N/B 2 2 2 1 2 1Black-headed Grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus N/B 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Lazuli Bunting Passerina amoena N/B 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus R/B 2 2 1 2 2Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta R/B OR=SC OR 4 Yes 1 2 2 2 2 1 1212

Table E-4 continuedCommon NameGenus/SpeciesMIgratoryStatusFederalStatus 3StateStatus 4Special status speciesStateStrategySpeciesOR NHICRank 5ORBICList 6Parrtnersin Fllightfocol speciesAudubonWatch ListOpen waterShorelinesmudflatsRiparian &bottomlandShrubWetlandsYoungUplandForestsMidMatureOak woodlandPrairies (wet &dry) and baldsAgricultureand pastureYellow-headed Blackbird Xanthocephalus N/B 1 2Brewer’s Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus R/B 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater N/B 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1Bullock’s Oriole Icterus bullockii N/B Yes 1 1 2 1 1 1 2Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus R/B 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus R/B 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra R/B Yes 2 2 2 1 2Pine Siskin Spinus pinus R/B 2 2 2 2 1 2 2Lesser Goldfinch Spinus psaltria R/B 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2American Goldfinch Spinus tristis R/B 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus R/B 2 2 2 2 2House Sparrow Passer domesticus R/B 1213

Table E-5Mammal Species That Occur Annually in the RegionThis list includes a total of 78 mammal species, including ten non-native species (bold) and two species that likely have been extirpated. Habitat associations are as follows: 1 = stronglyassociated, 2 = occurs in habitat, = not typically found in habitat. Habitat associations are meant to be comprehensive or definite, but are based on the best knowledge available at this time.Common NameGenus/SpeciesFederalStatus 3Special status speciesStateStatus 4StateStrategySpeciesORNHPRank 5ORBICList 6Open waterShorelines& mudflatsRiparian &bottomlandShrubWetlandsYoungUplandForestsMidMatureOak woodlandPrairies (wet &dry) and baldsAgricultureand pastureVirginia Opossum Didelphis virginiana 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1Vagrant Shrew Sorex vagrans 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Pacific Marsh (Water) Shrew Sorex bendirii 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2Water Shrew Sorex palustris 1 1 2 2 2 2Baird’s Shrew Sorex bairdi 2 2 2 2 2Trowbridge’s Shrew Sorex trowbridgii 2 2 1 1 1 2Montane Shrew Sorex monticolus 2 2 1 1 1 2 2Shrew-mole Neurotrichus gibbsii 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2Townsend’s Mole Scapanus townsendii 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2Coast Mole Scapanus orarius 2 2 1 2 2 2Yuma Myotis Myotis yumanensis SoC WA S3 4 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2California Myotis Myotis californicus OR=SV OR S3 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus WA 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Long-legged Myotis Myotis volans SoC OR=SV OR, WA S3 4 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2Fringed Myotis Myotis thysanodes SoC OR=SV OR, WA S2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Long-eared Myotis Myotis evotis SoC WA 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivagans SoC OR=SV OR S3S4 4 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus WA 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1Hoary Bat Lasiuris cinereus OR=SV OR S3 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2Pacific Western Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii SoC OR=SC OR, S2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2townsendii WA=SC WABrush Rabbit Sylvilagus bachmani 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus 2 2 2 2 2 2214

Table E-5 continuedCommon NameGenus/SpeciesFederalStatus 3Special status speciesStateStatus 4StateStrategySpeciesORNHPRank 5ORBICList 6Open waterShorelines& mudflatsRiparian &bottomlandShrubWetlandsYoungUplandForestsMidMatureOak woodlandPrairies (wet &dry) and baldsAgricultureand pastureSnowshoe Hare Lepus americanus 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2Mountain Beaver Aplodontia rufa 1 1 2 2 1Black-tailed Jackrabbit Lepus californicus WA=SC WA 1 2 2American Pika Ochotona princeps 2 2 2 2 2Townsend’s Chipmunk Tamias townsendii 2 1 1 1 2 2California Ground Squirrel Spermophilus beecheyi 2 2 2Cascade Golden-mantled Callospermophilus lateralis 2 2 1 1 1 2Ground SquirrelEastern Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger 2 2 2 2 1 1Eastern Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis 1 2Western Gray Squirrel Sciurus griseus SoC OR=SV OR, WA 4 2 2 2 1 2WA=STDouglas’ Squirrel Tamiasciurus douglasii 2 2 1 1 1Northern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus 2 2 2 1 1Western (Mazama, Brush Prairie) Thomomys mazama douglasii C WA=ST WA 1 1 1 2 2 2Pocket GopherCamas Pocket Gopher Thomomys bulbivorus SoC G3G4 4 1 1White Salmon Pocket Gopher Thomomys talpoides linosus 2 2 2 2 2 2 1(subspecies of Northern)American Beaver Castor canadensis 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1Bushy-tailed Woodrat Neotoma cinerea 2 2 1 1 1 1 1Dusky-footed Woodrat Neotoma fuscipes 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2Western Red-backed Vole Clethrionomys californicus 2 1 1White-footed Vole Arborimus (= Phenacomys) SoC G3G4 4 1 1albipesS3S4215

Table E-5 continuedCommon NameGenus/SpeciesFederalStatus 3Special status speciesStateStatus 4StateStrategySpeciesORNHPRank 5ORBICList 6Open waterShorelines& mudflatsRiparian &bottomlandShrubWetlandsYoungUplandForestsMidMatureOak woodlandPrairies (wet &dry) and baldsAgricultureand pastureRed Tree Vole Arborimus (= Phenacomys) SoC OR=SV OR G3G4 4 2 2 1 1longicaudusS3S4Gray-tailed Vole Microtus canicaudus WA=SC WA 1 1Townsend’s Vole Microtus townsendii 2 2 1 2 2 2 2Long-tailed Vole Microtus longicaudus 1 2 1 2 2 2 2Creeping Vole Microtus oregoni 2 2 2 2 2 2Common Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus 1 1 1 1 2Black Rat Rattus rattus 2Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus 2House Mouse Mus musculus 2 1Pacific Jumping Mouse Zapus trinotatus 1 2 2 2 2 2Common Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum 1 2 2 1 1 2Nutria Myocastor coypus 1 1 1 1 2Coyote Canis latrans 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Domestic Dog (feral) Canis familiaris 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Red Fox (Lowland) 1 Vulpes vulpes 2 2 2 1 2Gray Fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus 2 1 2 2 2Gray Wolf – (extirpated) 2 Canis lupus LE OR=LE WA S1S2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2WA=SEBlack Bear Ursus americanus 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2Grizzly Bear (extirpated) Ursus arctos horribilis LT WA=SE WA SX 2-ex 2 2 2 2 2 2Common Raccoon Procyon lotor 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1Ermine (Short-tailed Weasel) Mustela erminea 2 2 2 2 2Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Mink Mustela vison 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2216

Table E-5 continuedCommon NameGenus/SpeciesFederalStatus 3Special status speciesStateStatus 4StateStrategySpeciesORNHPRank 5ORBICList 6Open waterShorelinesmudflatsRiparian &bottomlandShrubWetlandsYoungUplandForestsMidMatureOak woodlandPrairies (wet &dry) and baldsAgricultureand pastureStriped Skunk Mephitis mephitis 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2Western Spotted Skunk Spilogale gracilis 2 2 2 2 2 2American Marten Martes americana OR=SV OR, WA S3S4 4 2 2 1 2 2Northern River Otter Lontra canadensis 1 1 1 1Mountain Lion (Cougar) Puma concolor 2 2 2 2 2Bobcat Lynx rufus 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Domestic Cat (feral) Felis domesticus 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1California Sea Lion Zalophus californianus 1Steller (Northern) Sea Lion Eumetopias jubatus FT WA=ST S2 2 1 1Roosevelt Elk Cervus elaphus roosevelti WA 1 2 2 2 2 2 2Columbian White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginiana leucurus LE OR=SV OR, WA T2Q S2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2WA=SEColumbian Black-tailed Deer Odocoileus hemionus WA 1 2 2 2 2 2 2columbianus1 Lowland subspecies may be introduced, although Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife formally only recognizes red fox (V. vulpes) in state administrative rules and regulates it as a native wildlife species. Cascades red fox (V.vulpes cascadensis) is native but lives in the Washington Cascades outside of the region.2 Although there have been no reliable sightings within the region, it is possible that wolves will become re-established within the region in the future.217

appendix F Rare Flora of the Greater Portland-Vancouver RegionF. Rare Flora of the Greater Portland-Vancouver RegionIncludes Clackamas, Clark, Washington, and portions of Hood River, Yamhill, and Columbia CountiesCommon Name Scientific Name HabitatFederalTall agoseris Agoseris elata No S G4 S1/S3 Open forest, ridgetops at high elevationsTall hairy groovebar Agrimonia gryposepala No G5 SNR/ Thickets, fieldsHowell’s bentgrass Agrostis howellii SOC C No G2 S2/ Moist cliffs near waterfallsGrand ammania Ammannia robusta No T G5 SNR/S1 Mudflats associated with Columbia RiverCascade rockcress Arabis furcata No G4 S3/ Alpine ridges, subalpine meadows andin Columbia gorgeSickle-pod rockcress Arabis sparsiflora No G5T3 S2/ Rocky slopes and talusTexas bergia Bergia texana No G5 S3?/SNR Margins of vernal pools and mudflatsalong riverOregon bolandra Bolandra oregana C No S G3 S3/S2 Riparian; moist places in dark shadeBristly sedge Carex comosa No S G5 S1/S2 Tidal wetland, lake shores and wetmeadowsDense sedge Carex densa No T G5 SNR/S1 Wet prairie No federal status; Oregon rank notreviewed or you can leave blank,i.e. “/S1”Pale sedge Carex livida No G5 S2/ Bogs and fensAlaska long-awned sedge Carex macrochaeta No T G5 S2/S1 Wet cliffs, vertical rock facesRetrorse sedge Carex retrorsa No G5 S1/ Tidal wetland, lake shores andwet meadowsGolden Paintbrush Castilleja levisecta T E Yes E G1 SH/S1 Low elevation prairieCliff paintbrush Castilleja rupicola SOC No G3G4 S3/ Alpine rock crevicesOregonOR Strategy speciesWashingtonCity of PortlandGlobal Heritage RankState Heritage Rank OR/WA219

Appendix F (continued)Common Name Scientific Name HabitatTall bugbane Cimicifuga elata var. elata SOC C No S Yes G4TNR S4/S3 Mixed or mature coniferous forest Oregon/ORBIC just reviewed thestate rank for this species last yearand assigned an S4. By rank rules,you cannot have a global rankhigher than the state rank so thehighest full rank is a G4.Three-leaf goldthread Coptis trifolia No T G5 S1/S1 Margins of seepy areas in matureconifer forestCold-water corydalis Corydalis aquae-gelidae SOC C No S G3 S3/S2S3 Stream and river riparian areasShort-pointed cyperus Cyperus acuminatus No G5 S1/ Damp groundGreat plains nut sedge Cyperus lupulinus ssp. No G5T5? S1/ Wet areaslupulinusMountain lady’s-slipper Cypripedium montanum No G4 S3S4/ Partly shady mixed or conifer forest.Poverty oatgrass Danthonia spicata No G5 SNR/ Prairie and grasslandWhite-rock (Pale) Larkspur Delphinium leucophaeum SOC E Yes E G2Q S2/S1 Oak, prairie, rock outcropNuttall’s larkspur Delphinium nuttallii No G4 S1/ Wet prairie, grassland and outcropsWillamette Valley larkspur Delphinium oreganum SOC C No G4? S1/ Open grassy meadows and prairiesPeacock Larkspur Delphinium pavonaceum SOC E Yes G1Q S1/ Prairie and grasslandSmooth-leaved douglasia Douglasia laevigata No G3 SNR/ Talus slopes and rocky ridgesNuttall’s waterweed Elodea nuttallii No G5 SNR/SNR AquaticYellow willow-herb Epilobium luteum No G5 S3/ Streambanks and seepage areasfrom mid-high elevationWillamette Valley Daisy Erigeron decumbens E E Yes G1 S1/ PrairieFederalOregonOR Strategy speciesHowell’s daisy Erigeron howellii SOC C No T G2 S2/S2 Moist, shaded vertical rock faces or cliffsWashingtonCity of PortlandGlobal Heritage RankState Heritage Rank OR/WA220

Appendix F (continued)Common Name Scientific Name HabitatOregon daisy Erigeron oreganus SOC C No T G3 S3/S2 Moist, shaded vertical rock faces or cliffsMany-spiked cotton-grass Eriophorum angustifolium No G5 S3/ Peat bogs, acidic meadowsOregon coyote-thistle Eryngium petiolatum No T G4 /S1 Wet prairieWestern wahoo Euonymus occidentalis No S G5 S3*/S1 Moist forest in shaded drawsIndian rice Fritillaria camschatcensis No G5 S1/S1 Wet prairieDiffuse stickseed Hackelia diffusa var. diffusa C No T G4T3 S3/S2 Talus, base of cliffs, rocky areas in mixedconifer forestsWestern sweetvetch Hedysarum occidentale No S G5T5 /S1 Meadows and talus slopesvar. occidentaleLong-bearded hawkweed Hieracium longiberbe No G4G5 S3/ Shaded, moist vertical rocky faces or cliffsUmbellate hawkweed Hieracium umbellatum No G5 SNR/ Open forest at higher elevationsHoly grass Hierochloe odorata No G5 S3/ Wet prairieShaggy horkelia Horkelia congesta SOC C No G4T2 S2/ Meadows and open woods at low elevationsssp. congestaWater Howellia Howellia aquatilis* T T* No T G3 S1/S2S3 AquaticFederalFir club-moss Huperzia occidentalis No G5 S3/ Late Seral Conifer ForestGorman’s iris Iris tenax var. gormanii No G4G5T1 S1/ Openings in conifer forests, roadsidesNuttall’s quillwort Isoetes nuttallii No S G4? /S1 Vernal pools or seepages.Dwarf rush Juncus hemiendytus No T G5T5 SNR/S1 Wet meadowsvar. hemiendytusKellogg’s dwarf rush Juncus kelloggii No E G3? SNR/S1 Wet meadowOregonOR Strategy speciesSmooth goldfields Lasthenia glaberrima No E G5 /S1 Wet stream banks and vernal pools.WashingtonCity of PortlandGlobal Heritage RankState Heritage Rank OR/WAThin-leaved peavine Lathyrus holochlorus SOC No E G2 S2/S1 Oak, grasslands or shrubland.221

Appendix F (continued)Common Name Scientific Name HabitatTorrey’s peavine Lathyrus torreyi SOC No T G5 S1/S1 Dry douglas-fir forestColumbia lewisia Lewisia columbiana No G4T4 S2/ Rocky outcropsvar. columbianaBradshaw’s Lomatium Lomatium bradshawii E E Yes E G2 S2/S1 PrairieKincaid’s lupine Lupinus sulphureus T T Yes E G2 S2/S1 Open grassy meadows and prairiesssp. kincaidii (=oreganus)Northern bog clubmoss Lycopodiella inundata No S G5 S2/S2 Wetlands and bogsStiff clubmoss Lycopodium annotinum No G5 S3/ Coniferous and mixed forestGround cedar Lycopodium complanatum No G5 S2/ Coniferous and mixed forestHair water-fern Marsilea vestita No G5 SNR/ AquaticFederalBranching montia Montia diffusa No S G4 /S2S3 Vernal pools and wet prairieHowell’s montia Montia howellii C No Yes G3G4 S3S4*/ Wet prairieSweet gale Myrica gale No G5 S1?/ Wetlands and bogsCalifornia broomrape Orobanche californica a No S G4T3T4 SNR/X Open forest, meadowssp. grayanWestern yellow oxalis Oxalis suksdorfii No T G4 /S1 Meadows, moist woods or dry slopesFlett’s grounsel Packera flettii No G4 S2/ Rocky open places and talus slopesOregon yampah Perideridia oregana No G4G5 SNR*/S1 Prairies, dry meadows and oak wooodlandsDotted smartweed Persicaria punctuata No G5 SNR/ Wetland, riparianOregonLoose-flowered bluegrass Poa laxiflora No S G3G4 S3/S2S3 Moist woods to rocky open slopesWeak bluegrass Poa marcida No G4G5 S4/ Wet to moist meadows, swamps and alluvial forestsWheeler’s bluegrass Poa nervosa No S G3> /S2 Rock outcrops and talus slopeOR Strategy speciesWashingtonCity of PortlandGlobal Heritage RankState Heritage Rank OR/WA222

Appendix F (continued)Common Name Scientific Name HabitatGreat polemonium Polemonium carneum No T G4 /S1S2* Woody thickets, open and moist forests, prairie edgesSlender pondweed Potamogeton pusillus No G5T5 SNR/ Ponds at high elevationsssp. tenuissimusRacemose pyrrocoma Pyrrocoma racemosa a No G5T3T4 S1/ Grasslandsvar. racemosWhite beakrush Rhynchospora alba No G5 S2/ Freshwater marsh, bogs and fensSuksdorf’s mistmaiden Romanzoffia suksdorfii No G3G4 S3?/ Wet cliffs and ledgesColumbia cress Rorippa columbiae SOC C No E G3 S3/S1S2 Columbia River riparian zoneToothcup Rotala ramosior No T G5 S2/S1 Columbia River riparian zoneSoft-leaved willow Salix sessilifolia No S G4 /S2 Riparian forest, dredge spoils, intertidal zoneScheuchzeria Scheuchzeria palustris No G5T5 S2/ Lake margins and at the edges of bogs and fensssp. americanaPale bulrush Scirpus pallidus No G5 S3/SNR Wet prairie and emergent wetland along Columbia RiverDrooping bulrush Scirpus pendulus No G5 S1/ Wet areasNorthwestern yellow flax Sclerolinon digynum No T G5 SNR/S1S2 GrasslandsLanceleaved stonecrop Sedum lanceolatum No G5T4? SNR/ Open, rocky sitesssp. nesioticumWhite-topped Aster Sericocarpus rigidus SOC T No S G3 S2/S3 PrairieMeadow checker-mallow Sidalcea campestris C No Yes G4 S4/ Prairie and grasslandBristly-stemmed sidalcea Sidalcea hirtipes SOC C No T G2 S2/S1 Prairie and grasslandNelson’s Sidalcea Sidalcea nelsoniana T T Yes E G2 S2/S1 PrairieFederalOregonOR Strategy speciesWashingtonWestern ladies-tresses Spiranthes porrifolia No S G4 /S2 Wet meadows, bogs, along streams or on seepy slopesCity of PortlandGlobal Heritage RankState Heritage Rank OR/WAKruhsea Streptopus streptopoides No G5 S2/ Late seral conifer forest223

Appendix F (continued)Common Name Scientific Name HabitatFederalOregonOR Strategy speciesOregon sullivantia Sullivantia oregana SOC C No E Yes G2 S2/S1 Moist cliffs near waterfallsHall’s aster Symphyotrichum hallii No T G4 /S1 Dry open places in valleys and plains.Strickland’s tauschia Tauschia stricklandii No G4 S1/ High elevation meadows in Columbia GorgeTufted clubrush Trichophorum cespitosum No G5 SNR/ Emergent wetlandSmall-flowered trillium Trillium parviflorum No S G2G3 /S2S3 Moist forest dominated by ash or oakLesser bladderwort Utricularia minor No G5 S2/S2? AquaticWild bog cranberry Vaccinium oxycoccos No G5 S4/ WetlandColumbia water-meal Wolffia columbiana No Yes G5 S1/SNR Freshwater lakes, ponds and slow streamsCalifornia compassplant Wyethia angustifolia No S G4 /SU Meadows and rock outcropsGolden alexanders Zizia aptera No G5 SNR/ Mesic to wet prairieWashingtonCity of PortlandGlobal Heritage RankState Heritage Rank OR/WAFederal status refers to listings by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. State statuses refer to listings by the Oregon Department of Agriculture Plant Conservation Biology Program and the Washington Natural Heritage Program.E = listed as endangered, T = listed as threatened, C = candidate for listing, SOC = Species of Concern (not a formal status).State Heritage Ranks: Oregon refers to rankings provided by the Oregon Natural Heritage Program (October 2010, “Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species of Oregon, Oregon Biodiversity Information Center, Portland,Oregon), and the Washington Department of Natural Resources’ “Washington Natural Heritage Program” web site (http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/lists/plantrnk.html). Global rank refers to a scale from 1 to 5. 1 = criticallyimperiled, 2 = imperiled, 3 = rare, uncommon, or threatened but not immediately imperiled, 4 = not rare and apparently secure, 5 = demonstrably widespread. A number preceded by a “T” means that it is the rank forthe trinomial. State rank is the same as global ranking system, but on a state scale.State listings: E = Endangered, T = Threatened, S = Sensitive, X = possibly extirpated.Portland refers to the special-status species identified in the Natural Resource Inventory Update, City of Portland, Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 2009; http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?c=44745&a=216241* Species has been listed federally, but Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR 603-073) have not yet been updated. All federally listed plant species occurring in Oregon are administratively protected by the State of Oregon? Inexact numeric rank. Taxa that can be ranked, but for which the rank is not certain.224

appendix G Metro Butterfly ChecklistG. Butterflies of the RegionPrimary Habitats Noted*UplandConifer-Bottomland/DeciduousRiparianForest Oak Prairie Forest Wetlands Shrublands Status In Metro AreaSkippers: Family HesperiidaeSilver-spotted Skipper X Has probably declined(Epargyreus clarus)Persius Duskywing (Erynnis persius) X X Generally uncommonPropertius Duskywing (Erynnis X Decline with loss ofpropertius)oaksDreamy Duskywing (Erynnis icelus) X X Generally uncommonTwo-banded Checkered Skipper X X Declining, but still(Pyrgus ruralis)commonCommon Checkered Skipper X Decline with loss of(Pyrgus communis)prairiesArctic Skipper (Carterocephalus X X Uncommon and haspalaemon)probably declinedJuba Skipper (Hesperia juba) X Uncommon in theWillamette ValleySachem (Atalopedes campestris) X ? Recent increase; usessuburban lawnsSonora Skipper (Polites sonora) X Decline with loss ofprairies; very rareWoodland Skipper (Ochlodes X X X X X Common andsylvanoides)widespreadDun Skipper (Euphyes vestris) X X X Associated with moistmicrohabitatsRoadside Skipper (Ambliscirtes vialis) X X X X ? Uncommon andinfrequently observedSwallowtails: Family PapilionidaeClodius Parnassian (Parnassius clodius) X X Declining; lost fromurban areasAnise Swallowtail (Papilio zelicaon) X X X X X Widespread; tolerantof disturbance.Western Tiger Swallowtail X X X X X Widespread; tolerant(Papilio rutulus)of disturbance.Pale Tiger Swallowtail X X X X Not common in(Papilio eurymedon)lowlands and cities225

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideappendix h Metro Butterfly Checklist226Whites and Sulphurs: Family PieridaePrimary Habitats Noted (some expert opinion required)UplandConifer-Bottomland/DeciduousRiparianForest Oak Prairie Forest Wetlands Shrublands Status In Metro AreaPine White (Neophasia menapia) X Strays from conifer areasduring “outbreaks”Western White (Pontia occidentalis) ? Uncommonly strays toarea from the eastMargined White (Pieris marginalis) X X X Declining withurbanization andherbicide useCabbage White (Pieris rapae) X X X Introduced; thrivesin open, disturbedlandscapesSara’s Orange-tip (Anthocharis sara) X X X X X Declining withurbanization andherbicide useClouded Sulphur (Colias philodice) ? ? Uncommonly strays toarea from the eastOrange Sulphur (Colias eurytheme) ? ? Sporadic summervisitor; not residentHairstreaks, Blues and Coppers: Family LycaenidaeTailed Copper (Lycaena arota) X Unrecorded from Metroarea; rare in WillametteValleyPurplish Copper (Lycaena helloides) X X Status unknown inMetro area; possiblydecliningPerplexing Hairstreak (Callophrys perplexa) ? ? X Uncommon; a foothillspeciesCedar Hairstreak (Callophrys gryneus) X Associated withwestern red cedarWestern Brown Elfin (Callophrys augustinus) X ? X Populations areprobably stable;tolerates somedisturbanceGray Hairstreak (Strymon melinus) X X X X Widespread; tolerant ofdisturbanceWestern Tailed Blue (Cupido amyntula) X X X X ? Probably declining;needs natural moisthabitatsEastern Tailed Blue (Cupido comyntas) X X X Status unknown; notknown from VancouverMetro areaEcho Blue (Celastrina echo) X X X X Common andwidespreadPrimary Habitats Noted (some expert opinion required)UplandConifer-Bottomland/DeciduousRiparianForest Oak Prairie Forest Wetlands Shrublands Status In Metro AreaSilvery Blue (Glaucopsyche lygdamus) X ? Common in openhabitats; toleratessome disturbanceFender’s Blue (Icaricia icariodes fenderi) X Endangered in theWillamette Valley;recently found nearMetro areaAcmon Blue (Plebejus acmon) X ? ? X Status unknownin Metro area; cantolerate disturbanceBrushfoots: Family NymphalidaeGreat Spangled Fritillary X X X X ? Appears to be in(Speyeria cybele)decline; requires nativevioletsZerene Fritillary (Speyeria zerene X Willamette Valley“bremnerii”)form now consideredextinctHydaspe Fritillary (Speyeria hydaspe) X A forest species; notfound in urban areasWestern Meadow Fritillary X ? X Found in forest(Boloria epithore)openings/meadows;tolerates somedisturbanceField Crescent (Phyciodes pulchellus) X X Rare in WillametteValley; possiblyextirpated in thePortland areaMylitta Crescent (Phyciodes mylitta) X X Fairly common in openhabitats, both naturaland disturbedVariable Checkerspot X X X X X Lowland populations(Euphydryas chalcedona)in decline; usessnowberry as larvalhostSatyr Anglewing (Polygonia satyrus) X X X Still a common species;associated withstinging nettlesZephyr Anglewing (Polygonia gracilis) ? Uncommonly strays toarea from the higherCascadesFaun Anglewing (Polygonia faunus) X X A forest species; nottolerant of highlymodified landscapesDark Anglewing (Polygonia oreas) X X X Possibly decliningwithin the Metro area;rarest anglewing in thearea227

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guidePrimary Habitats Noted (some expert opinion required)UplandConifer-Bottomland/DeciduousRiparianForest Oak Prairie Forest Wetlands Shrublands Status In Metro AreaCalifornia Tortoiseshell X X X X Widespread and com-(Nymphalis californica)mon, especially during“outbreak” yearsMourning Cloak (Nymphalis antiopa) X ? X ? Widespread, butuncommon; somewhattolerates suburbanlandscapesMilbert’s Tortoiseshell X ? X X X Not common in the(Nymphalis milberti)Metro area; requiresnettlesAmerican Painted Lady X X X A generally(Vanessa virginiensis)uncommon breedingimmigrantPainted Lady (Vanessa cardui) X X X X A breeding immigrant;can be abundantduring outbreak yearsWest Coast Lady X X X A moderately(Vanessa annabella)common breedingimmigrantRed Admirable (Vanessa atalanta) X X X ? ? A moderately commonbreeding immigrantLorquin’s Admiral (Limenitis lorquini) X X X X X Widespread and fairlycommon; toleratessome disturbanceCalifornia Sister (Adelpha californica) X Relatively scarce inthe Metro area;associated with oaksOchre Ringlet (Coenonympha tullia) X Common in naturaland many disturbedgrassland habitatsLarge Wood Nymph (Cercyonis pegala) X X X X ? ? Common in manyhabitats; less commonin very disturbed areasMonarch (Danaus plexippus) ? X X ? Not a true resident; anuncommon summermigrant to the Metroarea*Primary habitats are a combination of field data and expert opinion? indicates uncertainty228

appendix H Special Status Amphibians and Reptiles in the RegionH. Special Status Amphibians and Reptiles in the RegionStatusStateHeritageSpecies Federal WA OR Ranks Special Needs Limiting Factors Data Gaps Conservation ActionsAmphibians — SalamandersCloudedSalamander(Aneides ferreus)SV OR – S3 Forest habitats or burned areas.Require large decaying logs,especially Douglas fir.Limited range (occurs primarily inOregon). Loss of large logsHabitat relationships with burns;effects of fires on populations.Maintain large logs during forestmanagement activities.Oregon SlenderSalamander(Batrachosepswrightorum)SoC SU OR – S2S3 Late successional and secondgrowthforest where there areabundant mid to advanced decaystage,large-diameter Douglas firlogs and bark debris mounds at thebase of snags. Talus and lava fieldsthat retain moisture. Can clumptogether in groups to remain damp.Restricted range (only occurs inOregon); vulnerable to randomevents. Columbia River limitsdispersal. Require habitatcomplexity characteristic of oldgrowthand unmanaged youngerforests. High site fidelity forreproduction.Maternal care and life history.Habitat requirements. Effects ofhabitat fragmentation on generics.Improved survey methods.Maintain habitat with latesuccessional attributes suitable forthis species.Cope’s GiantSalamander(Dicamptodoncopei)SM SU OR – S2WA – S3S4Cold, fast-flowing, clear, permanentstreams in coniferous forests. Deepcobble and small boulder substratefor foraging and hiding. Rockystreambanks or in-channel logswith crevices for eggs and larvae.Limited range in Oregon. Rarely ornever metamorphose, so highlyvulnerable to channel dewateringand barriers; very small gill surfacearea, so sensitive to increases intemperature and sediment.Information on reproduction(maternal, care, number of clutchesper female per year). Frequencyof naturally occurring terrestrialindividuals.Maintain stream buffers to maintaincool water temperatures and waterclarity. Little or no sediment coatingor embedding rocky substrates.Replace culverts as needed toremove barriers in continuous,natural streambed and streambankhabitats.Dunn’sSalamander(Plethodondunni)SCOR – S4WA – S2S3Cool, moist, usually older forests,wet talus, seeps, and stream edges.Rare in WA. Populations maybe isolated by roads and forestfragmentation.Distribution in WA.Protect habitats. Targeted surveys.Larch MountainSalamander(Plethodonlarselli)SoC SS SV OR – S2WA – S3Basalt talus slopes of ColumbiaRiver Gorge and northern CascadeMountains. Adapted to welldrained,gravel to small cobblesizedtalus with significant amountsof fine litter and debris. Alsooccurs in late-successional forest,especially with gravel or fracturedrock in the soil.Specialized habitat. Presumed lowdispersal capability. Relatively smallclutch size. Pesticides or fertilizerscan affect salamanders and theirfood supply.Distribution and abundance.Reproduction and nesting ecology.Location of southern edge ofspecies range.Avoid disturbance of talus habitats(which can cause local extinctions);consider effects of potential grounddisturbingactivities. Avoid use ofpesticides adjacent to talus.229

StatusStateHeritageSpecies Federal WA OR Ranks Special Needs Limiting Factors Data Gaps Conservation ActionsAmphibians — Salamanders continuedCascade TorrentSalamander(Rhyacotritoncascadae)SC SV OR – S3WA – S3Cold, fast-flowing, clear, headwaterstreams, seeps, and waterfall splashzones in forested areas. Gravelor small cobble substrate withcontinuous but shallow water flowfor larvae and adults foraging andhiding. May only occur in streamson basalt rock. Continuous access tocold water.Larvae take several years to reachsexual maturity (4.5 yrs.). Smallclutch size (7-16 eggs) and longtime to hatch (up to 10 mo). Larvaehave minute gill surface area,so very sensitive to increasedtemperature and sediment.Species-specific breeding habits(because of relatively recenttaxonomic split of torrentsalamanders). Dispersal.Maintain stream buffers tomaintain cool water temperaturesand water clarity. Little or nosediment coating or embeddingrocky substrates. Replace culvertsas needed to remove barriers incontinuous natural streambed andstreambank habitats.Amphibians — Frogs and ToadsCoastal TailedFrog (Ascaphustruei)SoC SM SV OR – S3WA – S4Cold, fast flowing, clear streamswithin forested areas. Adults needstreambanks, logs, headwatersprings, and gravel seeps forforaging and hiding, and smallboulders in streams for egg laying,Tadpoles need permanent streamswith moss and sediment-freecobble and boulder substrate tocling to while scraping diatoms andalgae.Limited range (Northwest endemic).Low reproductive rate because ofseveral-year larval stage. Remainsclose to water source; low dispersalabilities may limit recovery ofpopulations. Sedimentation.Increases in water temperature.Growth rates after metamorphosis.Internal reproduction dynamics.Maintain stream buffers to retaincool water temperatures and waterclarity. Little or no sediment coatingor embedding rocky substrates.Replace culverts as needed toremove barriers in continuous,natural streambed and streambankhabitats.Western Toad(Anaxyrusboreas)SC SV OR–S3WA– S3 Wetlands, ponds, lakes, and offchannelriver pools for breeding.Extensive, sunny shallows withshort, sparse, or no vegetation foregg laying and for tadpole schoolsto move widely as they forage onorganic mud and surface diatoms.Loss of breeding habitat as aresult of changes in water levelmanagement. Egg-destroying watermolds. Fungal disease. Siltation.Road kill adjacent to major breedingsites. Recreational impacts atcertain sites.Status and distribution. Impacts ofwater molds, and role of introducedfish in fungal spread. Causes ofdecline (e.g., role of ultravioletradiation and global climatechange). Survey to determineincidence of Chytrid skin fungus(Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis).Maintain water levels andvegetation buffers at majorbreeding sites. Install culvertsor drift fences at problem roadcrossings near breeding sites.Inform recreationalists aboutthe importance of minimizingshoreline impacts. Periodic controlof vegetation height and density atsites where these factors interferewith breeding.230

StatusStateHeritageSpecies Federal WA OR Ranks Special Needs Limiting Factors Data Gaps Conservation ActionsAmphibians — Frogs and Toads continuedNorthern RedleggedFrog(Rana auroraaurora)SoC SV OR – S3S4WA – S4Ponds and wetlands with shallowareas and emergent plants. Accessto forested habitats (forestedwetlands, uplands).Loss and warming of egg-layinghabitats in OR. Predation andcompetition by invasive fish andbullfrogs.Identify overwintering habitat.Clarify impacts of pollutants,ultraviolet radiation, and parasiteson populations.Maintain wetland habitat withemergent plants. Maintain adjacentforested habitats. Control bullfrogsand invasive fish at key sites.Cascades Frog(Rana cascadae)SoC SM SV OR – S3WA – S3S4Mountain meadows, bogs, ponds,or potholes above 2,400 feetelevation. Lays eggs in shallowsunny edges of ponds, or on lowvegetation near ponds where warmsunlight speeds egg developmentand spring rains allow hatchlings toswim into ponds. Larvae “school” inlarge masses.Montane species vulnerable togenetic isolation. Experiencingsubstantial reductions in southernparts of range (e.g., CA).Feeding habits. Possible effects ofintroduced fishes, pathogens, andairborne environmental pollution.Habitat characteristics that couldenhance migration and gene flow.Feasibility studies on reintroductionat historical sitesMaintain connectivity of habitat.Monitor effects of fish stockingand water quality on populations.Carefully manage livestock grazingin occupied wet meadows. Useprescribed burning or handfellingof trees to set back plantsuccession. Reintroductions shoulduse individuals from nearbypopulations; use results fromfeasibility studies to guide furtheractions. Conservation actions inOregon are especially valuablegiven reductions in other parts ofrange.[Oregon SpottedFrog (Ranapretiosa) – Extinctfrom Metroregion]C SE SC OR – S2WA – S1Permanent ponds, marshes andmeandering streams throughmeadows for breeding andforaging, especially with shallowwater and a bottom layer of deadand decaying vegetation. Springsand other sites with low, continuouswater flow for overwintering.Slow to reach reproductive maturity.High fidelity to egg-laying sites.Predation and competition byinvasive fish and bullfrogs. Siltation.Some populations are isolatedand vulnerable to inbreedingand extinction. Livestock grazingremoves cover along stream edges,allowing sediment and excessiveaquatic vegetation to decreasehabitat value. Altered hydrology caneliminate habitat. Loss of beaverpond creation.Impacts of invasive fish andbullfrogs. Documentation ofhistorical sites, and current rangestatus. Feasibility studies onreintroduction at historical sites.Maintain vegetation buffersaround known populations; controlbullfrogs and invasive fish atpriority sites. Carefully managelivestock grazing at occupiedmontane wet meadows. Installsmall predator exclosures overparts of isolated breeding sites.Use results of feasibility studies toguide specific conservation actionsand management decisions forreintroductions.231

StatusStateHeritageSpecies Federal WA OR Ranks Special Needs Limiting Factors Data Gaps Conservation ActionsReptiles — TurtlesWestern PondTurtle (Actinemysmarmoratamarmorata)SoC SE SC OR – S2WA – S1Marshes, streams, rivers, ponds,and lakes. Sparsely-vegetatedground nearby for digging nests.Basking structures such as logs.Loss of aquatic and nesting habitats(conversion, invasive plants).Predation by raccoons, invasivebass, and bullfrogs; competitionwith invasive turtles.Population dynamics and populationgenetics. Impacts of raccoons andinvasive species (turtles, fish, andbullfrogs).Provide basking structures andnesting habitats, control invasiveplants and animals. Protectimportant nesting sites fromdisturbance.WesternPainted Turtle(Chrysemys pictabellii)SCOR – S2WA – S4S5Marshy ponds, small lakes,slow-moving streams, and quietoff-channel portions of rivers;prefer muddy bottoms with aquaticvegetation; need open ground fornesting. Need logs/vegetation forbasking.Limited range in OR. Loss of aquaticand nesting habitats (conversion,invasive plants). Predation byraccoons, invasive bass, andbullfrogs; competition with invasiveturtles.Impacts from disease introducedand/or spread by non-native turtles.Population dynamics and populationgenetics. Impacts of raccoons andinvasive species (turtles, fish, andbullfrogs).Provide basking structures andnesting habitats, control invasiveplants and animals. Protectimportant nesting sites fromdisturbance. Use wire cages toprotect nests from raccoons at keysites in the short-term where this isa problem.Racer (Coluberconstrictor)SMOR – S4WA – S5Grasslands and talus. Communalwinter den sites.Probably extirpated from PugetTrough. Loss of grassland habitats.Western WA distributionTargeted surveys, protocol.Gopher Snake(Pituophiscatenifer)SMOR – S5WA – S5Prairie and dry woodlands.Communal winter den sites.Probably extirpated from PugetTrough. Loss of grassland and oakhabitats.Western WA distributionTargeted surveys, protocol.Status codesFederal:Washington:Heritage State Ranks:C – Candidate for Federal listing as Threatened or EndangeredSoC – Species of ConcernOregon:SC – Sensitive criticalSV – Sensitive vulnerableSU – Sensitive undetermined statusSE – State listed – EndangeredSC – State candidate for listingSS – State sensitiveSM – State monitored (for status & distribution)S1 – Critically imperiled in the stateS2 – Imperiled in the stateS3 – Rare in the stateS4 – Apparently secure in the stateS5 – Secure in the state232

appendix i Watershedsappendix I: watershedscontentsWatersheds Index..........................................................................................233Watersheds.....................................................................................................2351. Clackamas River Subbasin.................................................................2352. Lewis River Subbasin..........................................................................2403. Lower Columbia – Clatskanie Subbasin..........................................2463a. Cathlamet Channel - Columbia River.............................................2473b. Kalama River - Frontal Columbia River..........................................2514. Lower Columbia – Sandy Subbasin..................................................2554a. Sandy River..........................................................................................2554b. Washougal River................................................................................2614c. The City of Washougal – Columbia River.....................................265Overview of the Willamette River Watershed....................................2695. Johnson Creek Watershed..................................................................2726. Salmon Creek – Frontal Columbia River........................................2767. Scappoose Creek –Frontal Columbia River Watershed......................................................2808. Willamette River – Frontal Columbia RiverSubbasin and Hayden Island-Columbia RiverWatershed..................................................................................................2849. Abernethy Creek–Willamette River Watershed(Greater Oregon City).............................................................................29010. Chehalem Creek–Willamette River Watershed...........................29411. Molalla-Pudding Subbasin..............................................................29712. Tualatin Subbasin..............................................................................303233

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAppendix I WatershedsFIGURE I-1WatershedsKSt. HelensHRidgefieldLaCenterFI. WatershedsappendixIScappooseBattleGroundJBanksVancouverLForestGroveCorneliusThe extent ofthe Intertwineregion was definedto encompass thePortland-Vancouvermetropolitan area and itssurrounding landscapesand watersheds. It connectswith, but largely excludes,the main Cascade and CoastalRanges and the heart of theWillamette Valley; these areas arewell represented by previousprioritization efforts. This mapdepicts the watersheds reported on inthe RCS report, which include HUCsub-basins, partial sub-basins, andNewbergBHillsboroWoodburnBeavertonTigardTualatinSherwoodWilsonvillewatersheds. The region includes eight HUC-4 sub-basins; in thecase of two—the Lower Willamette and the Middle Willamette—wechose to report on the watershed (HUC-5) level.RCS Defined WatershedsHUC 5 watersheds are lightly outlined * Represents a partial sub basinA - Abern ethy C reek-Willamette River Watershed (87,000 ac)B - Ch ehalem Creek-Willamette River Watershed (78,000 ac)C- Clackamas Su b Basin * (158,500 ac)D - Hayden Island-Co lu mbia River Watershed (18,500 ac)E - John so n Creek Watershed (60,000 ac)F - Lewis Su b Basin* (221,000ac)LakeOswegoAMilwaukieCanbyPortlandMIEOregonCityMolallaDHappyValleyCamasTroutdaleGreshamDamascusWashougalCEstacadaGSandyG - Low er Colum bia-Sand y Sub Basin* (217,500ac)H - L ower Columbia-Slatskan ie Sub Basin* (22,000ac)I - Molalla-Pu dding Sub Basin* (181.000ac)J - Salmon Creek-Fro ntal Columbia River Watershed (131,500ac)K - Scappoo se Creek-Fro ntal Columbia River Watershed (181,000ac)L - Tualatin Sub Basin (453,500ac)M - Willamette River-Fro ntal Columbia River Watershed (78,000ac)Conservation biology is scale dependent. Asone zooms in from the scale of the entireEarth down to continents, countries, and statesand further down to neighborhoods and evenbackyards, the ecological role, function, andimportance of the geography being viewedkeep changing. What is critically important atone scale may not be at larger or smaller scales.Providing an understanding of the importance,ecology, and connection to watershed and landscapehealth at multiple scales was an importantmotivation in developing the Regional ConservationStrategy and Biodiversity Guide. This chapterpresents the view at the scale of the individualwatershed (USGS HUC 4 and HUC 5; see Chapter1). Some issues are common among many orall watersheds; however, given the geographic andsocio-economic diversity within the region, eachwatershed also has unique elements and challenges.The short descriptions of watersheds in thischapter are introductions that lead to otherresources that have been developed by local, state,and federal organizations and agencies (especiallywatershed councils in Oregon). Where awatershed crosses the boundary of the greaterPortland-Vancouver region (as defined in thisBiogeography Guide and the Regional ConservationStrategy) we try to distinguish betweenissues relevant in the entire watershed and thoserelevant to the area within the greater Portland-Vancouver region. Table I-1 lists the watershedsin the region.1. Clackamas River SubbasinCheryl McGinnis, Clackamas River Basin Council,and Carol Murdock, Clackamas County WaterEnvironment ServicesIncludes these named USGS HUC watersheds:Eagle CreekLower Clackamas RiverLower Clackamas RiverThe Clackamas River subbasin is located inClackamas and Marion counties, Oregon, eastand south of the Portland metropolitan area. TheClackamas River is a tributary of the WillametteRiver that enters the Willamette at approximatelyRiver Mile (RM) 25, the last major tributarystream downstream of Willamette Falls. Elevationsin the watershed range from approximately234235

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAppendix I Watershedstable 9-1Watersheds in the Greater Portland-Vancouver Region, Organized by U.S. Geological Survey SubbasinSubbasin Watersheds Included in the Watershed AcresGreater Portland-Vancouver Regionwithin the RegionClackamas 1. Clackamas Subbasin (partial) 158,300Lewis 2. Lewis Subbasin (partial) 220,800Lower Columbia – Clatskanie 3. Lower Columbia-Clatskanie Subbasin (partial) 22,000Lower Columbia – Sandy 4. Lower Columbia-Sandy Subbasin (partial) 217,200Lower Willamette 5. Johnson Creek 60,1006. Salmon Creek-Frontal Columbia R 131,4007. Scappoose Creek-Frontal Columbia R 123,1008. Willamette R-Frontal Columbia R 78,700(includes Hayden Island – Columbia River)(Willamette R-Frontal Columbia)18,600(Hayden Island – Columbia River)Middle Willamette 9. Abernethy Cr-Willamette R 87,10010. Chehalem Creek-Willamette R 78,200Molalla-Pudding 11. Molalla-Pudding Subbasin (partial) 181,000Tualatin 12. Tualatin Subbasin 453,200Land coverClackamas Subbasin (partial)158,279 acres% of WatershedAgriculture 22%Regen. forest 3%Developed 8%Low Veg 7%Tree Cover 59%Water 1%Forest Patches* 55%JurisdictionsEstacada 2%Metro UGB** 9%Sandy 1%Rural 88%total 1,829,60010 feet, at the confluence with the WillametteRiver, to more than 7,200 feet, at Olallie Buttelocated along the southeast boundary of the subbasin.The subbasin totals 941 square miles, ofwhich about 250 are within the greater Portland-Vancouver region.Land cover in the entire Clackamas subbasin ispredominately (90 percent) forest and shrubland.Key Facts: The Clackamas subbasin within thegreater Portland-Vancouver region:Includes 59 percent tree cover, behind only theLewis and Lower Columbia-Sandy subbasins.Regionwide, the average percent tree cover is 49percent.n Contributes 8 percent of the total area but 11percent of the region’s forest patches (of which15 percent is publicly owned).n Has 4,228 acres within Federal EmergencyManagement Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplains.n Includes about 1,500 acres of mappedwetlands.The majority is privately owned, although agenciesincluding the U.S. Bureau of Land Management,U.S. Forest Service, Oregon Parks andRecreation Department, and Metro own somesignificant natural areas in the region. Portions ofthe cities of Sandy, Gladstone, Oregon City, Estacada,Happy Valley, and Damascus are locatedwithin the Clackamas subbasin.A variety of habitat types can be found in theClackamas subbasin. The U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) has developed the conceptof ecoregions. Three Level IV ecoregions arerepresented within the portion of the Clackamassubbasin that falls within the greater Portland-Vancouver region: prairie terraces, valley foothills,and Western Cascades lowlands and valleys.Prairie Terraces. This area, which is located alongthe Clackamas River downstream of River MillDam, consists primarily of the lower Clackamasmainstem and lower tributary areas. This areais nearly level, slightly depressional, or includesundulating fluvial terraces with sluggish, meanderingtributary streams. Historically, seasonalwetlands and ponds were common. Many streamsare now channelized (for example, portions ofGoose and Foster creeks), as is the mainstem ofthe Clackamas River.Valley Foothills. This area includes the headwaterportions of the lower Clackamas tributaries, Rockand Richardson creeks, and the lower portions ofClear, Deep, and Eagle creeks. The area is characterizedby rolling foothills with medium-gradientsinuous streams that are deeply incised in someareas. The areas of greatest relief often occur inthe lower to middle portions of these watersheds,where the largest streams have incised into theunderlying geology, 1 with the headwater areashaving relatively flat or rolling topography. A fewbuttes (such as the Boring lava domes) occur inthis area.Western Cascades Lowlands and Valleys. This areaincludes most of the mainstem Clackamas Riverand floodplain upstream of River Mill Dam; theupper extent of the Deep, Clear, and Eagle creeks;North Fork Eagle Creek; and the lower elevationportions of the middle and upper Clackamastributaries, i.e., Fish Creek, Roaring River, OakGrove Fork, Collawash River, and Hot SpringsFork. The area is characterized by low mountainridges, buttes, valleys, and medium-gradient riversand streams.Humans have occupied the Clackamas subbasinfor thousands of years. The original NativeAmerican inhabitants were bands from two majortribal groups, the Clackamas Chinook and theNorthern Molalla. Populations of both tribalgroups were decimated in the early 1800s by aseries of epidemics thought to have been broughtto the area by fur trappers. The ClackamasChinook primarily occupied the lower lying andnorthern parts of the subbasin, while the NorthernMolalla occupied the higher elevation andsouthern parts.Historically, the Clackamas Basin was about65 percent conifer forest and 27 percent prairieand savanna, with only about 3 percent oak. Mostof the oak and approximately 20,000 acres ofprairie and coniferous forest were converted toagriculture, while about 10,000 acres of coniferforest and the remainder of oak and prairie wereconverted to urban cover in portions of Clackamas,Boring, Estacada, Gladstone, and Sandy. A42 percent increase in the area covered by waterin the basin could be attributable to classificationerror, but it may also reflect the creation offlooded gravel pits near urbanized areas.The Clackamas supports a significant populationof winter steelhead, resident and anadromouscutthroat trout, and native lamprey.The subbasin also sustains one of the last two*Tree/regen. forest patches >30 acres.n Is only 9 percent publicly owned.1 The lower lying areas of the Clackamas subbasin were inundated during a series of floods—the “Missoula” or “Bretz” floods—**Cities in Portland area UGB.during the last ice age The floods deposited a relatively thick layer of loose boulders, rocks, and soil. As a result, for some Clackamastributaries, headwaters initiate on the buttes or in flatter areas and create deeper canyons close to the mouth of the stream.236 237

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAppendix I Watershedsremaining wild late-fall coho runs in the lowerColumbia Basin. This run, which is part of theLower Columbia River coho salmon evolutionarilysignificant unit (ESU), was federally listedas threatened in 2005. The Lower ColumbiaRiver steelhead and Chinook ESUs were listed asthreatened under the federal Endangered SpeciesAct in 1998 and 1999. The Clackamas River BasinAction Plan, the Willamette Subbasin Plan, 2 andcurrent Oregon Department of Fish and Wildliferecovery planning 3 have identified the Clackamasas critical habitat and one of the highest prioritiesfor recovery of the Lower Columbia River andWillamette ESUs.Limiting factors for anadromous salmonidentified in the Clackamas River Basin ActionPlan include lack of habitat complexity and offchannelhabitats, sediment, hatcheries, hydropowerturbines, water temperature, bacteria, fishpassage, nutrients, flow, pesticides, and inadequatemacroinvertebrates. Historically, lowerClackamas streams played a key role in contributingto the subbasin’s fish population abundanceand diversity. Confinement of the lower ClackamasRiver channel, loss of large wood, reducedrecruitment of rock, and reduced streamside treesand other riparian vegetation has contributedto the loss of side channels and other habitatsimportant to aquatic life. The mainstem wouldbenefit from additional side-channel habitat.In many locations, important channel featuressuch as side channels and pools have been lost ordisconnected.In addition to anadromous salmon, theClackamas subbasin supports a diverse arrayof wildlife, including elk, deer, northern flyingsquirrel, spotted owl, bald eagle, osprey, bats,about 250 native bird species, and a good selectionof reptiles and amphibians. Plant and animalspecies in the subbasin that are considered to besensitive, threatened, or endangered at state orfederal levels include the following:n Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus)n Nelson’s sidalcea/Nelson’s checkermallow(Sidalcea nelsoniana)n Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentaliscaurina)n Oregon chub (Oregonichthys crameri)n White-topped aster (Seriocarpus rigidus)n White rock larkspur (Delphiniumleucophaeum)n Peacock larkspur (Delphinium pavonaceum)n Howellia (Howellia aquatilis)Although most of the watershed within thegreater Portland-Vancouver region is privatelyowned, some important blocks of habitat andwildlife connectivity areas have been preserved.Milo McIver Park includes 951 acres of lawns,public amenities, and substantial wooded areason natural terraces above the Clackamas River.BLM and Forest Service lands, including a smallportion of the Mt. Hood National Forest, are scatteredthroughout the subbasin. Metro acquiredsignificant contiguous parcels along Clear andRichardson creeks and on either side of ClackamasCounty-owned Barton Park; both of theseparcels are along key biodiversity corridors. Mt.Talbert Nature Park is currently under restorationfor oak habitats. North Clackamas Parks and RecreationDistrict (NCPRD) owns or manages 800acres of parks, open spaces, and natural areas thatcontributing significant habitat and connectivityin or near urban areas.Several entities are working to protect naturalareas on the forested “East Buttes” that provideimportant habitat for elk, birds, and otherwildlife. These buttes loop up from the ClackamasRiver to some Johnson Creek headwaters andthen back down to the river, providing criticalwildlife connectivity between watersheds and tothe mainstem. Deep, Eagle and Tickle creeks connectto large habitat areas to the south and west,including the Sandy River subbasin; connectionsto the latter are in need of improvement. TheClackamas River provides an east-west corridor.Rock Creek is the key movement corridor runningnorth-south from the Clackamas River tothe East Buttes. The creek lies between developedareas to the west and new urban areas slated fordevelopment, and it is in need of restoration insome areas.Despite the relatively undeveloped conditionof much of the Clackamas subbasin, invasivespecies constitute a serious threat to fish andwildlife habitat. It will be important to continueongoing efforts to control and eradicate invasiveweeds such as Japanese knotweed, spurgelaurel, garlic mustard, Himalayan blackberry,false brome, Scot’s broom, and purple loosestrife.There are opportunities to address this problemthrough outreach, education, and targeted weederadication in collaboration with the Bureau ofLand Management, the Four County CooperativeWeed Management Area (CCWMA), Metro,Oregon Department of Agriculture, ClackamasSoil and Water Conservation District, and U.S.Forest Service.In addition, the Clackamas River is plagued bywater quality issues common throughout the WillametteBasin, such as excess mercury and bacteriaand elevated water temperatures. There arehigh levels of nitrate and phosphorous in some ofthe Clackamas’s lower tributaries, including Cow,Sieben, Rock, Deep, and Clear creeks. Pesticidesare an issue and targeted education is neededfor lower Clackamas River landowners, with anareas, and reduced use of chemicals.The highest priority areas for restoring aquaticand riparian functions are the mainstem of theClackamas River below and above River MillDam. Large sections of the river, particularlybelow the dam, are disconnected from the floodplainand have reduced floodplain and riparianvegetation composition and extent. There is limitedlarge wood in the river system and extensiveloss of historical backwater habitats, includingside channels and alcoves, which are important tosalmon. Key lower subbasin watersheds for anadromousand resident trout production (particularlycutthroat trout) are Clear, Foster, and Eaglecreeks. Restoring channel complexity is a priorityin the lower and middle Clackamas River; Clear,Foster, Deep/Goose, Eagle and Wade creeks; OakGrove Fork; and the Collawash River.Many of the subwatersheds in the lower basinhave been developed, and the loss of wetlandsand increased amount of impervious surfaceshave changed hydrologic processes. Restoring riverand stream-associated wetlands that contributeto aquatic habitat and floodplain connectivity,particularly in the Lower Clackamas River, Rockand Richardson creeks, Lower Clear Creek, FosterCreek, Deep and Goose creeks, and Wade Creekis a high priority. Important actions includemanaging stormwater in developed areas andrestoring river- and stream-associated wetlandsthat contribute to aquatic habitat and floodplainconnectivity. There are opportunities to restoredegraded riparian/floodplain habitats betweenhigh-quality areas, which would create corridorsacross watersheds.Current Salmonid and Water Quality ImprovementInitiativesn Water quality monitoring and protection—Clackamas River Water Providers, OregonDepartment of Environmental Quality, OregonDepartment of Agriculture, Clackamas Soil andWater Conservation District, Clackamas CountyService District #1n Voluntary Pesticide Reduction Campaign2 Willamette Subbasin Plan, Northwest Power and Conservation Council, May 2004, http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/subbasinplanning/willamette/plan/Intro.pdfwww.deq.state.or.us/wq/pubs/factsheets/community/pesticide.pdf3 See http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/CRP/.emphasis on natural landscaping, wider riparian238 239

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAppendix I Watershedsn Shade Our Streamshttp://clackamasriver.org/resources-for-landowners/shade-our-streamsn Bull trout reintroduction http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/species/Data/BullTrout/ReintroductionProject.aspn Clackamas County Water Education Teamn PGE shade program. As part of its relicensingagreement, PGE and the Clackamas River BasinCouncil will partner to plant riparian vegetationalong Clear Creek and other tributaries that areimportant to healthy salmon populations.Watershed Assessments and Plans —Clackamas Subbasinn Clackamas County Soil and Water ConservationDistrict WeedWise Program. www.conservationdistrict.org/n Clackamas County Water EnvironmentServices / Service District #1 Rock Creek WatershedAction Plan. 2009. www.riverhealth.org/rock-creek-watershed-documentsn Willamette Basin Restoration Priorities WatershedSummaries. 2005. Prepared for the OregonWatershed Enhancement Board. www.oregon.gov/OWEB/docs/pubs/Rest_Priorities/Willamette_Watershed_Council_Summaries_Dec05.pdfn Willamette Synthesis Project. 2009. The NatureConservancy, Oregon Field Office. Portland, OR97214Organizations and Partners —Clackamas Subbasinn City of Damascus, OR — www.ci.damascus.or.us/, 503-658-8545n Clackamas River Basin Council — www.clackamasriver.org, 503-558-0550n Clackamas County — www.co.clackamas.or.us/, 503-742-4500 Including: Board of CountyCommissioners, Water Environment Services,Department of Transportation and Developmentn Clackamas River Water Providers — www.clackamasproviders.org/, 503-723-3510n Clackamas River Technical Working Group– A partnership for water quality protection(Clackamas River Water Providers, ClackamasRiver Basin Council, Oregon Department of Agriculture,Oregon Department of EnvironmentalQuality, Clackamas Soil and Water ConservationDistrict, municipalities, U.S. Geological Survey).Contact Clackamas River Basin Council.n Clackamas County Soil & Water ConservationDistrict – www.conservationdistrict.org/,503-221-6001Lewis Subbasin (partial)220,839 acresincludes more state and federal lands (63 percentprivate, 36 percent state and federal). Most ofthe upper two-thirds of the subbasin is forestedand typical of the western hemlock vegetationzone; timber harvest is the predominant land use,with about three-fourths of the subbasin withinthe region in tree cover or regenerating forests.A 30-square mile area was denuded by the 1980eruption of Mt. St. Helens, and forestry and fireresult in patchy disturbances over time. Much ofthe lower subbasin is pasture and grassland, withrural and urban development. Urban developmentis primarily concentrated in Amboy andWoodland in the North Fork, and around BattleGround, La Center, Ridgefield, Yacolt, and the I-5corridor in the East Fork. The urban populationin the subbasin is expected to increase significantlyin coming decades.Historically, the Lewis River subbasin wascovered almost entirely by coniferous forest(54 percent) and burned forest (40 percent), withonly 2 percent prairie and 1 percent oak. It wasthe second most heavily forested basin in thegreater Portland-Vancouver region and remainsso today. Almost all prairie and oak and about20,000 acres of conifer forest and burned forestwere converted to agriculture, which covers about13 percent of the subbasin. Only 2 percent of thesubbasin is in urban cover (La Center and part ofWoodland). An increase of more than 3,900 acresof water in the subbasin is attributable to theSkamania counties. A third subbasin, the Middlen Clackamas River Basin Action Plan. 2005.Fork Lewis River, lies outside the region. Thehttp://clackamasriver.org/watershed-assessments/two subbasins drain 164 and 182 square miles,action-planrespectively, within the region. The North Fork’sheadwaters originate on the southern flanks ofn National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.2001. Endangered and ThreatenedMt. Adams and Mt. St. Helens, and the river flowssouthwesterly through three impoundments:Species: Designation of Critical Habitat forSwift Reservoir (at RM 48), Yale Reservoir (atThreatened Lower Columbia River Coho Salmonand Puget Sound Steelhead. www.federalregister.RM 34), and Merwin Lake (at RM 20). The Eastgov/articles/2011/01/10/2011-283/endangered-Fork is considered a tributary to the North Fork.and-threatened-species-designation-of-critical-Its headwaters lie in the Gifford Pinchot Nationalhabitat-for-threatened-lower-columbiaForest, and the river drains primarily throughClark County westward into the North Fork nearn Oregon Department of Fish and WildlifeWoodland, Washington. The high point of theConservation Strategy. 2006. www.dfw.state.or.us/ 2. Lewis River Subbasinsubbasin is at an elevation of almost 12,000 feet,conservationstrategy/Lori Hennings, Metro and Jeff Azerad, Washingtonand the low point is near sea level. Extensiven U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prairie species Department of Fish and Wildlifemeandering, braiding, and channel shifting occurrecovery plan. 2010. www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/in the lower subbasin, with some tidal effectsIncludes these named USGS HUC watersheds:Species/PrairieSpecies/default.aspfrom the Columbia River.East Fork Lewis Rivern U.S. Forest Service Roads Analysis and ActionMajor land ownership includes WashingtonLower Lewis Riverwith support for the Legacy Roads Act. 1999.Department of Natural Resources, federal lands,www.fs.fed.us/eng/road_mgt/01titlemain.pdfWithin the greater Portland-Vancouver region,Clark County, and private individuals. The Norththe Lewis River subbasin consists of two subbasins,the East Fork (EF) and Lower (North) ForkFork is primarily privately owned (84 percentprivate, 16 percent state), while the East Fork(NF) and contains portions of Clark, Cowlitz and240 241Land cover% of WatershedAgriculture 13%Regen. forest 12%Developed 3%Low Veg 5%Tree Cover 64%Water 3%Forest Patches* 71%JurisdictionsBattle Ground

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAppendix I Watershedsconstruction of Lake Merwin in 1931, at theexpense of coniferous and mixed forest.The Lewis River is the second-largest watershedin the greater Portland-Vancouver region, makingup 12 percent of the entire region.Key facts about the Lewis River subbasin withinthe greater Portland-Vancouver region:n Has 64 percent tree cover, the highest proportionof all the region’s watersheds.n Has forest patches (i.e., patches of trees andregenerating forest that together are 30 acres orlarger) that cover 71 percent of the subbasin withinthe region. This attests to the high proportionof private and public lands managed for timber.n Is 22 percent publicly owned. This representsabout 20 percent of all privately owned lands inthe region.n Includes more than 12,000 acres that are withinFEMA 100-year floodplains and 10,700 acres ofmapped wetlands.Land use practices throughout the subbasin, inparticular dams, residential development, gravelmining, and agricultural activities, have negativelyaffected habitat conditions in the lowersubbasin. Nonetheless, the Lewis River subbasinis home to diverse fish and wildlife populations.People appreciate the kayaking, camping, wildlifewatching, hiking, and fishing opportunitiesoffered by the subbasin’s riparian and uplandhabitat.North Fork Characteristics. The North Fork subbasin’swatersheds include Fly Creek, Lower CanyonCreek, Marble Creek, Cedar Creek, and the LewisRiver. Stream conditions in the lower North Forksubbasin are generally better than in the EastFork subbasin because the human population isless and more of the subbasin is forested. Watertemperatures at Amboy and at the mouth ofCedar Creek are elevated and potential affectingsteelhead juveniles. High temperatures have beenattributed to agriculture, grazing, water withdrawals,surface water runoff, residential development,forestry operations, and the constructionof illegal dams and diversions. Water qualityinformation is lacking for other lower Lewistributaries.The upper and middle portions are generallyforested. Stand-replacement fires burned largeportions in the subbasin during the first threedecades of the 1900s, including the large YacoltBurn. The resulting impacts to vegetation andsoil stability likely exacerbated major floods in1931 and 1934. The lower subbasin lies in a broadalluvial valley characterized by agriculture andresidential uses, which are largely protected fromflooding by dikes. This section is extensivelychannelized and tidally influenced in some areas.The valley begins to narrow for the next 8 miles,eventually forming a canyon from the confluenceof Cedar Creek to Merwin Dam, which blockspassage to 80 percent of the historical anadromoussalmon habitat.Historically, the upstream area was a majorproduction area coho salmon, spring andfall Chinook salmon, and winter and summersteelhead. These species have declined drasticallyin number, and they are listed under the federalEndangered Species Act; mitigation programshave attempted to reestablish historical salmonruns, with limited success. However, the NorthFork mainstem from RM 15 to Merwin Damprovides a highly productive spawning area forfall Chinook salmon. All three reservoirs (Merwin,Yale, and Swift) support populations of bulltrout and Dolly Varden. In the upper river, threestreams provide rearing and spawning habitat forbull trout: Pine and Rush creeks, which flow intoSwift Reservoir, and Cougar Creek, which flowsinto Yale Reservoir. The North Fork subbasinalso supports cutthroat trout and Pacific lamprey.Cedar Creek and its tributaries, including Pup,Bitter, Beaver, and Chelatchie creeks, currentlyprovide most of the productive tributary habitatfor anadromous salmon.East Fork Characteristics. The East Fork Lewis Riverhas its source near Green Lookout Mountainin the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, elevation4,442 feet. The subbasin’s watersheds withinthe greater Portland-Vancouver region includethe Coyote, Basket, Rock and Lockwood Creekwatersheds. The East Fork’s headwaters are characterizedby steep slopes and narrow valleys thatare dominated by bedrock and boulder substrates.Copper Creek and upper Rock Creek are the twolargest tributaries in the upper subbasin.Stream conditions are generally fair to goodin the upper watershed and poor to fair in themiddle and lower watershed. The mid-lowerwatershed is affected by low summer flows, highstream temperatures, and coliform bacteria, andthe mainstem and tributaries are listed on the303(d) list of impaired water bodies. Water bodiesplaced on the 303(d) list require the preparationof a total maximum daily load (TMDL) toidentify and quantify sources of the impairmentsand to recommend implementation strategies forreducing point and nonpoint source pollutantloads. The Washington Department of Ecologyis analyzing temperature and bacteria data andis expected to begin holding Advisory Committeemeetings to determine the control measuresthat will be incorporated into the TMDL watercleanup plan.The East Fork subbasin still retains significantpopulations of salmonids, including chum,fall Chinook, and coho salmon and winter andsummer steelhead, all of which are listed asthreatened under the federal Endangered SpeciesAct. The East Fork mainstem is completely freeflowing, with no manmade obstructions or dams.Lucia Falls is a natural barrier, above which onlysteelhead routinely pass. Some tributary streamshave fish-blocking road culverts. Upstreammigration for steelhead was essentially blockedat Sunset Falls (RM 33) until 1982, when the fallswere notched. Below Lucia Falls the river flowsthrough a narrow valley that forms a canyon inplaces, until it opens up around RM 14 into abroad alluvial valley.Wildlife, Habitat, and Connectivity. The subbasin’swildlife habitat varies and includes extensivenear-stream wetlands, bottomland forest andfloodplains, scattered intact headwater wetlands,and some interesting linear wetland sequencesformed by the Missoula floods at the end of thelast ice age. Native prairie and oak remnants arescattered through the western lowlands. Substantialintact forested areas support diverse wildlifecommunities. Agricultural lands, though disturbed,provide important habitat to grasslandbirds, small mammals, and other wildlife, as wellas providing some connectivity between naturalhabitat areas. Invasive species such as knotweedare a problem in some riparian areas, and Scot’sbroom and other invasive species have invadedsome upland areas. Efforts to control invasivespecies are ongoing.The Washington Department of Fish andWildlife’s Comprehensive Wildlife ConservationStrategy identifies specific areas and actions tohelp sensitive habitats and wildlife species. TheWDFW’s Priority Habitats and Species programidentifies the mainstem, associated floodplains,and major low-lying tributaries as important habitatareas for breeding and over-wintering baldeagles and waterfowl, including concentrations ofgeese, ducks, and wintering populations of tundraswans. The Woodland bottomlands support largeconcentrations of wintering waterfowl, includingdusky and cackling Canada geese, resident geese,tundra swans, and migrating sandhill cranes. Bea-242 243

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAppendix I Watershedsver ponds along Cedar Creek and ponds along I-5near Woodland provide important cavity-nestingduck habitat. Winter concentrations of bald eagleuse portions of the East Fork and North Forkmainstems for perching and foraging.The Lewis River subbasin provides extensiveupland habitat as well. A series of Oregon whiteoak patches near the Rock Creek/mainstem confluenceprovides key habitat for oak-associatedspecies, and Martin’s Bluff, north of the Woodlandbottomlands, includes about 100 acres ofmixed forest with an oak component. An unusualgrassy bald is situated near the headwaters ofCedar Creek. Grouse Creek, a tributary to RockCreek, provides important winter deer habitatas well as a snag-rich area important to manywildlife species. Deer, elk, and associated largepredators such as cougar are present in manyareas of this watershed. Washington Departmentof Fish and Wildlife’s Washington State Elk HerdPlan calls for maintaining the current level of elkwinter range along the Lewis River, where thenorthern area provides important winter rangefor the Mt. St. Helens and Mt. Rainier herds ofRocky Mountain and Roosevelt elk. Increasingelk herds are causing some agricultural damagein portions of the Yale Valley. WDFW owns theCedar Creek Wildlife Area, an active band-tailedpigeon mineral spring site. Some remnant prairieareas remain, particularly in the eastern watershed,including Spilyeh and Chlatchie prairies inthe northeastern area of the subbasin.This watershed provides habitat for a diversegroup of amphibians and reptiles, including theCope’s giant, Pacific giant, Cascade torrent, Larchmountain, and other salamanders; tailed and redleggedfrogs and western toad; the ring-neckedsnake, racer, rubber boa and three species ofgarter snakes; and the northern alligator lizard.The Lewis River subbasin still provides agreat deal of connectivity for fish and wildlife,and several important habitat and movementcorridor areas have been protected. The NorthFork and East Fork mainstems are key corridors.Cedar Creek connects the North Fork and EastFork subbasins. Clark County owns substantialriparian habitat throughout much of the lowerEast Fork in large parcels of designated park land.The Woodland bottomlands, La Center BottomsWildlife Area, and East Fork Lewis River Greenwayform a long, wide swath of wetland/bottomlandhabitat that provides key wildlife connectivityand offers many recreational opportunities.The greenway connects to the Gifford PinchotNational Forest and other important habitat areasand is recognized as important by city, county,and state governments. Several north-south tributariesconnect the mainstems with large habitatareas. Mason Creek is among one of the mostimportant lower East Fork natal salmon tributariesand constitutes a primary corridor for fishand wildlife. Lockwood Creek plays an importantrole connecting Missoula Flood wetlands.Some areas along these corridors would benefitfrom restoration and protection via acquisitionsor conservation easements. Other parks alsopreserve habitat and provide access to nature,including Lake Merwin, Lucia Falls, Lewisville,Daybreak and Paradise Point parks. The northernportion of Battleground State Park connects toSalmon Creek, the watershed to the south. WashingtonDepartment of Natural Resources ownsthousands of forested acres in the northern andeastern subbasin.Restoration and Salmon Recovery. Because ofremaining salmon populations and tributaryhabitat, the Lewis River subbasin is expectedto play a key role in recovery efforts for LowerColumbia River salmon and steelhead, as detailedin the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board’s2010 Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery andFish & Wildlife Subbasin Plan. Specific reachesand subwatersheds in the Lewis subbasin havebeen prioritized based on the plan’s biologicalobjectives, fish distribution, critical life historystages, current habitat conditions, and potentialfish population performance. North Fork Lewispopulations of Chinook and chum salmon willneed to be restored to a high level of viability tomeet regional recovery objectives. Spring Chinookrecovery will occur in the upper North ForkLewis, while chum recovery and fall Chinookenhancement will occur in the lower North Fork.Maintaining stable populations in the East Forksubbasin is important to recovery efforts. Thesubbasin’s stream reaches have been placed intoTiers (1 through 4), with Tier 1 reaches representingthe areas where recovery measures wouldyield the greatest benefits toward accomplishingthe biological objectives. The plan’s 6--yearhabitat work schedule identifies salmon-relatedhabitat restoration needs. The Lower ColumbiaFish Recovery Board is working together withkey stakeholders to develop a community-basedhabitat restoration strategy. Restoration projects,partner information and selected watershed plansare available at www.lowercolumbiasalmonrecovery.org.Active habitat restoration and preservationefforts have been under way for some time nowby several nonprofit groups, including Fish First,Friends of the East Fork, Columbia Land Trust,the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board, andClark County. The relatively new East Fork Lewismitigation bank will re-establish approximately100 acres of wetland habitat to offset impacts tocritical areas in the rapidly growing portions ofClark County and the cities of Battle Ground,Ridgefield and La Center.The 2010 Clark County Stream Health Reportrecommends the following priority general actioncategories for the Lewis River watershed:n Improve wetlands and riparian forest in thelower watershed.n Conserve agricultural and forestlands andpromote healthy practices.n Plant trees to increase the amount of forestcover.n Minimize the impact of surface and groundwaterwithdrawals in tributary streams.n Restore stream channels and side channels.n Work with rural property owners to eliminatepollution sources.Organizations and Partners —Lewis River SubbasinCity of Vancouver360-487-8600www.cityofvancouver.usClark County ESA ProgramContact: Bobbi Trusty360-397-2121 ext. 5268bobbitrusty@clark.wa.govwww.co.clark.wa.us/esa/index.htmlClark Public Utilities’ StreamTeam360-992-8585StreamTeam@clarkpud.comhttp://www.clarkpublicutilities.com/index.cfm/our-environment/stream-team/Clark-Skamania FlyfishersContact: Richard Kennon360-686-3626richardkennon@juno.comCowlitz Indian Tribe360-577-8140www.cowlitz.org/Columbia Land Trust360-696-0131www.columbialandtrust.org/244 245

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAppendix I WatershedsGifford Pinchot Task ForceContact: David Jennings360-866-7551www.gptaskforce.orgLower Columbia Fish Enhancement GroupContact: Tony Meyer360-882-6671tony@lcfeg.org, www.lcfeg.orgLower Columbia Salmon Recovery andWatershed Management(includes partner organization contacts)Contact: Bernadette Graham Hudson360-425-1552www.lowercolumbiasalmonrecovery.orgNorthwest Power and Conservation Council503-222-5161 or 800-452-5161www.nwcouncil.org/PacifiCorp503-813-6666www.pacificorp.com/index.htmlVancouver Watersheds CouncilContact: Gary Bock360-852-9189info@vancouverwatersheds.orgwww.vancouverwatersheds.orgWashington Department of Ecology360-407-6000www.ecy.wa.gov/ecyhome.htmlWashington Department of Fish and Wildlife360 902-2200www.wdfw.wa.govWashington Department of Natural Resources360-902-1000www.dnr.wa.gov/Pages/default.aspxWashington State UniversityClark County Extension – http://clark.wsu.edu/Watershed Plans, Assessments, and Reports —Lewis River Subbasinn Clark County Stream Health Reportwww.co.clark.wa.us/water-resources/stream.htmln East Fork Lewis River Community-BasedHabitat Restoration Plan www.lcfrb.gen.wa.us/east_fork_lewis_river_community.htmn Friends of East Fork Lewis River – Restorationprojects in planning or under way: www.eastforklewisriver.org/river-restoration.htmln Gee Creek Watershed Restoration BackgroundReport – includes extensive reference list: http://clark.wsu.edu/natural/geeCreek.html#staten Landscape Planning for Washington’s Wildlife:Managing for Biodiversity in DevelopingAreas www.wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?id=00023n Lewis, Salmon-Washougal Watershed Plan(WRIA 27/28) www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/wrias/Planning/27-28.htmln Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery and Fish &Wildlife Subbasin Plan, Volume3. Lower Columbia –Clatskanie SubbasinJeff Azerrad, Washington Department of Fishand Wildlife, and Lori Hennings, MetroIncludes these named USGS HUC watersheds:Beaver Creek – Frontal Columbia RiverCathlamet Channel-Columbia RiverKalama River-Frontal Columbia RiverThe Lower Columbia-Clatskanie subbasin isdiscussed in two sections below, based on localexpertise within watersheds:3a: Cathlamet Channel –Columbia River watershed3b: Kalama River –Frontal Columbia River watershedKey Facts: The Lower Columbia-Clatskaniesubbasin within the greater Portland-Vancouverregion:n Has a relatively high proportion of agriculture(37 percent, compared to 22 percent in theregion)Lower Columbia–Clatskanie Subbasin (partial)21,976 acresn Includes 10 percent developed land.n Has 18 percent water coverage (second only tothe Hayden Island-Columbia River watershed),primarily because of its mainstem rivers.n Has lower than average (29 percent) tree cover,virtually none which is in public ownership.n Has correspondingly low percentages of forestpatches (23 percent) and interior forest habitat(14 percent).n Has nearly 9,000 acres within the FEMA 100-year floodplain and about 2,900 acres of mappedwetlands.3a. Cathlamet Channel – Columbia RiverThe Cathlamet Channel-Columbia River subbasinincludes the mainstem Columbia River anda number of islands within the river. The landbordering the mainstem and islands generally liesin adjacent subbasins. Its northern (i.e., downstream)extent is near Skamokawa, Washington,north of Cathlamette Island. The watershed’ssouthern (i.e., upstream) boundary is just northof Sauvie Island Wildlife Area and adjacent tothe city of St. Helens on the Oregon side, andjust north of the Lewis River/Columbia Riverconfluence on the Washington side. Only a smallportion of the watershed—just over 7 squaremiles—lies within the boundary of the greaterPortland-Vancouver region.The river and its floodplain constitute anecological unit of singular importance because ofits size, the diversity of high-quality habitat it provides,and its extremely high value for waterfowland shorebirds for breeding, feeding, and migration.The area also provides critical connectivityfor salmon and wildlife. About one-quarter ofthe area is terrestrial habitat, made up mostly ofcottonwood riparian forest, shrublands, mudflats,and some of the region’s most abundant sand barsin a setting of islands, side channels, sloughs, andshoreline. Invertebrate density and diversity areparticularly high in such areas, and associatedshallow- and deep-water habitats are important tosalmon life cycles.The complex of habitats provides a richenvironment for shorebirds, waterfowl, and otherwildlife. Waterfowl form large concentrations inthe watershed during the winter, including duskyCanada geese, tundra swans, wigeon, mallards,pintails, and cavity-nesting ducks. Osprey neston artificial platforms and wood pilings. Thearea also supports migrating sandhill cranes andresident and breeding Canada geese. The riparianand floodplain forested habitat along all theislands host a fair number of breeding songbirdssuch as song sparrow, Swainson’s thrush, commonyellowthroat, and other warblers.Historically, this basin was composed of about23 percent water (primarily the Columbia Riverand its large floodplain lakes), 25 percent prairie246 247Land cover% of WatershedAgriculture 37%Regen. forest 2%Developed 10%Low Veg 5%Tree Cover 29%Water 18%Forest Patches* 23%JurisdictionsSt. Helens/ Columbia City 6%Rural 94%*Tree/regen. forest patches >30 acres.

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAppendix I Watershedsand savanna, and about 15 percent eachconiferous forest and burned forest. By 2010,about a third of the basin had been converted toagriculture and 7 percent to urban uses (portionsof Saint Helens and Woodland). Agriculture consumedabout 5,000 acres of prairie and savannaand smaller amounts of conifer and burnedforest, and urban cover was derived mostly fromconverted conifer forest. About 25 percent of thewater features have been filled or drained, and 40percent of the riparian forest has been converted.Almost all prairie and oak habitats have beenconverted to agriculture.About 5 miles downstream at the northernedge of the greater Portland-Vancouver regionare the two largest islands in the area, Burke andMartin islands, which are separated by MartinSlough. The islands are adjacent to the Woodlandbottomlands in the Kalama River-FrontalColumbia River subbasin; together they makeup a very large habitat patch. Burke and Martinislands have been largely grazed and converted tocroplands. Nonetheless they support significantwildlife populations and are priority habitatsunder Washington State’s Priority Habitats andSpecies program. Several pairs of bald eaglesnest in cottonwoods on Martin Island, with a fewadditional nests on smaller islands to the south. Acolony of less than 20 nesting pairs of great blueheron also have been reported in a cottonwoodstand on Martin Island. Although this portion ofthe watershed does not currently support the federallyendangered Columbian white-tailed deer,the area is within the species’ historical range anda reintroduction recently occurred on nearbyCottonwood Island.On the Oregon side of the Columbia River,directly across from Martin and Burke islands,are Deer and Goat islands. Deer Island encompassesmore than 3,000 acres and is largelyundeveloped. The island contains sloughs andlakes interspersed with grassy marshes andpasture; it is heavily used by wintering waterfowl,bald eagles, purple martins, and a variety of otherwildlife. Goat Island is a narrow, forested island1.5 miles long between Deer Island and the smalltown of Deer Island, Oregon.Further south near St. Helens, Sand Island wascreated in the late 1920s from dredge spoils. Nowlargely forested, this island provides recreationalopportunities but also high-quality bottomlandhardwood forest and sand bars that are importantto invertebrates fish and shorebirds. Sand IslandMarine Park is owned by the State of Oregon andCity of St. Helens. The island is accessible only byboat and offers docks, picnic tables, nature trails,and a beach for sunbathing and swimming.Water quality issues are well documented inthe Columbia River (see the watershed assessmentslisted at the end of this section), and newstrategic frameworks are in place to addresspersistent toxics. The U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA), Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality (DEQ), and WashingtonDepartment of Ecology all are working to addressColumbia River pollutants. EPA released a 2010toxics reduction action plan in collaborationwith Washington and 15 other organizations, andOregon and DEQ developed plans and legislationto reduce persistent toxics statewide. Majorcontaminants include DDT, polychlorinatedbiphenyls (PCB), mercury, flame retardants (suchas polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PBDEs),and other toxics that are causing concerns aboutecosystem health, human health, and salmonrecovery in the Columbia Basin.According to the Lower Columbia FishRecovery Board’s 2010 Lower Columbia SalmonRecovery and Fish & Wildlife Subbasin Plan,all Columbia River salmon and steelhead stocksmust, at a minimum, pass through a portion ofthe Columbia River subbasins twice during thesuccessful completion of their life cycle. However,many Columbia River salmon and steelheaduse the lower Columbia River mainstem andestuary extensively, either for juvenile rearingand emigration or adult migration and holding.Thus, lower mainstem and estuary conditionsaffect all Columbia River salmon and steelheadto some degree. Numerous salmon and steelheadevolutionarily significant units (ESUs) of salmonand steelhead have been listed as threatened orendangered under the Endangered Species Act,and others are proposed for listing. Altered habitatconditions have increased salmon predation,and competition and interbreeding with domesticatedor nonlocal hatchery fish have reducedproductivity. Fish are harvested in fresh andsaltwater fisheries.The Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board’s2010 plan documents habitat conditions in theestuary and lower mainstem as a function of theprevailing long-term hydrological conditions,including both ocean and river processes. Thesehydrological conditions affect all aspects of habitatformation, including sediment movement andturbidity levels, salinity and nutrient concentrationsand movement, woody debris recruitmentand movement, and production and cycling oforganic matter. Water management and channelmanipulations, including mainstem hydropoweroperation, navigation, and flood control dikes,jetty construction and maintenance, and channeldredging, have altered the historical flow andflooding regimes and disrupted habitat-formingprocesses. Restoration of the historical hydrology,and the habitat-forming processes it controls,will be vital to the restoration of estuary andlower mainstem habitat function and recoveryof salmon and steelhead from throughout theColumbia Basin.The Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board’s2010 plan proposes the following specific goals,among others:n Restore subbasin valley floodplain functionand stream habitat diversity. Removing or modifyingchannel control and containment structuresto reconnect the stream and its floodplain willrestore normal habitat-forming processes andreestablish habitat complexity, off-channel habitats,and conditions favorable to fish spawningand rearing.n Manage forests to restore watershed processes.The mainstem and estuary are affected by actionsin adjacent and upriver subbasins.n Help address immediate risks with short-termsolutions, such as by building spawning channels,constructing side channels or engineered logjams, or remediating contaminants.n Regulate land use to protect existing andrestored watershed processes and habitat conditions.Projections in all areas of the subbasin arefor continued growth in the next 20 years.The Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership(www.lcrep.org) is a two-state public-private initiativethat is one of 28 programs in the NationalEstuary Program. Using a watershed approach,the Estuary Partnership integrates 28 cities, ninecounties, and the states of Oregon and Washingtonover an area that stretches 146 miles fromBonneville Dam to the Pacific Ocean. The EstuaryPartnership’s primary responsibility is to implementthe voluntary Comprehensive Conservationand Management Plan for the Lower ColumbiaRiver. The Estuary Partnership’s website includesa mapping tool for enhancement and monitoringprojects, including projects on Deer Island,Active habitat restoration efforts by the LowerColumbia Salmon Recovery Board, the EstuaryPartnership, and others are under way. Focalprojects include riparian restoration, instreamprojects such as off-channel habitat and log-jams,and attempts to restore flow to a more naturalregime.248 249

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAppendix I WatershedsOrganizations and Partners — CathlametChannel–Columbia River SubbasinColumbia Soil & Water Conservation District503-397-4555info@columbiaswcd.comLower Columbia Fish Enhancement Group360-882-6671www.lcfeg.orgLower Columbia River Estuary Partnership503-226-1565www.lcrep.orgLower Columbia Salmon Recovery andWatershed ManagementBernadette Graham Hudson360 425-1552www.lowercolumbiasalmonrecovery.orgOregon Department of Environmental Quality503-229-5696www.oregon.gov/DEQ/Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife503-947-6000www.dfw.state.or.us/Washington Department of Ecology360-407-6000www.ecy.wa.gov/ecyhome.htmlWashington Department of Fish and Wildlife360 902-2200www.wdfw.wa.govWatershed Plans, Assessments, and Reports —Cathlamet Channel–Columbia River Subbasinn Campbell, B.H. 2004. Restoring Rare NativeHabitats in the Willamette Valley. A Landowner’sGuide for Restoring Oak Habitats, Wetlands,Prairies, and Bottomland Hardwood andRiparian Forests. Defenders of Wildlife, WestLinn, OR.n Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership’sonline mapping tool (restoration, monitoring,other projects)http://maps.lcrep.org/n Columbia River Toxics Reduction Plan (2010)www.epa.gov/region10/pdf/columbia/toxics-action-plan_sept2010.pdfn Comprehensive Conservation and ManagementPlan for the Lower Columbia River (1999)www.lcrep.org/complete-plann EPA’s Columbia River Basin websitehttp://www.epa.gov/columbiariver/n Landscape Planning for Washington’s Wildlife:Managing for Biodiversity in Developing Areas(A Priority Habitats and Species GuidanceDocument)www.wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?id=00023n Lower Columbia River and Columbia RiverEstuary Subbasin Summary (2002) www.cbfwa.org/FWProgram/ReviewCycle/fy2003ce/workplan/020517LowerColEstuary.pdfn Lower Columbia River Bi-State Water QualityStudies – compilation of studies available onlinewww.lcrep.org/lower-columbia-river-bi-statewater-quality-studiesn Lower Columbia River Conservation andRecovery Plan for Oregon Populations of Salmonand Steelhead (Oregon Lower Columbia Plan; thefinal bi-state recovery plan is under developmentand is expected to be adopted in 2013)www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/CRP/lower_columbia_plan.aspn Lower Columbia River Restoration Prioritizationframework (2006) http://www.lcrep.org/habitat-restoration-prioritization-frameworkn Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery and Fish &Wildlife Subbasin Plan (Washington, 2010) www.lcfrb.gen.wa.usn Oregon Conservation Strategywww.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/n Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’spriority persistent pollutants website www.deq.state.or.us/wq/SB737/index.htmn Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’sNative Fish Conservation Policy (2003)http://dfw.state.or.us/fish/CRP/nfcp.aspn Protocols for Monitoring Habitat RestorationProjects in the Lower Columbia River and Estuary(2009)www.lcrep.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/n The Columbia River Basin State of the RiverReport for Toxics (2009)http://www.epa.gov/columbiariver/n U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services’ Bald Eagleweb site www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/BaldEagle/default.aspn USGS water quality monitoring informationhttp://wa.water.usgs.gov/cgi/realtime.data.cgin Washington Comprehensive WildlifeConservation Strategywww.wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/cwcs3b. Kalama River–Frontal Columbia RiverThe Kalama River-Frontal Columbia River subbasindrains only 15 square miles within theboundary of the greater Portland-Vancouverregion. The Kalama River originates in the lowfoothills of the southwest Washington Cascadesand flows into Lake River, which drains northwardfrom Vancouver Lake into the ColumbiaRiver. Lake River also receiving water from Flumeand Whipple creeks. Tributary streams are primarilylow-gradient meandering systems withinClark County. Vancouver Lake and Lake River arewithin the historical Columbia River floodplainand are tidally influenced. Burnt Bridge Creekflows into Vancouver Lake and is centered in thecity of Vancouver. The watershed includes theUpper Salmon, Lower Salmon, Lake River-FrontalColumbia River, Burnt Bridge Creek, and GeeCreek subwatersheds.The watershed includes the majority of theurban land areas in the Washington portion ofthe greater Portland-Vancouver region, includingVancouver, Battle Ground, Hazel Dell, andOrchards. Land use is predominantly privatelyowned timber and agriculture in the upper andmiddle portions of the watershed and rural andurban development in the lower portion of thewatershed. Much of the historical wetland andfloodplain habitat has been converted to urbanuses, although some large areas are preserved.The human population in the watershed isexpected to double by 2020, primarily in Vancouverand Battle Ground; this will increase pressureto convert forest and rural lands to high-densitysuburban and urban uses.The Salmon Creek watershed lies along thePacific Flyway and is critical to migrating andbreeding birds. Meriwether Lewis and WilliamClark camped near the mouth of Salmon Creekon November 4, 1805. Clark purportedly did notsleep well because of the noise made by swans,geese, ducks, and other birds nearby.The watershed’s stream health and fish andwildlife habitat have been affected by urbanand rural development, agricultural practices,transportation corridors, and timber harvest.Salmon Creek currently exceeds state and federalstandards for water temperature, turbidity, andcoliform bacteria, and tributaries also have problemswith dissolved oxygen and pH. Floodplainconnectivity has been lost and streams channelized.High peak flows and low summer flows arekey urban issues, so development practices andstormwater management are important toolsin managing future urban growth. Clark PublicUtilities, Clark County, and the WashingtonDepartment of Ecology have entered a jointagreement to develop and maintain an effectivemanagement strategy for the watershed’s groundwaterresources, which supply most of the waterto residents and businesses.Habitat loss, fragmentation and invasivespecies are of particular concern in the SalmonCreek watershed. Native oak habitats and prairiesare threatened by Scot’s broom. Purple loosestrifeand knotweeds affect wetlands and riparian habitats.Despite these difficulties, substantial habitatremains and much has been protected. TheRidgefield lowlands extend north-south throughmost of the western portion of the watershed and250 251

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAppendix I Watershedscontinue northward to the Lewis and KalamaRiver-Columbia Frontal River subbasins. The areacontains a mosaic of seasonal and permanentwetlands, grasslands, upland forest, riparian corridors,and cropland. The watershed also includesremnant stands of Oregon white oak. The WashingtonDepartment of Natural Resources identifiesMankas Prairie, a remnant prairie and oaksavanna habitat area in the northeastern portionof the watershed, as a heritage site, and the upperreaches of Weaver Creek include an importantmature mixed forest-wetland complex.Washington’s Priority Habitats and Speciesprogram identifies the Ridgefield lowlands,Salmon Creek, and major low-lying tributaries ashigh-quality habitat for breeding and overwinteringbald eagles and waterfowl, including winterconcentrations of dusky Canada, Canada, andwhite-fronted geese, and lesser sandhill cranes,and wintering and breeding ducks. Agriculturallands in the lowlands contribute to habitat valuefor these species. The area also supports a diversearray of amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. Thesloughs, wetlands, and riparian areas in the bottomlandsaround the city of Woodland supportcavity-nesting ducks, and this area also is used bymigrating sandhill cranes. The riparian and floodplainforested habitat hosts a variety of breedingpasserines, including song sparrow, Swainson’sthrush, and common yellowthroat. The forestedportion of the watershed northeast of Woodlandforms the edge of the Mt. Saint Helens elk herd’swintering range. Although this portion of theKalama watershed does not currently supportthe federally endangered Columbian white-taileddeer, the area is within the species’ historicalrange and a reintroduction recently occurred onnearby Cottonwood Island.The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service establishedthe Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge Complexin 1965, with a total of 5,217 acres set asidefor wildlife and habitat. Washington Departmentof Fish and Wildlife owns another 2,730acres immediately to the south, in the ShillapooWildlife Area. The Port of Vancouver also ownssome important preservation and mitigationareas. Numerous other habitat areas are protectedthrough a variety of ownerships, includingholdings along Whipple Creek, Salmon CreekGreenway, and Burnt Bridge Greenway.Several key wildlife movement corridors connectto the Columbia River and adjacent watersheds.The lowlands connect in all directions:west to the Columbia River, north and south toother watersheds, and to important wildlife areassuch as Burnt Bridge, Cougar Canyon, Whipple,and Flume creeks. Upper Salmon Creek providesa corridor through urban and agricultural areasto forest in the upper basin.The Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board’s2010 Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery andFish & Wildlife Subbasin Plan provides a detailedsalmon-oriented characterization of SalmonCreek subbasin. Historically, the Salmon Creeksubbasin supported thousands of fall Chinook,winter steelhead, chum, and coho. Salmonand steelhead numbers have declined to onlya fraction of historical levels. Extinction risksare significant for all of these species, but thepopulations in the Salmon Creek subbasin arenot considered primary for population recoveryunder the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board’splan; however, meeting regional recovery goalswill require that the Salmon Creek populationsbe maintained at their current level of viability.Although no single threat is responsible for thedeclines in salmon and steelhead viability, loss oftributary habitat quality and quantity accounts forthe largest relative impact. Key habitats have beenisolated or eliminated as a result of dredging,channel modifications, diking, filling, and drainingof floodplains and wetlands. Hydropoweroperation on the Columbia River mainstem hasaltered flows, habitat, and migration conditions.Altered habitat and competition and interbreedingwith hatchery fish have reduced productivity.The Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board’s2010 Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery andFish & Wildlife Subbasin Plan identifies growthmanagement, forest, floodplain, and riparianrestoration and preservation and restoration ofwatershed processes and habitat conditions asimmediate priorities for salmon recovery andidentifies reach-specific restoration activitiesto improve fish habitat. The Clark County 2010Stream Health Report recommends the followingpriority general action categories for this watershed:increase infiltration and retention of stormwaterrunoff, restore stream and side channelsin the middle and upper watershed, implementdevelopment regulations to minimize impacts,minimize the impact of surface and groundwaterwithdrawals, promote good septic system maintenancepractices, and work with property ownersto eliminate pollution sources.Washington’s Comprehensive WildlifeConservation Strategy identifies specific areasand actions to help sensitive habitats and wildlifespecies. A recovery plan is in place in thiswatershed for several threatened or endangeredprairie species, including Fender’s blue butterfly,Icaricia icarioides fenderi (endangered); Willamettedaisy, Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens(endangered); Bradshaw’s lomatium, Lomatiumbradshawii (endangered); Kincaid’s lupine,Lupinus sulphureus, ssp. kincaidii (threatened);and Nelson’s checkermallow, Sidalcea nelsoniana(threatened).Active habitat restoration and preservationefforts have been under way for some time nowby several nonprofit groups, including the City ofVancouver, Clark County, Clark Public Utilities,the Port of Vancouver, and Lower Columbia FishRecovery Board. The Salmon Creek WatershedCouncil provides a forum for citizens and organizationsresiding in Clark County to participateand partner for “on-the-ground” restoration,water quality, and advocacy. Clark County’sStreamTeam organizes restoration projects inthe Salmon Creek Greenway, and the VancouverWatershed Council is similarly engaged inplantings, cleanups, and community education.Salmon Creek runs through the Washington StateUniversity campus, and students, professors andpartners are engaged in restoration and watershededucation.Organizations and Partners —Kalama River-Frontal Columbia River WatershedCity of Vancouver360-487-8600www.cityofvancouver.usClark Conservation DistrictDenise Smee360-883-1987dsmee@clarkcd.orgwww.clarkcd.org/index.htmlClark County ESA ProgramContact: Bobbi Trusty360-397-2121 ext. 5268bobbitrusty@clark.wa.govwww.co.clark.wa.us/esa/index.htmlClark County Parks & Recreation360-487-8311parksrec@ci.vancouver.wa.usClark Public Utilities’ StreamTeamLisa Beranek360-992-8585StreamTeam@clarkpud.comhttp://www.clarkpublicutilities.com/index.cfm/our-environment/stream-team/Lower Columbia Fish Enhancement GroupTony Meyer360-882-6671tony@lcfeg.orgwww.lcfeg.org252 253

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAppendix I WatershedsLower Columbia Salmon Recovery andWatershed ManagementBernadette Graham Hudson360-425-1552www.lowercolumbiasalmonrecovery.orgSalmon Creek Watershed CouncilBianca Streif360-721-3816Bianca.streif@salmoncreekwatershed.orgwww.salmoncreekwatershed.orgVancouver Lake Watershed PartnershipLoretta Callahan360-759-4479loretta.callahan@ci.vancouver.wa.uswww.ci.vancouver.wa.us/PublicWorks/vancouverlake/index.htmVancouver Watersheds CouncilGary Bock360-852-9189info@vancouverwatersheds.orgwww.vancouverwatersheds.org/Washington Department of Ecology360-407-6000http://www.ecy.wa.gov/ecyhome.htmlWashington Department of Fish and Wildlife360-902-2200www.wdfw.wa.govClark County Extension (WSU)Jennifer Naas360-397-6060jenifer.naas@clark.wa.govhttp://clark.wsu.edu/Watershed Plans, Assessments, and Reports —Kalama River-Frontal Columbia River Watershedn Clark County Water Quality Division. 1995.Burnt Bridge Creek Watershed Plan: ClarkCounty watershed protection program. Vancouver,WA: the Division.n Clark County Water Resources Division. 1997.Lakeshore & Salmon Creek Watershed Areas PlanClark County watershed protection program.Vancouver, WA: the Division.n Clark County Stream Health Planwww.co.clark.wa.us/water-resources/stream.htmln Clark County stream monitoring informationhttp://www.co.clark.wa.us/water-resources/monitoring/streammonitor.htmln Gee Creek Watershed Restoration BackgroundReport http://clark.wsu.edu/natural/geeCreek.html#staten Habitat Conservation Plan information forWashington state-owned and managed wildlifeareas www.wdfw.wa.gov/lands/wildlife_areas/hcp/n Lewis, Salmon-Washougal Watershed Plan(WRIA 27/28) www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/wrias/Planning/27-28.htmln Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery and Fish &Wildlife Subbasin Plan (2010)www.lcfrb.gen.wa.usn Overview of the Lewis and Salmon-WashougalWater Resources Management Program Ruleswww.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0811006.htmln Shillapoo Wildlife Area management planwww.wdfw.wa.gov/lands/wildlife_areas/management_plans/n U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. RecoveryPlan for the Prairie Species of Western Oregonand Southwestern Washington www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/PrairieSpecies/Documents/PrairieSpeciesFinalRecoveryPlan.pdf4. Lower Columbia –Sandy SubbasinIncludes these named USGS HUC watersheds:Middle Sandy RiverWashougal RiverLower Sandy RiverCity of Washougal-Columbia RiverThe Lower Columbia-Sandy subbasin is discussedin three sections below, based on local expertisewithin watersheds:4a: Sandy River watershed4b: Washougal River watershed4c: City of Washougal-Columbia River watershedThe Lower Columbia-Sandy subbasin is theregion’s third largest watershed and makes up 12percent of the greater Portland-Vancouver region.Key Facts: The Lower Columbia-Sandy subbasinwithin the greater Portland-Vancouver region:n Ties with the Lewis subbasin for the highestproportion of tree cover in a watershed: 64percent.n Has forest patches that cover 63 percent ofthe subbasin, suggesting a low degree of forestfragmentation.n Is 26 percent publicly owned. This is higherthan any other watershed in the region andrepresents nearly one-quarter (23 percent) of allpublicly owned lands throughout the region.n Has nearly 20,000 acres within FEMA 100-yearfloodplains and 9,100 acres of mapped wetlands.n Is about one-quarter publicly owned.4a. Sandy RiverSteve Wise, Sandy River Basin Watershed CouncilThe 315,000-acre (500-square-mile) Sandy Riverbasin is a dynamic and diverse glacial river systemthat spans 6,000 feet in elevation. It supportshabitat types from Columbia River floodplainsthrough subalpine forest. The Sandy and itsmajor subwatersheds—the Salmon, Zigzag, andBull Run rivers—are aregionally significantrefuge for federallylisted wild salmon andsteelhead in the LowerColumbia. Relativelyintact landscapes serveas habitat for diversespecies of plants andanimals while alsosupporting intensivehuman use and drinkingwater for much ofthe Portland area. Restorationof free-flowingconditions via removalof Marmot Dam in2007 set the stage fora basin-scale, collaborativeeffort to protectand restore the Sandyfor salmon habitat andecological values.Geography and LandformThe Sandy River flows 56 miles from glaciershigher than 6,000 feet on the southwest sideof Mt. Hood to the river’s confluence with theColumbia near Troutdale, Oregon, giving thewatershed a total stream network of 680 streammiles. The river runs through unconsolidatedlahars (i.e., volcanic debris flows) that allow significantchannel migration during frequent highwaterevents. The Lower Sandy subwatershed,which is entirely within the greater Portland-Vancouverregion is 72 square miles, and the MiddleSandy subwatershed, which is partially within theregion, is 54 square miles. Together they drainalmost half the river’s length, from River Mile 30to the river’s mouth.Below RM 30, which is the former site of MarmotDam, the Sandy River Gorge envelops long,steep rapids. Below Revenue Bridge (at RM 24),the Sandy bends between high bluffs rising morethan 200 feet. The Bull Run River, which is locatedoutside the greater Portland-Vancouver regionLower Columbia-Sandy Subbasin (partial)217,161 acresLand cover% of WatershedAgriculture 12%Regen. forest 5%Developed 6%Low Veg 7%Tree Cover 64%Water 5%Forest Patches* 63%JurisdictionsCamas 2%Metro UGB** 2%Sandy 30 acres.**Cities in Portland area UGB.254 255

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAppendix I Watershedsbut serves as Portland’s water supply, joins theSandy at Dodge Park (RM 18). Between Dodgeand Oxbow parks (at RM 13), another gorgelimits road access. The Sandy slows and meandersthrough Oxbow Regional Park and Dabney StatePark (RM 6) and collects the significant tributariesGordon, Trout, and Beaver creeks. North ofInterstate 84, the Sandy River Delta, which isowned and managed by the U.S. Forest Service,totals 1,500 acres at the river’s confluence with theColumbia.Streamflow in the Sandy River ranges fromhundreds to tens of thousands of cubic feet persecond within a single reach. Intense rain-onsnowevents cause dramatic flows, movement ofglacial and large woody debris, bank erosion, andchannel migration, particularly in late winter.Native American UseNative Americans used the Sandy River for huntingand fishing, and the river formed part of atrail system between the Columbia and areas tothe east. Lewis and Clark recorded a ClackamasIndian village near the current site of PortlandInternational Airport. Portions of the upper basinare currently co-managed with the ConfederatedTribes of Warm Springs for harvest of traditionalfoods.Modern SettlementThe Sandy was a key link in modern settlementtransportation routes. Wagon trains first crossedthe area in 1840, and the Barlow Road officiallyopened in 1846. By the early 1900s railroadservice made the Sandy a production zone fortimber and gravel. The Mt. Hood Loop Highway’scompletion in the 1920s created additionalaccess, and in 1952 the highway became part ofU.S. Highway 26. The Historic Columbia RiverHighway follows the Sandy’s lower reaches. Sinceits construction in the 1950s, Interstate 84 hascrossed the Sandy at Troutdale.Timber harvest began in the lower Sandy inthe 1850s and had intensified by the early 20thcentury. Forest Service roads expanded beginningin the 1950s, eventually totaling more than 550miles. Logging in floodplain and riparian areasconverted mixed fir, hemlock, and cedar coniferforests to higher concentrations of alder. Thisreduced shade and recruitment of natural largewood and increased sediment loads into streams.Sandy River fish have been harvested since themid-1800s. By the 1870s, harvesting and habitatmodification had caused declines in salmon andsteelhead populations. Spring Chinook harvestpeaked on the Columbia at 43 million pounds in1873. By the 1940s, the harvest of all ColumbiaRiver salmon species was substantially depressed.Historical and Current VegetationHistorically, the Sandy River subbasin wascovered almost entirely by coniferous forest (82percent) and burned forest (16 percent), makingit the most heavily forested basin in the greaterPortland-Vancouver region. Virtually no prairieor oak was recorded in the General Land Officesurveys. Increases in prairie and oak in the ecologicalsystem life form (ESLF) data created forthe U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Gap AnalysisProgram probably are due to misclassification.About 20 percent of the basin was converted toagriculture and 10 percent to urban uses (portionsof Gresham, Sandy, and Troutdale), mostlywithin the greater Portland-Vancouver region.Much of the Sandy Basin remains forested.Although the lower Sandy is dominated by young,privately owned forest, more than half the basin’sforest is more than 150 years old, particularly onfederal lands in the Bull Run, Salmon, and upperbasin wilderness. Approximately 74 percent ofthe basin, including nearly the entire upper basin,is managed by the U.S. Forest Service-Mt. HoodNational Forest (approximately 70 percent) andthe Bureau of Land Management (BLM). TheSalmon River is a tier-one watershed under theNorthwest Forest Plan and is managed for wildsalmon and steelhead, bull trout, and residentfish. About 3 percent of the watershed is ownedby the Portland Water Bureau and other local,state, and regional governmental entities.In contrast with the upper watershed, theportion of the Sandy River watershed that iswithin the greater Portland-Vancouver region(approximately 23 percent of the watershed)is primarily privately owned and includes thecities of Troutdale, Gresham, and Sandy. Privateconservation ownership totals about 2,000 acres,which are concentrated along the mainstemSandy. Other private ownership is a mixture ofagriculture (especially nurseries), small lot forest,and residential land. Most streambanks alongthe middle and lower Sandy are privately owned,with residential subdivisions dotting sectionsalong the upper and middle river. Developedneighborhoods, manufactured home parks, andseveral private summer camps are located withinthe lower basin. Agriculture is the designatedland use for about 15,000 acres (5 percent of thewatershed), with rural residential and otherzoning designations at 13,545 acres (4 percent).Less than 10% are classified as urban.Less than 5 percent of the Sandy Basin lieswithin the urban growth boundary. However,the human population in most areas of theSandy Basin has increased substantially in recentdecades, although it still totals less than 100,000.From 1980 to 2000 alone, the combined populationsof Troutdale, Sandy, and Gresham grew 162percent.Recreation is a major human use and importanteconomic driver within the basin. Significantportions of the upper basin are managed forrecreation, and the Sandy provides opportunitiesfor angling, hiking, swimming, boating, kayaking,biking, skiing, and nature study. Salmon andsteelhead in the Sandy support popular sportfisheries that account for a large percentage ofregional angling opportunities.Regional SignificanceDespite significant changes in land use and otherhuman alterations, the Sandy Basin supportsnumerous sensitive species. Evaluations by stateand federal agencies and The Nature Conservancyhas identified as many as 90 species of concernthat are or potentially are present in the Sandy.The Sandy’s vegetative cover falls into 12 covertype categories, as defined by the Oregon NaturalHeritage Program’s Oregon Gap Project. TheSandy Delta alone has seven habitat types, includingforest, savanna, upland and wetland forestscrub-shrub, and upland and wetland meadow.The Sandy River and its tributaries support adiverse assemblage of 22 native and 19 introducedfish species, including Lower Columbia Riverspring and fall Chinook salmon and coho salmonand winter steelhead. Other native fish speciesof ecological or cultural significance that maybe found in the basin include coastal cutthroattrout, Pacific lamprey, mountain whitefish, smelt,and resident rainbow trout, bull trout, and whitesturgeon. The majority of the introduced speciesin the basin are found in the lower river near theSandy Delta’s slower, warmer flows. Pacific smelt,which once were a popular game fish, were listedas threatened in 2010.The Sandy and its tributaries represent anchorhabitat for federally listed Chinook and cohosalmon and steelhead. The lower mainstemreaches of Sandy River are particularly importantfor recovery of late-run fall Chinook, while upperbasin reaches are critical for coho recovery. TheSandy River also provides key habitat for nativespring Chinook and winter steelhead. The Sandy’slocation downstream of the federal dams on256 257

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAppendix I Watershedsthe mainstem Columbia River gives the basin’spopulations added significance. The Lewis Riverin Washington (which also is within the greaterPortland-Vancouver region) is the only otherstream that supports a self-sustaining native fallChinook population from the Lower ColumbiaRiver ESU, and the Clackamas River is the onlyother home to a self-sustaining population ofnative Lower Columbia River coho. The SandyRiver populations of these threatened native fishplay a critical role to successful recovery in thelower Columbia Basin.Historical runs of as many as 15,000 coho,20,000 winter steelhead, 10,000 fall Chinook, and10,000 spring Chinook have fallen to below 10percent of their historical levels. Wild steelheadreturns above Marmot Dam averaged less than1,000 between 1981 and 2006, with only around600 wild winter steelhead returning in 2005 and2006. An average of 1,900 wild Chinook returnedbetween 1999 and 2007. Chum salmon are consideredextirpated in the Sandy.The Sandy hosts several rare, threatened, orendangered birds, including the iconic northernspotted owl, predators such as the bald eagle andnorthern goshawk, and greater sandhill crane.Great blue herons, eagles, and osprey nest in thelower Sandy, and the river provides migratoryhabitat for neotropical songbirds and waterfowl.Oregon spotted salamanders and Cascadesand northern red-legged frogs are among eightamphibians in the basin. The Sandy Delta hostsnumerous rare, threatened, or endangered species,including eight bird species, two amphibianspecies, and at least two plant species (and possibly19 more).Mammal species that live in the basin includeRoosevelt elk, black-tailed deer, black bear, coyote,cougar, bobcat, otter, raccoon, beaver, mink,and wolverine. The habitats adjacent to the riversand tributaries provide important travel corridorsfor wildlife movement and dispersal.Remaining wetlands total slightly less than6,500 acres, equal to 2 percent of the basin. Wetlandsare most prevalent in the lower and middleSandy River watersheds, which have 1,534 and1,185 acres of wetlands, respectively.Undammed: Reversing Historical ImpactsAs recently as 2008, passage for migrating fishwas blocked in three areas for water supply,hydropower generation, and hatchery production.Recent actions have begun to restore connectivityand function in historically interrupted segmentsof the Sandy.The City of Portland has managed the BullRun watershed (28 percent of the Sandy Basin’sarea) for water supply since 1892. The headworksdam, built in 1922, effectively blocked all fishpassage to the upper Bull Run and raised temperaturesin the lower river. In 2008, the PortlandWater Bureau’s adoption of a Habitat ConservationPlan committed the City of Portland toinvesting $93 million in habitat restoration andprotection actions over 50 years to compensatefor habitat blocked by drinking water dams.Portland General Electric’s Bull Run HydropowerProject built passage-blocking dams atMarmot on the middle Sandy River in 1906,and on the Little Sandy River, a Bull Run Rivertributary, to divert water for power production.PGE is voluntarily decommissioning the BullRun project and removed the Marmot and LittleSandy dams in 2007 and 2008, respectively. Theseefforts largely restored the Sandy to a free-flowingcondition, from the headwaters to the river’sconfluence with the Columbia River.Until 2010, when a program began to passwild fish, a state fish hatchery blocked passage forwild fish to the upper 10 miles of on Cedar Creek.On the Sandy Delta, a small dam constructed in1932 separates about 1 mile of the historical mainchannel to the northeast from the current mainchannel. This dam is scheduled for removal incoming years.Important ThreatsHatchery FishMarmot Dam allowed separation of wild andhatchery fish. Since its removal, the percentage ofhatchery-origin spawners has increased dramatically.In 2010, 70 percent of surveyed spawners onaverage were hatchery fish, and in some streamsthe number was 100 percent in some streams; thisfar exceeds the Oregon Department of Fish andWildlife’s target of 10 percent.Stream TemperatureStream shading is generally good in the middleand upper reaches of the Sandy River. Agriculturaland residential development activities havealtered or disturbed riparian habitat areas. Theeffects of those alterations are particularly markedin the lower river: TMDLs are in place for temperatureon the lower Sandy mainstem, GordonCreek, and Beaver Creek (which also has a TMDLfor bacteria).Invasive SpeciesNoxious weeds occur throughout much of theSandy Basin. Japanese and giant knotweed,English and Irish ivy, Scot’s broom, Himalayanblackberry, garlic mustard, and butterfly bush allcolonize riparian areas disturbed by logging ordevelopment and are widespread in the basin.Degraded Stream ReachesFollowing a large flood in 1964, the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers and local communities joinedefforts to channelize parts of the Salmon, Zigzag,and Sandy rivers and Still Creek. The workaffected the timing, variability, and duration offloodplain and wetland inundation in the areaand led to loss of spawning gravel from somereaches. The now degraded reaches were especiallyimportant for winter-rearing juvenile steelheadand Chinook salmon.Alteration of stream channels also alterednative vegetation in riparian areas. On the SandyDelta and elsewhere, wetlands were drained andfilled and forests cleared for agricultural production.Alteration of Columbia River flows forhydropower production also largely eliminatedWhat Are the Important Protected Areas?The Sandy Basin incorporates portions of theColumbia Gorge Scenic Area (at the Sandy Delta),state and federal wild and scenic waterways,federal wilderness, and numerous county, city,and Metro parks. More than 58 miles of streamswithin the basin are designated wild, scenic, orrecreational under the federal Wild and ScenicRivers Act; together, these designations protect18,626 acres of land within these corridors. Thelower Sandy River Gorge is one of the great conservedareas near a major metropolitan region.Protection of the lower Sandy began in 1970when the Diack family donated 156 acres to TheNature Conservancy. A 12.5-mile segment of theSandy from Dodge Park downstream to DabneyState Recreation Area was designated a federalWild and Scenic River and a State Scenic Waterwayin 1972, and 58.4 stream miles in the basinwere designated wild, scenic, or recreational in1988 under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Since1995, Metro has acquired 1,300 acres of naturalareas in the lower Sandy, adding to nearly 500acres owned by The Nature Conservancy andabout 14,000 acres owned by the BLM. Metro alsomanages the 1,200-acre Oxbow regional park,which is used for fishing, camping, and hiking,and education. Other state, municipal, andcounty parks are spread throughout the SandyBasin, from Lewis and Clark State Park near themouth to the upper tributaries.Land transfers associated with the decommissioningof Marmot Dam in the middle Sandyadded 1,500 acres to BLM’s landholdings that willbe managed as a BLM Area of Critical EnvironmentalConcern.258 259

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAppendix I Watershedsseasonal floods on the delta, to which cottonwoodgallery forests and associated vegetation wereadapted.organized a concerted effort to target priorityareas for restoring large, contiguous areas ofriparian and upland vegetation. A basin-wideearly detection and rapid response program isunder way, and participating organizations andvolunteers continue plantings on both public andprivate lands.Through 2010, the USDA Forest Service hadremoved almost half the miles of forest road inthe watershed.n Sandy River Water Trailhttp://www.ci.sandy.or.us/index.asp?Type=B_LIST&SEC={A61B8AFD-E527-4B75-AB89-C3DF2CA15D57}n Western Rivers Conservancy —www.westernrivers.org Josh KlingOther groups working in the Sandy include:U.S. Forest Service Columbia Gorge NationalCurrent Conservation Effortsn Sandy Basin Vegetation Restoration Coalition Scenic AreaIn 1999, a coalition of governmental and nongovernmentalorganizations formed the SandyPlan (SBVRC). The Nature Conservancy, Portland,OR97031 (541) 308-1700902 Wasco Street, Suite 200, Hood River, ORRiver Basin Partners to restore ESA-listed salmonand steelhead through a collaborative, sciencebasedOrganizations and Partners — Sandy River Basin SOLV (Steve Kennett)approach. The partnership includes moreGeneral inquiries about the Sandy River Basin 5193 NE Elam Young Pkwy, Suite B, Hillsboro,Partners can be directed to Chair Janet Senior Oregon 97124than a dozen organizations representing non-governmentalorganizations, including conservation Watershed Plans, Assessments, and Reports —at Portland Water Bureau: 503-823-4287. Other www.solv.org; 503-844-9571 ext. 318SRBP contacts are:and fishing groups, and government agencies. Sandy River BasinEcotrust Whole Watershed Restoration InitiativeThe Sandy River Basin Partners have developed The Sandy River Basin Partners Characterizationn Clackamas County —(Kate Carone)numerous studies and reports that document Report, Anchor Habitat Assessment, Short-termwww.co.clackamas.or.us Steve Hanschka721 NW Ninth Ave., Ste. 200 Portland, OR 97209existing conditions, address limiting factors for and Long-Term Aquatic Habitat Restorationwww.ecotrust.org/wwri; 503.467.0814nspecies, and provide a framework for restoring Strategies, and other reports are available on lineColumbia Land Trust — www.columbialandtrust.orgDan RoixFriends of Mt. Hoodhabitat for ESA-listed fish species in the Sandy at:http://www.friendsofmounthood.org/fmh.htmBasin.http://www.sandyriverpartners.org/background.n Freshwater Trust — www.thefreshwatertrust. Friends of Beaver CreekThe Sandy River Basin Partner’s Anchor htmlorg/ Mark McCollisterFriendsofBeaverCreek@gmail.comHabitat Assessment and Long-Term Restoration The following plans prioritize actions in the lowerhttp://sites.google.com/site/friendsofbeavercreek/Strategy specifically identified the Sandy River Sandy River:n Metro — www.oregonmetro.gov Brian VaughnFriends of Sandy River Deltamainstem corridor as a key area for habitat restoration.The area is of very high ecological value (ODFW). 2010. Lower Columbia River Conser-Service — www.fs.fed.us/r6/mthood Lisa Norrisn Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlifen Mt. Hood National Forest, USDA Forest http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SRD_MUD/given the full life history needs of the fish species vation and Recovery Plan for Oregon Populationsand serves as an important rearing and migratorycorridor for juvenile and adult salmon and or.us/fish/CRP/lower_columbia_plan.aspwww.co.multnomah.or.us Roy Iwaiof Salmon and Steelhead http://www.dfw.state.n Multnomah County —4b. Washougal RiverLori Hennings, Metro and Jeff Azerrad,steelhead.n Bull Run Water Supply Habitat Conservationn National Marine Fisheries Service —Washington Department of Fish and WildlifeThe Oregon Department of Wildlife’s LowerPlan http://www.portlandonline.com/water/www.nmfs.noaa.gov Ben MeyerColumbia River Conservation and Recovery PlanThe Washougal River subbasin drains 160 squareindex.cfm?c=46157for Oregon Populations of Salmon and Steelheadmiles within the region. The majority of then Nature Conservancy — nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/oregonDan Bellidentifies the Sandy as key to recovery of the n Oregon Department of Environmental Qualitywatershed lies within Skamania County; theLower Columbia River salmon and steelhead Sandy River TMDL AnalysisWashougal River enters Clark County and drainsESUs. The recovery plan cites impaired physical http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/tmdls/sandy.htmn Northwest Steelheaders —to the Columbia River near the city of Camas.habitat quality and habitat access for the Sandywww.sandysteelheaders.org Mike MyrickThe headwaters are in Gifford Pinchot Nationaln BLM Sandy River Basin Integrated ManagementPlanpopulations of coho, spring and fall Chinook, andForest. The upper mainstem Washougal flowsn Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife —winter steelhead, with key threats being relatedthrough a narrow, deep canyon until it reacheshttp://www.blm.gov/or/districts/salem/plans/www.dfw.state.or.us Todd Alsburyto stream cleaning, straightening and channelization,diking, wetland filling, and lack of largen Portland Water Bureau —the Columbia, where the river valley begins toSalmon Falls, about 15 miles upstream fromfiles/SRBIMP_Chapters34.pdfwood. Recommended actions include restoring n Salmon and Steelhead Runs and Relatedwww.portlandonline.com/water Steve Kucas widen. The lower 2 miles of the Washougal Riveroff-channel habitat and access to such habitat, Events on the Sandy River Basin: A Historicalare within the Columbia River floodplain. Then Sandy River Basin Watershed Council —particularly side channels, wetlands, and floodplains.http://www.portlandgeneral.com/commu-3,200 feet. Smaller watersheds within the subba-Perspectivehighest point in the watershed is approximatelywww.sandyriver.org Steve WiseThe Sandy Basin Vegetation Restoration nity_environment/initiatives/protecting_fish/n USDI Bureau of Land Management —sin include Lacamas Creek and the lower, middle,Coalition, led by the Nature Conservancy, hassandy_river/river_history.aspxwww.blm.gov/nhp Bruce Zoellickand west forks of the Washougal River. Othertributaries include the Little Washougal River andShanghai, Cougar, Vogel, Hagen and260 Canyon creeks.261

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAppendix I Watershedsof riparian vegetation is a key contributor to highwater temperatures. Total maximum daily loadsfor these pollutants have not yet been established.Lacamas Creek below Round Lake has low dissolvedoxygen and high water temperature. In the1970s, Lacamas Lake had excessive phosphorousloading. The Lacamas Lake Restoration Projectassisted many landowners in adopting agriculturalbest management practices in order to correctthis problem. Even though specific areas of thesubbasin have excess nutrients, overall nutrientlevels are believed to be limited because of thelack of salmon carcasses. In the 1960s a papermill discharged sulfite-laden wastewater into theCamas Slough, but that water is now treated atLady’s Island facilities; sediments, though, maystill be polluted. Two salmon hatcheries, Skamaniaand Washougal, may release potentially harmfuleffluent containing antibiotics and pathogens.Elevated turbidity may be a problem in LittleWashougal, Jones, and Dougan creeks.As with other watersheds, the Washougalsubbasin has salmon issues. Historically, passagefor most anadromous fish (except steelhead) wasblocked at Salmon Falls until the 1950s, when afish ladder was built there. Anadromous fish currentlycan access a few miles upstream of SalmonFalls but are blocked at Dougan Falls, althoughsummer steelhead can negotiate the falls. Historically,the Washougal subbasin supported thousandsof fall Chinook, chum, coho, and summerand winter steelhead. Those numbers have beendrastically reduced, and today all of these speciesare listed under the federal Endangered SpeciesAct. A recovery plan was developed in 2010, theLower Columbia Salmon Recovery and Fish &Wildlife Subbasin Plan. The plan is the result of acollaborative planning initiative coordinated bythe Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board, with anumber of planning partners.Washington’s Comprehensive Wildlife ConservationStrategy identifies areas and actions tohelp sensitive habitats and wildlife species, andthe Department of Natural Resources identifiesseveral important natural areas in the Washougalsubbasin. The Green Mountain Biodiversity Areathat serves as a stronghold for black-tailed deerand an important remnant habitat located withinrapidly expanding development. Lacamas LakeBottoms provides key habitat for cavity-nestingducks and other waterfowl. The Camas BiodiversityArea includes mature timber that supportshigh numbers of Vaux’s swifts surrounding DeadLake. The headwater of North Fork LacamasCreek has abundant large snags more than 36inches in diameter. A large federally ownedarea—Camp Bonneville Military Reserve—liesalong the Lacamas Creek mainstem and the eastand north forks. The area is primarily naturalforest, although the mainstem Lacamas has arelatively narrow riparian area. Lacamas Prairiehas a rare population of Lomatium bradshawiiand is one of the region’s few remaining large wetprairies.The Washougal River riparian corridor supportshigh levels of biodiversity and is an importantwildlife movement corridor. Other corridorsinclude major streams throughout the subbasinand a BPA powerline corridor that extendshorizontally across the southern subbasin. BoylesCreek connects to the upper Washougal Riverwinter deer range to the east, just outside theboundary of the region.Spotted owls, bald eagles, and Larch Mountainsalamanders are all species of concern. Elk,deer, and goose populations in the watershed aredoing well, maintaining themselves via naturalproduction, and not imperiled at this time inthe Washougal River watershed. The Washougalsubbasin supports a diverse group of amphibiansand reptiles that includes the northwestern,long-toed, Cope’s, Pacific giant, and Cascadetorrent salamanders; tailed and Pacific tree frogsand western toad; northern alligator lizard; andrubber boa, ring-necked snake, and three speciesof garter snakes.Clark County and the Lower Columbia FishRecovery Board’s Lower Columbia Salmon Recoveryand Fish & Wildlife Subbasin Plan set generaland specific priorities for the Washougal subbasin.The recovery plan lists the most immediateThe majority of the watershed is privatelyowned forest that is steeply sloped and managedfor timber harvest. Commercial, industrial,urban, and agricultural land uses are generallylimited to the lower watershed, which includesthe cities of Washougal and Camas. The LacamasCreek drainage includes a substantial amount ofrural residential and agricultural land uses, aswell as the two cities. The westernmost portion ofthe Washougal subbasin lies within the expandingVancouver metropolitan area. Urbanizationis expected to increase in the subbasin, primarilythrough eastward expansion of the Vancouverurban region. In 2000 the human population was36,600, but the population is expected to increaseto 92,800 by 2020.Historically, the Washougal Basin was composedof 87 percent conifer forest and burnedforest, making it the third most heavily forestedbasin in the region. Oak and prairie or savannacovered about 4 percent and 5 percent, respectively.Today, the basin remains forested, with15 percent in agriculture and some urban areas(i.e., portions of Camas, Vancouver, and Washougal).Agriculture and urban cover consumedroughly equal portions of conifer forest, burnedforest, and oak. Although oak and prairie neverwere abundant historically, overall losses havebeen 95 percent and 99 percent, respectively.Past natural and human disturbances have hadsignificant impacts on fish and wildlife habitatconditions within the subbasin. The Yacolt Burn,forestry practices, dams, roads, mining, residentialand industrial development, water withdrawals,and industrial pollution from paper millshave all altered habitat conditions. Floodplainconnections have been lost along portions ofthe mainstem Washougal and its major tributaries,and aquatic and upland habitat in the lowerwatershed is fragmented. Nonetheless, the middleand upper portions of the watershed are wellforestedand provide water and fish and wildlifehabitat.Water quality issues are concentrated primarilyin the Lacamas watershed, with various streams303(d) listed for temperature, pH, dissolved oxy-priorities in this subbasin as protecting intact forestsin headwater basins, managing forest lands toprotect and restore watershed processes, managinggrowth and development to protect watershedprocesses and habitat conditions, restoring passageat culverts and other barriers, and restoringlowland floodplain function, riparian function,and stream habitat diversity. Restoration projects,partner information, and selected watershedplans are available at www.lowercolumbiasalmonrecovery.org.Clark County suggests the followingstream health strategies in the western part ofthe Washougal subbasin: conserve agriculturaland forest lands and promote healthy practices;implement development regulations to minimizeimpacts, particularly from clearing and grading;protect and restore stream channels and riparianforest in tributary streams; and minimize theimpact of surface and groundwater withdrawalsin tributary streams.Numerous agencies and organizations areactively involved in restoring the Washougal subbasin,including counties; water quality programs,such as those of the Washington Department ofEcology; and fish and wildlife habitat programs,such as those of the Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, Clark Conservation District,Lower Columbia Fish Enhancement Group(LCFEG), tribes, landowners, Northwest PowerPlanning Council. The LCFEG partnership hasgen, and, to a lesser degree, fecal coliform. Lack includes approximately 300 acres of mature forest262 263

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAppendix I Watershedsworked on priority salmon restoration projectsfor several years; projects include upper Washougalbedrock channel restoration, Little WashougalRiver riparian restoration, Hamilton Creek engineeredlogjams, Grays River large woody debrisadditions, and numerous nutrient enhancementand Washougal mainstem restoration projects.The Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board’s planincludes a detailed map and 6-year work programto address key priorities in the Washougal subbasin.Organizations and Partners —Washougal River WatershedCity of CamasParks and Recreation360-834-5307www.ci.camas.wa.us/City of WashougalPublic Works Department360-835-8501www.cityofwashougal.us/Clark Conservation District360-883-1987www.clarkcd.org/index.htmlClark County ESA ProgramContact: Bobbi Trusty360-397-2121 ext. 5268bobbitrusty@clark.wa.govwww.co.clark.wa.us/esa/index.htmlwww.co.clark.wa.us/esa/index.htmlClark County Extension (WSU)360-397-6060http://clark.wsu.edu/Clark Public Utilities’ StreamTeam360-992-8585www.clarkpublicutilities.comLower Columbia Fish Enhancement Group360-882-6671www.lcfeg.orgLower Columbia Salmon Recovery andWatershed Management360 425-1552www.lowercolumbiasalmonrecovery.orgVancouver-Clark Parks & Recreation360-487-8311parksrec@ci.vancouver.wa.usVancouver Watersheds CouncilGary Bock360-852-9189info@vancouverwatersheds.orgwww.vancouverwatersheds.org/Washington Department of Ecology360-407-6000www.ecy.wa.gov/ecyhome.htmlWashington Department of Fish and Wildlife360 902-2200www.wdfw.wa.govWatershed Plans, Assessments, and Reports—Washougal River Watershedn Clark County Stream Health Plan, 2010www.co.clark.wa.us/water-resources/stream.htmln Clark County stream monitoring informationwww.co.clark.wa.us/water-resources/monitoring/streammonitor.htmln Draft Washougal River Subbasin Summary,2003 www.cbfwa.org/FWProgram/ReviewCycle/fy2003lc/workplan/020517Washougal.pdfn Habitat Conservation Plan information forWashington state-owned and managed wildlifeareas www.wdfw.wa.gov/lands/wildlife_areas/hcp/n Lewis, Salmon-Washougal Watershed Plan(WRIA 27/28) 2006 www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/wrias/Planning/27-28.htmln Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery and Fish& Wildlife Subbasin Plan, 2010www.lcfrb.gen.wa.usn Overview of the Lewis and Salmon-WashougalWater Resources Management Program Ruleswww.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0811006.htmln R2 Resource Consultants. 2004. Kalama,Washougal and Lewis River habitat assessments.Chapter 6: the Washougal River basin.n U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. RecoveryPlan for the Prairie Species of Western Oregonand Southwestern Washington www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/PrairieSpecies/Documents/PrairieSpeciesFinalRecoveryPlan.pdfn USGS water quality monitoring informationhttp://wa.water.usgs.gov/cgi/realtime.data.cgin Washington Comprehensive Wildlife ConservationStrategywww.wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/cwcsn Washington Department of Ecology–TMDL,water quality data and projects, surface-groundwaterinteractions along the mainstem, livestockreport and other information www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/tmdl/TMDLsbyWria/tmdl-wria28.html4c. The City of Washougal – Columbia RiverRick Till, Friends of the Columbia Gorgeand Lori Hennings, MetroThe City of Washougal-Columbia River subbasinstraddles the Columbia River and includes theColumbia River Gorge. The Washougal Riveroriginates in the Gifford-Pinchot National Forestin Skamania County and runs parallel to theColumbia River Gorge until passing through thecity of Washougal and into the Columbia Rivernear Camas, Washington. Approximately 76square miles of the subbasin lie within the greaterPortland-Vancouver region, just east of MultnomahFalls. Major tributaries in the Washingtonportion of the region include Gibbons andWatson creeks plus numerous smaller tributariesto the east. On the Oregon side, Latourell, Young,Bridal Veil, and Multnomah creeks are the majortributaries.The subbasin includes locally and regionallysignificant natural and recreational resourcesand provides habitat for several threatenedand endangered anadromous fish species andvaluable forested upland habitats. Recreationalresources include excellent boating, swimming,and fishing opportunities. The city of Washougallies along the Columbia River at the eastern endof the greater Vancouver urban area and servesas Washington’s gateway to the Columbia RiverGorge.Historically, this subbasin consisted of 47percent conifer forest, 16 percent burned forest,8 percent prairie and savanna, and 3 percent oak.By 2010, combined conifer and mixed forest coveredabout half of the basin, while 14 percent wasagriculture and 4 percent urban (i.e., Washougal).Agriculture and urban cover has consumedroughly equal portions of conifer forest, burnedforest, and oak. The amount of oak has reducedby about 64 percent, and prairie and savanna havedisappeared almost completely. Present-day landsare generally woodlands, open space, agriculture,and residential.The Columbia River Gorge is a remarkablenatural, scenic, cultural, and recreationalresource. The Gorge is an 85-mile-long canyoncutting a sea-level passage through the CascadeMountains. Much of the Gorge was designatedfor protection in 1986 with the adoption of theColumbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act.The National Scenic Area encompasses roughly292,000 acres and includes portions of six counties(Multnomah, Hood River, and Wasco inOregon and Clark, Skamania, and Klickitat inWashington). The area within the greater Portland-Vancouverregion encompasses portions ofthe National Scenic Area in eastern Clark Countyand western Skamania County.The National Scenic Area is divided into twogeneral land use designations: Special ManagementAreas and General Management Areas.The greater Portland-Vancouver region includesGeneral Management Area lands and portionsof “Gates of the Columbia River Gorge” SpecialManagement Area. The Columbia River GorgeCommission is responsible for adopting landuse regulations that govern land uses in GeneralManagement Areas, while the USDA Forest Serviceis responsible for adopting land use regulationsin Special Management Areas. Land useguidelines require protection for scenic, natural,recreational, and cultural resources.264 265

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAppendix I WatershedsThe National Scenic Area Act required that thenatural resources of the Columbia River Gorge beinventoried and that the inventory data be used asthe basis for land use designations and regulations.The Columbia River Gorge Commissionhas undertaken the Vital Signs Indicators Projectto study the condition of scenic, natural, recreational,and cultural resources in the NationalScenic Area. (See http://gorgevitalsigns.org/.)Washington State Route 14 leaving Washougalis designated a State Scenic Byway and is also thetravel route for the Lewis and Clark National HistoricTrail. State Route 14 is a primary travel routeinto the Columbia River Gorge and providesoutstanding scenic views, access to recreationaland natural resource areas, and opportunities forhistorical interpretation.The Columbia River, its tributaries, andadjacent wetlands provide habitat for all anadromousfish migrating upstream and downstreamthrough the greater Portland-Vancouver region.Most of the tributary streams are high gradient,with spawning habitat limited to the lowest reaches.Focal salmonid species in lower ColumbiaRiver Gorge tributaries include winter steelhead,chum, coho, and fall Chinook. Coastal cutthroattrout and Pacific lamprey also are present.Salmon and steelhead numbers have declined toa fraction of historical levels, and extinction risksare significant for all but chum; this watershed isa high priority for salmonid recovery.Unlike the Columbia River itself, many of thissubbasin’s tributaries have relatively intact hydrologybecause of the area’s steep slopes, forest cover,and large amounts of protected lands. Smalltributaries provide salmon spawning habitat,cold-water refugia, protection from predators,and rearing habit. Some tributaries are altered asa result of Bonneville Dam, water diversions (e.g.,Gibbons Creek), and small impoundments forrecreation or other purposes.Water quality in the mainstem Columbia Riveris impaired by warm temperature, toxics, andother issues; TMDL parameters include dioxinand total dissolved gas. TMDLs are still underdevelopment for some areas. Gibbons Creek has aTMDL in place for fecal coliform.The portions of the greater Portland-Vancouverregion that are within the ColumbiaRiver Gorge include numerous WashingtonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife priority habitats,including talus slopes, cliffs, old-growthand mature forests, herbaceous balds, Oregonwhite oak habitats, and riparian areas. Oregonwhite oak is particularly prevalent in parts of theColumbia River Gorge. The area also includeshabitat used by numerous species listed as sensitive,threatened, or endangered by the states orthe federal government. These species includeanadromous fish, the Larch Mountain salamander,and peregrine falcons. Many of these priorityhabitats and sensitive species are located on publiclyowned lands such as natural area parks andtrails that also provide public recreation opportunities.For example, portions of the Cape HornTrail recently were transferred from private intopublic ownership, providing recreational opportunitieswhile preserving habitat.Immediately east of the City of Washougalis Steigerwald Lake National Wildlife Refuge.This 1,049-acre refuge has historical riverinefloodplain habitat, semi-permanent wetlands,cottonwood-dominated riparian corridors, pastures,and remnant stands of Oregon white oak.Adjacent to Steigerwald Lake National WildlifeRefuge is the Washington Department of NaturalResources’ Washougal Oaks Natural AreaPreserve. This 223-acre site represents native oakhabitats that once were common in the PugetSound and Willamette Valley area but are nowrare.The eastern end of the study area includes substantiallands owned and managed by the WashingtonDepartment of Natural Resources (DNR).Some of these lands are managed as State SchoolTrust lands to provide perpetual funds for stateschools. Other DNR lands are managed under theDNR’s Natural Areas Program (see Chapter 6 ofthe Regional Conservation Strategy). For example,the Columbia Falls Natural Area Preserve is managedexclusively for the preservation of highlysensitive natural resources.Captain William Clark Park is managed bythe City of Washougal and provides river accessand hiking opportunities. Reed Island State Parkis a 510-acre park located in the Columbia Rivernear Washougal. The island offers bird watching,boating, beach walking, camping and picnicking.The St. Cloud Day Use Site provides river access,has ADA facilities, and is possibly the largestremaining natural wetland in the Columbia RiverGorge, providing habitat for an extensive varietyof wildlife.Aside from hatchery and harvest issues, keypriorities for the City of Washougal–ColumbiaRiver subbasin include:n Reduce out-of-subbasin impacts on salmonand steelhead so that the benefits of in-basinactions can be realized.n Address immediate salmonids risks withshort-term habitat fixes such as building chumsalmon spawning channels and constructing cohooverwintering habitat (e.g., alcoves, side channels,and log jams).n Restore riparian function and stream habitatdiversity.n Manage growth and development to protectwatershed processes and habitat conditions.n Manage forest lands to protect and restorewatershed processes.Active habitat restoration and preservationefforts have been under way for some time nowby several government and nonprofit groups,including the Washington Department of NaturalResources, the USDA Forest Service, the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, Clark County, SkamaniaCounty, the Skamania County Noxious WeedControl Board, Friends of the Columbia Gorge,Columbia Land Trust, Columbia Gorge RefugeStewards, and the Lower Columbia SalmonRecovery Board.Organizations and Partnerships —City of Washougal and Columbia Rivern City of Washougal — www.cityofwashougal.usn Washington Department of Ecology —www.ecy.wa.gov/ecyhome.htmln Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife— www.wdfw.wa.govn Washington Department of Natural Resources— www.dnr.wa.gov/Pages/default.aspxn Washington State University Clark CountyExtension — http://clark.wsu.edu/n USDA National Forest Service, Gifford-PinchotNational Forest and the Columbia River GorgeNational Scenic Area Office —www.fs.fed.us/n U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (SteigerwaldLake, Franz Lake, and Pierce National WildlifeRefuges) — www.fws.gov/ridgefieldrefuges/complex/index.htmln Clark County — www.co.clark.wa.usn Skamania County —www.skamaniacounty.org/n Skamania County Noxious Weed ControlBoard – http://www.skamaniacounty.org/noxious-weeds/n The Columbia River Gorge Commission —www.gorgecommission.org/n Friends of the Columbia Gorge —www.gorgefriends.org/266 267

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAppendix I Watershedsn The Lower Columbia River Fish EnhancementGroup — www.lcfeg.org/n Columbia Gorge Refuge Stewards — http://www.refugestewards.org/n Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership —http://www.lcrep.org/n Columbia Land Trust — www.columbialandtrust.org/Active restoration and enhancement partners inthe City of Washougal and the Columbia Riverinclude:Clark County ESA ProgramContact: Joel RupleyP.O. Box 9810, Vancouver WA 98666-9810360-397-2022joel.rupley@clark.wa.govwww.co.clark.wa.us/esa/index.htmlGifford Pinchot Task ForceContact: David JenningsP.O. Box 87542, Vancouver, WA 98687360-866-7551www.gptaskforce.orgLower Columbia Fish Enhancement GroupContact: Tony Meyer12404 SE Evergreen HighwayVancouver, WA 98668-5471360-882-6671tony@lcfeg.org, www.lcfeg.orgLower Columbia Salmon Recovery andWatershed Management(includes partner organization contacts)Contact: Bernadette Graham Hudson2127 8th Ave., Longview, WA 98632360-425-1552www.lowercolumbiasalmonrecovery.orgFriends of the Columbia GorgeContact: Rick Till522 SW 5th, Suite 720Portland, OR 97206503-241-3762 ext. 107rick@gorgefriends.orgwww.gorgefriends.orgU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceRidgefield National Wildlife Refuge ComplexP.O. Box 457, Ridgefield, WA, 9864228908 NW Main AvenueRidgefield, WA, 98642Phone: (360) 887-4106Fax: (360) 887-4109Washington Department of Natural ResourcesContact: Carlo AbbruzzesePO Box 280Castle Rock, WA 98611(360) 575-5056CARLO.ABBRUZZESE@dnr.wa.govWatershed Plans, Assessments, and Reports —City of Washougal and Columbia Rivern Columbia River Gorge National Scenic AreaVital Signs Indicators Projecthttp://gorgevitalsigns.org/n Lewis, Salmon-Washougal Watershed Plan[includes some planning for lower Gorgetributaries] (WRIA 27/28)www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/wrias/Planning/27-28.htmln Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery and Fish& Wildlife Subbasin Plan, Volume II: WashougalRiver, Lower Gorge Tributaries (2010)http://www.lcfrb.gen.wa.usn Management Plan for the Columbia RiverGorge National Scenic Area http://www.gorgecommission.org/managementplan.cfmn Northwest Power Planning Council. 2004.http://www.nwcouncil.org/n U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region10. 2009. Columbia River Basin: State of the Riverreport for toxinshttp://www.epa.gov/columbiariver/n Washington Department of Ecology –Washougal River and Gibbons Creek, TMDL,water quality data and projects, surface-groundwaterinteractions along the mainstem, livestockreport and other informationhttp://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/tmdl/TMDLsbyWria/tmdl-wria28.htmlOVERVIEWn Washington DNR Columbia Falls Natural AreaPreserve www.dnr.wa.gov/ABOUTDNR/MAN-AGEDLANDS/Pages/amp_na_columbia_falls.aspxn Washington State Department of Fish andWildlife 2011-2017 Strategic Plan www.wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00971/wdfw00971.pdfUnderstanding the Willamette River WatershedTravis Williams, Willamette RiverkeeperThe Willamette River is a defining natural feature of the Portland metropolitan portion of the greaterPortland-Vancouver region. As the final receiver of water from the surrounding landscape, theWillamette reflects what is happening around it. Over the decades the Willamette has been subjectto a variety of impacts, especially conversion of the landscape to housing, industry, and agriculture.Today, efforts to reverse some of the negative effects on the river focus on improving water quality andenhancing natural habitat for a range of native species.The Willamette River drains the Willamette Basin, which comprises 11,460 square miles betweenthe Coast Range and the Cascades. This area encompasses the cities of Eugene, Springfield, Corvallis,Albany, Salem, and Portland and is home to nearly 70 percent of Oregon’s population. The mainstemWillamette is formed by the confluence of the Coast Fork Willamette and Middle Fork Willamettetributaries east of Eugene and flows 187 miles to its confluence with the Columbia River in Portland,incorporating 12 major tributaries along the way. The Willamette’s lower 36 miles, from its confluencewith the Molalla River downstream to the Columbia, are within the greater Portland-Vancouverregion.From its southern extent near Eugene, the river flows south to north through farmland, parks,floodplain forest, wetlands, oak habitats, and native prairie. The river also flows past multiple cities thathave used and affected the river in a variety of ways since their founding. As the river weaves its waynorth, the gradient decreases, as does the extent of its historical floodplain. Where it meets the MolallaRiver in the Newberg Pool area, the Willamette has a very low gradient and slow flow. Just upstream ofOregon City the river enters the Willamette Narrows, where it is constrained by basalt bluffs. The onlydam on the mainstem is in Oregon City at RM 26.5; it is operated by Portland General Electric. Farthernorth, the river flows through miles of suburban and urban areas with extensive hardened banks (toprotect homes and businesses) until it reaches its confluence with the Columbia River in North Portland.Flows on the mainstem Willamette are significantly controlled by tributary dams constructed forflood control and water supply. The dams substantially dampen flow dynamics by reducing high flowsand raising low flows. Dams also act as barriers that block native fish migration. Although the mainstemchannel may appear natural in the southern portion of the basin, the floodplain of the river hasbeen dramatically reduced and the river is typically confined to one main channel. This “channelization”of the Willamette goes back many decades and is the result of efforts by farmers and cities toThis section providesan overview of theWillamette Riverwatershed, to providecontext for discussion ofthe watersheds that fallwithin it in the greaterPortland-Vancouverregion: Hayden Island-Columbia River, JohnsonCreek, Salmon Creek-Frontal Columbia River,Scappoose Creek-FrontalColumbia River, WillametteRiver-Frontal ColumbiaRiver, AbernethyCreek-Willamette River,268269

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAppendix I WatershedsImpacts on RiverHealthHuman influences haveaffected the WillametteRiver throughout itsextent, from high in thebasin to the metropolitanPortland. Keyimpacts are as follows:n Impaired downstreamand upstream passageof fish on majortributaries, because ofmultiple dams. Passageimpairments havereduced the naturalreproductive ability offish populations.n Loss and alterationof habitat. Reducedriparian vegetation andfloodplain forest, lossof side channels andrefugia, competitionfrom non-native plantsand animals, and separationof the river fromits historical floodplainall have affected fish,mammal, and bird species.n Contamination.Contaminated sites inand along the river arein need of cleanup.n Poor water qualityin some areas.protect their lands from flooding. Changes in the Willamette’s flow have reduced habitat complexity andthe amount of temperature and habitat refugia for many kinds of fish and wildlife.The Willamette Basin is home to spring Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and wintersteelhead (Onchorhynchus mykiss), and many other focal species identified in federal recovery plansand Oregon’s Conservation Strategy. Salmon and steelhead from through the basin must pass throughthe Portland area twice during their lifecycle—as juveniles on their way downstream to the ocean andas adults moving upstream to spawn. These anadromous fish have been staples of subsistence fishinghistorically, and more recently for sport fishing. The numbers of naturally reproducing spring Chinooksalmon and winter steelhead have dropped greatly, and both species are listed as threatened under theFederal Endangered Species Act. Today native populations are supplemented by hatchery-raised fish thatcompete with native fish for resources and contaminate natural genetics.The Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) is an additional species of interest in the lower Willamette.These long, eel-like fish have been harvested by native peoples for many generations at Willamette Fallsand have been present in the Willamette River system from Portland Harbor to well upstream. In recentyears the population of Pacific lamprey has declined, likely because of habitat and water quality issues.Today Pacific Lamprey are being actively studied to determine the best way to pathway to recovery.The portion of the Willamette Basin that is within the greater Portland-Vancouver region was home tothe Kalapuyan, Chinook, and Clackamas people, who populated the Willamette Valley and surroundinghighlands, with distinct bands in different areas. Willamette Falls was an important gathering and tradingarea.Impacts on River HealthHabitat alteration occurs in both urban and rural areas along the river. In the Portland area, habitat alterationalong the Willamette can be seen in the form of hardened sea walls and riprap placed on the riversideto confine the river and prevent banks from eroding. Poor water quality has been a very significantissue on both the Willamette mainstem and its tributaries, and today there is a TMDL for temperaturein the Willamette system—especially high summer water temperatures. The TMDL triggered a plan tohelp restore cooler temperatures in key areas. Other chronic or episodic water quality violations involvehousehold and industrial chemicals, pesticides and sewer overflows.Invasive species are abundant in the lower portion of the Willamette River, and this can affect thehealth of a range of native species. Invasive species such as smallmouth bass, carp, Asian clams, nutria,and purple loosestrife occupy habitat and compete for food resources. These can thwart efforts to restorenative species populations.The Willamette’s primary tributaries in the greater Portland-Vancouver region include the MolallaRiver to the south, the Tualatin River just above Willamette Falls and the Clackamas River just below thefalls, the more urban Tryon and Johnson creeks, and Columbia Slough, which flows into the Willamettenear its confluence with the Columbia. Confluences often have rich assemblages of fish and wildlife. Eachtributary reflects upstream land cover, channeling runoff to the Willamette that may include a variety ofpollutants and excess sediments. The lower Willamette itself has been subjected to intensive industrial usethat has led to significantly contamination in the river. Numerous effluent discharges contribute treatedeffluent to the river from industrial and municipal sources. In total, the portion of the Willamette Riverthat is within the greater Portland-Vancouver region is much more polluted than areas upstream.of the Portland Harbor Superfund site, which consists of several miles of contaminated sediments andupland riverside areas that extend roughly to Multnomah Channel. (Cleanup activities at Superfund sitesare overseen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.) The host of contaminants and a severelyaltered river make this area the most degraded portion of the entire Willamette. The pollution in thedegraded portion of the Willamette is due to over 140 years of industrial development that included suchactivities as ship building and demolition, chemical manufacturing, chemical treatment of wood.In the coming years, the Superfund cleanup of Portland Harbor will require those who polluted the harbor,known as the Potentially Responsible Parties, to clean up their contribution to the mess. It will alsorequire habitat to be restored as part of the Natural Resource Damages process.Restoration PrioritiesPriorities for restoration along the Willamette include the following: 4n Restoring riparian areasn Restoring floodplain and near-shore habitat in both urban and rural areasn Increasing the extent of floodplain forestn Restoring fish passage and related natural flows to tributaries of the Willametten Protecting and restoring cold-water refugia to assist migrating fish and meet TMDL requirementsSome of these priorities are being implemented at Oaks Bottom, the City of Portland and others areworking to increase the connection of the wetland area and pool at Oaks Bottom with the mainstemWillamette River. The approach includes improving a culvert to increase water flow and native fish accessto the off-channel refugia. This project exemplifies how habitat enhancement in a large urban area, on adeveloped portion of the Willamette, can greatly benefit wildlife and native habitat.Local Assessments and Plansn Willamette Subbasin Plan, Northwest Power and Conservation Council, May 2004 http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/subbasinplanning/willamette/plan/Intro.pdfn Willamette River Basin Planning Atlas (Northwest Ecosystem Research Consortium, Stan Gregory andDavid Hulse, OSU Press, 2002)http://www.fsl.orst.edu/pnwerc/wrb/Atlas_web_compressed/PDFtoc.htmlKey Organizations and PartnershipsOrganizations working on the Willamette River mainstem in the Portland area include WillametteRiverkeeper, Audubon Society of Portland, the Urban Greenspaces Institute, Metro, Oregon State Parks,The Nature Conservancy, the City of Portland’s Office of Healthy Working Rivers, Portland Parks andRecreation, and the City of Portland’s Bureau of Environmental Services.Those organizations working at the confluence areas include the Tryon Creek Watershed Council,Clackamas Basin Council, Johnson Creek Watershed Council, and Columbia Slough Watershed Council.At this point, all of the organizations above work together in different ways on various projects fromhabitat restoration, enforcing the Clean Water Act, ecological monitoring, invasive species management,and more.Protected AreasThe following are someof the key natural areasalong the WillametteRiver within the greaterPortland-Vancouverregion that are currentlyprotected:Molalla River State ParkWillamette NarrowsElk Rock IslandOaks Bottom WildlifeRefugeRoss Island’s 44 publiclyowned acresContamination and CleanupPolluted sediments can be found in the Willamette River within the center of Portland, and there are afew isolated hotspots of pollution between Ross Island and the Fremont Bridge where polychlorinated4 See also the “Willamette River–Frontal Columbia” section.270 biphenyls (PCBs) are the primary contaminants. As the river approaches Swan Island, it enters the heart271

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAppendix I Watersheds5. Johnson Creek WatershedMatt Clark, Johnson Creek Watershed CouncilThe Johnson Creek Watershed is 54 square miles(34,000 acres) and includes parts of five cities—Damascus, Gresham, Happy Valley, Milwaukie,and Portland—and two counties: Multnomahand Clackamas. Johnson Creek originates inthe foothills of Mount Hood near Boring, flowsgenerally westward for approximately 24 miles,and enters the Willamette River just south of theCity of Portland border, 18.5 river miles above theWillamette’s confluence with the Columbia River.The upper watershed is predominantly ruralresidential and agricultural (largely tree nurseries),with less than 10 percent impervious surface.The lower watershed is heavily urbanized and isdominated by residential, commercial, and industrialareas, with generally more than 25 percentimpervious surface. Developed land representsabout 40 percent of the watershed. As of 2006 thewatershed had an estimated 175,000 residents,making it one of the most densely populatedwatersheds in Oregon. More than 90 percent ofthe Johnson Creek watershed is within the currentMetro Urban Growth Boundary, with 6,000acres added to the UGB in the last decade. Additionalareas near Highway 26 in both Clackamasand Multnomah counties were designated asurban reserves in 2010.The Johnson Creek watershed represents 3percent of the greater Portland-Vancouver region.Within the region, 91 percent of the JohnsonCreek watershed falls within the Metro UrbanGrowth Boundary.Key Facts: The Johnson Creek watershed withinthe greater Portland-Vancouver region:n Includes about 3,200 acres that are within theFEMA 100-year floodplain and just over 500acres of mapped wetlands.n Has 39 percent developed land, second onlyto the Willamette River-Frontal Columbia Riverwatershed. This level of development is a strongcontributor to flooding in the watershed.Land coverJohnson Creek Watershed60,113 acres% of WatershedAgriculture 6%Regen. forest 30 acres.**Cities in Portland area UGB.n Has significant tree cover (41 percent), particularlyconsidering the relatively high level ofdevelopment. The tree cover helps offset floodproblems that otherwise would be worse.n Has a relatively high proportion (13 percentcover) of low vegetation. This includes substantialamounts of backyard and landscaping habitat.The northern side of the watershed west ofGresham and the southern side west of I-205 arerelatively flat, with deep, permeable, sedimentarysoils. This contrasts with the steeper slopes andlow-permeability silt soils of the volcanic buttes(the East Buttes) in the southeastern portionof the watershed, which explains why most ofJohnson Creek’s major tributaries come from thesouth. The exception is ground-water fed CrystalSprings Creek, the lowest major tributary, whichenters from the north. Other major tributariesinclude Veterans, Kelley, Butler, Sunshine, andBadger creeks, with Kelley and Crystal Springscreeks contributing most of the stream volume.The summer base flow of Johnson Creek frequentlyfalls below minimum standards establishedby the Oregon Department of Fish andWildlife for salmonids, and winter floods arecommon. (A total of 39 flood events have beenrecorded since 1941.) Flooding causes erosionand bank scouring within the basin, as well asproperty damage.Historically, the Johnson Creek subbasin was70 percent coniferous forest, 11 percent oak, 15percent burned forest, and less than 1 percentprairie. By 2010, this basin had become the mostheavily urbanized basin in the region, with 69percent of the basin converted to urban uses(i.e., portions or all of Clackamas, Gresham,Lake Oswego, Milwaukie, Oak Grove, Portland,and Tualatin). Another 10 percent of the basinhas been converted to agriculture. Together, thetransition to urban and agricultural uses hasconsumed 67 percent of the oak habitat and 100percent of the prairie. Combined coniferous andmixed forest decreased about 55 percent. Agricultureconsumed about 5,000 acres of conifer forest,and urban consumed 25,000 acres of conifer forestand about 5,000 acres of oak.Early farmers (circa 1850) initially increasedthe meandering of the creek to expand the floodplainand increase nutrient deposition. By the1930s, the watershed had substantially urbanizedand flooding came to be viewed as a problem—aview that continues to this day. To address floodingconcerns, the Works Progress Administrationwidened and straightened much of the lower 15miles of Johnson Creek, lining the channel withrocks. Today it is recognized that historical floodprevention efforts were largely counter-productive,and significant public and private investmenthas been made to reconnect Johnson Creek to itshistorical floodplain. In addition to mitigatingnuisance flooding, reconnecting the historicalfloodplain provides critical off-channel rearingand refuge habitat for native fish, includingsalmon and steelhead. Historically Johnson Creekhad large salmon populations, which declineddramatically with urbanization and the WPAchannelization mentioned above.Today, most of the forest is on the volcanicEast Buttes. Upland forests on the East Buttesgenerally range from 40- to 100-year-old secondgrowth that typically is a mixed conifer-deciduousforest in mid-successional stage. Invasiveweed species are a problem throughout thewatershed, particularly in the herbaceous andshrub layers. (Invasive weeds are discussed inmore detail below.)Native fish—particularly those tolerant ofwarm water—represented 99.7 percent of thespecies sampled in the watershed by the OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife between April2008 and February 2009. Despite precipitousdeclines, cold-water species such as ESA-listedChinook and coho salmon and steelhead andcutthroat trout are still present. Steelhead andcutthroat trout are found along most of JohnsonCreek, while coho and Chinook salmon havebeen found primarily in the lower mainstem andin Crystal Springs Creek. Western brook lampreyand Pacific lamprey also are present in lowerJohnson Creek and its tributaries.Little data are available about fish distributionin the upper mainstem of Johnson Creek. However,in December 2010, four wild coho salmon(three spawned-out carcasses and one live fish)were sighted on mainstem Johnson Creek at RiverMile 15, near the eastern border of Gresham,much farther upstream than they have beenrecently documented.In 2010, several populations of westernpearlshell freshwater mussels were found inupper Johnson Creek. Although still relatively272273

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAppendix I Watershedswidespread in westernOregon, western pearlshellsare considered avulnerable species andtheir conservation isclosely linked to thatof salmon.Other sensitivespecies present includelong-toed, northwestern,and Columbia salamanders,red-leggedfrogs, and paintedturtles. The East Buttesand forested tributaryheadwaters provideupland and streamsidehabitat for residentand migratory birds,including Pacific-slopeand willow flycatchers;western wood-pewees;golden-crowned kinglets; Bewick’s and winterwrens; orange-crowned, Wilson’s, and Townsend’swarblers; and Swainson thrushes. The JohnsonCreek mainstem and its many tributaries act astravel corridors and connect habitat for birds,black-tailed deer, coyote, river otter, and beaver.The East Buttes provide important habitat andconnectivity for elk, and the Johnson Creek mainstemis probably the most important east-westbiodiversity corridor in the southern portion ofthe Portland metropolitan region.There currently are about 4,600 acres of parksand open space in the watershed. including nearly900 acres acquired since 1995. Inside the Cityof Portland boundary, more than 1,000 acresare designated as special habitat areas, meaningthat they provide especially important fish andwildlife habitat values and functions. Importanthabitat types still present in the watershed includebottomland hardwood forest, wetland complexes(one of the largest being 19-acre Beggars Tickmarsh), and upland prairie and grasslands. Thereis protected forested upland habitat on PowellButte, Clatsop Butte, Gabbert Hill, and variousother volcanic buttes.Some of the most extensive streamside foreston Johnson Creek is in the middle watershed. Forexample, Reach 16, upstream of Regner Road inGresham, has an intact riparian forest canopy,as does the riparian corridor between PowellButte and Leach Botanical Garden. The headwaterstreams flowing through rural and agriculturallands in the upper watershed have verylittle riparian vegetation. Some of the tributaryheadwaters remain well forested (e.g., Upper KelleyCreek and Upper Mitchell Creek). The lowerwatershed generally suffers from a lack of riparianvegetation. Notable exceptions include JohnsonCreek’s confluence with the Willamette River andTideman Johnson Natural Area.Based on Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment(EDT) modeling for coho salmon, priorities forcore instream and riparian habitat protectioninclude Reach 16 of Johnson Creek, lower HoganCreek, upper and lower Kelley Creek, and upperMitchell Creek. Priority areas for restoration areReaches 4 and 5 of Johnson Creek (i.e., Tideman-Johnson), Reach 15 of Johnson Creek, UpperCrystal Springs, Errol Creek, middle KelleyCreek, lower Mitchell and Sunshine creeks, andBadger Creek. The next step for salmon habitatrecovery is to connect core habitat areas, whichinclude Reaches 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 17 ofJohnson Creek.Conservation and restoration efforts shouldfocus on areas that increase riparian connectivityand provide wildlife travel corridors. One ofthe challenges will be to maintain ecological andhydrological function as areas in the middle andupper watershed (notably the Pleasant Valleyand Springwater planning areas and the City ofDamascus) develop in the coming years.As noted above, much of Johnson Creek hasbeen channelized and disconnected from itshistorical floodplain. Off-channel habitat remainsrare on Johnson Creek, in spite of recent projectsthat have reconnected the creek to its floodplain(notably at Tideman-Johnson Natural Area, theconfluence of Errol Creek and Johnson Creek, theJohnson Creek mainstem south of Powell Butte,and Kelley Creek’s confluence with JohnsonCreek). In addition, large woody debris is severelylacking throughout Johnson Creek.The Oregon Department of EnvironmentalQuality rated water quality in Johnson Creek aspoor. Water quality issues include bacteria, hightemperatures, and toxic legacy pesticides suchas DDT, primarily originating in the agriculturalupper watershed and brought into the creek byeroding soils.There are several known invasive weed speciesin the watershed, including Japanese knotweed(more than 90 percent controlled as of 2010),false-brome, garlic mustard, and regionally ubiquitousinvasive species such as reed canarygrass,English and Irish ivy, and Himalayan blackberry.The following are high-priority conservationor restoration actions in this watershed:n Non-point source pollution reductionn Low-impact development in middle and upperwatershedn Stormwater retrofitting in existingdevelopmentn Private lands restoration and conservationn Continued streamside forest restorationCurrent Major Initiatives —Johnson Creek Watershedn Watershed-wide riparian invasive weed removaland native species revegetation (ongoing)n Removal of eight partial fish passage barrierson Crystal Springs Creekn Floodplain reconnection /off-channel rearingand refuge habitat (several large projects havebeen completed; several more programmed)n Instream and floodplain large wood installationat Johnson Creek/Willamette River confluenceOrganizations and Partners —Johnson Creek Watershedn Johnson Creek Watershed Council –Matt Clarkn City of Damascus – Dan O’Delln City of Milwaukie – JoAnn Herrigeln City of Portland – Maggie Skenderian (Bureauof Environmental Services), Lynn Barlow (PortlandParks and Recreation)n City of Gresham – Steve Fanchern Clackamas Water Environment Services –John Nagyn North Clackamas Parks and Recreation –Tonia Burnsn Multnomah County – Roy Iwain East Multnomah Soil and Water ConservationDistrict – Jean Fiken Clackamas County Soil and WaterConservation District – Tom Salzern Johnson Creek Conservation Partnership (agroup of nonprofits and jurisdictions focused onacquisition of conservation land)n Backyard Habitat Certification Program /JohnsonCreek pilot (Johnson Creek Watershed Council,Portland Audubon, Columbia Land Trust)n Crystal Springs Community Collaborative –Rowan Steele, City of Portlandn SOLV – Sara Ryann Friends of Trees – Logan Lauvrayn Reed College – Zac Perryn Johnson Creek Interjurisdictional Committee(focus on watershed monitoring)n Xerces Society /Johnson Creek WatershedCouncil – Freshwater mussel sampling274 275

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAppendix I WatershedsWatershed Plans, Assessments, and Reports —Johnson Creek Watershedn Johnson Creek Restoration Project Census (indevelopment by the Johnson Creek WatershedCouncil and partners)http://jcwc.conservationregistry.org/n Johnson Creek Watershed Action Plan, 2003http://jcwc.org/n Johnson Creek Restoration Plan (City of Portland,2001) http://www.portlandonline.com/bes/index.cfm?a=214367&c=33212n Willamette Basin Restoration Priorities WatershedSummaries (Oregon Watershed EnhancementBoard, 2005)http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/docs/pubs/Rest_Priorities/Willamette_Watershed_Council_Summaries_Dec05.pdf?ga=tn Aquatic Inventories Project, Physical HabitatSurveys, Johnson Creek (Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife, 1999)n Johnson Creek Stormwater Master Plan (Cityof Gresham, 2005)n Johnson Creek Watershed Land AcquisitionPlan (in development by Johnson Creek ConservationPartnership)6. Salmon Creek –Frontal Columbia RiverLori Hennings, MetroThe Salmon Creek – Frontal Columbia Riversubbasin (referred to as the Salmon Creek watershed)drains 205 square miles within the greaterPortland-Vancouver region. Salmon Creekoriginates in the low foothills of the southwestWashington Cascades and flows into Lake River,which drains northward from Vancouver Lakeinto the Columbia River, along the way receivingwater from Flume and Whipple creeks. Tributarystreams are primarily low-gradient meanderingsystems within Clark County. Vancouver LakeSalmon Creek-Frontal Columbia Watershed131,398 acresLand cover% of WatershedAgriculture 21%Regen. forest 1%Developed 24%Low Veg 20%Tree Cover 31%Water 3%Forest Patches* 19%JurisdictionsBattle Ground 4%Camas 3%Ridgefield 2%Vancouver 44%Rural 47%*Tree/regen. forest patches >30 acres.The Salmon Creek watershed lies along thePacific Flyway and is critical to migrating andbreeding birds. Meriwether Lewis and WilliamClark camped near the mouth of Salmon Creekon November 4, 1805. Clark purportedly did notsleep well because of the noise made by swans,geese, ducks, and other birds nearby.Stream health and fish and wildlife habitatwithin the watershed have been affected by urbanand rural development, agricultural practices,transportation corridors, and timber harvest.Salmon Creek currently exceeds state and federalstandards for water temperature, turbidity, andcoliform bacteria, and tributaries also have problemswith dissolved oxygen and pH. Floodplainconnectivity has been lost and streams channelandLake River are within the historical ColumbiaRiver floodplain and are tidally influenced. BurntBridge Creek is mostly within the city of Vancouverand flows into Vancouver Lake. The SalmonCreek watershed includes several subwatersheds:the upper Salmon, lower Salmon, Lake River-Frontal Columbia River, Burnt Bridge Creek, andGee Creek.Most of the urban lands in the Washingtonportion of the greater Portland-Vancouver regionare within the Salmon Creek watershed, aboutone-quarter of which is urbanized. For example,the Washington cities of Vancouver, BattleGround, Hazel Dell ,and Orchards are within theSalmon Creek watershed. Land use is predominantlyprivately owned timber and agriculture inthe upper and middle portions of the watershedand rural and urban development in the lowerportion of the watershed. Much of the historicalwetland and floodplain habitat has been convertedto urban uses, although some large areashave been preserved. The human populationin the watershed is expected to double between2000 and 2020, primarily in Vancouver and BattleGround; this growth in the human populationwill increase pressures for conversion of forestand rural lands to high-density suburban andurban uses.A total of 53 percent of the watershed lieswithin urban growth boundaries, and the watershedrepresents 7 percent of the total area of thegreater Portland-Vancouver region.Key Facts: The Salmon Creek – Frontal ColumbiaRiver watershed within the greater Portland-Vancouver region:n Consists of 24 percent developed land cover(much of which is within the City of Vancouver’surban growth area) and 21 percent agriculture.n Includes 31 percent tree cover. Forest patchcover represents 19 percent of the watershed,reflecting the fragmentation of habitat that iscommon in urban areas.n Has 20 percent low vegetation. The combinationof tree cover and low vegetation (collectivelymore than 50 percent) suggests that the watershedis relatively green, despite its urbanization.n Is 11 percent publicly owned.n Has about 22,000 acres within the FEMA 100-year floodplain.n Includes more than 16,000 acres of mappedwetlands—the most of any watershed in theregion.ized. High peak flows and low summer flows arekey urban issues, so development practices andstormwater management will be important toolsin managing future urban growth. Clark PublicUtilities, Clark County, and the WashingtonDepartment of Ecology have entered into a jointagreement to develop and maintain an effectivemanagement strategy for the watershed’s groundwaterresources, which supply most of the waterneeds of residents and businesses.Historically, the Salmon Creek subbasin was53 percent coniferous forest, 18 percent burnedforest, 9 percent prairie and savanna, and 3percent oak. By 2010, 32 percent of the watershedhad been converted to urban uses (i.e., thecities of Battle Ground, Ridgefield, and Vancouver,and part of the city of Camas), making thisbasin the third most heavily urbanized in theregion. Conversion to urban cover consumedabout 56 percent (approximately 30,000 acres)of combined coniferous and mixed forest andabout 5,000 acres of prairie. Agriculture covered aquarter of the basin and consumed about 20,000acres of conifer and mixed forest and 3,000 acresof prairie. Riparian forest and water features—primarily on the floodplain of the ColumbiaRiver—each were reduced about 21 percent byfilling or drainage.Habitat loss, fragmentation, and invasivespecies are of particular concern in the SalmonCreek watershed. Native oak habitats and prairiesare threatened by Scot’s broom. Purple loosestrifeand knotweeds affect wetland and riparian276 277

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAppendix I Watershedshabitats. Despite these difficulties, substantialhabitat remains, and much has been protected.The Ridgefield lowlands extend north-souththrough most of the western portion of the watershedand continue northward to the Lewis andKalama River-Columbia Frontal River subbasins.The area has a mosaic of seasonal and permanentwetlands, grasslands, upland forest, ripariancorridors, oak habitats, and cropland. TheWashington Department of Natural Resourcesidentifies Mankas Prairie—a remnant prairieand oak savanna habitat area in the northeasternportion of the watershed—as a heritage site,and the upper reaches of Weaver Creek have animportant mature mixed forest-wetland complex.The state’s Priority Habitats and Species programidentifies the Ridgefield lowlands, Salmon Creek,and major low-lying tributaries as high-qualityhabitat for breeding and overwintering baldeagles and waterfowl, including winter concentrationsof dusky Canada geese, Canada geese, andwhite-fronted geese, lesser sandhill cranes, andwintering and breeding ducks. The area also supportsa diverse array of amphibians, reptiles, andmammals.The Salmon Creek subbasin provides habitatfor numerous amphibian and reptile species,including the northwestern, long-toed, Cope’s,Pacific giant, and Cascade salamanders; tailedand red-legged frogs and the western toad; thering-necked snake, rubber boa, and three speciesof garter snakes; and the painted turtle andnorthern alligator lizard.The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service establishedthe Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge Complexin 1965, with a total of 5,217 acres set aside forwildlife and habitat. The Washington Departmentof Fish and Wildlife owns another 2,730acres immediately to the south, in the ShillapooWildlife Area. The Port of Vancouver also ownssome important preservation and mitigationareas. Numerous other habitat areas are protectedthrough a variety of ownerships, includingholdings along Whipple Creek, Salmon CreekGreenway, and Burnt Bridge Greenway.Several key wildlife movement corridors con-nect to the Columbia River and adjacent watersheds.The lowlands connect in all directions:west to the Columbia River and north and southto other watersheds, as well as to important wildlifeareas such as Burnt Bridge, Cougar Canyon,Whipple and Flume creeks. Upper Salmon Creekprovides a corridor through urban and agriculturalareas to forest in the upper basin.The Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board’s2010 Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery andFish & Wildlife Subbasin Plan provides a detailedsalmon-oriented characterization of the SalmonCreek subbasin. Historically the basin supportedthousands of fall Chinook salmon, wintersteelhead, and chum and coho salmon. Salmonand steelhead numbers have declined to only afraction of their historical levels. Extinction risksare significant for all of these species, but noneof the Salmon Creek populations are consideredprimary for recovery under the Lower ColumbiaFish Recovery Board’s plan; however, the plancalls for management action to sustain these populationsat their current level of viability, to meetregional recovery objectives. Although no singlethreat is responsible for the declines in SalmonCreek’s fish and wildlife populations, a loss oftributary habitat quality and quantity accounts forthe largest relative impact. Key habitats have beenisolated or eliminated as a result of dredging,channel modifications, diking, filling, the drainingof floodplains and wetlands, and hydropoweroperation on the mainstem. These activities havealtered flows, habitat, and migration conditions.Altered habitat and competition and interbreedingwith hatchery fish have reduced productivity.The Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board’s2010 recovery plan identifies growth management,restoration of forest, floodplain, andriparian habitat, and preservation and restorationof watershed processes and habitat conditions asimmediate salmon priorities and identifies reachspecificrestoration activities to improve fish habitat.The Clark County 2010 Stream Health Reportrecommends the following priority general actioncategories for this watershed: increase infiltrationand retention of stormwater runoff, restorestream and side channels in the middle and upperwatershed, implement development regulationsto minimize impacts, minimize the impact ofsurface and groundwater withdrawals, promotegood septic system maintenance practices, andwork with property owners to eliminate pollutionsources.Washington’s Comprehensive WildlifeConservation Strategy identifies specific areasand actions to help sensitive habitats and wildlifespecies. A recovery plan is in place in thiswatershed for several threatened or endangeredprairie species, including Fender’s blue butterfly(Icaricia icarioides fenderi), which is endangered;Willamette daisy (Erigeron decumbens var.decumbens), which is endangered; Bradshaw’slomatium (Lomatium bradshawii), which isendangered; Kincaid’s lupine (Lupinus sulphureusssp. kincaidii), which is threatened; and Nelson’scheckermallow (Sidalcea nelsoniana), which isthreatened.Active habitat restoration and preservationefforts have been under way for some time nowby the City of Vancouver, Clark County, ClarkPublic Utilities, the Port of Vancouver, the LowerColumbia Fish Recovery Board, and others. TheSalmon Creek Watershed Council provides aforum for citizens and organizations residing inClark County to participate in and partner onon-the-ground restoration, water quality, andadvocacy. Clark County’s StreamTeam organizesrestoration projects in the Salmon Creek Greenway.The Vancouver Watersheds Council issimilarly engaged in plantings, cleanups and communityeducation. Salmon Creek runs throughthe Washington State University campus, andstudents, professors and partners are engaged inrestoration and watershed education.Organizations and Partners —Salmon Creek WatershedCity of Vancouver360-487-8600www.cityofvancouver.usClark Conservation DistrictDenise Smee360-883-1987dsmee@clarkcd.orgwww.clarkcd.org/index.htmlClark County ESA ProgramJoel Rupley360-397-2022joel.rupley@clark.wa.govwww.co.clark.wa.us/esa/index.htmlClark County Parks & Recreation360-487-8311parksrec@ci.vancouver.wa.usClark Public Utilities’ StreamTeamLisa Beranek360-992-8585StreamTeam@clarkpud.comhttp://www.clarkpublicutilities.com/index.cfm/our-environment/stream-team/Lower Columbia Fish Enhancement GroupTony Meyer360-882-6671tony@lcfeg.orgwww.lcfeg.orgLower Columbia Salmon Recovery and WatershedManagement |Bernadette Graham Hudson360 425-1552www.lowercolumbiasalmonrecovery.orgSalmon Creek Watershed CouncilBianca Streif360-721-3816Bianca.streif@salmoncreekwatershed.orgwww.salmoncreekwatershed.orgVancouver Lake Watershed PartnershipLoretta Callahan360-759-4479loretta.callahan@ci.vancouver.wa.uswww.ci.vancouver.wa.us/PublicWorks/vancouverlake/index.htmVancouver Watersheds CouncilGary Bock360-852-9189info@vancouverwatersheds.orgwww.vancouverwatersheds.org/Washington Department of Ecology360-407-6000www.ecy.wa.gov/ecyhome.html278 279

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAppendix I WatershedsWashington Department of Fish and Wildlife360 902-2200www.wdfw.wa.govClark County Extension (WSU)Jennifer Naas360-397-6060jenifer.naas@clark.wa.govhttp://clark.wsu.edu/Watershed Plans, Assessments, and Reports —Salmon Creek Watershedn Clark County Water Quality Division. 1995.Burnt Bridge Creek Watershed Plan: ClarkCounty watershed protection program. Vancouver,WA: The Division.n Clark County Water Resources Division. 1997.Lakeshore & Salmon Creek Watershed AreasPlan. Clark County watershed protection program.Vancouver, WA: The Division.n Clark County Stream Health Planwww.co.clark.wa.us/water-resources/stream.htmln Clark County stream monitoring informationhttp://www.co.clark.wa.us/water-resources/monitoring/streammonitor.htmln Gee Creek Watershed Restoration BackgroundReport http://clark.wsu.edu/natural/geeCreek.htmln Habitat Conservation Plan information forWashington state-owned and managed wildlifeareas www.wdfw.wa.gov/lands/wildlife_areas/hcp/n Lewis, Salmon-Washougal Watershed Plan(WRIA 27/28) www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/wrias/Planning/27-28.htmln Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery and Fish &Wildlife Subbasin Plan (2010)www.lcfrb.gen.wa.usn Overview of the Lewis and Salmon-WashougalWater Resources Management Program Ruleswww.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0811006.htmln Shillapoo Wildlife Area management planwww.wdfw.wa.gov/lands/wildlife_areas/management_plans/n USGS water quality monitoring informationhttp://wa.water.usgs.gov/cgi/realtime.data.cgin Washington Department of Ecology – TMDL,water quality data and projects, surface-groundwaterinteractions along the mainstem, livestockreport and other information www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/tmdl/TMDLsbyWria/tmdl-wria28.html7. Scappoose Creek – FrontalColumbia River WatershedJanelle St. Pierre, Scappoose Bay WatershedCouncilThe Scappoose Bay watershed is located along theeastern flanks of the Tualatin Mountains, nearthe confluence of Multnomah Channel and theColumbia River. The watershed contains a broaddiversity of habitats, ranging from small, steepmountain streams to low-gradient stream valleysthat transition into the lowland floodplain of theColumbia River estuary. The watershed includesthe mainstem and tributaries of North and SouthScappoose creeks, Milton Creek, HoneymanCreek, and McNulty Creek, as well as severalother smaller streams. Scappoose Bay and itsconnected bottomlands—a unique freshwatertidal estuary—is the focal point of this complexsystem, which provides clean water to its humanresidents and supports diverse wildlife habitat.Most of the watershed is privately ownedindustrial forest with a small percentage of federaland state land (managed by the Bureau of LandManagement and Oregon Parks and RecreationDepartment) and a scattering of small woodlandproperties. Rural residential properties take upmost of the valleys, transitioning into (1) theurban areas of Scappoose and St. Helens/ColumbiaCity, and (2) a small amount of agriculture inthe lower portion of the watershed, primarily inthe dikelands around Scappoose.Scappoose Creek-Frontal Columbia River Watershed123,105 acresLand cover% of WatershedAgriculture 22%Regen. forest 4%Developed 6%Low Veg 5%Tree Cover 57%Water 5%Forest Patches* 55%JurisdictionsMetro UGB** 1%Scappoose 2%St. Helens/ Columbia City 3%Rural 94%*Tree/regen. forest patches >30 acres.**Cities in Portland area UGBDespite recent growth in the human populationand the watershed’s proximity to a majormetropolitan area, the Scappoose Bay watershedstill has 57 percent tree cover, which includessubstantial conifer forests with remnant oakforests and savanna scattered at lower elevations.Wetlands rich in wildlife still grace the lowlands,filtering the basin’s runoff.Within the greater Portland-Vancouver region,the Scappoose Creek – Frontal Columbia Rivercontributes about 7 percent of total lands.Key Facts: The Scappoose Creek-Frontal ColumbiaRiver watershed within the greater Portland-Vancouver region:n Is 16 percent publicly owned.n Is 94 percent rural, with just 6 percent of thewatershed falling within urban growth boundaries(primarily Scappoose and St. Helens/ColumbiaCity).n Has higher than average tree cover: 57 percent.n Has a forest patch coverage rate of 55 percent.Of this, 14 percent is publicly owned and a substantialportion is working forest that is managedfor timber extraction.n Has 21,600 acres that are within the FEMA100-year floodplain.n Includes about 9,000 acres of mapped wetlands.Historically, five species of salmonids were presentin the Scappoose Bay watershed: fall Chinook,coho, and chum salmon and winter steelhead andcutthroat trout. Viable though imperiled wildpopulations of coho, cutthroat, and steelheadremain. Chum is considered extirpated, and thestatus of the fall Chinook population is uncertain.Historically, the Milton Creek and Northand South Scappoose Creek subwatersheds hadthe highest diversity and largest populations ofsalmonids. Numerous smaller independent tributariesto Scappoose Bay and Multnomah Channelalso provided salmonid habitat, but these did nothave the species diversity or habitat availabilityof Milton Creek and North and South Scappoosecreeks.The Scappoose Bay watershed has a historyof mining, logging, farming, diking, and otheractivities that degrade habitat. Loss of potentialproductivity of fish habitat was highest for all speciesand life stages in the valley floodplain streamtype, which occurs mainly in the agricultural/rural residential areas of the mainstems of SouthScappoose and Milton creeks. Despite severe populationdeclines, creeks such as South ScappooseCreek—the most productive salmon-bearingcreek within the Scappoose Bay watershed—stillserve as an essential connection between ScappooseBay and high-quality salmon habitat in theupper watershed. Remaining challenges includedetermining how best to restore the critical creekcorridors and making strategic efforts to restoresalmonid populations.The Scappoose bottomlands are a rare freshwatertidal estuary near the confluence of theColumbia River and Multnomah Channel. This280 281

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAppendix I Watershedsarea has habitat value both for resident species offish, wildlife, and plants and for the salmon andbird species that migrate through the Columbiaand Willamette basins and along the PacificFlyway. Located next to Sauvie Island WildlifeRefuge and across from Ridgefield National WildlifeRefuge Complex, the Scappoose bottomlandsare part of one of the last high-quality freshwaterestuary systems left on the Columbia. The area’sash gallery forests, oak habitats, and tidal wetlandplant communities host numerous migratorybirds, including waterfowl, Neotropicals, andlarge birds of prey. The bottomlands also provideimportant habitat to Chinook, coho, and steelhead,which use the area for foraging and refugia.Historical and current grazing and hydropower/floodcontrol activities have degradedthe quality of the bottomlands by altering thehistorical vegetation communities and hydrology.Hydrologic alteration has significantly reducedthe connection between Multnomah Channel andScappoose Bay. The historical sloughs that oncelinked the two water bodies have been cut off, andthe bay and remaining channels face increasedsedimentation because of a lack flushing flows(which occurred historically). Importantly, thishas reduced food sources and vital off-channelhabitats for salmon and steelhead.agriculture (consuming about 10,000 acres eachof conifer forest and prairie) and 6 percent tourban uses (i.e., the cities of Scappoose and partof St. Helens, which consumed about 5,000 acresof conifer forest). Water features, primarily on thefloodplain of the Columbia River, were reducedabout 30 percent by filling or drainage.Local and Regional Conservation andportion of the Columbia(on the Oregon side)because of the alreadyexisting populationsof wild fish and thepotential for significantrestoration and/orenhancement of refugiahabitat.Restoration PrioritiesThe highest priority habitat identified in thePriorities and Plans forScappoose Bay watershed is the large area ofFuture Conservationestuarine channels and wetlands around Scappooseand RestorationBay (i.e., Scappoose bottomlands). The areaThe Scappoose Bayis identified in the Oregon Conservation StrategyWatershed Council isand Willamette Synthesis Project and representsplanning to conduct aone of the few remaining large tracts of lowerlimiting factors analysisColumbia River floodplain habitat that has not(LFA) in order to directbeen drained, diked, and converted to farmland.future investments inHowever, both plans fail to acknowledge therestoration and conservation,build on exist-connection between the bottomlands and the restof the watershed, thus creating an incompleteing efforts to improveprovide a very detailed analysis of the health andpicture of the area.salmonid habitat in the watershed, and tie infunction of salmon habitat in the watershed.The area contains the mainstem of Scappoosewith salmon conservation and recovery planning.The LFA will analyze previously collectedCreek, numerous tidal sloughs and ponds, extensivebeds of wapato, and ash and cottonwooddata to define areas of rich habitat and provideMajor InitiativesA comprehensive barrier assessment demonstratedthat barriers have a significant cumula-forests that provide habitat for fish and wildlife,site-specific prescriptions to protect and enhanceincluding long-legged wading birds, migratorywaterfowl, and salmonids, who rear in thehigh-priority areas of North and South Scappoosespawning and rearing habitat for salmonids intive impact on fish habitat on most streams inthe watershed and prioritized barrier correctionHistorical Conditionsarea. Most of the bottomlands are privately held,creeks, Milton Creek, and significant tributaries.The analysis will quantify and map spawningfor all subwatersheds and the watershed as aThe modern Columbia River valley was formed although there are a few large tracts that are statewhole. The Scappoose Bay Watershed Councilby conventional river processes and glacial outburstfloods (i.e., the Missoula floods). The floodtrialuse around the bay has left a toxic legacy ofnectivity, riparian function, sources of recruit-owned or in conservation easements. Past indus-gravel, summer-rearing habitat, floodplain con-has treated the majority of significant barriersalong salmon-bearing creeks and tributaries inplain is wider than the active floodway—as much contaminated or potentially contaminated sites.ment of large wood and gravel and other aspectsthe watershed, working with partners to removeas 15 miles across near the confluence with the The Oregon Department of Wildlife is in theof habitat quality and identify remaining impedimentsto passage.or replace 42 barriers, opening up more than 56Willamette River. Locally, the floodplain narrows process of working with potentially responsiblemiles of creek for fish access. Additional barriersto just 1.5 miles wide, and the constriction has parties to develop plans to address concerns.The watershed council also is planning onare targeted.backed up floodwaters upstream that have caused The Lower Columbia River Conservation andcreating a State of the Watershed Report for 2012.A 2000 watershed assessment and restorationthe storage of considerable amounts of sediment Recovery Plan for Oregon Populations of SalmonThe report will identify the current state of theplan identified South Scappoose Creek as the primarycorridor between Scappoose Bay and high-in the vicinity of the Scappoose bottomlands. and Steelhead identifies the Scappoose areawatershed, based on extensive data collection andHistorically, the Scappoose Basin was 54 percentconiferous forest, 12 percent burned forest, Columbia River watershed) as an important areawill prioritize watershed management needs and(including portions of Sauvie Island and the lowerthe results of 10 years of restoration efforts, andquality salmonid habitat upstream and identifiedmultiple factors that limit the creek’s ability to12 percent prairie and savanna, and 3 percent for recovery of coho and fall Chinook salmonidentify habitat and water quality improvementssupport salmon. These factors include the fillingoak. By 2020, 20 percent had been converted to and the potential reintroduction of Columbiaprojects and project partners and funding opportunities.With the addition of creek data collectedof historical floodplains and secondary channels,River chum. This area is seen as a lynchpin forchannel straightening and realignment, loss ofthe recovery of salmonid populations in the lowerin 2011, the watershed council will be able toriparian vegetation, and floodplain constrictionat road crossings. The Scappoose Bay Watershed282 283

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAppendix I WatershedsCouncil currently is implementing floodplainenhancement projects on two properties andplans for additional work in the near future.Watershed Plans, Assessments and ReportsThe following are available through theScappoose Bay Watershed Councilhttp://www.scappoosebay-wc.org/n Lower Columbia River Basin Aquatic InventoriesProject (Oregon Department of Fish andWildlife, 1998)n Scappoose Bay Watershed Assessment (DavidEvans and Associates, 2000)n A Comprehensive Assessment of Fish PassageBarriers in the Scappoose Bay Watershed (DavidEvans and Associates, 2001)n The Scappoose Bay Bottomlands Conservationand Restoration Plan (The Wetland Conservancy,2004)n Scappoose River Basin Aquatic InventoriesProject - Stream Habitat Surveys (OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife, 2007 and 2009)n Scappoose Bay Watershed Rapid Bio-Assessment(Bio Surveys, 2008)n South Scappoose Creek Restoration Plan(Swanson Hydrology + Geomorphology, 2009)n Hydrogeomorphic and Alternatives AssessmentReport: Scappoose Bay, Oregon (HerreraEnvironmental Consultants, Inc., 2010)Organizations and PartnersScappoose Bay Watershed Council57420-2 Old Portland Rd.Warren, OR 97053503-397-7904http://www.scappoosebay-wc.orgColumbia Soil and Water Conservation Districtand the Natural Resources Conservation Service2414 Sykes RoadSt. Helens, OR 97051503-397-4555http://columbiaswcd.comOSU Extension Service: Columbia County505 N. Columbia River HwySt. Helens, OR 97051503-397-3462http://extension.oregonstate.edu/columbiaLower Columbia River Estuary Partnership811 SW Naito Parkway Suite 410Portland, OR 97204503-226-1565http://www.lcrep.orgU S Fish and Wildlife ServiceHabitat Restoration Program|1211 SE Cardinal Court, Suite 100Vancouver, WA 98683360-604-2500http:// www.fws.gov/columbiariverOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife17330 SE Evelyn St,Clackamas, OR 97015971-673-6000Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board775 Summer St. NE, Suite 360Salem OR 97301-1290503-986-0178http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB8. Willamette River – FrontalColumbia River Subbasin andHayden Island-Columbia RiverWatershedKaitlin Lovell, City of PortlandThese two watersheds are combined for thiswatershed description, although watershedstatistics are presented separately to illustrate thenature of the river island portion. Collectively, thetwo watersheds cover 98,000 acres, contributing5 percent of all acres within the greater Portland-Vancouver region.Within the region, the Willamette River –Frontal Columbia River subbasin’s current landcover includes (Tables 1-1 and 1-2 and first insetbox):Willamette River-Frontal Columbia River Watershed78,662 acresLand cover% of WatershedAgriculture 1%Regen. forest 30 acres.**Cities in Portland area UGBKey Facts: The Willamette River – Frontal ColumbiaRiver Subbasin within the greater Portland-Vancouver region:n Is 54 percent developed, with only 2 percentof the watershed outside of the Metro UrbanGrowth Boundary. This watershed is the mosturbanized watershed in region and makes up 4percent of the region’s total area.n Is 40 percent vegetated (28 percent tree coverplus 12 percent low vegetation)—a level thatreflects the relatively high level of development.n Consists of 6 percent water. Bodies of waterinclude Oaks Bottom and Smith and Bybee WetlandsNatural Area.n Has 10,400 acres within the FEMA 100-yearfloodplain.n Includes about 1,500 acres of mapped wetlands.Hayden Island-Columbia River Watershed15,558 acresLand cover% of WatershedAgriculture

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAppendix I Watersheds170 years of changes that have shaped currentconditions. The river channel and floodplain,wetlands, lakes, shoreline and sand bars, islands,and bluffs and ridges at the confluence of the Willamettehave undergone substantial change. Thesefeatures result in a biologically diverse albeitgreatly simplified community in this now heavilyurbanized area. 5Historical Condition of the Willamette RiverThe 187-mile-long Willamette River is the 19thlargest river in the U.S. by volume and drainsnorth into the Columbia River, the fourth largestriver, at Columbia River Mile 105. 6 As with anywatershed reach, the lower Willamette Riverreflects the cumulative impacts of conditionsthroughout the drainage area above it, includingflood control dams on important tributaries,urbanization, and agriculture. However, the lowerWillamette River is also strongly influenced bygeologic conditions quite different from those inthe upper basin. As the river flows over WillametteFalls, it transitions from a wide river toa deep, naturally constrained river. The floodplainin this reach is very narrow, and some ofthe river’s deepest waters (100 feet or more) arefound here. As the river passes Elk Rock Island,the channel re-opens. Historically this area was adynamic delta full of braided channels, ephemeralstreams, sloughs, lakes, and wetlands consistentwith a large, active floodplain. 7 As it entered theColumbia, the Willamette River was nearly onehalfmile wide, with a large shoal on the east riverbank near Linnton.In 1850, this basin was composed of 31 percentconiferous forest, 24 percent burned forest,13 percent prairie and savanna, 3 percent oak,and substantial floodplain and riparian forest.Today, the basin is more than half urban, containingthe city of Portland and part of Gresham, and12 percent agriculture. Less than 1 percent of thebasin is oak or prairie/savanna. Urban developmentconsumed about 40,000 acres of coniferousand burned forest and about 6,000 acres ofprairie, while agriculture consumed about 5,000acres each of prairie and riparian forest. Waterfeatures, primarily on the floodplain of theColumbia and Willamette rivers, have been substantiallyreduced by filling or draining.The Willamette and Columbia rivers flowednaturally until the 1930s, with high winter flowsand peaks occurring in the late spring. Winterand spring floods were both frequent andimportant drivers of ecosystem function. Theyrecharged wetlands, activated side-channels,moved sediments and wood, delivered nutrients,and shaped the channel. The Columbia River frequentlybacked up into the Willamette and flowedthrough many sloughs and gulches, includingSullivan’s Gulch (now Interstate 84), the ColumbiaSlough, and Hawthorne Slough. Even thisfar inland from the ocean, the Willamette Riverexperiences daily tides as far up as WillametteFalls. This part of the river was dominated bybeaches and wetlands with most water depths at20 feet or less. The Columbia Slough and SauvieIsland floodplain wetland system spanned morethan 55,000 acres and connected to both theWillamette and Columbia rivers.Current Condition of the Willamette RiverThe Willamette River – Frontal Columbia subbasinis the most urbanized watershed with thegreater Portland-Vancouver region, with 98 percentof the region falling within the Metro UrbanGrowth Boundary. More than half of the landcover is mapped as developed. Portland (Oregon’slargest city) sits on the lowest 19 miles of the Willamette’sriverbank and 17.8 miles of the Columbia’s.Portland is a major city at the confluence oftwo large rivers, where river-dependant industrythrived for decades; the city still provides significantjobs and benefits to the local economy.Flooding and significant flow variation historicallymade it difficult for businesses and urbancenters to operate at theriver’s edge. Constructionof upstream damson both theWillamette and Columbiarivers radicallyaltered the hydrologyof the lower WillametteRiver, reducing winterand spring dischargeand increasing summerflow. The ecologicallyvaluable annual floodpulses of the past arelargely gone.These altered patternsenabled the development and urbanizationof the area as we know it today. To furtherfacilitate development, sea walls, levees, andriprap structures reinforced the riverfront. Theriver was dredged and cleared of snags and debristo accommodate larger ships. Bridges for cars andrailroads crisscrossed the river. As a result, 89percent of the historical off-channel habitat andfloodplain was destroyed and 79 percent of theshallow water habitat (approximately 780 acres)was lost through deepening. A series of leveesmanaged by drainage districts has completelydisconnected the Columbia River from the floodplainbetween the Willamette and Sandy rivers.The Willamette River’s water quality declinedsignificantly but has recently improved somewhatthrough expensive but effective efforts. The lower6 miles of the Willamette River are a designatedfederal Superfund site on the National PrioritiesList.numerous birds, amphibians, fish, and mammals.During high flows these lakes were importantsources of nutrients, sediment, wood deposition,and flow attenuation for the Willamette andColumbia rivers.Today, most of the lakes have been filled orgreatly reduced. The former Caruthers Lake nowsupports the South Waterfront and Johns Landingcommunities. Couch, Guilds, Doane, Ramsey,and Rivergate were filled to support industrialdevelopment. Only a remnant of Doane Lakeexists today, completely isolated from the WillametteRiver. The remaining lakes and wetlandsat Oaks Bottom and Smith and Bybee Lakes showevidence of historical landfill encroachment. Allare actively managed to maintain water levels forwildlife and invasive vegetation control. However,these bodies of water still support numerous speciesof mammals and waterfowl, including osprey,blue herons, ducks, beavers, otters, coyote, andnative fish.Between the lakes were extensive wetlands,side channels, and riparian forests. The massiveMissoula (i.e., Bretz) Floods between 10,000 and20,000 years ago left scours and deposits alongthe banks, resulting in ridges and terraces thatwere covered in firs, oaks, and grasslands, withthe Tualatin Hills to the west dominated by firs.Lakes and WetlandsSeveral lakes occupied the west side of the river,including Caruthers, Couch, Guilds, and Doane.On the east side were Oaks Bottom, HawthorneSlough, Rivergate, Ramsey, and Smith and BybeeLakes. These lakes were frequently connected to5 Most of the information in this chapter was derived from Draft River Channel Characterization – Habitat and Biological Communities(City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services, 2003). More detailed evaluations are in the Willamette Watershedflows and provided important migration, nest-the Willamette through braided channels or highSubbasin Status reports at http://www.portlandonline.com/bes/index.cfm?c=30938&6ing, rearing, and refugia habitat to migrating fishUSGS, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1987/ofr87-242/7 1852 Government Survey Maps, available at: http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/and waterfowl, as well as permanent residence to286 287

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAppendix I WatershedsRiver IslandsWhen Lewis and Clark traveled down the Columbiathey initially missed the Willamette Riverbecause the confluence area was hidden behindnumerous islands. With the extensive shallowwater, ephemeral shoaling, dynamic delta,and Missoula Flood deposits, there were manyephemeral islands in addition to large, permanentislands. Today we know those islands as GovernmentIsland, Hayden Island, Sauvie Island, SwanIsland, Ross Island, and Elk Rock Island. Theislands provided safe nesting and rearing sites forbirds, migratory stopover habitat, flood attenuation,sources of gravel for mainstem spawningfish, wood for complexity, and other benefits tothe river.Elk Rock Island currently represents the mostintact example of the riverine islands. Its habitatis a mix of oak and madrone forest with somefirs, with emergent wetland vegetation near thefringes. Swan Island is completely altered, filled toconnect with the mainland and provide additionaldevelopment property. In the early 1900s SwanIsland was the location for Portland Airport,before the area was developed for industrial use.Undeveloped areas of Sauvie and Hayden islandslikely represent the type of habitat lost on SwanIsland: prairie grasslands and riparian forest withmixed ash and cottonwood and some oak trees.The bluffs (discussed below) still contain some ofthis remnant habitat.Upland Habitats and ConnectivityThe Missoula Floods are primarily responsiblefor the topography of the area that remainstoday. On the east are buttes, terraces, and ridges,surrounded by flatter lands consistent with analluvial floodplain. Before 1850 these areas were amix of wetland, prairie, oak, and mixed coniferdeciduousand riparian forest. These areas weredrained by numerous permanent and ephemeraltributaries. As the habitat transitioned towardthe river, it became a riparian forest with cedar,cottonwood, willow, ash, and native shrubs. Thereare two distinctive bluffs on the east side of theriver—one near Swan Island and one near OaksBottom—that continue to provide oak habitats.These bluffs also provide unique habitat for hawksand falcons. Currently, Portland’s total canopycoverage is 27 percent.The west side of the river is dominated bythe Tualatin Hills formation known as the WestHills, which stretches from Tryon Creek to SauvieIsland and includes Forest Park. In upland areas,oak occupied shallowsoils and drier microclimatesand mixedconifer-deciduousforest was the dominantlandcover types.The river floodplainwas a complex mix ofwetland, riparian, andfloodplain types.Large-scale vegetationremoval occurredthroughout this areabut most predominantlyon the east sidebecause of urbanizationand development.Remnant habitatpatches remain, butthey tend to be altered and often isolated. Thewestside uplands and hills remain the most intactbut are impaired by large areas of invasive speciessuch as ivy and blackberry.The transition from the uplands to the riverhas been heavily altered. Many of the creeks thatdrain the west side have been piped underground,combined with sewer sent to the treatment plant,or eliminated altogether. The low-lying areashave been heavily developed. Riverview/PowersMarine, Harborton forest and wetlands, andKelley Point Park provide the few remaining areaswhere there is some connectivity. As a result, thetributary processes such as wood and sedimenttransport, off-channel habitat, riverine habitat,nutrient delivery, and cooling benefits have beensignificantly constrained. Lowland habitat thatdiffered in vegetation from the upland foresthas been significantly altered and replaced withimpervious surfaces.Fish and Wildlife SpeciesLewis and Clark famously noted the abundantwildlife in the area: “I [s]lept but verry little lastnight for the noise Kept [up] during the wholeof the night by the Swans, Geese, white and GreyBrant Ducks &c…they were emensely numerous,and their noise horrid” (The Journals of Lewisand Clark, p.277). It is difficult to know howmany species of fish were present historically.Today, 61 fish species are present in the lowerWillamette, approximately half of them native.There are 16 salmon and steelhead species orevolutionarily significant units (ESUs) that areprotected under the federal Endangered SpeciesAct. Lamprey—a culturally and ecologicallysignificant native fish—are declining but stillfound in the lower Willamette and are harvestedby tribal members at Willamette Falls. White andgreen sturgeon species are believed to be decliningin this area but research is ongoing.Bottomland forests and wetlands providehabitat for waterfowl, shorebirds and Neotropicalmigratory birds, including songbirds, kingfishers,cormorants, great blue herons, and ducks. Mammalspecies such as river otter, mink, weasel, deer,coyote, fox, and beaver still use the area. Reptilesand amphibians, including red-legged frogs, westernpainted turtles, and salamanders, are found inthe sloughs and wetlands.The bluffs and higher forests provide habitatfor raptors such as hawks, eagles, osprey, andperegrine falcons; Neotropical migrants, includingwarblers, flycatchers, swallows, and tanagers;resident or short-distance migrant birds such asrobins, chickadees, wrens, thrushes, sparrows,towhee, and kinglets; and bats. Remnant oakhabitats are also used by several oak specialistspecies, including slender-billed (white-breasted)nuthatch, western gray squirrel (in some largerconnected patches), and several moth and invertebratespecies.Although this represents robust biodiversity inan urban area, it is a small fraction of the historicalpopulations. Many of the remaining speciesare tracked as ESA candidate species or state speciesof concern.Conservation PrioritiesConservation priorities and efforts for this watershedare detailed in numerous local, state, andfederal documents. Generally, the documents prioritizeprotecting and restoring key habitats andreintroducing lost habitat types and species. Thisis being partly addressed through acquisition,restoration, invasive species removal programs.and land use planning. Water quality protectionis also a key priority. Efforts include the largestinfrastructure project in the history of Portlandto reduce the number of sewer overflows directlyinto the Willamette and advancements in innovativestormwater treatment such as green streets,rain gardens, and ecoroofs. Finally, contaminatedsediment remediation continues to be an ongoingfocus, especially with the cleanup of the PortlandHarbor Superfund site and the ongoing remediationof the Columbia Slough sediments. Some ofthe key programs that are occurring and ongoingin the area include Portland Harbor, the Cityof Portland’s Watershed Management Plan andRiver Plan, Metro’s Bond Measure AcquisitionProgram, and a multi-jurisdictional sustainable288289

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAppendix I Watershedsstormwater effort.Into the future, climate change will have a profoundeffect on the river and its habitats, resultingin changes to the diverse biological communities.Some of the region’s governments are beginningto work on climate change adaptation plans, butthese efforts and the implementation will need toaccelerate in the future to maintain, protect, andrestore the existing and changing biodiversity ofthe region.n Lower Columbia Salmon Conservation andRecovery Planwww.dfw.state.or.us/fish/CRP/lower_columbia_plan.aspn City of Portland Willamette WatershedSubbasin Plan www.portlandonline.com/bes/index.cfm?c=30938&n Oregon Conservation Strategywww.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/read_the_strategy.aspAbernethy Creek-Willamette River Watershed87,102 acresLand cover% of WatershedAgriculture 30%Regen. forest

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAppendix I Watershedsfir, with an understoryof fern, snowberry,and salmonberry. Thearea along the WillametteRiver betweenAbernethy and Beavercreeks consists ofupland bluffs and steepcliffs. Many of the area’sunique and culturallysignificant plant species,including the stateendangered pale rocklarkspur (Delphiniumleucophaeum) andcamas (Camassia sp.),are found in this area,as they were historically.Historically, the upland bluffs containedsubstantial oak and prairie habitats.A 2010 watershed assessment evaluated currentconditions for riparian and wetland areas,using LiDAR-based imagery to assess vegetationwithin 100 feet on each side of the stream channel.Approximately half of the Abernethy andBeaver Creek riparian areas are forested.Four salmonid species and a variety on nativenon-salmonid fish species inhabit the streams forat least a portion of their life cycle. Non-salmonidfish species include Pacific and brook lamprey,cutthroat trout, sculpins, dace, and shiners.Coho salmon, fall Chinook salmon, and wintersteelhead were historically abundant in the lowerWillamette River and its tributaries. Anadromousfish in the watershed have experienced significantdeclines. The cutthroat trout has the widest distributionof any fish the Greater Oregon City watershed.Although lamprey have been declining inabundance, the Willamette Basin still is probablythe most important production area for Pacificlamprey within the Columbia River system.Despite its developed nature the watershedprovides feeding, breeding, and movement habitatfor a variety of songbirds, raptors, deer, smallmammals, amphibians, and other wildlife. NativeOregon white oak remnants harbor slender-billed(white-breasted) nuthatches and other oak-associatedspecies. Stream corridors, including NewellCreek, provide key habitat and the best remainingwildlife connectivity from the river to other habitatareas; for this reason, riparian enhancementwould significantly benefit wildlife.The Greater Oregon City watershed providesseveral large habitat blocks, including 300 acresin Newell Creek Canyon in the Abernethy Creeksubwatershed, 107 acres in the upper AbernethyCreek headwaters, and 112 acres in the WillametteNarrows and Canemah Bluff in the WillametteRiver subwatershed.The April 2010 Greater Oregon City WatershedCouncil (GOCW) assessment identifiedwork needed on riparian habitat in 4 percentof both the Abernethy Creek and Beaver Creekareas. Although the area covered by riparianvegetation is relatively small, it is disproportionatelyimportant because it fulfills several criticalfunctions that promote healthy streams and fishpopulations: stream shade, food sources, andlarge wood in the stream channel that createspools, cover, and other high-quality fish habitatelements. Although the Abernethy Creek andBeaver Creek watersheds include substantial forest,they contain very few large trees, so there arefew opportunities for large trees to fall and providethe amount of large wood to stream channelsnecessary for high-quality fish habitat.A comprehensive field inventory of invasiveplants has not been completed for the subbasin,but there are scattered observations. All five ofthe most common invasive plant species (Englishand Irish ivy, Himalayan blackberry, Scot’sbroom, reed canarygrass, and Japanese knotweed)were present in an inventory of the Newell Creekcanyon, particularly along forest edge areas andhighway corridors.Protecting high-quality habitats for salmonidsand other species “anchor” the subbasin’s restorationefforts and provide core areas that can beenhanced and reconnected to the entire watershedthrough restoration actions. The GreaterOregon City Watershed Council has identifiedthe Newell Creek, Holcomb Creek, and PotterCreek systems in the lower portions of the AbernethyCreek subwatershed as priority areas forrestoration activities. Collaboration with Metroon a portion of its 300 acres near OR-213 andBeavercreek Road is being explored at this time.A secondary priority is enhancing habitat in theBeaver Creek-Parrott Creek confluence wherea dam that had been historically present in oneform or another since the 1800s washed out in2009. Discussions have taken place and are ongoingwith landowners about potential alternativesfor conservation and restoration opportunities.A dam near the confluence of Beaver andParrott creeks created an impoundment, SevickPond, which backed up water in the areaupstream and blocked fish access. This damremained in place until the January 2009 flood,which eroded the northern portion of the dam,creating a channel that may be passable to fish.Outreach to the landowners and intervention bywildlife agencies on attempted repairs to the damhave netted a recent contact with the landowner’sconsultant to begin a dialog that may result inhabitat restoration in the future.The Greater Oregon City Watershed Councilis also working on a complementary project withClackamas Community College to plan for agreen infrastructure stormwater project on campus.The Clackamas Community College campusis located on the headwaters of Newell Creek.Watershed Plans, Assessments, and Reports —Abernethy Creek-Willamette River Watershedn Newell Creek Watershed Restoration andConservation Strategy (Clearwater BioStudiesInc. Prepared for PACE Engineering, OregonCity, OR, and the John Inskeep EnvironmentalLearning Center.)n Greater Oregon City Watershed Assessmentand Action Plan, 2010www.GOCWC.org.n Biological Assessment for Endangered SpeciesAction Section 7 and Magnuson-Stevens FisheryConservation and Management Act Essential FishHabitat Consultation, Clackamas County BankStabilization Project, Lower Abernethy Creek,Clackamas County, Oregon. (C.W. Huntington,2007.)n Abernethy and Newell Creeks Goals andObjectives (Metro, 2009) www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=26790n Effects of Urbanization on Stream Ecosystemsin the Willamette River Basin (I.R. Waite,S. Sobieszczyk, K.D. Carpenter, A.G. Arnsberg,H.M. Johnson, C.A. Hughes, M.J. Sarantou, andF.A. Rinella, 2008)Organizations and Partners — Abernethy Creek-Willamette River Watershedn City of Oregon City/Public Works – Eric Hand,P.O. Box 3040, Oregon City, OR 97045 - 503-657-8241n Clackamas Community College – AlisonHeimowitz, 19600 S. Molalla Avenue, OregonCity, OR 97045 – 503 -594-3696n Clackamas County – Mark Mouser, 2051 KaenRd, Oregon City, OR 97045 – 503-742-4400n Clackamas County Soil and Water ConservationDistrict — Jenne Reische, 221 MolallaAvenue, Suite 102, Oregon City, OR 97045 – 503-210-6011n Metro – Brian Vaughn, 600 NE Grand Avenue,Portland, OR 97232 – 503 -797-1919n SOLV – Steve Kennett, 5193 NE Elam YoungPkway, Suite B, Hillsboro, OR 97124 – 503-844-9571 x318n Oregon Department of Fish and WildlifeNorthwest Region Office – www.dfw.state.or.us/agency/directory/local_offices.asp, 971-673-6000n Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board –www.oregon.gov/OWEB/, 503-986-0061n Oregon Wildlife Heritage Foundation –www.owhf.org/, 503-255-6059292 293

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAppendix I Watersheds10. Chehalem Creek – WillametteRiver WatershedPatricia Farrell, Yamhill WatershedStewardship FundThe Chehalem Creek - Willamette subwatershedtotals 78,245 acres, including 43,563 acres northof the Willamette (Chehalem Creek) and 34,618acres south of it (Willamette watershed). The68-square-mile (43,400-acre) Chehalem CreekWatershed is located at the northeast end ofYamhill County. Elevations range from about 60feet above sea level, at the Willamette River, tomore than 1,400 feet along the mountain ridge onthe east and northern fringe. The Chehalem andParrett Mountains form the northern and easternedge of the watershed, at elevations or 1,414 and1,247 feet, respectively. The Red Hills of Dundee,at elevation 1,067 feet, occupy the southwestcorner of the watershed.Unique in Yamhill County, the ChehalemCreek watershed drains directly to the WillametteRiver, rather than the Yamhill River. The watershedincludes the urban areas of Newberg andDundee. The 50-square-mile southern portionof the watershed, known as French Prairie, is innorthern Marion County, is primarily flat, anddivided by Mission, Champoeg and Case creeks.Chehalem Creek originates from springs, wetlands,and headwater streams 6 miles southeast ofGaston and discharge into the Willamette Riverbetween Newberg and Dundee. Other namedstreams within the watershed include Springbrook,Hess, Harvey, Dopp, and Bryan creeks.Chehalem Valley soils are a complex mix ofvolcanic and sedimentary types. The creeks flowgenerally north through deep alluvial soil.Historically, the Chehalem subbasin wascovered almost entirely by oak (60 percent) andprairie (29 percent), the most extensive occurrencesof these cover types in the greater Portland-Vancouverregion. Almost all of this oak andprairie—approximately 30,000 acres of oak andnearly 20,000 acres of prairie—were converted toagriculture and urban uses (i.e., approximately8,000 acres of oak in Dundee and Newberg).Chehalem Creek-Willamette River Watershed87,102 acresLand cover% of WatershedAgriculture 54%Regen. forest

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAppendix I WatershedsPreliminary analysisis under way foran expanded trailsystem linking thevarious parks and openspaces and connectingregional trails. Thereare no county parks inthe watershed.The ChehalemCreek–Willamettewatershed has severalof the priority habitatslisted in the OregonConservation Strategy,including oak habitats,riparian bottomlandforest, freshwateraquatic habitats, and wetlands. Both the OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife and The NatureConservancy have been mapped ConservationOpportunity Areas in the watershed. These priorityhabitats include Tier 1 wetlands, oak, midelevationforest, floodplain forest, and riparianforest.The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has mappedall of Yamhill County under its recovery plan forprairie species in western Oregon and southwesternWashington. Both the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService and the Yamhill Soil and Water ConservationDistrict are working with landowners topreserve and enhance habitat for listed species,including Kincaid’s lupine, Fender’s blue butterfly,and Nelson’s checkermallow.The watershed has ample opportunities forrestoration and enhancement. The upper Chehalemvalley has extensive farmed or grazedwetlands that present restoration and conservationopportunities. The mid-valley supportslarge tracts of intact riparian floodplain forestalong Highway 240 that could be conserved andenhanced. The confluences of the local creeksand the Willamette River create opportunitiesfor both conservation and restoration of riparianand off-channel habitats. Springbrook Creek alsohas potential for restoration as part of a plannedsubdivision. In addition, wet and upland prairiehabitats could be restored in the watershed andlandowner interest in conservation easementsexceeds the capacity of agencies to respondto requests. Acquisition of land on Ash Islandrepresents a mainstem Willamette conservationopportunity. Priorities include:n Inventory, restoration, and preservation of oakhabitatsn Upper Chehalem Valley wetland restorationn Prairie species restoration and conservationn Riparian enhancement for temperaturereduction and soil stabilityn Restoration of floodplain and off-channel habitatsalong Willamette River and Chehalem Creekn City of Dundee, http://www.dundeecity.org/n Yamhill County, http://www.co.yamhill.or.us/n Marion County, http://www.co.marion.or.us/n Chehalem Parks and Recreation –Don Clemens, clemend@cprdnewberg.orgn Yamhill Soil and Water Conservation District –Tim Stieber, Tim.Stieber@or.nacdnet.netn George Fox College – Clyde Thomas cthomas@georgefox.edun Yamhill Watershed Stewardship Fund –Patricia Farrell, ywsf08@yahoo.comn Yamhill Partners for Land and Water – PatriciaFarrell, ywsf08@yahoo.com;Will Neuhauser,co-chair@yamhillpartners.orgn Chehalem Heritage Trail (Parks and RecreationDistrict)http://www.cprdnewberg.org/ChehalemHeritageTrails/index.shtmln Willamette River Water Trailhttp://www.willamettewatertrail.org/11. Molalla-Pudding SubbasinMichael Moody, Molalla River AllianceLori Hennings, MetroIncludes these named USGS HUC watersheds:Lower Molalla RiverRock CreekSenecal Creek – Pudding RiverThe Molalla-Pudding subbasin is located inn Pond turtle habitat conservationthe northeastern portion of the middle WillametteBasin and covers approximately 561,000n Friends of Yamhill County – Ilsa Persen Improved agricultural practices to improveacres, including 181,000 acres within the greatern U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Partners for Fishwater qualityand Wildlife Program – Chris Seal, chris_seal@Portland-Vancouver region. The headwaters ofSeveral Wetlands Reserve Program and oakfws.govthe 53-mile-long Molalla River are located nearsavanna projects are already under way. Both thethe Table Rock Wilderness within the CascadenCity of Dundee and the Chehalem Parks and RecreationDistrict are eager to invest in the oppor-rock canyons and conifer forests before reachingNatural Resource Conservation Service – Range. This dam-free river flows through basaltKim Hudnall, District Conservationist,503-472-1474 X 101tunities for recreation along the Willamette Riveragricultural land, flowing through the cities ofand its greenway and throughout the ChehalemWatershed Plans, Assessments, and Reports — Molalla and Canby and then into the Willamettewatershed. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hasChehalem Creek WatershedRiver between River Miles 35 and 36 near Canby.begun to acquire land for its Wapato Lake WildlifeRefuge, which is part of the Tualatin RefugeBasin Council, 2001)The Pudding River is 62 miles long and originatesn Chehalem Watershed Assessment (Yamhillin the low-elevation Waldo Hills east of Salem.system. Although this new refuge is just overhttps://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/DataClearinghouse/ Within the greater Portland-Vancouver region,the county line, it is on the flyway of migratorydefault.aspx?pn=viewrecord&XMLname=120. the subbasin encompasses three major watersheds:waterfowl and songbirds and thus provides thexmlSenecal Creek–Pudding River (53 squarewatershed’s residents with nearby opportunitiesmiles), Rock Creek (86 square miles), and Lowern Yamhill Basin Council 2005 Action Plan for thefor bird watching and passive recreation. OregonMolalla River (144 square miles). The middle andYamhill River and Chehalem Creek WatershedsState Parks is restoring oak and prairie habitat atupper portions of the subbasin lie outside theChampoeg State Park.greater Portland-Vancouver region and are a mixn Yamhill Soil and Water Conservation DistrictStrategic Plan http://www.yamhillswcd.org/ of private agriculture and forest lands. The BureauOrganizations and Partners — Chehalem Creekabout_us/StrategicPlan07.pdfof Land Management owns 67 square miles in theWatershedupper Molalla watershed, known as the Molallan The Nature Conservancy – Conservation River Recreation Corridor.n Greater Yamhill Watershed Council –Action Plan for Yamhill County (in progress)Bernadette Hansen gywc_administrator@Within the greater Portland-Vancouver region,co.yamhill.or.usthe Molalla - Pudding subbasin contributes 10n Natural Resources Conservation ServiceStrategic Plan (draft, not available on web)percent of the area.n City of Newberg, http://www.newbergoregon.gov/296 297

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAppendix I WatershedsLand coverMolalla-Pudding Subbasin (partial)180,960 acresKey Facts: The Molalla-Pudding subbasin withinthe greater Portland-Vancouver region:n Is 97 percent privately owned.n Lies mostly (96 percent) outside urban growthboundaries.n Is 8 percent developed.% of WatershedAgriculture 43%Regen. forest 3%Developed 8%Low Veg 4%Tree Cover 42%Water

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAppendix I Watershedsit remains healthy andproductive for nativefish and as a drinkingwater source. Toachieve this, suchtributaries need to beprotected from excessnutrients, sediments,and debris from loggingand agriculture.Stream side shadeneeds to be retained tokeep streams cool.Other water qualityissues in variousareas of the subbasininclude nitrates, dissolvedoxygen, fecalbacteria, metals (iron,manganese and arsenic; the latter two may occurnaturally), and legacy pesticides—primarily DDTand dieldrin.FishThe headwaters of the Molalla River provide vitalspawning, rearing, and migration areas for twoESA-listed fish: wild winter steelhead and springChinook salmon. The river also has residentrainbow and cutthroat throat and a reintroducedpopulation of coho salmon. Butte Creek, whichbecomes the Pudding River south of the SenecalCreek–Pudding River watershed, has some ofthe best remaining and potential salmon habitatand is identified as an important priority in fishrecover.Chinook SalmonThe Molalla River historically supported relativelyabundant Chinook populations, but these dwindledthrough the 20th century because of habitatconditions caused by agricultural and forest practices,urbanization, out-of-basin stockings, andpoaching in summer holding areas. The Molallaspring Chinook salmon run is part of the UpperWillamette evolutionary significant unit (ESU),which was federally listed as threatened under theEndangered Species Act in 1999. Recovery plan-ning efforts have identified the need to recoverall historical populations of Chinook in theUpper Willamette ESU, including in the Molalla-Pudding subbasin. Abundance and productivityinformation indicate that the subbasin’s Chinookpopulation is likely close to extirpation and hasbeen assigned an extinction risk category of veryhigh (see the Oregon Department of Fish andWildlife’s Upper Willamette River Conservationand Recovery Plan for Chinook Salmon andSteelhead).SteelheadThe Molalla wild winter steelhead run is part ofthe Upper Willamette ESU, which was federallylisted as threatened under the Endangered SpeciesAct in 1999. The Molalla River population is nowconsidered a stronghold population. For decadesbefore 1997, the Molalla River was stocked without-of-basin summer steelhead, winter steelheadand coho salmon. These stockings, combinedwith heavy timber harvest in the mid-century, ledto the sharp decline of this population. Stockingstopped with the listing of native winter steelheadand spring Chinook salmon. Only a decade ago,Molalla River wild winter steelhead were estimatedto number fewer than 200 fish, but in 2007and 2008 the estimate grew to more than 1,500fish, according to Oregon Department of Fish andWildlife and Native Fish Society reports.Trout, Lamprey, and Coho SalmonThe upper Molalla River has a healthy populationof native cutthroat and resident rainbowtrout. A remnant population of Pacific lampreyalso remains in the river. In addition, Native FishSociety observations and Willamette Falls fishcounts indicate that a run of reintroduced cohosalmon from a stocking program that was discontinuedin 1998 has had a steady and significantlinear increase.Wildlife and Key Habitat AreasWithin the greater Portland-Vancouver region,the Molalla-Pudding subbasin supports deer, elk,native squirrels, beaver, mountain beaver (aplodontia),raccoons, fox, coyotes, cougar, and bear.Wet areas support rough-skinned newt, Pacifictree frog, Pacific giant salamander, and the commongarter snake. Many song birds breed, forage,and migrate through the area, as do geese, woodducks, grouse, pileated woodpeckers, Americandippers, great blue heron, osprey, and commonand hooded mergansers.Low-lying and foothill areas in the subbasininclude native Oregon white oak and prairie remnants,although thorough mapping has yet to bedone. These habitats support numerous sensitive,threatened, or endangered plants and animals,such as western gray squirrel and white-breastednuthatch.Molalla River State Park protects the confluenceof the Pudding, Molalla, and Willametterivers. The floodplains of these rivers provideimportant habitat for waterfowl, wading birds,deer, small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians.A blue heron rookery, one of the largest in theWillamette Valley, is located in Molalla RiverState Park.Watershed PrioritiesThe Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’sUpper Willamette River Conservation and RecoveryPlan for Chinook Salmon and Steelhead listswater quality (including water temperature),habitat access, and physical habitat quality assome of the factors limiting the viability of fishpopulations in the upper Willamette River andits tributaries. The plan recommends severalstrategic actions, such as restoring fish passage,improving water quality (especially temperature),improving habitat access through river restoration,protecting habitat quality by reducingforestry impacts, and successfully designating theMolalla a Wild and Scenic River. The key priorityfor groups working on the Molalla River is topreserve or improve the water quality of the riverand sustain the people, wildlife, fish and plantsthat inhabit its watershed.Initiatives Currently Under WayThe Molalla River Alliance initiated and leadsefforts to secure federal Wild and Scenic Riverdesignation for approximately 22 miles of theupper river. The designation would protectapproximately 7,000 acres of riparian land alongthe river.Several local organizations, including MolallaRiverWatch and many volunteers, are workingwith federal, state and local agencies as well aslocal landowners to protect the Molalla River,restore its fish and wildlife, and encourage tourism.A fish barrier on Russell Creek was replacedto open up passage for winter steelhead, cohosalmon, and resident rainbow and cutthroattrout. Local organizations are actively seekingfunding to open more streams to fish passageand improve spawning and rearing habitat. Eachyear the Native Fish Society guides volunteers inconducting surveys and placing hatchery salmoncarcasses for nutrient enrichment in the upperwatershed.The Molalla River Alliance, Molalla River-Watch, and the Native Fish Society created theMolalla River Resource Center in downtownMolalla so that the community has a centrallocation for information on the Molalla River andits recreational opportunities. The Molalla RiverAlliance is also engaged in environmental educationthrough schools and guided field trips, trashpick-up parties, trail improvement, and removalof invasives.Organizations and PartnershipsMolalla RiverWatchContact: Bruce Taylor, riverwatch@molalla.net,503-824-2195Molalla RiverWatch is a nonprofit organizationcreated in 1992 by local citizens to protect, preserve,and restore the flora, fauna, and water quality ofthe Molalla River and its tributaries. The OregonWatershed Enhancement Board recognizes MolallaRiverWatch as the Molalla River Watershed Council.The council is committed to promoting respect andunderstanding of the Molalla River watershed througheducation and conservation for current and futuregenerations.300 301

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAppendix I WatershedsThe Molalla River AllianceContact: Michael Moody, Molalla River Alliance,moody@teleport.com, 503- 699-8704The Molalla River Alliance is a nonprofit coalition ofmore than 45 civic and conservation organizations;local, state, and federal agencies; user groups; andproperty owners. Founded in 2008, the alliance’s keyconservation priorities are to preserve water quality;sustain the watershed’s wildlife, fish and plants; andpromote a safe and healthy environment that encouragesdiverse recreational and tourism opportunities.Some of the alliance’s members and partners include:American RiversAmerican WhitewaterBack Country HorsemenBack Country Hunters and AnglersBARKBureau of Land ManagementCity of MolallaClackamas County Parks & RecreationClackamas County SheriffEcotrustFreshwater TrustHamlet of MulinoMolalla RiverWatchMolalla PioneerMolalla Police DepartmentNative Fish SocietyNOAA FisheriesNorth America Salmon StrongholdNorthwest SteelheadersOregon Department of Fish & WildlifeOregon Department of ForestryOregon Dept. of Environmental QualityOregon Equestrian TrailsOregon WildSierra Club OregonWild Salmon CenterWillamette Riverkeepern Molalla River-Table Rock Recreation AreaManagement Plan (Bureau of Land Management,August 2011)www.blm.gov/or/districts/salem/plans/molalla/documents.phpn Molalla-Pudding-French Prairie-NorthSantiam Subbasins Agricultural Water QualityManagement Area Plan. Developed by TheMolalla-Pudding-French Prairie-North SantiamSubbasins Local Advisory Committee with assistancefrom the Oregon Department of Agricultureand Marion Soil and Water ConservationDistrict, March 2004.n The ecological and recreational benefits of theMolalla River, Oregon (Kavita Heyn, AmericanRivers and Russell Bassett, Native Fish Society,June 2009)n Oregon Conservation Strategyhttp://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/n Willamette Total Maximum Daily Load(TMDL) (Oregon Department of EnvironmentalQuality, 2006) www.deq.state.or.us.n Upper Willamette River Conservation andRecovery Plan for Chinook Salmon and Steelhead(Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, August2011)www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/CRP/upper_willamette_river_plan.aspn Oregon State University Institute for Water andWatersheds. The IWW is the state water resourcesresearch institute for Oregon and contains alibrary of watershed publications. Oregon StateUniversity, Corvallis, OR.http://water.oregonstate.edu/12. Tualatin SubbasinRich Hunter, Clean Water ServicesMonica Smiley, Tualatin RiverkeepersApril Olbrich, Tualatin River Watershed CouncilBrian Wegener, Tualatin RiverkeepersIncludes these named USGS HUC watersheds:Gales CreekScoggins Creek-Tualatin RiverDairy CreekRock Creek-Tualatin RiverFanno Creek-Tualatin RiverThe Tualatin River watershed is 712 square miles,more than twice the size of any other watershedin the greater Portland-Vancouver region. Thewatershed includes all of Washington County andsmall portions of Multnomah, Clackamas, Yamhill,Tillamook, and Columbia counties. WashingtonCounty is Oregon’s second most populouscounty, with 529,710 residents (2010 estimate)and includes the cities of Banks, Beaverton, Cornelius,Durham, Forest Grove, Gaston, Hillsboro,King City, North Plains, Sherwood, Tigard andTualatin.The Tualatin River watershed is a low-elevation,low-gradient watershed whose headwatersLand coverTualatin Subbasin453,180 acres% of WatershedAgriculture 22%Regen. forest 8%Developed 13%Low Veg 7%Tree Cover 49%Water 1%Forest Patches* 47%JurisdictionsBanks

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAppendix I Watershedsmum elevations, respectively. Annually, morethan 1.1 million acre-feet of water flow out of thewatershed into the Willamette River; this includeswater imported from the Trask River and BullRun water supply. Nearly 85 percent of this flowis discharged between November and March,with less than 3 percent typically discharged duringJune through October. Contributing to thisflow are eight major tributaries: Gales, Scoggins,Wapato, Dairy, Rock, McFee, Chicken, and Fannocreeks.The Tualatin River drops about 2,700 feet overits first 14 miles, then slowly meanders generallyeastward for the rest of its 83-mile length. Itenters the Willamette River just upstream of WillametteFalls (at River Mile 28.5) through a steep,walled canyon, falling about 50 feet over its last3 miles. Other low notches in the mountain rimare found at Wapato Lake, Oswego Notch, andTonquin. Through these low spots, the prehistoricBretz (or Missoula) Floods of 13,000 to 15,000years ago filled the Tualatin Basin with approximately500 feet of water. The floods depositeddeep layers of sediment and left a landscape ofswamps, marshes. and prairies. Scabland channelsfrom these floods can still be seen at Tonquin.Approximately 10,000 years ago, a group ofKalapuya (the Twality or Atfalati) settled theTualatin. When European immigrants arrived lessthan 200 years ago, the Twuality numbered in thethousands. The Twality lived mainly on big gameand traded with people in neighboring watersheds.They burned some lowlands and openmeadowlands for hunting. After Fort Vancouverwas built in the 1820s, farming began in theTualatin River watershed, which at that time wasabout 80 percent forest. By 1855, the last year ofthe Donation Lands Claim Act, about 350 farmshad been claimed in the watershed, occupyingland as far west as River Mile 67, current locationof the city of Cherry Grove, near Gaston.Historically, the Tualatin Basin was approximately51 percent coniferous forest, 20 percentoak, and 12 percent each burned forest andprairie or savanna. By 2010, about one-quarter ofthe basin had been converted to agriculture andabout 20 percent to urban uses (i.e., the cities ofAloha, Banks, Beaverton, Forest Grove, Gaston,Hillsboro, North Plains, Sherwood, Tigard, Tualatin).Because the Tualatin Basin is the largest inthe region, acreage associated with land conversionappears inordinately large when compared tothat in other basins. Agriculture consumed about40,000 acres each of conifer forest, oak, and prairieor savanna. Urban uses consumed about thesame amount of forest cover, about 30,000 acresof oak, and 15,000 acres of prairie and savanna.Combined coniferous and mixed forest experiencedan overall decline of about 10 percent.The Tualatin Basin is the region’s largestwatershed and makes up about one-quarter of theentire region.Key Facts: The Tualatin subbasin within thegreater Portland-Vancouver region:n Consists of 81 percent rural lands (i.e., notwithin an urban boundary), but also has as asignificant portion within the Metro UrbanGrowth Boundary, such as the cities of Beaverton,Hillsboro, Tualatin, and Sherwood.n Is 12 percent publicly owned and contributes23 percent of the region’s total public lands.n Contributes 26 percent each of the region’sforest patches and interior forest habitat.n Has nearly 41,400 acres within the FEMA100-year floodplain.n Includes about 8,700 acres of mapped wetlands.Given the Tualatin Basin’s historically extensivemarshes, swamps, and large woody debris jams,which obstructed channels up to 1 mile in somelocations, flooding was a continual concern ofthe settlers. One of the first businesses was themanufacturing of tiles to drain wetlands. Farmersdrained much of the lowlands to plant crops anddevelop pasture for cattle. Settlers built canals,ditches, dikes, and dams, harvested timber, andmodified the river and its tributaries to get logsto the mills. Perhaps one of the biggest impacts tothe river between 1850 and 1890 was the clearingof woody debris jams to allow steamboat passage.An estimated 60 percent of the original wetlandswere lost as a cumulative result of these practices.Railroad construction began in 1887, and theriver was judged unworthy for steamboat travelin 1895. By the 1910s, railroads had broughtextensive investment from eastern timber companiesand expanded the pace of logging. Around1900, several dams were built in the watershed togenerate electricity but have since been removedor failed. Drainage of lowlands for agriculturecontinued, affecting Wapato Lake (which is nowpartially included in the Tualatin River NationalWildlife Refuge) and Lake Lousignot. By the1940s, crops consumed more water as a result ofelectric irrigation pumps. The combined effects oflogging, drainage, and pumping for irrigation ledto heavy winter flows and almost no late summerflows in the river. Irrigation demands rosewith the growth of nursery and berry crops. Inthe 1950s, near the city of Tualatin, water wouldsometimes flow upstream in the river. Low summerflows resulted in high levels of phytoplanktongrowth and low dissolved oxygen concentrations,especially in the lower river, which in some spotsa person could straddle. These conditions led todevelopment of water resources in the watershed.Beginning in 1938, drinking water wasimported from Portland’s Bull Run water supply.Barney Reservoir was built in the late 1960s tosupply water to Hillsboro from the neighboringTrask River watershed; in 1998, Barney Reservoirwas enlarged from 4,000 to 20,000 acre-feet.Increases in the human population and agriculturalwater demand led to construction in 1978of Scoggins Dam, which has a storage capacityof 56,000 acre-feet. In the 1960s, wastewater hadalso become a serious water quality problemand led to a development moratorium. Over theyears, wastewater released to the river had comefrom municipal sewage, canneries, meatpacking,tanneries, paperboard plants, and food products.The Unified Sewerage Agency (or USA, which isnow called Clean Water Services) was establishedin 1970 to improve water quality with expandedregional wastewater treatment capacity formunicipal and industrial sources.In 1986, the Northwest EnvironmentalDefense Center, concerned about low dissolvedoxygen levels and high phosphorus and algallevels in the Tualatin River, filed the first successfullawsuit to require enforcement of thetotal maximum daily load (TMDL) section ofthe Clean Water Act. The Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality adopted and apportionedTMDLs for ammonia, nitrogen (to improve dissolvedoxygen levels), and phosphorus (to reducealgal levels) in 1988. In the 1990s, DEQ addedtemperature, bacteria, and dissolved oxygen tothe list of water quality impairments. In 2001,DEQ issued TMDLs for those pollutants andupdated the earlier phosphorus and ammoniaTMDLs. The entire Tualatin Basin is includedunder the Willamette TMDL, which addressestemperature, bacteria, and mercury. Both waterquality management practices and flow augmentationhave been undertaken to improve waterquality during the low-flow period. Clean WaterServices (known as USA at the time) expandedits tertiary treatment at two of its treatment plantsin the early 1990s to comply with the dischargelimits. During the summer, Tualatin River flow isincreased by as much as one-third of its natural304 305

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAppendix I Watershedsflow from Henry Hagg Lake, Barney Reservoir, communities and species across a spectrum ofof sensitive amphibians and reptiles are known,and wastewater treatment plant effluent. Stored mountain forests, valley woodlands, grasslands,including northern red-legged frogs, westernwater is now managed to maintain minimum and floodplains, and these present excellentpainted turtles, and western pond turtle. In themonthly mean flow of 120 cubic feet per second conservation opportunities. Despite many threats,absence of trapping during the last decade, beaver(cfs) from June to August and 150 cfs for Septemberthe basin still harbors many significant popula-have made rapid gains and recolonized many ofto November at RM 33.3. The river is now tions of special-status and sensitive species inthe basin’s creeks, to the benefit of many species.intensively managed, but its water quality is vastly aquatic, wetland, and upland habitats. One of theAlthough old-growth forests are scarce, the basinimproved.most significant features of the basin is the river’sis host to several sensitive late-successional forestThe watershed’s land uses today are approximately58-mile-long floodplain, which is consistentlywildlife species, including northern spotted owl,50 percent forest, 30 percent agriculture, noted as a regionally significant biodiversityTownsends big-eared bat, marbled murrelet, andand 20 percent urban. Most of the working forestlandsresource. (For example, in the Oregon Con-northern flying squirrel. The basin also supportsare found in the Coast Range, in the upper servation Strategy, it is included as Willamettenumerous elk, deer, muskrat, otter, cougar, andportion of the watershed, while the rest of the rim Valley Conservation Opportunity Area 5.) Thebobcat, along with a variety of other wildlife.contains urban, rural residential, and agricultural floodplain and associated valley wetlands containApproximately 55,000 acres (12 percent) ofareas. The lower watershed’s broad alluvial valley vitally important waterfowl habitats in the Pacificthe Tualatin Basin is held by public entities forencompasses both the residential, commercial, Flyway. Moving west from Wapato Lake, Pattonnatural resource, open space, and park purposes,and industrial urban core and diverse, productive Valley and the area upstream to Cherry Grovebut only a small fraction of these properties isacres of Tualatin River floodplain and wetlands atagricultural lands.have been noted as an important conservationmanaged primarily for biodiversity conservation.Jackson Bottom and Fern Hill wetlands.Since the nineteenth century, humans have opportunity.More than three-quarters of the basin’s naturalThe Coast Range portion of the basin alsovastly altered ecosystems in the Tualatin River Migrating birds routinely number in the thousandsat several key sites. Species include tundrathe largest owners being the Oregon Departmentresource land is located outside urban areas, withhas some large public holdings in addition towatershed. More than half its area has beenTillamook State Forest and the BLM parcels.converted from the original forest and floodplainhabitat to urban or agricultural use, and geese; northern pintail; canvasbacks; blue-wingedmook State Forest) and Bureau of Land Manage-swans; cackling, Canada, and dusky Canadaof Forestry (approximately 25,000 acres in Tilla-There are patches of high-quality mixed coniferousforest at Stub Stewart State Park (approximately1,700 acres) and in City of Forest Grovethe remaining forest is now intensively managed.Water retention on the landscape has been birds also are plentiful in the valley’s wetlands,ments, including cities and the Tualatin Hills Parkand green-winged teal; and buffleheads. Shorement(approximately 10,000 acres). Local govern-watershed lands (approximately 3,800 acres).reduced while water use exceeds the basin’s supplyfrom May into November in an average year. bittern and greater yellowlegs. Several large heroncomponent of park and natural resource lands—where there are healthy populations of Americanand Recreation District, collectively own a largeWashington County manages about 2,500 acres ofU.S. Bureau of Reclamation lands at Henry HaggThe abundance and diversity of fish and wildlife rookeries in the basin host high numbers of greatabout 10,000 acres. These local government landsReservoir. Although a majority of Hagg Lake Parkpopulations have been threatened by shrinking blue herons and also the black-crowned nightare typically near creeks and floodplains, butis inundated by Scoggins Dam, the surroundinghabitat and human impacts on aquatic and terrestrialcommunities. Without action, these trends Neotropical migratory birds.habitat tracts are isolated.heron. Remnant forests and prairie also supporttheir distribution is fragmented and many of theuplands contain a diverse assemblage of foresttypes, including oak habitats and prairies thatare likely to worsen because Washington County Despite well-chronicled declines, native coldwaterfish species such as cutthroat trout and theowned conservation lands across the TualatinThere are several noteworthy tracts of publiclyhave several rare species, including the federallyis expected to gain nearly one-half million peopleendangered Fender’s blue butterfly and federallyover the next few decades. 8 Within the urban ESA-listed threatened winter steelhead are stillBasin. Recent acquisitions by the U.S. Fish andthreatened Kincaid’s lupine.growth boundary of the Tualatin Basin there are present in the Tualatin River and its tributaries.Wildlife Service have enlarged the Tualatin RiverThere are only a few private land holdingsapproximately 20,000 acres of impervious cover Although not historically present in the Tualatin,National Wildlife Refuge to about 3,000 acresdedicated to conservation purposes in the TualatinBasin, but several significant urban wetlandsconnected to a separate storm sewer system. coho salmon totaled record numbers in recentof mainstem floodplain, wetlands, and relatedTwelve urban streams in the basin are listed by surveys, and the basin’s abundance of slow-wateruplands.are owned and managed by The Wetlands Conservancy;these include Cedar Mill Wetlands andDEQ as water-quality impaired for biological criteria.Temperature, toxics, nutrients, bacteria, and a population stronghold in the future. Westernnatural areas since 1995, representing a variety ofhabitat appears to provide ample opportunity forMetro has added more than 3,500 acres ofHedges Creek. A variety of easements and managementagreements exist for riparian, floodplain,impaired flow regime are all contributing factors brook lamprey and Pacific lamprey are alsohabitat types across the basin. The Metro naturalto this biological impairment.present in the Tualatin River and tributaries,areas have some large landscapes, such as 1,200and water resource protection throughout bothBecause of its varied geography and size, the but very little is known about their distributionacres of mixed forest on Chehalem Ridge, as wellurban and rural portions of the basin. Homeowners’associations own more than 2,500 acres ofTualatin Basin has a wide diversity of natural or population status. Several large populationsas some unique sites with rare habitats, such asthe peat bogs of Killin Wetlands. Clean Waterdedicated open spaces in the urban area but often8 http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/OEA/Pages/demographic.aspxServices and the cities of Hillsboro and Forestlack funds for management.Grove cooperatively manage more than 1,500306 307

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAppendix I WatershedsCurrent Major Initiativesn Stream enhancementn Clean Water Services Surface WaterManagement Programn Culvert retrofits/fish barriers — WashingtonCounty Land Use & Transportationhttp://www.co.washington.or.us/LUT/Divisions/Operations/Programs/culvert-replacement.cfmn Tualatin River Watershed Councilhttp://www.trwc.org/basin_projects/n Riparian reforestationn Clean Water Services TemperatureManagement Planhttp://www.cleanwaterservices.org/AboutUs/Departments/WatershedManagement/n Enhanced Conservation Reserve EnhancementProgram (eCREP) — Tualatin & West MultnomahSoil and Water Conservation Districtsn Community Tree-for-All Stream PlantingChallenge (2 million native plants in 20 years)http://www.cleanwaterservices.org/Residents/JoinTheCycle/InYourCommunity/TreeforAll/default.aspxn Invasive plant control: targeted early detection/rapidresponse for garlic mustard, knotweed,giant hogweed and yellow flag irisOrganizations and PartnersTualatin River Watershed CouncilApril Olbrich503-846-4810trwc@easystreet.netTualatin RiverkeepersMonica Smiley503-218-2580monica@tualatinriverkeepers.orgTualatin Soil and Water Conservation DistrictLacey Townsend503-648-3174 ext. 102lacey.townsend@or.nacdnet.netWest Multnomah Soil and Water ConservationDistrictKammy Kern-Korot503-238.4775, x108kammy.kern-korot@or.nacdnet.netCommunity Tree-for-AllChristian Haaning503-681-3633haaningc@cleanwaterservices.orgFriends of TreesLogan Lauvray503-282-8846 ext. 15loganl@friendsoftrees.orgSOLVSteve Kennett503-844-9571 x 318steve@solv.orgTualatin Hills Park and Recreation DistrictBruce Barbarasch503-629-6305 X 2950bbarbarasch@thprd.comClean Water ServicesRich Hunter503-681-3638hunterr@cleanwaterservices.orgCity of HillsboroLaura Trunk(503) 351-2433laurat@ci.hillsboro.or.usWatershed Plans, Assessments, and Reports —Tualatin SubbasinFrom Tualatin River Watershed Council (http://www.trwc.org/tualatin_info.html):n Watershed Action Plan and TechnicalSupplementn Watershed Analyses, J.T. Hawksworth,Washington County SWCDn Upper Tualatin - Scoggins, 2000n Dairy - McKay, 1999n Middle Tualatin - Rock Creek, 2001n Lower Tualatin, 2001n Gales Creek Watershed Assessment, 1998From Clean Water Services:n Clean Water Services Healthy StreamsPlan (2005)http://www.cleanwaterservices.org/Content/Documents/Healthy%20Streams%20Plan/Healthy%20Streams%20Plan.pdfFrom the Oregon Department of Forestry:n Oregon Department of Forestry NorthwestForest Management Plan http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/STATE_FORESTS/nwfmp.shtmlAssessments of aquatic biota available at Clean WaterServices website (http://www.cleanwaterservices.org/OurWatershed/MapsAndData/):n Distribution of Fish and Crayfish andMeasurement of Available Habitat (1999-2001)n Assessment of MacroinvertebrateCommunities (USA by ABR, 2000)n Assessment of Macroinvertebrate Communitiesin Relation to Land Use, Physical Habitat andWater Quality (Clean Water Services by ABR,2002)n Assessment of Fish and MacroinvertebrateCommunities of the Tualatin River Basin(Clean Water Services by ABR, 2005-06)n Cooperative Weed Management Areahttp://4countycwma.org/n Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge ComprehensiveConservation Planhttp://www.fws.gov/tualatinriver/refugeplanning.htmn Metro Natural Areas Science and StewardshipProgram — Restoration of native ecosystemshttp://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=37086Raindrops to RefugeLisa Jo Frech503-625-6260raindrops2refuge@gmail.comThe Wetlands ConservancyEsther Lev503-691-1394estherlev@wetlandsconservancy.orgJackson Bottom Education CenterEd Becker503-681-6424edb@ci.hillsboro.or.usn Lower Gales Creek Habitat EnhancementPlan, 2004n Geomorphic Assessment, 2005n The Water Project, and interactive guide to theTualatin River Watershed, produced by PacificUniversity, Oregon http://www.trwc.org/water/index.html308 309

Appendix J ContributorsJ. ContributorsFinancial ContributionsBullitt FoundationClean Water ServicesEast Multnomah Soil and WaterConservation DistrictMetro Regional GovernmentNational Park Service – Rivers, Trails andConservation Assistance ProgramVancouver Audubon SocietySteering Committee MembersBiodiversity Guide Steering CommitteeSusan Barnes, Oregon Departmentof Fish and WildlifeDan Bell, The Nature ConservancyBill Dygert, private citizenGeorge Fornes, Washington Departmentof Fish and WildlifeLori Hennings, MetroDeborah Lev, City of Portland ParksEsther Lev, The Wetlands ConservancyDan Roix, Columbia Land TrustBob Sallinger, Audubon Society of Portland andEast Multnomah Soil and Water ConservationDistrictJonathan Soll, MetroRegional Conservation StrategySteering CommitteeJeff Azerrad, Washington Departmentof Fish and WildlifeSusan Barnes, Oregon Departmentof Fish and WildlifeKathleen Brennan-Hunter, MetroMike Houck, Urban Greenspaces InstituteRich Hunter, Clean Water ServicesPat Lee, Clark CountyDeborah Lev, City of Portland ParksEsther Lev, The Wetlands ConservancyScott McEwen, Columbia Land TrustDan Miller, National Park Service –Rivers, Trails and ConservationAssistance ProgramDan Roix, Columbia Land TrustBob Sallinger, Audubon Society of Portland andEast Multnomah Soil and Water ConservationDistrictMichael Schindel, The Nature Conservancy –OregonJonathan Soll, MetroJennifer Thompson, U. S. Fish andWildlife ServiceMike Wetter, The Intertwine AllianceTechnical Sub-CommitteeTommy Albo, MetroJosh Darling, City of PortlandLori Hennings, MetroRich Hunter, Clean Water ServicesEric Nielsen, Institute for Natural Resources,Portland State UniversityBob Pool, Clark CountyMichael Schindel, The Nature ConservancyJonathan Soll, Metro311

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideAppendix J ContributorsPrefaceJonathan Soll, MetroEsther Lev, The Wetlands ConservancyChapter 1 Current ConditionsJonathan Soll, MetroEsther Lev, The Wetlands ConservancyJohn A. Christy, Oregon Biodiversity InformationCenter, Portland State UniversityChapter 2 Biogeography of the Greater Portland-Vancouver RegionJonathan Soll, Metro — Focal Area, How theBiodiversity Atlas Relates to Other RegionalPlanning EffortsJohn A. Christy, Oregon Biodiversity InformationCenter, Portland State University —Habitat ChangeChapter 3 Major Habitat TypesJane Hartline; Ted Labbe, Kingfisher EcologicalServices —Open WatersLori Hennings, Metro—Shorelines and MudflatsElaine Stewart, Metro—Riparian and BottomlandHardwood ForestsLori Hennings, Metro—Shrub HabitatEsther Lev, The Wetlands Conservancy—WetlandsJonathan Soll, Metro—Upland ForestsMary Bushman, City of Portland; Jonathan Soll,Metro; and Ed Alverson, The Nature Conservancy—OakWoodland and Savanna; Upland Prairie,Wet Prairie, and Rocky BaldsSusan Barnes, Oregon Dept. of Fish andWildlife—Special Habitat Featurescontributors by chaptersChapter 4 FloraAngie Kimpo, City of Portland Water Bureau;George Kral, Ash Creek Forest ManagementChapter 5 Fish and Wildlife of the RegionKaty Weil and Lori Hennings, Metro—BirdsChar Corkran, herpetologist and consultant,and Laura Guderyahn, City of Gresham—Amphibians, ReptilesTodd Alsbury, Oregon Dept. of Fish andWildlife—FishJames R. LaBonte, Oregon Department ofAgriculture; Dana Ross, Lepidopterist Consultant;Aaron Borisenko, DEQ; and Lori Hennings,Metro—InvertebratesSusan Barnes and Liz Ruther, ODFW;Jeff Azzerrad, WDFW; and Lori Hennings,Metro—MammalsChapter 6 Important Issues and ConceptsMike Houck, Urban Greenspaces Institute;Kaitlin Lovell, City of Portland—Climate ChangeJonathan Soll, Metro—FireLori Hennings, Metro; Leslie Bach, The NatureConservancy —Floodplains and HydrologyMace Vaughan, Xerces Society—Pollinators and Pollinator ConservationLori Hennings, Metro—Patch Size and Anchor HabitatsLori Hennings, Metro; Nathan Poage, ClackamasStewardship Partners; Shannah Anderson, City ofPortland; Wende Wente, Mason Bruce & Girard;and Elizabeth Hadaway, Citizen—Biodiversity Corridors and ConnectivityChapter 7 Threats and ChallengesEsther Lev, The Wetlands Conservancy;Jonathan Soll, Metro—Habitat LossCurt Zonick, Metro—Barriers and DecliningLandscape PermeabilityLori Hennings, Metro—Water QualityBruce Barbarasch, Tualatin Hills Parks andRecreation District—Human ActivityLori Hennings, Metro—Chemical PollutantsSusan Barnes, Julia Burro and Colin Gillin,ODFW—DiseaseSusan Barnes, ODFW—Anthropogenic HazardsChapter 8 Major Categories of StrategiesEsther Lev, The Wetlands Conservancy; JonathanSoll, Metro—Preservation and Conservation,Habitat Restoration and EnhancementLori Hennings, Metro—Enhancing BiodiversityCorridors and Regional ConnectivityBob Sallinger, Audubon Society of Portland—Conservation in Developed AreasMeta Loftsgaarden, Natural Resources ConservationService—Conservation in Working LandsStacey Triplett, Metro—OutreachAPPENDIX I WatershedsPatricia Farrell—Chehalem CreekCheryl McGinnis, CRBC; and Carol Murdock,Clackamas County WES—Clackamas RiverRita Baker, GOCWC—Abernethy CreekMatt Clark,Johnson Creek WatershedCouncil—Johnson CreekLori Hennings, Metro ,and Jeff Azerrad,WDFW—Kalama RiverLori Hennings, Metro, and Jeff Azerrad,WDFW—Lewis RiverKaitlin Lovell, City of Portland—Willamette River–Frontal Columbia River Subbasinand Hayden Island-Coumbia River WatershedMichael Moody, Molalla River Alliance;Lori Hennings, Metro—Molalla-PuddingLori Hennings, Metro, and Jeff Azerrad,WDFW—Salmon CreekJeff Azerrad, WDFW; Lori Hennings, Metro—Lower Columbia-ClatskanieSteve Wise, Sandy River Basin WatershedCouncil—Sandy RiverJanelle St. Pierre, Scappoose Bay WatershedCouncil—Scappoose Creek-Frontal ColumbiaRivereRich Hunter, Clean Water Services; MonicaSmiley, Tualatin Riverkeeper; and AprilOlbrich, Tualatin River Basin WatershedCouncil; Brian Wegener, TualatinRiverkeepers—Tualatin RiverLori Hennings, Metro, and Jeff Azerrad,WDFW—Washougal RiverRick Till, Friends of the Columbia Gorge—City of Washougal-Columbia RiverTravis Williams, Willamette Riverkeeper—Willamette River WatershedLori Hennings, Metro—Salmon Creek-Frontal Columbia RiverProductionAnn Sihler, EditorLaurie Causgrove, Graphic DesignDan Roix, Columbia Land Trust,Project CoordinatorPhotographySusan Barnes: 89Steve Berliner: ix (lower), 44 (left and middle),55 (right), 96, 98, 137, 146 (top), 154 (middleand lower), 158, 231, 240, 243Jeff Dillon: 56Rod Gilbert: 294Susie Hawes: 56, 72, 83, 103, 145, 296Nancy Heaslip: vi, 103312313

egional conservation strategybiodiversity guideLori Hennings: vi (lower), 33, 95, 146, 269, 303Mike Houck: v (upper), vii, i, 1, 4, 7, 10, 15, 34,43, 47, 53, 55 (left and middle), 59, 79, 80 (upper),85, 107, 108, 111, 112, 125, 129, 135, 141, 234,237, 248, 262, 273, 283, 284, 287, 291, 299, 300Jim Labbe: 290Celeste Mazzacano, The Xerces Society: 71Metro: 8, 20, 33, 50, 66, 139, 153, 253, 254, 270Metro Sustainability Center, Maps and Graphics:12, 13, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 174, 175, 176,177Marvin Moriarty: 145Dan Roix: 130Bob Sallinger: ii (upper), ix (upper), 126, 149,150, 151Matthew Shepard, The Xerces Society: iii, 75Al Smith: 29, 132Elaine Stewart: xi (bottom), 92, 259U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 83Mace Vaughan, The Xerces Society: ii, 115, 137Kathy Wei: vii, 25The Wetlands Conservancy: 38, 157, 279Rusty Whitney: 30, 244Michael Wilhelm: Cover, iv, v, xi (top), xii, 26, 37,41, 44, 53, 61, 72 (left and middle), 80 (bottom),90, 101, 104, 116, 119, 120, 123, 154 (middle andbottom), 158, 231, 240, 243Curt Zonick: 63, 65, 69314