**Final Report**

**Name of Cooperator:** Lori Hennings

**Project Title:** Damascus Concept Planning: Building a New Urban
Paradigm

**Cooperative Agreement #:** FWS#1448-13420-01-j141

**Date of Report:** August 15, 2005

**Period of time covered** Entire grant period through 06/30/06 (end
date)

**in report:**

**Summary of significant activities and accomplishments**

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/Metro Greenspaces grant has enabled
Metro to gather baseline ecological data for the Damascus/Boring area,
where a new urban growth boundary expansion was approved in 2003. The
primary goal of this project was to reduce the cumulative and
site-specific effects of urbanization by identifying existing
conditions, relating those conditions to land use, and developing a
long-term monitoring strategy to identify adaptive management
possibilities.

Under this grant, we collected baseline ecological data
(macroinvertebrates, stream habitat, geomorphology, winter and spring
birds, bird habitat, and GIS data) and worked with partners to develop a
long-term monitoring strategy to allow detection in stream conditions
over time. This provides the foundation for adaptive management
strategies by linking specific land use changes to ecological changes.
The reports for the stream work, conducted in Fall 2003, and the
bird/habitat work, conducted in winter 2003/spring 2004, are in 1 and 2,
respectively. Briefly, our major findings include the following:

##### Stream surveys

-   We surveyed 40 stream and river sites in the greater Damascus-Boring
    area. Most of the streams we surveyed are currently in substantially
    better condition than those we measured in our 2001 study, which
    included the existing urban area at that time.

-   Four major stream systems -- Rock, Richardson, Noyer and North Fork
    Deep Creek -- showed an interesting trend. In a reversal of typical
    patterns, the headwaters of these streams are fairly flat, and
    contain substantial urban or agricultural influences. Moving
    downstream towards the Clackamas River, these land uses decline,
    while the forested area adjacent to the streams increases. We saw a
    clear trend toward increasingly healthy stream conditions as we
    sampled further downstream. Essentially, the streams are being
    "cleaned out" as the forest widens.

-   We examined the importance of forest canopy to stream health at a
    variety of spatial scales, by using GIS to draw a series of lateral
    and longitudinal buffers around the stream and testing the strength
    of the relationship between forest cover and macroinvertebrate
    communities. Most buffers showed a significant, positive
    relationship to stream health, but the relationship was increasingly
    strong as spatial scale increased. As with our 2001 study, this
    study affirms the importance of forest canopy throughout the
    watershed for maintaining healthy streams.

The stream report and associated data are being used extensively
throughout the region (e.g., Water Environment Services; Damascus
Concept Planning; USGS; DEQ; Portland State University; and others). The
final report is submitted as Appendix 1. This work was extremely useful
during the Damascus/Boring Concept Planning for master-planning the new
UGB expansion area. The final product for this portion of the grant, a
long-term monitoring plan, has been completed (Appendix 2).

##### Bird/habitat surveys

In addition to sampling stream quality, the project investigated
terrestrial components through relationships between winter and spring
bird communities and their habitat at 24 study sites. Metro spent the
last of the grant award to hire a temporary employee and enter the bird
and habitat data, then conducted statistical analyses and produced the
final bird report.

We surveyed 24 sites in the Damascus new urban growth area for birds and
vegetation in winter 2003 and spring 2004. We sampled birds once at each
site during winter and spring to assess bird-habitat relationships.
Canonical Correspondence Analysis, regression and correlation analyses
all point to the following key concepts in the study area:

-   Non-native birds, both winter and spring, are associated with urban
    residential lands that include simplified forest structure, lawns,
    and non-native shrubs and herbs.

-   Winter species richness showed similar results to non-native birds.

-   Neotropical migratory songbirds are associated with the opposite
    habitat characteristics from non-native birds and winter species
    richness.

-   Conifer cover appears to increase the value of winter habitat to
    resident bird species.

The spring results agree with our earlier study in the greater Portland
metropolitan region, where we found strong correlations between narrow,
simplified urban forests and non-native and resident bird numbers and
species, with opposite findings for NMBs.

However, the winter bird community information is new. Urban residential
habitats probably provide good homes for winter birds, both native and
non-native, favoring non-migratory species during winter. This may be
disadvantageous for NMBs, which appear to need larger, less disturbed
habitat areas for breeding and are not present during the winter.
Non-migratory birds establish territories in riparian habitats sooner
than NMBs and typically produce more broods (nests of young) per year
than NMBs, who must spend much of their time migrating north in spring
and south in fall. Riparian areas typically produce a majority of
insects to the land, and nearly all songbird species feed their
nestlings insects. Hence, NMBs are likely at a disadvantage in
residential habitats because such habitats favor winter residents.

It is likely that in urban residential lands, these trends can be
partially offset by landowner management. Of interest was the recurring
negative relationship between non-native birds and high native shrubs
and overall canopy cover, both winter and spring. We also saw positive
relationships between NMB metrics and native tree and shrub cover. Thus,
more tree cover and more native shrubs should improve habitat for
nesting NMBs, a group that is known to be at risk both nationwide and in
the Portland metropolitan area.

The full report on the bird-habitat study is in Appendix 3.

#### Progress toward project goals

The specific goals of the project are listed below, with findings
summarized for each goal:

1.  *Document existing conditions. Assess existing conditions for fish
    and wildlife and lay the groundwork for measuring future changes in
    habitat quality and stream conditions as the area is developed.*
    This riparian and terrestrial work have been completed.

2.  *Statistically determine the interrelationships between water
    quality, riparian condition, riparian buffer size, fish and wildlife
    habitat quality, and types and extent of development.* Because this
    area is primarily zoned rural, we did not have a ready method for
    identifying specific land uses (e.g., Mixed Use, Commercial, etc.).
    However, the data showed distinct trends toward improving health
    when more forest cover was present in the watershed. The data
    generally showed that larger forested buffers are better for stream
    health -- not surprisingly, in a naturally forested region. As the
    area begins to develop further over the next few decades, it will be
    possible to associate development types (through zoning or other
    methods) with stream health. This baseline data sets the stage for
    such long-term monitoring work.

3.  *Develop a restoration and conservation strategy for the Damascus
    area by subwatershed, considering each subwatershed within the
    context of the entire study area.* This work has been completed
    (Appendix 2). Restoration prioritization continues under more detail
    via a DEQ grant (\$75,000, \$15,500 going towards identifying
    Damascus-area restoration sites). The work conducted under this
    grant is the most complete water quality dataset available. The DEQ
    grant enables Metro, in conjunction with a Portland State University
    graduate student, to conduct a GIS shade analysis. The analysis will
    identify those restoration areas that will result in the largest
    "payback," in terms of water temperature reduction, if they were
    restored. Clackamas River Basin Council, as part of the DEQ grant,
    will contact the appropriate landowners to seek future restoration
    permission. The DEQ grant includes plans to seek further funding
    sources for said restoration.

4.  *Share data with those who need it.* The stream data has already
    been widely disseminated through Damascus Concept Planning, work
    with the watershed council, other interested scientists, specific
    Portland State University graduate students, and local governments.
    We submitted and presented an abstract with our findings to the
    Urban Ecosystem Research Consortium in January this year. We have
    shared our preliminary findings at several talks and conferences,
    including the Oregon Chapter of The Wildlife Society, the Ecological
    Society of America, and the national Society for Ecological
    Restoration. The data will be included as projects on Metro's
    "Regional Environmental Information Network (REIN)" interactive
    mapping tool (REIN.org, active approximately August 1, 2006) to show
    the approximate sampling locations. We will continue to make the
    data freely available, for appropriate uses, to others interested in
    furthering the research or as needed and appropriate.

5.  *Create the potential to measure how conditions change over time.*
    Collection of baseline data enables change detection over time, and
    provides the opportunity for effective adaptive management
    strategies. Appendix 2 suggests a long-term monitoring strategy to
    measure changes over time, as anticipated development occurs and
    based on upcoming comprehensive planning efforts by the City of
    Damascus.

### Work tasks and project schedule

All work tasks have been completed (see narrative and appendices). We
have deviated somewhat from the original work schedule submitted in our
grant application to accommodate workflow and project costs (see
previous project updates).

### Summary of project expenditures, including U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and matching contributions for the period. Explain differences and changes in scope and budget.

The actual budget deviated somewhat from the estimated budget (included
in Appendix 4), as noted in last year's annual report. Except for \$62,
the entire grant was spent on field sampling (water quality and
vegetation). The match includes all of Lori Hennings' work on the grant,
including study design, grant administration, working with the
contractors, field sampling for birds (2 seasons), editing water quality
report, and authoring the bird report. The table below represents the
final expenditure outlay for the entire project.

***Actual Budget***

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  **Expenditure type**    **USFWS**               **Matching funds**

  Materials and Services  \$22,307                \$126,890 (match
                                                  includes fringe
                                                  benefits, leave, and
                                                  overhead for Lori
                                                  Hennings)

  Salary, leave, fringe   \$ 2,631                
  and overhead for                                
  vegetation sampling                             
  field crew                                      

  Computer                \$ 62                   

  Remaining funds         \$ 0                    

  TOTAL                   \$25,000                \$126,890
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

Appendix 4 includes the original budget and a budget summary from the
Cooperative Agreement that covered this project, which was funded in
2003, and Metro's project entitled "Validating Metro\'s GIS Model"
funded in 2001. Both projects stayed within budget and over-matched by a
considerable degree.

**APPENDIX 1: WATER QUALITY REPORT**

(attached under separate cover)

**APPENDIX 2: MONITORING STRATEGY**

The complexity and health of natural systems is reflected in the
structure and diversity of plant and wildlife communities. For
monitoring to be meaningful, habitat and land use conditions should be
linked to wildlife and water quality. Thus, ecological conditions may be
appropriately assessed over through a combination of science-based
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) measures, water quality conditions,
and biological responses to those conditions.

The water quality, habitat, and bird data collected under this grant
provide, in combination with Metro's Regionally Significant Fish and
Wildlife Habitat Inventory and GIS measures collected for Metro's Title
13, provide excellent baseline conditions and enable us to measure
changes over time.

Through Title 13, Metro has committed to measuring existing conditions
and issuing "state of the watershed" type reports every two years,
beginning December, 2006 (Attachment 1). In tandem, local jurisdictions,
once they implement Title 13, will be required to report on their
regulatory and non-regulatory activities relating to Title 13. These
reports will be due in odd years and may help supplement existing
conditions by identifying, for example, areas recently restored that are
not yet visible via Metro's GIS indicators. This will help us plan for
the future.

The City of Damascus has completed the Concept Planning process and is
beginning its comprehensive planning phase, which will result in zoning
designations. This process is expected to take about three years. Prior
to that time, no substantial land use changes are expected except
permitted activities such as forest clearing, which Metro will track as
part of Title 13. Thus, significant land use changes are not anticipated
to begin for *at least* five years, and GIS monitoring should suffice to
detect significant changes in habitat.

If, after five years, significant changes are detected via GIS measures,
we recommend seeking funding sources to duplicate, inasmuch as is
possible, the water quality study conducted under this grant. The City
of Damascus should be involved, and current DEQ protocols should be used
to help with DEQ's TMDL process and City compliance with same.

New urban growth occurs somewhat organically due to the expense of
installing infrastructure. That is, it is likely that the majority of
new urbanization will first occur spreading southward from the Gresham
area, and eastward from Pleasant Valley. More frequent monitoring may be
appropriate in newly urbanizing areas -- for example, every two years.

As part of Metro's "state of the watershed" reports, the Monitoring
Coordinator will develop a stream-reach by stream-reach GIS-based model,
validated and calibrated with the water quality data collected here,
based on forest cover and impervious surface measures. This model has
already been developed and tested for Rock Creek, with excellent,
field-validated success. We will extend this model to the remainder of
the new urban area and use it for future conditions comparison. The GIS
model developed for Rock Creek can serve as an interim measure when
funds for measuring water quality are unavailable.

Thus, depending on land use changes and funding, we recommend
field-monitoring the new urban area every two to five years, but
beginning approximately five years from now. If possible, follow-up
bird-habitat studies may be completed, but water quality and GIS
parameters will be key to monitoring this new urban area.

**Attachment 1 to Appendix 3.** Selected excerpts from Metro's Title 13,
Nature in Neighborhoods ordinance.

![](media/image1.png){width="6.493055555555555in" height="5.95in"}

![](media/image2.wmf){width="6.499305555555556in"
height="8.52361111111111in"}

![](media/image3.png){width="6.450694444444444in"
height="8.995833333333334in"}

![](media/image4.wmf){width="6.19375in" height="8.99236111111111in"}

**APPENDIX 3: BIRD / HABITAT REPORT**

(attached under separate cover)

**APPENDIX 4: BUDGETS**

Original Budget Estimate from Proposal

+---------------+------------+------+--------+----------+------+-----+
| **Budget      | **Gre      | **   |        |          |      | **T |
| Items**       | enspaces** | Matc |        |          |      | ota |
|               |            | hing |        |          |      | l** |
|               | **funding  | co   |        |          |      |     |
|               | request**  | ntri |        |          |      | **  |
|               |            | buti |        |          |      | Cos |
|               |            | on** |        |          |      | t** |
+---------------+------------+------+--------+----------+------+-----+
|               |            | *    | **i    | **       | **pe |     |
|               |            | *Fun | n-kind | contribu | ndin |     |
|               |            | ds** | v      | tor(s)** | g/** |     |
|               |            |      | alue** |          |      |     |
|               |            |      |        |          | **re |     |
|               |            |      |        |          | ceiv |     |
|               |            |      |        |          | ed** |     |
+---------------+------------+------+--------+----------+------+-----+
| **PERSONNEL** |            |      | \$     | Lori     | Pen  |     |
|               |            |      | 17,488 | Hennings | ding |     |
| **(existing   |            |      |        |          |      |     |
| staff are     |            |      | \$144  | Clack.   | pro  |     |
| eligible**    |            |      |        | Co.      | ject |     |
|               |            |      | \$192  |          |      |     |
| **for         |            |      |        | USGS     | sup  |     |
| matching**    |            |      | \$192  |          | port |     |
|               |            |      |        | Soil &   |      |     |
| *             |            |      |        | Water CD |      |     |
| *contribution |            |      |        |          |      |     |
| only)**       |            |      |        |          |      |     |
+---------------+------------+------+--------+----------+------+-----+
| **VOLUNTEER   |            |      |        |          |      |     |
| LABOR**       |            |      |        |          |      |     |
|               |            |      |        |          |      |     |
| **(VALUED @   |            |      |        |          |      |     |
| \             |            |      |        |          |      |     |
| $6.50/HOUR;** |            |      |        |          |      |     |
|               |            |      |        |          |      |     |
| **INCLUDE THE |            |      |        |          |      |     |
| ESTIMATED**   |            |      |        |          |      |     |
|               |            |      |        |          |      |     |
| **NUMBER OF   |            |      |        |          |      |     |
| VOLUNTEERS**  |            |      |        |          |      |     |
|               |            |      |        |          |      |     |
| **AND         |            |      |        |          |      |     |
| HOURS)**      |            |      |        |          |      |     |
+---------------+------------+------+--------+----------+------+-----+
| *             | \$11,312   |      |        | Metro    | Pen  |     |
| *PROFESSIONAL | field crew |      |        |          | ding |     |
| SERVICES**    |            |      |        |          |      |     |
|               | \$7,200    |      |        |          | pro  |     |
| **(include    | in         |      |        |          | ject |     |
| sources of**  | vertebrate |      |        |          |      |     |
|               |            |      |        |          | sup  |     |
| **services,   | sample     |      |        |          | port |     |
| rates and**   | sorting,   |      |        |          |      |     |
|               | B-IBI      |      |        |          |      |     |
| **number of   |            |      |        |          |      |     |
| hours used    | \$3,000    |      |        |          |      |     |
| to**          | GIS data   |      |        |          |      |     |
|               |            |      |        |          |      |     |
| **derive      | collection |      |        |          |      |     |
| figures)**    |            |      |        |          |      |     |
|               | \$3,000    |      |        |          |      |     |
|               | final      |      |        |          |      |     |
|               | report     |      |        |          |      |     |
|               |            |      |        |          |      |     |
|               | Subtotal:  |      |        |          |      |     |
|               | \$24,512   |      |        |          |      |     |
+---------------+------------+------+--------+----------+------+-----+
| **MATERIALS & | \$925      |      |        |          |      |     |
| SUPPLIES**    |            |      |        |          |      |     |
|               |            |      |        |          |      |     |
| **(list       |            |      |        |          |      |     |
| specific      |            |      |        |          |      |     |
| items and**   |            |      |        |          |      |     |
|               |            |      |        |          |      |     |
| **quantities  |            |      |        |          |      |     |
| used to**     |            |      |        |          |      |     |
|               |            |      |        |          |      |     |
| **derive      |            |      |        |          |      |     |
| figures)**    |            |      |        |          |      |     |
+---------------+------------+------+--------+----------+------+-----+
| **RENTAL      |            |      |        |          |      |     |
| FEES**        |            |      |        |          |      |     |
|               |            |      |        |          |      |     |
| **(list       |            |      |        |          |      |     |
| equipment,    |            |      |        |          |      |     |
| rates,**      |            |      |        |          |      |     |
|               |            |      |        |          |      |     |
| **and time    |            |      |        |          |      |     |
| needed)**     |            |      |        |          |      |     |
+---------------+------------+------+--------+----------+------+-----+
| **INDIRECT/** |            |      | \$     | Lori     | Pen  |     |
|               |            |      | 14,374 | Hennings | ding |     |
| **OVERHEAD    |            |      |        |          |      |     |
| COSTS**       |            |      | \$101  | Clack.   | pro  |     |
|               |            |      |        | Co.      | ject |     |
| **(eligible   |            |      | \$134  |          |      |     |
| for           |            |      |        | USGS     | sup  |     |
| matching**    |            |      | \$134  |          | port |     |
|               |            |      |        | Soil &   |      |     |
| *             |            |      |        | Water CD |      |     |
| *contribution |            |      |        |          |      |     |
| only)**       |            |      |        |          |      |     |
+---------------+------------+------+--------+----------+------+-----+
| **OTHER**     |            |      |        |          |      |     |
|               |            |      |        |          |      |     |
| **(itemize)** |            |      |        |          |      |     |
+---------------+------------+------+--------+----------+------+-----+
| **TOTALS:**   | **         |      | **\$32 | NA       |      | **\ |
|               | \$25,437** |      | ,759** |          |      | $58 |
|               |            |      |        |          |      | ,19 |
|               | **(Grant   |      |        |          |      | 6** |
|               | award:     |      |        |          |      |     |
|               | \          |      |        |          |      |     |
|               | $25,000)** |      |        |          |      |     |
+---------------+------------+------+--------+----------+------+-----+

**COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BUDGET**

*(Note: The Cooperative Agreement covered two grant projects.)*

![](media/image5.wmf){width="7.293055555555555in" height="8.8in"}