DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Portland Harbor Programmatic EIS and Restoration Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Portland Harbor Programmatic EIS and Restoration Plan Final Portland Harbor Programmatic EIS and Restoration Plan Volume 1 of 2 Prepared by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration May 2017 With support from Final Portland Harbor Programmatic EIS and Restoration Plan May 24, 2017 Prepared by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Restoration Center 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100 Portland, OR 97232 With support from Parametrix 700 NE Multnomah, Suite 1000 Portland, OR 97232-4110 T. 503.233.2400 T. 360.694.5020 F. 503.233.4825 www.parametrix.com CITATION NOAA. May 2017. Final Portland Harbor Programmatic EIS and Restoration Plan. Portland, Oregon. May 2017 │ 273-3975-023 Final Portland Harbor Programmatic EIS and Restoration Plan National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration PORTLAND HARBOR NRDA PROGRAMMATIC EIS AND RESTORATION PLAN Final Draft Project Location: Portland Harbor NRDA Study Area (Willamette River, River Mile 0.8 to River Mile 12.3) and broader focus area (see Figure 1-1) Lead Federal Agency: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Lead Administrative Trustee: NOAA Cooperating Agencies and Tribes: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (DOI, USFWS) State of Oregon, acting through the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon Nez Perce Tribe Contact Person: Megan Callahan Grant, NOAA NOAA Restoration Center 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd. #1100 Portland, OR 97232 Email: [email protected] Abstract: Part I of this Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Restoration Plan evaluates the potential environmental impacts of three restoration planning alternatives and selects an integrated habitat restoration approach as the preferred alternative. Part II presents the Portland Harbor Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) Restoration Plan which describes the integrated habitat approach and discusses restoration priorities, project selection, planning, implementation and stewardship. May 2017 │ 273-3975-023 Final Portland Harbor Programmatic EIS and Restoration Plan National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................... ES-1 PART I. PORTLAND HARBOR PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 1. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................1-1 1.1 INTRODUCTION/OVERVIEW ................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 PROPOSED ACTION, PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ........................................ 1-2 1.3 LEGAL MANDATES AND AUTHORITIES ................................................................... 1-4 1.4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE NRDA AND NEPA PROCESSES ................................ 1-5 1.5 NATURAL RESOURCE TRUSTEES ............................................................................. 1-7 1.6 RELATIONSHIP OF REMEDIAL PROCESS TO NRDA .................................................. 1-8 1.7 OVERVIEW OF THE NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT PROCESS ....... 1-10 1.7.1 Preassessment Screen ............................................................................. 1-10 1.7.2 Assessment Plan and Assessment Report ............................................... 1-11 1.7.3 Post Assessment ...................................................................................... 1-11 1.7.4 Portland Harbor Phased Assessment Approach ...................................... 1-11 1.8 RESTORATION PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION ............................................. 1-12 1.8.1 Restoration Goals and Objectives ............................................................ 1-12 1.8.2 Portland Harbor Trustee Council Restoration Planning Activities ........... 1-13 1.8.3 Potential Funding Sources ....................................................................... 1-14 1.9 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ........................................................................................ 1-14 1.9.1 Review of Draft Restoration Plan ............................................................ 1-14 1.9.2 Other Opportunities for Public Involvement ........................................... 1-15 1.10 ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD ................................................................................... 1-16 2. PROGRAMMATIC RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES .....................................2-1 2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE ...................................................................................... 2-2 2.2 INTEGRATED HABITAT RESTORATION PLANNING ALTERNATIVE (PREFERRED) ..... 2-2 2.3 SPECIES-SPECIFIC RESTORATION PLANNING ALTERNATIVE ................................... 2-2 2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT FURTHER ANALYZED ................................ 2-3 2.4.1 Open Geography Restoration Planning Alternative .................................. 2-3 2.4.2 Study Area Restoration Planning Alternative ............................................ 2-4 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................3-1 3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 LAND USE, SHORELINE USE, AND AESTHETICS ....................................................... 3-3 3.3 SOCIOECONOMICS ............................................................................................... 3-15 May 2017 │ 273-3975-023 i Final Portland Harbor Programmatic EIS and Restoration Plan National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 3.4 CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES ................................................................ 3-17 3.5 ENERGY ................................................................................................................. 3-18 3.6 GEOLOGIC AND SOIL RESOURCES ........................................................................ 3-18 3.7 RECREATION RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 3-18 3.8 TRANSPORTATION, UTILITIES, AND PUBLIC SERVICES ......................................... 3-19 3.9 WETLANDS ............................................................................................................ 3-20 3.10 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................... 3-20 3.10.1 Federally Listed Species ........................................................................... 3-21 3.11 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ................................................................................ 3-29 3.11.1 Air Quality ................................................................................................ 3-29 3.11.2 Climate ..................................................................................................... 3-29 3.11.3 Environmental Health and Noise ............................................................. 3-31 3.11.4 Floodplain and Flood Control .................................................................. 3-31 3.11.5 Water Quality .......................................................................................... 3-32 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................4-1 4.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE ...................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.1 Land Use, Shoreline Use and Aesthetics .................................................... 4-2 4.2.2 Socioeconomics ......................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.3 Cultural and Historic Resources ................................................................. 4-2 4.2.4 Energy ........................................................................................................ 4-2 4.2.5 Geologic and Soil Resources ...................................................................... 4-2 4.2.6 Recreation .................................................................................................. 4-2 4.2.7 Transportation, Utilities and Public Services ............................................. 4-2 4.2.8 Wetlands .................................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.9 Biological Resources .................................................................................. 4-3 4.2.10 Public Health and Safety ............................................................................ 4-3 4.2.11 Floodplain and Flood Control .................................................................... 4-3 4.2.12 Water Quality ............................................................................................ 4-3 4.3 IMPACTS OF THE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES .................................................... 4-3 4.3.1 Land Use, Shoreline Use and Aesthetics .................................................... 4-4 4.3.2 Socioeconomics ......................................................................................... 4-4 4.3.3 Cultural and Historic Resources Impacts ................................................... 4-8 4.3.4 Energy .......................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Deq Site Assessment Program - Strategy Recommendation
    DEQ SITE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM - STRATEGY RECOMMENDATION Site Name: Diversified Marine, Inc. Site CERCLIS Number: (none) DEQ ECSI Number: 3759 Site Address: 1801 N Marine Drive Portland, OR 97217 Recommendation By: Steve Fortuna, Site Assessment Section, DEQ Northwest Region Approved By: Sally Puent, Northwest Region Manager for Solid Waste and Site Assessment Sections Date: July 3, 2003 Background and History The subject site is an approximate 0.8 acre parcel in North Portland, on the south shore of North Portland Harbor, about 500 feet west of the Interstate Highway 5 (I-5) bridge over North Portland Harbor (see Figures 1 and 2). Diversified Marine, Inc., has conducted tug boat and barge building, repair, sandblasting, painting, machine shop, bilge removal, and boat and equipment refueling activities at the site under various names since at least 19901. Work is performed inside of an onshore building, on vessels moored in the river along the site, and in a 200-ton floating dry dock at the site. The site first came to the attention of Site Assessment in January 2003 during an evaluation of the adjoining Former Schooner Creek Boat Works site (ECSI #3526; see Figure 3). Between 1991 and 2002, DEQ received a series of Pollution Complaints alleging that boat building and repair activities at the neighboring Former Schooner Creek Boat Works site were releasing petroleum, solvents, fiberglass dust, and paint wastes, that might threatened water quality in North Portland Harbor (the Columbia River). Several of the reported releases were verified through DEQ follow-up inspections although no source could be located for some of the 1 Diversified Marine, Inc., (Kurt Redd, corporate president) was formed in 1986.
    [Show full text]
  • Individual Permit National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems Phase I Individual Permit
    a Individual Permit National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems Phase I Individual Permit Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Stormwater Program 700 NE Multnomah St., Suite 600 Portland, OR 97232 Issued pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute 468B.050 and Section 402 of the Federal Clean Water Act Issued to: City of Portland Permit Number: 101314 Port of Portland File Number: 108015 Major Receiving Water Bodies: Basins Willamette River, Columbia River Sub-basins Lower Willamette River, Columbia Slough, Tualatin River Streams Columbia River, Columbia Slough, Fanno Creek, Balch Creek, Johnson Creek, and Tryon Creek Wasteload/Load Allocations (if any): A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) that includes wasteload allocations for urban stormwater has been established for the Willamette River Basin, Tualatin River Subbasin, and the Columbia Slough. Waste Load Allocations are addressed in Schedule D of this permit. Sources Covered By This Permit This permit covers all existing and new discharges of stormwater from the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) within the City of Portland Urban Services Boundary, in accordance with the requirements, limitations and conditions set forth. ___________________________________________ ________________________________ Christine Svetkovich Issuance Date: Water Quality Manager ________________________________ Effective Date: MS4 Phase I Individual Permit Portland Group Effective: Expiration: PERMITTED ACTIVITIES Until this permit expires, is modified or revoked, each co-permittee is authorized to discharge municipal stormwater to surface waters of the state only in conformance with the requirements, limitations and conditions set forth in the following schedules. Where conflict exists between specific conditions (found in Schedules A-D) and general conditions (Schedule F), the specific conditions supersede the general conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map of the Sauvie Island Quadrangle, Multnomah and Columbia Counties, Oregon, and Clark County, Washington
    Geologic Map of the Sauvie Island Quadrangle, Multnomah and Columbia Counties, Oregon, and Clark County, Washington By Russell C. Evarts, Jim E. O'Connor, and Charles M. Cannon Pamphlet to accompany Scientific Investigations Map 3349 2016 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior SALLY JEWELL, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2016 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. Suggested citation: Evarts, R.C., O'Connor, J.E., and Cannon, C.M., 2016, Geologic map of the Sauvie Island quadrangle, Multnomah and Columbia Counties, Oregon, and Clark County, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3349, scale 1:24,000, pamphlet 34 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sim3349. ISSN 2329-132X (online) Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Timing of In-Water Work to Protect Fish and Wildlife Resources
    OREGON GUIDELINES FOR TIMING OF IN-WATER WORK TO PROTECT FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES June, 2008 Purpose of Guidelines - The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, (ODFW), “The guidelines are to assist under its authority to manage Oregon’s fish and wildlife resources has updated the following guidelines for timing of in-water work. The guidelines are to assist the the public in minimizing public in minimizing potential impacts to important fish, wildlife and habitat potential impacts...”. resources. Developing the Guidelines - The guidelines are based on ODFW district fish “The guidelines are based biologists’ recommendations. Primary considerations were given to important fish species including anadromous and other game fish and threatened, endangered, or on ODFW district fish sensitive species (coded list of species included in the guidelines). Time periods were biologists’ established to avoid the vulnerable life stages of these fish including migration, recommendations”. spawning and rearing. The preferred work period applies to the listed streams, unlisted upstream tributaries, and associated reservoirs and lakes. Using the Guidelines - These guidelines provide the public a way of planning in-water “These guidelines provide work during periods of time that would have the least impact on important fish, wildlife, and habitat resources. ODFW will use the guidelines as a basis for the public a way of planning commenting on planning and regulatory processes. There are some circumstances where in-water work during it may be appropriate to perform in-water work outside of the preferred work period periods of time that would indicated in the guidelines. ODFW, on a project by project basis, may consider variations in climate, location, and category of work that would allow more specific have the least impact on in-water work timing recommendations.
    [Show full text]
  • Portland Harbor RI/FS Draft Final Remedial Investigation Report April 27, 2015
    Portland Harbor RI/FS Draft Final Remedial Investigation Report April 27, 2015 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING This section describes the current and historical physical characteristics and human uses of the Portland Harbor Superfund Site. Physical characteristics of the site include meteorology, regional geology and hydrogeology, surface water hydrology, the physical system (which includes bathymetry, sediment characteristics, and hydrodynamics and sediment transport), habitat, and surface features. Human characteristics of the site that are discussed here include historical and current land and river use, the municipal sewer system, and human access and use. In addition to providing context to the RI sampling and analysis, the factors presented in this section are considered in the refinement of the Study Area-wide CSM, which is presented in Section 10. Sections 3.1 through 3.7 focuses primarily on the physical setting within the Study Area (RM 1.9 to 11.8). However, the physical features of the Willamette River from Willamette Falls (RM 26) to the Columbia River (RM 0), as well as the upstream portion of Multnomah Channel, are discussed as needed to place the Study Area’s physical characteristics into a regional context. The Willamette River basin has a drainage area of 11,500 square miles and is bordered by foothills and mountains of the Cascade and Coast ranges up to 10,000 feet high to the south, east, and west (Trimble 1963). The main channel of the Willamette forms in the southern portion of the valley near Eugene, at the convergence of the Middle and Coast forks. It flows through the broad and fertile Willamette Valley region and at Oregon City flows over the Willamette Falls and passes through Portland before joining the Columbia River (Map 3.1-1).
    [Show full text]
  • TMDL Implementation Plan Annual Report
    City of Portland, Oregon Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Implementation Plan Fourth Annual Status Report Fiscal Year 2011-2012 (July 1, 2011 – June 30, 2012) Submitted to: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality November 1, 2012 TMDL Implementation Plan Fourth Annual Status Report November 1, 2012 Introduction This Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Implementation Plan Fourth Annual Status Report summarizes key activities and accomplishments for the City of Portland (City) during fiscal year (FY) 2011-2012 (July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012). This is the fourth annual status report submitted by the City following the approval of the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Implementation Plan (IP) on March 6, 2009, in accordance with the Willamette Basin TMDL Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The IP was updated in FY11-12 to reflect the revised National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP), and the updated portion was included in the third annual status report. This report does not encompass all elements of the TMDL Implementation Plan, but rather focuses on the most important implementation actions. It also does not quantify the pollutant load reduction of every activity because reliable, consistent, and universally accepted tools are currently not available to assess pollutant load reduction effectiveness of many of the actions (e.g., pollution prevention, education, stream restoration). For parameters with EPA-approved stormwater-related TMDL Waste Load Allocations (WLAs), pollutant load reductions from structural facilities within the City’s MS4 area are estimated as part of NPDES MS4 permit compliance. That evaluation was most recently conducted as part of the 2008 NPDES MS4 Permit Renewal Submittal (http://www.portlandonline.com/bes/index.cfm?c=50333&a=246071).
    [Show full text]
  • 3.2 Flood Level of Risk* to Flooding Is a Common Occurrence in Northwest Oregon
    PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT 11/07/2016 3.2 Flood Level of Risk* to Flooding is a common occurrence in Northwest Oregon. All Flood Hazards jurisdictions in the Planning Area have rivers with high flood risk called Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA), except Wood High Village. Portions of the unincorporated area are particularly exposed to high flood risk from riverine flooding. •Unicorporated Multnomah County Developed areas in Gresham and Troutdale have moderate levels of risk to riverine flooding. Preliminary Flood Insurance Moderate Rate Maps (FIRMs) for the Sandy River developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 2016 •Gresham •Troutdale show significant additional risk to residents in Troutdale. Channel migration along the Sandy River poses risk to Low-Moderate hundreds of homes in Troutdale and unincorporated areas. •Fairview Some undeveloped areas of unincorporated Multnomah •Wood Village County are subject to urban flooding, but the impacts are low. Developed areas in the cities have a more moderate risk to Low urban flooding. •None Levee systems protect low-lying areas along the Columbia River, including thousands of residents and billions of dollars *Level of risk is based on the local OEM in assessed property. Though the probability of levee failure is Hazard Analysis scores determined by low, the impacts would be high for the Planning Area. each jurisdiction in the Planning Area. See Appendix C for more information Dam failure, though rare, can causing flooding in downstream on the methodology and scoring. communities in the Planning Area. Depending on the size of the dam, flooding can be localized or extreme and far-reaching.
    [Show full text]
  • Fanno Creek and Tributaries Conservation Plan
    Fanno Creek and Tributaries Conservation Plan Volume One: Inventory, Analysis, and Regulations for the Protection and Restoration ofFish and Wildlife Habitats, Natural Areas, Water Bodies, and Wetlands and Volume Four: Revised Zoning Maps Final Plan As Adopted bythe CityCouncil City of Portland, Oregon Bureau of Planning Adopted by Ordinance Number 167293, as Amended, onJanuary 19, 1994 Effective January 19, 1994 If you need a large-print copy of this report, Please call 823-7700 (or TDD 823-6868). Portland City Council Vera Katz, Mayor Earl Blumenauer, Commissioner Charlie Hales, Commissioner Gretchen Kafoury, Commissioner Michael lindberg, Commissioner Portland Planning Commission Richard Cooley, President Richard Michaelson, Vice President Joan Brown-Klein Bruce Fong Margaret Kirkpatrick. Vivian Parker Paul Schuback. Douglas Van Dyk Fanno Creek and Tributaries Conservation Plan Volume One: Inventory, Analysis, and Regulations for the Protection and Restoration of Fish and Wildlife Habitats, Natural Areas, Water Bodies, and Wetlands Bureau of Planning Charlie Hales, Commissioner-In-Charge David Knowles, Interim Planning Director Robert E. Clay, Chief of Long Range Planning and Urban Design Project Manager AI Burns, City Planner Project Jlssistance Charles Beasley, Project Research Jessica Richman, City Planner Damian Syrnyk, City Planner Peter Hurley, Planning Jlssistant Robert Goldie, Information System Analyst Linda Torgeson, Graphic lliustrator Geoff Sauncy, Graphic lllustrator January 19,1994 Substitute Ordinance No. 16 7 293 As Amended ·Protect and Conserve Natural Resources within the Fanno Creek Watershed. (Ordinance: amend Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Maps, and Title 33, Planning and Zonin~) The City of Portland Ordains: Section 1. The Council fmds: General Findings 1. The Fauno Creek Watershed contains many significant natural resources that are worthy of protection or conservation.
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting Notes 1999-05-13 [Part B]
    Portland State University PDXScholar Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation Oregon Sustainable Community Digital Library 5-13-1999 Meeting Notes 1999-05-13 [Part B] Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy . Follow this and additional works at: http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/oscdl_jpact Recommended Citation Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation, "Meeting Notes 1999-05-13 [Part B] " (1999). Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation. Paper 270. http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/oscdl_jpact/270 This Minutes is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Priorities 2000 Public Comment Letters and e-mail April 1 - May 3,1999 Alegria, Pamela 65 American Institute of Architects, Portland Chapter 39 Bicycle Transportation Alliance 36-37 Bridger, Glenn W 60 Brown, Russ 26 Ciarlo, Catherine 36-37 Clackamas County Board of Commissioners 5 Clackamas County Economic Development Commission 16 CNF Service Company 40 Columbia Slough Watershed Council 9-10 Custom Woodworking 49-54 Dawes, Rick 34 Ditmars, Lois 42 Edwards, Representative Randall 58-59 Enoch Manufacturing Company 34 Epstein, Andrew 11 Erwert, Tim 29 Fekety, Sharon 45 Follett, Matthew 28 Gailey, Allison 30 Goldfarb, Gabriela 8 Gordly, Senator Avel 57 Gresham-Barlow School District 56 Hall, Elinor 32-33 Hillsboro,
    [Show full text]
  • Hayden Island Light Rail Station Conceptual Design Report
    Public Discussion Draft January 14, 2010 HAYDEN ISLAND LIGHT RAIL STATION CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REPORT Project Partners: Federal Highway Federal Transit Administration Administration SW Washingtongg Regional Transportation Council C-TRAN City of Vancouver tro TriMet y of Portland ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS PROJECT TEAMS PORTLAND WORKING GROUP (AS OF 12-31-09) John Gillam, City of Portland Richard Carhart, Hayden Island Neighborhood Network (HiNooN) Barry Manning, City of Portland Pam Ferguson, Hayden Island Manufactured Home Owners and Patrick Sweaney, City of Portland Renters Association Brad Howton, Columbia Crossings Kelly Betteridge, CRC staff Bill Jackson, Safeway Corporation Coral Egnew, CRC staff Casey Liles, CRC staff Sam Judd, Jantzen Beach SuperCenter Aaron Myton, CRC staff Steve Kayfes, Kenton Neighborhood Association Chris Novotny, CRC staff Tom Kelly, Member-at-Large Vickie Smith, CRC staff Charlie Kuffner, pedestrian advocate Steve Witter, CRC staff Colin MacLaren, Friends of Portland International Raceway Talia Jacobson, ODOT Barbara Nelson, Jantzen Beach Moorage, Inc. Andrew Johnson, ODOT IAMP Manager Deborah Robertson, Bridgeton Neighborhood Association Alex Dupey, David Evans and Associates, Inc. Walter Valenta, Waterside Condo Elizabeth Mros-O’Hara, David Evans and Associates, Inc. Nolan Lienhart, ZGF Greg Baldwin, ZGF TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Report 1 Station Location and Map 1-2 Project Objectives and Approach 3 II. PROJECT BACKGROUND Existing Conditions on Hayden Island 5 Hayden Island Plan 6 Locally Preferred Alternative 9 The Hayden Island Interchange Area Management Plan 10 III. STAKEHOLDER INPUT Portland Working Group 11 Meetings and Community Workshop 13 IV. DESIGN PRINCIPLES Preliminary Concepts 15 Design Elements 28 Recommended Design Principles for the Transit Station 31 Hayden Island Light Rail Station Conceptual Design Report I.
    [Show full text]
  • Greater Forest Park Conservation Initiative Mapping the Trail to a Healthy and Sustainable Forest Park
    Greater Forest Park Conservation Initiative Mapping the trail to a healthy and sustainable Forest Park. Prepared by: THE FOREST PARK CONSERVANCY IN COLLABORATION WITH THE FOREST PARK ALLIANCE. Greater Forest Park Conservation Initiative | 1 Greater Forest Park Conservation Initiative Prepared by THE FOREST PARK CONSERVANCY IN COLLABORATION WITH THE FOREST PARK ALLIANCE November 2013 Greater Forest Park Conservation Initiative | 2 SUGGESTED CITATION Forest Park Conservancy and Forest Park Alliance. 2013. Greater Forest Park Conservation Initiative. R. Myers, principal author. www.forestparkconservancy.org FOREST PARK ALLIANCE MEMBERS Audubon Society of Portland City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services Columbia Land Trust Forest Park Conservancy Forest Park Neighborhood Association Friends of Trees Linnton Neighborhood Association Metro Regional Government Portland Parks & Recreation The Intertwine Alliance West Multnomah Soil & Water Conservation District Greater Forest Park Conservation Initiative | 3 Preface In 2008 the Friends of Forest Park became the Forest Park Conservancy. This transition was more than just a change of name. It indicated a maturing of the organization and an intention to be a stronger and more capable part- ner to the park’s owner and operator, Portland Parks & Recreation. It sig- naled a readiness for greater conservation leadership. The new identity brought with it new questions. Where do we stand in our efforts to restore and protect Forest Park? What is our ultimate vision for the park’s ecological health? Are we on course to achieve that vision and if not, how should we respond? How do we best engage residents of the Portland region with the park’s future? What is our responsibility not just to the park but to the greater landscape with which the park is so deeply intertwined? If the Forest Park Conservancy was to live up to its new name, it needed to find its footing among these fundamental questions.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on Authorizing Bonds for Education Building
    Portland State University PDXScholar City Club of Portland Oregon Sustainable Community Digital Library 5-8-1964 Report on Authorizing Bonds for Education Building Program (State Ballot Measure No.1); Report on School District Number One, Multnomah County, Building Fund Serial Tax Levies (Ballot Measure No.3); Report on Multnomah County Special Bond Election (Multnomah County Measure No.2) City Club of Portland (Portland, Or.) Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/oscdl_cityclub Part of the Urban Studies Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation City Club of Portland (Portland, Or.), "Report on Authorizing Bonds for Education Building Program (State Ballot Measure No.1); Report on School District Number One, Multnomah County, Building Fund Serial Tax Levies (Ballot Measure No.3); Report on Multnomah County Special Bond Election (Multnomah County Measure No.2)" (1964). City Club of Portland. 217. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/oscdl_cityclub/217 This Report is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in City Club of Portland by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. P (.) R T L A X I) C I T Y C L U B HULL K T I N 9;s.'i REPORT ON AUTHORIZING BONDS FOR EDUCATION BUILDING PROGRAM (State Ballot Measure No. 1) Purpose: To amend the Constitution to authorize State General Obligation Bonds up to $30 million for building projects. Of this amount $25 million to provide funds for higher education and $5 million for community colleges and education centers.
    [Show full text]