DOCSLIB.ORG

Peregrine Falcon Management Plan 2002-2007

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Peregrine Falcon Management Plan 2002-2007 Oregon Department of Transportation Peregrine Falcon Management Plan 2002-2007 Prepared By: Environmental Services 1158 Chemeketa St. SE Salem, OR 97301 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................................1 1.1 OVERVIEW....................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 STATUS OF PEREGRINE FALCON................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 PURPOSE OF THIS MANAGEMENT PLAN...................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 MANAGEMENT PLAN OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................................... 4 1.5 MANAGEMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................................................... 5 2.0 PEREGRINE FALCON ECOLOGY...........................................................................................................................6 2.1 LIFE HISTORY.................................................................................................................................................................. 6 2.2 NESTING CHRONOLOGY................................................................................................................................................. 7 2.3 URBAN HABITAT ............................................................................................................................................................ 8 2.4 DISTURBANCE IMPACTS............................................................................................................................................... 11 3.0 CONSERVATION METHODS...................................................................................................................................12 3.1 PAST CONSERVATION MEASURES.............................................................................................................................. 12 3.2 MANAGEMENT ZONES.................................................................................................................................................. 13 3.3 GENERAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES.............................................................................................................. 15 4.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.......................................................................................................................................19 4.1 COMMUNICATION......................................................................................................................................................... 19 4.2 MONITORING................................................................................................................................................................. 19 4.3 REPORTING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................. 20 4.4 INTERNAL REVIEWS AND TRAINING.......................................................................................................................... 21 5.0 SITE-SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT............................................................................................................................21 5.1 FREMONT BRIDGE......................................................................................................................................................... 22 5.1.1 Baseline Conditions............................................................................................................................................ 22 5.1.2 Management Zones for Fremont Bridge ......................................................................................................... 23 5.1.3 Past Disturbances at the Fremont Bridge........................................................................................................ 23 5.1.4 Potential Impacts from Maintenance and Construction Activities ............................................................. 23 5.1.5 Monitoring at the Fremont Bridge.................................................................................................................... 24 5.2 ST. JOHNS BRIDGE ........................................................................................................................................................ 25 5.2.1 Baseline Conditions............................................................................................................................................ 25 5.2.2 Management Zones for St. Johns Bridge ........................................................................................................ 26 5.2.3 Past Disturbances at the St. Johns Bridge....................................................................................................... 26 5.2.4 Potential Impacts from Future Maintenance Activities ................................................................................ 26 5.2.5 Potential Impacts from Future Construction Activities ................................................................................ 27 5.2.6 Monitoring at the St. Johns Bridge................................................................................................................... 28 5.3 I-205 (ABERNETHY) BRIDGE ...................................................................................................................................... 28 5.3.1 Baseline Conditions............................................................................................................................................ 28 5.3.2 Management Zones for Abernethy Bridge...................................................................................................... 29 5.3.3 Past Disturbance at the Abernethy Bridge...................................................................................................... 29 5.3.4 Potential Impacts from Maintenance Activities............................................................................................. 30 5.3.5 Potential Impacts From Future Construction Activities ............................................................................... 31 5.3.6 Monitoring at the Abernethy Bridge................................................................................................................ 31 5.4 INTERSTATE (COLUMBIA RIVER) BRIDGE................................................................................................................. 32 5.4.1 Baseline Conditions............................................................................................................................................ 32 5.4.2 Management Zones for Interstate Bridge........................................................................................................ 33 5.4.3 Past Disturbance at the Interstate Bridge ........................................................................................................ 33 5.4.4 Potential Impacts from Maintenance Activities............................................................................................. 34 5.4.5 Potential Impacts from Future Construction Activities ................................................................................ 35 5.4.6 Monitoring at the Interstate Bridge.................................................................................................................. 36 ODOT Peregrine Falcon Management Plan (Abbreviated) ii 6.0 OVERALL IMPACTS ...................................................................................................................................................36 7.0 NEST MANAGEMENT.................................................................................................................................................37 7.1 NEST EXCLUSION.......................................................................................................................................................... 38 7.2 NEST MANIPULATION .................................................................................................................................................. 38 8.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................................39 LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Portland Area Bridges Managed by ODOT with Peregrine Falcon Nests ........................Not Included Figure 2. Photographs of Peregrine Falcons .................................................................................Not Included Figure 3. Implementation of Best Management Practices and Coordination................................................... 18 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Ownership of Columbia River Bridges...........................................................................................3 Table 2 General Nest Chronology for Peregrine Falcons in the Portland Metropolitan Area...........................7 Table 3 Summary of Productivity of Portland Bridges Peregrine Nesting Sites Since 1994. ......................... 10 Cover Photographs: Historic Columbia River Highway
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Draft Constrained Project List Projects Are Listed Alphabetically by County and Nominating Agency
    2018 Regional Transportation Plan Constrained Project List - Public Review Draft Draft Constrained Project List Projects are listed alphabetically by County and nominating agency. Included in Financially Nominating 2018 RTP Estimated Cost Constrained RTP Investment County Agency Primary Facility Owner Time Period ID Project Name Start location End location Description (2016 dollars) project list Category Primary Purpose Clackamas County Clackamas County Clackamas County 2018-2027 11774 Johnson Creek Blvd and Bell Ave Johnson Creek NA Improve intersection of Johnson Creek Blvd and $ 1,500,000 Yes Active Reduce fatal and Intersection Safety Improvements Blvd/Bell Ave Bell Ave to improve intersection safety by Transportation severe injury crashes (TSAP) intersection implementing proven safety counter measures for bicyclist and pedestrians as identified in county Transportation Safety Action Plan and improve ADA accessibility. No change in intersection capacity. Clackamas County Clackamas County ODOT 2018-2027 10018 82nd Ave. Bike and Ped Safety Monterey Ave. Sunnybrook Blvd. Improve safety for bike and pedestrian system $ 1,745,000 Yes Active Reduce fatal and Improvements by completing gaps and implementing proven Transportation severe injury crashes safety counter measures at identified locations within the corridor. Improve ADA accessibility. Clackamas County Clackamas County ODOT 2018-2027 10024 McLoughlin Blvd. Improvement Milwaukie Gladstone Improve safety for bicyclist and pedestrians by $ 7,685,000 Yes Active Reduce fatal and adding bikeways, pedestrian facilities, fill Transportation severe injury crashes sidewalk gaps, add transit supportive elements, improve ADA accessibility, and implementing proven safety counter measures. Clackamas County Clackamas County NCPRD 2018-2027 10085 Lake Oswego Oak Grove Bike Ped Willamette Shoreline Trolley Trail Improve safety and mobility for bicyclists and $ 21,536,380 Yes Active Increase travel Bridge Over the Willamette River pedestrians by constructing a bike/pedestrian Transportation options/alt.
    [Show full text]
  • Region 1 Washington, Multnomah, Clackamas and Hood River Counties
    Oregon Department of Transportation News Release Region 1 Washington, Multnomah, Clackamas and Hood River Counties Dec. 31, 2020 21-01 For more information: Katelyn Jackson, 503-731-8503 [email protected] Weekly Construction Update: January 2-9, 2020* *Schedules are subject to change due to weather and site conditions. The following highways have projects included in this week’s construction report. Scroll down to see traffic impacts in the following order (interstate, U.S., and state highways). For updated information on highway work and current travel information throughout Oregon, visit www.tripcheck.com or call the Oregon road report at 511 or 1-800-977-6368. For more information about Region 1 area road construction visit www.Oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/REGION1/Pages/WeeklyConstructionUpdate/WeeklyConstructionUpdate.aspx Jan. 2-9, 2020 Weekly Construction Update Page 2 of 5 Interstate 5 – Pacific Highway – Interstate Bridge Trunnion Replacement (20T062475) Project Description: The northbound span of the Interstate Bridge closed from Sept. 19-27, 2020 as crews replaced mechanical parts that help lift and lower the bridge. The Interstate Bridge is located on I-5 where it connects Oregon and Washington across the Columbia River. Traffic Impacts: Periodic nighttime lane closures in both directions of I-5 and on I-205 over the Glenn Jackson Bridge. Project website: www.interstatebridge.org Interstate 5 – Pacific Highway – Rose Quarter Investigations Project Description: This project will conduct hazardous materials and soil sampling in the I-5 Rose Quarter Improvement Project area along I-5. Traffic Impacts: Single lane closure on I-5 south between Weidler Street and I-84 Monday through Friday.
    [Show full text]
  • 5 Ch3 Environmental Analysis
    3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND CONSEQUENCES This chapter discusses the environmental CHAPTER CONTENTS analysis and effects associated with the proposed project, including the development 3.1 ACQUISITIONS AND DISPLACEMENTS ................................... 3-2 3.2 LAND USE AND ECONOMY ............................................... 3-10 and operation of light rail and the 3.3 COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT .................................... 3-50 completion of the streetcar loop. The chapter 3.4 VISUAL QUALITY AND AESTHETICS .................................... 3-75 includes seventeen sections, covering topics 3.5 HISTORIC, ARCHAEOLOGICAL, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES . 3-100 including multiple aspects of the built 3.6 PARKS AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES ......................... 3-119 3.7 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND GROUNDWATER ........................... 3-131 environment (e.g., acquisitions and 3.8 ECOSYSTEMS ............................................................. 3-140 displacements, land use), the natural 3.9 WATER QUALITY AND HYDROLOGY .................................. 3-177 environment (e.g., ecosystems, water 3.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION ................................................ 3-198 quality), historic and cultural resources, and 3.11 AIR QUALITY ............................................................. 3-241 safety and security. 3.12 ENERGY ANALYSIS ..................................................... 3-249 3.13 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ............................................. 3-253 Each section in this chapter provides an 3.14 UTILITIES
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation
    Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation This chapter describes the affected environment Wildlife (Section 3.18) in the proposed project area and the anticipated environmental consequences for the No Build Noise (Section 3.19) Alternative and Build alternatives—Alternatives Energy (Section 3.20) A, B, C, D, E, and D Refined (the preferred alternative). This section also includes ways to Air Quality (Section 3.21) mitigate for potential impacts to the social and Hazardous Materials (Section 3.22) natural environments. (Appendix G provides a summary of proposed and committed mitigation For more information about each of these and environmental measures.) resources and the impacts to them, please see the technical reports, which are listed in The impacts are analyzed for the following social Appendix D of this Final Environmental Impact and natural environmental resource topics: Statement (FEIS). These technical reports are Transportation (Section 3.1) available upon request. This chapter summarizes these technical reports, which are incorporated Bicyclists and Pedestrians (Section 3.2) by reference into this chapter. In addition, this Right-of-way and Relocation (Section 3.3) chapter includes information about the relationship of short-term uses of the Utilities (Section 3.4) environment and long-term productivity (Section 3.23), the irreversible and irretrievable Land Use (Section 3.5) commitment of resources (Section 3.24), and Economic (Section 3.6) cumulative impacts (Section 3.25). Social Elements (Section 3.7) 3.1 Transportation Environmental Justice (Section 3.8) The transportation analysis considers roadways, transit, navigation of the Willamette River, and Parks and Recreation (Section 3.9) railroad/trolley tracks in the project area.
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment D Comments Received
    Attachment D Comments Received D.6 EMAILS I-205 Toll Project Emails to Project Inbox EMAILS Date received: 08/04/2020 Source: Web Comment Form Communication: seems like my ever-increasing taxes have paid for these roads and their maintenance already... why do we need tolls? Date received: 08/04/2020 Source: Web Comment Form Communication: ?? Toll Date received: 08/05/2020 Source: Web Comment Form Communication: Highway 213 south of 205 is already a divided highway, and could easily be expanded as an extension of 205 to south of Canby and Woodburn. This would reduce traffic on the heavy volume sections of both 205 and I-5, and would also entirely avoid a costly Willamette river bridge crossing pricetag. Date received: 08/05/2020 Source: Web Comment Form Communication: Hi, I was traveling through the Portland area recently and believe I triggered the auto-bill for a toll booth that was unmanned and not taking the usual cash payment (I assume due to covid). Ho do I tender payment for that toll? I am driving a black Ford Explorer, with Arkansas personal plates :XTF. Regards Robert Oram Date received: 08/04/2020 Source: Email to Project Inbox Communication: Subject: Self-driving cars and work from home after COVID-19 I-205 Toll Project| Page 1 How have your traffic projections been modified to reflect the transportation revolution that will be brought about by the self-driving car? How have your traffic projections been modified to reflect the anticipated increase in work from home after COVID-19? Date received: 08/04/2020 Source: Email to Project Inbox Communication: Subject: Tolls on 205 Tolls will NOT diminish traffic.
    [Show full text]
  • Pedestrian-Bicycle Bridge Concept Plan WEST a STREET
    Historic Footbridge between Oregon City and West Linn: 1888 June 2021 Oregon City-West Linn Pedestrian-Bicycle Bridge Concept Plan WEST A STREET I-205 West Linn WILLAMETTE FALLS DRIVE UPSTREAM CORRIDOR MOORES ISLAND WILLAMETTE FALLS 2 | Oregon City-West Linn I-205 ABERNETHY BRIDGE I-205 DOWNSTREAM CORRIDOR OR 99E HISTORIC ARCH BRIDGE WILLAMETTE RIVER MAIN STREET Oregon City Pedestrian-Bicycle Bridge Concept Plan | 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project was a collaborative effort between the state, region, and local partner regulatory agencies, stakeholders, and the public. Project Partners Project Leadership Team Technical Committee • Councilor Mary Baumgardner, City of West Linn City Council • ODOT Staff: Magnus Bernhardt, Thomas Braibish, Justin Brandon, Jeffrey Buckland, Raymond Chong, Sarah Eastman, • Councilor Christine Lewis, Metro Council Robert Hadlow, Zachary Horowitz, David McDonald, David • Commissioner Denyse McGriff, Oregon City Commission Mendelson, Teresa Nowicki, Festus Obijiofor, Jennifer Pearce, James Wasch • Commissioner Paul Savas, Clackamas County Board of Commissioners • Oregon City Staff: James Graham, John Lewis • Rian Windsheimer, Region 1 Manager, ODOT • Oregon Metro Staff: Alex Gilbertson Project Advisory Committee Consultant Team • Pamela Barlow-Lind, Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. • Kat Brigham, Confederated Tribes of Umatilla Indian • Marc Butorac, PE, PTOE, PMP, Project Manager Reservation • Susan Wright, PE, Project Principal • Kate Buehrig, Community at-large, Student/Youth
    [Show full text]
  • S O U Th E A
    PORTLAND BIKE/WALK MAP SOUTHEAST OBEY ALL SIGNS AND TRAFFIC LIGHTS AVOID ROAD HAZARDS RIDE CONSISTENTLY DRESS APPROPRIATELY USE CAUTION WHEN PASSING University of Western States Bicycling Walking, Transit and More People on bicycles, like other Watch for sewer grates, slippery Ride as close as practical to the Wear a hard-shell helmet Motorists may not see you on their vehicle operators, must obey manhole covers, oily pavement, right. Exceptions: when travelling whenever you ride (required by right, so stay out of the driver’s Multi-use path, paved Difficult connection Pedestrian path/trail Grocery store (use caution, use sidewalk, traffic regulations. Never ride gravel and ice. Cross railroad at the normal speed of traffic, law for cyclists under 16 years “blind spot.” Be very careful when (no motor vehicles) or find a different route) Stairs Heritage tree against traffic. tracks at right angles. For better avoiding hazardous conditions, old). Wear light-colored clothes at overtaking cars while in a bike Neighborhood Greenway/ control as you move across preparing to make a left turn, night. Make yourself as visible as lane; drivers don’t always signal signed and marked route Difficult intersection Bus route/stops Hospital bumps and other hazards, stand or using a one-way street. possible. when turning. Also be alert for car (use caution) Shared roadway Streetcar route/stops Library up on your pedals. doors opening and cars pulling out Steep hill (lower traffic street) MAX route/stops Point of interest 8 from sidestreets or driveways. 9 Bike lane BIKETOWN
    [Show full text]
  • Portland's 1912 Steel Bridge: Setting the Standard for Multi-Modal Transport
    Portland’s 1912 Steel Bridge: Setting the Standard for Multi-modal Transport BY JIM TALBOT The world’s only known working telescoping dual-lift truss bridge is soon to begin its second century of service to the community. IN THE MID-19TH CENTURY, the Columbia and Willamette Riv- ers carried major seagoing traffic to and from the inland port city Jim Talbot is a freelance of Portland, Ore. As Portland grew to be a major shipping port for technical writer living wheat, lumber, and other commodities, these two major rivers run- in Ambler, Pa. ning through the city presented major obstacles to local travel. By 1853, ferry service began across the Willamette River, but not until 1887 did the first Morrison timber bridge with a wrought-iron swing span cross the Willamette. It was followed a year later by the original Steel Bridge, a double-deck swing-span railroad bridge. Its name derived from the fact that in 1888 steel represented an unusual bridge-building material. The additional bridges that followed contributed greatly to the growth of Portland, which by 1900 had grown to 90,000 inhabitants. A Replacement Steel Bridge Early in the 20th century, the Oregon Railway and Navigation Company, which today is the Union Pacific, and the Southern Rail- road made plans to replace the original Steel Bridge. Although the intent was to carry only passenger and freight trains, the city insisted MODERN STEEL CONSTRUCTION MARCH 2012 ➤ The Steel Bridge, Portland, Ore. engineer John Lyle Harrington, designed the $1.7 million 1912 replacement as a through-truss, double-deck, double-lift steel bridge.
    [Show full text]
  • Tom's Tidbits Our Feature Articles
    Tom's Tidbits Comparing apples and oranges Our Feature Articles . Remembering Hiroshima Car of the Future Weeknight at Bernie’s 70 years since the world Our Sellwood Park Concert Our Reporter Goes Undercover changed forever winners At The July 29 House Party Our Monthly Columns . "What NOW?!!" Toons Humorousness News To Make You Furious Keith Tucker’s Toon-of-the-Month It’s history… and FOX is there Vacation Vexation Drew’s Kitchen Popcorn Shorts Flank steak tacos with avocado Cool and important stuff that's too and red onion salad short for a big article Shop Talk Changing the way you look at Spotlight on our Referral Reward the world Hiking and biking along the Health Notes- Oregon Coast Is it a disease or a profit center? Breaking the ice on climate Sellwood Bridge Update change Trivia and the new light Ten craziest physical feats accomplished with a car Book Spotlight “Last Train From Hiroshima” by Charles Pellegrino Tom’s Tidbits Comparing apples and oranges Greetings! We’re still 16 months out from the Presidential election, but it sure didn’t look like it last week. There’s no shortage of things to talk about concerning the Republican debates, but I was more struck by the contrast between the primary candidates on the Democratic side. Put the specifics of policy aside and just look at Hillary’s and Bernie’s approach to fundraising… who better represents the political process you want to see? Scenario 1- Hillary squeezed Portland in between similar events at the homes of supporters in Park City, UT, and Atherton, CA.
    [Show full text]
  • Seismic Vulnerability of Oregon State Highway Bridges: Mitigation Strategies to Reduce Major Mobility Risks
    Portland State University PDXScholar Civil and Environmental Engineering Faculty Publications and Presentations Civil and Environmental Engineering 11-2009 Seismic Vulnerability of Oregon State Highway Bridges: Mitigation Strategies to Reduce Major Mobility Risks Albert Nako Oregon Department of Transportation Craig Shike Oregon Department of Transportation Jan Six Oregon Department of Transportation Bruce Johnson Oregon Department of Transportation Peter Dusicka Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cengin_fac Part of the Civil Engineering Commons, Structural Engineering Commons, and the Transportation EngineeringSee next page Commons for additional authors Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Citation Details Nako, Albert; Shike, Craig; Six, Jan; Johnson, Bruce; Dusicka, Peter; and Mehary, Selamawit Tesfayesus, "Seismic Vulnerability of Oregon State Highway Bridges: Mitigation Strategies to Reduce Major Mobility Risks" (2009). Civil and Environmental Engineering Faculty Publications and Presentations. 339. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cengin_fac/339 This Report is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Civil and Environmental Engineering Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. Authors Albert Nako, Craig Shike, Jan Six, Bruce Johnson, Peter Dusicka, and Selamawit Tesfayesus Mehary This report
    [Show full text]
  • Public Works June 20, 2019 Metro Regional Flexible Funds Allocation Committee 600 NE Grand Avenue Portland, OR 97232-2736 Re
    Public Works 625 Center Street | Oregon City OR 97045 Ph (503) 657-0891 | Fax (503) 657-7892 June 20, 2019 Metro Regional Flexible Funds Allocation Committee 600 NE Grand Avenue Portland, OR 97232-2736 Re: 2022-2024 Regional Flexible Funds Allocation Application Willamette Falls Shared Use Path & OR 99E Corridor Enhancement Project Dear Committee Members: The City of Oregon City is pleased to be submitting this application for a Metro Regional Flexible Funds Allocation. Our application is for Willamette Falls Shared Use Path & OR 99E Corridor Enhancement Project, an Active Transportation Project located in downtown Oregon City. The scope of work is for Project Development, which will include Alternatives Identification & Evaluation, Preliminary Design (30%), Stakeholder Engagement and Environmental Clearances. In 2005 the included McLoughlin Boulevard Enhancement Plan was adopted. This plan completed the Planning Phase as well as Alternatives Identification & Evaluation for the corridor. The City has successfully implemented the first two phases of McLoughlin Boulevard, using this plan. This remaining portion of the McLoughlin Boulevard Enhancement Plan located between 10th Street and the tunnel has been the most complicated to complete as it is interwoven with the OR 99E viaducts. As replacement of the viaduct seems to be falling off any future project lists, Oregon City sees a vital need take a step back and re-evaluate options to complete the remaining critical pedestrian & bicycle gaps along this corridor. In 2005 the plan assumed the viaducts would be replaced in the near future, which would have allowed the cross sections identified in the 2005 plan to be implemented between 8th Street & 10th Street.
    [Show full text]
  • Email, Comment Form and Voicemails
    Portland Area Value Pricing Feasibility Analysis Summer 2018 Community Engagement Summary Report VERBATIM COMMENTS: EMAIL, COMMENT FORM AND VOICEMAILS The following table includes comments submitted via email, online comment form, in writing at PAC meeting #6 and the special OTC meeting on July 12, or via voicemail. All information submitted as part of the comment (including the subject line, if provided) is presented below exactly as submitted. No grammatical or spelling edits have been made. Email addresses, phone numbers and personal addresses have been removed for privacy. In addition to email, voicemail and in-person events, members of the public could submit comments through three different online comment forms. Two of these forms included a subject line field, while the third did not. Date Communication Contacts Source 06/20 The West Linn/Wilsonville area will be negatively impacted by the new tolling idea. Danny Comment With no alternative route available for I-205, we WILL see hundreds if not thousands of Schreiber form cars diverted to using our neighborhood streets to avoid the toll. Large parts of West Linn lack any options for public transit, especially buses or trains, so we lack alternative ways for travel. Many of our streets have no lanes for bikes either, so those are not options for safety. Finally, the biggest negative impact will be on the many families with financial difficulties since they will not be able to afford these tolls. According to many studies, at least 1/3 of the funds raised by the tolls will go to the collection of the tolls themselves.
    [Show full text]