DOCSLIB.ORG

Preliminary Draft

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Preliminary Draft In cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management Alvey-Fairview Transmission Line Rebuild Project Draft Environmental Assessment February 2014 DOE/EA-1891 OR-BLM-OR-C000-2013-0004-EA Alvey-Fairview Transmission Line Rebuild Project Draft Environmental Assessment Bonneville Power Administration In cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management February 2014 Table of Contents Table of Contents Chapter 1. Purpose of and need for the Proposed Action ................................................ 1-1 1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Need for action ................................................................................................ 1-3 1.3 Purposes ........................................................................................................... 1-3 1.4 Cooperating agency ......................................................................................... 1-3 1.5 Public involvement ........................................................................................... 1-4 Chapter 2. Proposed Action and alternatives .................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Proposed Action ............................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Rights-of-way and easements .............................................................. 2-2 2.1.2 Replacement of transmission structures ............................................. 2-4 2.1.3 Conductors, overhead ground wire, and fiber optic cable .................. 2-7 2.1.4 Staging areas and tensioning sites ....................................................... 2-8 2.1.5 Access roads ......................................................................................... 2-9 2.1.6 Vegetation removal ............................................................................2-15 2.1.7 Construction activities........................................................................2-16 2.1.8 Ongoing maintenance and vegetation management ........................2-17 2.2 No Action Alternative .....................................................................................2-18 2.3 Comparison of alternatives ............................................................................2-19 Chapter 3. Affected environment and environmental consequences .............................. 3-1 3.1 Land use and recreation ................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Affected environment .......................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Environmental consequences—Proposed Action................................ 3-6 3.1.3 Environmental consequences—No Action Alternative ....................... 3-9 3.2 Geology and soils ...........................................................................................3-10 3.2.1 Affected environment ........................................................................3-10 3.2.2 Environmental consequences—Proposed Action..............................3-12 3.2.3 Environmental consequences—No Action Alternative .....................3-14 3.3 Vegetation ......................................................................................................3-14 3.3.1 Affected environment ........................................................................3-14 3.3.2 Environmental consequences—Proposed Action..............................3-21 3.3.3 Environmental consequences—No Action Alternative .....................3-23 3.4 Streams and fish .............................................................................................3-23 3.4.1 Affected environment ........................................................................3-23 3.4.2 Environmental consequences—Proposed Action..............................3-28 3.4.3 Environmental consequences—No Action Alternative .....................3-33 3.5 Wetlands, floodplains, and groundwater ......................................................3-33 3.5.1 Affected environment ........................................................................3-33 3.5.2 Environmental consequences—Proposed Action..............................3-37 3.5.3 Environmental consequences—No Action Alternative .....................3-43 3.6 Wildlife ...........................................................................................................3-44 3.6.1 Affected environment ........................................................................3-44 Alvey-Fairview Transmission Line Rebuild Project Draft Environmental Assessment i Table of Contents 3.6.2 Environmental consequences—Proposed Action ............................. 3-45 3.6.3 Environmental consequences—No Action Alternative ..................... 3-50 3.7 Cultural resources .......................................................................................... 3-51 3.7.1 Affected environment ........................................................................ 3-51 3.7.2 Environmental consequences—Proposed Action ............................. 3-54 3.7.3 Environmental consequences—No Action Alternative ..................... 3-56 3.8 Visual quality .................................................................................................. 3-56 3.8.1 Affected environment ........................................................................ 3-56 3.8.2 Environmental consequences—Proposed Action ............................. 3-61 3.8.3 Environmental consequences—No Action Alternative ..................... 3-62 3.9 Socioeconomics and public services .............................................................. 3-63 3.9.1 Affected environment ........................................................................ 3-63 3.9.2 Environmental consequences—Proposed Action ............................. 3-66 3.9.3 Environmental consequences—No Action Alternative ..................... 3-68 3.10 Noise, public health, and safety ..................................................................... 3-68 3.10.1 Affected environment ........................................................................ 3-68 3.10.2 Environmental consequences—Proposed Action ............................. 3-70 3.10.3 Environmental consequences—No Action Alternative ..................... 3-74 3.11 Transportation ............................................................................................... 3-74 3.11.1 Affected environment ........................................................................ 3-74 3.11.2 Environmental consequences—Proposed Action ............................. 3-75 3.11.3 Environmental consequences—No Action Alternative ..................... 3-75 3.12 Air quality ....................................................................................................... 3-76 3.12.1 Affected environment ........................................................................ 3-76 3.12.2 Environmental consequences—Proposed Action ............................. 3-77 3.12.3 Environmental consequences—No Action Alternative ..................... 3-77 3.13 Greenhouse gases .......................................................................................... 3-78 3.13.1 Affected environment ........................................................................ 3-78 3.13.2 Environmental consequences—Proposed Action ............................. 3-80 3.13.3 Environmental consequences—No Action Alternative ..................... 3-84 3.14 Cumulative impact analysis ........................................................................... 3-85 3.14.1 Cumulative impacts ........................................................................... 3-87 3.15 Intentional destructive acts ........................................................................... 3-95 Chapter 4. Environmental consultation, review, and permit requirements ..................... 4-1 4.1 National Environmental Policy Act .................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Vegetation, wildlife, and fish ........................................................................... 4-1 4.2.1 Endangered Species Act ....................................................................... 4-1 4.2.2 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act .................................................................................. 4-2 4.2.3 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act........ 4-3 4.2.4 Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Federal Memorandum of Understanding ..................................................................................... 4-3 4.2.5 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act ....................................... 4-4 Bonneville Power Administration ii February 2014 Table of Contents 4.2.6 Oregon Fish Passage Law ..................................................................... 4-4 4.2.7 Oregon Fish and Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Policy ............................. 4-4 4.3 Water resources ............................................................................................... 4-5 4.4 Wetlands and floodplains protection .............................................................. 4-6 4.5 Cultural and historic resources ........................................................................ 4-7 4.6 Farmland Protection Policy Act ........................................................................ 4-8 4.7 Coastal Zone
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Appendix A: Existing Conditions Inventory and Analysis
    Volume 2 {00 Appendix A: Existing Conditions Inventory and Analysis {00 B FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #1 Eugene Transportation System Plan: Existing Conditions and Deficiencies PREPARED FOR: Eugene TSP Project Management Team PREPARED BY: Mariah VanZerr, CH2M HILL Jessica Roberts, Alta Planning + Design Dana Dickman, Alta Planning + Design Joe Bessman, Kittelson and Associates Serah Breakstone, Angelo Planning Group CC: Theresa Carr, CH2M HILL Julia Kuhn, Kittelson & Associates Matt Hastie, Angelo Planning Group DATE: March 4, 2011 This memorandum describes and analyzes the current (2010) transportation system in Eugene, including existing conditions and deficiencies. The report evaluates the roadway network, public transportation routes and service, bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities, rail facilities, airports, and pipelines within the project study area. This memorandum also describes general land use patterns and major activity centers that generate traffic. The information used to describe the existing system and identify deficiencies in this report came from the City of Eugene, Lane County, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Lane Transit District (LTD) and from the consultant team through a site visit on July 27-28, 2010. While this document attempts to accurately reflect the existing conditions of the transportation system within Eugene, it is not meant to serve as an all-encompassing and comprehensive final assessment. Rather, the document is meant to serve as a starting point for discussion by the broader community,
    [Show full text]
  • Likely to Have Habitat Within Iras That ALLOW Road
    Item 3a - Sensitive Species National Master List By Region and Species Group Not likely to have habitat within IRAs Not likely to have Federal Likely to have habitat that DO NOT ALLOW habitat within IRAs Candidate within IRAs that DO Likely to have habitat road (re)construction that ALLOW road Forest Service Species Under NOT ALLOW road within IRAs that ALLOW but could be (re)construction but Species Scientific Name Common Name Species Group Region ESA (re)construction? road (re)construction? affected? could be affected? Bufo boreas boreas Boreal Western Toad Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Plethodon vandykei idahoensis Coeur D'Alene Salamander Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Rana pipiens Northern Leopard Frog Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Accipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Ammodramus bairdii Baird's Sparrow Bird 1 No No Yes No No Anthus spragueii Sprague's Pipit Bird 1 No No Yes No No Centrocercus urophasianus Sage Grouse Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter Swan Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Falco peregrinus anatum American Peregrine Falcon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Gavia immer Common Loon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Histrionicus histrionicus Harlequin Duck Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Oreortyx pictus Mountain Quail Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Otus flammeolus Flammulated Owl Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides albolarvatus White-Headed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides arcticus Black-Backed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Speotyto cunicularia Burrowing
    [Show full text]
  • Document.Pdf
    SAFEWAY // MCMINNVILLE, OR CORPORATE 20-YEAR ABSOLUTE NET LEASE Offering Memorandum EXCLUSIVELY LISTED BY JOSEPH BLATNER // Senior Vice President 503.200.2029 // [email protected] NON-ENDORSEMENT & DISCLAIMER NOTICE CONFIDENTIALITY & DISCLAIMER The information contained in the following Marketing Brochure is proprietary and strictly confidential. It is intended to be reviewed only by the party receiving it from Marcus & Millichap and should not be made available to any other person or entity without the written consent of Marcus & Millichap. This Marketing Brochure has been prepared to provide summary, unverified information to prospective purchasers, and to establish only a preliminary level of interest in the subject property. The information contained herein is not a substitute for a thorough due diligence investigation. Marcus & Millichap has not made any investigation, and makes no warranty or representation, with respect to the income or expenses for the subject property, the future projected financial performance of the property, the size and square footage of the property and improvements, the presence or absence of contaminating substances, PCB’s or asbestos, the compliance with State and Federal regulations, the physical condition of the improvements thereon, or the financial condition or business prospects of any tenant, or any tenant’s plans or intentions to continue its occupancy of the subject property. The information contained in this Marketing Brochure has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable; however, Marcus & Millichap has not verified, and will not verify, any of the information contained herein, nor has Marcus & Millichap conducted any investigation regarding these matters and makes no warranty or representation whatsoever regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information provided.
    [Show full text]
  • Pre and Post-Fire Monitoring of Kalmiopsis Fragrans on the Umpqua National Forest 2012 Progress Report
    Pre and post-fire monitoring of Kalmiopsis fragrans on the Umpqua National Forest 2012 progress report Prepared by Kelly Amsberry, Amy Golub-Tse, and Robert Meinke for U.S. Forest Service, Umpqua National Forest (No. 04-CS-11061500-027) March 18, 2013 Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Species description ............................................................................................................................. 2 Habitat ................................................................................................................................................ 2 Threats ................................................................................................................................................ 2 Objectives ............................................................................................................................................... 4 Project 1: Wildfire study ......................................................................................................................... 4 Project 2: Prescribed fire study ............................................................................................................. 5 2014 Tasks .............................................................................................................................................. 6 Acknowledgement .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bulletin of the Native Plant Society of Oregon Dedicated to the Enjoyment, Conservation and Study of Oregon’S Native Plants and Habitats
    Bulletin of the Native Plant Society of Oregon Dedicated to the enjoyment, conservation and study of Oregon’s native plants and habitats VOLUME 50, NO. 7 AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2017 2017 Annual Meeting Recap: Land of Umpqua For an in-depth recap and photos of one Roseburg locales, and Wolf Creek. On Susan Carter (botanist with the Rose- of this year’s annual meeting field trips, Saturday, nine trips included hikes to burg BLM office), Marty Stein (USFS visit Tanya Harvey’s “Plants and Places” Beatty Creek, Bilger Ridge, Fall Creek botanist), and Rod Trotter. blog, westerncascades.com/2017/06/21/ Falls, Hemlock Lake, King Mountain, Field trip participants were treated weather-woes-at-hemlock-lake Limpy Rock, Lookout Mountain, Tah- to views of the regionally unique en- NPSO members traveled to the kenitch Dunes, and Twin Lakes. Partici- demic species, including Calochortus Land of Umpqua June 9–11 for the pants at higher locations were treated coxii (crinite mariposa lily, named for 2017 Annual Meeting, jointly hosted by to a little snow (just enough to enhance Marvin Cox), Calochortus umpquaensis the Umpqua Valley and Corvallis Chap- the fun) but those at lower sites found (Umpqua mariposa lily), and Kalmiopsis ters. This location, situated at a “botani- primarily pleasant (if a bit drizzly) fragrans (fragrant kalmiopsis) along with cal crossroads” between the California weather. Sunday’s adventures trekked the threatened Lupinus oreganus (Kin- Floristic Province and the Vancouverian to the North Bank Preserve, Roseburg caid’s lupine). Noting some highlights Floristic Province, combined with par- locales, Wolf Creek, Beatty Creek, and from one trip, Gail Baker reports from ticular geological formations, allowed Bilger Ridge.
    [Show full text]
  • Relations Between Geology and Mass Movement Features in a Part of the East Fork Coquille River Watershed, Southern Coast Range, Oregon
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Jeffrey W. Lane for the degree of Master of Science in Geology presented on May 19, 1987 Title: Relations Between Geology and Mass Movement Features in a Part of the East Fork Coquille River Watershed, Southern Coast Range, Oregon Signature redacted for privacy. Abstract Approved: Frederick J. Swanson ABSTRACT Various types of mass movement features are found in the drainage basin of the East Fork Coquille River in the southern Oregon Coast Range. The distribution and forms of mass movement features in the area are related to geologic factors and the resultant topography. The Jurassic Otter Point Formation, a melange of low-grade metamor- phic and marine sedimentary rocks, is present in scattered outcrops in the southwest portion of the study area but is not extensive. The Tertiary Roseburg Formation consists primarily of bedded siltstone and is compressed into a series of west to northwest-striking folds. The overlying Lookingglass, Flournoy, and Tyee Formations consist of rhyth- mically bedded sandstone and siltstone units with an east to northeast- erly dip of 5-15°decreasing upward in the stratigraphic section. The units form cuesta ridges with up to 2000 feet of relief. The distribution of mass movements is demonstrably related to the bedrock geology and the study area topography. Debris avalanches are more common on the steep slopes underlain by Flournoy Formation and Tyee Formation sandstones, on the obsequent slope of cuesta ridges, and on north-facing slopes. Soil creep occurs throughout the study area and may be the pri- mary mass movement form in siltstone terrane, though soil creep was not studied in detail.
    [Show full text]
  • Iamp) Project Management
    L AND USE PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROJECT MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM LAND USE PLANNING Technical Memorandum #1: Plans and Policies ReviewTRANSPORTATION (Task 3.3)PLANNING Exit 30 Interchange Area Management Plan (IAMP) PROJECT MANAGEMENT DATE December 18, 2019 LAND USE PLANNING TO Matt Hughart and Matt Bell, Kittelson & Associates TRANSPORTATION PLANNING FROM Darci Rudzinski, Clinton “CJ” Doxsee, and Courtney Simms, Angelo PlanningPROJECT Group MANAGEMENT CC Project Management Team LAND USE PLANNING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING OVERVIEW PROJECT MANAGEMENT Pursuant to the scope of work (Task 3.3), this memorandum presents a reviewL of A N existing D US E PLANNINGplans, regulations, agreements, and policies that affect transportation planningTRANSPORTATION in the study area PLANNING for the City of Medford and ODOT I-5 Exit 30 Interchange Area Management Plan (IAMP)PROJECT. The MANAGEMENT review explains the relationship between the documents and planning in this area, identifying key issues to track through the IAMP development process. LAND USE PLANNING Documents in this review establish transportation-related standards, targets,TRANSPORTATION and guidelines PLANNING as well as transportation improvements with which the IAMP shall coordinate and be consistent. Other PROJECT MANAGEMENT documents in this review – such as the City of Medford Transportation System Plan (TSP) and Land Development Code (LDC) – may be subject to future recommended amendments in order to implement the IAMP. Once the IAMP and implementing ordinances are completed,LAND itUSE is expected PLANNING that the City will adopt key elements of the IAMP as a refinement to theTRANSPORTATION Medford TSP before PLANNING the IAMP is considered by the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) for adoption.PROJECT Upon MANAGEMENT adoption by the OTC, the IAMP becomes an amendment to the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP).
    [Show full text]
  • Standard Format
    Attachment 3 Jurisdictional Transfer Agreement No. 828 JURISDICTIONAL TRANSFER AGREEMENT Territorial Highway (Mile Point 2.03 to Mile Point 42.08) Section Oregon Route 200 (OR 200) County of Lane THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the STATE OF OREGON, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "State,” or “ODOT;" and LANE COUNTY, acting by and through its elected officials, hereinafter referred to as "County," both herein referred to individually or collectively as “Party” or “Parties.” RECITALS 1. Territorial Highway is under the jurisdiction and control of the Oregon Transportation Commission (hereinafter “OTC”). Territorial Highway, State Highway number 200 is also designated as State Route OR 200. State Bridge number 04037 is located at mile point 4.59, State Bridge number 04042 is located at mile point 7.07, State Bridge number 04049 is located at mile point 17.92, State Bridge number 04050A is located at mile point 18.72, State Bridge number 01699A is located at mile point 18.98, State Bridge number 01700A is located at mile point 19.28, State Bridge number 07271 is located at mile point 25.49, and State Bridge number 04059 is located at mile point 37.93 on Territorial Highway. 2. By the authority granted in Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 190.110, 366.572 and 366.576, State may enter into cooperative agreements with counties, cities and units of local governments for the performance of work on certain types of improvement projects with the allocation of costs on terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the contracting Parties.
    [Show full text]
  • Mitigation Measures That BPA and Its Contractors Are Committed to Implementing
    Alvey-Fairview Transmission Line Rebuild Project Finding of No Significant Impact Bonneville Power Administration DOE/EA-1891 May 2014 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Summary Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) announces its environmental findings for the Alvey-Fairview Transmission Line Rebuild Project. The project involves rebuilding the existing 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line that runs from Eugene to Coquille, Oregon. The aging, 97.5-mile-long line requires replacement of its wood-pole structures and other line components and needs improvements to its access road system. BPA has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) evaluating the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. Based on the analysis in the EA, BPA has determined that the Proposed Action is not a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 United States Code [USC] 4321 et seq.). Therefore, the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required and BPA is issuing this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action is not the type of action that normally requires preparation of an EIS and is not without precedent. The comments received on the Draft EA and responses to the comments are included in the Final EA. The Final EA also identifies changes made to the Draft EA. Attached is a Mitigation Action Plan that lists all the mitigation measures that BPA and its contractors are committed to implementing. The FONSI also includes a statement of findings on how the Proposed Action impacts wetlands and floodplains.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 OREGON ACTION PLAN for Implementation of Department Of
    2020 OREGON ACTION PLAN For Implementation of Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 3362: “Improving Habitat Quality in Western Big-Game Winter Range and Migration Corridors” Introduction Secretarial Order 3362 (SO3362) directs appropriate bureaus (US Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], National Park Service [NPS], and Bureau of Land Management [BLM]) within the Department of the Interior (DOI) to work in close partnership with the State of Oregon to enhance and improve the quality of big-game winter range and migration corridor habitat on Federal lands under the management jurisdiction of the DOI in a way that recognizes state authority to conserve and manage big-game species and respects private property rights. Through scientific endeavors and land management actions, wildlife such as Rocky Mountain Elk (elk), Mule Deer (deer), Pronghorn Antelope (pronghorn), and a host of other species will benefit. Conditions in the broader landscape influence the function of migration corridors and sustainability of big game populations. Such conditions may include habitat fragmentation, land use patterns, resource management, or urbanization. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), through the USDA Forest Service (USFS) and USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), will collaborate with DOI, the states, and other natural resource managers across the broader landscape when developing an all-lands approach to research, planning, and management for ecological resources, to include migration corridors in a manner that promotes the welfare and populations of elk, deer, and pronghorn, as well as the ecological integrity of terrestrial ecosystems in Oregon. There are just over 62 million acres of land in Oregon, of which approximately 51% (31.9 million acres) is either DOI or Forest Service (USFS) managed.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix F.7
    APPENDIX F.7 Biological Evaluation Appendix F.7 Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project Biological Evaluation March 2019 Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. Reviewed and Approved by: USDA Forest Service BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION This page intentionally left blank BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES .................................................... 1 PRE-FIELD REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 4 RESULTS OF FIELD SURVEYS ...................................................................................... 4 SPECIES IMPACT DETERMINATION SUMMARY .......................................................... 5 DETAILED EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION ON SPECIES CONSIDERED ............ 25 6.1 Global Discussion ........................................................................................................ 25 6.1.1 Analysis Areas and Current Environment ............................................................. 25 6.1.2 Impacts .................................................................................................................. 33 6.1.3 Conservation Measures and Mitigation ................................................................. 62 6.2 Species Accounts and Analysis of Impacts ................................................................. 63 6.2.1 Mammals ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • CITY COUNCIL December 10, 2013 Council Chambers • 777 SW Deschutes Avenue
    CITY HALL 716 SW EVERGREEN AVE REDMOND, OR 97756 541.923.7710 FAX: 541.548.0706 www.ci.redmond.or.us CITY COUNCIL December 10, 2013 Council Chambers • 777 SW Deschutes Avenue COUNCIL MEMBERS DECEMBER 10, 2013 REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 7:00 P.M. George Endicott I. CALL TO ORDER / ESTABLISH A QUORUM Mayor II. INVOCATION Tory Allman A. Pastor Michael Dismore, Central Oregon Police Chaplaincy Councilor III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Joe Centanni Councilor IV. COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS AT THE MEETING Camden King V. MAJOR REDMOND STREET CONSTRUCTION UPDATE Councilor VI. CONSENT AGENDA Ginny McPherson A. Minutes of November 12, 2013, P.M. Council Meeting Exhibit 1 Councilor B. Minutes of November 25, 2013, Special P.M. Council Workshop Exhibit 2 C. Minutes of November 26, 2013, Special P.M. Council Workshop Exhibit 3 Ed Onimus D. Minutes of November 26, 2013, P.M. Council Meeting Exhibit 4 Councilor E. Air Service Agreement with American Airlines Exhibit 5 F. Re-Approval of City Investment Policy, FIN 111 - Investments Exhibit 6 G. Change Order with Povey and Associates Land Surveyors for Exhibit 7 Jay Patrick Councilor the Homestead Canal Trail Survey Project H. Healthcare Preparedness Program Grant Award Exhibit 8 VII. ACTION ITEMS A. 27th Street Roundabout Public Art Project Proposal Exhibit 9 VIII. PRESENTATIONS A. Economic Development for Central Oregon, Roger Lee IX. BID AWARD / BID REJECTION A. SW Timber Avenue 18” Transmission Main Exhibit 10 X. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Ord. #2013-15 – An ordinance amending the City of Redmond Exhibit 11 Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, to adopt the Central Oregon Large Lot Industrial Land Need Analysis as a reference document, with associated Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies added to Chapter 9, Economic Development and Chapter 14, Urbanization.
    [Show full text]