Attendees Karl Kment, Cecil Jaksha, Brian Carlstrom, Michael Morneault, Mike Clark, Roger Kauble, Mike Doke, Mayor Brian Prigel, Rodger Ford, and Jennifer Donnelly.
Management Team/StaffDale Robins, Michael Ray, Faye Jenkins-Edwards, Chuck Green, Mike Traffalis, Paul Korsmo, and Matt Hastie.
(Matt Hastie, Cogan Owens Cogan)
(Paul Korsmo, Entranco)
Paul Korsmo summarized activities undertaken on the project since the last meeting of the Advisory Committee:
- Staff has been preparing Technical Reports that describe results of technical analysis of potential impacts of bridge alternatives on natural and other resources. Draft reports were completed in late February. Paul distributed and briefly summarized an overview of report highlights for the Advisory Committee (handout #1)
- The Resource Regulatory Committee (RRC) met on February 13 to review results of the technical analysis, discuss the schedule for preparation and review of the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), and participate in a site field review of alternatives .
- Some RRC representatives have reviewed and commented on the Technical Reports.
- The Management Team met on April 15 to review Technical Reports, discuss and evaluate alternatives, and recommend a preliminary preferred alternative
Paul described the following upcoming activities:
- A public open house is scheduled for May 15 to review the initial analysis and comparison of the alternatives and comment on the preliminary preferred alternative.
- The Technical Reports will be used as the basis for preparing a preliminary draft DEIS.
- A preliminary internal review of the DEIS will be completed in early June and July by the Management Team.
- Members of the project’s Resource Regulatory Committee (RRC) and other state and federal agencies will review a revised preliminary draft of the DEIS
- The DEIS will be available for official public review this fall during a formal comment period and at a public open house/hearing.
- The project team will respond to comments and refine the DEIS based on public review.
- If funding is available, a Final EIS (FEIS) will be prepared, possibly beginning sometime next year.
Paul noted that the project team is presenting the Advisory Committee with a recommended preferred alternative for their review and opinion. This step (recommending a preferred alternative) is not required but can be beneficial by giving the public an indication of what direction the study is taking at the Public Open House.
Question: Do we evaluate a different set of alternatives in each tier?
Answer: The study started out with five corridors and has been narrowed down to one corridor and three alignment alternatives. This corridor and the three alternatives will be summarized in the DEIS.
Question: Will the DEIS focus on this corridor?
Answer: Yes.
(Paul Korsmo, Entranco and Chuck Green, PB)
Paul summarized the results of the technical analysis and comparison of alternatives (handout 2). A similar set of criteria was used as in the previous screenings. The shaded areas on the Summary of Alternatives Evaluation are components of the purpose and need statement. Chuck remarked that we have provided more detailed information about transportation related details in this stage of the project.
Review of Matrix:
Chuck discussed the following transportation impacts of the alternatives:
- Vehicle miles traveled for EC1 is different because of the Dock Grade connection and out of direction travel.
- Travel time is different than Vehicle miles traveled. Under the no-action alternative, there would be high delay at the I-84 ramps with no improvements. If roundabouts or signals are installed, it would improve the situation. EC1 provides improvements at Dock Grade necessary to implement that alternative that are not required with the EC2 and EC3 alternatives. These affect the cost of EC1.
Question: What kind of grade separation will be designed at the intersection of Dock Grade?
Answer: SR 14 would be raised slightly. It will be a signalized intersection and Dock Grade will be improved.
Question: Won’t the improvements to Dock Grade be expensive?
Answer: Yes. Our analysis assumes $5M for the intersection improvements and improving Dock Grade to an adequate two-lane road built to current design standards. This would include excavation and bank stabilization on one or both sides of the road.
Comments: The proposed improvements will meet minimum clearance standards. There is a limited truck weight on the bridge now and the lanes are narrow. The no build alternative would have high transportation impacts because of expected future delays, inadequate bicycle/pedestrian facilities, and limited capacity to handle truck traffic. The grade of EC2 would delay truck traffic. Bike and pedestrians mobility on EC1 received a medium rating because the grade of Dock Grande would make bicycle and pedestrian travel more difficult for this alternative, compared to EC2 and EC3. No no-action alternative has a “high” impacts rating since the existing bridge does not safely accommodate bike and pedestrians.
Question: Does this analysis reflect the existing/recent improvements to SR 14 near the bridge?
Answer: Yes. The analysis assumes the improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians along SR 14 between the existing bridge and Bingen are in place.
Paul described other impacts, including (but not limited to) the following:
- Impacts of in-water improvements on fish don’t vary much among the alternatives.
- There are some differences in impacts on vegetation, including:
- EC1 will have a large amount of vegetation loss near Dock Grade, but low impacts on riparian vegetation.
- EC2 and EC3 will have impacts on riparian vegetation; EC3 is rated at low/medium (L/M) because the impact is largely on the Washington side.
- There are no expected significant impacts on Air Quality or Energy.
- Hazardous Materials: There are no know hazardous waste sites associated with any of the alternatives. However, we have, looked at the potential use of hazardous materials in the vicinity of each of the alternatives. There is some hazardous material used in the existing bridge. Demolition of the bridge is not expected to result in hazardous impact-related impacts. The project team also does not expect any railroad related impacts. On the Oregon side, a boat storage area has the potential for presence of hazardous materials. On the Washington side, EC1 has more potential for presence of hazardous materials related to nursery activities than the areas near EC-2 or EC-3. No site was subjected to soil testing or record searches. Additional research of analysis may need at a later date.
- Visual Impacts. All alternatives have some impact. EC1 is higher due to Dock Grade because of vegetation impacts
Comment: Effects on vegetation adjacent to Dock Grade road associated with EC-1 seem like they would be short-term impacts. Vegetation would grow back and impacts would not be visible in the long term.
Response: It depends on how the grading and bank stabilization is done. Use of retaining walls would have long-term visual and vegetation impacts.
Comment: The slope at the lower end of Dock Grade not very steep.
Response: There are also would be significant cuts into the hillside at the lower end of the road to accommodate the intersection with SR 14. Those also could result in long term impacts.
- Noise levels are not expected to vary much among the alternatives. The noise impacts analysis is based on expected noise levels (measured in decibels) as estimated at several locations relatively close to the bridge. There is some question about whether noise impacts would differ farther away. It is expected that noise would decrease with any of the build scenarios, in comparison to the existing bridge, given the frequency of noise created by the metal grating.
- Even though the noise levels estimated for the build alternatives (EC-1 , EC-2 and EC-3) are not any lower, the project team gave the no-action alternative a medium noise impact rating because of the hum from the bridge deck.
- The design speed will be 45-50 MPH, but with a posted 35 MPH speed limit.
Comment: EC3 is closer to the buildings to the East on the Oregon side and seems like it would have higher noise impacts than the EC1 and EC2 alternatives..
Question: Is it possible to build that close to those buildings?
Answer: Yes. Walls would be built between the bridge and the buildings.
- The land use impacts on the nursery on the Washington side result in a high (H) impact rating for EC1.
- Impacts to soils & Geology impacts would be high for EC2 due to the needed improvements to Dock Grade Road.
- Water Quality impacts would be M/H on EC1 due to soil disturbance on the Washington side associated with Dock Grade Road improvements.
- Assessment of Environmental Justice impacts reflect the fact that there would be no expected direct impacts on homes, meaning that no low income or minority residents would be displaced as a result of any of the alternatives. However, continuation of tolls on new bridge could result in impacts to minority and low-income populations.
Question: Wouldn’t the visual impacts be rated H for all the alternatives because of impacts related to the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area (CRGNSA)?
Answer: A bridge cannot be visually subordinate to the landscape but it could be visually in “Harmony.” Currently, there are no standards for over-water structures in the National Scenic Area. The Columbia River Gorge Commission had hoped to develop standards by now but has not been able to do so due to lack of funding. We may need to develop and propose architectural design standards as part of this process, possibly during the FEIS stage.
- Recreation impacts are assumed to be relatively low for all alternatives. Impacts on land-based recreation also are expected to be low for the except for the No Action alternative, since there are no pedestrian and bicycle facilities on existing bridge
- Impacts to historic resources are rated high because bridge likely will be eligible for historic designation. This doesn’t mean the bridge couldn’t be removed but it would need to have thorough documentation (photographs, narrative, etc.) prior to demolition.
- There may be an archaeological site in the vicinity of EC3; it’s specific location is not well documented.
Comment: I think the archeological site is near the trailer park.
Question: Will EC3 affect the mini-mart on the Washington side?
Answer: Not directly, but it may affect the driveway location.
Comment: Could the EC3 dogleg be straightened out. Would it present a safety hazard?
Answer: The curve could be straightened somewhat. Some type of curve is necessary to ensure a 90 degree connection to SR-14. For drivers on the bridge, the curve will not be as significant as it looks from the air. The design speed of the curves is high (15 to 20 miles per hour higher than the posted speed).
- There are no long-term impacts expected at the in-lieu fishing site. There may be some short term impacts on access to the site from the water during the construction period. These impacts likely would be higher with EC2 than EC1 or EC3.
- There is very little difference in costs between the alternatives. The primary differences are related to the Washington side touchdown of EC1, including costs associated with the following activities:
- Raising and widening SR 14.
- Widening Dock Grade.
- Changes to access roads to the Native American fishing site and nursery property.
Question: What is the distance needed for changing the elevation of SR 14?
Answer: 300’ – 500’ on either side.
Question: The earlier cost estimates seemed lower?
Answer: Yes. They were lower because they didn’t include new I-84 and SR 35 roundabouts, Dock Grade improvements, design and construction administration costs..
Question: Does the cost include demolition of the existing bridge?
Answer: Yes, but estimates do not include the costs of environmental mitigation and right of way.
Comment: The proposed Dock Grade improvements associated with EC1 probably would eliminate at least one home and maybe two at the top of the hill.
Comment: It seems like operation and maintenance costs would be higher for EC1 because of increased maintenance costs for Dock Grade road (e.g., snow removal), which currently is closed during the winter. Also, maintenance to the existing bridge is not paid for by the DOT’s.
Comment: Residents currently pay for operations and maintenance costs for the existing bridge through tolls. The existing bridge should reflect these higher operations and maintenance costs. You should change the operations and maintenance impacts to H for this alternative.
- Economic impacts are high with the existing bridge, given impacts on freight movement across the bridge.
Question: Who’s assuming the toll on the new bridge? An article in the Hood River News stated that this group was recommending a higher toll.
Answer: We have assumed an increase in tolls to cover a needed local funding match. Once construction costs have been repaid through tolls and bonds, the tolls would sunset. Also, we are assuming converting to one-way tolls to reduce impacts on northbound traffic which could back up onto I-84 over time.
Construction impacts could include the following:
- Impacts on the Oregon side for all three alternatives; either to the Marine Facility or the Hood River Inn; impacts would be rated L to M.
- On the Washington side, it is expected that eC1 would results in a full displacement of the nursery on the Washington side, resulting in a high impact rating for EC1.
- In water impacts are higher for EC2 because in boats entering the lieu fishing site could be trapped between the existing and new bridges during construction.
Question: Is there a bigger impact to tugs for EC3?
Answer: We are assuming a 450’ horizontal clearance but, yes, would be higher impacts for that alternative.
The Management Team’s preliminary recommendations are:
- The No action alternative doesn’t meet the Purpose and Needs
- EC1 has a higher level of impacts than EC2 or EC3 in several categories.
- EC2 is recommended as a preliminary preferred alternative because it would have lower impacts related to vegetation,
Question: Is it possible to move the EC3 Washington touchdown point to be nearer to the existing location.
Response: That would require building a temporary bridge structure at the end of the bridge to ensure that the bridge could remain open and vehicles could connect with SR-14.
Comment: Have you considered an SR 14 realignment?
Action: The committee moved to recommend EC2 as the preliminary preferred alternative (Cecil Jaksha made the motion which was seconded by Karl Kment).
Committee approved this recommendation with a nearly unanimous vote (all but 1 member voted in favor).
Comments, questions and answers included the following:
Comment: EC2 is the most logical alternative.
Question: Will there be a local staging area for EC2?
Answer: It would depend on the type of construction the contractor would negotiate. Larger spans could be barged upriver.
Comment: EC3 is the most aesthetically pleasing alternative but I think EC2 is the most practical and easiest to construct.
Comment: From the river or the bridge, people probably wouldn’t see much of a visual difference between those two alternatives, though they would from above (e.g., White Salmon).
Question: How much more engineering design analysis will be undertaken in the DEIS?
Answer: Not much more. We have completed most of the engineering and evaluation of impacts needed for the DEIS now. Additional design would be completed as part of the FEIS if it is prepared.
Question: Is there any other reason (besides money) that this project couldn’t go forward?
Answer: Comments from and review by the Columbia River Gorge Commission could present a risk or uncertainty. They could require an exception to Gorge requirements and possibly development of design guidelines for a new bridge. That could entail a design charrette or workshop with the Gorge Commission.
Question: Would in-water work have to be completed within fish windows?
Answer: Yes. That is one of the construction assumptions.
(Matt Hastie, Cogan Owens Cogan and Dale Robins, RTC)
Matt Hastie and Dale Robins described the following upcoming activities:
- A public open house will be conducted on May 15 at Fidel’s at the Gorge restaurant in Bingen.
- The DEIS and public review will be completed by the end of this year.
- Dale Robins is scheduled to give a report to Doc Hasting by Fall 2003.
- An application for a federal appropriation to fund the FEIS has been submitted. Funding for the FEIS could be approved by the end of the year, with work on the FEIS starting next year. If an FEIS is competed, and there is a “finding of no significant impact,” construction could proceed if funding were available and approved. A schedule for construction is not know. There could be an issue with completing the FEIS too long before construction occurs.
- The City of Bingen, City of White Salmon, and Klickitat County is working with the Port of Hood River to maintain momentum for a new river crossing.
The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
E-mail or phone:
Dale Robins
Regional Transportation Council
1351 Officers Row, Vancouver WA 98661
Tel: 360-397-6067
Fax: 360-696-1847
       
|