Advisory Committee Randy Anderson, Brian Carlstrom, Mike Doke, Jennifer Donnelly, Commissioner Rodger Ford, Cecil Jaksha, Michael Morneault, Mayor Brian Prigel, Commissioner Don Struck, Risa Wynsold.
Management Team/StaffDale Robins, SWRTC, Michael Ray, ODOT, Faye Jenkins-Edwards, WSDOT, Chuck Green, PBQD, Paul Korsmo, Entranco, Matt Hastie, Cogan Owens Cogan, Arnold Cogan, Cogan Owens Cogan.
(Arnold Cogan, Cogan Owens Cogan)
Arnold Cogan welcomed participants and described the objectives of the meeting.
(Chuck Green)
Chuck Green summarized activities undertaken on the project since the last meeting of the Advisory Committee:
- The project team prepared a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), evaluating the impacts of three possible bridge alignment alternatives.
- Federal and state regulatory agencies reviewed and commented on a preliminary draft of the DEIS. A revised draft was subsequently prepared and made available for public review.
- A public hearing was conducted in January, 2004 to solicit comments on the DEIS and comments were received through February 17, 2004; regulatory agencies also provided additional comments on the DEIS.
- The project team has begun work on an implementation plan for the new bridge, including identifying possible sources of future funding.
(Paul Korsmo, Entranco)
Next, Paul Korsmo summarized some of the key findings in the DEIS, focusing on differences among the impacts associated with each alternative, as well as benefits of the preferred alternative in comparison to the No Action alternative. Paul discussed both short term impacts associated with construction and long term impacts related to the effects of the bridge being in place. Summary findings included the following:
- Right-of-way. Each action alternative would require some acquisition of right-of-way on the Oregon side of the river. The EC-1 alternative would have the largest impact on the Washington side, necessitating acquisition of a business (nursery) and full or partial acquisition of a home.
- Transportation. All three action alternatives would have short term impacts associated with construction, including delays and possible detours, though the existing bridge would remain open during construction of a new bridge. The EC-3 alternative also would result in no access to the existing Bridge Market property from the westbound lanes on SR-14.
- Vegetation. All three action alternatives would impact riparian area vegetation on both sides of the river. The EC-1 alternative would have the greatest impacts on the Washington side because it would necessitate widening Dock Grade Road, which in turn would require slope cutting and stabilization. These activities also would result in greater visual effects, as well as water quality impacts due to increased water runoff and sedimentation. A large oak tree on the Washington side of the bridge would be impacted by EC-3.
- Historic/Cultural. All three action alternatives would have impacts because the existing bridge is expected to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Demolition of the existing bridge likely would be conditioned on documentation of that structure, including photo documentation and possibly creating interpretive exhibits describing the history of the existing bridge. Further work to confirm the bridge’s eligibility to the National Register and consultation with the Washington and Oregon historic offices will be required during preparation of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS).
- Archeological resources. The EC-2 and EC-3 alternatives could impact archeological sites. The EC-3 alternatives appear to have greater impacts on these resources. These impacts would be verified further as part of completion of the FEIS.
- In-water work. Each action alternative would have impacts on fish species, including species listed under the Endangered Species Act, and other aquatic life during the course of constructing new bridge piers and other activities taking place in and over the river. Impacts would be related to sedimentation, possible spillage of construction materials (e.g., from machinery and concrete), noise and vibration. Impacts would be similar for all action alternatives.
Long-term benefits of the preliminary preferred alternative, in comparison to the No Action alternative include:
- Transportation. Traffic mobility, safety and access to all modes of travel would be improved, including creation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities not currently available. The navigation channel also would be widened, improving navigability for barges and other river traffic.
- Economic. Improved mobility of people and goods across the river would be expected to have positive economic benefits for communities on both sides of the Columbia.
- Fish species. The new bridge would have fewer piers in the water, reducing habitat for predator fish species that prey on migrating salmonid species.
- Noise. While there would be a slight increase in noise levels overall, the higher pitched hum associated with the metal decking on the existing bridge would be lessened considerably or eliminated.
Comment: The impacts of constructing a new bridge would be much less significant than those of a natural disaster such as a major flood or earthquake. For example, a flood would cause much more sedimentation in the river.
Response: That is a good point. At the same time, an action like building a new bridge is considered to be avoidable so its impacts and benefits must be assessed in an environmental study.
(Matt Hastie, Cogan Owens Cogan)
Matt summarized public comments provided at the public hearing for the DEIS and received in written form. He noted that very few comments were provided in comparison to similar processes undertaken for more controversial efforts. Only 11 written comments were submitted. In contrast, an DEIS for a new ski area may generate thousands of comments. Of the 11 comments submitted, six were provided by citizens and five by state or federal agencies. Four of the six citizen comments were generally supportive of a new bridge. The other two raised issues related to future tolls (opposed to them) and possible use of the existing bridge as a bicycle/pedestrian facility. Of the five agency comments, two were related to the need for further documentation of the eligibility of the existing bridge for the National Register of Historic Places and possible effects of this listing. Other agency comments were related to need for additional analysis of effects on air and water quality, consistency with National Scenic Area regulations, environmental justice, and vegetation, as well as more coordination with Tribal organizations. Paul Korsmo noted that many of these issues will be evaluated in a Final Environmental Impact Statement.
One person submitted verbal testimony at the DEIS hearing related to a variety of issues, including ability of the existing bridge to carry legal weight limits; current and future plans for one-way toll booths or electronic toll machines; establishment of a bridge replacement fund; need for improvements to nearby I-84 interchanges; impacts on adjacent properties; and minor inconsistencies in the document.
(Dale Robins and Advisory Committee)
Next, Dale Robins and Advisory Committee members discussed the next steps in the study and development of a new bridge, including possible funding sources and efforts. Dale noted that further study and construction of a new bridge depends in large part on support from the local community. Local community support, including support from congressional delegates, resulted in funding for the current feasibility study and DEIS. A similar effort will be needed to ensure funding for an FEIS and new construction. This is particularly important given limited state funds for transportation construction and very heavy competition among a long list of transportation improvement projects in both states. Local matching funding through tolls or other means also probably will be essential for financing a new bridge. Dale also noted the following:
- Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). A FEIS will be needed to respond to comments on the DEIS, develop preliminary designs (30%-level) for a new bridge, including a preliminary architectural design, and evaluate certain types of impacts in more detail. The FEIS and preliminary design is expected to cost approximately $1 million. Congressional representatives from Washington, particularly Doc Hastings have indicated support for a federal appropriation to cover a portion of this cost. Letters of support to congressional representatives from both Washington and Oregon will improve the chances of securing such funding. Dale can provide a draft letter and list of recipients to interested advisory committee or other community members.
- The financial feasibility study conducted earlier in the project indicated that tolls can be expected to cover 30 to 40% of the cost of the bridge, assuming an increase in tolls and establishment of a bridge replacement fund in the short term. Such a replacement fund also could generate money to pay for the local matching portion of the FEIS cost. The total estimated cost of a new bridge is approximately $175-180 million. This does not include the cost of needed right-of-way and environmental impact mitigation. Adding these costs, would increase the total cost to about $200 million.
- Other possible funding sources could include local option taxes, private/public partnerships or selected state funding programs (e.g., for improvements to connecting state highways).
- Short and medium term improvements identified in the DEIS include improvements to the Highway 35/I-84 Interchange, improvements to the intersection of Highway 35 and State Street (referred to as Button Junction), and a traffic signal at the intersection of the bridge with SR-14 on the Washington side. Improvements to the I-84/Highway 35 interchange could incorporate a roundabout. The SR-14 signal will be installed this summer. As part of this project, WSDOT also is considering installing a traffic camera that would be pointed towards the bridge.
Questions from participants and responses from the project team and other meeting participants included the following:
Comments: The local matching money is very important. The Mayor of Bingen plans to approach local elected officials on both sides of the river to urge the Port of Hood River to establish a bridge replacement fund which initially would be funded through a 25 cent increase in bridge tolls. Given existing traffic levels on the bridge, that could generate over $200,000 in six months which would cover the local matching cost of the FEIS. Over the longer term, it would fund a portion of the cost of constructing a new bridge. Funding for the FEIS is very important as it will keep the project moving forward.
Question: What is the Port’s position on increasing tolls to establish a bridge replacement fund?
Answer: That is a decision for elected port officials. This may not be the best time to raise tolls given that the bridge deck replacement project is just about to start. It may be better to wait until that project is completed. The redecking project will help prolong the life of the existing bridge. A portion of tolls collected now go to maintenance projects like that one. There are other ways to raise money for a new bridge, including local option taxes and private partnerships.
Question: What is the “shelf life” of an EIS?
Answer: Typically, they are considered to be effective for three to five years without the need for a significant update. However, it depends on how much progress is being made toward implementation of the action proposed in the EIS, as well as changes in regulations (e.g., listing of new threatened or endangered species). If progress if being made towards implementation of the proposed action and other conditions don’t change much, only minor updates to the EIS may be needed.
Question: Is local matching money for a project like this required up front or can bonds be issued to cover the local match?
Answer: The local match does not have to be collected up front but there needs to be some guarantee that it will be available. Bond issues or a legally binding pledge of future toll revenues could constitute such a guarantee. Also, federal money can be provided in stages.
Comment: The Portland Airport light rail project should be reviewed as a model for a public/private partnership.
Answer: That project was unique in that development rights on land adjacent to the light rail line were guaranteed to the private company that helped finance the project. We may not have a situation like that here. On a project like this, more typically, a private entity (e.g., a tolling authority) would receive the opportunity to manage and collect tolls on the facility in return for financing all or a portion of the project.
Question: The Columbia River Gorge Commission recently met to discuss design guidelines for bridges in the National Scenic Area. Did they make any decisions?
Answer: No, although they agreed on some general principles. They agreed that they like to incorporate an historic look in some elements of a new bridge. They also seem to support design of a relatively unobtrusive bridge, possibly with a signature arch in the middle. There was relatively little support for monumental design that would overshadow the natural landscape and beauty of the Gorge.
Question: $1 million seems like a lot of money for an FEIS. Why does it cost so much?
Answer: The initial estimate included a significant amount of money needed to respond to comments on the DEIS. Given the number and type of comments received, that task may be less expensive. If that is the case, some of the funding could be used to do more design work (e.g., greater than 30% of the design), to obtain required environmental permits, or perhaps move one or more of the short-term improvements forward.
Question: How would you bid the design and construction of a new bridge?
Answer: Both pieces of work would or could go out to bid, as would the FEIS work. Alternatively, one of the state departments of transportation could decide to do the design in-house. If the project were bid as a design-build project, the same firm or team could do the design and construction nearly simultaneously. This approach can save time and sometimes money on a project like this.
Question: How would the approaches to the bridge be funded?
Answer: Through the two states’ existing highway funding processes.
Question: Is the port considering electronic tolling?
Answer: The port was hoping to implement that as part of the redecking project. Unfortunately, there has not been enough money to do both project simultaneously. The port is interested in exploring electronic tolling in the future.
(Dale Robins)
Project team members presented advisory committee members with certificates of appreciation for their good work and commitment to this process. This was the last meeting of this advisory group, although it could be reconstituted if another advisory committee is needed for the FEIS process.
E-mail or phone:
Dale Robins
Regional Transportation Council
1351 Officers Row, Vancouver WA 98661
Tel: 360-397-6067
Fax: 360-696-1847
       
|