1 / 39

C E T A S

C E T A S. Preferred Alternative Presentation April 4, 2013 OR 62 I-5 to Dutton Road City of Medford, Jackson County Key #: 13226. 1. Project Development Team. Anna Henson, Environmental Project Manager, ODOT Dick Leever, Project Team Lead, ODOT Brian Dunn, TPAU – ODOT

boney
Télécharger la présentation

C E T A S

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. C E T A S Preferred Alternative Presentation April 4, 2013 OR 62 I-5 to Dutton Road City of Medford, Jackson County Key #: 13226 1

  2. Project Development Team • Anna Henson,Environmental Project Manager, ODOT • Dick Leever, Project Team Lead, ODOT • Brian Dunn, TPAU – ODOT • Gary Leaming, Public Involvement, ODOT • Lisa Cortes, Area Planner, ODOT • Terry Kearns, Project Manager, URS • Pat Foley, Public Involvement, RVCOG • Brian Sheadel, Designer, ODOT • Al Densmore, City of Medford • John Vial, Jackson County • Vicki Guarino, RVCOG • Chris Bucher, FHWA (advisory member) 2

  3. Project Vicinity 3

  4. Area Context and Features • Natural Resources • Bear Creek and Bear Creek Greenway • Lone Pine Creek • Upton Creek • Swanson Creek (north and south) • Whetstone Creek • Jack Creek (north and south) • Little Butte Creek Tributaries (north and south) • Historic Resources • Camp White Station Hospital • Cingcade Complex 4

  5. Area Context and Features (cont.) Transportation Problem: 5

  6. Purpose and Need • Purpose Statement: The purpose of the proposed action is to improve transportation mobility and safety in the OR 62 corridor, to simplify transportation system connections, and to identify potential improvements for non-highway modes, while maintaining the regional economic role of the OR 62 corridor. 6

  7. Need for the Proposed Action Deficient Roadway System Hierarchy/Linkage Corridor Congestion Safety Concerns Crash Rates Five and Ten Percent SPIS Locations within Oregon Transit and Non-Motorized Transportation Mode Deficiencies Purpose and Need 7

  8. Goals and Objectives Goal #1 (Multimodal Issues):Ensure solution provides for safe alternative modes of transportation • Improve bike and pedestrian facilities in the corridor • Improve bike and pedestrian connectivity in the corridor Goal #2(Environmental Issues):Avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to the natural environment • Minimize air quality impacts • Avoid or minimize, impacts on native fish and wildlife habitat and movement corridors • Avoid or minimize impacts to ESA species and their habitat • Avoid or minimize impacts on aquatic resources • Minimize impacts on water quality • Minimize noise impacts • Avoid or minimize impacts on visual/aesthetic landscape 8

  9. Goal #3 (Economic Issues):Maintain economic vitality in the corridor Provide for efficient freight movement through and within the corridor Minimize the impacts on businesses and residences Goal #4(Safety Issues):Ensure the solution is safe for all modes of transportation Follow applicable design standards Apply access management standards within the corridor Accommodate emergency vehicles Goals and Objectives (cont.) 9

  10. Goals and Objectives (cont.) Goal #5 (Transportation Issues):Provide a solution that addresses capacity and connectivity needs • Meet design year capacity needs (v/c, LOS) • Provide facilities that meet user expectations (signage, visibility, etc) • Provide efficient connectivity within the corridor Goal #6 (Social Issues): Enhance the community livability and quality of life • Minimize the impacts on neighborhoods within and adjacent to the project area • Provide opportunities for increased transit utilization

  11. Agencies Participating in the CETAS Review Process for this Project • Federal Highway Administration • Oregon Department of Environmental Quality* • Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife • Oregon Department of Land Conservation & Development* • Oregon Department of State Lands • Oregon State Historic Preservation Office • U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • National Marine Fisheries Service • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency * Agency is considered “not participating” 11

  12. History of Concurrence Points • CETAS Project Triage: March, 2005 • CETAS Field Visit: Spring, 2006 • Purpose & Need Concurrence: May, 2007 • Evaluation Criteria: August, 2010 • Range of Alternatives: August, 2010 12

  13. Alternatives Analyzed No-Build Alternative • Deficient Roadway System Hierarchy/Linkage • Separation of thru trips and local trips would not occur • Lack of local streets to collectors, collectors to arterials and arterials to expressways • Corridor Congestion • Queue lengths would block local adjacent streets • Travel times through the corridor would double 13

  14. Alternatives Analyzed No-Build Alternative (cont) • Deficient Intersection Operations • Currently deficient intersections would continue to degrade 4 out of 9 current signalized intersections have a v/c > 0.85 By 2035, 8 out of 9 would have a v/c > 0.85 • Safety Concerns • 3 out of 4 segments along OR 62 currently exceed statewide crash rates, this would get worse in 2035 • Multimodal Deficiencies • Existing facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists are minimal; no improvements with the No Build.

  15. Build Alternatives: (handout) SD Interchange Alternative DI Interchange Alternative Design Options A, B and C Alternatives Analyzed (cont.) 15

  16. Alternatives Analyzed (cont.) Alternatives vary only at the southern terminus Three design options – identical regardless of alternative SD and DI Interchange Alternatives - Common Features: • Extend North past White City • Access controlled bypass • Interchanges at I-5, Vilas Road, Agate Road and Dutton Road • Four 12 ft travel lanes, 10 ft center median and 8 ft shoulders • 8 ft shoulders would serve as bikeway/walkway SD Interchange Unique features: • Intersect with I-5 (N. Medford Interchange) with split diamond design • Includes widened crossings over Bear Creek • Bypass would be separated from existing OR 62 DI Interchange Unique features: • Directional Interchange with OR62 north of Poplar Dr. • OR 62 would be grade separated over Poplar Dr. and Bullock Rd • Local street network would be enhanced

  17. Alternatives Analyzed (cont.) Design Options A, B and C Option A • After crossing Justice, turns slightly to the east • 1,200 feet west of existing OR 62 Option B • East and parallel to Option A • 900 feet west of existing OR 62 Option C • West of Option A and B • Follows Medco Haul Road alignment • 2,500 feet west of existing OR 62

  18. SD Interchange with Design Option C (handout) Preferred Alternative

  19. JTA Phase (handout) Jobs and Transportation Act $100 M

  20. Alternatives Analyzed — Summary of Impacts (handout) • Cultural, Historic and Archaeological Resources • Historic resources: • Camp White Station Hospital —No impact • David Cingcade House and Barn Complex – 4.9 acres SHPO concurred in findings of No Historic Properties Adversely Affected for Camp White Station Hospital and David Cingcade House and Barn Complex (February 9, 2011 and April 6, 2011) • Archaeological resources: • Site visit—Included pedestrian survey in the API • No resources were identified during database and field inventories SHPO concurred on Finding of No historic Properties Affected (Archaeology) (September 14, 2009) Project Level 106: SHPO concurred No-Adverse Effect for the OR 62:I-5 to Dutton Road (Medford) project (September 19, 2012) 20

  21. Alternatives Analyzed — Summary of Impacts • Socioeconomics: • Business relocations: 34 - 57 • Residential displacements: 8 – 9 • Residential Tenant displacement: 12 - 36 • Environmental Justice: Analysis indicates no disproportionally high and adverse effects on EJ populations. • Travel time through the corridor: reduced 16 - 19 mins • Safety improvements: • Bicyclist and Pedestrian safety would improve throughout project • Travel flow to businesses/residences is improved due to less delays and stops. This increases safety by reducing the more severe rear end collisions. 21

  22. Land Use: Lands converted to highway use: 30 – 52 acres (EFU land) Goal exceptions are required City of Medford TSP update required Jackson County – Floodplain permit Alternatives Analyzed — Summary of Impacts 22

  23. Section 4(f) Resources (handouts) Proposed Section 4(f) de minimis Bear Creek Greenway: SD Alternative will realign existing path Approximately 0.1 acres Planned Midway Park: SD Alternative will require a sliver of this park Approximately 0.15 acres Ken Denman Wildlife Area: Both DI and SD Alternative will impact this area Cut access from parking lot/kiosk area Alternatives Analyzed — Summary of Impacts 23

  24. Alternatives Analyzed — Summary of Impacts Section 6(f) Resources (handouts) • Bear Creek Greenway: • SD Alternative will realign existing path • Approximately 1.3 -1.6 acres

  25. Alternatives Analyzed — Summary of Impacts • Wetlands:(handouts) • Total wetlands impacted: 20 – 23 acres • Vernal Pool wetlands impacted: 2.6 - 3.2 acres • Wetlands delineation report submitted to DSL received concurrence 25

  26. Alternatives Analyzed — Summary of Impacts • Waterways and Water Quality(handouts): • All streams in the API are designated critical habitat for SONCC coho salmon • Riparian impacts: 2.8 - 3.6 acres • Net new impervious surface: 96 - 108 acres • Total impervious surface: 211 – 223 acres • # New Stream Crossings: 10 – 12 • # Replacement Stream Crossings: 8 - 9 • All new and replacement crossings will be fish passable (approved ODFW Fish Passage Plans for Lone Pine Creek and Upton Creek) • New and replacement stream crossings will provide safe passage for small wildlife species • SWMP has been submitted to ODEQ

  27. Alternatives Analyzed — Summary of Impacts • Biology—Aquatic Species: • Presence of SONCC coho salmon in Bear Creek and tributaries and designated critical habitat. • Biological Opinion (March 2013) issued by NMFS: proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of SONCC coho salmon or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat designated for this species. The BiOp also includes an incidental take of SONCC coho during construction. • Proposed action may temporarily impair the EFH for Pacific Salmon during construction. • Includes standard conservation and mitigation measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate potential impacts to aquatic species. 27

  28. Alternatives Analyzed — Summary of Impacts • Biology—Terrestrial Species: Impacts to Critical Habitat for terrestrial species protected under the ESA have been identified within the project area. • Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Critical Habitat: 0 acres • Cook’s lomatium CH: 5.1 acres • large-flowered woolly meadowfoam CH: 13.7 acres • Noxious weeds prevalent in project area: yellow starthistle, Medusahead rye, Himalayan blackberry) • Biological Opinion (March 2013) issued by USFWS: Not Likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Vpool Fairy Shrimp, Cooks lomatium and lg-flowered wooly meadowfoam or adversley modify the two plant species CH.

  29. Hazardous Materials: Sites of high concern that may contain hazmat: 36 - 41 Sites of moderate concern: 23 - 29 Extensive mitigation to reduce potential exposure to hazmat. Air Quality: Build Alternative not expected to cause exceedances of NAAQS for CO, PM10 or PM2.5. Build Alternative meets regional conformity requirements and project-level conformity requirements. Project would adhere to ODOT construction specifications and best construction practices to reduce and minimize air quality impacts. Alternatives Analyzed — Summary of Impacts 29

  30. Visual Resources: The project is not within the boundaries of a scenic corridor protection program does not have the potential to affect any of these types of resources. Degrees of visual changed: Low to High Most visual change will be in Vilas Road and Dutton Road areas (transition Rural/Industrial) Alternatives Analyzed — Summary of Impacts 30

  31. Comments Submitted on Environmental Assessment Public Agency Comments Fire District #3 Concern raised with emergency vehicle access responding to accidents on the bypass and along Agate Road where viaduct structure is planned EPA Preferred Alternative would not avoid and minimize impacts to aquatic resources Augment fish passage structures to accommodate wildlife passage Include in FEIS, provisions for improved multi-modality Community cohesion concerns and isolation/access issue raised for disabled people Dept of Interior Acreage of 6(f) protected land is underestimated Noise and visual impacts to the BC Greenway 31

  32. Public Involvement Project Support • Preferred Alternative supported by PMT, PDT, CAC, City of Medford and Jackson County • Public Comments • Need full interchange at Vilas Road • Concern raised that birds at the Ken Denman Wildlife Area will be disturbed • Support for DI Alternative • Support for the Preferred Alternative • Provide access to businesses in the Vilas Rd area that are landlocked 32

  33. Preferred Alternative Avoidance and Mitigation Measures: • Traffic management, signage and coordination during construction to reduce impacts to emergency services and businesses. • Provide for continued bike and pedestrian connections to Greenway during construction. • Section 6(f) replacement of about 1.3 to 1.6 acres for impacts to Bear Creek Greenway properties. • All stream crossing will be fish passable and allow for small species wildlife passage • Minimize vegetation removal during construction. 33

  34. Avoidance and Mitigation Measures (cont): Stormwater pollutant loads (particularly sediment and dissolved copper) and runoff rates to be reduced through combination of detention ponds, treatment swales, vegetated ditches or other water quality treatment methods. Per ODOT stormwater standards, low impact development practices to be implemented first to reduce flows and volumes (e.g., minimizing impervious area and mimicking natural drainage patterns by allowing runoff to flow off side of road). Use of suitable vegetation or substrate filters to enhance stormwater treatment. Riparian impacts Advanced mitigation riparian restoration project 3.5 acres main stem of Little Butte Creek Replant disturbed riparian areas with native species Preferred Alternative 34

  35. Preferred Alternative Avoidance and Mitigation Measures (cont): • Wetlands • Compensatory Wetlands Mitigation Plan for JTA phase by creating and enhancing 63 acres of vernal pool complex by purchasing 116 acre mitigation site (Kincade Property Mound Site near White City). • Avoidable wetlands will be marked off as “no work areas” • When possible construction activities near wetlands and waters will be scheduled during dry times of the year (July – September). • Where feasible the project will be designed to maintain local surface hydrology patterns supporting wetlands and waters • ESA species • Terrestrial – populations of protected plants will be established at KPMS site (seed harvest and planting) • KPMS site is listed as CH for all three terrestrial species • Aquatics – fish passage at all stream crossings

  36. Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative meets the project’s Purpose and Need: - system hierarchy: better meets the need for because it separates through traffic with local traffic the entire length of the bypass - intersection operations and reduce corridor congestion: improves more than No Build or DI Alternative - safety improves Impacts to some natural and build environment resources are lower than DI Alternative (ie: right of way, travel times, changes to existing driveways)

  37. Preferred Alternative The Rationale for Design Option C vs A or B: - acres of farmland zoned EFU: Option C will impact fewer than either Option A or B. - riparian habitat: Option C will impact less than Options A or B. - commercial displacements: Option C will cause fewer than Option A or Option B - residential displacements: Design Option C will cause fewer than Option A or B.

  38. PreferredAlternative The Preferred Alternative balances impacts with mitigation opportunities resulting in a net benefit to natural resources: 1. SONCC coho Salmon: better fish habitat and passage at all stream crossings 2. Improved riparian habitat where stream banks are currently degraded 3. Establishment of project specific mitigation site for terrestrial ESA species and vernal pool and other wetland impacts 4. Improved Water Quality - treatment of existing stormwater runoff that was not previously treated. 5. Improved bike and pedestrian facilities throughout project area

  39. Anticipated Schedule • Conclude NEPA Process: May, 2013 • Right of Way acquisition: Under Way (state funds) • Permits/Approvals: August, 2013 • 1st Phase Construction Start: December, 2013 • 1st Phase Construction End: December, 2015 39

More Related