HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence Miscellaneous 2/25/2008
,
,
~
i.
l~ '~-rwr IE Ir-r'\ I
. --~.._.~----.:-~~ " II i.
ili Iii
FEB 2 5 2008 ; !,i,;jj I
I I I'
L__,....,__ __ .. '", .._.., .J '
('.1:' Gf tLf'b'€.
PiUi'{!:'::L~1'~;::.G':':'--'___.. _
1'1
U U
oregon bridgedelivery par~ners~
February 22;2008
Ms, l'leather O,'Donnell
Planning and Development Department
Cily of Eugene
99 West 10th Avenue
Eugene, OR 97401
i
Re: 1-5 Willamelle Bridge Projt;ct
~
,
Dear Ms, O'Donnell,
;
Thank you for informing Oregon Bridge Deliver Partners that the 1-5 WillamelteHridge
Project Metro Plan and Refinemcnt Plan amendmcnt applications (MA 07-3 and RA 08~ I
respectively) havc been determined to be complete as of February 8, 7008.
The supplemental items you have requested lor stall' and public review are attached. Thc '
items you requested and asummary of the information provided is incIudcd in Table 1,
Please contact me at (503) 423-3785 or corrinne,humphrey@hdrine.eom if additional
intonnation is needed or if you have any questions, '
Si7/Y,
~Phr~y, :;CP
Oregon Bridge Delivery Partners
1001 SW 5th Avenue I Suite 1800 I Portland, OR 97204
ph: 503.423,3785/ fax 503:423,3737 '
email: eorrinne,humDhrev@hdrint,eom
oregon bridge deliverY partners
1165 Union Street NE Salem, OR 97301
........-,~
Date Received
Page 1 013
FEB 1 5 2008
~ i"'
'&11
'j
!
Planner: 8J
r
"
Attachments (in hardcopy and CP):
. Revised Figure 2: ,Project Area (with right-of-way added; in color and black and
white)
. Revised Figure 5: Proposed Areas of Temporary Impacts and Right-of-Way for
Bridge Construction (with temporary work bridge envelopcsaddcd; in'color and
blackand whitc)
. Supplcmcntal Figurc 6: Approximate Vcgctation Disturbance Areas (in color and
black and'white) ,
. Supplemental Figure 7: Proposed Northern (Anderson Lanc) Noise Wall Location
and Configuration '
. Supplemental FigureS: Proposed Southern (Laurel Hill) Noise Wall Location and
Configuration
. Supplemental Figure' 9: Noise Barrjer Effectiveness
. Metro Plan Policies C 30 and C 31 Narrativc
Tablel:iSupplemental Requestsand'Respnnses .
Comment.
Figure 5 is very helpful in identifying right-of-way and
right-of,way easement boundaries, Please provide a
Iigure of the eittire project area that depicts the right,of-
way and right~of-way easement boundaries clearly for
black and white reproduction.
Please provide' a'fjgure showing the gc~cral areas for
vegetation removal, spec~fically regarding riparian
vegetation and ,vegetation buffering residences from 105
as discussed on page 59 (W AP, P,3),
Please provide a figure shO\~ing,thegenerallocations of .
the sound walls as discussed on page 60 (W AP, P.8).
Including ligures showing sound wall examples (such as,
those from the il31/08 open house) would also be '
helpful.
Please provide a Iigure showing the general locations of
the temporary bridges,
oregon bridge delivery partners
,
I
J
, RespOnse
'Figure 2: Project Area has been revised to indude
right,of-way and right,of,way easement boundaries,
This figure shows the entire project area, Both color
'and black and white versions of Figure 2 are provided,
General areas for vegetation removal are provided in a
supplemental Iigure, Figure 6: Approximate Vegetation
Disturbance Areas depicts the infonnation we have
regard!ng potential vegetation impacts, which is subject
to design changes: The vegetation removed will be
limited to the minimum area necessary for construction
and ~tagi~g activities. Following-construction, Cleared
areas will be rcvegetated and.'retumed io existing
conditions to the extent practicable. Existing trees
wi,thin the right'of-way, in the Willakenzie Area, on
the northwest'side of the project areawill be removed
as needed; The area would be revegetated'to the extent
practicable, Both color and black and white versions of
Figure 6 are ~rovidcd.
Generallocations of the, proposed, sounds walls are
provided'in'supplcmental Figures 7 and 8: Proposed
'Noise Wall Locations, These locations may c~ange as
the design progresses and additional public input is
gathered, Sound wall examples are provided in the
anached supplemental Figure 9: Noise Barrier '
Effectiveness.
Figure 5: Proposed Areas of Temporary Impads and
Right,of, Way for Bridge Construction has been revised
to include a general construction envelope where the
temporary bridges ,:"ould be located, Thesclocations
may change as thedesigoprogresses, but the area is not
expected .to expand outside Ihe 'footprint. Both color
andblackand white versions ofFi~ure 5 are provided,
,I
,Date Receive~r :
.Page 2 of 3 : :0:"" I
FEB 15 2008 ' i
,
!
!
1165 Union Street NE Salem. OR 97301
Plariner:'8J
Table I: Supplemental Requests and Responses
Comment
Metro Plan 'policies C 30 and'C 31 relale 10 flooding and
appear to be applicable. Slaffwill be having Ihe City's
Floodplain Manager review the proposal for general
comments.
Although this is a funding issue and nol necessarily a
completeness review issue,statTunderstood that the
bridge replacemenl project was in Ihe STlP and the
MTIP bul not inthe RTP as staled on page 16,
Additionally, although this is not stated in the written
statemenl, staff previously understood from ODOT's
anorney Ihaltheir opinion is thaI bridge replacemcnt
projecls do not need to'be included in TransPlan,
oregon bridge delivery partners
Response'
Melro Plan policies C 30 and C 3 I are addressed in an
attach~ent to this letter.
In response to this comment, ODOT will be providing
theC"ity with an errata sheet that does two things.
First,it wjll amend the section concerning consistency
with the RTP, explaining the source of Ihe funding for
the project and clarifying that the funds arc specially,
eannarked for the purpose of this bridge replacement
project (i:e., the funds can only be used for this bridge
replacement purpose), With the projecl'in the MTIP;
this -is sufficient to meet FHW A requirements: Second,
it will remove references to projects 150 and 260 to
show consistency with TransPlan (because those
projects arc placeholder capacity increasing projects)
and insteadrely upon TrnnsPlan itself tor consistency,
. since TransPlan shows ~n .I-~ connection over the
Willamette River and'failure to repair the bridge,would
be inconsistent with TransPlan. The errata sheel will
address cQnsistcncy'.with TransPlan policies that'
address the importanccofl-5 and a connection over the
Willamelle River.
Date Received l'
i
,
I
,
1165 Union StreelNE Salem. OR 97301
Page 3 of 3
FEB 1 5 2008
Planner: BJ
;n,,~ ,~('r';r';'" u"""*' ~~'"
r~~ 1 r ...
- ~IL
Planner: BJ
Figure 2
1-5 Will' Project Area
amette Rh'er B . I
rIll(e Project
-
'M~md" ~r
"';'0-
/..~-
'-!i~
"',,~ 'I'rY;,,'!;..ItPh~~.-.co
C'C'Q 1 I; ~nno
Figu...,2
Project Area
1-5 Willamettc River Bridj!c Project
Planner: BJ
r----
, t ~
'1
~, '.
~
'" - -:-
,
- '; .
... ..'..
.
. . - -
..
fE'u.le n'e]
i~
~
r
.~ .~' ..'....~, ~
. .
'.-.~ ->;-,
.... ...
,~
~
.i~~..;
~; ~
.f
. ,
.
(;l Staging areas
~ Potential temporary
~ work bridge location
Right-of.Way
Right-of-Way Easements
i:.] Willamette River Greenway
. Parks .a~;'
0100 200 300 400V ~
-....
. '%'~&~,.
(f) mM..
pi~ l~ J~~mrJ Impacts and RigId-Qf.Way for Bridge COllSl~;::
_...LCOOGlS,"'_[$ll\
Pial " Ivi. OJ
I-~ Willamette Ri\"Cr Brid~ Proj<<t
.
t A
'\
. ~
~ . ,
~ .
.
'l
.... ',<,
. -.
..
lru!.cn'C]
- .~
.
; '.
"
. ,.
.
~
,
.
...1 "
,
.. J 01'
, J ':'
~4'
,,". 'f
, , ~.
,
~~:tr "
.,\' .' r.., -....
.J - ~. '1"
J I' , ~~1, ;
. t,' ~';';i':,rs.~"
_.:...~t~~'...' ~}\' "
.'. ,J ^,~.,
. . f, _/,,, ,
-- ..:,... ?~.
d
~I
, ..
" '.
rt ,l.
;'.
...
.f'.'''' '4
S1Bak~
" ~
-,.,
;< ~.\
,
;... '.
'~l.}
"',;m"
~ ~li1IiW"'K~
(;] Staging areas
I&2J Potenti~llemporary
........ork bridge location
Right-of-Way
Right-of-Way Easements
....
it." Willamette River Greenway
.. Parks .a
o 100 200 300 ~'fU
;
\
10~-",
- '"",,
@rmA.
Proposed Areas ~AftJrn~' 6.9p9~s and Rilrlll-of-Way for Bridge COltst~~i;l;
Pfaftr=ter: DJ-.4i Will,;tmnte Rinr Bridge Prnjecc
_..lO:IGCIS..._,CflI
~ Project area
~ ~. Approximate vegetation
[:.:.~ disturbance areas
/'V' Highways
/'V' Major roads 6)
250 500 7tiO 1.000
Ji=: ... U LUUO
~lgur. 6
Approximate Vegetation Distll/banee Areas
,
1-5 WilIamette Rh'er Bridee Proiect
,n"pt=(';j~Ai"'+ "00
Planner: BJ
~ Project area
. .... Approximate vegetation
..,":'~: disturbance areas
~ Highways
/'./ Major roads 9
250 SOO 150 I.~
~7f<""f14 ~""
-
~n
~\r ~. ~!~:~
Figu....6
Approximale Vegetation Disturbance Areas
1-:; Willamette Rh'er Britl!(e Project
r.,-n-"......_"'.~t"'
Planner: BJ
~---
Figure 7
Proposed ~~I~r/l ~~ersoll Lane) Noise Wall Location and Configuration
.....'~..'........_ 1-5 Willamcttc Rinr Brid2c Proil'Ct
Planner: BJ
.Jv't;'r;, ~r
t:'~_
.J:.. .lIWD.
...iiIIr~"N....r..., .._ ~~'"
n~+~ D^^^: ..l ~ig"'" 7
Proposed Noh1JI:fIt~~~aQ:foi:;e Wall Location and Configuration
~~R 1 I; ?nno 1-:; WilIamette Ri\'er Brid2c Prolcct
~~nno...' D I
J'
Fil!,llre 8
Proposed SOItlbw_<I:;a,l1llbHillj Noise Wall Location and Configuration
1-5 WilllImette River Bride:e Proi\.'Ct
Planner: IjJ
;..~~'Nm!ll~...I>'rtr~....
r
^'" Proposed noise wall location
Right-of-Way n
eo 120'~. W
'Jo~"1k ~
-
(f)mJA
.'wrrlr".."'q"""....".,.
Figure 8
Pro~ ~<>t'tll)C (Laurel Hill) Noise Wall Location and Configuration
1-5 Willamcttc Rh'cr Bridl:c Pro,it,>ct
Planner: BJ
1---
I &.
-e ~'l. . NONE NEAR SOURCE NEAR RECEIVER
o~ ~
~ '"
~
ELEVATED May be same noise reduction Barrier is very effective Barrier has no effect
by terrain
.. -I Jim
LEVEL
DEPRESSED
J.JfI,J1,mdlt"'%:10
'Ii..... .V~r
@ orlA
Noise travels directly
fa the receiver
-
~
i
Barrier is effective
i
1;1
May be some noise reduction
by rerrain
;:4J
Barrier has no effect
,....
g
Date Received
FEB 1 5 2008
Planner: BJ
i
r. i
Barrier is effective
t
Jmu
~
, .
Barrier is effective
i
..
III
I i
Flgure 9
Noise Barrier Effectiveness
I-SWUlamette River Bridge Project
Metro Plan Policies C 30 and C 31
C. Environmental Resources Element
Natural Hazards (Goal 7)
Policy C.30 Except as otherwise allowed according to Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) regulations, development shall be prohibited in jloodways if it could
result in an increased jlood level. The floodway is the channeL of a river or other water
course and the adjacent land area that must be reserved to discharge a one-percent-
chance jlood in any given year,
The 1-5 Willanlette River Bridge is located within a FEMA designated regulatory
floodway and floodplain, Therefore, the design of the replacement bridge must satisfy the
regulations set forth in the National. Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The NFIP requires
that any modifications that cause a rise in the Base Flood Elevations (BFEs, which
corresponds to water surface elevations associated with the IOO-year flood event) must be
approved by FEMA. The proposed structure satisfies the requirements of the NFIP, The,
no-rise condition is also a requirement ofODOT for any bridge replacement project.
Two pier location scenarios are currently under consideration (Proposed Option A and
Proposed Option B). Based on the modeling, Option A would result in an increase of 0.02
feet over existing conditions for the lOO"year flood event. Option B would result in a
decrease of 0.54 feet for the 1 OO-year flood event.
For the Environmental Assessment, the hydraulic conditions of the 1-5 Willanlette River
Bridge Project were analyzed using the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers' HEC-RAS model.
Natural, existing and proposed conditions (with pier locations Options A- and B) were
. . .'
modeled. Conservative assumptions regarding pier size were used for this modeling.
Refined design of the concepts and further hydraulic analysis will allow confirmation that
the proposed project will result in no rise of the base flood elevation.
A FEMA "no-rise" certification will be obtained from the City of Eugene for any
construction or structures within flood ways/special flood hazard areas within Eugene.
Policy C,31 When development is allowed to occur in the jloodway or jloodway fringe,
local regulations shall control such development in order to minimize the potential,
danger to Life and property, Within the UGB, development should result in in1illing of
partially developed land Outside the UGB, areas affected by thejloodway andjloodway
fringe shall be protected for their agricultural and sand and gravel resource values, .their
open space and recreational potential, and their value to water resources,
The proposed replacement bridges are located within the Eugene-Springfield UGB.
Portions of the project area consist of developed urban lands and portions of the project
area consist of non-urban areas. Both Eugene and Springfield have adopted ordinances
oregon bridge delivery pa,rtners
Date Received '
1165 Union Street NE Salem, OR 97301
, FEB 15 2008
,Page 1, of 2
t c:.~'
,;.
"
t~
I....'
Planner: BJ
regulating construction within floodplains and floodways. The following pennits will be
obtained under these ordinances to allow development in the floodway or floodplain.
. A,Site Development Permit (or similar building pennit), and a FEMA "no-rise"
certification will be obtained from the City of Eugene for any construction or
structures within floodways/special flood hazard areas within Eugene.
. A Type 1 pennit will be obtained from the City of Springfield to allow any
construction in the floodplains or floodways within Springfield.
Development in relation to the project is in the nature of a replacement 1-5 bridge over
the Willamette River. The project will comply with approval conditions imposed during
the pennitting process.
Date Received
oregon bridge delivery partners
1165 Union Street NE Salem. OR 97301 FEB 1 5 2008
Page 2 012
. Planner: BJ
1t' .