RE‐EVALUATION OF THE 2012 SALEM RIVER CROSSING … Documents... · 2020. 1. 22. · 3 Re‐evaluation of the 2012 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Salem River Crossing

RE‐EVALUATION OF THE 2012 SALEM RIVER CROSSING PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

SALEM RIVER CROSSING PROJECT

MARION AND POLK COUNTIES, OREGON KEY NO. 13622, FEDERAL ID No. S000(287) and S000(288)

Federal Highway Administration Oregon Division

530 Center Street NE, Suite 420 Salem, OR 97301

July 2019

2

Alternative Format Availability

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, alternative formats of this document will be made available upon request.

3

Re‐evaluation of the 2012 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the

Salem River Crossing Project Marion and Polk Counties, Oregon

(Key No. 13622, Federal ID No. S000(287) and S000(288))

Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 4332(2)(C), 40 CFR Parts 1500‐1508, 49 U.S.C. Section 303, and 23 CFR Part 771

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and

Oregon Department of Transportation, Region 2 The following persons may be contacted for additional information:

Dan Fricke Project Manager Oregon Department of Transportation 455 Airport Rd SE, Bldg. B Salem, OR 97301‐5395 503.986.2663

Anna Henson Environmental Project Manager Oregon Department of Transportation 455 Airport Rd SE, Bldg. B Salem, OR 97301 503‐986‐2639

Emily Cline Environmental Program Manager Federal Highway Administration 530 Center St., NE STE 420 Salem OR 97301

5

Acronyms and Abbreviations API area of project impact

BMP best management practice

CETAS Collaborative Environmental and Transportation Agreement for Streamlining

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

LRFD Load and Resistance Factor Design

ODA Oregon Department of Agriculture

ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation

OR 22 Oregon State Route 22

ORBIC Oregon Biodiversity Information Center

project Salem River Crossing Project

RTSP Regional Transportation System Plan

SKATS MPO Salem‐Keizer Area Transportation Study Metropolitan Planning Organization

TSP Transportation System Plan

TWSC two‐way stop control

UGB urban growth boundary

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

v/c volume‐to‐capacity

7

Introduction

Document Purpose The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) evaluated the impacts of eight Salem River Crossing Project (project) alternatives and a No Build Alternative in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that was published in April 2012 and circulated for public and agency review. Since the publication of the DEIS in April 2012, a Preferred Alternative was identified that is a scaled‐down hybrid of DEIS alternatives “4A” and “4D,” both of which were evaluated in the DEIS. Recently, ODOT and FHWA have reconsidered the Preferred Alternative recommendation based on the lack of local land use actions necessary to implement the project and the lack of official with jurisdiction concurrence on a de minimis finding for Section 4(f) related to potential impacts to Wallace Marine Park. Based on that reconsideration, ODOT and FHWA are now selecting the No‐Build Alternative as the Preferred Alternative.

ODOT, in partnership with FHWA, must assure that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation presented in the DEIS does not need to be supplemented. Under FHWA’s NEPA regulations, 23 CFR 771.129 (excerpted below), this Salem River Crossing re‐evaluation document is being prepared.

Sec. 771.129 Reevaluations. (a) A written evaluation of the draft EIS shall be prepared by the applicant in cooperation with the Administration if an acceptable final EIS is not submitted to the Administration within 3 years from the date of the draft EIS circulation. The purpose of this evaluation is to determine whether a supplement to the draft EIS or a new draft EIS is needed.

FHWA’s NEPA regulations also address the circumstances under which a supplement EIS would be required:

§771.130 Supplemental environmental impact statements.

(a) A draft EIS, final EIS, or supplemental EIS may be supplemented at any time. An EIS shall be supplemented whenever the Administration determines that:

(1) Changes to the proposed action would result in significant environmental impacts that were not evaluated in the EIS; or

(2) New information or circumstances relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts would result in significant environmental impacts not evaluated in the EIS.

(b) However, a supplemental EIS will not be necessary where:

(1) The changes to the proposed action, new information, or new circumstances result in a lessening of adverse environmental impacts evaluated in the EIS without causing other environmental impacts that are significant and were not evaluated in the EIS; or

(2) The Administration decides to approve an alternative fully evaluated in an approved final EIS but not identified as the Preferred Alternative. In such a case, a revised ROD shall be prepared and circulated in accordance with §771.127(b).

(c) Where the Administration is uncertain of the significance of the new impacts, the applicant will develop appropriate environmental studies or, if the Administration deems appropriate, an EA to assess the impacts of the changes, new information, or new circumstances. If, based upon the studies, the Administration determines that a supplemental EIS is not necessary, the Administration shall so indicate in the project file.

8

(d) A supplement is to be developed using the same process and format (i.e., draft EIS, final EIS, and ROD) as an original EIS, except that scoping is not required.

(e) A supplemental draft EIS may be necessary for major new fixed guideway capital projects proposed for FTA funding if there is a substantial change in the level of detail on project impacts during project planning and development. The supplement will address site‐specific impacts and refined cost estimates that have been developed since the original draft EIS.

(f) In some cases, a supplemental EIS may be required to address issues of limited scope, such as the extent of proposed mitigation or the evaluation of location or design variations for a limited portion of the overall project. Where this is the case, the preparation of a supplemental EIS shall not necessarily:

(1) Prevent the granting of new approvals;

(2) Require the withdrawal of previous approvals; or

(3) Require the suspension of project activities; for any activity not directly affected by the supplement. If the changes in question are of such magnitude to require a reassessment of the entire action, or more than a limited portion of the overall action, the Administration shall suspend any activities which would have an adverse environmental impact or limit the choice of reasonable alternatives, until the supplemental EIS is completed.

[52 FR 32660, Aug. 28, 1987, as amended at 70 FR 24470, May 9, 2005; 74 FR 12530, Mar. 24, 2009]

This re‐evaluation assesses the effect of environmental statutes, regulations, policies and guidance that have been issued since publication of the DEIS in April 2012; and identifies any new substantial impacts from the Preferred Alternative that were not identified in the DEIS.

Background The need to increase transportation capacity across the Willamette River in response to additional population and travel demand in the Salem‐Keizer metropolitan area has been the subject of ongoing discussion for many years. The two existing four‐lane bridges—the Center Street Bridge (eastbound) and the Marion Street Bridge (westbound)—have been in service together in their current configuration since 1982. They function as a couplet across the Willamette River in Salem. Past efforts to increase river crossing capacity have resulted in additional improvements at the existing location primarily because those improvements were the most cost effective.

Many of the same issues identified in previous studies (for example, continued development in West Salem, peak‐period traffic congestion on the bridges) are still relevant today; these previous studies include the Willamette River Bridgehead Engineering Study (SKATS MPO, 1998) and the General Corridor Evaluation (SKATS MPO, 2002). Subsequent to these studies, in 2007, the Salem River Crossing Project Oversight Team and the FHWA agreed on a range of alternatives to be studied in a DEIS.

The DEIS examined three crossing locations over the Willamette River for a new bridge in Salem, as well as a No Build alternative. Within the three crossing locations were variations in bridge alignments, or connections to the existing road system, resulting in eight DEIS Alternatives (2A, 2B, 3, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E). The DEIS provided information on the alternatives and how the alternatives might impact people who live in the area or travel the roads, as well as possible impacts to the natural environment.

9

The DEIS was published on April 20, 2012, and the public comment period lasted through June 18, 2012. During, and subsequent to, the DEIS public comment period, the Salem River Crossing Task Force1 met on four separate occasions to discuss the results of the DEIS alternatives analysis. The project Oversight Team2, the group that forwards project recommendations, met twice during this time period – once in a joint meeting with the Task Force, and once by itself. On August 15, 2012, the Task Force voted to support Alternative 4D as the Preferred Alternative; the Task Force’s identified Preferred Alternative was forwarded to the Oversight Team. The Oversight Team subsequently considered the Task Force feedback, together with the analysis contained in the DEIS and public comment. On August 23, 2012, the Oversight Team reached consensus to recommend Alternative 4D as the Preferred Alternative.

After the Oversight Team Preferred Alternative recommendation local government agencies (City of Salem, City of Keizer, Polk County, and Marion County) officially considered whether to endorse the Oversight Team’s recommendation. At that time, the Salem City Council, after hearing concerns from city residents about potential impacts caused by DEIS Alternative 4D, concluded that the City of Salem wished to see a scaled‐down version of DEIS Alternative 4D that would have less overall impacts, most notably to homes and businesses. Accordingly, the City of Salem in coordination with ODOT developed a concept for a scaled‐down version of DEIS Alternative 4D that was termed the Salem Alternative. The Salem Alternative was identified as the Preferred Alternative for study in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The Preferred Alternative included many of the design elements of Alternative 4D, and reduced potential impacts by:

Removing the viaduct above the future Marine Drive in West Salem.

Removing the elevated “flyover “ramps from the new bridge to Salem Parkway in North Salem.

Reducing the size and extent of local road modifications.

Reducing the number of lanes on the bridge from three to two in each direction. After selection of the Preferred Alternative, the next step was the completion and adoption of local land use actions necessary to implement the project. Oregon land use law requires the establishment of Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB) around urban areas. Urban serving services (such as transportation infrastructure) generally must be located within the UGB. The options to construct an urban transportation facility outside the UGB are to: 1) amend the UGB; or 2) apply for and obtain exceptions to Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals. After considerable discussion, the Project Team determined that an amendment to the UGB was the most appropriate course of action. The UGB for the Salem metropolitan area is shared between the Cities of Salem and Keizer, and Marion and Polk Counties. Since it is shared, approval of an amendment is required of all four entities. A UGB amendment was proposed that would expand the boundary by approximately 35 acres to incorporate land in Polk County to include a portion of the new bridge as well as a planned local street (Marine Drive) that was necessary for the proper function of the system. On October 12, 2016 a joint public hearing was held by the Salem and Keizer City Councils, Keizer Planning Commission, and the Marion and Polk Counties Boards of County Commissioners. At that hearing, all bodies preliminarily adopted the proposed UGB amendment and an associated exception to the State’s Willamette River Greenway Goal (Statewide

1 Members of the Task Force include leaders of neighborhood and civic groups on both sides of the river, public agency staff, and representatives of interest groups with a stake in the project.

2 The Oversight Team consists of elected or appointed officials representing the cities of Salem and Keizer, Marion and Polk counties, Salem‐Keizer Transit, the Oregon Department of Transportation, and the Federal Highway Administration as a non‐voting member.

10

Planning Goal 15). The City of Salem adopted its final ordinance approving the UGB amendment and goal exception on December 5, 2016. In early 2017, opponents of the project filed an appeal of the City of Salem UGB amendment adoption and Goal 15 exception with the State’s Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). LUBA is a body created by the State of Oregon specifically to consider appeals of local land use decisions. On August 17, 2017, LUBA issued its final opinion and order remanding the city’s action back for further review and findings based on three errors described by the various appellants. With the remand decision, the previous approvals are vacated until such time as the City of Salem addresses the issues raised. On February 11, 2019, the Salem City Council held a hearing to consider the question of whether or not to proceed with responding to the issues in the LUBA remand. After considering the record and considerable public testimony, the Council voted to not address the remand issues. Therefore, the land use actions necessary to support advancing the project have not been adopted. ODOTs State Agency Coordination agreement and administrative rule require, at OAR 731‐015‐0075(3):

“…the Department shall rely on affected cities and counties to make all plan amendments and zone changes necessary to achieve compliance with the statewide planning goals and compatibility with local comprehensive plans after completion of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment and before completion of the Final Environmental Impact Statement or Revised Environmental Assessment. These shall include adoption of general and specific plan provisions necessary to address applicable statewide planning goals.”

Based on this, ODOT is not in a position to publish the FEIS and recommend adoption of the Preferred Alternative to FHWA until the remand issues are resolved. Given the City Council action described above essentially vacating the previous land use approvals, ODOTs recommendation to FHWA is to approve the No‐Build as the selected alternative.

Project Alternatives This section describes the No Build Alternative, the DEIS Build alternatives and Preferred Alternative (hereinafter referred to as the “previous Preferred Alternative”), and the project purpose and need.

No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative would maintain the existing and planned design and capacity of the transportation system in Salem.

DEIS Build Alternatives The descriptions of the DEIS Build alternatives described here are the same as those described in the published DEIS.

DEIS Alternative 2A

DEIS Alternative 2A, shown on Exhibit A‐1, would widen the existing Center Street and Marion Street Bridges. The Marion Street Bridge would be widened to six lanes (adding two lanes) traveling west, and the Center Street Bridge would be widened to five lanes (adding one lane) traveling east.

Widening the lanes on the Center Street Bridge and the Marion Street Bridge would necessitate removing the existing sidewalks and bicycle paths. However, the newly renovated railroad bridge located just north of

11

the Marion Street Bridge has been converted for bicycle and pedestrian use and will accommodate bicycle/pedestrian movements in this location. DEIS Alternative 2A includes changes to the bicycle and pedestrian connections to the Union Street railroad bicycle/pedestrian bridge (Union Street Pedestrian Bridge) to meet the transportation needs of these modes.

Eastside Bridgehead and Distribution Network

On Commercial Street, traveling south through the Central Business District, a free‐right‐turn lane heading westbound would be added to connect to the Marion Street Bridge. A traffic island would separate the lane from an additional right‐turn‐only lane and a combined right‐turn/through lane. Installing the free‐right‐turn lane would require acquiring land from the southeast corner of Marion Square Park. The free‐right‐turn lane would be installed to allow right turns onto the bridge, even if north‐south traffic on Commercial Street was stopped at the intersection, thereby reducing southbound queue lengths at the intersection. Traffic in this lane would not be required to merge with westbound traffic once on the bridge. Commercial Street would need to be widened between the Marion Street intersection and a point approximately a half‐block north of Union Street to accommodate the additional lane. The widening of the Marion Street Bridge would require the installation of new piers in the Willamette River.

At the Commercial Street intersection, the Center Street Bridge would have three through lanes and one right‐turn/through lane. The fifth travel lane on the bridge would become a dedicated lane for the northbound exit ramp. The southbound exit to Front Street would be maintained, with minor modifications resulting from the bridge widening.

Westside Bridgehead and Distribution Network

On the Marion Street Bridge, traffic in the two right‐most lanes on the bridge would enter an elevated ramp connecting to OR 22 westbound. Vehicles in the right‐most lane would then have the option of entering a northbound ramp that would connect, via a new road, to Glen Creek Road. The new Glen Creek Road connection would form part of Marine Drive. The four remaining left‐most bridge lanes would split, with three lanes connecting to Wallace Road and one lane traveling west to OR 22.

On the eastbound approach to the Center Street Bridge, OR 22 eastbound would split into two ramps that would take traffic to the two outside lanes of the bridge. The Wallace Road bridge approach lanes would form the middle three lanes on the bridge, thereby reducing traffic weaving on the bridge and accommodating orderly northbound and southbound movements at the east end of the bridge.

Wallace Road, from the OR 22 interchange to Orchard Heights Road, would include three northbound lanes and three southbound lanes. The third northbound lane would end at Orchard Heights Road as a left‐turn‐only lane. The third southbound lane on Wallace Road would begin just north of the Orchard Heights Road signalized intersection. The north/south directing ramps from OR 22 would be revised to accommodate the third lane coming from Wallace Road.

On Wallace Road, modifications would be made to the following signalized intersections, primarily by the addition of turn lanes: Edgewater Street, Taggart Drive, Glen Creek Road, and Orchard Heights Road (which would be widened to Overlook Avenue).

The following streets intersecting Wallace Road would be modified to provide right‐in/ right‐out only access: Bassett Street, an unnamed street to the east, Moyer Lane, 7th Street, Veall Lane, 9th Street, and Taybin Road. In addition, Dorval Drive, which accesses Orchard Heights Road, would be made right‐in/right‐out only.

Proposed bicycle and pedestrian enhancements would include a new connection north along Marine Drive to Glen Creek Road and a grade‐separated crossing (bridge) over Wallace Road.

12

DEIS Alternative 2B

DEIS Alternative 2B, shown on Exhibit A‐2, proposed a new bridge crossing between the Marion Street Bridge and the Union Street Pedestrian Bridge. The existing bridges would remain in service with no changes aside from closing the eastbound‐to‐northbound ramp onto Front Street from the Center Street Bridge. The new bridge would provide two‐way travel, with three lanes traveling east and two lanes traveling west. The final cross‐section design would be determined during the FEIS process (subsequent to the identification of a Preferred Alternative).


DEIS Alternative 2B would require a major restructuring of Commercial Street between Market and Center Streets. Most of the capacity of the street would be used for southwest and northeast traffic. Traffic on Commercial Street continuing south of Marion Street would be diverted first to Front Street and then to a single at‐grade lane paralleling the Marion Street Bridge, which would return traffic to southbound Commercial Street south of Marion Street. Traffic in this single lane would flow counter to the west‐flowing traffic on Marion Street. Commercial Street would be closed to vehicles between Marion and Union Streets; the future use of this vacated segment of Commercial Street has not been determined. Union Street, which provides two‐way travel in this area, would provide access to Front Street and Liberty Street.

Northbound Front Street, which currently has three lanes up to the Marion Street Bridge ramp and two lanes to Commercial Street, would be reduced to two lanes at Court Street and then to one lane north of the Marion Street Bridge ramp. Southbound Front Street would be maintained as one lane to the Center Street Bridge ramp. South of the Center Street Bridge ramp, southbound Front Street would maintain the existing number of lanes.


On the west end, the new bridge would connect one two‐lane entrance ramp and one two‐lane exit ramp to the future north‐south Marine Drive. An extension of Glen Creek Road would intersect with the Marine Drive bridge ramps to create a new intersection. Farther north, Marine Drive would connect to a realigned Orchard Heights Road at Wallace Road to create a new intersection. A new intersection would also be created where the realigned Orchard Heights Road crosses Wallace Road. The realigned Orchard Heights Road and Marine Drive would be two lanes northbound and two lanes southbound from Wallace Road to Glen Creek Road.

Glen Creek Road would be widened between the Wallace Marine Park access and Chelsea Avenue. Taybin Road would provide right‐in/right‐out access at the intersection with Wallace Road. At the intersection with Wallace Road, turn lanes would be added to all four legs of the Glen Creek Road intersection. Wallace Road would be widened to include turn‐lane pockets from Taggart Drive to just south of Hope Avenue.

The center two lanes of the bridge would carry two‐way traffic on a flyover (elevated) ramp to OR 22. The flyover would then split into two ramps on the outside lanes of the existing highway.

The OR 22 westbound ramp would conflict with the existing exit ramp to Rosemont Avenue. Therefore, a new exit ramp to Rosemont Avenue would be required, which would begin at the west end of the Marion Street Bridge. The new exit ramp from the Marion Street Bridge would displace all but one of the buildings on the south side of Edgewater Street between the bridge and Rosemont Avenue.

The new eastbound ramp on OR 22 would be placed at the edge of the riverbank.

DEIS Alternative 3

DEIS Alternative 3, shown on Exhibit A‐3, is the northernmost of the three crossing locations. An objective of this alignment is to avoid affecting Wallace Marine Park. This alignment connects directly to Salem Parkway near Tryon Avenue on the east side of the Willamette River and to Wallace Road at Hope Avenue on the west side of the river. Travelers would access OR 22 either by way of Wallace Road or by the existing

13

route (using the Commercial/Liberty couplet and the existing Center Street and Marion Street Bridges). The new bridge would have three lanes traveling east and three lanes traveling west. The existing Center Street and Marion Street Bridges would remain in service.

The proposed bridge would include, in each direction, a 10‐foot‐wide raised sidewalk facility separated from the paved way by a barrier and 10‐foot‐wide bike lanes/shoulders (each an 8‐foot lane plus 2 feet of shy distance) adjacent to the far‐right travel lane. The bicycle facilities for the bridge were designed to ODOT standards for bicycle facilities on typical bridge sections. The final cross‐section design would be determined during the FEIS process (after the identification of a Preferred Alternative).


The eastside bridgehead would be an interchange at Tryon Avenue, where the Commercial/ Liberty couplet would join Salem Parkway. The bridge structure would cross over Front Street; have entrance and exit ramps with the Commercial/Liberty couplet; and cross above the Salem Parkway & Broadway Street intersection. The mainstem of the eastbound bridgehead would become the center lanes of Salem Parkway as it approaches Cherry Avenue. Two entrance and exit ramps would be carried on the outside lanes of the bridge between Cherry Avenue and Broadway Street, and would then meet at ground level at the Salem Parkway & Broadway Street intersection. Commercial Street north of the interchange would be redirected to intersect with Liberty Street. The new intersection at Commercial & Liberty Streets would maintain all directions of travel that exist today. There would not be an entrance ramp to the bridge directly from southbound Commercial Street. Therefore, drivers proceeding south from Keizer who wish to access the new bridge would either:

Travel southbound on Cherry Avenue to access Salem Parkway (which would have an entrance ramp to the bridge); or,

Travel southbound on Commercial Street, turn left on Hickory Street, and then turn left again on northbound Liberty Street (where another entrance ramp to the new bridge would be located).


The westside bridgehead would be an intersection at Marine Drive and an intersection at Wallace Road, opposite from Hope Avenue. Left‐ and right‐turning lanes would be included at both intersections for all travel directions.

DEIS Alternative 4A

DEIS Alternative 4A, shown on Exhibit A‐4, would have the same crossing point (Hope to Pine/Hickory couplet) as all the Alternative 4 crossings. It would connect to Hope Avenue at Wallace Road on the west, cross Wallace Marine Park at its northern tip, cross the river and McLane Island, cross over the realigned Front Street, and connect to Pine and Hickory Streets at Commercial Street on the east. The new bridge would be constructed to structurally support potential future direct ramp connections to Salem Parkway and OR 22 from the new bridge. The proposed bridge would have the same cross‐section as Alternative 3. The final cross‐section design would be determined during the FEIS process.


DEIS Alternative 4A would have an eastbound connection at Commercial Street (via an exit ramp aligned with Pine Street) and a westbound connection (via an entrance ramp aligned with Hickory Street). Entrance and exit ramps would connect at‐grade to a proposed short Pine Street/Hickory Street couplet (Pine/Hickory couplet). This couplet would be only two blocks in length, extending from the bridge ramps to Liberty Street, including their respective intersections with Commercial Street.

Access to Salem Parkway would be via the existing Commercial/Liberty couplet. The new bridge would be accessible from the north by River Road/Commercial Street. Front Street would be reconstructed closer to the river between Taylor Street and Columbia Street to maintain its north‐south connection. The remnant

14

segments of Front Street in this area would end in cul‐de‐sacs north and south of the bridge approaches, and the street would be closed to vehicles between the bridge approaches.

The new bridge would be constructed to structurally support a future direct ramp connection to Salem Parkway (which would also be the case for Alternative 4B).


The westside bridgehead would end in entrance and exit ramps that would combine into a single roadway at the Marine Drive intersection. This roadway would then continue to the Wallace Road intersection at Hope Avenue. The new bridge would include structure to facilitate a potential future connection to a north‐south connector road to OR 22. The full extent of Marine Drive would not need to be built at the same time as the rest of DEIS Alternative 4A. However, the connection would be provided for potential future road extensions.

DEIS Alternative 4B

DEIS Alternative 4B, shown on Exhibit A‐5, would combine DEIS Alternative 4A and DEIS Alternative 2A. This alternative would increase capacity at the existing bridge crossing location and add a new bridge at the Hope to Pine/Hickory crossing location.

DEIS Alternative 4B would construct a new bridge at the same crossing point as all of the DEIS Alternative 4 crossings. DEIS Alternative 4B would modify the existing Center Street and Marion Street Bridges in addition to constructing a new bridge at this crossing location. The proposed bridge would have the same cross‐section as under DEIS Alternative 3.


As with DEIS Alternative 4A, DEIS Alternative 4B would have an eastbound connection at Commercial Street (via an exit ramp aligned with Pine Street) and a westbound connection (via an entrance ramp aligned with Hickory Street). Entrance and exit ramps would connect at‐grade to a proposed short Pine/Hickory couplet. This couplet would be only two blocks in length, extending from the bridge ramps to Liberty Street, including their respective intersections with Commercial Street.

Access to Salem Parkway would be via the existing Commercial/Liberty couplet. The new bridge would be accessible from the north by River Road and Commercial Street. Front Street would be reconstructed closer to the river between Taylor Street and Columbia Street.

The new bridge would be constructed to structurally support a potential future direct ramp connection to Salem Parkway.

In addition to constructing a new bridge crossing to the north, DEIS Alternative 4B would modify the existing bridges in the same manner as described for DEIS Alternative 2A.


The westside bridgehead would end in entrance and exit ramps that would combine into a single roadway at the Marine Drive intersection. This roadway would then continue to the Wallace Road intersection at Hope Avenue. The full extent of Marine Drive would not need to be built at the same time as the rest of Alternative 4B. However, the connection would be provided for potential future modifications.

The new bridge would be constructed to structurally support a potential future direct ramp connection to a north‐south connector road to OR 22.

In addition to constructing a new bridge crossing to the north, DEIS Alternative 4B would modify the existing bridges in the same manner as described for DEIS Alternative 2A.

15

DEIS Alternative 4C

DEIS Alternative 4C, shown on Exhibit A‐6, would have the same crossing point as all the DEIS Alternative 4 crossings. The proposed bridge would have the same cross‐section as under DEIS Alternative 3.


With DEIS Alternative 4C, on the east end of the bridge structure, the four center lanes of the crossing would continue on an elevated structure to become the four center lanes of Salem Parkway. The lanes would be at‐grade at their connection with the Broadway Street intersection. Entrance and exit ramps would connect at‐grade to the proposed Pine/Hickory couplet at their respective intersections with Commercial Street. The proposed Pine/Hickory couplet would extend to 5th Street. DEIS Alternative 4C would establish new connecting lanes between Salem Parkway and the Commercial/Liberty couplet that would be at‐grade, and would connect to Salem Parkway just east of Broadway Street.


On the west end of the bridge, a direct connection to OR 22 would be provided. From the bridge, two lanes would continue on a viaduct running north‐south, along the west side of Wallace Marine Park, to connect to OR 22; this segment is called the OR 22 Connector. Two lanes of the OR 22 Connector would travel southwest for approximately 0.25 mile before reducing to one lane continuing southwest and one lane traveling northeast. The viaduct would split into two ramps heading east‐west on OR 22. The entrance and exit for the ramps would be located near the existing location of the Rosemont Avenue ramps on OR 22. Consequently, the westbound exit ramp to Rosemont Avenue would need to be relocated. The new Rosemont Avenue exit would be located just past the end of the Marion Street Bridge. The new OR 22 Connector ramp would displace all but one of the buildings on the south side of Edgewater Street between Wallace Road and Rosemont Avenue.

Two ramps would connect the new bridge to Wallace Road. The ramps would exit and enter from the outside lanes of the bridge, and combine at the intersection with Marine Drive, continuing to the Wallace Road intersection, just opposite Hope Avenue.

Marine Drive would be fully constructed under DEIS Alternative 4C. On the north, Marine Drive would intersect with Wallace Road, opposite Brush College Road. Marine Drive would continue south along a raised terrace that would straddle the edge of the floodplain, until it intersected the new bridge connection. South of the bridge connection, Marine Drive would split into two. One section would travel southwest to intersect with Wallace Road, opposite the new connector road to Orchard Heights Road. The other section would break away from Marine Drive just before the Wallace Road intersection and continue southeast until intersecting with the OR 22 Connector. This section of Marine Drive would continue in the same alignment as the OR 22 Connector, but would be underneath the viaduct at ground level. This section of Marine Drive would end at the intersection of Glen Creek Road and the entrance to Wallace Marine Park.

Other changes on the west side that would help facilitate traffic flow on Wallace Road would include the following:

Wallace Road, between Taggart Drive and just north of Lynda Lane, would be widened and left turns would be confined primarily to signalized intersections. Left‐ and right‐turning lanes would be provided at major intersections.

The following streets would be limited to right‐in/right‐out movements: Moyer Lane, 7th Street, Veall Lane, 9th Street, Taybin Road, the existing Orchard Heights Road leg, Tulip Lane, Narcissus Court, and Empire Street.

Orchard Heights Road would be realigned between Overlook Avenue and Wallace Road. The realignment would intersect with the end of Marine Drive, at Wallace Road.

16

Glen Creek Road would be widened from Karen Way, through the intersection with Wallace Road, to the entrance of Wallace Marine Park. A median between Belaire Drive and Wallace Road would restrict Belaire Drive and Alpine Avenue to right‐in/right‐out movements only.

DEIS Alternative 4D

DEIS Alternative 4D, shown on Exhibit A‐7, would be similar to DEIS Alternative 4C, with one exception—the connections to Pine and Hickory Streets would only extend as far as Liberty Street and, therefore, the proposed couplet would not be as pronounced as in DEIS Alternative 4C.

DEIS Alternative 4D would have the same crossing point as all the DEIS Alternative 4 crossings. The proposed bridge would have the same cross‐section as DEIS Alternative 3.


With DEIS Alternative 4D, on the east end of the bridge structure, the four center lanes of the crossing would continue on an elevated structure to become the four center lanes of Salem Parkway. The lanes would be at‐grade at their connection with the Broadway Street intersection. Entrance and exit ramps would connect at‐grade to the proposed Pine/Hickory couplet at their respective intersections with Commercial Street. The proposed Pine/Hickory couplet would extend only to Liberty Street with this alternative. DEIS Alternative 4D would establish new connecting lanes between Salem Parkway and the Commercial/Liberty couplet that would be at‐grade, and would connect to Salem Parkway just east of Broadway Street.


Modifications on the west side of the river under Alternative 4D would be identical to those described for DEIS Alternative 4C.

DEIS Alternative 4E

DEIS Alternative 4E, shown on Exhibit A‐8, would be similar to DEIS Alternative 4C, with one exception—the alignment of Marine Drive and the OR 22 Connector along the west side of Wallace Marine Park would be oriented more to the west to minimize effects to the park.

DEIS Alternative 4E would have the same crossing point as all the Alternative 4 crossings. The proposed bridge would have the same cross‐section as under DEIS Alternative 3.


Modifications on the east side of the river under DEIS Alternative 4E would be identical to those described for DEIS Alternative 4C.


On the west end of the bridge, a direct connection to OR 22 would be provided. From the bridge, two lanes would continue a viaduct running north‐south to connect to OR 22 (the OR 22 Connector). In contrast to DEIS Alternatives 4C and 4D, the OR 22 Connector with DEIS Alternative 4E would be aligned on the outside of the western boundary of Wallace Marine Park. Two lanes of the OR 22 Connector would travel southwest for approximately 0.25 mile before changing to one lane continuing southwest and one lane traveling northeast. The viaduct would split into two ramps heading east‐west on OR 22. The entrance and exit for the ramps would be located near the Rosemont Avenue ramps on OR 22. Consequently, the westbound off‐ramp to Rosemont Avenue would need to be relocated. The new Rosemont Avenue exit would be located just past the end of the Marion Street Bridge. The new OR 22 Connector ramp would displace all but one of the buildings on the south side of Edgewater Street between Wallace Road and Rosemont Avenue.

Bridge connections to Wallace Road and local system modifications associated with Wallace Road would be identical to those described for DEIS Alternative 4C.

17

Preferred Alternative As explained above, the recommended Preferred Alternative is now the No‐Build. That alternative is described as Alternative 1 in the DEIS.

Project Purpose and Need

Purpose

The purpose of the project is to improve mobility and safety for people and freight for local, regional, and through travel across the Willamette River in the Salem‐Keizer metropolitan area while alleviating congestion on the Center Street and Marion Street Bridges and on the connecting highway and arterial street systems.

Primary measures to satisfy the purpose statement include the following:

Reducing congestion levels at the existing bridgeheads.

Remediating safety and operational deficiencies on the existing bridges and in the study area in locations where crash rates are higher than average.

Need

The following statements identify the need for the project:

Need Statement #1. Based on available data, the existing river crossing facilities and local bridge system in Salem are inadequate for current and future traffic demand, resulting in a need to improve traffic operations in the study area over the No Build Alternative conditions.

Need Statement #2. Based on available data, the existing river crossing facilities and local bridge connections in Salem are inadequate for current and future users (vehicles, freight, bicycles, and pedestrians) with regard to safety conditions, resulting in a need to improve traffic safety for all these users.

Need Statement #3. Based on available data, the existing river crossing facilities and local bridge system in Salem are inadequate for current and future freight‐vehicle capacity, resulting in a need to improve freight mobility in the area of the Center Street and Marion Street Bridges.

Need Statement #4. Congestion levels on the existing river crossing facilities result in unreliable public transportation service, thereby necessitating an improvement in transit travel time and reliability from/to West Salem.

Need Statement #5. The existing river crossing options in Salem are inadequate to accommodate emergency response vehicles in the event of restricted access to and/or closure of the existing bridges because of an emergency or other incident, resulting in the need to provide improved crossings or an additional crossing in case the Center Street and Marion Street Bridges are closed or limited because of an incident.

Detailed information regarding the above need statements is provided in Section 1.5 of the DEIS.

Environmental Review Process This re‐evaluation provides an assessment of each environmental topic area addressed in the DEIS. Any potential new impacts resulting from the Preferred Alternative are summarized in this re‐evaluation. For those topic areas where project changes potentially result in impacts that are unique and distinct from impacts disclosed under the range of alternatives studied in the DEIS, an assessment is made as to whether these impacts are significant or represent a significant broadening of the scope of the project from that

18

presented under the range of Build alternatives studied in the DEIS. This re‐evaluation also notes where findings from the DEIS are adequate and no additional analysis is necessary.

Changes to Methodology, Regulations, Laws, or Policies & Summary of Resource Analysis Impacted by the Changes This section describes environmental resource areas that incurred updates with respect to either their affected environment or impacts based on changes to statutes, regulations, policies, guidance and methodologies since the DEIS was published.

With respect to affected environment, the footprint of the Preferred Alternative studied in the DEIS is contained within the aggregated footprint of the Build alternatives studied in the DEIS; as such, the environmental discipline study areas utilized in the DEIS are contained within the aggregated study area considered for the range of alternatives in the DEIS. Thus, there is no “new” geographic study area in the DEIS that requires additional analysis.

The resource areas listed below would incur no changes with respect to affected environment or impacts based on changes to statutes, regulations, policies, guidance and methodologies that occurred since the DEIS was published. Therefore, there would be no anticipated “new significant” impacts associated with the No‐Build Alternative for any of the below resource areas.

Land Use

Right of Way & Utilities

Environmental Justice

Socioeconomics

Parks & Recreation Resources and Section 6(f)

Historic Resources

Visual Resources

Biological Resources (Natural Systems and Communities; Threatened & Endangered Species; Non‐Threatened and Endangered Species; Invasive Species Wetland and Non‐Wetland Waters)

Water Resources

Air Quality and Noise

Energy

Geology and Soils

Hazardous Materials

Section 4(f)

Traffic and Transportation The geographical affected environment used for the traffic and transportation discipline under the No‐Build Alternative is the same as that utilized in the DEIS for the range of Build alternatives studied in that document.

Because of the six‐year gap in time between the DEIS traffic analysis efforts and completion of this Re‐evaluation, the traffic model and associated methodology utilized in the DEIS for the 2031 No Build Alternative was outdated by the time the analysis was conducted for the 2040 No Build Alternative. In the

19

DEIS, the forecasting and future analysis traffic volume development were provided by PTV, a traffic engineering subconsultant. For the updated analysis, SKATS, the Salem area MPO, developed the forecast volumes for each alternative and utilized a different model methodology than PTV had used for the DEIS traffic analysis; additionally, an updated horizon year for the model was used (2040) than was used in the DEIS (2031) due to the five‐year gap between the publication of the DEIS and the preparation of the updated analysis. Because of the differences in methodology, the results of the updated 2040 traffic model are not directly comparable to the DEIS 2031 traffic model results.

However, project traffic analysts analyzed the DEIS alternatives using the 2040 model and determined that there was no measurable change in the comparative differences between DEIS alternatives under the 2040 model versus the 2031 model. Exhibit B‐1 of this re‐evaluation provides the volume‐to‐capacity (v/c) ratio results, comparing the 2031 and 2040 No‐Build networks for each alternative analyzed in the DEIS. Exhibit B‐2 provides the 2040 model results for the previous Preferred Alternative and the No‐Build.

Public Involvement

Pre‐DEIS Public Involvement Activities Prior to the development of the DEIS, the Salem River Crossing Project conducted a scoping process, which was focused around the first five decision milestones of the project.

Milestone 1: Management Structure and Decision Process

This first decision milestone ensured agreement on the process to be used throughout the project, as well as the roles, responsibilities, and membership of the various participating groups. The goal was to create a logical path through a complicated project by establishing major decision points (or milestones). At each decision point, all the project stakeholder groups had the opportunity to consider the topic, ensuring that quality decisions were made and that they did not have to be revisited later. Structuring the project in this way has allowed the project team to explain to stakeholders what phase the project is in, what has been accomplished, and what is ahead. Clear decision milestones created an expectation for meeting deadlines and staying on schedule.

Agency Coordination

The composition, roles, and responsibilities were divided among three primary teams—the Project Management Team, the Oversight Team, and the Task Force. The following paragraphs list the stakeholder agencies and their responsibilities.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) FHWA is the lead agency for the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) process that governs proposed actions requiring federal highway funding, permits, or approvals. FHWA would approve the Final EIS and sign the Record of Decision at the conclusion of the NEPA process.

The Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS, published on November 13, 2006, in the Federal Register, was the first, formal step for the project at the federal level. It described the proposed action, the project’s Purpose and Need, and opportunities for public comment. The Notice of Intent also announced the initiation of the formal scoping process.

Local Elected Officials and Metropolitan Planning Organization The Oversight Team (see subsequent subsection) made all interim recommendations during the project. The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and elected officials of affected jurisdictions were briefed as needed or upon request. Approvals could take place as part of a vote of the SKATS MPO policy board or as land use or transportation approvals needed to implement the project.

20

Collaborative Environmental and Transportation Agreement for Streamlining (CETAS) CETAS coordinated and streamlined the regulatory review and permitting functions of the participating agencies. Members included representatives from key federal and state agencies responsible for protecting the region’s fish and wildlife; cultural and land use resources; air; and water. This committee formally concurred on Salem River Crossing Project decisions related to the Purpose and Need, the Evaluation Framework, the Range of Alternatives, the Selection Criteria, and the Preferred Alternative.

Oversight Team The Oversight Team included elected or appointed officials of local agencies and jurisdictions with regulatory responsibility for, or a strong interest in, this project. Responsibilities of the Oversight Team included the following:

Setting the policy framework for the project

Representing the interests of their agencies or jurisdictions in group deliberations

Communicating project progress to their fellow elected or appointed officials and to their constituents

Preparing for and participating in approximately 10 two‐hour meetings between September 2006 and the present

Reviewing recommendations from the Task Force (see next subsection) and other background materials, then making decisions or recommendations at the project’s key decision points

The Oversight Team during this time consisted of representatives of the following groups:

City of Keizer City Council

City of Salem City Council

Marion County Commission

Polk County Commission

Salem‐Keizer Transit District

ODOT Region 2 Management

FHWA Division Administrator

Task Force The Task Force provided a balanced representation of stakeholder interests, affected communities, and geographic areas, served as a communication link with those interests and communities. Members of the Task Force included the City of Salem; leaders of neighborhood and civic groups on both sides of the Willamette River; the SKATS MPO; representatives of local and regional business groups; the Confederated Tribes of the Grande Ronde; and advocates for different bridge user groups (including commuters, freight users, transit users, pedestrians, and bicyclists). ODOT and the City of Salem solicited the members of the Task Force. Responsibilities of the Task Force members include the following:

Representing their constituents’ perspectives during group deliberations

Communicating project progress to their constituents

Preparing for and participating in approximately 16 three‐hour meetings between September 2006 and December 2008

Working to develop consensus recommendations to the Oversight Team at each step in the decision process

21

ODOT and City of Salem appointed the members as follows:

Professor Russell Beaton/Land Use

Mark Becktel/City of Salem Public Works

Warren Bednarz/Downtown Business

Betsy Belshaw/Parks

Mark Brown/Natural Resources

Tom Clark/West Salem Businesses

Bob Cortright/Department of Land Conservation & Development

Scott Erickson/West Salem Neighborhood Association

Leon Fisher/Freight

Austin McGuigan/Polk County Community Development (Aaron Geisler through Summer 2007)

Glenn Gross/City of Salem Community Development

Glen Hadley/Salem‐Keizer Transit District

Mike Jaffe/Mid‐Willamette Valley Council of Governments and SKATS

Mike Karnosh/Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde

Sam Litke/City of Keizer

Doug Parrow/Bicycle Transportation Alliance

Tim Potter/Oregon Department of Transportation

Lorraine Pullman/Grant Neighborhood Association

Cindy Schmitt/Marion County Public Works

Darlene Strozut/Highland Neighborhood Association

Mitch Teal/ Economic Development

The project team attempted to recruit to the Task Force a stakeholder who could represent issues of concern to the Hispanic community in the Salem‐Keizer area. However, the project team was unable to find a representative who could attend the Task Force meetings. Outreach to the Hispanic community was instead accomplished through environmental justice outreach activities.

Project Management Team The Project Management Team is comprised of ODOT, City of Salem, Polk County, and consultant project managers, along with other key staff from these agencies and the Mid‐Willamette Valley Council of Governments.

Public Involvement

Web Site The project Web site (www.salemrivercrossing.org) was first published on September 15, 2006. All Task Force and Oversight Team meeting materials are posted to the Web site. All draft and finalized documents are also posted to the Web site. Public comments were submitted via e‐mail and through the Web site. The

22

public could also join the mailing list on the Web site. Project managers Dan Fricke/ODOT and Julie Warncke/City of Salem contact information was posted on the Web site and in all printed materials, allowing comments to be sent by e‐mail, postal mail, or fax.

Participating and Cooperating Agency Input Section 139 of title 23, United States Code, requires a project’s lead agencies to establish a plan for coordinating public and agency participation during the environmental review process; Section 139 applies to projects for which an EIS is being prepared and is not optional for such projects. All agencies (participating, coordinating, or those that declined the invitation to participate) were able to comment on the project via the project Web site and during public comment periods.

Milestone 2: Purpose and Need

The project’s Purpose and Need statement was recommended by the Task Force on November 15, 2006, and adopted by the Oversight Team on November 21, 2006. The Purpose and Need is provided in Chapter 1 of the DEIS.

Agency Coordination

23 USC 139 Coordination Plan

In accordance with the requirements of Section 139, invitation letters were sent to government agencies on November 22, 2006, to see who might be interested in participating in the project; this included a number of agencies who are not otherwise involved in the project. Agencies expressing a desire to participate in the project development process could comment at key points in the process.

Scoping Meeting A scoping meeting was held for interested government agencies on November 11, 2006, at the ODOT Region 2 Technical Center in Salem, Oregon. During the meeting, the agencies reviewed the Draft Purpose and Need Statement and the Draft Section 139 Coordination Plan.

Most of the agencies with a stake in the Salem River Crossing Project were involved via the Project Management Team, Oversight Team, Task Force, or CETAS. A number of the agencies involved in these groups did not respond to the Agency Scoping Meeting invitation or indicated they would participate through these other opportunities. Relatively few agencies attended the meeting, but those who attended were able to learn about the project and provide input on the Purpose and Need Statement and Coordination Plan. The following agencies attended the scoping meeting:

Salem‐Keizer School District

Polk County

Marion County

Mid‐Willamette Valley Council of Governments

Oregon Economic and Community Development Department

West Valley Housing Authority

Collaborative Environmental and Transportation Agreement for Streamlining Review CETAS was a group of state and federal agencies that review transportation construction projects including all EISs, such as the one that will be produced for this project. CETAS identified and implemented collaborative opportunities to help each participating agency realize its mission through sound environmental stewardship, while providing for a safe and efficient transportation system.

The 10 CETAS agencies were:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

23

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ)

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)

Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)

Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD)

Oregon Department of State Lands (ODSL)

CETAS reviewed and commented on the Purpose and Need Statement at their January 16, 2007 meeting. Comments related primarily to the wording of natural resources goals and objectives. Subsequent to the meeting, CETAS issued their concurrence with the recommended Purpose and Need Statement. CETAS was disbanded by the State of Oregon in the time period between the publishing of the project DEIS and the start of project FEIS analysis.

Public Involvement

Web Site The project Web site was updated monthly, including posting project team meeting materials and monthly status reports.

The first on‐line survey was completed by 97 individuals between October 3 and November 1, 2006. The survey asked for general input on people’s concerns and interests related to the project. The project team acquired a better idea of the community, their values, and the issues surrounding transportation over the Marion and Center bridges through the survey responses. The project team used the information during the creation of the Purpose and Need Statement.

The second on‐line survey asked for public input on the Draft Purpose and Need. Approximately 76 individuals completed it between November 22 and December 20, 2006.

Public Notice and Media Communications Notification in the form of a project newsletter was sent to approximately 1,000 local residents, businesses, and community leaders in mid‐November 2006. A display ad promoting the Open Houses appeared in the Statesman Journal on Sunday, December 3, 2006. An article on the project, which included Open House information, was published in the Salem Statesman Journal on Monday, December 4, 2006. Press releases were distributed before each Task Force and public meeting. Three news articles were written about the project in December 2006, all of which were included in an appendix of the DEIS. In addition, the presentation during the December 7, 2006 Open House was broadcast live on a local cable television station, CCTV (the video footage is available through a link on the project Web site).

Public Meetings The first two public meetings (Open Houses) were held on December 6 and 7, 2006. Background information was presented during the Open Houses. Topics included project objectives, existing and future travel conditions, the draft Statement of Purpose and Need, and the project Web site. Public input was solicited by the project team on these topics. Each Open House began at 5:00 PM and concluded at 8:00 PM. Members of the public attended at their convenience and had the opportunity to discuss the project and issues surrounding it with project team members. Approximately 90 people attended the December 6 Open House and 45 people attended the December 7 meeting.

Comments were received verbally, on the posted Issues Wall, and on written comment forms. The written comment forms included questions from the two previous on‐line surveys, in an effort to gather similar input from people who may not have had access to the Internet. In addition to the large number of verbal comments received, 18 people submitted written comments on the sixth and seventh of December. Additionally, the public was encouraged to submit further comments or questions to the project Web site after the meetings.

24

Environmental Justice Outreach Environmental Justice, which is the fair and equitable treatment of people, regardless of race and income level, is a required component in the NEPA process. Executive Order 12898 (Clinton, 1994) requires special outreach to low‐income and minority communities, as well as an analysis and disclosure of disproportionate impacts to these groups. The activities below were an effort to include as many individuals and organizations from these communities as possible.

The Web site can be viewed in Spanish and a fact sheet was translated into Spanish for the first two Open Houses.

The project phone line has a greeting recorded in English and Spanish.

A Spanish language translator was available at both Open Houses.

Other activities for Milestone 2 included distributing information, in both English and Spanish, to the following locations:

o Chemeketa GED/HEP Program o Migrant Housing in Salem

Milestone 3: Establish Evaluation Framework

The product of this step in the process was an agreed‐upon set of goals, objectives, and performance measures that would be used to help screen potential alternatives to be studied in the DEIS. The five goals of the project are as follows:

Goal 1: Improve mobility and safety for people and freight across the Willamette River in the Salem‐Keizer Metropolitan Area

Goal 2: Preserve or improve natural and cultural resources

Goal 3: Preserve the quality of life in communities on both sides of the river

Goal 4: Provide a cost‐effective and timely solution

Goal 5: Ensure that any structural solution is aesthetically pleasing. (Goal 5 will not be applicable until the selection and/or design of a Preferred Alternative, when aesthetic design considerations can be taken into account.)

Agency Coordination

The Task Force recommended the Evaluation Framework Memo and the Oversight Team adopted it at their respective meetings in March 2007.

Collaborative Environmental and Transportation Agreement for Streamlining Review CETAS reviewed and commented on the Evaluation Framework Memorandum during their May 2007 meeting, although this was not a formal CETAS concurrence point. At this meeting, there were minor changes suggested to the wording of the objective in Goal 2 of the project Goals and Objectives. No written comments were provided to the project team.

Public Involvement

Web Site Draft and final versions of the Evaluation Framework were posted on the Web site. Twenty unsolicited comments were collected through the project Web site between December 1, 2006, and January 24, 2007. The project managers responded to the comments, if requested.

One survey was available on‐line during Milestone 3. However, it was to determine how the public collected information about the project and how the project could effectively communicate with the public,

25

instead of a topic related to this milestone. From this survey, the project team learned that most respondents were first time visitors to the site, but found the Web site to be easy to read and use. Most learned about the Web site from a news article or ad, a few linked there from ODOT’s or the City of Salem’s Web sites. For future events, respondents indicated that they would check the Web site, e‐mail announcements, and newspapers for information.

Public Notice and Media Communications Press releases were distributed to local media outlets prior to each Task Force meeting. Six news articles were written about the project between January and March 2007. One Salem City Council meeting covering the project was broadcast on a local cable television station, CCTV.

Public Meetings No general purpose public meetings (that is, Open Houses) were held during this phase; however, all Task Force and Oversight Team meetings were open to the public and provided opportunities for public comment.

Milestone 4: Develop Range of Alternatives

All alternatives or solutions that could potentially solve the identified problem (that is, meet the Purpose and Need statement) were considered during this milestone. The aim was to ensure that stakeholders, including the public, had been consulted and all of their ideas were “put on the table” before beginning the DEIS.

Agency Coordination During Milestone 4, the Task Force had five meetings, covering these topics:

April 18, 2007 – Started the weighting exercise to create a scale showing the importance of each goal and objective

May 16, 2007 – Reviewed the weighting results and reviewed preliminary concepts

June 20, 2007 – Reviewed and revised preliminary concepts

July 18, 2007 – Reviewed the public inputs for concepts

August 15, 2007 – Revised and narrowed concepts down for further consideration

During Milestone 4, the Oversight Team had three meetings, covering these topics:

June 26, 2007 – Reviewed preliminary concepts

July 27, 2007 – Reviewed the public inputs for concepts

August 17, 2007 – Reviewed and concurred with the recommended concepts from the Task Force

Public Involvement

Web Site Initial concepts of alternatives were posted on the Web site in June 2007. The project managers responded to the 20 comments, if requested. Two on‐line surveys were conducted during this milestone.

The fourth on‐line survey was available from April 18 through June 26 and was completed by 57 individuals. The survey sought to assist the project team in developing concepts; asking participants if improvements were needed on the existing bridges and the local street system; and if new bridges would be necessary.

The fifth on‐line survey was available from June 26 through July 10 (to correspond with the Open Houses). Participants were asked their opinions about the preliminary concepts that had been developed by the community Task Force and project management team. Approximately 36 people took the survey.

26

Public Notice and Media Communications Notification in the form of a second project newsletter was sent to approximately 1,100 local residents, businesses, and community leaders in June 2007. An e‐mail message announcing the first round of concepts was sent to approximately 375 individuals, who joined the e‐mail mailing list, during the same time. A display ad promoting the Open Houses appeared in the Statesman Journal on June 23 and 24, as well as an editorial in the Salem newspaper Statesman Journal that encouraged the public to attend the events. Press releases were sent out prior to the Open Houses.

Thirteen news articles were written about the project during this milestone, and links to the articles can be found on the project Web site. In addition, the June Open Houses were announced on radio station KBZY (1490 AM) during a weekday morning and lunch time slot.

Public Meetings Two Open Houses were held on June 26 and 27, 2007, from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. These meetings helped gather additional concepts for potential river crossings in the Salem‐Keizer area and comments about the preliminary concepts that the project team and Task Force had developed. Members of the public attended at their convenience and had the opportunity to discuss the project and the 13 preliminary concepts with project team members. Preliminary ideas for funding sources were also discussed with the public. Approximately 47 people attended the June 26 Open House and 100 people attended the June 27 meeting. Comments were received verbally, written on flip charts, and written on comment forms. In addition, the public was encouraged to submit further comments or questions to the project Web site after the meetings.

Environmental Justice Outreach The Web site continued to be translated into Spanish and the project phone line retained a greeting in English and Spanish, allowing anyone to leave comments or questions. Other activities included distributing fact sheets about the project and posters announcing the Open Houses, in both English and Spanish, to the following locations:

St. Vincent de Paul Catholic Church

YMCA

YWCA

Saint Joseph’s Catholic Church

Fred Meyer’s

Salem Senior Center

A handout, in English and Spanish, was given to all students at Highland Elementary School to announce the Open Houses.

The ODOT and City of Salem project managers and a translator gave an informational interview on a Spanish language radio station (“La Campeona,” KWIP 880 AM). The interview was held during the lunch hour, which has the highest listener rates of the day, about a week before the Open Houses. Announcements for the Open Houses were also made on two other Spanish language radio stations (KSND and KWBY) one week before the events. A Spanish language translator was also available at the Open Houses.

Other Involvement Opportunities The project presented information and handouts on June 9, 2007, at the Salem Saturday Market. About 100 newsletters were distributed. The Open House dates were also announced. The Saturday Market had both craft and food vendors (the food vendors accept WIC and Food Stamps), allowing the project to contact individuals from a wide range of economic and age groups.

27

Milestone 5: Screen Alternatives for the DEIS

The fifth decision point applied the evaluation criteria (established in decision point three) to the alternatives (developed in decision point four), screening out those that did not meet the minimum requirements or the project Purpose and Need and identifying those to be studied in the DEIS.

Agency Coordination

In December 2007, the Task Force and Oversight Team recommended and approved the alternatives to be included for study in the DEIS.

In early 2008, the range of alternatives recommended by the Task Force and Oversight Team was modified to respond to advice from FHWA.

During Milestone 5, the Task Force had five meetings, covering these topics:

January 16, 2008 – Began discussing bridge types

February 20, 2008 – Funding discussions and plan for Finance Workshop

May 21, 2008 – Reviewed comments from the public funding survey and discussion of alternatives

July 23, 2008 – Discussed modification to Existing Bridges alternative

September 3, 2008 – Recommended addition of Alternative 2B in addition to existing Alternative 2A

During Milestone 5, the Oversight Team had five meetings, covering these topics:

January 18, 2008 – Began discussing bridge types

February 22, 2008 – Reviewed alternatives and possible changes

April 4, 2008 – Reviewed updates to alternatives

July 23, 2008 – Discussed modification to Existing Bridges alternative

September 3, 2008 – Recommended addition of Alternative 2B in addition to existing Alternative 2A

Funding Workshop The Funding Workshop was held on March 5, 2008, for more than 50 local elected officials, business leaders, and senior‐level staff from ODOT, FHWA, and local jurisdictions. The purpose of the workshop was to test the online funding tool prior to its public launch on the Web site and to engage these individuals in brainstorming activities related to funding options. The workshop included discussion among the attendees regarding preliminary thoughts on advantages and disadvantages of the various funding sources and potential next steps for continuing the funding discussion with the general public. The Funding Booklet, which was available to elected and agency individuals, was updated in March 2008 and posted to the public Web site.

Collaborative Environmental and Transportation Agreement for Streamlining Review CETAS reviewed and commented on the Range of Alternatives during their January 2008 meeting. This was a formal CETAS concurrence point and all comments were collected by the middle of February 2008.

Public Involvement

Web Site The project managers responded to the 32 comments that were e‐mailed and mailed to the project, if requested. Two on‐line surveys were conducted during this milestone. A funding tool was developed for the Web site as a result of the Finance Workshop, which was held for elected officials and agency staff in March 2008. The Web funding tool allowed the public to explore potential local funding options by examining the trade‐offs between local funding sources used to fund transportation projects.

28

The sixth on‐line survey was available from November 1 to December 3, 2007 (to correspond with the Open Houses). Participants were asked their opinions about the 13 preliminary alternatives that were developed by the community Task Force and the project management team. Approximately 100 people took the survey.

The seventh on‐line survey was available from April 10 to May 18, 2008. Participants were asked to use the Web funding tool to explore the funding options and then provide feedback about these options. Approximately 40 people took the survey.

Public Notice and Media Communications Notification in the form of a third project newsletter was sent to approximately 1,000 residents, businesses, and community leaders. An e‐mail message announcing the Open Houses was sent to approximately 585 people, who joined the mailing list, during the same time. A display ad promoting the Open Houses appeared in the Statesman Journal on Saturday, November 3, and Wednesday, November 7, 2007. Also published in the Statesman Journal, on October 30 was a guest column by Jeff Scheick, ODOT Region 2 Manager and an editorial about the project. A meeting announcement was posted on the Salem River Crossing Web site and a press release was issued to local media on November 5, including the Statesman Journal. Press releases were sent out prior to the Open Houses.

Several articles on the project (two on October 29 and 30), which included Open House information, were published in the Statesman Journal as well. In addition, Project Manager Dan Fricke did a half hour interview on the Hispanic radio station KWIP on November 5.

Additional presentations were held during this milestone to:

SEDCOR on October 11, 2007

Salem Rotary on October 31, 2007

North Gateway Redevelopment Advisory Board on November 1, 2007

Northgate Neighborhood Association on November 13, 2007

Highland Elementary School principal Olga Cobb sent flyers home with all students. The City of Salem sent Open House announcement postcards to over 5,500 households in the Grant, CAN‐DO, Highland, Northgate, and West Salem Neighborhoods.

Public Meetings Two Open Houses were held on November 8 and 14, 2007, from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. These meetings allowed participants to review the 13 preliminary alternatives and identify which ones they felt should be selected for further study in the DEIS. Attendees were encouraged to identify up to 3 of the 13 alternatives that they would like to see advanced for more study in the DEIS. They were also encouraged to comment on which TSM and TDM (Transportation System Management and Transportation Demand Management) options would help reduce congestion on existing roads and bridges and which of the funding options should be studied as possible ways to pay for the project. Approximately 120 people attended the November 8 Open House, and 170 people attended the November 14

Open House. Comments were received verbally, written

on flip charts, and written on comment forms. In addition, the public was encouraged to submit further comments or questions to the project Web site after the meetings.

Environmental Justice Outreach The Web site continues to be translated into Spanish and the project phone line retained a greeting in English and Spanish, allowing anyone to leave comments or questions.

A handout, in English and Spanish, was given to all students at Highland Elementary to announce the Open Houses.

29

DEIS and Post‐DEIS Publication Public Involvement Activities The DEIS was published on April 20, 2012, and the public comment period lasted through June 18, 2012.

The DEIS findings helped in identifying a Preferred Alternative and funding strategy. Public comments received throughout the process influenced project decision‐making and directly shaped the range of alternatives in the DEIS.

The entire DEIS was made available at the ODOT Project website (http://www.salemrivercrossing.org/draft‐eis/). At the time of publication, CD’s or paper copies of the entire DEIS (or Executive Summary only – in either English or Spanish) were offered to the public at no charge.

Agency Coordination

During, and after, the DEIS public comment period, the Task Force met on four separate occasions to discuss the results of the DEIS analysis for the project alternatives, covering these topics:

April 26, 2012 (Joint meeting with Oversight Team) – Discussed the findings of the DEIS and the differences between the alternatives with respect to environmental impacts.

July 11, 2012 – Reviewed public and agency comments on the DEIS and evaluated alternatives using previously developed evaluation criteria.

July 24, 2012 – Developed a Preferred Alternative recommendation to forward to the Oversight Team and began work on the Task Force Feedback on Alternatives memorandum.

August 15, 2012 – Reviewed draft Task Force Feedback on Alternatives memorandum and modified it to reflect the reasons behind identifying a short list of alternatives to forward to the Oversight Team for their consideration.

The Oversight Team had four meetings, covering these topics:

April 26, 2012 (joint meeting with Task Force) – Discussed the findings of the DEIS and the differences between the alternatives with respect to environmental impacts.

August 23, 2012 – Reviewed the Task Force Feedback on Alternatives memorandum.

July 31, 2013 – Began discussions on the “Salem Alternative” and potential evaluation needs for this alternative.

October 31, 2013 – Reviewed technical analysis of the “Salem Alternative” and next steps for reaching a decision on a Preferred Alternative.

On August 23, 2012, the Oversight Team recommended Alternative 4D as the Preferred Alternative.

Collaborative Environmental and Transportation Agreement for Streamlining Review

The Collaborative Environmental and Transportation Agreement for Streamlining (CETAS) team had several concurrence points. The CETAS team reviewed and commented on the Selection and Evaluation Criteria during their July 2012 meeting and also reviewed and provided feedback on the Preferred Alternative at their April 2014 meeting. All comments were collected during these meetings and used in the process to recommend a Preferred Alternative. On August 24, 2016, CETAS and the Major Transportation Projects Agreement were dissolved.

Salem City Council Work Session

The Salem City Council was provided updates on the project on several occasions. Work sessions were held on December 17, 2012, January 22, 2013, and February 19, 2013. At these sessions, the project team updated the Salem City Council on the project, the alternatives being considered, and next steps. The

30

project team also attended Council public hearings on April 22, 2013 and May 13, 2013. Finally, the Council held deliberations on June 24, 2013.

31

Public Involvement/Outreach Web Site

The Web site was updated in February 2012 to let the public know the DEIS was about to be published. The Web site was also updated on April 20, 2012, to announce the publication of the DEIS. An e‐mail message was sent to the project mailing list announcing the Web site updates and publication of the DEIS. The project managers responded to the comments that were e‐mailed and mailed to the project, if requested.

Public comment on the DEIS was collected from April 20, 2012, to June 18, 2012. An online questionnaire was posted to the project Web site. Approximately 121 people participated in the questionnaire.

Public Notice and Media Communications

Notification in the form of a mailed postcard was sent to approximately 4,300 residents, businesses, and community leaders on February 10, 2012, letting them know that the DEIS was almost ready for publication. Approximately 120 e‐mail messages were also sent to notify the public that the DEIS was almost complete.

For the publication of the DEIS on April 20, 2012, notification in the form of a project newsletter was sent to approximately 4,400 residents, businesses, and community leaders. An e‐mail message announcing publication of the DEIS and the Open Houses was sent to approximately 385 people. Throughout the study area, publication of the DEIS and the two public hearings were widely announced and publicized. Signs were posted at the locations with printed reference copies of the DEIS. The printed reference copies of the DEIS were available at the following locations:

Federal Highway Administration (530 Center St NE, Salem)

Salem Central Library (585 Liberty St SE, Salem)

West Salem Library (395 Glen Creek Road NW, Salem)

Center 50+ (2615 Portland Road NE, Salem)

Salem City Hall (555 Liberty St SE, Rm 305, Salem), Community Development Department

Keizer City Hall (930 Chemawa Road NE, Keizer)

Keizer Community Library (980 Chemawa Road NE, Keizer)

Marion County Board of Commissioners Office (1115 Commercial Street NE, Salem)

Polk County Courthouse – Community Development Department (850 Main Street, Dallas)

Dallas City Hall (187 SE Court St, Dallas)

Monmouth City Hall (151 Main St W, Monmouth)

Monmouth Public Library (168 S Ecols Street, Monmouth, Attn: Howard Feltman)

Independence City Hall (555 S Main Street, Independence)

Independence Public Library (175 Monmouth Street, Independence)

Posters and handouts were also distributed to the following locations:

Fred Meyer, near Salem Parkway San Diego Taco, near Tryon

Starbucks, near Tryon Limeberry, near Tryon

Speakeasy/bar, near Tryon Starbucks, near Wallace

Roth’s, near Wallace US Bank, near Wallace

Maps Credit Union, near Wallace Sally Beauty, near Tryon

Dollar Tree, near Tryon United Way, near Tryon

OK Towing, at Pine Starbucks, at Liberty/Court

Coffee in Motion, at Wallace Chevron station, near Wallace

State Farm, near Wallace Dairy Queen, near Wallace

Several businesses on Edgewater

32

Newspaper ads were taken out in the Statesman Journal, Westside Newspaper, and El Latina de Hoy. Newspaper articles were also written about the project and the public hearings in the Statesman Journal on May 7 and May 17, 2012. The article on May 7 was also picked up by the Associated Press, and it appeared in papers in Klamath Falls, Medford, Eugene, Albany, Lebanon, and Corvallis, and in the Oregonian on May 8, 2012. An article was also written in the Polk County Itemizer‐Observer on May 15 and the Salem Community Connections newsletter on May 12. A guest column by Salem City Councilor Dan Clem was published in the Westside News during the month of May. Press releases were distributed prior to the public hearings.

In addition, KWIP Spanish radio station ran eight 30‐second ads in Spanish to announce the events from May 8 to May 16. A 30‐minute interview in Spanish ran on Sunday, May 13 discussing the project and announcing the event.

Project staff members made presentations at some of the neighborhood associations in the study area, including the Highland Neighborhood, Grant Neighborhood, South Gateway Neighborhood, and Northeast Neighborhood. Additional presentations and information booths were held at:

Chemeketa Community College on April 26, 2012

Shekina Iglesia Church on April 29, 2012

Salem Center 50+ on April 30, 2012

Jived’s Market on April 30, 2012

Latino Cultural Festival on June 1, 2012

The project flyer was also sent home with students at six local elementary schools (Highland, Grant, Chapman Hill, Harritt, Kalapuya, and Myers Elementary Schools).

Public Hearings

Two public hearings were held to collect public comment after publication of the DEIS.

Public Hearing 1 was held on May 8, 2012, from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. at the West Salem High School, Media Center (1776 Titan Drive NW).

Public Hearing 2 was held on May 17, 2012, from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. at the Chemeketa Center for Business and Industry (626 High Street NE).

Each event drew roughly 90 visitors, resulting in close to 200 people attending the events.

Both events provided the same information, including an introduction presentation about the project and the nine alternatives, informational display boards, and staff members to answer questions. Comments were collected via written comment forms or verbally to a court reporter or in front of a panel of Task Force members and a court reporter.

Environmental Justice Outreach

The DEIS Executive Summary was translated into Spanish, as were flyers, newsletters, and e‐mail messages sent to the public. The project phone line retained a greeting in English and Spanish, allowing anyone to leave comments or questions.

KWIP Spanish radio station ran ads in Spanish as well as the Spanish newspaper, El Latina de Hoy. A 30‐minute interview in Spanish ran on Sunday, May 13, discussing the project and announcing the May 17 event.

A handout, in English and Spanish, was provided to all students at elementary schools to announce the Open Houses.

33

Public Involvement Activities following recommendation for the Previous Preferred Alternative

The previous Preferred Alternative, referred to as the “Salem Alternative,” included many of the design elements of Alternative 4D, but minimized potential impacts by:

Removing the viaduct above the future Marine Drive in West Salem.

Removing the elevated “flyover” ramps from the new bridge to Salem Parkway in North Salem.

Reducing the size and extent of local road modifications.

Reducing the number of lanes on the bridge from three to two in each direction.

Agency Coordination

During the final identification of the previous Preferred Alternative, the Oversight Team had four meetings, covering these topics:

February 6, 2014 – Discussed potential bridge types and funding processes and recommended the Salem Alternative as the Preferred Alternative.

June 26, 2014 – Revisited potential bridge types and provided direction for additional study on each bridge type.

September 18, 2014 – Recommended a preferred bridge type and provided direction on potential project construction phases.

December 11, 2014 – Reviewed Funding Workshop outcomes and provided comments on the draft Funding Memo.

Public Workshop

Two Funding Workshops were held on December 3, 2014. The afternoon workshop was from 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. and the evening workshop was from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. at the Willamette Heritage Center. The afternoon workshop was held for elected officials, public agency staff, and interested stakeholders. The public was invited to observe the proceedings of the afternoon workshop. The evening workshop was open to the public and everyone was invited to participate. Approximately 70 people attended the afternoon event and 60 people attended the evening event. The purpose of the workshops was to present information, receive public input on potential funding sources, and gather input on the possible phasing of construction of the Preferred Alternative. At the workshops, 39 comment forms were submitted. The online survey had 248 respondents, 124 of them submitted comments as part of their survey response. Only two comments were submitted by e‐mail, and no comments were received through the postal mail. The Funding Booklet was prepared in November 2014 and posted to the public Web site.

Public Involvement/Outreach

Web Site

The website was periodically updated to inform the public about the June 2014 Open House and the previous Preferred Alternative. The public was encouraged to send in comments through e‐mail or postal mail and to attend the Open House. During identification of the previous Preferred Alternative, the project managers responded to the comments that were e‐mailed and mailed to the project.

A funding tool was developed for the Web site in tandem with the Funding Workshop. The Web funding tool allowed the public to explore potential local funding options by examining the trade‐offs between local funding sources used to fund transportation projects.

34

An online survey was provided on the Web site from December 1, 2014, to December 9, 2014. Participants were asked to use the Web site funding tool to explore the funding options and then provide feedback about these options.

The website was updated most recently in February 2019 to describe the actions of the Salem City Council regarding addressing the remand of the city’s UGB expansion by LUBA described in the Background section above.

Public Notice and Media Communications

Notification in the form of a mailed newsletter was sent to approximately 4,600 residents, businesses, and community leaders on May 23, 2014, informing them about the Open House on June 11, 2014. An e‐mail message announcing the Open House was sent to approximately 426 people on May 30, 2014. ODOT’s communication staff sent a press release to all major news outlets on May 26, 2014.

One article was written about the project in the Salem Weekly, published on May 29, 2014. In addition, a letter to the editor expressing opposition to the project ran the same day in the Statesman Journal.

As for the Funding Workshop, notification in the form of invitations to the afternoon workshop were mailed to elected officials, public agencies, and interested stakeholders on November 12, 2014. Invitations were sent to 188 people. In addition, an e‐mail message was sent to over 450 e‐mail addresses on November 21 and December 2, 2014, regarding the evening workshop. ODOT’s communication staff sent a press release to all major news outlets on November 21, 2014.

One article was written about the Funding Workshop in the Statesman Journal, published on December 5, 2014.

In addition to the above, the City of Salem announced the evening workshop via e‐mail messages to all neighborhood association chairs, land use chairs, and transportation chairs, and included it in the City’s monthly Community Connection Newsletter, distributed on November 24, 2014.

Public Meetings

An Open House was held on June 11, 2014, from 4 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. at Courthouse Square about the recommended Preferred Alternative for the project. The purpose of the event was to present the recommended Preferred Alternative to the public, answer questions, and collect comments regarding the recommendation. Approximately 150 people attended the Open House. Comment forms were collected in‐person at the Open House, by Web site, e‐mail, and postal mail. Fifty‐six people submitted comment forms, with an additional 8 comment forms collected online. There were also 17 comments collected by e‐mail and 6 comments sent by postal mail.

Environmental Justice Outreach

The Web site continued to be translated into Spanish and the project phone line retained a greeting in English and Spanish, allowing anyone to leave comments or questions.

The Open House newsletter had language in Spanish indicating a translator would be available. Comment forms at the Open House were translated into Spanish.

35

Conclusion ODOT has concluded that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated April 2012 is still valid for the No‐Build Alternative and that no additional NEPA documentation outside of this re‐evaluation is necessary. With the submission of this document, ODOT requests FHWA approval of this re‐evaluation. FHWA signature of this document indicates that a supplemental NEPA document is not necessary and that any additional environmental documentation and consideration is included within and/or is incorporated by reference in this re‐evaluation.

Date

Phillip A. Ditzler Division Administrator Oregon Division Federal Highway Administration 530 Center Street NE, Suite 420 Salem, OR 97301 503.399.5749

36

References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2014. LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. 7th Edition.

City of Keizer. 2014. City of Keizer Comprehensive Plan.

City of Salem. 2008. Salem Vision 2020 Action Plan.

City of Salem. 2013. Comprehensive Park System Master Plan Update.

City of Salem. 2014. Salem Revised Code

City of Salem. 2015. Salem Area Comprehensive Plan.

City of Salem. 2016a. Transportation System Plan Amendment for the City of Salem.

City of Salem. 2016b. Salem Plant Lists.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), and City of Salem. 2012. Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation. Salem River Crossing Project (OR 99E‐Business, OR 22, OR 221). April 2012.

Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA). 2016. Noxious Weed Policy and Classification System.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2016a. Environmental Cleanup Site Information Database.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2016b. LUST Site Cleanup Database.

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). 2006a. Oregon Transportation Plan.

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). 2006b. Draft Environmental Procedures Manual, Volume 2, Socioeconomic Resources.

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). 2015a. Oregon Highway Plan.

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). 2015b. Geotechnical Design Manual.

Oregon Flora Project. 2016. Rare Plant Guide.

Salem‐Keizer Area Transportation Study Metropolitan Planning Organization (SKATS MPO). 1996. Regional Transportation Systems Plan

Salem‐Keizer Area Transportation Study Metropolitan Planning Organization (SKATS MPO). 1998. Willamette River Bridgehead Engineering Study.

Salem‐Keizer Area Transportation Study Metropolitan Planning Organization (SKATS MPO). 2002. General Corridor Evaluation.

Salem‐Keizer Area Transportation Study Metropolitan Planning Organization (SKATS MPO). 2015. 2015‐2035 Regional Transportation Systems Plan.

Sightline Institute. 2006. Online versions of historic maps. http://www.sightline.org/maps/animated_maps/Salem_historic_gif.

Transportation Research Board. 2000. Highway Capacity Manual 2000. National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016a. Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate Species, and Species of Concern Which May Occur in Marion County, Oregon.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016b. Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate Species, and Species of Concern Which May Occur in Polk County, Oregon

37

Exhibit A: DEIS Build Alternatives

39

Exhibit A‐1: Alternative 2A

40

Exhibit A‐2: Alternative 2B

41

Exhibit A‐3: Alternative 3

42

Exhibit A‐4: Alternative 4A

43

Exhibit A‐5: Alternative 4B

44

Exhibit A‐6: Alternative 4C

45

Exhibit A‐7: Alternative 4D

46

Exhibit A‐8: Alternative 4E

47

Exhibit B: 2040 Traffic Model v/c Results

48

Exhibit B‐1: 2040 Traffic Model v/c Results: DEIS Alternatives

ID # Intersection

Mobility Standard

2031 No Build Alternative

2040 No Build Alternative Mobility

Standard

2031 Alternative 2A

2040 Alternative 2A Mobility

Standard

2031 Alternative 2B

2040 Alternative 2B Mobility

Standard

2031 Alternative 3

2040 Alternative 3 Mobility

Standard

2031 Alternative 4A

2040 Alternative 4A Mobility

Standard

2031 Alternative 4B

2040 Alternative 4B Mobility

Standard

2031 Alternative

4C/4E

2040 Alternative

4C/4E Mobility Standard

2031 Alternative 4D

2040 Alternative 4D

AM Peak

PM Peak

AM Peak

PM Peak

AM Peak

PM Peak

AM Peak

PM Peak

AM Peak

PM Peak

AM Peak

PM Peak

AM Peak

PM Peak

AM Peak

PM Peak

AM Peak

PM Peak

AM Peak

PM Peak

AM Peak

PM Peak

AM Peak

PM Peak

AM Peak

PM Peak

AM Peak

PM Peak

AM Peak

PM Peak

AM Peak

PM Peak

1 Wallace Rd./ Brush College Rd.

0.95 0.56 0.64 0.99 > 1.50 0.95 0.84 0.73 1.47 > 1.50 0.95 0.72 0.6 > 1.50 > 1.50 0.95 0.84 0.72 > 1.50 > 1.50 0.95 0.80 0.67 > 1.50 > 1.50 0.95 0.85 0.78 1.31 > 1.50 0.95 0.78 0.63 1.03 0.98 0.95 0.78 0.63 1.03 0.98

2 Wallace Rd./ River Bend Rd.

0.95 0.44 0.46 0.73 0.64 0.95 0.80 0.61 0.73 0.85 0.95 0.56 0.54 0.70 0.87 0.95 0.69 0.64 0.99 1.04 0.95 0.69 0.59 0.93 0.92 0.95 0.7 0.59 0.93 0.92 0.95 0.52 0.5 0.75 0.73 0.95 0.52 0.5 0.75 0.73

3 Wallace Rd./Hope Ave. 0.95 0.27 0.09 0.85 > 1.50 0.95 1.03 0.84 0.70 0.93 0.95 0.75 0.6 0.59 0.78 0.95 0.94 0.98 0.98 0.89 0.95 1.03 1.12 0.85 0.93 0.95 0.9 1 0.78 0.75 0.95 0.69 0.85 0.73 0.87 0.95 0.74 0.79 0.73 0.87 4 Wallace Rd./

Orchard Heights Rd. 0.95 0.79 1.08 0.85 0.87 0.95 1.08 0.66 0.68 0.81 0.95 0.93 0.89 0.89 0.91 0.95 1.19 1.20 1.03 1.40 0.95 1.06 1.14 0.89 1.26 0.95 0.75 0.71 0.60 0.85 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.75 1.05 0.95 0.83 0.85 0.75 1.05

5 Wallace Rd./ Glen Creek Rd.

0.95 1.12 1.18 1.18 1.00 0.95 1.27 1.02 1.26 1.22 0.95 1.14 1.21 1.05 1.12 0.95 1.35 1.24 1.27 1.14 0.95 1.26 1.02 1.21 0.93 0.95 1.01 1.04 1.09 0.93 0.95 1.00 0.89 1.07 0.88 0.95 0.96 0.87 1.07 0.88

6 Wallace Rd./ Taggart Rd.

0.95 1.34 1.26 1.46 1.46 0.95 1.44 1.07 1.45 1.33 0.95 1.2 1.18 1.24 1.44 0.95 1.17 1.2 1.22 1.45 0.95 0.96 0.92 1.19 1.20 0.95 0.99 0.83 1.19 1.04 0.95 1.10 1.10 1.25 1.22 0.95 1.09 1.14 1.25 1.22

7 Wallace Rd./Hwy 22-Edgewater St.

0.95 1.39 1.05 1.50 1.07 0.95 1.18 0.8 1.49 1.01 0.95 0.93 0.57 1.15 0.88 0.95 0.85 0.55 1.11 0.86 0.95 0.78 0.59 1.05 0.84 0.95 0.73 0.44 0.98 0.78 0.95 0.79 0.5 1.05 0.88 0.95 0.78 0.51 1.05 0.88

8 Hope Ave./Marine Dr. 0.90 N/A N/A Does not exist for this

alternative

0.90 N/A N/A Does not exist for this

alternative

Does not exist for this alternative 0.90 0.81 0.59 0.96 0.89 0.90 0.90 0.58 0.98 0.90 0.95 0.68 0.65 0.75 0.78 0.95 0.88 0.43 0.92 0.74 0.95 0.86 0.44 0.92 0.74

9 Orchard Heights/ Marine Dr.


alternative


alternative

0.90 0.51 0.39 0.41 0.23 Does not exist for this alternative Does not exist for this alternative Does not exist for this alternative 0.90 0.12 0.60 0.76 > 1.50 0.90 0.15 0.44 0.76 > 1.50

10 Marine Dr./ Glen Creek Rd.

0.9 or 1.0a 0b 0.2 0.30 0.17 0.90 0.26 0.54 0.23 0.27 0.90 0.89 0.72 0.57 0.48 Does not exist for this alternative 0.90 0 b 0.05 0.16 0.40 0.90 0.14 0.33 0.09 0.22 0.90 0 b 0.04 0.15 0.19 0.90 0 b 0.04 0.15 0.19

11 Center St. off-ramp/ NB Front Street

0.85 1.44 1.12 1.24 1.02 0.85 1.80 1.5 1.48 1.13 0.85 0.85 0.68 0.82 0.82 0.85 1.05 0.77 0.88 0.60 0.85 0.89 0.77 0.73 0.62 0.85 1.23 1.06 0.86 0.79 0.85 0.62 0.48 0.44 0.49 0.85 0.61 0.51 0.44 0.49

12 Center St./ Commercial St.

0.85 1.69 0.82 1.08 0.74 0.85 1.25 0.8 1.06 0.83 0.85 0.95 0.75 0.75 0.44 0.85 1.03 0.69 0.94 0.66 0.85 0.94 0.79 0.91 0.70 0.85 0.91 0.7 0.90 0.59 0.85 0.97 0.79 0.92 0.68 0.85 0.96 0.78 0.92 0.68

13 Center St./Liberty St. 0.90 or 1.0a 0.73 0.9 0.85 0.76 0.90 0.97 0.89 0.95 0.83 0.90 0.88 0.8 0.81 0.76 0.90 0.87 0.82 0.88 0.78 0.90 0.83 0.98 0.74 0.76 0.90 0.93 0.78 0.80 0.73 0.90 0.90 0.8 0.78 0.73 0.90 0.90 0.79 0.78 0.73 14 Front St./Union St. 0.90 0.91 0.73 0.89 0.89 0.90 1.13 1.01 1.06 1.01 0.90 0.50 0.58 0.57 0.60 0.90 0.57 0.53 0.69 0.69 0.90 0.61 0.54 0.63 0.61 0.90 0.78 0.71 0.68 0.66 0.90 0.42 0.43 0.42 0.54 0.90 0.41 0.47 0.42 0.54 15 Marion St. /

Commercial St. 0.85 0.81 2.01 0.64 1.53 0.85 0.54 1.29 0.47 1.14 0.85 0.12 0.18 0.24 0.72 0.85 0.59 0.83 0.57 1.06 0.85 0.72 1.17 0.61 1.35 0.85 0.57 0.88 0.41 1.08 0.85 0.66 1.03 0.51 1.13 0.85 0.64 1.06 0.51 1.13

16 Marion St./Liberty St. 0.90 or 1.0a 0.69 1.17 0.65 1.07 0.90 0.67 0.87 0.66 1.03 0.90 0.51 0.88 0.65 1.02 0.90 0.54 0.77 0.62 0.86 0.90 0.51 0.84 0.59 1.00 0.90 0.48 0.81 0.58 0.95 0.90 0.46 0.79 0.57 0.88 0.90 0.45 0.87 0.57 0.88 17 Front St./Front St.

(OR 99E) 0.90 0.46 0.85 0.59 0.99 0.90 0.41 0.84 0.70 0.99 0.90 0.75 0.55 0.77 0.84 0.90 0.42 0.64 0.54 0.87 0.90 0.33 0.53 0.53 0.69 0.90 0.21 0.53 0.34 0.80 0.90 0.23 0.38 0.36 0.65 0.90 0.23 0.37 0.36 0.65

18 Division St./ Commercial St.

0.85 0.61 0.81 0.90 1.02 0.85 1.01 0.98 0.99 1.16 Does not exist for this alternative 0.85 0.62 0.88 0.76 0.74 0.85 0.62 0.88 0.61 0.74 0.85 0.70 0.87 0.76 0.73 0.85 0.42 0.76 0.52 0.67 0.85 0.4 0.73 0.52 0.67

19 Market St./ Commercial St.

0.90 0.66 0.89 0.79 1.05 0.90 0.79 1.39 0.87 1.32 0.90 0.94 1.12 0.94 1.24 0.90 0.72 0.84 0.80 0.94 0.90 0.78 0.85 0.84 0.98 0.90 0.73 0.78 0.77 0.85 0.90 0.69 0.73 0.75 0.79 0.90 0.68 0.72 0.75 0.79

20 Market St./Liberty St. 0.90 0.66 0.78 0.81 0.88 0.90 0.84 0.98 0.84 1.02 0.90 1.19 1.30 0.99 1.05 0.90 0.67 0.88 0.75 0.83 0.90 0.77 0.84 0.80 0.73 0.90 0.76 0.91 0.76 0.85 0.90 0.51 0.83 0.66 0.74 0.90 0.51 0.82 0.66 0.74 21 Market St./Broadway St. 0.90 or 1.0a 0.33 0.79 0.78 0.94 0.90 1.11 0.82 0.84 1.04 0.90 0.85 1.04 0.81 1.12 0.90 0.97 0.83 0.88 1.03 0.90 0.90 0.88 0.80 1.07 0.90 0.92 0.84 0.92 0.94 0.90 0.80 1 0.84 0.82 0.90 0.83 0.98 0.84 0.82 22 Commercial St./Pine St. 0.90 0.51 0.63 0.54 0.65 0.90 0.66 0.76 0.58 0.67 0.90 0.72 0.68 0.54 0.63 0.90 0.76 0.64 0.67 0.61 0.90 1.05 0.76 0.92 0.64 0.90 1.06 0.79 0.92 0.66 0.90 0.86 0.55 0.75 0.48 0.90 0.87 0.53 0.75 0.48 23 Liberty St./Pine St. 0.90 0.63 0.81 0.47 0.67 0.90 0.65 0.91 0.48 0.68 0.90 0.70 0.79 0.45 0.64 0.90 0.61 0.75 0.42 0.69 0.90 1.30 1.69 0.77 0.96 0.90 1.27 1.63 0.78 0.97 0.90 0.64 0.74 0.67 0.83 0.90 1.58 1.88 0.90 1.02 24 Broadway St./Pine St. 0.90 or 1.0a 0.56 0.7 0.53 0.96 0.90 0.39 0.69 0.58 0.99 0.90 0.51 0.67 0.52 0.93 0.90 0.70 0.8 0.61 1.07 0.90 1.04 1.14 1.04 0.76 0.90 1.03 1.04 1.04 0.76 0.90 0.75 0.74 0.69 0.63 0.90 1.25 1.04 1.13 0.82 25 Commercial St./

Hickory St. 0.90 0.18 0.82 0.48 0.54 0.90 0.69 3.09 0.52 0.56 0.90 0.37 1.98 0.48 0.74 0.90 1.95 0.73 0.66 0.47 0.90 0.61 0.88 0.39 0.62 0.90 0.64 0.81 0.44 0.62 0.90 0.60 0.82 0.49 0.71 0.90 0.59 0.83 0.49 0.71

26 Liberty St./Hickory St. 0.90 0.04 0.17 0.40 0.52 0.90 0.06 0.72 0.42 0.52 0.90 0.05 0.48 0.39 0.49 0.90 0.32 0.26 0.32 0.50 0.90 0.72 0.82 0.64 0.78 0.90 0.71 0.77 0.45 0.58 0.90 0.39 0.83 0.42 0.71 0.90 0.26 0.59 0.42 0.74 27 Broadway St./

Hickory St. 0.90 or 1.0a 0.26 0.07 0.24 0.32 0.90 0.09 0.08 0.25 0.46 0.90 0.11 0.07 0.23 0.38 0.90 0.43 0.45 0.23 0.52 0.90 0.43 1.04 0.35 1.20 0.90 0.33 0.78 0.39 0.74 0.90 0.47 0.64 0.42 0.59 0.90 0.20 0.47 0.69 > 1.50

28 Salem Pkwy./ Commercial St.

N/A N/A N/A - - N/A N/A N/A - - N/A N/A N/A - - N/A N/A N/A - - N/A N/A N/A - - N/A N/A N/A - - N/A N/A N/A - - N/A N/A N/A - -

29 Salem Pkwy./Liberty St. 0.90 0.33 0.93 0.62 0.93 0.90 0.73 0.74 0.70 0.95 0.90 0.63 0.7 0.64 0.89 0.90 0.73 0.73 0.55 0.67 0.90 0.74 0.78 0.78 0.89 0.90 0.73 0.76 0.75 0.90 0.90 0.37 0.39 0.46 0.56 0.90 0.35 0.39 0.46 0.56 30 Salem Pkwy./

Broadway St. 0.90 0.75 0.98 0.80 1.21 0.90 1.07 1.19 0.89 1.23 0.90 0.97 1.13 0.83 1.16 0.90 0.61 0.95 0.75 1.02 0.90 1.07 1.14 0.88 1.11 0.90 0.99 1.17 0.79 1.12 0.90 0.76 1.04 0.77 1.00 0.90 N/A N/A 0.78 1.01

31 Salem Pkwy./Cherry St. 0.90 0.74 0.89 0.85 0.94 0.90 0.98 1.05 0.93 0.95 0.90 0.93 1.07 0.86 0.91 0.90 0.85 0.96 0.83 0.89 0.90 1.04 1.07 0.94 0.95 0.90 1.01 1.06 0.89 0.97 0.90 0.98 1.06 0.85 1.00 0.90 1.04 1.08 0.85 1.00 32 Marine Dr./Beckett St. 0.95 N/A N/A 0.26 0.09 0.95 N/A N/A 0.23 0.07 Does not exist for this alternative 0.95 N/A N/A 0.62 0.64 0.95 N/A N/A 0.42 0.74 0.95 N/A N/A 0.25 0.50 Does not exist for this alternative Does not exist for this alternative 33 Marine Dr./5th Ave. NW 0.95 N/A N/A 0.26 0.03 0.95 N/A N/A 0.18 0.14 Does not exist for this alternative 0.95 N/A N/A 0.29 0.93 0.95 N/A N/A 0.48 0.53 0.95 N/A N/A 0.22 0.59 0.90 N/A N/A 0.11 0.17 0.95 N/A N/A 0.11 0.17 34 Marine Dr./Taybin Rd. 0.95 N/A N/A 0.18 0.20 0.95 N/A N/A 0.20 0.16 Does not exist for this alternative 0.95 N/A N/A 0.14 0.37 0.95 N/A N/A 0.12 0.42 0.95 N/A N/A 0.08 0.21 Does not exist for this alternative Does not exist for this alternative 35 Wallace Rd./Beckett St. 0.95 N/A N/A 0.52 > 1.50 0.95 N/A N/A 1.47 > 1.50 Does not exist for this alternative 0.95 N/A N/A 0.45 0.62 0.95 N/A N/A 0.54 0.58 0.95 N/A N/A 0.31 0.49 Does not exist for this alternative Does not exist for this alternative

a Traffic analysis for non-state facilities performed for this FEIS used City of Salem mobility standards (a volume-to-capacity [v/c] standard of 1.0 for the existing and future No Build Alternative, and a v/c standard of 0.90 for all Build alternatives) based on Salem Transportation System Plan Policy 2.5 (City of Salem, 2007). b A v/c ratio of 0.0 is reported because the v/c ratio is calculated based on the controlled approach. Volumes on the controlled movement are near zero, which is why the v/c ratio is reported as 0.0 Notes:

49

Analysis based on Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (TRB, 2000) methods; For non-signals, worst v/c by movement was reported; Marine Drive/Taybin Rd. and Wallace Rd./ Beckett St. were not modeled for year 2031. Black shading represents intersection not meeting mobility standards.; Grey shading represents a location that would not meet mobility standards, but would improve mobility compared to the No Build Alternative’s intersection not meeting mobility standards.

50

Exhibit B‐2: 2040 Traffic Model v/c Results: Previous Build Preferred Alternative

51

Intersection

2040 No Build Alternative 2040 Preferred Alternative

Control Type

Mobility Standard (v/c ratio)

AM Peak PM Peak Mobility Standard (v/c ratio)

AM Peak PM Peak

Wallace Rd./ Brush College Rd.

TWSC 0.95 0.99 >1.50 0.95 >1.50 >1.50

Wallace Rd./ River Bend Rd.

Signal 0.95 0.73 0.64 0.95 0.91 0.97

Wallace Rd./ Hope Ave.

TWSC 0.95 0.85 >1.50 0.95 0.97 0.93

Wallace Rd./ Orchard Heights

Signal 0.95 0.85 0.87 0.95 0.83 0.90

Wallace Rd./ Glen Creek Rd.

Signal 0.95 1.18 1.00 0.95 1.26 1.00

Wallace Rd./ Taggart Rd.

Signal 0.95 1.46 1.46 0.95 1.40 1.33

Wallace Rd./ OR 22/Edgewater

Signal 0.95 1.50 1.07 0.95 1.08 0.97

Hope Ave./ Marine Drive

Signal 0.95 Does Not Exist for this

Alternative 0.95 1.20 0.96

Wallace Road/

Becket Street 0.95 TWSC 0.52 >1.50 0.95 0.51 0.58

Marine Drive/ Glen Creek Rd.

TWSC 1.00 0.30 0.17 0.95a 0.59 0.54

Center St. Off/ NB Front Street

Signal 0.85 1.24 1.02 0.85 0.49 0.63

Center St./ Commercial St.

Signal 0.85 1.08 0.74 0.85 0.96 0.64

Center St./ Liberty St.

Signal 1.00 0.85 0.76 0.90 0.83 0.72

Front St./ Union St.

Signal 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.90 0.48 0.72

Marion St. / Commercial St.

Signal 0.85 0.64 1.53 0.85 0.66 1.33

Marion St./ Liberty St.

Signal 1.00 0.65 1.07 0.85 0.61 1.01

Front St./ Front St. (OR 99E)

TWSC 0.90 0.59 0.99 0.90 0.37 0.81

Division St./ Commercial St.

Signal 0.85 0.90 1.02 0.90 0.55 0.80

Market St./ Commercial St.

Signal 0.90 0.79 1.05 0.85 0.76 0.81

Market St./ Liberty St.

Signal 0.90 0.81 0.88 0.90 0.72 0.74

52

Intersection

2040 No Build Alternative 2040 Preferred Alternative

Control Type

Mobility Standard (v/c ratio)

AM Peak PM Peak Mobility Standard (v/c ratio)

AM Peak PM Peak

Market St./ Broadway

Signal 1.00 0.78 0.94 0.90 0.93 0.96

Commercial St./ Pine St.

Signal 0.90 0.54 0.65 0.90 1.12 0.59

Liberty St./ Pine St.

Signal 0.90 0.47 0.67 0.90 0.83 1.20

Broadway St./ Pine St.

Signal 1.00 0.53 0.96 0.90 0.97 1.10

Commercial St./ Hickory St.

TWSC 0.90 0.48 0.54 0.90b 0.52 1.06

Liberty St./ Hickory St.

TWSC 0.90 0.40 0.52 0.90c 0.57 1.01

Broadway St./ Hickory St.

TWSC 1.00 0.24 0.32 0.90 0.42 1.25

Salem Pkwy./ Commercial St.

Merge N/A – – N/A – –

Salem Pkwy./ Liberty St.

Signal 0.90 0.62 0.93 0.90 0.94 1.18

Salem Pkwy./ Broadway St.

Signal 0.90 0.80 1.21 0.90 0.91 1.42

Salem Pkwy./ Cherry St.

Signal 0.90 0.85 0.94 0.90 1.01 1.05

Marine Dr./ Beckett St.

TWSC 0.95 0.26 0.09 0.95 0.76 0.73

Marine Dr./ 5th Ave. NW

Signal 0.95 0.26 0.03 0.95 0.69 0.78

Marine Dr./ Taybin Rd.

TWSC 0.95 0.18 0.20 0.95 0.48 0.44