11 C E T A S Preferred Alternative Presentation  March 15, 2011  Fern Valley Interchange  City of Phoenix, Jackson County  Key number: 12723

22 Project Development Team  Anna Henson, Environmental Project Manager, ODOT  Dick Leever, Project Team Lead, ODOT  Peter Schuytema, Transportation Analysis, ODOT  Gary Leaming, Public Involvement, ODOT  Mike Baker, Area Planner, ODOT  Nancy Reynolds, Sr. Transportation Planner, URS  Pat Foley, Public Involvement, RVCOG  Brian Sheadel, Designer, ODOT  Joe Strahl, City of Phoenix  Mike Kuntz, Jackson County  Vicki Guarino, RVCOG  Chris Bucher, FHWA (advisory member)

33 Project Vicinity

44 Area Context and Features Natural Resources Bear Creek, Bear Creek Greenway Coleman Creek Payne Creek Historic Resources Medford Canal Arrowhead Ranch

55 Area Context and Features (cont.)  Transportation Problem: Congestion on Fern Valley Road, OR 99, and the I-5 ramps. Poor visibility related to the vertical alignment of the I-5 structure. Bear Creek Bridge has structural problems and is narrow which limits traffic capacity.

66 Purpose and Need  Purpose Statement The purpose of the proposed action is to reduce congestion and improve operational conditions at the I-5 interchange with Fern Valley Road, on Fern Valley Road within the City of Phoenix UGB, and on OR 99 near its intersection with Fern Valley Road. In addition, the Bear Creek Bridge is structurally deficient and functionally obsolete.

77  Need for the Proposed Action Congestion at Fern Valley Interchange:  Vehicles queue back onto I-5 during peak hours.  By 2030, traffic predicted to back up from OR 99 to N. Phoenix Road. Poor sight distance on Fern Valley Road caused by the I-5 overpass. Lack of continuous sidewalks and bike lanes in the project area. Improve safety and operations at Fern Valley Interchange, on Fern Valley Road and OR 99. Correct structural and traffic capacity problems at the Bear Creek Bridge. Purpose and Need

88 Goals and Objectives Goal #1: Ensure project compatibility with land use plans.  Provide for economic & residential growth.  Protect existing businesses and residences. Goal #2: Provide safe and efficient movement of emergency vehicles, school buses & freight. Goal #3: Provide facilities that encourage alternate modes of transportation.  Reduce vehicle/bike/pedestrian conflicts.  Ensure design that’s compatible with future park-and-ride facilities. Goal #4: Provide for easy and/or safe access to existing & planned businesses and residences.  Reduce turn lanes to minimize congestion.  Reduce the number of driveways where appropriate.  Reduce sharp turns and road curvature for truck movements.

99 Goal #5: Ensure design is not cost-prohibitive.  Support short-latitudinal crossings of Bear Creek.  Minimize right of way acquisitions. Goal #6: Enhance community livability and quality of life.  Improve connection between west and east Phoenix.  Avoid bisecting neighborhoods.  Avoid new, major arterials next to neighborhoods and natural areas. Goal #7: Protect and enhance the natural environment.  Minimize disruptions to traffic flow to maintain air quality.  Avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands, riparian areas, and native vegetation.  Avoid impacts to parks, including the Bear Creek Greenway. Goal #8: Protect the integrity of the Bear Creek Greenway Trail.  Minimize construction and long-term impacts to the Greenway, including the creek, trail and adjacent riparian vegetation. Goals and Objectives

10 Agencies Participating in the CETAS Review Process for this Project Federal Highway Administration Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife Oregon Department of Land Conservation & Development Oregon Department of State Lands Oregon State Historic Preservation Office U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service U.S. Army Corps of Engineers National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

11 History of Concurrence Points CETAS Project Triage: February, 2004 Purpose & Need Concurrence: July, 2004 Evaluation Criteria: April, 2005 Range of Alternatives: July, 2007

12 Alternatives Analyzed No-Build Alternative  Traffic congestion would continue to increase at major intersections.  7 of 16 intersections would be over capacity (vc>1.0) by 2030:  I-5 north off ramp/Fern Valley Road (v/c 1.38)  I-5 south off ramp/Fern Valley Road (v/c 1.37)  OR 99/Fern Valley Road (v/c 0.98)  Impacts to I-5: long traffic queues on Fern Valley Road and OR 99.  Traffic on interchange ramps would continue to spill back onto I-5, creating serious safety conflicts between high-speed and stopped vehicles.  Fern Valley Road: Queues from OR 99 to east of N. Phoenix Road. Travel to connecting roads and properties would be blocked.  OR 99: Queues along most of the route from S. Stage Road to south end of downtown couplet.

13 No-Build Alternative (cont.)  Continued intermittent and substandard bike and pedestrian facilities along Fern Valley Road and OR 99, not meeting ADA requirements.  Emergency services and bus service would be slowed due to congestion.  Continued deterioration of the Bear Creek Bridge; continued poor alignment and poor sight distance on the Greenway multi-use path. Alternatives Analyzed (cont.)

14 Build Alternative (N. Phoenix Thru):  Interchange replaced slightly north of existing.  West of I-5, alignment generally follows existing Fern Valley Road to OR 99.  East of I-5, alignment shifts northeast and connects with realigned N. Phoenix Road north of Arrowhead Ranch. Anna: You need to provide handout maps and a large map on the wall. Alternatives Analyzed (cont.)

15 Build Alternative Features: Interchange Design  Diverging Diamond Interchange (aka Crossing Diamond Interchange).  Has narrower footprint than conventional diamond interchange minimizing impacts to businesses in interchange area.  Is very efficient. Allows traffic to free-flow entering I-5  Anticipated 50% reduction in crashes since there are no left turns. Alternatives Analyzed (cont.)

16 Build Alternative Features:  Fern Valley Road:  2 lanes in each direction except  1-way road just west of Bear Creek (westbound on Fern Valley Road; eastbound on E. Bolz Road)  Bear Creek Bridge:  Widened from 2 to 4 lanes (from 36 feet to 100 feet wide)  Bike and pedestrian facilities:  6-foot shoulders throughout (except 5-foot shoulders on OR 99)  Shoulders designated by pavement markings for bike travel  6-foot sidewalks throughout Existing Bear Creek Bridge Alternatives Analyzed (cont.)

17 Build Alternative Features:  Build Alternative includes IAMP measures to preserve interchange capacity. Summary:  Capacity expansion and retention  Trip Budget  Motor Vehicle Trip Reduction Designs and Programs  OR 99 Setback on new construction  Amendments to City’s comp plan  Alternative Mobility Standards at I-5 ramp terminal with Fern Valley Rd  Bus Stop and transfer site location/Shared Park and Ride Lot help Alternatives Analyzed (cont.)

18 Alternatives Analyzed — Summary of Impacts  Cultural, Historic and Archaeological Resources  Historic resources on National Register: - Medford Canal—No impact - Arrowhead Ranch—No impact - SHPO concurred that Build Alternative would not adversely affect historic properties (April 2008)  Archaeological resources: - Researched previously recorded sites. - Site visit—Included pedestrian survey along areas not previously inventoried; exploratory subsurface probing where no subsurface visibility existed. - No resources were identified during database and field inventories - Bear Creek Greenway is considered archaeologically sensitive landform. - SHPO concurred on Finding of No Historic Properties Affected-- Archaeology (January 2009)

19  Socioeconomics:  Business relocations: 4 (coffee stand, restaurant, 2 mobile food vendors)  Residential displacements: 2 (along E. Bolz Road)  Environmental Justice: Analysis indicates no disproportionally high and adverse effects on EJ populations.  Access to area businesses and travel time: - Reduced traffic congestion improves access to area businesses in most cases.  Safety improvements: - Bicyclist and Pedestrian safety would improve throughout project - Travel flow to businesses/residences is improved due to less delays and stops. This increases safety by reducing the more severe rear end collisions. Alternatives Analyzed — Summary of Impacts

20  Land Use:  Lands converted to highway use: 22.1 acres on 42 parcels (mostly land zoned for commercial use; 7.4 acres of land zoned EFU).  No Goal exceptions required.  Development of land is likely to occur in the interchange area, but this is consistent with local comprehensive plans.  2 CUP’s required (Jackson County and City of Phoenix)  IAMP: adopted by the City of Phoenix (February 2011) restricts development that would generate high traffic volumes protecting the interchange and connecting roadway network. Alternatives Analyzed — Summary of Impacts

21  Section 4(f) Resource — Bear Creek Greenway:  Build Alternative will realign existing path to remove sharp curve that is under bridge. Alternatives Analyzed — Summary of Impacts

22  Wetlands: (see handout)  Total wetlands impacted = less than 4 acres.  Total other waters impacted = less than 0.25 acre.  High quality wetlands impacted: Less than 0.01 acre.  Wetlands delineation report submitted to DSL for the Bear Creek Bridge replacement and received concurrence. Alternatives Analyzed — Summary of Impacts

 Waterways:  No adverse floodway impacts to any of the creeks in the project area  Bear Creek - Replacement of bridge - would result in similar or slightly improved hydraulic conveyance - remove bridge piers below the OHWM – benefit to the creek - no increase in stormwater pollutants due to treatment facilities  Coleman Creek – no impact with Build Alternative  Payne Creek – no impact with Build Alternative

24  Water Quality:  Total future impervious surface area: 28 acres (includes ODOT contributing area)  Net new impervious surface area: 11 acres  With mitigation, direct impacts to Bear Creek from changes in stormwater runoff would not be detectable.  No substantial affects to temperature or bacteria levels in Bear Creek. No violations of in-stream water quality standards in Bear Creek.  Build Alternative requires relocation of existing Home Depot stormwater treatment pond. Adequate right of way included to accommodate stormwater facilities. Alternatives Analyzed — Summary of Impacts

25  Biology—Aquatic Species:  Presence of SONCC coho salmon in Bear Creek and tributaries (Coleman and Payne Creek) and designated critical habitat.  Biological Opinion (June 2010) issued by NMFS: proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of SONCC coho salmon nor result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat designated for this species. The BO also includes an incidental take of SONCC coho during construction.  Proposed action may temporarily impair the EFH for Pacific Salmon during construction.  Includes standard conservation and mitigation measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate potential impacts to aquatic species.  Fish Passage – Plan for Bear Creek Bridge Alternatives Analyzed — Summary of Impacts

26  Biology—Terrestrial Species:  No terrestrial wildlife species, plant species, or designated critical habitat for terrestrial species protected under the ESA have been identified within the project area.  Noxious weeds prevalent in project area: yellow starthistle, Medusahead rye, Himalayan blackberry)  No Effect Memo for USF&WS trust species was completed. Alternatives Analyzed — Summary of Impacts

27  Hazardous Materials:  Build Alternative to impact or be close to 3 sites of high concern that may contain hazmat: residences (potential asbestos), truck stop, and orchard.  3 sites of moderate concern (gas station and farm buildings).  Extensive mitigation to reduce potential exposure to hazmat.  Air Quality:  Build Alternative not expected to cause exceedances of NAAQS for CO, PM 10 or PM 2.5.  Build Alternative meets regional conformity requirements and project-level conformity requirements.  Project would adhere to ODOT construction specifications and best construction practices to reduce and minimize air quality impacts. Alternatives Analyzed — Summary of Impacts

28  Visual Resources: Overall project area:  Enhances visual cohesion by adding continuous sidewalks.  Improved aesthetics of new bridges  Constructs new and wider structure over I-5. West of I-5:  New approach road to OR 99 from Coleman Creek Estates—affects views to and from residences.  Removes trees and two houses on semi-residential E. Bolz Road, a transitional commercial area.  Improved visual conditions to and from Greenway multi-use path. East of I-5:  Moves major intersection away from neighborhoods east of I-5.  New roadway through former orchard Alternatives Analyzed — Summary of Impacts

29 Comments Submitted on Environmental Assessment CETAS – Regulatory Agency Comments  No formal written comments submitted from CETAS agencies.

30 Project Support  Build Alternative supported by PMT, PDT, CAC, City of Phoenix and Jackson County.  City of Phoenix adopted IAMP.  Phoenix East Side Traffic Study group supports project. Public Involvement

31 Summary of Public Comments  General  Project would be very beneficial to Phoenix & other communities.  Minimize the cost of water line relocation for the City of Phoenix.  Need interchange or overcrossing at South Stage Road.  Remove the previous [interim] project on Fern Valley Road.  Bikes and pedestrians:  Bicyclists and pedestrians will benefit.  Provide access to bicyclists and pedestrians during construction.  Traffic:  Autos and trucks will benefit. Public Involvement

32 Summary of Public Comments (cont.)  Businesses:  Too many impacts to businesses during tough economic times.  Need easier accessibility to truck stop.  Design:  Realign Fern Valley Road to connect to OR 99 at Cheryl Lane rather than Ray’s Market due to pedestrian safety and traffic flow concerns.  Important to repair Bear Creek Bridge and I-5 structure.  Process and EA:  ODOT executed comprehensive NEPA process with extensive public outreach and testimony.  EIS is required for this project due to potential substantive damage to water quality, farmland and air quality.  EA should include more build alternatives.  EA should include additional quantitative cumulative impact analysis due to urbanization. Public Involvement

33 Preferred Alternative Avoidance and Mitigation Measures:  Reduced typical section on OR 99 to avoid and minimize impacts to adjacent businesses.  Inclusion of additional access road to Coleman Creek Estates to help minimize impacts to residential area.  Traffic management, signage and coordination during construction to reduce impacts to emergency services and businesses.  Shape and placement of Bear Creek Bridge footings designed so Greenway path users have unobstructed of entire path under bridge.  Provide for continued bike and pedestrian connections to Greenway during construction.  Design bridge to be aesthetically compatible with Greenway.

34 Avoidance and Mitigation Measures (cont):  Selection of Diverging Diamond Interchange to reduce commercial ROW impacts.  Alignment shifted to avoid impacts to historic resources.  Section 6(f) replacement of about 0.07 acre for impacts to Bear Creek Greenway properties.  During final design sound walls will be evaluated and considered for area adjacent to Bear Lake Estates (residential area located along I-5).  Bear Creek Bridge designed to pass 100-year flood event.  Minimize vegetation removal during construction. Preferred Alternative

35 Avoidance and Mitigation Measures (cont):  Stormwater pollutant loads (particularly sediment and dissolved copper) and runoff rates to be reduced through combination of detention ponds, treatment swales, vegetated ditches or other water quality treatment methods.  Per ODOT stormwater standards, low impact development practices to be implemented first to reduce flows and volumes (e.g., minimizing impervious area and mimicking natural drainage patterns by allowing runoff to flow off side of road).  Use of suitable vegetation or substrate filters to enhance stormwater treatment. Preferred Alternative

36 Preferred Alternative Avoidance and Mitigation Measures (cont.):  Mitigate for loss of about 4 acres of wetland functions and area. Likely options include:  Creating or enhancing wetlands on-site  Creating or enhancing wetlands off-site (purchasing mitigation credits from ODOT’s vernal pool wetlands bank near White City).  Use standard construction specifications and practices to minimize impacts to humans and environment.

37 The Build Alternative meets the project’s Purpose and Need: - reduces congestion in and around the interchange area, Fern Valley Road and OR 99 (decreasing v/c ratios to <1.0) - replaces the Bear Creek Bridge with a structure two times the width of existing structure increasing capacity along Fern Valley Road. Preferred Alternative

38 Preferred Alternative The Build Alternative balances impacts with mitigation opportunities resulting in a net benefit to natural resources: 1. SONCC coho Salmon: new Bear Creek Bridge will remove existing bridge bents out of OHW resulting in better fish habitat 2. Improved Water Quality - treatment of existing stormwater runoff that was not previously treated. 3. Improved bike and pedestrian facilities throughout project area

39 Probable Permits and Approvals Needed:  Federal Agencies - NPS: Section 6(f) conversion - USACE: 404 permit  State of Oregon Agencies - DEQ: Asbestos-containing building materials and Section ODFW: Fish Passage Plan - DSL: Removal/fill permit  Jackson County - Section 6(f) conversion for impacts to the Bear Creek Greenway - Bridge and stream crossings: compliance with Jackson County Land Development Ordinance (Floodplain Overlay) - CUP for realignment of N. Phoenix Road outside the UGB.  City of Phoenix - Comp plan amendment for change to Plan Map, road reclassification and adding project to TSP, Tier 1 project list - CUP for new bridge in Bear Creek Greenway Zoning District Preferred Alternative

40 Anticipated Schedule –Conclude NEPA Process: June, 2011 –Right of Way acquisition: Under Way (state funds) –Permits/Approvals: June, 2012 –Construction Start: December, 2012 –Construction End: December, 2015