Columbia Ver ™ WASHINGTON STREET/"HArriM/" SUITE30°I K l ) \S [ \ | (n VANCOUVER, WA 98660

360-737-2726 | 503-256-2726

February 15,2012

Shari HildrethDeputy District DirectorU.S. Representative Jaime Herrera BeutlerGeneral O.O. Howard House750 Anderson St., Suite BVancouver, WA 98661

Subject: Response to questions from Mr. Robert Dean

Dear Ms. Hildreth:

This letter responds to questions received from your constituent, Mr. Robert Dean, in a letterdated January 20, 2012, about the Columbia River Crossing project. Mr. Dean's questionsaddress a number of topics related to CRC project effects, mitigation and compensation,construction planning and the project's public process to meet the requirements of the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The Columbia River Crossing project strives to be responsive to constituent inquiries. Theproject has engaged Mr. Dean on several occasions in the past at the highest levels of ourorganization. Mr. Dean met with then Project Director Don Wagner, City of Vancouver Directorof Transportation Thayer Rorabaugh and City of Vancouver Councilor and CRC ProjectSponsors Council Member Jeanne Harris on January 3, 2011, to discuss similar concerns. Theproject has provided Mr. Dean with previously requested information and responded to Mr.Dean's comments on the CRC Final Environmental Impact Statement (attached to this responsefor your reference).

In reviewing Mr. Dean's most recent questions, there appears to be a difference in definitions ofterms that should be clarified before responding further. Mr. Dean asks about the specific typesof effects analyzed through the project's NEPA evaluation, often citing "indirect impacts." Webelieve that in most cases he is referring to construction-related, or "temporary effects," ratherthan indirect effects.

NEPA requires that agencies conduct a comprehensive analysis of effects, disclose these findingsand consider avoidance, minimization and mitigation for adverse impacts. The CRC FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement discusses these effects related to the natural and builtenvironment, community and economy in a comprehensive manner. It also describes actions toavoid, minimize or mitigate impacts. The project's Record of Decision, issued by FederalHighway Administration and Federal Transit Administration on December 7, 2011, makescommitments to mitigation that will be implemented.

Ms. Shari HildrethFebruary 15,2012Page 2

Types of impacts analyzed by CRCSeveral types of effects or impacts (these terms are used interchangeably) are included in theCRC environmental analyses. Mr. Dean refers to direct, indirect and cumulative effects in hisquestions. However, his application of these terms is inconsistent with definitions in theregulations governing NEPA.1

Direct effects are defined as "those effects that are caused by a project action and that occur atthe same time and place (as the action)." "Effects" includes ecological, aesthetic, historic,cultural, economic, social or health impacts. Effects may also include those resulting fromactions which may have both beneficial and detrimental effects. Direct effects can be furtherbroken into "long-term" and "temporary" effects. Long-term direct effects are those related topermanent changes resulting from project actions, such as the displacement of residents orbusinesses to accommodate the project's footprint. Temporary effects describe project-relatedimpacts that are not permanent, such as disruptions to residents or businesses from projectconstruction. The project's NEPA analysis includes extensive discussion of both the long-termand temporary direct effects of the CRC project.

Indirect effects are defined as those "effects that are caused by an action but that are later in timeor farther removed in distance, but that are still reasonably foreseeable effects of the action.Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changesin the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and waterand other natural systems, including ecosystems." For example, the visual impact that newdevelopment may have on a historic building is an indirect effect, if the pace of that developmentwas accelerated by the creation of a new river crossing.

Cumulative effects are "the impact(s) on the environment which results from the incrementalimpact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actionsregardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions.Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions takingplace over a period of time." For example, the CRC project considers its contribution to local andregional greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the effect of climate change on the vulnerability ofenvironmental resources.

Mr. Dean refers to many construction-related effects as "indirect impacts," while the CRCproject has treated these types of impacts as temporary direct effects. We proceed with thisassumption in our responses.

In addition, Mr. Dean implies that the project has not adequately considered indirect effects. Theproject has followed NEPA regulations in analyzing direct, indirect and cumulative effects.NEPA regulations require projects to analyze both direct and indirect effects. Indirect effects, bytheir very nature, cannot be subjected to the same analytic methods and tests. Long-term andgeographically-widespread indirect effects have been analyzed to the extent practicable, utilizingestablished tools and models, on a regional and sub-regional scale. To attempt to predict the

See 40 CFR §1508.7-1508.8

Ms. Shari HildrethFebruary 15, 2012Page 3

indirect financial or other quantitative effects on individual businesses or households would bespeculative and indefensible.

Mr. Dean asks if the project has coordinated with other agencies relative to cumulative impacts.Multiple plans lay out lists of reasonably foreseeable future projects. These plans includeTransportation System Plans, neighborhood plans, and comprehensive plans, among others. TheNo-Build Alternative includes a list of projects through 2030, including present projects andplanned improvements, for which need, commitment, financing, and public support are identifiedand are reasonably expected to be implemented. These projects meet the criteria of being"reasonably foreseeable." All transportation improvements assumed in the No-Build Alternativeare included in either Metro's Regional Transportation Plan (RTF) (including amendments) orthe Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council's (RTC's) MetropolitanTransportation Plan (MTP). A number of additional infrastructure and development projects inthe immediate area and region were also considered in the cumulative effects analysis.

Compensation for direct and temporary effectsMr. Dean's questions address several topics related to compensation for direct and temporaryproject impacts. He asks whether the project has estimated the financial impacts to residents,businesses and government (in the form of tax revenues) as a result of the effects of construction.

Per the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of1970, as amended (Uniform Act), the project will compensate for direct and temporary impactsrelated to property acquisition and loss of access. Individual property acquisition costs will beestablished through an independent appraisal process to ensure the owner receives the fairmarket value of the property. This process is governed by the federal Uniform Act. To date, theproject has not conducted specific property valuations, which are necessary to determine theindividual property acquisition cost. For the Draft EIS, the project team made generalassumptions about the cost of acquiring property, based on a rough estimate of square footage,land use, possible demolition costs, etc. to compare the costs of alternatives in the Draft EIS, andmade similar assumptions to inform the financial planning in the Final EIS. These estimates donot reflect what property owners will actually receive as compensation, and therefore were notdistributed for review.

As was communicated in the project's previous responses to Mr. Dean, businesses cannot becompensated for loss of business. He was previously directed to Section 3.4 of the FEISdiscussion regarding measures to reduce such impacts on businesses during construction.Business losses are not compensable in the states of Washington or Oregon. Therefore, noassessments are made as to business solvency and how construction activity, for example, mayfurther impact a business' operations. As with any project, businesses and individuals have theright to file any claim they feel is in their best interest. The project team did survey businessesthat would be directly displaced by the project to learn more about the demographics of owners,employees, and customers, but has not done such a detailed survey of the businesses that wouldnot be directly affected. The project team has met with many of these business owners as well,and has afforded opportunities for all business owners to provide input on and learn about theproject.

Ms. Shari HildrethFebruary 15, 2012Page 4

Construction planning and mitigation of temporary effectsMr. Dean's questions address the project's construction phase, impacts resulting fromconstruction activities and plans to reduce or mitigate construction-related impacts. Hespecifically cites concerns with traffic diversion, detours, parking and property access.Construction impacts have been considered as part of the alternatives evaluation, projectplanning and mitigation development. Construction plans will continue to be developed andrefined during final design. Detours and reroutes will be determined during final design andconstruction planning. As the construction plans are further developed, we will work withinterested citizens and neighborhoods on the specific details. Commitments to mitigation aredocumented in the project's Record of Decision. Discussion of specific mitigation measures forboth long-term and temporary impacts are included in Appendix L of the FEIS, MitigationMatrix, attached to this response for your reference.

There was no quantitative study of how traffic affected by construction activities wouldindirectly affect business profit and loss. However, construction impacts for each element of theenvironment are discussed in each subsection (e.g., 3.1 Traffic, 3.2 Aviation and Navigation,etc.) of Chapter 3 under the sub-heading "Temporary Effects." Mitigation for temporary effectsis also discussed. Impacts are further detailed in the FEIS technical reports.

Mr. Dean often cites the estimated total 6.3 year construction timeline discussed in the FEIS. Itshould be noted that this timeline refers to construction activities of all project elementsthroughout the five-mile corridor. Construction will occur in segments, starting with the rivercrossing and then moving to on-land construction. Therefore, it is unlikely that constructionwould directly impact a single business, for example, for this entire period.

Mr. Dean also asks about the City of Vancouver's resolution and signatory conditions onapproval of the project's Locally Preferred Alternative, in particular, with relationship tomitigation of construction impacts. The project has coordinated directly with the City ofVancouver in responding to each of the conditions raised during this approval process. The statusof conditions to the LPA was discussed at a public meeting of the CRC Project Sponsors Councilon February 18, 2011. Vancouver City Council members were briefed on the FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement, including mitigation for temporary construction effects, attheir June 27, 2011 workshop.

NEPA processMr. Dean questions the project's public process with respect to NEPA, specifically approvalsreceived from sponsoring agencies, C-TRAN and SW Washington Regional TransportationCouncil, on the FEIS prior to publishing and releasing this document. Signatures from localsponsoring agencies on the FEIS were a pre-requisite for publication of the document for publicreview and comment. All approval actions taken by sponsoring agencies were conducted in anopen manner, following open meetings laws, including opportunities for public testimony.

Finally, Mr. Dean asks if rejected alternatives were revisited for potential solutions after aLocally Preferred Alternative was selected. Alternatives dismissed from further consideration are

Ms. Shari HildrethFebruary 15, 2012Page 5

documented in the DEIS and the FEIS and summarized in the Record of Decision. Duringdevelopment of the FEIS the project did revisit elements of several of these alternatives, but theyremained dismissed because they did not achieve the goals established through the purpose andneed as well as the selected alternative.

Also there were several significant design refinements following selection of a Locally PreferredAlternative. Design refinements since 2008 are discussed on the project website2 and reflected inthe FEIS under Further Defining the LPA.3

I am hopeful that these details will be helpful in responding to Mr. Dean. Please contact ouroffice if you have questions or require further information.

Sincerely,

Nancy BoydDirector

NB/roEnclosure

cc: Document Control

2 http://columbiarivercrossing.org/ProiectInformation/ResearchAndResults/DesignRefinement.aspx.3 See the FEIS, Chapter 2, p. 2-79, found online athttp://columbiarivercrossing.org/FileLibrary/FINAL EIS PDFs/CRC FEIS Chapter2._S2.3. S7.9.pdf