corridor study and environmental assessment - …...2013/12/12 · sd44 / platte-winner bridge...

MARKET

Archeology

Laboratory

(Augustana)

SD44 / PLATTE-WINNER BRIDGE

CORRIDOR STUDY AND

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTPUBLIC MEETINGS, DECEMBER 12-13, 2017

SD44 / PLATTE-WINNER BRIDGE CORRIDOR STUDY AND EA

PRESENTATION OVERVIEW

1) Study Team

2) Bridge/Corridor History

3) Project Objectives

4) Roadway Alignment Alternatives Screening

5) Bridge Alternatives Screening

6) Environmental Process

7) Public Input


INTRODUCTIONS – STUDY ADVISORY TEAM

STUDY ADVISORY TEAM

Marion Barber – FHWA Jay Larson – SDDOT

Paul Coughlin - SDGFP Tom Lehmkuhl – SDDOT

Travor Diegel – SDDOT Al Nedved - SDGFP

Steve Gramm – SDDOT Jay Peppel – SDDOT

Kevin Griese – SDDOT Claire Peschong – SDDOT

Marc Hoelscher – FHWA Brian Raecke – SDDOT

Mark Hoines – FHWA Jay Tople - SDDOT

Steve Johnson – SDDOT


INTRODUCTIONS – CONSULTANT TEAM

• HR Green

• Tim Thoreen – Project Manager, Environmental Task

Lead

• Jon Wiegand – Traffic and Roadway Task Lead

• Kevin Brehm – Bridge Task Lead


PROJECT CORRIDOR/BRIDGE HISTORY

• Bridge opened to traffic in 1966, major repairs in

1997 on two piers, 4-month closure of bridge

• 2016 SDDOT study: SD44 a top priority among our

major bridges

• Landslides in the corridor have been a long-standing

maintenance cost


STUDY EXPECTATIONS AND OBJECTIVES

• Conduct traffic studies to evaluate safety and

operations of the roadway today and in the future

• Complete a bridge location and type study for a

new long-term (100+ years) bridge

• Complete the environmental process necessary

to advance the project into final design


• Challenging soils and steep

slopes represent severe

constraints on construction of a

stable new roadway alignment

• Repairs on existing roadway

have substantially reduced

landslides on SD44 in recent

years

GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS


Traffic Volumes

• Less than 900 vehicles/day

cross the bridge in 2017

• Forecast for 1,400 vehicles/day

in 2050

TRAFFIC CONDITIONS

Crash History (2012-2016)

• More than half of reported

crashes were animal collisions

• Majority of other crashes were

single-car type

• One (single-car) crash at an

intersection


Traffic Study Findings

• No long-term issues for capacity

• Crash data do not indicate roadway design problems

• Corridor intersections are not congested and do not have crash history

• Recreation Area has safety concerns, but little documented crash data exist

Alternatives Implications

• New alignment location would have limited traffic benefits versus current alignment

• New roadway alignments will have significant geotechnical challenges (costs)

• May want to consider options at the Recreation Area for turning/ crossing conflicts

TRAFFIC STUDIES FINDINGS


May 2017 Public Meetings

• No closures or detours! A regionally-important crossing

• Freight corridor, emergency services, lengthy detour is a major impact

• Poor sight lines approaching the bridge (especially eastbound)

• Valuable access to Snake Creek Recreation Area

TRAFFIC & ROADWAY FEEDBACK FROM PUBLIC

Eastbound view of the bridge approach


Scoping Initial Findings

• Deep foundations in the river (>200 feet to bedrock)

• Existing crossing location is about optimal for minimizing length of bridge

• Cannot repair existing bridge or replace in same location and meet project objectives

Alternatives Implications

• The new bridge will be in a new location, but close to existing

• Girder/slab and segmental concrete bridge types appear most feasible

• Note: bridge type determination does not appear to be influenced by alignment location decision

BRIDGE PROCESS AND FINDINGS


May 2017 Public Meetings

• Narrow bridge is a challenge for large vehicles (e.g. farm

equipment) to cross without conflict

• Is construction of a causeway (similar to I-90 at Chamberlain) a

possible solution?

• Can the current bridge be re-purposed for pedestrian and bike

users instead of being demolished after the new bridge is built?

BRIDGE FEEDBACK FROM PUBLIC


Scoping - Initial Efforts

• Agency/Tribal outreach

• Public involvement

• Field studies

Environmental Findings

• Recreational resources

• Section 4(f)/6(f) properties

• Cultural resources

• Wetlands/water resources

• Social and economic resources

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES


Recreational Resources

• Snake Creek Recreation Area

notable among other parks and

resources (State Parks and

Wildlife Resource Areas)

• Section 4(f) protections require

close coordination with resource

owner (SDGFP) and FHWA

regarding impact avoidance

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES


Development of Evaluation Criteria

• Based on the input received from the Study Advisory

Team, Resource Agencies, and the public

• Create the criteria before we identify alternatives

• Two sets of criteria developed:

• Alignment / Roadway location

• Bridge type

SO WHAT DO THESE ISSUES MEAN?


Five categories of criteria were developed

1. Environmental• Recreational, Cultural Resources, Water, Socioeconomic,

Construction Impact

2. Geotechnical• Conflicts with existing foundation, footprint, long-term

maintenance, initial construction cost

3. Bridge Location• Implication of alignment on bridge length, ability to remove the

existing bridge

SD44 ALIGNMENT EVALUATION CRITERIA


Five categories of criteria were developed

4. Roadway/Traffic

• Maintenance of traffic, access, sight lines/geometry, safety,

amount of new roadway required

5. Constructability/ Cost-Effectiveness

• Constructability, staging, right-of-way, cost

SD44 ALIGNMENT EVALUATION CRITERIA


Separately developed several location options

• Alignment alternatives reflect various measures to address the concerns identified in scoping (e.g. improve sight lines)

• Seven upstream variations of parallel and “skewed” alignments, up to 600’ feet away from current bridge

• Two downstream variations – one parallel and one skewed, up to 300’ separation

ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES


Applied the criteria to alternatives

• Qualitatively evaluated each alternative (+, 0, -)

• Assess the effectiveness of strategies represented by each alternative

• Screen alternatives to a smaller set for further study and refinement

EVALUATION / SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES


After screening, the following

alternatives remain under

consideration:

1. Parallel, adjacent, and upstream

2. Parallel, adjacent, and

downstream

3. “Skewed” alignment upstream

ALTERNATIVES FOR REFINEMENT

Recurring themes in the evaluation point to three key issues that will weigh heavily in determination of a Recommended Alternative:

- Geotechnical

- Section 4(f)/6(f), Snake Creek Recreation Area

- Cultural Resources


Distance from Existing Bridge

• Based on construction methods used for current bridge, geotechnical

hazards may exist below water

• Minimize risk by locating new bridge beyond a “buffer zone”

• Currently using a 125’ separation from deepest foundations

ALIGNMENT SCREENING FACTOR


“N125” ALIGNMENT


“NORTH SKEWED” ALIGNMENT


“S125” ALIGNMENT


Section 4(f) Impacts – Snake Creek Recreation Area

• Upstream or downstream alignment choice has very different impacts on the park

• Construction and long-term impacts to consider

• SDGFP involvement required for final decisions

ALIGNMENT SCREENING FACTOR

Maintenance,

Admin., &

Property Mgr.

Boat launch

and access

Dump Station

Welcome

Center and

campgrounds


Snake Creek Recreation Area

• Topography of the park varies

• Access to facilities during and after construction will be evaluated during this next phase of work

RECREATIONAL RESOURCES


Snake Creek

Recreation Area

• Campground

facilities on

south side of

SD44

• Nearest sites

sheltered by

trees



West Side Boat

Ramp

• Additional boat

ramp capacity

outside of SCRA

• Downstream

side (versus

SCRA access on

upstream side)



Initial scoping of bridge types left two major types

• Girder/Slab

• variations for steel or concrete, constant depth or variable)

• Concrete Segmental

• using balanced cantilever construction technique to achieve

longer span lengths

BRIDGE ALTERNATIVES


Features

• Common bridge type (including

existing SD44 bridge)

• Span length: 100’ to 450’

• Conventional construction

MAJOR BRIDGE TYPE – GIRDER/SLAB


Features

• Concrete bridge

• Span length: 100’ to 650’

• Comparatively expensive

construction – has been used

in North Dakota

MAJOR BRIDGE TYPE – SEGMENTAL


Continued screening of the bridge options, with pre-determined evaluation criteria

• Maintenance

• Environmental Footprint (foundations)

• Staging/Construction impacts

• Construction duration

• Constructability

• Cost

• Other risk factors

BRIDGE ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION


For this location, the Segmental Concrete bridge type is disadvantaged in many areas:

• Staging (large area needed)

• Contractor experience

• Cost

• Maintenance

Recommend elimination of this bridge type

REMAINING BRIDGE TYPES

Factors in decision-making for

remaining girder/slab bridge

types.

• Optimizing the # of foundations

• Ice load capacity (ability to

withstand ice impacts)

• Cost

• Constructability


Ice loading is considered to be the key factor behind previous

damage that caused bridge closure:

• Water levels of Lake Francis Case can vary by more than 20 feet in

a year

• Spring thaw causes thick ice to move downstream

• Rising water levels make the exact impact elevation uncertain

• Ultimately, this factor could provide incentive for slightly longer

spans

WHAT IS ICE LOADING?


ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY PATH AHEAD

• Conduct agency coordination for key issues:• Section 4(f)/6(f) with SDGFP

• Section 106 (Cultural Resources) with USACE

• Finish field studies in spring 2018

• Prepare Environmental Assessment

• Determine a Preferred Alternative and share it with the public for comment


PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT OVERVIEW

• One more set of public meetings anticipated for

this project (publication of the EA)

• Agency/Tribal Outreach

• Website (www.sd44bridge.com)

http://www.sd44bridge.com/


PROJECT SCHEDULE


PROJECT SCHEDULE

• In General, Four Phases• 1) Scoping & Data Collection (January – May 2017)

• Public Information Meeting #1 – May 22 & 23

• 2) Alternatives Development (May – Dec. 2017)• Public Information Meeting #2 – tonight

• 3) Select Preferred Alternative (Dec. ‘17 – Apr. ‘18)

• 4) Complete NEPA/Recommendations (Feb. – July 2018)• Public Information Meeting #3 – Summer 2018


PLEASE LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS WITH US!

• Comment Forms are available

• Complete tonight, or send to us by January 3, 2018

• Visit web site for updates: www.sd44bridge.comProject Contacts

Tim Thoreen, PMP

HR Green

[email protected]

651-659-7777

Steve Gramm, PE

South Dakota Department of Transportation

[email protected]

605-773-6641

http://www.sd44bridge.com/

MARKET

Archeology

Laboratory

(Augustana)

SD44 / PLATTE-WINNER BRIDGE

CORRIDOR STUDY AND

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTPUBLIC MEETINGS, DECEMBER 12-13, 2017

corridor study and environmental assessment - …...2013/12/12 · sd44 / platte-winner bridge...

Documents