245087 Supplemental Letter 3.pdf

Shawna Self, CPPB

Purchasing Manager cc: File

CITY OF SALEM

FINANCE DEPARTMENT

CONTRACTS & PROCUREMENT DIVISION

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION LETTER #3

December 16, 2024

RFP NO. 245087

FOR: Pringle Creek Path Connection (Salem)

CLOSING DATE: January 10, 2025 at 4:00 PM (LOCAL TIME)

The following are questions submitted by Proposers and answers from the City:

1. Q) Which consultant(s) have been involved in this work to date?

A) Attached are the documents.

2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032

J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D 2022 2023

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D 2022 2023

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D 2022 2023

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D 2022 2023

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

FISHER ROAD

SILVERTON RD TO EAST-WEST CURVE

(WIDEN, SIDEWALKS, BIKE LANES, ETC.)

27,650,000

2022 SALEM SAFETY AND LIVABILITY BOND MEASURE PROJECTS

PRINGLE ROAD

McGILCHRIST ST TO GEORGIA ST

(WIDEN, SIDEWALKS, BIKE LANES, ETC.)

19,220,000

V O T E

-8

-2

V O T E

-8

-2

V O T E

STREETS & SIDEWALKS

BRIDGE REHABILITATION

15TH STREET

AT MILL CREEK

(REMOVE LOAD RESTRICTIONS)

460,000

-8

-2

2024 PAVEMENT R & R

LIBERTY ST (MILL ST-TRADE ST)

COMMERCIAL ST (FABRY RD TO I-5 RAMP) 3,000,000

17TH STREET

AT MILL CREEK

(REMOVE LOAD RESTRICTIONS)

1,040,000

LIBERTY STREET

AT MILL CREEK

(REMOVE LOAD RESTRICTIONS)

580,000

DAVIS ROAD

SKYLINE RD TO LIBERTY RD

(WIDEN, SIDEWALKS, BIKE LANES, ETC.)

7,600,000

MISSION STREET

AT PRINGLE CREEK

(REMOVE LOAD RESTRICTIONS)

810,000

MARINE DRIVE

HARRITT DR TO 5TH AVE

(NEW, SIDEWALK, MULTI-USE PATH, ETC.)

23,530,000

McGILCHRIST STREET

12TH ST TO 25TH ST

(WIDEN, SIDEWALKS, BIKE LANES, ETC.)

14,150,000

PARTIAL

FUNDING

2025 PAVEMENT R & R

SILVERTON RD (17TH ST-WILLIAMS AVE)

SILVERTON RD (BEACON ST-FISHER RD)

4,560,000

2026 PAVEMENT R & R

DOAKS FERRY RD (BRUSH COLLEGE DR-EMERALD DR)

COMMERCIAL ST (12TH ST CUTOFF-BOONE RD)

3,550,000

2027 PAVEMENT R & R

MADRONA AVE (PECK AVE-COMMERCIAL ST)

PORTLAND RD (BEACH AVE-NORTHGATE AVE)

3,420,000

2028 PAVEMENT R & R

CENTER ST (17TH ST-24TH ST) 3,570,000

2029 PAVEMENT R & R

12TH ST (MILL ST-HOYT ST) 4,810,000

V O T E

URBAN UPGRADES

NEW STREET

PAVEMENT REPAIR

CONSTRUCTIONCONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTIONCONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION (22ND/MIDDLE)

CONSTRUCTION (WEST END)

PROJECT

LIMITS

(SCOPE)

PROJECT

COSTS

2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 2027-2028 2028-2029 2030-2031 2031-20322029-2030

DESIGN

B/A

UTILITY RELOCATION

R-O-W/PERMITS

DESIGN

B/A UTILITY RELOCATION

R-O-W

DESIGN

DESIGN

R-O-W/PERMITS

UTILITY RELOCATION

B/A

DESIGN

R-O-W/PERMITS

UTILITY RELOCATION

B/A

R-O-W/PERMITS

B/A

CONSTRUCTION

B/A

DESIGN

B/A

DESIGN

B/A

DESIGN

B/A

DESIGN

B/A

DESIGN

R-O-W/PERMITS

R-O-W/PERMITS

R-O-W/PERMITS

CONSTRUCTION (EAST END)

B/A

CONSTRUCTION

DESIGN

ROW/PERMITS B/A

UTILITY RELOCATION

LAND USE

CONSTRUCTION (WEST END)

R-O-W/PERMITS

R-O-W/PERMITS

CONSTRUCTIONCONSTRUCTIONCONSTRUCTION (APPLEGATE)

CONSTRUCTION

DESIGN

ROW/PERMITS

B/A

CONSTRUCTION

DESIGN

ROW/PERMITS

B/A

CONSTRUCTION

DESIGN

ROW/PERMITS

B/A

CONSTRUCTION

DESIGN

ROW/PERMITS

B/A

CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION

09/26/2023

2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032

2022 2023

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D 2022 2023

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

V O T E

V O T E

-8

-2

BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN

IMPROVEMENTS

UNION ST FAMILY BIKEWAY

UNION ST (SUMMER ST-12TH ST)

(BIKE/PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS)

4,300,000

PRINGLE CREEK PATH

CIVIC CENTER TO RIVERFRONT PARK

(BIKE/PEDESTRIAN PATH)

3,575,000

PARTIAL

FUNDING

STATE ST BIKE LANES

STATE ST (13TH ST-17TH ST)

(PAVEMENT R&R, STRIPING CHANGES,

PED CROSSING, & NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL)

12,950,000

3,540,000

SAFER PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS

LOCATION TBD BY COUNCIL

(median islands, lighting, rectangular rapid flashing beacons, & ada ramps)

8,710,000

SIDEWALK INFILL

LOCATION TBD BY COUNCIL

(MISSING SIDEWALKS)

SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT

LOCATION TBD BY COUNCIL

(REPLACE FAILING SIDEWALK PANELS)

6,000,000

PLAYGROUND FACILITIES

ALDRICH PARK

AT 15TH ST SE

(PLAYGROUND REHAB/REPLACE)

600,000

McRAE PARK

AT 2OTH ST NE-CHEMEKETA ST NE

(PLAYGROUND REHAB/REPLACE)

600,000

ROYAL OAKS PARK

AT CARRIAGE CT NE

(PLAYGROUND REHAB/REPLACE)

600,000

BRUSH COLLEGE PARK

AT DOAKS FERRY RD NW

(PLAYGROUND REHAB/REPLACE)

600,000

V O T E

-8

-2

V O T E

-8

-2

LIVINGSTON PARK

AT HAWTHORNE AVE NE

(PLAYGROUND REHAB/REPLACE)

600,000

WOODMANSEE PARK

AT JONES RD SE

(PLAYGROUND REHAB/REPLACE)

600,000

MINTO PARK

AT MINTO ISLAND RD S

(PLAYGROUND REHAB/REPLACE)

600,000

MORNINGSIDE PARK

AT PRINGLE RD SE

(PLAYGROUND REHAB/REPLACE)

600,000

CLARK CREEK PARK

AT RATCLIFF DR SE

(PLAYGROUND REHAB/REPLACE)

600,000

RIVERFRONT PARK

AT WATER ST NE

(PLAYGROUND REHAB/REPLACE)

600,000

PARK UPGRADES

CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION

$ 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 2027-2028 2028-2029 2030-2031 2031-20322029-2030

DESIGN

PERMITS/RAILROAD COORDINATION

B/A

SECURE FUNDING

DESIGN

DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION

DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION

DESIGN

DESIGN

DESIGN

DESIGN

DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION

DESIGN

DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION

B/A

DESIGN

B/A

PICK LOCATION(S)

B/A B/A

CONSTRUCTION

DESIGN

ROW/PERMITS B/A

UTILITY RELOCATION

CONSTRUCTION

DESIGN

ROW/PERMITS B/A

UTILITY RELOCATION

DESIGN

PICK LOCATION(S)

R-O-W

DESIGN

PICK LOCATION(S)

R-O-W

DESIGN

PICK LOCATION(S)

R-O-W

FINALIZE FEDERAL

AGREEMENTS

RFP

CONSTRUCTION

DESIGN

B/A

PICK LOCATION(S)

CONSTRUCTION

DESIGN

B/A

PICK LOCATION(S)

DETERMINE PROCESS & SELECTION CRITERIA

CONSTRUCTION

DESIGN

B/A

PICK LOCATION(S)

CONSTRUCTION

DESIGN

B/A

PICK LOCATION(S)

CONSTRUCTION

DESIGN

B/A

PICK LOCATION(S)

DETERMINE PROCESS & SELECTION CRITERIA

DETERMINE PROCESS & SELECTION CRITERIA

2022 SALEM SAFETY AND LIVABILITY BOND MEASURE PROJECTS

PROJECT

LIMITS

(SCOPE)

PROJECT

COSTS

STREETS & SIDEWALKS

$ 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 2027-2028 2028-2029 2030-2031 2031-20322029-2030

2022 2023

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D 2022 2023

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D 2022 2023

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D 2022 2023

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032

HIGHLAND PARK

AT BROADWAY ST NE

(REHAB TENNIS/PICKLEBALL COURT)

793,000

V O T E

V O T E

-8

-2

V O T E

-8

-2

V O T E

-8

-2

V O T E

1,443,000

NORTHGATE PARK

AT HAWTHORNE AVE NE

(NEW 4-STALL BATHROOM)

925,000

McKAY SCHOOL PARK

AT HOLLYWOOD DR NE

(NEW 4-STALL BATHROOM)

850,000

McKAY SCHOOL PARK

AT HOLLYWOOD DR NE

(NEW SHELTER)

690,000

McKAY SCHOOL PARK

AT HOLLYWOOD DR NE

(REHAB SPORTS FIELDS)

950,000

BUSH PASTURE PARK

AT MISSION ST SE

(NEW SHELTER )

690,000

BUSH PASTURE PARK

AT MISSION ST SE

(8-STALL BATHROOM REPLACEMENT )

1,150,000

ORCHARD HEIGHTS PARK

AT ORCHARD HEIGHTS RD NW

(NEW SHELTER)

690,000

ORCHARD HEIGHTS PARK

AT ORCHARD HEIGHTS RD NW

(SPORTS FIELD RENOVATION)

460,000

MORNINGSIDE PARK

AT PRINGLE RD SE

(MULTI-USE COURT REPLACEMENT)

650,000

RIVER ROAD PARK

AT RIVER RD N

(TENNIS/PICKLEBALL COURT

FULL RECONSTRUCTION)

793,000

GEER PARK

AT STATE ST & HAWTHORNE AVE NE

(NEW SHELTER)

690,000

GEER PARK

AT STATE ST & HAWTHORNE AVE NE

(2 BASEBALL & 2 SOCCER FIELDS

FULL RENOVATION)

2,280,000

CASCADES GATEWAY PARK

AT TURNER RD SE

(4-STALL RESTROOM REPLACEMENT)

850,000

WALLACE MARINE PARK

AT WALLACE RD NW

(8-STALL RESTROOM REPLACEMENT)

1,150,000

SUMPTER PARK

AT WORMWOOD ST SE

(MULTI-USE COURT REPLACEMENT)

650,000

ATHLETIC COURTS

RESTROOM FACILITIES

SHELTERS

SPORTS FIELDS

CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION

DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION

DESIGN

DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION

DESIGN

DESIGN

DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION

DESIGN

DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION

DESIGN

DESIGN

DESIGN

DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION

DESIGN

DESIGN

DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION

DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION

DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION

HOOVER PARK

AT SAVAGE RD NE

(REHAB TENNIS/PICKLEBALL COURT)

2022 SALEM SAFETY AND LIVABILITY BOND MEASURE PROJECTS

PROJECT

LIMITS

(SCOPE)

PROJECT

COSTS

PARK UPGRADES

2022 2023

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D 2022 2023

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D 2022 2023

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

J F M A M J J A S O N D

-8

-2

V O T E

MINTO-BROWN ISLAND PARK

AT MINTO ISLAND RD S

(PARKING LOT #2 PAVEMENT R&R )

810,000

MINTO-BROWN ISLAND PARK

AT MINTO ISLAND RD S

(PARKING LOT #3 PAVEMENT R&R )

730,000

FAIRVIEW PARK

AT OLD STRONG RD SE

(NEW FENCED DOG PARK)

550,000

GEER PARK

AT STATE ST & HAWTHORNE AVE NE

(NEW FENCED DOG PARK)

550,000

PARK PATHS & TRAILS

TBD BY COUNCIL

(PATHS & TRAILS REHAB/REPLACE)

4,111,000

DIRECTORY ADMINISTRATION

CITY WIDE

(DATA MANAGEMENT)

500,000

RESOURCE APPLICATIONS

CITY WIDE

(ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING

FOR FINANCE, TIME CARDS ETC.)

10,000,000

OFFSITE DATA CENTER

CITY WIDE

(OFFSITE REDUNDANT DATA CENTER )

5,120,000

REDUNDANT FIBER

CITY WIDE

(REDUNDANT FIBER RING )

2,000,000

AFFORDABLE HOUSING/LIBRARY

CITY WIDE

(2 SITES FOR MIXED USE AFFORDABLE

HOUSING AND LIBRARY BRANCHES)

7,500,000

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

CITY WIDE

(AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITY

FUNDS)

10,000,000

FIRE EQUIPMENT

CITY WIDE 26,000,000

FIRE STATIONS

CITY WIDE 14,000,000

-8

-2

V O T E

-8

-2

V O T E

-8

-2

PARKING LOTS

DOG PARKS

PATHS AND TRAILS

TECHNOLOGY &

CYBERSECURITY

AFFORDABLE HOUSING /

LIBRARY BRANCHES

FIRE

CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION

CONSTRUCTION

PURCHASE PURCHASE

$ 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 2027-2028 2028-2029 2030-2031 2031-20322029-2030

$ 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 2027-2028 2028-2029 2030-2031 2031-20322029-2030

$ 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 2027-2028 2028-2029 2030-2031 2031-20322029-2030

DESIGN

DESIGN

DESIGN

DESIGN

DESIGN

PICK LOCATION(S)

DESIGN

PICK LOCATION(S)

DESIGN

PICK LOCATION(S)

DESIGN

PICK LOCATION(S)

DESIGN

PICK LOCATION(S)

DESIGN

DESIGNSITE LOCATIONS

CONSTRUCTION

IMPLEMENT IMPLEMENT

ASSESSMENT

PREIMPLEMENT

IMPLEMENT

GO LIVE GO LIVE

ASSESSMENT

IMPLEMENT

GO LIVE GO LIVE

ASSESSMENT

IMPLEMENT IMPLEMENT

CONSTRUCTION

2022 SALEM SAFETY AND LIVABILITY BOND MEASURE PROJECTS

PROJECT

LIMITS

(SCOPE)

PROJECT

COSTS

STREETS & SIDEWALKS

DESIGN/EARLY WORK

DESIGN/EARLY WORK

CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION

DESIGN/EARLY WORK

DESIGN/EARLY WORK

CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION

DESIGN/EARLY WORK

DESIGN/EARLY WORK

CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION

DESIGN/EARLY WORK

DESIGN/EARLY WORK

CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION

300,000,000

SEISMIC

CIVIC CENTER

(REINFORCE ALL 3 WINGS OF CIVIC

CENTER TO LIFE SAFETY STANDARDS)

22,500,000

ATRIUM IMPROVEMENTS

CIVIC CENTER

(SEISMIC & SKYLIGHT REPLACEMENT)

3,100,000

SYSTEM REPLACEMENTS

CIVIC CENTER

(WINDOWS, ROOF, & BACK-UP

GENERATOR)

4,100,000

PARKING STRUCTURE

CIVIC CENTER

(CONCRETE SLAB & WATERPROOFING

REHAB/REPLACE)

7,700,000

PEACE PLAZA

CIVIC CENTER

(CONCRETE, LANDSCAPING, & FOUNTAIN

REHAB/REPLACE)

2,000,000

V O T E

-8

-2

CIVIC CENTER

CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION

total all projects bond sale costs total bonding authority

$ 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 2027-2028 2028-2029 2030-2031 2031-20322029-2030

DESIGN/EARLY WORK

PLANNING/DESIGN

2022 SALEM SAFETY AND LIVABILITY BOND MEASURE PROJECTS

PROJECT

LIMITS

(SCOPE)

PROJECT

COSTS

REVISIONS

11/8/2022 VOTE

12/15/2022 MOVE COMMERCIAL ST TO 2024 R&R

12/21/2022 UPDATED VARIOUS PROJECTS

12/28/2022 ALL GEER PARK PROJECTS 2025

1/3/2023 ADD $50,000 TO PARK PATHS AND TOTAL

1/10/2023 COMBO TWO HOOVER PARK PROJECTS #33

1/18/2023 ADD 6 MONTHS TO MARINE DR

1/19/2023 MOVE SAFER PEDS BACK 1 YEAR

2/6/2023 CHANGE MARINE DR TITLE

9/11/2023 PRINGLE PATH-ADD FED AGREEMENTS ETC.

9/11/2023 SIDEWALK INFILL-PUSH BACK TIMELINE

9/11/2023 SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT-PUSH BACK TIMELINE

9/18/2023 PARKS-SHUFFLE CONSTRUCTION DATES

9/18/2023 PARKS PATHS-PUSH BACK 1 YEAR

9/18/2023 FIRE STATIONS

9/26/2023 MINTO-BROWN PARKING LOTS-PUSH BACK 1 YEAR

9/26/2023 10:35:44 AM

G:\Group\Engineering\Projects\2022 Bond

Program\Schedule\2022 BOND SCHEDULE11x17.dwg

(11x17_5 tab)

Commercial Street Pedestrian Bridge Feasibility Study

The following is a summary of findings from evaluating three alternatives to provide a pedestrian bridge over Pringle Creek at the Commercial Street Bridge.

Information used includes the following documents prepared for the Commercial Street Bridge:

• As Constructed bridge plans (prepared by OBEC Consulting Engineers)

• Bridge Load Rating (prepared by OBEC Consulting Engineers)

• Hydraulic Study (prepared by WEST Consultants)

Background

The City desires to connect the pedestrian paths (sidewalks) on the north and south banks of

Pringle Creek that run beneath the existing Commercial Street Bridge. Based on the widths of the sidewalks on either bank, the new pedestrian bridge should be approximately 8’ wide.

Alternatives considered include:

Alternative No. 1 - An independent bridge downstream (or upstream) of the new Commercial

Street vehicular bridge. This pedestrian bridge would consist of a premanufactured steel truss bridge that would span the entire creek

Alternative No. 2 - A pedestrian path cantilevered from the outside, downstream girder of the bridge. This bridge would be attached directly to the exterior girder of the vehicular bridge.

Alternative No. 3 - A pedestrian bridge suspended beneath the existing vehicular bridge, similar to the bridge suspended from the Liberty Street Bridge.

Site Constraints

1. Right of way downstream of the bridge is very close to the bridge, shown on as constructed plans as being located at the face of the adjacent commercial building at the southwest corner of the site.

2. In discussions with WEST Consultants it was learned that the hydraulics beneath the bridge are influenced by the foundation, floor, and a storage tank from a former industrial building just downstream of the bridge, and by backwater effects from the adjacent Willamette River. With the features from the former building remaining in place, clearance beneath the bridge to the 100-year water surface elevation is about

3.5’. There are two conditions that cause the high water beneath the bridge:

a. Peak flows in Pringle Creek – Under this condition, water velocities are high and could cause significant loads on a bridge within the water. In addition, a bridge within the water under this condition could cause an increase in the water surface elevation. Therefore, constructing a pedestrian bridge within the high water under this condition would not be acceptable.

b. Backwater effects into Pringle Creek from the Willamette River – This condition occurs at a different time than the peak flows in Pringle Creek. Under this condition, the Pringle Creek water surface rises in response to the elevated flows in the Willamette. This greatly reduces the flow velocities beneath the

Commercial Street Bridge (~2ft/sec) to a point that a pedestrian bridge suspended from vehicular bridge could be designed to resist the water impacting the pedestrian bridge when it became submerged by the backwater. In addition, under this condition, because the velocities are so low, the water surface would not rise, thereby maintaining a no-rise condition within the creek.

3. Also in discussions with WEST, as well as the City, it is believed that the storage tank just downstream of the vehicle bridge will be removed in the near future. With the removal of the tank, WEST indicated the clearance will increase by ~5’ during the Pringle Creek peak flow event, providing ~8.5’ of clearance above the high water for the pedestrian bridge to be constructed. This would provide a pedestrian bridge with approximately 8’ of clearance from the bridge deck to the bottom of the existing girders. However, removing the tank will not change the water surface elevation that results from the backwater effects from the Willamette, and this bridge would therefore be inundated during the backwater event. As stated above, the bridge could be designed to resist the water impacting the bridge under this event and the water surface elevation will not be increased. Therefore, once the tank is removed, it is feasible to construct a bridge suspended from the vehicular bridge.

Findings:

Alternative 1 – A commercial/residential building and a portion of the floor of the former industrial building that has been converted into a patio for the nearby condominiums lie just to the west of the vehicular bridge. Due to their close proximity, there is insufficient room for a completely separate pedestrian bridge on the downstream side. Such a bridge could be feasible on the upstream side of the site but this was not evaluated.

Alternative No. 2 – Following from the analysis of the existing bridge, a new pedestrian bridge cantilevered from the outside girder would overload that girder so this alternative is infeasible due to inadequate strength of the existing bridge.

Alternative No. 3 – The analysis of the existing bridge indicates that the girders have sufficient residual strength to support the new pedestrian bridge suspended beneath the bridge. The new bridge would need to be supported by either two or three existing girders, depending on the width of the bridge. The new bridge would be suspended from stringers spanning between girders, similar to the method used to support many of the utilities on the vehicular bridge.

Details of this alternative are shown on the attached Bridge Plan and Elevation sheet. This alternative is estimated to cost ~$450,000, including mobilization, contingencies and construction engineering. Design costs are not included. A construction cost estimate is attached.

Conclusions

Of the three alternatives considered, Alternative No. 3, suspending a pedestrian bridge beneath the vehicular bridge, is the only alternative found to be feasible within the constraints of this feasibility study. This alternative is only feasible if the storage tank just downstream of the bridge is removed. The new bridge can be located anywhere beneath the existing bridge at the

City’s desire to avoid conflicts with the numerous utilities suspended between and beneath the girders. Most of the paths on the banks have about 10’ of clearance to the existing bridge, so with the pedestrian bridge having to be above the 100-year flood elevation, which is about 2’ higher than the paths, modifications to the paths on either side of the bridge will be needed to provide ADA access to the new bridge. During a high flow event in the Willamette River, the water surface in Pringle Creek will rise above the bridge and adjacent sidewalks, rendering them unusable during that event. However, the bridge and sidewalk should survive the backwater event and be usable after the water subsides.

Attachment A

Bridge Plan and Elevation Sheet

BR-02

TYPICAL SECTION

PN: 709507

AS SHOWN

AS SHOWN

7654321

F

E

D

C

B

A

7654321

SHEET OF

SHEET TITLE

HORIZ DATUM:

VERT DATUM:

HORIZ SCALE:

VERT SCALE:

DESIGN:

DRAWN:

CHECKED:

APPROVED:

NO. DATE BYDESCRIPTION

REVISIONS

COMMERCIAL

STREET

PEDESTRIAN

BRIDGE

8 9

8 9

SHEET PREPARED BY:

P

M

O E n g i n e e r i n g C l i e n t C i t y o f

S a l e m

S

C o m m e r c i a l

S t r e e t C

A D

S a a g p d w g t y p s e c t i o n t a b

S

A

L

E

M

P

U

B

L

IC

WORK

S

D

E

P

A

R

T

M

E

N

T

N

O I

S I

V I

D

GNI

R

E

E

N

N

I

G

E

P. KENNEY

J. OLSON

SCALE WARNING

TITLE BLOCK ALWAYS INSERTED AT 0,0

TYPICAL SECTION

Attachment B

Construction Cost Estimate

SECTION COUNTY

KEY NUMBER KIND OF WORK LENGTH DATE ROADWAY DESIGNER

Structures 7/14/17

ITEM NUMBER ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT AMOUNT UNIT COST TOTAL

MOBILIZATION AND TRAFFIC CONTROL

0210-0100000A MOBILIZATION LS 1 28,000.00$ 28,000.00$

ROADWORK

DRAINAGE AND SEWERS

BRIDGES

0540-0205000K DECK CONCRETE, CLASS 4000 CUYD 15 1,000.00$ 15,000.00$

0587-0127000A PEDESTRIAN RAIL LS 275 200.00$ 55,000.00$

0560-0109000A STRUCTURAL STEEL MAINTENANCE LS 42000 5.00$ 210,000.00$

BASES

WEARING SURFACES

PERMANENT TRAFFIC CONTROL AND GUIDANCE DEVICES

PERMANENT TRAFFIC CONTROL AND ILLUMINATION SYSTEMS

RIGHT-OF-WAY DEVELOPMENT AND CONTROL

WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS

SUBTOTAL, Construction Items 308,000.00$ CONTINGENCIES, for all work listed 1 25.0% 77,000.00$

ANTICIPATED ITEMS

9800-0000150A ENGINEERING LS 1 15% 46,200.00$

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST, Less Right-of-Way 431,200.00$

TS&L COST ESTIMATE - 2016 Items

CITY OF SALEM

Commercial Street Pedestrian Bridge Marion

\\pubwks\pwfiles\group\transprt\grantapplications\community paths program\applicationmaterials\cultural_historical permitting memo_1 7 2021.docx

808 SW Third Avenue, Suite 800, Portland, OR 97204 Phone (503) 287-6825 Fax (503) 415-2304 otak.com

Memorandum

To: John Echeverri, City of Salem

From: Margot Walker, Otak

Copies: Kevin Timmins, Otak

Date: January 7, 2021

Subject: Pringle Creek Path – Cultural and Historical Resources Narrative

Project No.: 18301.J

The following memorandum is a summary of discussions on historical and cultural resources with Emily Ragsdale, Principal Archaeologist, with Historic Resources Associates (HRA), on December 16, 2020. Otak and HRA discussed the project scope and key components including:

• A bridge across Pringle Creek which hangs from the existing Commercial Street bridge

• A multi-use path and landscaping along the right bank of Pringle Creek between Commercial Street and the Railroad (RR) trestle

• A bridge structure which passes the path beneath the RR trestle

• A multi-use path along the top-of-wall in Riverfront Park, located west of the RR trestle

The following questions were posed in order to determine the requirements for historic and cultural resources for the above referenced project:

1. Knowing that this area has a high probability of encountering historic/cultural resources please help us define the actions necessary that will influence schedule and/or cost. And which permits or approvals will be necessary for the path project?

Generally, this area is known to have a high probability of historic and cultural resources because there were reports of a Native American encampment in this area along the Willamette River, perhaps up to 400 people in the 1840s. Historians believe that many of the encampment populations died in a measles outbreak and there are reports of a burial ground in this portion of the bank of the river. Extensive remains have not been found yet but it’s a concern for any projects in that area. Some human remains have been found in this general vicinity of Salem.

From approximately 1865-1920, a flour mill existed on the project site on both sides of the extant railroad tracks and was torn down by 1920 when the paper mill was constructed by Oregon Pulp & Paper Mill (later Boise- Cascade). The paper mill infrastructure west of the railroad tracks was removed in circa 2008, although foundations remain in the project area along the creek. The final infrastructure east of the railroad tracks was completely removed during the creek restoration project in 2019. Due to their modern use and recent demolition, the Boise-Cascade mill foundation remains are not considered archeological in nature and the City wasn’t required to preserve or protect those remains during the stream restoration project.

East of railroad trestle, during demolition of the Boise-Cascade mill foundation, some brick foundations of the flour mill the previously occupied the site were recorded as an archeological resource in the HRA monitoring report (Site HRA-3042-2 [35MA414 site trinomial assigned by SHPO]). It was left mostly intact, but some grading and clean fill now covers it.

Assuming the path and landscaping can be constructed at the existing grade in this areas without excavating to the depth of the foundations, there should be no further concerns on this area, but one small exception that is one part of vertical brick foundation walls were still visible after the base fill was covered it. The excavation during

Pringle Creek Path – Cultural and Historical Resources Summary January 7, 2021

\\pdx-ae.otak.com\proj\Project\18300\18301J\WaterRes\Task 2_Background Information\Project Narratives construction should be careful to not uncover it or further expose or excavate it. It should stay intact (and further buried if possible).

West of railroad trestle, there have been two archeology investigations on file with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) completed for this area, both including survey with subsurface shovel probing and monitoring of geotechnical excavations in the area between the amphitheater and the railroad trestle. Both investigations found that it’s all fill material over the remnant Boise-Cascade foundations and align with known history of the property (i.e., in 2008, the buildings were torn down and backfilled and the deep foundations are covered with fill).

For this section of the path, additional survey will not likely reveal anything more and shovel probes are not going deeper than the fill. There may be flour mill foundation underneath the Boise-Cascade mill foundation but at significant depths and this project probably won’t need excavation at that depth.

A federal nexus would make approvals more streamlined because National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 will require documentation submitted with any Army Corps permits and the Army Corps will serve as lead agency to evaluate cultural resources. The Army Corps will likely require a monitor on site for soil disturbance and an “inadvertent discovery plan” in the instance if anything is discovered.

For the Section 106 submission, Emily recommends preparing a memo that summarizes the history of the parcels with some recommendations, along with the inadvertent discovery plan. This should be sufficient due to the low probability for impacts given the project scope and what we already know.

2. If yes, what are the requirements for those, including costs and timelines?

Because another survey is probably not a recommendation, it would cost about $5,000-$10,000 to compile the documentation and draft the memo and inadvertent discovery plan.

If the Army Corps deems the memo recommendations, monitoring, and inadvertent discovery plan sufficient, the monitoring typically costs $1100/day for monitor plus nominal travel costs. In addition, a post-monitoring memo will need to be completed and submitted which costs about $3,000-5,000, assuming minimal monitoring is needed (a few days) and there are no inadvertent discoveries.

3. Would any special monitoring or inspection during construction be required?

Not likely (though see above). However, deep excavation would have more potential to impact the flour mill foundation so the design should try to avoid that area in the path and support structures needed for the railroad trestle underpass bridge.

During design, a review of the HRA monitoring report to confirm the exact conditions and potential impact areas is recommended. Any design should consider these areas when locating supports for span for the underpass bridge and there is a chance that additional survey would be needed if the space is too constrained. Additional survey would typically cost $5,000-$10,000.

Note that the approximate location of the foundation walls is indicated in the path alignment drawing.

Please contact Margot Walker at margot.walker@otak.com with any questions or concerns on this summary.

mailto:margot.walker@otak.com

\\pubwks\pwfiles\group\transprt\grantapplications\community paths program\applicationmaterials\enviromental permitting memo_1 8 2021.docx

808 SW Third Avenue, Suite 800, Portland, OR 97204 Phone (503) 287-6825 Fax (503) 415-2304 otak.com

From: Margot Walker, Otak

Copies: Kevin Timmins, Otak

Date: January 7, 2021

Subject: Pringle Creek Path, Phase II – Environmental Permitting Narrative

The following memorandum is a summary of discussions with John van Staveren, SPWS, of Pacific Habitat Services, Inc (PHS) on December 9, 2020. Otak and PHS discussed the project scope and key components of the project, including:

• A bridge across Pringle Creek which hangs from the existing Commercial Street bridge

• A multi-use path and landscaping along the right bank of Pringle Creek between Commercial Street and the Railroad (RR) trestle

• A bridge structure which passes the path beneath the RR trestle

• A multi-use path along the top-of-wall in Riverfront Park, located west of the RR trestle

The following questions were posed in order to determine the requirements for environmental permitting for the above referenced project:

1. Which permits will likely be required for this project?

Generally, the project should try to achieve a “No Effects” determination by implementing certain features into the design such as adding stormwater treatment and other features. If a “No Effects” determination cannot be achieved a SLOPES V compliance will be required.

Any aspect of the project that requires work above the ordinary high water (OHW) elevation will require Section 10 approval from the Corps of Engineers, but nothing from the Department of State Lands. Additionally:

• This work above OHW may require review by the National Marine Fisheries Service, but no consultation.

• Department of State Lands (DSL) will just want to make sure that best management practices are in place.

• Work above will not require review by DEQ

• Section 106 – Arch/Cultural Resources review may be required

Any aspects of the project that require work below the OHW elevation will require a Section 10 and 404 Permit approval from the Corps of Engineers and an Individual permit from the DSL. Be aware that new nationwide permits from the Corps of Engineers are expected in March of 2021. Additionally:

• This work below OHW may require a review by the National Marine Fisheries Service – either SLOPES compliance or formal consultation

• The project will require 401 Water Quality Certification from DEQ

• A Portland Sediment Evaluation Team (PSET) review may be required, and their review would determine whether additional sediment sampling and disposal is required.

• Section 106 – Arch/Cultural Resources review may be required

Pringle Creek Path, Phase II Environmental Permitting Narrative January 7, 2021

\\pubwks\pwfiles\group\transprt\grantapplications\community paths program\applicationmaterials\enviromental permitting memo_1 8 2021.docx

2. What local permits are required?

• PHS noted that no sensitive area permitting per City standards will be required.

• City’s Floodplain code – May be required based on final alignment. See #11 below.

• City’s Willamette Greenway code – Project will be exempt. See #10 below.

• City Building Permit for bridge structures will be required.

• City’s South Waterfront Mixed-Use Zone overlaps with project site requiring design review based on the applicable design review standards of SRC Chapter 531.

3. Which permits are required for construction specifically?

As typical for construction work that disturbs an acre or more, a 1200-C Permit for ESC during construction will be required. At this stage, the project is expected to disturb approximately 0.7 acres.

4. What are the costs and timelines required for each permit?

Work above the OHW – Section 10 Corps of Engineers

• Approximately 90 days to receive permit

• Approximate consulting costs $10,000 to $15,000

• Permitting fees: $0 – no fee required

Work below the OHW – Section 10/Section 404 Corps of Engineers and Individual Permit DSL

Corps of Engineers - Slopes Compliant

• 120 to 150 days

• Permitting fees: $985 fee from DEQ for 401 Water Quality Certification

Corps of Engineers – Formal Consultation

• 150 to 180 days (includes NMFS and DEQ approvals)

• Permitting fees: $985 fee from DEQ for 401 Water Quality Certification

Oregon Department of State Lands

• 120 days (30-day completeness check, 30-day public notice, up to 60 days to issue permit)

• Approximate permitting fees: $1,200 for DSL

Consulting Fees:

Work above the OHW – Section 10 Corps of Engineers

$12,000 to $18,000

Work below the OHW – Section 10/Section 404 Corps of Engineers and Individual Permit DSL

• Approximate consulting with SLOPES approval $15,000 to $25,000

• Approximate consulting with Formal Consultation $25,000 to $50,000

There will be additional costs associated with an archaeological survey and with PSET sampling and reporting, if necessary. See Cultural and Historical Resource and Hazardous Materials memos.

5. What project elements might trigger a Section 10?

https://library.municode.com/or/salem/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TITXUNDECO_UDC_CH531SWOUWAMIE

\\pubwks\pwfiles\group\transprt\grantapplications\community paths program\applicationmaterials\enviromental permitting memo_1 8 2021.docx

Elevated pathway under the railroad trestle, potential overlooks shown in the landscape design, new bridges across Pringle Creek.

6. What project elements might trigger 404/DSL Individual Permit?

Temporary work platforms or foundation for the elevated pathway under the railroad trestle, foundation for overlooks shown in the landscape design.

7. What are the main permitting risks for a Creekside trail?

The biggest risk is probably the NMFS review and whether the project can use SLOPES or if we need a formal consultation process. This is not a deal killer but adds time and money.

A PSET review will require sediment sampling and reporting that is also not a deal killer but will add time and money to the process.

8. What level of design is needed for each permit?

A 60% level of design is generally sufficient for inclusion in the joint permit application. On occasion, a 30% design can be used if there are no future changes to the impact footprint.

9. What other critical path items should the City be aware of for this project?

A pre-application meeting with state and federal agencies (virtual or onsite) is recommended to ensure required permits and a project schedule are correctly anticipated. The meeting should be held after preliminary design options have been assessed.

10. How does Salem Community Development expect the current development code to be applied to this project?

(Provided by Bryce Bishop, Community Development as written to Julie Warncke)

I met with Lisa this morning and we discussed the applicability of the Willamette Greenway requirements to the proposed Pringle Creek Pathway Phase II project. Lisa agrees that the path and the structure under the railroad tracks are exempt from the requirement to obtain a Willamette Greenway Development Permit due to the exceptions identified under SRC 600.015(a)(2)(I) or (N).

At this point since the City doesn’t own the creek parcels it’s probably better to look at it as being exempt under sub (N) because the path will be for providing access to and within the Greenway and therefore qualifies as a

Willamette Greenway trail/access path. If the City acquires the creek parcels than the exception under sub (I) would also be applicable because it would represent improvement of the park in accordance with the approved master plan for Riverfront Park (unless Rob thinks the parks master plan would have to be further amended to specifically incorporate the newly acquired land into the park).

The exemption under sub (I) also requires that the development meet, “the setbacks requirements of this chapter.” The setback requirement being referred to here is the riparian buffer required in the Greenway. The definition section of the Greenway chapter (SRC 600.005) defines the riparian buffer as, “…a designated area adjoining the Willamette River [emphasis added] intended to maximize the ecological, scenic, and aesthetic values of the river through maintaining the natural river corridor, minimizing erosion, nutrient, and pollutant loading, providing for filtration and infiltration of stormwater runoff, and stabilizing slopes to prevent landslides and accelerated rates of channel migration contributing to sedimentation. The riparian buffer is measured from the ordinary high water line.”

https://library.municode.com/or/salem/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TITXUNDECO_UDC_CH600WIGR_S600.015WIGRDEPE https://library.municode.com/or/salem/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TITXUNDECO_UDC_CH600WIGR_S600.005DE

\\pubwks\pwfiles\group\transprt\grantapplications\community paths program\applicationmaterials\enviromental permitting memo_1 8 2021.docx

Based on the above definition, since the proposed path is along Pringle Creek and not adjoining the Willamette

River in this location, the riparian buffer/setback of the Greenway is not applicable to the proposed structure under the railroad bridge or the path. Even if it were though, SRC 600.020(a) (Uses in riparian buffer) does provide for the allowance of some uses in the riparian buffer. Uses/activities allowed within the buffer include:

(1) Uses and activities excepted from a greenway development permit under SRC 600.015(a)(2);

(2) Riparian restoration and enhancement activities; and

(3) Water-dependent and water-related uses and activities.

Based on the above identified list of uses/activities allowed within the riparian buffer, because the path and structure would be exempt from obtaining a greenway development permit they would be allowed in the riparian buffer.

The proposed structure under the railroad bridge will require a building permit and corresponding site plan review application. In addition, because the property is located within the South Waterfront Mixed-Use Zone it would also require design review based on the applicable design review standards of SRC Chapter 531.

11. How will the City’s floodplain development code apply to this project?

The following discussion was provided by Robin Dalke, Floodplain Management:

After our meeting yesterday (1/6/2021), I met with our Floodplain Administrator, Glenn Davis, to discuss the

Pringle Creek Community Path. As you’re aware, the Interim Flood Hazard Area (IFHA) along this portion of

Pringle Creek identifies a floodway area that prohibits encroachments. Development regulations in our Floodplain

Overlay Zone that are applicable to FEMA adopted Special Flood Hazard Areas also apply to the adopted IFHA.

However, the adopted IFHA no longer accurately reflects the characteristics of Pringle creek. We believe Phase 2 of the project needs to include an update to the IFHA in the form of an Administrative Rule amendment. This is done at the local level and does not need to be submitted to FEMA as a CLOMR or LOMR. This is contrary to what we discussed yesterday. Glenn and I reviewed SRC 601.075(d)(1) and believe the new ordinance only requires a CLOMR process for FEMA adopted regulatory floodway.

As part of the IFHA amendment process, we expect the new boundaries will provide a better representation of floodway areas that prohibit encroachments. We can then determine at the local level if encroachments in the floodway will be permitted.

12. What will the project need to consider during design to comply with the floodplain development code?

It is unlikely that the project would have any influence on the Base Flood Elevation in this part of Pringle Creek that is caused by a backwater from the Willamette River (elevation 143.w NGVD). The project will need to consider project impacts on the IFHA, so the City can make decisions about the changes in flood risk and how best to handle the administrative rule amendment. This requires simulation of hydraulic conditions for a 100-year flow in Pringle Creek with varying tailwater conditions from the Willamette. Project elements that have the most potential to influence the IFHA and will need to consider stream hydraulics as part of the design process include the following:

• Elevation of the bridge under SW Commercial Street

• Modifications to the existing trail or proposed bridge profile to accommodate American’s with Disabilities

Act (ADA) requirements

• Installation of Overlooks along the proposed trail

• Foundation for the proposed elevated trail crossing under the railroad trestle

Please contact Margot Walker at margot.walker@otak.com with any questions or concerns on this summary.

https://library.municode.com/or/salem/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TITXUNDECO_UDC_CH600WIGR_S600.020US https://library.municode.com/or/salem/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TITXUNDECO_UDC_CH531SWOUWAMIE

808 SW Third Avenue, Suite 800, Portland, OR 97204 Phone (503) 287-6825 Fax (503) 415-2304 otak.com

From: Margot Walker, Otak

Copies: Kevin Timmins, Otak

Date: January 7, 2021

Subject: Pringle Creek Path – Hazardous Materials Narrative

The following memorandum is a summary of discussions with Colby Hunt, CHMM, of GeoDesign, Inc on December 9, 2020. Otak and GeoDesign, Inc discussed the project scope with key components of the project, including:

• A bridge across Pringle Creek which hangs from the existing Commercial Street bridge

• A multi-use path and landscaping along the right bank of Pringle Creek between Commercial Street and the Railroad (RR) trestle

• A bridge structure which passes the path beneath the RR trestle

• A multi-use path along the top-of-wall in Riverfront Park, located west of the RR trestle

The following questions were posed in order to determine the requirements for potential hazardous materials for the above referenced project:

1. Does the existing contaminated media plan cover this project?

This project will overlap two different cleanup sites – The west portion of the project is on the Salem Riverfront Park site (DEQ ECSI No. 865) and the east portion of the project is on the Boise Cascade Mill site (DEQ ECSI No. 4427). The western portion of the path is included in the existing CMMP for the Riverfront Park site, but it’s located on the “Park Parcel”, which is a portion of the park that requires DEQ notification and approval prior to excavation. The east portion of the area of potential impact (API)/area of potential effect (APE) across the railroad tracks isn’t included in the existing CMMP for Riverfront Park. Based on this it is likely that need to submit a work plan will need to be submitted to DEQ for their review/approval, similar to the work plan submitted to DEQ for the new Amphitheater project on the Park Parcel.

On the east side of the railroad trestle, most of the API/APE is currently fill that was replaced in the daylighting and restoration project and is anticipated to be clean soil.

2. What approvals would we need to get before start of construction?

Primarily, we would need two things: a project work plan and a DEQ approval before construction. DEQ takes about 30-60 days to review. The work plan typically describes existing conditions, planned excavation areas, soil management, and soil cap details. It would cover the entire project, including the west portion where DEQ notification is required and the east portion. The Army Corps’ Portland Sediment Evaluation Team (PSET) review may also be required prior to construction if the project includes work below ordinary high water (OHW).

3. What special construction activities should we consider/plan for?

Pringle Creek Path-Hazardous Materials Summary January 7, 2021

\\pdx-ae.otak.com\proj\Project\18300\18301J\WaterRes\Task 2_Background Information\Project Narratives

• Stockpiling: If material will be stockpiled, we will need extra space, testing, and handling. We can mitigate this by pre-characterizing the soil in place prior to excavation and having a plan for soil management in advance to allow direct loading for offsite disposal (if necessary) during excavation.

• Reusing material:

o If possible, assume that anything from the park parcel excavation could be reused and recapped.

2’ cap is required. If not, we should assume disposal.

o If we excavate clean fill at the Boise Cascade site, we may be able to reuse it in the project, even on the Park Parcel. This can be described in the work plan to DEQ.

o DEQ probably will not agree to moving contaminated material from one parcel to another, even with same owner, but it may be possible to obtain DEQ approval to do this.

• Disposal: Assume small amount of Boise Cascade material should be disposed of offsite, typically $60/ton for tipping as non-hazardous waste.

• Health and Safety Plan (HASP): There may be health and safety considerations for workers with additional costs, but we may be able to rule it out in advance by pre-characterizing soil intended for excavation.

• Contractor Training: Make sure contractors have HAZWOPER certification, or plan for paying for this training as it may be required.

• Groundwater: This project should not have issues with contaminating or contaminated groundwater

4. What kind of handling, disposal, costs should we anticipate?

Typical rate is $60/ton for tipping of contaminated soils, assuming non-hazardous waste. A January 19, 2015 work plan for excavating and disposing of soil with the highest detected concentrations of dioxins from the Park Parcel prior to acquisition by the City states that the soil was intended for offsite disposal as non-hazardous waste, and there is no known history of dioxin hazardous waste soil at either the Park Parcel or the Boise Cascade site.

5. Do you think additional testing will be necessary? During design or during construction?

We will need to characterize excavation soil to evaluate appropriate disposal or re-use options. Based on the history of both sites comprising the project area this will include analysis for dioxins and furans, which is expensive and lengthy. Ideally this would be completed during design phase as part of the soil pre-characterization process. Any construction phase testing would be for unforeseen circumstances only.

6. Can you list the special monitoring that would likely be required?

It’s safe to assume that DEQ would want to have an inspector onsite during excavation. This person could be a city inspector per agreement with DEQ.

7. Does the City prefer to reuse soils onsite or plan for off-site disposal?

Per path alignment workshop on December 14, 2020, with the City of Salem, the direction was to budget for removal and off-site disposal of contaminated materials.

Please contact Margot Walker at margot.walker@otak.com with any questions or concerns on this summary.

JA

NU

AR

Y

PRINGLE CREEK TRAIL CONNECTION

1 5 6 74

N

PLAN & SECTIONS

C O

M M

ER

C

IA

L

ST

R

EE

T

SE

F U

TU

R

E A

C C

E S

S

Existing Retaining

Wall

Commercial Street Bridge

Undercrossing

Railroad Underpass Covering

MINTO ISLAND BRIDGE

PRINGLE CREEK

Terraced Plantings Enhanced Plantings Stormwater PlantingsWall TreatmentTrail Treatment

Not to Scale

6 7

3 Seatwall2 Overlook

E nhanced P lantings

A.

A

B

B.

E nhanced P lantings

O verlook

S eatw all

S torm w ater Facility

N ew

R etaining W all

Terraced P lantings

E xisting R etaining W all

Trail

Trail

JA

NU

AR

Y

PRINGLE CREEK TRAIL CONNECTION

PERSPECTIVE

Terraced Plantings

New Building

Seatwall

OverlookEnhanced Plantings

New Retaining Wall Existing Retaining Wall

Trail gs

PRINGLE CREEK

PROJECT:

NAME:

LIMITS:

SCOPE:

Item Details Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount

General Requirements mobilization; traffic control;

erosion & sediment control; work area isolation; work area access;

railroad flagging; archeological monitoring; site restoration

All LS 894,400.00 894,400.00

Bridge under Commercial Street trail landings on north and south sides; bridge; lighting

All LS 537,900.00 537,900.00

Trail from Commercial to Railroad stairs to Commercial; concrete path; aggregate; excavation; safety railing, planter wall; seat wall;

landscaping; stormwater quality;

lighting

All LS 483,300.00 483,300.00

Trail Enhancements art elements; overlooks; benches All LS 546,500.00 546,500.00

Undercrossing of Railroad foundation/top and sides;

excavation; supports; concrete deck; underpass covering;

retaining wall; offsite contaminated media disposal;

stormwater; lighting

All LS 494,100.00 494,100.00

STREET PROJECT

ESTIMATE OF COST

Pringle Creek Path Connection

Commercial Street to Riverfront Park

This estimate is for the Pringle Creek Path – Phase II project. The project includes a trail connection from the end of the existing path under Commercial Street bridge (north side of Pringle Creek), along the north bank of Pringle Creek using the prepared bench, under the railroad bridge, and connecting into Riverfront Park near the new amphitheater. Project also includes a bridge crossing of Pringle Creek under Commercial Street to connect the existing paths on both sides of the creek. The estimate incorporates an art wall and includes two creek overlooks along the new section of trail and reconstruction of the existing overlook in Riverfront Park.

Construction Phase

Trail in…