27.4.CN.01 Scoping Notes_Final.pdf

ADA Program – Scoping Notes

This section to be completed by Project Leader. Region ID # 2 & 4

Date:

06/19/202 6 PL Name:

Steve Burris/Jacobs Area:

Central Oregon

Phon e:

702-741-

Project Name: Region 4 and Oakridge ADA Ramps

Highway & Route No.: See Below Work Type: ADA Settlement Ramps

City:

Bend, Klamath Falls, Oakridge, Dufur, Wasco, Condon, La Pine, Paisley, Redmond

Count y: Deschutes

Beginning MP: Various

End

MP:

Vario us

Additional Counties: Gilliam, Klamath, Lane, Lake, Wasco, Sherman

Projected Total Cost Before Scoping

$5,482,517

☐ Straight-line Chart ☒ Photos (Site, Digital Video Log)

Hwy Inventory Summary Milepost Log

Planning Documents (IAMP, AMP Corridor Studies, TSP, etc.)

☐ As-Constructs Drawings ☒ Site Map

☐ R/W Maps ☐ Prospectus (Part 1)

☐ Bridge Inspection Report

Project Locations:

Segment City Hwy# Route # / Road Name LRM MP A Dufur 004 US197 004ADI00 012.75 B Wasco 300 OR206 30000I00 000.00 C Condon 005 OR19 00500I00 038.27 D Bend 004 US97 004BMI00 135.37 – 135.5 E Bend 004 Colorado Ave. Conn. No. 3 004DJI00, 004BZI00

138.26

138.14 – 138.29

F La Pine 004 US97 00400I00 167.72 – 167.72 G Oakridge 018 OR58 01800I00 034.31 – 035.85 H Paisley 019 OR31 01900I00 098.36 – 098.53 I Klamath Falls 020 OR39 02000I00, 02000D00

003.22 – 005.54

J Klamath Falls 424 Washburn Way Conn. No. 2 424ABI00 002.91 K Redmond 004 US97 00400I00 121.98 – 123.17

Scoping Team Recommended Solution (Completed by Project Leader):

The purpose of this project is to mitigate deficient or missing Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) settlement curb ramps. The remaining ramps in the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) system are being split into projects to be put out to bid. This is a 'steady closeout' project in Work Order Contract 10, which is defined as a logical and efficient grouping of remaining ramps in a geographic area to close out work in the region.

This project includes a total of 90 ramps distributed across multiple locations in Oregon. The majority are in Bend

(Segments D and E) with 32 ramps, followed by Redmond (Segment K) with 21 ramps, and Oakridge (Segment

G) with 18 ramps. The remaining ramps are located in smaller numbers across cities in Central Oregon. These are in Dufur (Segment A) with 2 ramps, Wasco (Segment B) with 1 ramp, Condon (Segment C) with 1 ramp, La Pine

(Segment F) with 4 ramps, Paisley (Segment H) with 3 ramps, and Klamath Falls (Segments I and J) with 8 ramps

(see Project Limits section for definition of segments). Complexity varies across 29 ramps at signalized intersections. (Steve Burris 05/21/2026)

Figure 1. Map showing ramp locations included in the project.

Construction / Constructability (Completed by Project Leader) (Issues, concerns, staging concerns, other):

Curb ramp construction for this project is along several different corridors spread throughout Region 2 and several in Region 4 (refer to the Project Limits section for details).

The corner at South 6th Street and Hope Street (Corner 3) in Klamath Falls is particularly complex due to several constraints. There is an existing utility pole at this location, and the corner has limited clear width due to its tight geometry and the presence of an existing building entrance with a staircase. Additional right-of-way (ROW) will be required. The area also includes a utility pole, inlet, and bollards. Furthermore, the pavement at this intersection, particularly at Corner 3, is deteriorating and will require increased saw cutting. This corner was part of a previous design project that intended to get a design exception due to the utility pole, but was removed from that project prior to the design exception being approved. The draft design exception is stored in Supporting Documents on

ProjectWise for future reference for the EOR. (Steve Burris 05/21/2026)

Problem Identification (Derived from Business Case Before Scoping):

Existing curb ramps are deficient for ADA criteria and are part of the ADA Settlement (refer to the Evaluation Matrix for this project). (Khantil Jha 05/07/2026)

Proposed Alternative(s) Scope and Other Goals and Objectives (Derived from Business Case Before Scoping):

N/A (Khantil Jha 05/07/2026)

Planning (Completed before Scoping): (Discuss documents that may exist: Agreements, TSP, STAs, IAMP, or planning activities that will need to take place for this project):

Guiding documents include the ODOT ADA Transition Plan and ADA Settlement Ramps inventory. The inventory was vetted for needed and eligible settlement ramps, those that were not eligible for closure, and those not already mitigated by previous work or current projects. Work supporting All Roads Transportation Safety Application for Oakridge Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB). (Bryce Cunnington 05/20/2026)

Traffic Data Analysis (Completed Before Scoping) (Analysis of traffic crash data, identifying problem areas, Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) sites, sight distance access issues and ADT):

The table highlights that the highest crash‐priority areas (based on SPIS ratings) are primarily on Highway 020

(Segment J), with the highest SPIS values reaching about 43–76 and relatively high-traffic volumes, indicating the most critical safety concern. Additional moderate crash-risk areas are found on Highway 004 (Segments G and L) and Highway 018 (Segment H), where SPIS values range roughly from 40 to 67.

Segment ODOT Hwy # Mile Post (MP) ADT SPIS Rating

F 004 165.26-167.99 14196 40.2

G 018 35.48-35.85 5374 41.23-45.37

I 020 3.22-5.54 22682 42.66-76.06

K 004 121.98-123.6 36115 43.91-67.2

See Accident Sites section for more details.

Preliminary Engineering (PE) Budget Justification (Completed by Project Leader) (Discuss justification or method used to arrive at PE budget):

Preliminary engineering (PE) was estimated at $1,100,618. This includes a cost of $755,050 for the PE of the curb ramps, $180,000 for survey, $153,328 for the Agency, and an additional $12,240 for signals/pushbuttons at 3 signalized intersections. Survey has started and will be delivered internally by ODOT, thus it does not need to be included in the overall PE budget estimate.

The team was requested to provide estimates for 2 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) projects in Oakridge. ODOT will apply for Sidewalk Improvement Program (SWP) funding for these additions. The estimates were developed outside of the ADA Delivery Program Cost Model and based on conceptual, pictographic map images. The estimates assume 2 perpendicular curb ramps, cut-through median islands, signage, markings, temporary controls, RRFB furnish and installation, and boring for permanent power. The estimates are expected to meet Class 4 accuracy (+50%/-30%) and estimate PE values of:

I. OR58/Hills St Intersection Improvement: $59,345 (Low: $41,542 / High: $89,018) II. OR58 between Thatcher Land and River Road Crossing Improvement: $63,786 (Low: $44,650 / High:

$95,679)

The PE budget was estimated according to the ADA Delivery Program Cost Model methodology, which is based on a Direct Cost Relative Complexity Rating and applies a Parametric Factor (35% for Simple Packages, 43% for Very Complex Packages) to the Direct & Indirect Construction Cost. The risk rating applied for this project is ‘Complex’. Direct Cost Relative Complexity Rating is determined by Number of Complex Ramp Styles, Number of Additional Ramps required and Number of Partial Replacements, and also the Number of Features (e.g. signage, driveways, hydrants, utility poles, catch basins) relative to all projects in the program (i.e., 20% are Simple, 20% Limited Complexity, 20% Moderate Complexity, 20% Complex, 20% Very Complex). (Refer to Cost Model spreadsheet for this project.)

Scoping Team:

Name Discipline Telephone

Steve Burris/Jacobs Roadway/ADA ###.###.####

Jesse Clark/Jacobs Roadway/ADA 503.729-5031

Khantil Jha/Jacobs Roadway/ADA 979.422.3721

Bryce Cunnington/Jacobs Roadway/ADA ###.###.####

Courage Ughweri/Jacobs Roadway/ADA ###.###.####

Kaitlyn Pegram/Jacobs Roadway/ADA ###.###.####

James Gregory/Jacobs Environmental 503.358.3880

Sarah Jenniges/Jacobs GIS 360.600.8189

Ana Jovanovic/Jacobs Project Management 503.872.4879

J.P. Loomis/Jacobs Structural/Project Management 503.736.4375

Will Packard/Jacobs HazMat ###.###.####

Charlotte Helmer/ODOT Historical 503.979.6715

Christian Nauer/ODOT Archaeological ###.###.####

Doug Sharp/ODOT Environmental 541.817.5435

Julie GaNung/ODOT Project Management 541.740.5319

Shawn Blevins/ODOT Right-of-Way 503.872.4879

Monical Leal/GTE Traffic ###.###.####

Roadway Elements:

● Define Project Limits: (Describe or confirm limits, why limits chosen, potential staging areas and disposal sites.)

This project is divided into 11 segments, determined by their relative proximity to each other and a defining city.

Segments A, B, and C are in Dufur, Wasco, and Condon, respectively (Figure 2). Segments D and E are in Bend and Segment K is Redmond (Figure 3). Segment F is in La Pine and Segment G is in Oakridge (Figure 4). Segments H is in Paisley and Segment I and J are in Klamath Falls (Figure 5). (Bryce Cunnington 05/20/2026)

Figure 2. Segment A - Dufur, Segment B - Wasco, and Segment C – Condon.

Figure 3. Segments D and E - Bend and Segment K - Redmond.

Figure 4. Segment F - La Pine and Segment G - Oakridge.

Figure 5. Segment H – Paisley.

Figure 6. Segment I & J - Klamath Falls.

Segment City LRM Key Highway Name MP

A Dufur 004ADI00 US197 MP 012.75

B Wasco 30000I00 OR206 MP 000.00

C Condon 00500I00 OR19 MP 038.27

D Bend 004BMI00 US97 MP 135.37 - 135.5

E Bend 004DJI00, 004BZI00

Colorado Ave. Conn. No 3 MP 138.14

MP138.26

MP 138.29

F La Pine 00400I00 US97 MP 167.72

G Oakridge 01800I00 OR58 MP 034.31 - 035.85

H Paisley 01900I00 OR31 MP 098.36 - 098.53

I Klamath Falls 02000I00, 02000D00

OR39 MP 003.22 - 005.54

J Klamath Falls 424ABI00 Washburn Way Conn. No. 2 MP 2.91

K Redmond 00400I00 US97 MP 121.98 – 123.17

Refer to the Inventory Evaluation Matrix and Constraint Maps for more detail.

● Current Design Standards: (Completed before scoping.): (Describe current design standards for this section that include design speed, lane widths, shoulder widths, bike lanes, and highway classification.)

ODOT Highway Design Manual, ODOT Traffic Design Manual, ODOT Standard Drawings, ODOT ADA Transition Plan, and PROWAG. (Bryce Cunnington 05/20/2026)

● Design Exceptions: (Describe existing conditions that would cause a design exception.

Vertical/Horizontal clearances, alignments, bridge widths and rail, shoulder/lane widths)

Fourteen ramps were identified as potentially requiring design exceptions for this project. The factors contributing to these potential exceptions include obstructions to clear width from guardrails, utility poles, guy lines, and retaining walls; steep slopes; and efforts to avoid impacts to existing signal poles. Some design exceptions overlap. (Khantil Jha 05/19/2026)

A design exception may be required to avoid impacts on clear width constraints at these locations:

Segment LRM_MP_CR_R

D 004BMI00-135.41-3-1, -3-2 & -4-1; 004BMI00-135.37-3-2; 004BMI00-135.5-1-1, -1-2, -2-1, -3-2 & -4-1

E 004DJI00-138.26-1-2

G 01800I00-35.48-3-1, -3-2

There was a prior effort to acquire a design exception at the following location at Hope St. in Klamath Falls to avoid impacts on clear width constraints. However, due to changes in the previous project, a design exception was not pursued since the ramp was not rebuilt to build the widest scenario:

Segment LRM_MP_CR_R

I 02000I00-3.57-3-1

A design exception may be needed to avoid impacting an existing signal pole at this location:

I 02000I00-3.22-1-1

● Special Design Features: (Aesthetics, architect, landscaping, gateway, etc.)

There are special design features in the form of protected existing landscaping. Minor adjustments to a low retaining wall may be required around ramp locations. (Khantil Jha 05/19/2026)

Landscape irrigation or existing landscaping may be exist at the following locations:

Segment LRM_MP_CR Concern

D 004BMI00-135.37-4-1 & -5 Possible existing Irrigation to be adjusted

E 004DJI00-138.26-1 Large tree at back of walk to be protected

G 01800I00-34.31-3; 01800I00-34.87-2 Possible existing Irrigation to be adjusted

K 00400I00-122.85-3; 00400I00-122.26-1;

00400I00-121.98-3 & -4; 00400I00-123.17-1 & -4

Possible existing Irrigation to be adjusted

K 00400I00-122.85-4; 00400I00-122.26-2;

00400I00-123.17-2

Bushes at back of walk likely to be impacted

A special design feature of a low retaining wall may be required for minor adjustment at the following location:

E 004DJI00-138.26-2-2

G 01800I00-34.47-3-1

K 00400I00-122.85-2

● Preliminary Pavement Design: (Completed before scoping.) (Widen/leveling/subgrade, repair/pavement design, special pavement needs/issues, inlet needs, under road culverts)

A concrete gutter pan must be installed at the ramp throat and existing curbs preserved where possible through the transition panel. Pavement should be replaced as necessary to meet design standards, including fixing cross-slope issues as necessary. Local municipalities must be coordinated with to replace special pavement or pavers in kind when found. (Khantil Jha 05/19/2026)

● Drainage Needs: (Scoping team/roadway recommendations assumed in roadway estimate.

Damaged or plugged culverts, extensions, offsite drainage, flooding problems)

Possible adjustments and relocations of catch basins were identified, but most catch basins will be protected in place.

Catch basin adjustments may be required at the following locations:

A 004ADI00-12.75-3-1

D 004BMI00-135.41-2-1 & -4-1

G 01800I00-35.85-3-1 & -4-1

I 02000I00-3.57-3-1

K 00400I00-122.85-3-1, -3-2, -4-1 & -4-2; 00400I00-123.17-1-2

Catch basin relocations may be required at the following location:

G 01800I00-34.31-2-2; 01800I00-34.67-3-1

● Guardrail Needs: (Repair, replace, extend, add, delete)

N/A (Khantil Jha 05/19/2026)

● Road Approaches / Accesses: (Issues, sight distance problems, approach grade, radii)

● ADA Needs: (As current policy states corrective action required to meet ADA. Ramps, driveways, curbs, and sidewalks)

Four ramps were flagged for potential crosswalk closures (CWC) (Khantil Jha 05/19/2026):

D 004BMI00-135.5-2-2 & -3-1; 004BMI00-135.37-1-1 & -6-1

Two ramps already have CWCs but require a CWC sign to be installed (Khantil Jha 05/19/2026):

Segment LRM_MP_CR_R Crosswalk closure information

E 004BZI00-138.29-3-1 & -4-1 Crosswalk closure #2021-078; Need sign at 3-1 and 4-2

Twelve ramps are flagged for adding a new ramp (Khantil Jha 05/19/2026):

G 01800I00-34.31-3-1; 01800I00-34.47-3-1; 01800I00-35.85-3-1 & -4-1; 01800I00-34.87-2-1

I 02000I00-3.22-1-1; 02000I00-3.57-3-1

K 00400I00-121.98-2-1 & -4-1; 00400I00-122.26-1-1; 00400I00-123.17-2-1 & -4-1

Non-compliant ramps will need to be removed and replaced, with the majority classified under the Reconstruction category.

At Paisley, Fremont Hwy No. 019 (OR31) - MP 98.36 (Mill St & Main St, Corner 3), the sidewalk is located within the ROW. Based on discussions with Rob Churchill, prior work has been completed at this location, and a partial sidewalk exists in good condition. The sidewalk currently transitions into gravel at the adjacent parking lot; localized surfacing improvements may be required. There is uncertainty regarding ramp construction, particularly due to the shoulder-to-shoulder condition and how it would tie into Corner 4.

Also, at Fremont Hwy No. 019 (OR31) - MP 98.41 (West St & Main St, Corner 4), similar conditions are present, with the sidewalk transitioning into gravel/shoulder. This corner also has utility constraints, including proximity to a utility pole. There are clear width limitations due to obstructions (telephone pole and sign). These ramps have been included in the Evaluation Matrix and documented. However, a final determination on treatment is still required.

Field measurements, notes, and photographs are available in the “Supporting_Docs” folder on ProjectWise. Khantil

Jha (06/30/2026)

● Mailbox Needs: (Replace, move, or combine mailboxes)

● Shoulders / Ditches and Locations: (Adequate widths/slopes/shoulder rock/ditch work, aggregate needed, subgrade needed, ditch work needed. Describe specific areas of need.)

● Survey Needs-Confidence Point Level: (Describe broad limits. Construction level digital terrain model DTM, limits, quality level, special features)

General limits:

A topographic survey is needed at most corners identified in the project. Refer to the Project Limit section for the specific mile points and routes. The corners identified as only needing a CWC sign installed, with no other work at that corner, do not need a survey. (Khantil Jha 05/19/2026)

1. Confidence points level DTM ☒ Yes ☐ No

2. Coordinates Correct ☒ Yes ☐ No

3. P-line assumed coordinates for preservation projects ☐ Yes ☒ No

4. Hydraulic Survey ☐ Yes ☒ No

5. Aerial Photos ☒ Yes ☐ No

The following curb ramp is identified as needing a CWC sign installed with no other improvements required. A survey is not required at this location:

D 004BMI00-135.37-1-1 & -6-1

Traffic Elements:

● Signing Needs: (Replace some or all? Move? Will project impact Travel Information Counsel

(TIC) signing? Signing plans needed? Sign bridge. Refer to Foundation Needs section)

No signing plans are required. However, plans with sign details and sign and post data tables are necessary.

Existing signs should be protected in place where possible, with relocations occurring if a signpost is impacted by project work. The project will require the new installation of some CWC signage (refer to the Evaluation Matrix for more details). No impacts are anticipated to TIC signs or sign bridges. (Monica Leal 05/07/2026)

● Striping/Delineation Needs: (Replace some or all? Paint or durable? Add/remove/reinstall? Is a

Striping Plan required with project? Approved crosswalks?)

No striping plans are required. Impacted striping will be replaced in kind at the direction of ODOT. Work will consist of restriping existing crosswalk markings, stop bars, and other pavement markings and legends if they are impacted by project work. The realignment of ramps at intersections may result in the need to offset existing pedestrian crosswalks and restripe the entire crosswalk bars. (Monica Leal 05/07/2026 and 06/12/2026)

● Signal/Illumination Needs: (Pedestrian crossing needs?)

There are 25 ramps and 30 pushbuttons at 5 signalized intersections. Two of the five signalized intersections are span wire (OR39 at MP 3.22 and OR58 at MP 35.48). Some ramps may require design exceptions to avoid impacting the signal pole foundations. Work adjacent to existing traffic signal poles will require special consideration to avoid impacting or undermining the signal pole foundation. Lowering grades around existing traffic structure foundations must comply with GEEGH24-01(b). It is intended that there will be no signal pole or signal cabinet relocations as part of this project. Signal conduit capacity and tolerance of impacted junction boxes to vertical elevation changes will need to be verified in the field.

Two new RRFBs on OR58 at MP 34.31 and 35.85 in Oakridge that require center islands could be constructed before or at the same time as this project.

No new illumination is anticipated; however, some locations will need special consideration to avoid impacting existing light poles.

Traffic loops are likely to be impacted by paving saw cutting and pedestrian crosswalk relocations and will need to be replaced as necessary. The decision to use loops or radar to replace the impacted loops will be based on the loop versus radar cost comparison.

The following push buttons will be installed or relocated for this project:

HWY # MP CORNER #PBs

020 3.22 1 2

018 35.48 3 2

018 35.48 4 2

004 121.98 1 2

004 121.98 2 2

004 121.98 3 2

004 121.98 4 2

004 122.85 1 2

004 122.85 2 2

004 122.85 3 2

004 122.85 4 2

004 135.50 1 2

004 135.50 2 1

004 135.50 3 1

004 135.50 4 2

004 138.14 2 2

004 138.14 3 2

004 138.14 4 2

(Monica Leal 05/07/2026 and 06/14/2026)

● Traffic Control: (Diversion/stage construction/traffic, road closure, temporary bridge, Motor

Carrier requirements)

Traffic Control Plans and Temporary Pedestrian Accessible Routes are required for all projects. Lane closure restrictions and special events should be coordinated with ODOT and other impacted agencies during the design phase. Truck traffic should be accommodated and considered during the design.

Transportation Management Plan (TMP), Work Zone Decision Tree (WZDT), and Mobility Considerations

Checklist (MCC) are required for this project.

(Monica Leal 05/06/2026 and 6/12/2026)

● Mobility: (Freight route, emergency route for other major highway, lane use restrictions, detour route(s))

The project spans multiple cities and highways, including US97 in Redmond, Bend, and La Pine, OR58 in

Oakridge, Washburn Way Conn. No.2 and OR39 in Klamath Falls, OR31 in Paisley, US197 in Dufur, OR206 in

Wasco, OR19 in Condon, and Colorado Ave. Conn. No.3 in Bend. OR39, US97, OR58, and Washburn Way Conn.

No.2 are part of the National Highway System. US97, OR58, and OR31 are part of the High Clearance Routes and Reduction Review Routes. The project is adjacent to Oakridge High School and Oakridge Elementary School near OR58 at MP 35.48, La Pine High School near US97 at MP 167.72, Obsidian Middle School near US97 at MP

121.98, and Paisley School near OR31 at MP 98.53.

Two new RRFBs on OR58 at MP 34.31 and 35.85 in Oakridge, which require center islands, could be constructed before or at the same time as this project. They are located along a section of highway with two lanes in each direction. Another center island exists on US97 at MP 167.72, along a segment of highway with only one lane in each direction. During construction, special consideration needs to be given to these highway segments, as the median islands can create horizontal clearance concerns to accommodate traffic. Nighttime work, detours, or pedestrian detours may be required to accommodate traffic at these locations.

ODOT’s daytime and nighttime freight mobility maps need to be considered to determine minimum travel lane widths to be maintained during construction.

Per ODOT’s freight mobility daytime width map:

US197 in Dufur, OR19 in Condon, and OR31 in Paisley: Continuous freight trip routes with widths up to 12 feet along the impacted highways are anticipated. A minimum travel lane width (horizontal clearance) of 14 feet (12 feet with 1 foot shy on either side) must be maintained for a single travel lane through a work zone.

OR206 in Wasco, US97 in Redmond and La Pine, US97 in Bend, OR58 in Oakridge, OR39 in Klamath Falls:

Continuous freight trip routes for widths up to 14 feet along the impacted highways are anticipated. A minimum travel lane width (horizontal clearance) of 16 feet (14 feet with 1 foot shy on either side) must be maintained for a single travel lane through a work zone.

Consider nighttime work if daytime minimum travel lane widths cannot be achieved during construction.

Per ODOT’s freight mobility nighttime width map:

US197 in Dufur, US97 in Redmond and La Pine, US97 in Bend, OR58 in Oakridge, OR39 in Klamath Falls, and OR31 in Paisley: Continuous freight trip routes for widths up to 10 feet along the impacted highways are anticipated. A minimum travel lane width (horizontal clearance) of 12 feet (10 feet with 1 foot shy on either side) must be maintained for a single travel lane through a work zone.

OR206 in Wasco and OR19 in Condon: No continuous freight trip routes are authorized.

(Monica Leal 05/07/2026 and 6/14/2026)

● Access Recommendations: (Permits, accesses, waivers, IAMP, strategy, AMP plan)

The following seven ramps were identified as having potential impacts to existing driveway access:

• 004DJI00-138.26-2-2

• 004DJI00-138.26-2-1

• 01900I00-98.36-3-1

• 02000D00-5.54-4-1

• 30000I00-0-2-1

• 01800I00-34.67-2-1

• 01800I00-34.31-4-1

(Monica Leal 05/07/2026)

Bridge Elements:

● Bridge Needs (Completed Before Scoping): (Refer to the bridge inspection reports, sufficiency rating, other structural items, end treatments, joints, deck, erosion, scour protection, remove replace, overlay, replace seals)

● Bridge Rail Needs: (Leave, adjust, replace, change type, aesthetic treatment, add end terminals)

● Water Quality/Detention Needs:

● Foundation / Geology Needs: (Drilling needed? Surcharge? Other?)

Environmental Elements:

● Hazardous Materials (Hazmat) Sites (Completed Before Scoping): (Known and possible sites)

Several hazmat sites (from Oregon Department of Environmental Quality [ODEQ} leaking underground storage tank, underground storage tank, and Environmental Site Cleanup Information (ESCI) data) were identified adjacent to corners as indicators of potential hazmat risk. Some corners also have painted curbs.

General hazmat risks were classified broadly by land use. See the constraint map in Desktop Scoping and Data Review for the location of sites identified in the ODEQ data. (James Gregory 5/6/26).

Historical Sites (Completed Before Scoping): (Known and possible sites. Historical barns/buildings.)

Area of Potential Effect (APE): Bend, Condon, Dufur, Klamath Falls, La Pine, Oakridge, Paisley, Redmond, and Wasco (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Area of Potential Effect

Historic Resources in the APE:

There are no historic properties in the APE for Condon, Dufer, Klamath Falls, La Pine, Paisley, or Redmond.

There are a few historic properties in the APE in Bend, Oakridge, and Wasco (Figures 7 – 9). They were surveyed for prior curb ramp projects, are set back from the sidewalk, and have no historic features near the curb ramps. There are no historic districts or street features (hardware, stamps, etc.) in the APE.

Project Impact / Risks / Assumptions:

No specific risks have been identified in desktop scoping, field scoping, or initial consultation with City staff and the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office. Prior surveys and desktop review by ODOT staff will suffice. There is no need for further field scoping or Historic Resources Baseline Reports. There is also no need for Determination of Eligibility or Finding of Effect forms.

There is no need for design exceptions for aesthetic standards. All locations have safety yellow detectable warnings. Sidewalks are not historic. No historic hardware or sidewalk stamps were found via desktop or field scoping. No basements extend under sidewalks and there are no historic features near the project locations.

All locations in this package have no potential to affect historic properties in the built environment. (Khantil Jha per Charlotte Helmer email sent 04/20/2026)

Figures 7-9: From top left: Oakridge house, Wasco Museum. Bottom: Bend house. These historic properties may be NRHP-eligible. They are set back from the sidewalk and have no historic features near the work area.

● Archaeological Sites (Completed Before Scoping): (Known and possible sites. Level of survey needed and estimated cost)

No portions of the APE for this package intersect with any known archaeological site. A baseline archaeological report will not be needed for the Central Oregon portion of this package. Oakridge may require additional consideration. If Oakridge adds elements beyond the scope of regular ADA projects, further discussion will be needed to determine the path forward for identification and compliance with Section 106.

(Khantil Jha per Christian Nauer email sent 05/01/2026)

● Wetlands (Completed Before Scoping): (Known or possible wetlands, mitigation sites, ponds, standing water)

A review of wetland/waters data indicated no corners in mapped wetland boundaries. (Gregory 5/6/26)

● Fish Passage Needs:

N/A (Gregory 4/29/26)

● Other Environmental Considerations (Completed before scoping): (Threatened and endangered species, known habitat, fish passage, birds, plants, land use, water quality, 4F-public recreation, parks lands, recreation areas, wildlife refuges, noise, in-water work period, potential disposal sites, landscaping needs, erosion control, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, timing constraints):

No corners are within mapped floodplain, floodway, or flood hazard zones. No corners are within mapped U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service critical habitat. No corners are immediately adjacent to, or appear to provide access to, parks, public recreation areas, wildlife refuges, etc. (Gregory 5/6/26)

● Environmental Permits: (DSL, CORPs, floodplain, federal, state, and county)

Desktop scoping did not indicate the need for Department of State Lands or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits. Local floodplain development permits do not appear to be required. (Gregory 4/29/26)

ROW/Utility Elements:

● R/W: (R/W easements, slope, drainage, temporary construction easements, mitigation sites)

There were 44 corners identified as potentially requiring either temporary or permanent ROW easement requirements. This was based on desktop scoping of ramp locations over GIS parcels lines and was based on an estimate approximating whether the ROW is within 5 feet of the anticipated back of walk. (Khantil Jha 05/07/2026)

Segment LRM-MP-C ROW Impact ROW Comment

A 004DJI00-138.26-2 Yes Avoid impacts to retaining wall

A 004ADI00-12.75-3 Anticipated Possible ROW needed - TE for work area

A 004ADI00-12.75-4 Anticipated Possible ROW needed - TE for work area

B 30000I00-0-2 Yes Avoid access impacts

D 004BMI00-135.37-5 Yes Irrigated landscaping

D 004BMI00-135.37-3 Yes Landscaping

D 004BMI00-135.37-4 Yes Irrigated Landscaping

D 004BMI00-135.41-1 Anticipated May need TE for work area

D 004BMI00-135.37-1 Anticipated Possible TE for work area

D 004BMI00-135.41-6 Anticipated May need TE for work area

E 004DJI00-138.26-3 Anticipated Possible TE for work area

E 004DJI00-138.26-1 Yes Landscaping. Avoid impacts to retaining wall

G 01800I00-34.31-2 Yes May need TE for work area

G 01800I00-35.48-4 Anticipated Avoid impacts to personal fencing. Concrete planter

G 01800I00-34.67-2 Yes Avoid impacts access for business

G 01800I00-35.48-3 Yes May need TE for work area

G 01800I00-34.47-3 Yes Landscaped (rocks). Avoid impacts to gas station drive through area

G 01800I00-34.47-4 Yes May need TE for work area

G 01800I00-34.67-3 Yes Avoid impacts to personal fencing

G 01800I00-34.31-4 Yes Avoid impacts to concrete planter

G 01800I00-34.67-4 Yes May need TE for work area

G 01800I00-34.31-3 Yes Landscaping

G 01800I00-34.87-1 Anticipated Possible TE for work area

G 01800I00-34.87-2 Yes Irrigated landscaping

G 01800I00-35.85-3 Anticipated Avoid access impacts. Possible TE for work area

G 01800I00-35.85-4 Yes May need TE for work area

G 01800I00-34.87-3 Yes May need TE for work area

H 01900I00-98.36-3 Yes ROW needed - TE for work area

I 02000I00-3.22-1 Yes Might need TE for work area

I 02000I00-3.57-3 Yes ROW needed. Avoid: building and overhang impacts.

K 00400I00-123.17-2 Yes Irrigated landscaping

K 00400I00-122.85-2 Yes Landscaping

K 00400I00-121.98-2 Yes Avoid impacts to building

K 00400I00-167.72-1 Anticipated May need TE for work area

K 00400I00-123.17-1 Yes Irrigated landscaping

K 00400I00-122.85-3 Yes Irrigated landscaping

K 00400I00-121.98-3 Yes Irrigated landscaping. Avoid impacts to business sign

K 00400I00-122.26-2 Yes Landscaping. Avoid impacts: personal vehicles

(dealership), business sign, and personal bollard and chain

K 00400I00-123.17-4 Yes Irrigated landscaping. Avoid potential impacts to parking spots

K 00400I00-122.85-4 Yes Irrigated landscaping

K 00400I00-121.98-1 Anticipated May need TE for work area

K 00400I00-122.26-1 Yes Landscaping

K 00400I00-121.98-4 Yes Irrigated landscaping. Avoid impacts to business sign

K 00400I00-167.72-2 Anticipated May need TE for work area

Utility Conflicts/Easements (Completed Before Scoping): (Underground, conduit and overhead conflicts. Apparent utility work effort, minimal, moderate, intermediate, complex (explain). Apparent non-reimbursable facilities, gas, phone toll-cable, TV electrical, water, sand sewer, steam, other. List owner/operators known at this time (enter into Project Delivery Work Plan (PDWP). Describe apparent reimbursable facilities location, why reimbursable? Other concerns, costs, potential delay to construction.)

Minimal utility work is anticipated and primarily involves adjustments. There are no apparent non-reimbursable facilities that will need relocation/replacement.

Utility impacts are anticipated at 16 ramps, primarily involving protection and adjustment of existing underground and overhead utilities. The overall utility work effort is expected to be minimal. (Khantil Jha 05/19/2026)

Segment LRM_MP_C_R Other Utility Impact Other Utility Comment

E 004BZI00-138.14-2-1 Adjust Signal box near ramp

E 004BZI00-138.14-4-1 Adjust Signal box near ramp

E 004BZI00-138.14-2-2 Adjust Signal box near ramp

G 01800I00-34.87-2-1 Protect Sewer cleanout access at back of walk

G 01800I00-35.48-3-1 Protect Signal cabinet and guy wires

G 01800I00-35.48-3-2 Protect Signal cabinet, conduits running up utility pole

K 00400I00-121.98-1-2 Adjust Utility vault adjacent to top of existing ramp run

K 00400I00-121.98-2-1 Adjust Signal box near ramp, likely near 2-2

K 00400I00-121.98-3-1 Adjust Signal boxes near ramp

K 00400I00-122.85-2-1 Adjust Signal box near ramp; Electrical riser near ramp

K 00400I00-122.85-2-2 Adjust Signal box near ramp

K 00400I00-122.85-3-2 Adjust Signal boxes near ramp

K 00400I00-122.85-3-1 Adjust Signal box and other utility box near ramp

K 00400I00-123.17-1-2 Protect Utility riser near ramp; conduit on utility pole

K 00400I00-123.17-2-1 Protect Gas riser at back of sidewalk

K 00400I00-123.17-4-1 Adjust Utility riser at back of sidewalk

● Railroad: (Issues, Orders, Permits, ROW required, etc.)

● Fixtures/Improvements:

N/A (Khantil Jha 05/07/2026)

Maintenance Elements (Note/list problems or recommended solutions)

● Surface Drainage Needs (Completed Before Scoping): (Inlets, flooding issues, etc.)

● Striping and Delineation Needs: (Striping needs or changes that should occur. Other delineation elements that need to be addressed.)

● Pavement Issues and Needs: (Potholes, cracking, pumping, other needs?)

● Culverts Needs: (Repair, replace, upgrade size, condition or failing capacity)

● Accident Sites:

There are possible accident sites all along Segment I. These ramps are all within high crash areas and these corridors range from the top 15% to the top 5% of SPIS sites.

Along the study corridors, there are also top SPIS sites on Segment K at MP 121.98–123.6; on Segment F at MP

165.26–167.99; and on Segment G at MP 35.48–35.85. The SPIS rating for these areas ranges from approximately 40.2 to 76.06, with ADT values reaching up to 36,115.

Refer to the “Traffic Data Analysis” section for a more detailed breakdown. (Khantil Jha 05/07/2026)

● Weather Related Issues/Concerns: (Snow and ice issues)

● Roadway Cross-Slope Issues: (Sheeting, too flat, too steep)

There are no specific cross-slope issues identified at this level of scoping. There are 22 ramps in the project that are failing in part because of a counter-slope issue, which may be related to roadway cross-slopes, and/or solved by adjusting roadway cross-slope (refer to Evaluation Matrix for this project). (Khantil Jha 05/19/2026)

● District Permits: (Local permits needed)

• Inter-Governmental Agreements (IGAs):

New RRFBS on OR58 at MP 34.31 and 35.85 in Oakridge will need an amendment to the their existing IGA to add the new locations. (Steve Burris 06/15/2026)