elp for Webmasters « back to results for ""
Below is a cache of http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org/FileLibrary/TechnicalReports/Aviation_TechnicalReport.pdf. It's a snapshot of the page taken as our search engine crawled the Web.
The web site itself may have changed. You can check the current page or check for previous versions at the Internet Archive. Yahoo! is not affiliated with the authors of this page or responsible for its content.
Aviation Technical Report I
N T E R S TAT E
5

C
O L U M B I A
R
I V E R
C
R O S S I N G


Aviation Technical Report


May 2008

1 OF 2

360/737-2726 503/256-2726
WWW.COLUMBIARIVERCROSSING.ORG

700 WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 300, VANCOUVER, WA 98660




TO:
Readers of the CRC Technical Reports
FROM:
CRC Project Team
SUBJECT:
Differences between CRC DEIS and Technical Reports
The I-5 Columbia River Crossing (CRC) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) presents
information summarized from numerous technical documents. Most of these documents are discipline-
specific technical reports (e.g., archeology, noise and vibration, navigation, etc.). These reports include a
detailed explanation of the data gathering and analytical methods used by each discipline team. The
methodologies were reviewed by federal, state and local agencies before analysis began. The technical
reports are longer and more detailed than the DEIS and should be referred to for information beyond
that which is presented in the DEIS. For example, findings summarized in the DEIS are supported by
analysis in the technical reports and their appendices.
The DEIS organizes the range of alternatives differently than the technical reports. Although the
information contained in the DEIS was derived from the analyses documented in the technical reports,
this information is organized differently in the DEIS than in the reports. The following explains these
differences. The following details the significant differences between how alternatives are described,
terminology, and how impacts are organized in the DEIS and in most technical reports so that readers of
the DEIS can understand where to look for information in the technical reports. Some technical reports
do not exhibit all these differences from the DEIS.
Difference #1: Description of Alternatives
The first difference readers of the technical reports are likely to discover is that the full alternatives are
packaged differently than in the DEIS. The primary difference is that the DEIS includes all four transit
terminus options (Kiggins Bowl, Lincoln, Clark College Minimum Operable Segment (MOS), and Mill Plain
MOS) with each build alternative. In contrast, the alternatives in the technical reports assume a single
transit terminus:
Alternatives 2 and 3 both include the Kiggins Bowl terminus
Alternatives 4 and 5 both include the Lincoln terminus
In the technical reports, the Clark College MOS and Mill Plain MOS are evaluated and discussed from the
standpoint of how they would differ from the full-length Kiggins Bowl and Lincoln terminus options.
Difference #2: Terminology
Several elements of the project alternatives are described using different terms in the DEIS than in the
technical reports. The following table shows the major differences in terminology.
DEIS terms
Technical report terms
Kiggins Bowl terminus
I-5 alignment
Lincoln terminus
Vancouver alignment
Efficient transit operations
Standard transit operations
Increased transit operations
Enhanced transit operations
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CRC DEIS AND TECHNICAL REPORTS
2 OF 2

360/737-2726 503/256-2726
WWW.COLUMBIARIVERCROSSING.ORG

700 WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 300, VANCOUVER, WA 98660


Difference #3: Analysis of Alternatives
The most significant difference between most of the technical reports and the DEIS is how each
structures its discussion of impacts of the alternatives. Both the reports and the DEIS introduce long-term
effects of the full alternatives first. However, the technical reports then discuss segment-level options,
other project elements, and system-level choices. The technical reports used segment-level analyses
to focus on specific and consistent geographic regions. This enabled a robust analysis of the choices on
Hayden Island, in downtown Vancouver, etc. The system-level analysis allowed for a comparative
evaluation of major project components (replacement versus supplemental bridge, light rail versus bus
rapid transit, etc). The key findings of these analyses are summarized in the DEIS; they are simply
organized in only two general areas: impacts by each full alternative, and impacts of the individual
components that comprise the alternatives (e.g. transit mode).
Difference #4: Updates
The draft technical reports were largely completed in late 2007. Some data in these reports have been
updated since then and are reflected in the DEIS. However, not all changes have been incorporated into
the technical reports. The DEIS reflects more recent public and agency input than is included in the
technical reports. Some of the options and potential mitigation measures developed after the technical
reports were drafted are included in the DEIS, but not in the technical reports. For example, Chapter 5 of
the DEIS (Section 4(f) evaluation) includes a range of potential minimization measures that are being
considered to reduce impacts to historic and public park and recreation resources. These are generally
not included in the technical reports. Also, impacts related to the stacked transit/highway bridge (STHB)
design for the replacement river crossing are not discussed in the individual technical reports, but are
consolidated into a single technical memorandum.


Title VI
The Columbia River Crossing project team ensures full compliance with Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by prohibiting discrimination against any person on
the basis of race, color, national origin or sex in the provision of benefits and
services resulting from its federally assisted programs and activities.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information
If you would like copies of this document in an alternative format, please call the
Columbia River Crossing project office at (360) 737-2726 or (503) 256-2726.
Persons who are deaf or hard of hearing may contact CRC using
Telecommunications Relay Service by dialing 7-1-1.
¿Habla usted español? La informacion en esta publicación se puede traducir
para usted. Para solicitar los servicios de traducción favor de llamar al
(503) 731-3490. This page intentionally left blank. Interstate 5 Columbia River Crossing
Aviation Technical Report
May 2008
Cover Sheet
Interstate 5 Columbia River Crossing
Aviation Technical Report:
Submitted By:
Matt Deml
Parsons Brinckerhoff Interstate 5 Columbia River Crossing
Aviation Technical Report

This page intentionally left blank. Interstate 5 Columbia River Crossing
Aviation Technical Report
Table of Contents
May 2008

i
T
ABLE OF
C
ONTENTS

1.

S
UMMARY
...............................................................................................................................1-1

1.1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................1-1

1.2

Description of the Alternatives ........................................................................................................1-1

1.2.1 System-Level Choices................................................................................................................1-1

1.2.2 Segment-Level Choices .............................................................................................................1-2

1.2.3 Full Alternatives ..........................................................................................................................1-4

1.3

Long-Term Effects ..........................................................................................................................1-5

1.3.1 System-wide Effects ...................................................................................................................1-6

1.4

Temporary Effects ..........................................................................................................................1-8

1.4.1 Portland International Airport (PDX) ...........................................................................................1-8

1.4.2 Pearson Field (VUO) ..................................................................................................................1-8

1.5

Mitigation ........................................................................................................................................1-9

1.5.1 Mitigation of Long-Term Effects...........................................