BNSF Railways-Nason Creek LWP Reconnection Project March 3, 2010 Wenatchee Community Center

1. BNSF Railways-Nason Creek LWP Reconnection Project March 3, 2010Wenatchee Community Center

2. Meeting Agenda • Introductions • Project Description and Overview of Constraints • Implementation Approach • Design Team Role • Outreach Team Role • Permitting Team Role • Funding Team Role • Next Steps

4. Project Description and Constraints • Project Background • Role of Lead Engineer • Project Examples • Overview of BNSF Constraints

6. Project Background • Two sites identified in Reclamation’s LWP Reach Assessment • LWP DIZ-1/LWP-DOZ-2 (Upstream) and LWP DIZ -2/LWP-DOZ-4 (Downstream) • The Nason Creek Prioritization (CCNRD 2009) identified these two sites as the top priority for the reconnection of isolated habitat on Nason Creek.

7. Project Metrics • Upstream Site: 32 acres; 4,755 linear feet of historic channel • Downstream Site: 80 acres; 5,494 linear feet of historic channel; in addition to 7 sq. mi. Roaring Creek and 5 sq. mi. of Coulter creek subwatershed. • SR207 Nason Oxbow Project 2007: 43 acres

8. DIZ-1 Upstream Project (Inlet on river)

9. DIZ-1 Upstream Project (Outlet on river)

10. DIZ-1 Upstream Project Outlet under BPA Lines

12. DIZ 2 Downstream Project (inlet on river)

13. DIZ 2 Downstream Project (inlet on oxbow)

14. DIZ 2 Downstream Project (outlet on river)

15. DIZ 2 Downstream Project (outlet on oxbow)

16. Jeff Colon, P.E., Hanson Professional Services Inc.

17. Hanson’s Role • Provide qualitative assessment of selected project alternatives using Hanson’s knowledge of BNSF criteria

18. Background - Hanson • Since the 1960s, Hanson has provided a comprehensive array of services to the railroad industry. • Hanson provides design engineering and construction management for public agency-sponsored projects on the BNSF right-of-way, including bridge, track and yard projects.

19. 100_2066 Hanson designs BNSF bridgesExample – Deck Plate Girder

20. 100_1903 Through Plate Girder

21. 101_5915 Through Plate Girder

22. 100_5306 Deck Plate Girder

23. 100_7637 Hanson provides construction management to BNSF

24. BNSF Criteria • Safety • Constructability • BNSF Design Standards for Culverts and Bridges • Maintenance • Accommodate Future Expansion

25. Safety • All visitors and all contract personnel on the BNSF right-of-way will need: • Authorization from BNSF • Protection from a railroad flagman • Personal protective equipment • Contractororientation.com card • E-railsafe card • Evidence of FRA Roadway Worker Protection training

26. Construction Objectives • Keep trains running during construction • Prevent settlement of track roadbed • Prevent features constructed by project from causing erosion or flooding that did not exist prior to construction. • Minimize long-term maintenance

27. Work Zone Constructability • The Scenic Subdivision is the BNSF’s main line from Seattle to Chicago. • Serves 25 trains per day • Due to the vital importance of this line, BNSF may require a shoo-fly track Shoo Fly Track

28. Constructability • Factors: • Ability to maintain railroad traffic during construction • Contingency plans for restoring railroad traffic when work windows expire. • Access to work areas and staging of materials and equipment • Dewatering

29. Construction Methods • Open cut • Build Shoo-Fly • Jack & bore / Pipe Ramming (for culverts) • Pile Driving (for bridges) • Drilled Shafts (for bridges)

30. Maintenance – Post Construction • Settlement Monitoring of Track roadbed • Post-project survey spot-checks may be required at regular intervals within the first 1-2 years after construction. • Bridges require regular inspections and maintenance by BNSF (ongoing cost) • Stream channel or culvert to be maintained by the project proponent

31. Accommodate Future Expansion • Future double or triple-track projects would need bridges or culverts where fill would have otherwise been possible (increases cost of future expansion). • Project creates stream banks within the BNSF right-of-way where there currently are none (increases permitting requirements for future projects by creating new shoreline).

32. Costs • Culverts • Bridges • Shoo-Fly • Caveat: Costs for Relative Comparison Only • The following costs are approximate structure cost only and do not represent the full cost of construction. Costs shown do not include final engineering, utility relocations, temporary access, site security, mobilization, construction management, mobilization, temporary utilities, overhead, contingencies, inflation, tax or other additives.

33. Costs – Culverts (examples)

34. Costs – Bridges (examples)

35. Costs – Shoo Fly Track (example) • 1.24 mi. fill @ 10’ H x 15’ W • Footprint area = 2.31 Acres • Approx. $2M; • $1M for earthwork • $1M for trackwork

36. Implementation Approach • ICF Graphic HERE Implementation Team

37. Design TeamParticipants/Roles • CCNRD • ICF/Hanson • BOR • USFS • WDFW • Yakama Nation • USFWS • CCPUD • GCPUD • RTT Project Sponsor Alternatives Analysis and Engineering

38. Design TeamTimelineSpring 2010 – Data Collection and Alternatives Analysis • January CCNRD: Apply for Temporary Occupancy Permit for Geotech/Topo/Environmental work (weather dependent) (BNSF 60 Day Review) • February Funding Team: Present funding requirements for the Alternatives Analysis and Preliminary Data Collection to local funding entities. • March Outreach Team: Start landownership/stakeholder outreach • April Design Team: Geotechnical and Topographic Survey • March Design Team: Convene to discuss potential project alternatives • April Design Team: Onsite Engineering Meeting – BNSF and Engineering Contractor High- Rail trip • Apr/May Design Team: Present draft project alternatives • May Design Team: Select Preferred Alternative • May FundingT eam: Present funding requirements for 30% - Final design plans and specs and permitting to local funding entities.

39. Design TeamTimelineSummer-Fall 2010 – Detailed Design • July Design Team: 30% Design Complete (BNSF Review 1 month) • July Design Team: Preliminary Permit Meeting with BNSF (BNSF Review of permit approach submitted by Permit Team) • July   Design Team: Review 30% plan set (2 weeks) • October Design Team: 75% Design Complete (BNSF Review 1 month) • October Design Team: Review 75% plan set (2 weeks) • November Permit Team: JARPA Permit Package Submitted • November Design Team: Finalize 75% plan set. • November Funding Team: Present funding requirements for construction to local funding entities.

40. Design TeamTimeline2011– Construction • April Permit Team: Obtain Permits. • April Design Team: Prepare 100% Plans and Specs and construction cost estimate.  • April Design Team: Submit 100% Plans and Specs to BNSF. BNSF begins selection of construction contractor. • TBD          Design Team: BNSF and CCNRD Complete Construction and Maintenance Agreement • July Begin Construction

41. Alternatives Analysis Approach Step 3: Design Team, BNSF, and Outreach Team selects Preferred Alternative Step 1: Design Team Identifies Alternatives and Evaluation Criteria Design Team presents Preferred Alternative and proposed costs to Funding Team Outreach Team solicits stakeholder input Step 2: ICF/Hanson Conduct Alts Analysis Alternatives Analysis presented to Design Team Geotech and Topo Data Needed

42. Potential Connection Points Possible in-channel enhancement Excavation in disconnected channel may be necessary DIZ-2 Downstream Site

43. Design Team – Key Next Steps • DT Meeting March 2009 (schedule this): • Select Alternatives for Analysis • Conduct Topographic and Geotechnical Studies (may need Section 106 studies done first: Permit Team) • Prepare Alternatives Analysis for May DT Meeting • Select Preferred Alternative (May) • Provide construction cost estimates.

44. Outreach Team Approach Approximately 50 total landowners and stakeholders. • Incorporate Stakeholder/Landowner concerns into the Alternatives Analysis • Informational Mailing • Community Meetings • Private meetings Participants • CCNRD • Private Landowners • US Forest Service • Yakama Nation • BPA – transmission line • CCPUD – transmission line • Grant County PUD • UCSRB • CCD • USFWS • CDLT • TU/Washington Water Project

46. Permitting Team Participants • NOAA • Yakama Nation • WDOE • Army Corps • CCNRD • USFS • WDFW • BPA Approach • Identify Lead Federal Agency • Begin NEPA Process • Begin Section 106 studies • Conduct field studies to support local, state, and federal permits. • Delineate waters of the U.S. • Submit JARPA with 75% Designs • October 2009.

47. Funding Team Participants • CCNRD • SRFB • BOR • Yakama Nation • BPA • UCSRB • PRCC • Trib. Comm. • Other

49. Key Next Steps • Permit Team: • Determine lead federal agency • Schedule March meeting • Design Team: • Select Alternatives for Analysis • Schedule March meeting. • Conduct Section 106 and Geotechnical Studies • Outreach Team: • Identify all stakeholders and initiate contact via mailings • Schedule March meeting. • Funding Team: • Identify commitments to implement the project. • Schedule March meeting. • Immediate needs • Completion of section 106 survey, geotechnical survey, prepare for 30% design.