West Kootenay – Northeast Washington JOINT HIGHWAY CORRIDOR STUDY

This document contains privileged information intended only for the use of the addressee. It is not to be March 2005 distributed to others without prior approval from Urban Systems Ltd. Copyright 2005 Urban Systems Ltd. File: 1961.0176.01

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 CONTEXT______1-1

1.1 REGIONAL ECONOMIC PROFILE ______1-1 1.1.1 West & Central Kootenay Region ______1-2 1.1.2 Tri-County Region (Ferry, Stevens & Pend Oreille) ______1-17 1.1.3 Freight & Traffic Movement Patterns ______1-28 1.2 HIGHWAY PERFORMANCE PROFILE______1-31 1.2.1 US 395, SR 25, Hwy 22 & 3B – via Patterson/Frontier______1-32 1.2.2 US 395, SR 25, Boundary Rd, Hwy 22A & 3B – Via Waneta/Boundary ______1-34 1.2.3 SR 20, 31, Hwy 6, 3, 3B – via Nelway/Metaline Falls______1-36 1.2.4 US 395, Hwy 3, 22 – Colville to Trail (via Castlegar) ______1-38 1.3 ISSUES SUMMARY ______1-41

2.0 HIGHWAY CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS ______2-1

2.1 PRELIMINARY OPTIONS ______2-3 2.1.1 Patterson / Frontier Route ______2-3 2.1.2 Cascade / Laurier Route ______2-4 2.1.3 Nelway / Metaline Falls Route______2-4 2.1.4 Waneta / Boundary Route______2-6 2.2 PRELIMINARY CANDIDATE SCREENING ______2-6 2.2.1 Northern Sub-Area – Trail, BC to Northport, WA ______2-9 2.2.2 Southern Sub-Area ______2-13

3.0 CANDIDATE EVALUATION ______3-1

3.1 FINANCIAL ACCOUNT ______3-1 3.1.1 Cost Estimate ______3-1 3.2 CUSTOMER SERVICE ACCOUNT ______3-5 3.2.1 Benefit Estimate ______3-6 3.3 SOCIO-COMMUNITY ACCOUNT______3-7 3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOUNT______3-8 3.5 MULTIPLE ACCOUNT EVALUATION – NORTHERN SUB-AREA______3-8 3.5.1 Existing Route(s) – Highway 22A and Northport-Boundary Road ______3-9 3.5.2 New Route – West Side of the Columbia River ______3-13 3.5.3 Combined Route – Highway 22A & West Side of Columbia River ______3-15

Page (i) 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

3.6 MULTIPLE ACCOUNT EVALUATION – SOUTHERN SUB-AREA______3-17 3.6.1 Existing Route(s) – SR 25 & US 395______3-18 3.6.2 Existing Route(s) – SR 25 & Williams Lake Road ______3-19 3.6.3 New Route – Aladdin Road ______3-21 3.7 MULTIPLE ACCOUNT EVALUATION SUMMARY______3-23

4.0 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ______4-1

4.1 NORTHERN SUB-AREA ______4-1 4.1.1 Vehicle Operating Costs ______4-1 4.1.2 Traffic Growth Rate______4-2 4.1.3 Discount Rate ______4-2 4.1.4 Cost Estimate ______4-3 4.2 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS – SOUTHERN SUB-AREA ______4-4 4.2.1 Vehicle Operating Costs ______4-4 4.2.2 Traffic Growth Rate______4-4 4.2.3 Discount Rate ______4-5 4.2.4 Cost Estimate ______4-5

5.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS______5-1

5.1 OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS______5-2

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Cost Estimate Details Appendix B – Benefit Estimate Details

Page (ii) 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The stated purpose of this study is to broadly investigate opportunities to enhance highway corridor access and performance principally between the West Kootenay Region of British Columbia and the Tri-County Region of Washington State. The intent is to deliver support for enhanced cross-border trade and tourism, improved Regional industrial productivity and competitiveness, and improved highway safety.

More specific and relevant to the evaluation of options and the decision making process, the objectives of this exercise are to:

• Enhance travel time between the Trail/Castlegar Economic Development Region and the Colville/US 395 area • Reduce vehicle operating costs between the Trail/Castlegar Economic Development Region and the Colville/US 395 area

Improvement options that do not work towards satisfying these three basic criteria will not meet the objectives of this exercise. The overall study area is captured in Figure ES-1.

Generally, the study area exhibits relatively slow economic and population growth and traffic demand on the international highway network is relatively light by comparison to other areas in the Province and State. By contrast, however, the economic dependency on the highway network is significant given the largely resource and tourism based economies and limited availability and use of alternate travel modes.

ES - 1 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Figure ES-1: Study Area

N

ES - 2 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Based on a review of previous documents and studies, in addition to consultation with the project’s stakeholders, a list of the major highway transportation issues to be considered in this exercise was identified. These include:

• Conflicting Highway Uses - Adverse community impacts from trucks such as: noise, air quality, slow moving trucks in downtown areas (Rossland, Warfield, Trail, Northport) - Safety concerns due to vehicle speeds, steep grades and the potential for trucks to lose control through residential/downtown areas

• Restricted Economic Growth - High vehicle operation and travel time costs on existing routes between the West Kootenay Region and the Tri-County Region negatively impact the flow of cross- border trade. · Cost of increased travel time · Cost of increased fuel usage · Cost of increased “wear and tear” due to mountainous terrain (brakes, tires, transmissions) · Lost time due to adverse weather conditions (road closures, “chain-up” requirements) · Reduced efficiency of freight transportation due to weight or vehicle size restrictions

• Cross-Border Tourism / Recreation Opportunities - Limited access between Northeast Washington and the West Kootenays restricts the potential of the tourism / recreation industries, such as: · Access to Red Mountain Ski Resort (Rossland, BC) for US residents · Access to Spokane Region (Spokane International Airport) for West Kootenay residents

ES - 3 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

For the purpose of highway improvement comparison and evaluation, the study area is divided into two sub-areas. The northern study sub-area is defined as the segment of the corridor linking Trail, BC to Northport, WA, and is illustrated in Figure ES-2 complete with topographical information. Three improvement options have been developed in this sub-area:

(i) improvements to the existing route on Hwy 22A and the Northport-Boundary Road, (ii) a new route on the west side of the Columbia River, and (iii) a combined route using the existing Hwy 22A, crossing the Columbia River and a new route on the west side into Northport.

Figure ES-2: Northern Sub-Area

Combined Route

New Route

ES - 4 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

The southern study sub-area is defined as the segment of the corridor linking Northport, WA to US 395 at Colville, WA, and is illustrated in Figure ES-3 complete with topographical information. Similarly, three improvement options have been developed in this sub-area:

(i) improvements to the existing State Route 25, (ii) improvements to the existing State Route 25 and the Williams Lake Road corridor, and

(iii) the Aladdin Road corridor.

Figure ES-3: Southern Sub-Area

ES - 5 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

In order to evaluate and compare the various options, a multiple account evaluation (MAE) was developed and undertaken. In accordance with standard practices for transportation studies in both the province of British Columbia and the State of Washington four separate accounts were considered: a financial account, customer service account, socio-community account, and an environmental account. The monetized results of the MAE exercise are summarized in Tables ES-1 and ES-2 in both National currencies where appropriate.

Table ES-1: Multiple Account Evaluation Summary Northern Section Existing Route New Route Combined Route Hwy 22A & SR25 West Side of Hwy 22A & West Side Columbia River of Columbia River CAD USD CAD USD CAD USD Benefit Estimate $16.6 M $10.1 M $4.8 M $2.8 M $14.0 M $7.6 M Cost Estimate $38.1 M $31.2 M $39.5 M $32.4 M $39.5 M $32.4 M B/C Ratio 0.44 0.32 0.12 0.09 0.35 0.24 NPV ($21.5 M) ($21.1 M) ($34.7 M) ($29.6 M) ($25.5 M) ($24.7 M)

Environmental Impacts Low High Medium

Socio-Community Impacts Medium High Medium

Table ES-2: Multiple Account Evaluation Summary (in USD) Southern Section Existing Route New Route Combined Route SR25 & US395 SR25 & Williams Aladdin Road Lake Road Benefit Estimate $29.0 M $25.4 M $36.9 M Cost Estimate $34.0 M $32.4 M $48.2 M B/C Ratio 0.85 0.78 0.76 NPV ($5.0 M) ($7.0 M) ($11.3 M)

Environmental Impacts Low Low High

Socio-Community Impacts Medium Medium Medium

ES - 6 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Given that preferred options cross international boundaries, agencies will need to consider costs and benefits that would be attributed to their respective jurisdictions. These results are reformatted and illustrated in Table ES-3.

Table ES-3: Economic Indicators by Jurisdiction Northern Section British Columbia (CAD) Washington State (USD) Benefit Estimate $18.3 M ($1.8 M) Cost Estimate $8.9 M $24.0 M B/C Ratio 2.06 -0.07 NPV $9.4 M ($25.7 M)

As most of the cost of the preferred option is geographically located in Washington State, the economic performance indices are challenging on the US side of the border.

The results of this technical evaluation generally support the conclusion that the existing Hwy 22A route from Trail, BC to the US Border, the Northport-Boundary Road from the Canadian Border to Northport, WA, and State Route 25 from Northport, WA to US 395 offers the most logical route choice. While this conclusion is derived from a number of key technical considerations, it is fundamentally based on attempting to balance the public benefits associated with this investment with the public costs associated with its implementation. The selected corridor(s) offers reduced travel times, vehicle operating costs and enhanced safety performance, and most closely approximates the benefits with the costs. This approach to route selection and justification is standard practice for both the BC Ministry of Transportation and the Washington State Department of Transportation.

The results are, however, also indicative of challenging project justification circumstances (again from a technical perspective), as the measured public benefits do not approach the anticipated cost of implementation. These conclusions are consistent with expectation, given the divergent situation in this area related to the difficult (and thus costly) topographical conditions being traversed and the relatively low traffic volumes under consideration. These conclusions have been proven resilient to a series of sensitivity tests on the cost estimates, traffic growth rate, discount rate and vehicle operating costs.

ES - 7 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

1.0 CONTEXT

The stated purpose of this study is to broadly investigate opportunities to enhance highway corridor access and performance principally between the West Kootenay Region of British Columbia and the Tri-County Region of Washington State. The intent is support for enhanced cross-border trade and tourism, improved Regional industrial productivity and competitiveness and improved highway safety. In order to establish the context within which such improvements should be considered, this section outlines an economic profile for the Region proposed to be serviced and the current/historic performance of the existing highway corridors and border crossing facilities in the area.

1.1 Regional Economic Profile

In order to establish a consistent platform of understanding of the primary motivator for highway corridor upgrades, a regional economic profile was developed for the West Kootenay Region of British Columbia and the Tri-County Region of Washington State. For the purposes of this study, the West Kootenay Region is defined as consisting of the Kootenay Boundary and Central Kootenay Regional Districts in southeast British Columbia and the Tri-County region is defined as consisting of Ferry, Stevens and Pend Oreille counties in northeast Washington State (Figure 1). These two regions form a total study area of 45,942 km2 (17,740 mi2), although the West Kootenay Region makes up almost two thirds of this study area. The study area has a combined population of approximately 150,000 residents, approximately 60% of which live in the West Kootenay Region. Despite their distinctions, the West Kootenay and Northeast Washington Regions share many similar socio-economic and geographic characteristics.

Page 1-1 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Figure 1: Map of Study Area

Regional District of Central Kootenay

Regional District of Kootenay Nelson Boundary

BRITISH COLUMBIA Trail

Colville Pend Ferry Stevens Oreille County County County

WASHINGTON STATE Spokane

This economic profile was generated using demographic and economic data from several sources. Canadian data was obtained from various federal, provincial and municipal government sources, including Statistics Canada, BC Stats, and the respective regional districts and municipalities in the West Kootenay Region. Most Canadian data is based on the 2001 Canadian Census. American data was obtained from various federal, state, and county government sources, including the US Census Bureau, the Washington State Office of Financial Management, Access Washington, and the Tri-County Economic Development District. Most American data is based on the 2000 U.S. Census.

1.1.1 West & Central Kootenay Region

The West Kootenay Region consists of the Regional District of Kootenay Boundary (RDKB) and the Regional District of Central Kootenay (RDCK). The West Kootenay Region extends from the head of the Duncan River in the north to the US border in the south and from the area east of Creston to the Eholt Summit and Anarchist Summit in the west (Figure 2).

Page 1-2 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Figure 2: Detailed Map of West Kootenay Region

Regional District of Central Kootenay

Nelson Regional District of Kootenay Castlegar Boundary

Trail Grand Forks

The West Kootenay Region has a total land area of 30,226 km2 (11,671 mi2) (just over 3% of British Columbia’s total expanse). The Regional District of Central Kootenay is by far the larger of the two regional districts, with a land area of 22,130 km2 (8,545 mi2) compared to 8,095 km2 (3,126 mi2) in the Regional District of Kootenay Boundary.

It should be noted that for the purposes of this study only the Trail/Castlegar Economic Development Region and the Colville/US 395 region were considered in the evaluation of potential highway alignment alternatives. However, for the purposes of discussing the overall socio-economic conditions of the West Kootenay Region both the entire Kootenay Boundary and the Central Kootenay regional Districts were considered.

The West Kootenay Region has a population of approximately 90,000 people in its 17 incorporated municipalities and 16 unincorporated Electoral Areas (Table 1). The region is home to a low density population of approximately 3 people/km2 (1.2 people/mi2) which is lower than the population density found in the Tri-County Region.

Page 1-3 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Table 1: Municipalities in the West Kootenay Region Population Regional District Municipality (2003) Nelson 9,630 Castlegar 7,168 Creston 4,957 Nakusp 1,765 Central Salmo 1,142 Kootenay Kaslo 1,053 New Denver 553 Slocan 374 Silverton 232 + 11 Unincorporated Areas 32,514 Trail 8,167 Grand Forks 4,113 Rossland 3,714 Fruitvale 2,084 Kootenay Warfield 1,828 Boundary Montrose 1,098 Greenwood 666 Midway 644 + 5 Unincorporated Areas 10,913 Source: BC Stats Regional District Population Estimates 1996-2003

The West Kootenay Region is also home to a relatively small aboriginal population, as slightly more than 3% of the regional population is aboriginal (compared to 4% throughout BC).

The West Kootenay Region is geographically similar to the Tri-County Region. The region is dominated by large mountain ranges which are interspersed with deep valleys, rushing rivers and large lakes such as the Kootenay, Christina, Slocan and Upper and Lower Arrow Lakes.

1.1.1.1 Demographic Profile

According to BC Stats, in 2003 the West Kootenay Region had a total population of 92,614, representing 2.2% of British Columbia’s population (despite having 3.3% of the province’s land mass). The Regional District of Central Kootenay makes up almost two- thirds of this population base, with a population in 2003 of 59,387 compared to 33,227 in the Regional District of Kootenay Boundary.

Page 1-4 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

As mentioned previously, this results in a population density of approximately 3 people/km2 (1.2 people/mi2), which is somewhat lower than the provincial average of just over 4 people/km2 (1.4 people/mi2). This is also slightly lower than the Tri-County Region’s population density of less than 4 people/km2 (1.5 people/mi2).

The population of the West Figure 3: Population Change Kootenay Region grew by about (West Kootenay Region and British Columbia, 1990-2003) 12% (or 10,244 people) between 4,250,000 100,000 1990 and 2000, which was only 4,000,000 95,000 about half the provincial growth rate of nearly 23% over that time 3,750,000 90,000 period. Although the region saw its British Columbia Population Change Population 3,500,000 85,000 Population Change Population population increase by over 11,330 West KootenayRegion people between 1990-1997, the 3,250,000 80,000

3 4 5 8 9 0 1 2 3 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 region has seen its population 1990 1991 1992 1 1 1 1996 1997 1 1 2 2 2 2 decline every year since, and by Year 2003 the population had declined British Columbia West Kootenay Region Source: BC Stats, P.E.O.P.L.E. Run 29, July 2004, Kootenay Boundary and Central by 1,754 (Figure 3). Kootenay Regional Districts and British Columbia Population Forecast 04/05

Despite the recent decline in population, however, BC Stats projects that the population will begin to increase again in 2004. In its most recent population projections which were generated in July 2004, BC Stats estimates that the population of the West Kootenay Region will increase by nearly 3,500 between 2004 and 2018 (Figure 4). This results in a growth in population of nearly 4% over this period (an annual average growth rate of less than 0.3%), which is a much smaller rate of growth than the 17% growth rate projected for British Figure 4: Projected Population Change Columbia as a whole over this (West Kootenay Region and British Columbia, 2004-2018)

period (or an average annual 5,000,000 100,000 growth rate of approximately 1.4%). This is also in contrast to 4,750,000 95,000 the Tri-County Region which, as 4,500,000 90,000 discussed above, is projected to Population Change Population grow at a much faster rate of 4,250,000 85,000 Change Population British Columbia Projected

between 16% and 61% over this West Kootenay Region Projected 4,000,000 80,000

period. 5 6 1 6 7 04 09 10 15 0 00 00 007 0 0 01 012 013 0 01 01 018 2 2 2 2 20082 2 2 2 2 2014 2 2 2 2 Year British Columbia West Kootenay Region The West Kootenay regional Source: BC Stats, P.E.O.P.L.E. Run 29, July 2004, Kootenay Boundary and Central population is much more urbanized Kootenay Regional Districts and British Columbia Population Forecast 04/05 than the Tri-County regional

Page 1-5 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

population. The West Kootenay Region has more than half (over 53%) of its population living in incorporated areas (which are predominantly urban) and nearly 47% living in unincorporated areas (which are predominantly rural). In contrast, only 23% of the Tri- Counties population lives in incorporated areas.

As shown in Figure 5, the West Figure 5: Comparison of Age Characteristics Kootenay Region has a slightly (West Kootenay Region and British Columbia, 2001) older population than that of British 35% Columbia as a whole, with a higher 30% percentage of residents aged 45 25% 20% and over than found province-wide. 15%

Similarly to the Tri-County Region, Percentage 10% the West Kootenay Region has a 5% 0% smaller proportion of residents in 0-14 15-24 25-44 45-64 65+ the 25-44 age cohort Age Group (approximately 25%) than in British West Kootenays British Columbia

Columbia as a whole Source: BC Stats, 2001 Census Profile for Central Kootenay Regional District, Kootenay Boundary Regional District and British Columbia. (approximately 30%) and has a higher proportion of residents in the 45-64 age cohort (approximately 28%) than in British Columbia as a whole (approximately 25%). The age distribution of residents in the West Kootenay Region is remarkably similar to that of the Tri-County Region. The only significant difference in the age distribution is that in the West Kootenay Region there are 4% more residents aged 65 and over than in the Tri-County Region. Conversely, there are 4% fewer residents aged 14 are under in the West Kootenay Region than in the Tri-County Region. There is no significant difference in the age distribution between these two regions for any of the other age groups.

1.1.1.2 Economic Profile a) Major Industries As shown in Table 2, the most significant industries in the West Kootenay Region are (in order): manufacturing; health & social services; retail trade; recreation, accommodation & food services; construction; educational services; and agriculture & forestry. Together these seven industries make up more than 68% of the region’s labour force.

Table 2 also shows that the West Kootenay Region has almost double the provincial average of its labour force engaged in agriculture & forestry and that the region also has a significantly higher share of its labour force in the manufacturing sector than the provincial average. Conversely, the region is somewhat underrepresented in terms of

Page 1-6 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

the professional & technical services, wholesale trade, and finance, insurance & real estate sectors.

It should be noted that labour force by industry figures are not directly comparable between Washington State and British Columbia since the two regions classified their labour force based on different Industrial Classification Systems. In general, however, it is apparent from Tables 2 and 5 that both the West Kootenay and Tri-County Regions are very dependent on the agriculture & forestry sector and the mining sector (together accounting for about 8% of the labour force in both regions, significantly higher than their respective provincial and state averages). In addition, both regions have high concentrations of workers in the manufacturing sector (about 13%) and in the construction sector (about 7%). Finally, both regions have high concentrations of workers in their tourism and cultural sectors (including accommodation and food services, arts, entertainment and recreation).

Page 1-7 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Table 2: Labour Force By Industry (West Kootenay Region and British Columbia, 2001) (Ranked According to Percentage of Labour Force per Industry in the West Kootenay Region) West Difference Between Industry BC Kootenays West Kootenays & BC 1. Manufacturing 5,805 194,360 +3.8% (13.4%) (9.6%) 2. Health & Social Services 5,010 200,065 +1.7% (11.6%) (9.9%) 3. Retail Trade 4,930 232,960 -0.2% (11.4%) (11.6%) 4. Recreation, Accommodation 4,865 213,285 +0.6% & Food Services (11.2%) (10.6%) 5. Construction 3,395 118,705 +1.9% (7.8%) (5.9%) 6. Educational Services 3,260 139,660 +0.6% (7.5%) (6.9%) 7. Agriculture & Forestry 3,185 78,645 +3.5% (7.4%) (3.9%) 8. Transportation & Utilities 2,135 125,830 -1.3% (4.9%) (6.2%) 9. Public Administration 2,090 112,790 -0.8% (4.8%) (5.6%) 10. Other Services 2,090 98,285 -0.1% (4.8%) (4.9%) 11. Professional & Technical 1,765 138,360 -2.8% Services (4.1%) (6.9%) 12. Finance, Insurance & Real -2.5% 1,565 122,160 Estate (3.6%) (6.1%)

13. Administrative & Support 1,365 80,805 -0.8% Services (3.2%) (4.0%) 14. Wholesale Trade 800 82,465 -2.3% (1.8%) (4.1%) 15. Information & Cultural 735 62,180 -1.4% Industries (1.7%) (3.1%) 16. Mining 325 14,040 +0.1% (0.8%) (0.7%) Source: Adapted from BC Stats, 2001 Census Profile for Regional District of Central Kootenay, Regional District of Kootenay Boundary and British Columbia.

b) Further Information Regarding Major Industries Although the region is largely dependent on the resource sector, there is significant variation within the region in terms of which industries drive the subregional economies. For example, Trail is heavily dependent on the Teck Cominco smelter, Castlegar relies heavily on forest industries and manufacturing in the form of pulp and lumber; and Nelson has a well-diversified economy in which trade and service industries are

Page 1-8 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

important. Because of the diversity within the region, some of the major industries are discussed in further detail below.

Agriculture In the Regional District of Kootenay Boundary, cattle ranching is the main agricultural activity. In this area, the valley bottoms (particularly those along the main east-west highway) support more intensive use, with the largest concentration of crop land in the Grand Forks area. Agricultural production is limited in the Trail/Rossland area because of the topography. In the Regional District of Central Kootenay, Creston is the centre of agricultural activity, with the focus on grain production. In addition, potatoes, field peas and beans, forage seeds, and tame hay are also cultivated on the flats, and the dairy industry is concentrated south of the flats. The Creston area is also home to significant tree fruit production. There is also agricultural activity in pockets near Kaslo, the south end of the Slocan Valley, and the valleys converging on Salmo.

Forestry Forest resources in the West Kootenay Region are primarily contained within the Boundary, Arrow and Kootenay Lake Timber Supply Areas (with Annual Allowable Cuts of 700,000, 550,000, and 683,100 m3 respectively), plus a fraction of the Okanagan Timber Supply Area. Pope & Talbot Ltd. operates the region’s largest lumber mill at Castlegar and also operates lumber mills at Grand Forks and at Midway. There are over a dozen other lumber mills throughout the West Kootenay Region.

The forest industries are important economic sectors in the West Kootenay Region, directly employing over 4,000 people in 2001 (with 69% of these employees in the Regional District of Central Kootenay). Among these 4,000 employees, about 33% were employed in forestry and logging; about 55% were employed in wood products manufacturing; and about 12% were employed in paper manufacturing industries. In recent years, the forest industry has been subject to high levels of unemployment. For example, between January 2000 and May 2001 about 55% of the people employed in logging in the Regional District of Kootenay Boundary had been layed off at some point, compared to just 4% of those employed in manufacturing.

Mining Despite being home to the large smelting facilities at Trail, there are currently no coal mines or coal bed methane exploration in the region, nor are there any metal mines currently in operation. As such, mining activity is generally insignificant outside of Trail, despite the fact that mining played a much more important role in the region in the past. This can be seen in Table 2, which shows that mining is the least important

Page 1-9 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

industrial sector in the West Kootenay Region with only 325 employees in this sector in 2001.

Manufacturing As mentioned above, a strong manufacturing sector is essential to an area’s economy. Table 2 shows that manufacturing is the most important sector in the West Kootenay Region. The manufacturing of forestry products dominates the manufacturing activity in the Regional District of Central Kootenay. The largest manufacturing employer in the Regional District of Central Kootenay 2002 was the Celgar Pulp Mill in Castlegar with between 400-500 employees. The manufacturing sector in the Regional District of Kootenay Boundary is dominated by two large employers (the Atco Lumber Ltd. sawmill in Fruitvale with approximately 500 employees and the Teck Cominco Ltd. smelter in Trail with 1400 employees). The majority of the refinements use forestry and agricultural products while metal refinement also plays an important role in the area. Other manufacturing the region in 2002 included animal foods, bakeries, breweries, clothing, concrete, toys, machinery, machine shops, medical equipment, furniture, and printing.

Tourism Tourism is becoming increasingly important in the West Kootenay Region, particularly in the Nelson-Balfour strip along the west arm of Kootenay Lake and around Christina Lake, which is a popular site for summer homes and camping. According to the British Columbia Regional Index visitors, from Washington State in particular, are attracted to the region for the excellent fishing available in the region, particularly in Kootenay Lake. Recreational opportunities in the region also include skiing at the Whitewater Ski Resort at Nelson and Red Mountain at Rossland. Hunting is also a popular recreational activity in the region. Tourism development has been limited in Castlegar, despite the natural attractions of the area, largely because of the historical absence of good highway access in all but the southern portion of the region. c) Labour Force Canada defines its labour force as consisting of all people aged 15 years and older that are either working or actively seeking work (as opposed to the United States which only includes those aged 16 or over). In 2001, the West Kootenay Region had a total population aged 15 and over of 72,175 and a total labour force of 44,350. Since the definitions of labour force differ between Canada and the United States, it is not possible to directly compare figures for labour force, participation rate, or unemployment rate between the two regions.

Page 1-10 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

d) Income Dependencies In the report British Columbia’s Heartland at the Dawn of the 21st Century – 2001 Economic Dependencies and Impact Ratios for 63 Local Areas, BC Stats and the Ministry of Management Services calculate economic dependencies and impact ratios based on 2001 Census data for 63 Local Areas throughout British Columbia (excluding the Greater Vancouver region). The Local Areas defined in the report often consist of a town and its surrounding “catchment” area. The West Kootenay Region corresponds to the five Local Areas of Castlegar-Arrow Lakes, Nelson, Creston, Grand Forks-Greenwood and Trail- Rossland. Income dependence can be defined as the percentage of total basic income that is derived from an individual sector of the economy. The ten basic employment sectors measured in the study comprise individual sector employment, indirect sector employment and downstream activity.

Table 3 shows that within the Kootenay Region there is a significant variation in the income dependencies of each Local Area. For example, the Grand Forks-Greenwood and Castlegar-Arrow Lakes Local Areas are far more dependent on forestry and associated manufacturing than the other Local Areas in the region; the Trail-Rossland Local Area is significantly more dependent on mining and mineral processing than any other Local Areas in the region; and the Creston Local Area is more dependent on transfer payments than the other local areas. All five Local Areas in the region exhibit similar levels of income dependence on agriculture and food and beverage manufacturing; tourism; construction; and other non-employment income.

Page 1-11 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Table 3: Income Dependencies (West Kootenay Region Local Areas, 2001) (Ranked According to Percentage Income Dependencies per Industry in the Trail-Rossland Local Area) Grand Castlegar- Trail- Industry Forks- Arrow Nelson Creston Rossland Greenwood Lakes 1. Mining & Associated 29% 1% 6% 2% 2% Manufacturing 2. Public Sector 23% 20% 23% 30% 23% 3. Transfer Payments 18% 23% 18% 19% 29% 4. Other Non-Employment 15% 13% 13% 15% 16% Income 5. Forestry & Associated 4% 25% 25% 13% 10% Manufacturing 6. Construction 4% 5% 9% 8% 5% 7. Other Employment 4% 3% 3% 2% 2% Income 8. Tourism 3% 6% 3% 7% 5% 9. Agriculture and Food & 0% 4% 0% 1% 7% Beverage Manufacturing 10. Fishing and Trapping & 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Associated Manufacturing 11. Film Production & Sound 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Recording 12. High Technology 0% 0% 1% 2% 0% Source: BC Stats, British Columbia’s Heartland and the Dawn of the 21st Century: 2001 Economic Dependencies and Impact Ratios for 63 Local Areas.

e) Income In 2000, the average income among those aged 15 and over was CAD$26,842 in the Regional District of Kootenay Boundary and CAD$24,985 in the Regional District of Central Kootenay. These figures are lower than the provincial average income of CAD$29,613.

f) Participation and Unemployment Rates In 2001, the West Kootenay Region had a participation rate of over 61% (lower than the rate of about 65% found throughout British Columbia). Despite the different labour force definitions that are used in the United States and Canada, the participation rates in British Columbia are remarkably similar to participation rates in Washington State as a whole (both have rates of approximately 65%). However, the participation rate is higher in the West Kootenays than it is in the Tri-County Region (nearly 56%). The unemployment rate is close to 11% in the West Kootenay Region, which is significantly

Page 1-12 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

higher than the provincial unemployment rate of 8.5%, but very similar to the unemployment rate in the Tri-County Region of 11.1%.

As was discussed in the previous section, unemployment rates are dynamic figures and can change significantly over relatively short periods of time. Unfortunately, however, Statistics Canada does not provide monthly unemployment and participation rates at the scale of the regional district. As such, the smallest scale of analysis for which monthly unemployment and participation rate data is available is for the larger Kootenay Economic Region which, as defined by Statistics Canada, includes the Central Kootenay, Kootenay Boundary, and East Kootenay Regional Districts. Figure 6: Monthly Unemployment Rate (Canada, British Columbia and Figure 6 provides an overview of Kootenay Economic Region, 2000-2004) the unemployment rate in Canada, 14 British Columbia and the Kootenay 12 10 Economic Region on a monthly 8 basis from 2000-2004. This figure 6 Percent 4 is provided only for illustrative 2 purposes since the Kootenay 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 01 0 -0 -02 l-0 -03 -04 04 Economic Region corresponds to a r- t-00 r- n r-02 u n - Jul-00c an- Jul-01 a J a Jul-03 Jan-0Ap O J Ap Oct J Ap Oct-0J Apr-03 Oct-03Jan Apr different scale of analysis than used Year elsewhere in this paper. This figure Kootenay Economic Region British Columbia shows that the West Kootenay Canada Region exhibits more seasonal Source: Statistics Canada, 2004 Labour force survey estimates (LFS), by economic variation in its unemployment rate region, 3-month moving average, monthly. than the province as a whole or nationwide. Of particular interest is the surge in the unemployment rate in the Kootenay Economic Region in the first half of 2003, a direct result of temporary closures of two large sawmills in the region which employed approximately 500 people. As of June 2004 the unemployment rate in the region dropped significantly to its lowest level since September, 2002, which is a reflection of the improved conditions within the softwood lumber industry.

Similar to the unemployment rate, the participation rate can also exhibit significant variations over relatively short periods of time. As such, Figure 7 outlines the participation rate in Canada, British Columbia and the Kootenay Economic Region on a monthly basis from 2000-2004. This figure is provided only for illustrative purposes since the Kootenay Economic Region corresponds to a different scale of analysis than used elsewhere in this paper. Of particular note is the dramatic decline in the participation rate since May, 2000, a trend which has just recently begun to rebound.

Page 1-13 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

This decline of over 11% in less Figure 7: Monthly Participation Rate than a year was not matched by (Canada, British Columbia and provincial or national trends. Kootenay Economic Region, 2000-2004) 70 68 66 g) Income Source 64 62 Residents of the West Kootenay 60 58 Region receive less of their total Percent 56 personal income from employment 54 52 income than the provincial average. 50 3 0 00 2 02 3 - -0 1 0 l- -0 4 Residents of the Central Kootenay t-00 n ul-01 r- u t-03 n Jul c J J Jul-03c Jan-00Apr-0 O Ja Apr-01 Oct-01Jan-02Ap Oct-02Jan-0Apr-0 O Ja Apr-04 and Kootenay Boundary Regional Year Districts only receive approximately Kootenay Economic Region British Columbia 69% and 70% of their respective Canada incomes from employment Source: Statistics Canada, 2004 Labour force survey estimates (LFS), by economic compared to nearly 76% province- region, 3-month moving average, monthly. wide. In contrast, residents of the Central Kootenay and Kootenay Boundary Regional Districts receive approximately 17% and 16% of their respective incomes from government transfers compared to approximately 12% province-wide. h) Social Safety Net In Canada, data collected by BC Figure 8: Reliance on Social Programs, 2001 Stats indicates that the number of 8 residents in the West Kootenay 7 Region that rely on provincial and 6 5 federal social assistance programs 4 is, in general, slightly higher than 3 Percentage the provincial average. A total of 2 1 5.3% and 6.3% of residents aged 0 BC BC 19-64 years in the Kootenay BC Central Central Central Kootenay Kootenay Kootenay Kootenay Kootenay Kootenay Boundary Boundary Boundary and Central Kootenay Boundary 19-24 25-54 55-64 Regional Districts rely on social Age Group and Area assistance programs compared to BC Basic Benefits EI Benefits 5.1% throughout BC. Figure 8 * Includes those receiving temporary assistance only. Excludes aboriginal people disaggregates the reliance on social living on reserve, seniors/OAS, and children living with a relative. Source: BC Stats, Community Facts for Kootenay Boundary Regional District and programs to different age groups. Central Kootenay Regional District The most substantial difference between the West Kootenay Region and the provincial average is among the 25-54 age group. Among this age group, 6.2% of Kootenay Boundary residents and 7.6% of Central Kootenay residents rely on social programs compared to 5.6% throughout BC. There is little difference between the West Kootenay Region and the provincial average among the 19-24 and the 55-64 age groups. In

Page 1-14 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

general, residents of British Columbia and the West Kootenay Region receive a higher proportion of their social assistance from employment insurance benefits than from BC basic income assistance.

1.1.1.3 Closer Look at Main Industries

A brief description of some of the more Figure 9: significant resource-based companies in the Teck Cominco Smelter in Trail West Kootenay Region is provided below. • Teck Cominco Ltd operates the world-class Trail Operations Metallurgical Facility in the City of Trail. The site employs roughly 1,500 personnel in 19 separate production facilities. Trail Operations’ main products are refined zinc and lead, as well as silver and gold. Sixteen other types of metal and chemical products are also made within the facility. In general, raw materials are shipped by rail via Waneta or trucked from the Pend Oreille Mine in Metaline Falls, WA. Finished products are carried to markets south and west by both truck and rail.

• Pope & Talbot Ltd is a forestry company based in Oregon with operations in Grand Forks, Midway, Castlegar and Nakusp. In particular: − Grand Forks Mill is a large producer of machine stress rated lumber. The mill processes multi-species woods, dominated by Spruce-Pine-Fir, Fir/Larch and Cedar. Located near the Canada–U.S. border, the facility has convenient access to U.S. rail and truck carriers. − Midway Mill is a large producer of machine stress rated lumber. Midway Mill was modernized and expanded in 1990. Located near the Canada-U.S. border, the facility has convenient access to U.S rail and truck carriers. − Boundary Timber, located in Midway, manages the forestry operations on a sustainable yield basis and provides logs to the Company's Midway and Grand Forks Lumber Mills. − Castlegar is Pope & Talbot's largest mill with production of approximately one million board feet per day. Product is heaviest to Spruce-Pine-Fir, supplemented with sizable percentages of Hemlock/Fir, Fir/Larch, and some Idaho White Pine. The mill has direct access to CP rail loadings, along with BN and UP reloads, making it easy to serve most markets across Canada and the United States.

Page 1-15 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

− The Arrow Lakes Timber district is among the best tree-growing areas in the province. The terrain however, requires careful harvesting techniques. Approximately one third of the logging in the Arrow Lakes district is done with cable systems which lessen the need for skid roads. The company’s log transportation system includes a marine division, which employs a small fleet of tugboats that move logs down the Arrow Lakes to the Castlegar sawmill.

• Celgar Pulp Company operates a pulp mill in Figure 10: Castlegar. Celgar is recognized as a producer of Celgar Pulp Mill in Castlegar two grades of quality Northern Bleached Softwood Kraft pulps and produces 1200 tons per day at their mill in Castlegar. Celgar has no forest tenure and depends solely on external sources for its fiber. Two sources of fiber are used to meet Celgar's annual fiber demand. Residual chips are purchased from surrounding sawmills and chipping facilities and round wood pulp logs are purchased from local logging contractors and mills. According to the British Columbia Regional Index, there were between 400-500 employees at Celgar’s Castlegar mill in 2002.

• Atco Lumber Ltd. operates a veneer mill in Fruitvale. The veneer is sold to US markets, and by-products (spindle cords and chips) are sold in Canadian and US markets. Other wood products include Figure 11: lumber and landscape ties. Atco Kalesnikoff Mill in Thrums Lumber Ltd. is a family-owned operation that has grown over the past 40 years to a size that now employs approximately 250 people.

• Kalesnikoff Lumber Company operates a mill in the small community of Thrums (near Castlegar), on a terrace above the Kootenay River. The company specializes in niche markets and produces over 200 different specialty lumber products. It has been a permanent employer in the Castlegar area since 1939 and currently employs approximately 125 people.

Page 1-16 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

• Columbia Brewery operates the Kokanee Brewery in Creston. Kokanee is distributed throughout British Columbia and to Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime provinces. There are approximately 90 employees at the Kokanee Brewery.

• Firebird Technologies Inc. was incorporated in Trail in 1991 to continue the compound semiconductor technology developed at Teck Cominco Electronic Materials. Firebirds’ core competences which are semiconductor and related technologies, high purity metals, and management expertise.

• FortisBC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Fortis Inc., an international electric utility holding company based in Newfoundland & Labrador. FortisBC was created from the acquisition of the Western Canadian operations of Aquila Networks Canada in May 2004. FortisBC is an electric utility company that generates and distributes electricity to homes and businesses in South Central British Columbia. The company employs approximately 400 people throughout British Columbia, of which 140 are located in the West Kootenays. Within the next 18-24 months, FortisBC will create an additional 24-38 new positions in its Trail office, which is the base for the company’s call centre in the province. FortisBC also has offices in the West Kootenay Region in Castlegar and Warfield.

1.1.2 Tri-County Region (Ferry, Stevens & Pend Oreille)

The Tri-County Region consists of Ferry, Stevens and Pend Oreille counties in northeast Washington State, which together form the Tri-County Economic Development District (TEDD) (Figure 12). The three counties came together to form a single economic development district because of their similar geographic and socio-economic characteristics. This region is bordered by British Columbia to the north, the state of Idaho to the east, Okanogan County to the west and Lincoln and Spokane counties to the south.

Page 1-17 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Figure 12: Detailed Map of Tri-County Region

N

Nelson

BRITISH COLUMBIA

Trail

Colville

Ferry Pend County Oreille County Stevens County

Spokane

WASHINGTON STATE

The Tri-County Region has a total land area of 6,068 mi2 (15,716 km2) (approximately 9% of Washington State). In terms of geographic area, the largest county in this region is Stevens County, 2,468 mi2 (6,392 km2), followed by Ferry County, 2,200 mi2 (5,698 km2), and Pend Oreille County, 1,400 mi2 (3,626 km2).

The region has a population of just over 59,000 people. The region is sparsely populated, with a population density of less than 11 people/mi2 (less than 4 people/km2) and only 23% of the area’s population living in incorporated cities. There are 12 incorporated cities in the Tri-County Region, and only 5 of these incorporated cities have populations greater than 500 people (Table 4).

The region is also home to several Native American reservations and, as such, has a significant Native American population. In 2000, Native Americans and Aleutians accounted for over 7% of the region’s population, compared to only 3% throughout Washington State. Within the Tri-County Region, the Native American population varies

Page 1-18 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

significantly, as Ferry County has a Native American population of nearly 21% compared to about 7% in Stevens County and 4% in Pend Oreille County.

Table 4: Incorporated Cities in the Tri-County Region Incorporated Population County Cities (2001) Colville 5,010 Chewelah 2,200 Kettle Falls 1,550 Stevens North Port 312 Springdale 285 Marcus 156 Newport 2,020 Ione 475 Pend Oreille Metaline Falls 225 Cusick 210 Metaline 160 Republic 975 Ferry Curlew 1,165* Source: Washington State Employment Security Department, Ferry, Stevens, Pend Oreille County Profile. *Source: 2000 US Census

The three counties in the region have similar geographic features. The northern half of Ferry and Stevens counties and almost all of Pend Oreille County are dominated by dense, rugged, and mountainous terrain. To the south, the more mountainous terrain gives way to forested foothills, which in turn give way to drier hills and valleys dotted with low-lying vegetation. Lakes and rivers also have a significant influence on the region, with three major rivers (Columbia, Spokane and Pend Oreille) crossing or bordering the region.

The three counties also exhibit similar economic attributes, as all three counties have primarily resource-based economies. The main industries in the region include forestry, agriculture, mining, recreation and tourism.

1.1.2.1 Demographic Profile

According to the 2000 Census, the Tri-County area had a population of 59,058, representing 1% of Washington State’s total population (despite having about 9% of the state’s land mass). Nearly 68% of the region’s population lives in Stevens County (with a population in 2000 of 40,066 people). 11,732 people lived in Pend Oreille County and 7,260 lived in Ferry County in 2000. As mentioned earlier, the region has a population

Page 1-19 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

density of less than 11 people/mi2 (less than 4 people/km2), significantly lower than the statewide population density of over 88 people/mi2 (over 34 people/km2).

Figure 13: Population Change The region’s population grew by (Tri-County Region and Washington State, 1990-2003) nearly 28% (12,900 people) between 6,500,000 65,000

1990 and 2000. This was a faster 6,000,000 60,000 rate of growth than Washington State 5,500,000 55,000 as a whole, which grew by just over 5,000,000 50,000 21% during this period. Population Tri-Counties Population Change Population Washington State growth in the Tri-County area Change Population 4,500,000 45,000 appears to have leveled off 4,000,000 40,000 9 0 1 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 9 0 0 02 03 9 9 9 19 19 1 1 1 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 somewhat compared to Washington Year State since 2000 (Figure 13). Washington Tri-Counties Source: Washington State Workforce Explorer. Population figures from Office of Financial Management and 2000 Census. The Washington State Office of Financial Management has generated population projections for each Figure 14: Population Projections county in Washington State based on (Tri-County Region in High, Intermediate and Low Growth Scenarios, 2004-2018) three different growth scenarios 100,000 (high, intermediate and low growth 90,000 scenarios). As shown in Figure 14, 80,000 70,000

it is projected that between 2004- Population 2018, the Tri-County region will 60,000 50,000 experience significant growth, 4 8 007 011 12 13 16 17 ranging from a 16% growth 200 2005 2006 2 200 2009 2010 2 20 20 2014 2015 20 20 2018 Year projection (or 9,424 people) in the High Intermediate Low low scenario, to 34% growth (or Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management, Official April 1, 2004 Population Estimates and Washington State County Growth Management 20,309 people) in the intermediate Population Projections: 2000-2025. scenario and 61% growth (or 36,661 people) in the high scenario. These growth projections are far more ambitious than the projections for Washington State as a whole over the same time period, which is projected to grow by 7% in the low growth scenario; 19% in the intermediate growth scenario; and 34% in the high growth scenario. Within the Tri-Country Region, the most significant population growth is expected to occur in Stevens County.

The region is home to a very large rural population. In 2001, only 23% of the region’s population lived in its 12 incorporated cities, while the remaining 77% lived in unincorporated rural areas. In addition, between 1990-2001, population growth in unincorporated areas exceeded population growth in incorporated cities almost threefold.

Page 1-20 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

The Tri-County Region has an older population that the statewide Figure 15: Comparison of Age Characteristics (Between Tri-County Region and Washington State, 2000) average, with a higher proportion 35% of residents aged 45 and over than 30% Washington State as a whole 25% (Figure 15). The most significant 20% 15% difference between the age Percentage 10% distribution in the Tri-County 5% 0% Region and Washington State as a 0-14 15-24 25-44 45-64 65+ whole is that the Tri-County Region Age Group has a significantly smaller Tri-Counties Washington State proportion of residents aged 25-44 Source: Tri-County Economic Development District and State of Washington Office of Financial Management, Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics: 2000 for Stevens (approximately 25%) than the County, Ferry County, Pend Oreille County, and Washington State. statewide average (approximately 31%) and has a significantly higher proportion of residents aged 45-64 (approximately 28%) than the statewide average (approximately 23%).

1.1.2.2 Economic Profile a) Major Industries As shown in Table 5, the most significant industries in the Tri-County Region are (in order) educational, health & social services; manufacturing; retail trade; recreation, accommodation & food services; construction; and agriculture, forestry & mining. Together these six industry sectors account for nearly 71% of the region’s labour force.

Table 5 also shows that the Tri-County Region has a significantly larger labour force in the agriculture, forestry & mining sector than throughout Washington State. In contrast, the region has a significantly smaller labour force in the finance, insurance & real estate sector and in the professional & administrative services sector than in Washington State as a whole.

Page 1-21 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Table 5: Labour Force By Industry (Tri-County Region and Washington State, 2000) (Ranked According to Percentage of Labour Force per Industry in the Tri-County Region) Tri- Difference Between Washington Industry County Tri-County Region & State Region Washington State 1. Educational, Health & Social 5,080 541,214 +3.4% Services (22.8%) (19.4%) 2. Manufacturing 2,918 348,646 +0.6% (13.1%) (12.5%) 3. Retail Trade 2,391 338,772 -1.4% (10.7%) (12.1%) 4. Recreation, Accommodation 1,838 221,656 +0.4% & Food Services (8.3%) (7.9%) 5. Construction 1,741 194,871 +0.8% (7.8%) (7.0%) 6. Agriculture, Forestry 1,728 68,976 +5.3% & Mining (7.8%) (2.5%) 7. Public Administration 1,457 140,940 +1.5% (6.5%) (5.0%) 8. Transportation & Utilities 1,340 150,985 +0.6% (6.0%) (5.4%) 9. Other Services 1,247 135,379 +0.8% (5.6%) (4.8%) 10. Professional & 883 272,466 -5.8% Administrative Services (4.0%) (9.8%) 11. Finance, Insurance & Real 819 170,622 -2.4% Estate (3.7%) (6.1%) 12. Wholesale Trade 494 113,526 -1.9% (2.2%) (4.1%) 13. Information 331 95,669 -1.9% (1.5%) (3.4%) Source: Tri-County Economic Development District and State of Washington Office of Financial Management, Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics: 2000 for Stevens County, Ferry County, Pend Oreille County, and Washington State.

b) Further Information Regarding Major Industries Agriculture The bulk of the agricultural employment in the region is in crop production. Within the agricultural sector, there is also some employment in livestock and agricultural services. A small number of people are also employed in forestry (e.g. maintaining timber tracts).

Page 1-22 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Mining Employment in the mining sector declined by 9% from 1995-2000. The mining industry is particularly significant in Ferry County, where mining accounts for the majority of employment (in fact, the agriculture, forestry & mining sector accounts for nearly 13% of Ferry County’s employment compared to nearly 8% throughout the Tri-Counties and 2.5% throughout the state). The mining sector is also significant in Pend Oreille County, due in large part to the Teck Cominco Mine in Metaline Falls. The mining sector is particularly significant in terms of average wages, because the mining sector is the only industry sector in the Tri-County Region with average wages higher than the state average. Stevens County has virtually no mining activity.

Manufacturing Manufacturing is one of the most significant industrial sectors in the Tri-County Region. A strong manufacturing sector is vital to an area’s economy for a number of reasons. Many manufacturing industries have the ability to generate additional jobs in an area, creating a multiplier effect. For example, a manufacturing plant will typically require suppliers, business services, etc. at a higher rate than industries in other sectors. The most significant component of the manufacturing sector in the region is lumber and wood processing. This component, which includes logging, sawmills, planning mills, etc, accounts for over half of the manufacturing sector’s employment in the region. In Stevens County, lumber and wood processing is the largest component of the manufacturing sector, although there is also significant manufacturing employment in primary and fabricated metals as well as industrial machinery. In Pend Oreille County, lumber and wood processing is the second largest manufacturing industry after paper mills. Almost 90% of Ferry County’s manufacturing sector employment comes from lumber and wood processing. Combined, Tri-County employment in lumber and wood processing totals 1,500 workers; primary metals provided the second highest employment followed by Chemicals and Allied Products. According to the Washington State Employment Security Department, manufacturing is expected to decline somewhat through 2008 (a 2.6% decrease in sector employment was projected between 2000 and 2008). c) Labour Force In the United States, labour force is defined as consisting of all people aged 16 years and older that are either working or actively seeking work. Labour force information is often further disaggregated into the armed forces and the civilian labour force. For the purposes of this report, only the civilian labour force has been included in the analysis. In 2000, the Tri-County Region had a total population aged 16 and over of 44,882 and a total civilian labour force of 25,054. Nearly 69% of the regional labour force is located

Page 1-23 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

in Stevens County. Stevens County has also experienced the fastest growth in its labour force among the three counties in recent years, having grown by 182% since 1970.

d) Income In 2000, the average annual wage in the Tri-County Region was USD$24,915, far less than the statewide average of USD$37,063.1 The Washington State Employment Security Department cautions the use of this statewide average, however, because this average is strongly influenced by the relatively high wages found in the high-tech and aerospace industries in the Puget Sound region. Within the Tri-County Region, the highest average annual wage is found in Pend Oreille County, likely due to its concentration of workers in the relatively high paying manufacturing and government sectors.

e) Participation and Unemployment Rates This Tri-County Region has a participation rate of nearly 56%, which is significantly lower than the Washington State average of approximately 65%.

In 2000, the unemployment rate in the Tri County Region was 11.1% compared to 6.2% in Washington State. The unemployment rate has historically been higher in the Tri- County Region than Washington State as a whole. It should be noted, however, that there is significant internal variation in this regional unemployment rate, as Ferry County had an unemployment rate of 18.8% in 2000.

Although the unemployment Figure 16: Monthly Unemployment Rate rate in the Tri-County Region (Tri-County Region and Washington State, 2000-2004) was found to be 11.1% in 16 2000, the unemployment rate 14 12 is a dynamic figure that can 10 8 be subject to significant 6 4 fluctuations over relatively 2

Unemployment Rate 0 short periods of time (e.g. on 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 00 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 02 0 0 0 03 0 0 0 04 0 - - l- t- - - l- t- - - l- t- - - l- t- - - n r u c n r u c n r u c n r u c n r a J a J a J a J a a monthly or seasonal basis). J Ap O J Ap O J Ap O J Ap O J Ap In order to account for these Date variations, Figure 16 shows Washington State Tri-Counties

the monthly average Source: Washington State Workforce Explorer Labour Force Statistics unemployment rate in the Tri- County Region and in Washington State between 2000 and 2004. This figure shows

1 Average annual wages are ‘covered’, meaning they are based on the total of wages and salaries paid to employees covered by the unemployment insurance program, divided by the annual average number of employees. Covered employment and wage figures account for over 85% of the state’s workers.

Page 1-24 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

that the Tri-County Region is more susceptible to seasonal variations in the unemployment rate than Washington State as a whole. This seasonal variation is likely a result of the dominance of the agricultural sector throughout the Tri-County Region. f) Income Source Personal income encompasses several types of income. All the various types of income, however, can be subsumed under the three broad categories of earnings, transfer payments, and investment income. Earnings include wages and salaries, proprietor’s income, and “other” labour force income; Transfer Payments include income maintenance, unemployment insurance, and retirement payments; Investment Income consists of interest, dividends, and rent. Generally, the most significant component of personal income is earned income, although the importance of earned income is declining relative to transfer payments and investment income in the Tri-Counties.

In 1999, earnings in the Tri-County Region accounted for 64% of personal income (compared to 78% in 1970), while transfer payments accounted for 19% (compared to 11% in 1970) and investment income represented 17% of personal income in 1999 (compared to 12% in 1970). g) Social Safety Net In the United States, the Federal-State unemployment insurance program provides temporary financial assistance to eligible workers who become unemployed through no fault of their own (as determined under state law), and meet certain other eligibility requirements of state law. Each state administers a separate unemployment insurance program within federal guidelines established by the United States Department of Labor. Unemployment benefits include regular Unemployment Insurance, Temporary Emergency Unemployment Compensation (TEUC), Additional Temporary Emergency Unemployment Compensation (TEUC-A), Training Benefits and Extended Benefits.

Statistics regarding the proportion of the population claiming such unemployment benefits are indicators of the overall economic vitality of a region. As shown in Figure 17, in 2003 the Tri-County Region had a higher percentage of the population claiming these unemployment benefits (over 7%) than Washington State as a whole (over 6%). Within the Tri-County Region, however, Ferry County was significantly higher than the Washington State average with more than 8% of its population claiming these unemployment benefits in 2003.

Page 1-25 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Another indicator of the economic Figure 17: UI Benefits and TANF/SFA Grants health of a region is the proportion (Tri-County Region and Washington State, 2001 and 2003 of the population that accesses 8% welfare or social assistance 7% programs. In 1996, the United 6%

States Government created the 5% federal Temporary Assistance for 4%

Needy Families (TANF) program. 3% Percentage The TANF program was created to 2% emphasize work and responsibility 1% over dependence on government 0% Unemployment Benefits (2003) TANF/SFA Grant s (2001) benefits and, as such, was Social Assistance Programs designed to move families on Tri-Counties Washington State welfare into employment as quickly Source: Access Washington, Unemployment Benefit Payments by County 2003; as possible. As shown in Figure Washington State Office of Financial Management, Historical/Current Data Set: Total Resident Population by Year by County, Washington, 1960 to 2003; and Washington 17, the Tri-County Region had a State Department of Social and Health Services, Residents Receiving DSHS Services and DSHS Service Expenditures, SFY 2001 significantly higher proportion of its population claiming TANF grants or State Family Assistance (SFA) grants than the Washington State average. In particular, Ferry and Pend Oreille counties had approximately double the statewide average of its population claiming TANF/SFA grants that the Washington State average. It should be noted, however, that this is not a comprehensive list of social assistance programs but is provided simply to provide an overview of the region’s dependency on social assistance programs compared to the Washington state average.

1.1.2.3 Closer Look at Main Industries

Table 6 provides an overview of the major employers in the Tri-County Region. A brief description of some of the more significant resource-based companies in the Tri-County region is also provided below.

• Boise Cascade Corporation operates a manufacturing plant for lumber/plywood/veneer in Kettle Falls and employs over 370 people.

• Vaagen Bros. Lumber is a forestry company with about 200 employees at its head office and mill in Colville. The company specializes in small logs and dimension lumber, produces wood byproducts, and buys slogs and timberland.

Page 1-26 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

• Stimson Lumber, which has its headquarters in Oregon, operates a mill in Colville as part of its inland operations. This mill has about 200 employees.

• Colmac Industries is one of the world's Figure 18: leading manufacturers of commercial and Colmac Coil Operations in Colville industrial plate fin heating & cooling coils, fluid coolers, refrigeration air coolers and condensers, heat pipe coils, and air source heat pump water heaters. Colmac has a 200,000 sq. ft. manufacturing campus, corporate offices, and testing facilities in Colville along with about 150 employees (Figure 18).

• Teck Cominco employs about 55 workers at its new mine in Pend Oreille County. Production at the mine began in early 2004 and the mine is expected to attain an annual production rate of 83,000 tonnes of zinc concentrate and 15,000 tonnes of lead concentrate. This underground room and pillar operation is expected to produce concentrates to feed the Trail smelter for a period of eight years.

• Kinross Mines is a major employer in Ferry County and operates a mine of 3,075 ha in Kettle River. Since 1989, production from open pit and underground mines has exceeded 1.37 million ounces of gold.

Page 1-27 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Table 6: Major Employers in the Tri-County Region County Employer # of Employees Colville National Forest Summer 470; Winter 350 Boise Cascade Corp. 372 Colville School District 325 Stevens County 325 Aladdin Hearth Products 245 Stevens Vaagen Bros. Lumber 200 Stimson Lumber 200 Walmart 200 N.E. WA Rural Resources 200 Colmac Industries 150 Hewescraft Marine 114 Ponderay Newsprint Co. 207 Selkirk School District 75 Ponderay Valley Fibre 72 Seattle City Light 64 Pend Teck Cominco 55 Oreille Cusick School District 50 Public Utilitiy District 23 Northwest Steel Fabrication 21 Pend Oreille Valley Railroad 18 Kinross Mines N/A Ferry Ferry County 101 County Republic School District N/A Source: Stevens County Website and Pend Oreille County Website and personal communication with Ferry County Treasurer Note: this is not a comprehensive list of major employers in the region.

1.1.3 Freight & Traffic Movement Patterns

As the West Kootenay Region and Tri-County Region are resource based economies, it is not surprising that the dominant industries also make up the majority of industrial traffic demands. In particular the forest and mining/smelting industries are required to ship raw materials into the region for processing and ship processed or finished products out to market. While much of this is done using existing rail lines, a significant proportion of these freight movements must be trucked either to their final destination or to a truck/rail reload center.

In the case of mining/smelting activities, raw materials such as metal ore and concentrates, must be carried in from as near as Northport and Metaline Falls or from

Page 1-28 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

locations as distant as Alaska. In addition, other materials such as industrial chemicals used in the processing of metals are brought in by both truck and rail. Finally, finished products are carried out of the region to markets in both North America and around the world. Freight distribution data provided by Teck Cominco Ltd indicates that of all raw materials or products shipped in 2004 (% of total metric tonnes):

by Canadian Pacific (CP) / Kootenay Valley Railway (KVR) by Burlington Northern – Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) by Truck

25% 31%

44%

It should be noted that all freight using the BNSF line must be trucked to/from the reload centre in Waneta, BC to the Teck Cominco facility in Trail, BC approximately 16 km (10 Mi) away. Figure 19 illustrates the movement of industrial truck traffic with respect to the mining / smelting industries.

Figure 19: Mining / Smelting Freight Movement

Teck Cominco (Smelter)

Waneta Reload Centre

Limestone

Pend Oreille Mine (Ore)

Ore Metals Limestone Fertilizer

Page 1-29 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Similarly, the forest industry moves a variety of raw materials, wood products, and industrial chemicals throughout the region. While both truck and rail modes are utilized, the forest industry is much more truck dependant. According to data compiled in the Kootenay Boundary Transportation Systems Strategy Report (1996) the following mode distribution (by % of total truckloads or equivalent truckloads) can be assumed for the movement of forest products:

Truck Direct Truck/Rail Reload Rail Direct

18% 1%

81%

As with the Mining/Smelting industries there is significant movement of both raw materials and finished products throughout the region, across the border, and to markets across North America and around the world. Figure 20 illustrates the movement of forest industry related truck traffic.

Figure 20: Forest Industry Freight Movement

Logs Wood Chips Lumber Sawdust Particle Board Hog Fuel Power Plant Sawmill Pulp Mill Particle Board Factory

Page 1-30 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

1.2 Highway Performance Profile

Basic performance parameters for the principal existing highway corridor routes within the study area are captured for consideration within this section. These routes are illustrated in Figure 21.

Figure 21: Existing North-South Corridors

N

Page 1-31 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

1.2.1 US 395, SR 25, Hwy 22 & 3B – via Patterson/Frontier

This is the primary existing corridor between the Trail, BC region and the US 395 corridor (Colville, WA). Since the Patterson/Frontier border crossing is the only 24 hour crossing in the area, this corridor serves as the primary commercial corridor.

US 395 connects Colville to Kettle Falls and from Colville eventually reaches Spokane, WA and the I-90 corridor. From Kettle Falls to Northport SR 25 is a two lane all-weather rural highway over rolling terrain. The highway then begins to climb as it crosses the border turning into Hwy 22 eventually reaching a highpoint of 1070m (3510 ft) in Rossland, BC. Highway 22 is also a two lane rural highway dominated by the long climb from the border to downtown Rossland where grades frequently exceed 5%. Hwy 22 meets Hwy 3B in Rossland where it descends into downtown Trail. This 10 km section of Hwy 22/3B is also known as the Warfield Hill and has consistent grades between 8- 10%. Hwy 22/3B makes use of several climbing/crawling lanes, truck runaway lanes and a truck arrestor bed. In addition, a truck chain-up area is located at the base of the hill for use in adverse weather conditions.

Average Daily Traffic volumes for this corridor are illustrated below in Figure 22. Data was complied from traffic counts available from Washington State Department of Transportation’s Annual Traffic Reports and from the British Columbia Ministry of

Figure 22: Average Daily Traffic – Patterson/Frontier Corridor

20000

18000

16000

14000 Colville 1995 12000 1996 1997 Trail 10000 1998 ADT 1999 395/SR 25 8000 2000 2001 6000

4000 Northport

2000 US/CAN

0 0 102030405060708090100110 Location from Colville to Trail (km)

Transportation Traffic Count Program. As expected traffic volumes at either end of the route (near downtown Colville and downtown Trail) are relatively high. A significant

Page 1-32 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

drop in daily traffic volume can be seen where SR 25 begins and across the US – Canada boundary indicating the relative remoteness of the route. A peak in traffic can be seen in the Northport region, and the variation between years can be attributed to the fact that data was not available at this location from 1999 to 2001.

1.2.1.1 Patterson/Frontier Border Crossing

As the only 24 hour crossing in the area, the Patterson/Frontier border crossing sees a significant amount of commercial truck traffic. Freight passing through this crossing consists primarily of northbound wood chips destined for the Celgar Pulp Mill in Castlegar, hog fuel headed southbound for the Kettle Falls Co-Generation Plant, and Limestone/Silica headed northbound from Northport to Teck Cominco in Trail.

Figures 23 and 24 show the number of northbound and southbound border crossings between 1998 and 2001 compiled from data provided by both US and Canadian Customs Agencies. As expected, while overall crossings are low in both directions, the percentage of commercial vehicles and trucks is quite high. Northbound commercial vehicles account for up to 50% of total traffic at the Patterson border facility. In the southbound direction trucks account for nearly 40% of all traffic at the Frontier border facility.

Figure 23: Annual Northbound Figure 24: Annual Southbound Crossings at Patterson, BC Crossings at Frontier, WA

Northbound - To Canada Southbound - To USA

40,000 50,000 35,000 30,000 40,000 s s 25,000 Pass Veh 30,000 Pass Veh 20,000 Comm Veh Trucks 15,000 20,000 Crossing 10,000 Crossing 10,000 5,000 0 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year Year

Northbound border crossings are summarized by month in Figure 25 for the Patterson, BC border facility between 1998 and 2003. Figure 26 illustrates monthly southbound border crossings at the Frontier, WA facility for the same years. As would be expected for a heavily commercial route, border crossing activity remains relatively flat throughout the year.

Page 1-33 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Figure 25: Monthly Northbound Figure 26: Monthly Southbound Crossings at Patterson, BC Crossings at Frontier, WA

Northbound Crossings Southbound Crossings

7000 7000 6000 1998 6000 1998 s 5000 1999 s 5000 1999 4000 2000 4000 2000 3000 2001 3000 2001 Crossing 2000 2002 Crossing 2000 2002 1000 2003 1000 2003 0 0

b r r g p t r l p a p Jul u e ec an p un Ju ct Jan Fe M A May Jun A S Oc Nov D J Feb Mar A May J Aug Se O Nov Dec Month Month

1.2.2 US 395, SR 25, Boundary Rd, Hwy 22A & 3B – Via Waneta/Boundary

From Colville this route follows US 395 to Kettle Falls then SR 25 until Northport. At this point the route follows the Columbia River valley toward the Waneta / Frontier border crossing on the Northport-Boundary Road (Old State Road 251). This is a county road with substandard geometry and is subject to seasonal closures. Due to the frequent sharp curves and a narrow cross-section, trucks over 40 feet (12 meters) are prohibited from using this route. This restriction, in addition to an 8 hour customs operation (9am- 5pm Daily) effectively close this route to commercial truck traffic. On the Canadian side, Hwy 22A connects the border with Hwy 3B just east of Trail. Hwy 22A is two lane rural highway with reasonably good geometry, however there is currently a one lane bridge over the Pend Oreille River. From 22A this route continues into downtown Trail from the east along Hwy 3B. Overall this corridor has relatively low grades over level- rolling terrain as it follows the Columbia River Valley from Kettle Falls right into Trail. In addition, this route is currently the most direct route between Colville and Trail.

Figure 27 below summarizes the Average Daily Traffic volumes along this route based on data that was complied from Washington State Department of Transportation’s Annual Traffic Reports and from the British Columbia Ministry of Transportation Traffic Count Program. As with the Patterson/Frontier route traffic volumes near downtown Colville and downtown Trail are relatively high while a significant drop in daily traffic volume can be seen where SR 25 begins and across the US – Canada boundary. The variation between years in the Northport area can be attributed to the fact that data was not available at this location from 1999 to 2000.

Page 1-34 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Figure 27: Average Daily Traffic – Waneta/Boundary Corridor

20000 Trail

18000

16000 Colville 14000 1995 1996 12000 1997 10000 1998

ADT 1999 8000 395/SR 25 2000 6000 2001

4000 Northport US/CAN 2000

0 0 102030405060708090100 Location from Colville to Trail (km)

1.2.2.1 Waneta/Boundary Border Crossing

Due to the prohibition of trucks over 40 ft (12 m) on the Northport-Boundary Road and the limited hours of operation at both US and Canadian Customs facilities (9am-5pm Daily) it is not surprising that commercial truck traffic is virtually non-existent in both northbound and southbound directions, see Figures 28 & 29. On the other hand, passenger vehicle traffic is in fact higher than at the Patterson/Frontier crossing despite the limited hours of operation. This is likely due to the reduced elevation of the route and the limited truck traffic though the Waneta/Boundary crossing.

Figure 28: Annual Northbound Figure 29: Annual Southbound Crossings at Waneta, BC Crossings at Boundary, WA

Northbound - To Canada Southbound - To USA

60,000 70,000 50,000 60,000 s 40,000 s 50,000 Pass Veh 40,000 Pass Veh 30,000 Comm Veh 30,000 Trucks Crossing

20,000 Crossing 20,000 10,000 10,000 0 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year Year

Page 1-35 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Figures 30 & 31 summarize the monthly northbound and southbound border crossings at the Waneta, BC and Boundary, WA border facilities.

Figure 30: Monthly Northbound Figure 31: Monthly Southbound Crossings at Waneta, BC Crossings at Boundary, WA

Northbound Crossings Southbound Crossings

7000 8000 6000 1998 7000 1998 6000 s 5000 1999 s 1999 5000 4000 2000 2000 4000 3000 2001 3000 2001 Crossing 2000 2002 Crossing 2000 2002 1000 2003 1000 2003 0 0

r l v v g b y n ct Jan Ap Jun Ju u Jul Feb Mar May Au Sep Oct No Dec Jan Fe Mar Apr Ma J Aug Sep O No Dec Month Month

1.2.3 SR 20, 31, Hwy 6, 3, 3B – via Nelway/Metaline Falls

This route follows SR 20 east of Colville to SR 31 at Tiger. SR 20 is a two lane all- weather rural highway over rolling terrain, with the exception of an approximately 4km section of steep 6-7% grades just west of the SR 31 junction. From Tiger SR 31 proceeds north to the Nelway/Metaline Falls border crossing. From the border this route follows Hwy 3 and 3B through Salmo into downtown Trail.

Figure 32 below summarizes the Average Daily Traffic volumes along this route based on data that was complied from Washington State Department of Transportation’s Annual Traffic Reports and from the British Columbia Ministry of Transportation Traffic Count Program. As with SR 25, this route experiences comparatively low volumes to the US/Canada boundary. Volumes are shown to increase as the route passes through Salmo and into downtown Trail via Highway 3 and 3B.

Page 1-36 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Figure 32: Average Daily Traffic – Nelway/Metaline Falls Corridor

20000 Trail

18000

16000

14000 1995 1996 12000 1997 10000 1998

ADT 1999 8000 2000 6000 2001

4000 Colville US/CAN

2000

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 Location from Colville to Trail (km)

1.2.3.1 Nelway/Metaline Falls Border Crossing

This crossing operates between 8am – midnight daily and currently processes commercial traffic from the Teck Cominco mine in Metaline Falls in particular. Figures 33 & 34 summarize the annual northbound and southbound crossings at Nelway, BC and Metaline Falls, WA. Truck percentages are found to be approximately 17% southbound and approximately 30% northbound. In addition, total traffic is somewhat less than both the Patterson/Frontier and the Waneta/Boundary crossings.

Figure 33: Annual Northbound Figure 34: Annual Southbound Crossings at Nelway, BC Crossings at Metaline Falls, WA

Northbound - To Canada Southbound - To USA

25,000 35,000 30,000 20,000 s s 25,000 15,000 Pass Veh 20,000 Pass Veh 10,000 Comm Veh 15,000 Trucks Crossing Crossing 10,000 5,000 5,000 0 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year Year

Page 1-37 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Figures 35 & 36 summarize the monthly northbound and southbound border crossings at the Nelway, BC and Metaline Falls, WA border facilities.

Figure 35: Monthly Northbound Figure 36: Monthly Southbound Crossings at Nelway, BC Crossings at Metaline Falls, WA

Northbound Crossings Southbound Crossings

5000 6000 1998 1998 4000 5000 s 1999 s 1999 4000 3000 2000 2000 3000 2000 2001 2001

Crossing 2000 2002 Crossing 1000 2002 1000 2003 2003 0 0

b t r e c n ct Jan Apr Jun Jul O Nov Jul F Mar May Aug Sep Dec Jan Feb Mar Ap May Ju Aug Sep O Nov Dec Month Month

1.2.4 US 395, Hwy 3, 22 – Colville to Trail (via Castlegar)

Using the US 395 corridor from Colville to the US/Canadian border, this route is part of the US National Highway System. As such, US 395 is designated as important to interregional travel and commerce and will be the focus of potential improvements. Between Kettle Falls and the international border US 395 is a two lane rural highway over rolling terrain. This section has occasional narrow sections and some reduced speed curves. At the border at Cascade, BC and Laurier, WA this route follows Highway 395 to Highway 3. Highway 3 is a principal east-west connection in the region and this route climbs significantly from this point on. The route climbs over the Rossland Range through Paulson Pass and 1570 m (5151 ft) with grades consistently at 6%. In order to avoid further high elevations and the Warfield Hill this variation of the route proceeds past the Highway 3B turn-off to Castlegar. At this point the route follows Highway 22 south from Castlegar into Trail. Both Highway 3 and 22 are two lane rural arterials which provide climbing lanes on significant grades and frequent passing opportunities.

Figure 37 illustrates average daily traffic volumes along this route. As with previously described routes, the highest daily volumes can be found nearest to downtown Colville gradually reducing towards the international boundary.

Page 1-38 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Figure 37: Average Daily Traffic – Cascade/Laurier Corridor

20000 18000 16000

Colville 14000 1995 1996 12000 1997 10000 1998 ADT 1999 8000 Trail 2000 6000 2001

4000

2000 US/CAN 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 Location from Colville to Trail (km)

A second variation of this route is to take Highway 3B at Nancy Green Lake (from Highway 3) and proceed through Rossland and down the Warfield Hill into Trail. While this route is shorter that going through Castlegar, there is significant elevation and grades along Highway 3B and this route still makes use of the Warfield Hill. Figure 38 illustrates average daily traffic volumes along this route. Along Highway 3 (at approximately 100-110 km form Colville), a variation in traffic volumes can be seen between various years. This variation is explained by the fact that traffic data was not available in this location for all years cited, therefore occasional data points do not exist in all years.

Figure 38: Average Daily Traffic – Cascade/Laurier Corridor

14000 Colville

12000

10000 Trail 1995 1996 8000 1997 1998

ADT 6000 1999 2000 2001 4000

2000 US/CAN

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 Location from Colville to Trail (km)

Page 1-39 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

1.2.4.1 Cascade/Laurier Border Crossing

The Cascade / Laurier border is a popular crossing for both passenger and commercial traffic. This crossing sees a significant amount of summer tourist traffic destined northbound for Christina Lake and the Okanagan Region (via Highway 33) and southbound for the Spokane, WA Region. In addition, significant commercial truck traffic uses this route, primarily to/from the Canpar and Pope & Talbot facilities in Grand Forks, BC. Truck percentages were found to be approximately 20% in both directions at this crossing. Figures 39 & 40 summarize the annual crossings in both northbound and southbound directions between 1998 and 2003.

Figure 39: Annual Northbound Figure 40: Annual Southbound Crossings at Cascade, BC Crossings at Laurier, WA

Northbound - To Canada Southbound - To USA

80,000 60,000 70,000 50,000 60,000 s s 50,000 40,000 Pass Veh Pass Veh 40,000 30,000 Comm Veh Trucks 30,000 Crossing

Crossing 20,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 0 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year Year

Figure 41 summarizes the monthly southbound border crossings at the Laurier, WA border facility; monthly data was not available for the Canadian facility at Cascade, BC.

Figure 41: Monthly Southbound

Crossings at Laurier, WA

Southbound Crossings 10000 1998 8000 s 1999 6000 2000 4000 2001

Crossing 2002 2000 2003 0 b r an e ar p un Jul ec J F M A May J Aug Sep Oct Nov D Month

Page 1-40 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

1.3 Issues Summary

Based on a review of previous documents and studies, in addition to consultation with the project’s stakeholders a list of major highway transportation considerations was identified. These include:

• Conflicting Highway Uses - Adverse community impacts from trucks such as: noise, air quality, slow moving trucks in downtown areas (Rossland, Warfield, Trail, Northport) - Safety concerns due to vehicle speeds, steep grades and the potential for trucks to lose control through residential/downtown areas

• Restricted Economic Growth - High vehicle operation and travel time costs on existing routes between the West Kootenay Region and the Tri-County Region negatively impact the flow of cross-border trade. · Cost of increased travel time · Cost of increased fuel usage · Cost of increased “wear and tear” due to mountainous terrain (brakes, tires, transmissions) · Lost time due to adverse weather conditions (road closures, “chain- up” requirements) · Reduced efficiency of freight transportation due to weight or vehicle size restrictions

• Cross-Border Tourism / Recreation Opportunities - Limited access between Northeast Washington and the West Kootenays restricts the potential of the tourism / recreation industries, such as: · Access to Red Mountain Ski Resort (Rossland, BC) for US residents · Access to Spokane Region (Spokane International Airport) for West Kootenay residents

Page 1-41 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

2.0 HIGHWAY CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS

A review of previous documentation was undertaken to determine the availability of existing engineering conclusions, including the US 395 Corridor Study (1995), the Kootenay Boundary Systems Strategy (1997), and the US/Canadian Border Crossing Study (1999). Each of these documents investigated similar issues (to varying degrees of detail) which are considered in this report. Potential options identified in the above documents were revisited and evaluated based on the objectives of this study.

Previously considered options are summarized as follows:

• Improve Highway 22/3B (Warfield Hill) a. Truck Arrestor Bed / Runaway Lane in advance of Tennyson Ave b. WIM device and VMS signage c. Improve Waterhole Corner to reduce loss of uphill traction d. Add chain-up area at base of hill e. Improve Waterhole Corner runaway lane These proposed improvements were detailed in the Kootenay Boundary Systems Strategy (1997) report as short-term measures to mitigate safety concerns. At this time, the majority of these improvements have been either investigated or implemented.

• Warfield By-Pass a. A by-pass from the Teck Cominco entrance on Hwy 22 to the Waterhole Corner would be built to reduce the safety concerns through Warfield. This option was not recommended in the Kootenay Boundary Systems Strategy (1997) report since it would not significantly reduce operating costs and would not remove trucks from downtown Rossland. In addition, costs related to environmental mitigation were expected to be relatively high.

• Improve Existing Trail – Waneta Corridor (Hwy 3B & 22A) a. Replace Waneta Bridge b. Upgrade Waneta / Boundary Customs Facilities c. Increase Capacity on Hwy 3B through Trail (left turn lanes, signal optimization, etc…) This option was recommended in the Kootenay Boundary Systems Strategy (1997) report subject to the cooperation of the WSDOT in the improvement/upgrading of the Northport-Boundary Road (old SR 251). Any highway improvement to 22A would require the replacement of the Waneta Bridge over the Pend Oreille River. This bridge is currently the oldest bridge in British Columbia and is near the end of its serviceable life.

Page 2-1 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

In addition, its current configuration allows only one lane of traffic and is therefore not suitable for supporting increased volumes of commercial traffic.

• Improve Waneta – Northport Corridor (Northport-Boundary Road) a. Upgrade county road to accommodate commercial truck traffic (Principal Arterial Design Standards) b. Replace/Realign existing bridge over Deep Creek These improvements were recommended in conjunction with the Hwy 3B & 22A improvements described in the Kootenay Boundary Systems Strategy (1997) report. Additionally, both the US 395 Corridor Study (1995) and the US/Canadian Border Crossing Study (1999) recommended that an improved Northport-Waneta corridor be further studied. The existing cross section along the Northport-Boundary Road is quite narrow and contains several sub-standard curves. At this time vehicles over 40 ft (12 m) are prohibited from this route, for this reason any proposed use of this corridor would require the upgrading of the road to State standards.

• SR 25 Improvements a. Improve Existing SR 25 (improve geometry, alignment, widen shoulders etc…) b. Possibly including a Kettle Falls By-Pass While the US 395 Corridor Study (1995) recommended that the current 395 designation remain as it is, it recognized that significant truck traffic uses SR 25. It recommended that further study be conducted into the viability of upgrading SR 25 to Principal Arterial Design Standards along with the Northport-Boundary Road.

• Williams Lake Road a. Upgrade to State Principal Arterial Standard b. Some improvements may be required c. Significant local resident opposition It was noted in the US 395 Corridor Study (1995) that this route is already used by both passenger car and truck traffic due to its travel time and fuel savings as compared to using SR 25 through Kettle Falls.

• Aladdin & Deep Lake – Boundary Road a. Upgrade to State Principal Arterial Standard This option was found to be the least desirable of any potential north-south routes studied in the US 395 Corridor Study (1995). Due to the length of the route (~ 68km) and the presence of significant wetlands along the corridor, costs were expected to make any improvements prohibitive.

Page 2-2 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

2.1 Preliminary Options

A number of preliminary highway corridor options are identified in Figure 42 and described in the ensuing sections, which, if improved, could form the basis for a corridor improvement scenario to address the issues identified in Section 1.3.

Figure 42: Existing North-South Corridors

Cascade / Laurier Route Nelway / Metaline Route

Waneta / Boundary Route

Patterson / Frontier Route

2.1.1 Patterson / Frontier Route

US 395 and SR 25 in Washington State and Highways 22 and 3B in British Columbia, comprise the primary existing corridor between the Trail, BC and the Colville, WA regions. This corridor will be considered as the “base case” to which all other improvement options will be compared. Using methods described in the Highway Capacity Manual

Page 2-3 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

(HCM 2000 – Chapter 20, Two-Lane Rural Highways) an estimated average travel speed and time was calculated for this corridor. Taking into account such factors as terrain, percentage of trucks, passing opportunities, and traffic volume the average travel time for all vehicle types was estimated to be 1 hour and 33 minutes. This route includes the Warfield Hill (approximately 10 km between Trail and Rossland), which contains consistent grades between 8-10%.The route climbs to a maximum elevation of 1,070 m (or 3,510 ft) above Trail, BC, as identified in Figure 43.

2.1.2 Cascade / Laurier Route

As an alternative to the Patterson/Frontier route this route passes to the west across to the Cascade / Laurier border crossing. This route makes use of the existing US 395 corridor between Colville and the international border. From here Highway 3 is used until passing either through Castlegar and Highway 22 or Rossland along Highway 3B. In comparison to the base case (via Patterson/Frontier) this route has significantly increased travel time and elevation. Using the same HCM 2000 method described above the average travel time for all vehicles was estimated to be 2 hours 54 minutes via Rossland or 3 hours and 15 minutes via Castlegar. The route climbs to a maximum elevation of 1,570 m (or 5,151 ft), as identified in Figure 43.

2.1.3 Nelway / Metaline Falls Route

Another alternative route was considered to the east using SR 20 and SR 31 from Colville to the international border at Nelway, BC and Metaline Falls, WA. From the border Hwy 6, Hwy 3, and Hwy 3B is used through Salmo and into Trail. While this route does not have the high elevations of the previous option, there are sections of significant grades in particular along SR 20 near SR 31. Using the HCM 2000 method described above the average travel time for all vehicles was estimated to be 2 hours and 44 minutes.

Page 2-4 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Figure 43: Preliminary Options – Vertical Profiles

Trail to Colville

Cascade/Laurier Route (via Rossland) 1600 Cascade/Laurier Route (via Castlegar)

1400

1200 Nelway/Metaline Falls Route Patterson/Frontier Route 1000

Waneta/Boundary Route 800

600

Elevation (metres) (metres) Elevation Elevation 400 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170

Distance (kilometres)

Page 2-5 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

2.1.4 Waneta / Boundary Route

An alternate route following the Columbia River to the East of Trail, BC was considered. From Trail this route uses Hwy 3B and Hwy 22A to the international border at Waneta, BC and Boundary, WA. From the border the Northport-Boundary Road leads to Northport, WA where the route continues onto SR 25. For the purposes of this preliminary screening this route also considered the use of Williams Lake Road as an alternative to continuing down SR 25 via Kettle Falls. In this case, the average travel time for all vehicles was estimated to be 1 hour and 21 minutes using the HCM 2000 methods. There are factors limiting this routes potential use by truck traffic such as the Waneta Bridge and truck restrictions on the Northport-Boundary Road. Several refined improvement options were considered for this corridor and are summarized in the following chapter.

2.2 Preliminary Candidate Screening

The stated goal of this exercise is to broadly investigate opportunities to enhance highway corridor performance between the West Kootenay Region and Northeast Washington in support of increased cross-border trade and tourism, improved Regional industrial productivity and competitiveness and improved safety. In these terms, any improvement to any of the highway corridors noted will meet these goals.

More specific and relevant to the evaluation of options and the decision making process, the objectives of this exercise are stated as:

• Enhanced travel time between the Trail/Castlegar Economic Development Region and the Colville/US 395 area • Reduced vehicle operating costs between the Trail/Castlegar Economic Development Region and the Colville/US 395 area

Improvement options that do not work towards satisfying these three basic criteria will not meet the objectives of this exercise. In this regard, a preliminary screening exercise has been undertaken on the broad corridor level options and the results are presented in Table 7.

Page 2-6 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Table 7: Preliminary Screening Results Corridor Option Travel Time Vehicle Operating Status of Objective Objective Option Patterson/Frontier Route 1.5 Hours + 650 m BASE CASE Hwy22,Hwy3B,SR25,US395 + 2100 ft BASE CASE Elevation Gain Cascade/Laurier Route 2.5 Hours + 1200 m Eliminated Hwy3,Hwy3B,US395 +67% + 3940 ft Elevation Gain +85% Nelway/Metaline Route 3.0 Hours + 575 m Eliminated Hwy3B,Hwy3,Hwy6,SR31,SR20 +100% + 1886 ft Elevation Gain -12% Waneta/Boundary Route 1.3 Hours + 425 m Advances Hwy3B,Hwy22A,County -13% + 1395 ft Road,SR25,US395 Elevation Gain -35%

As evidenced in Table 7, a preliminary analysis of both the potential for travel time savings and vehicle operating cost savings through vertical grade reductions indicates that both the Cascade/Laurier route and the Nelway/Metaline Falls route do not offer the potential for significant benefit in either category to be considered further. The Cascade/Laurier route traverses both the Nancy Greene Summit as well as the Blueberry- Paulson Summit, introducing significant increases to both travel time and vehicle operating costs, while the Nelway/Metaline Falls route is substantially longer and away from the stated travel ‘desire lines’ introducing a significant travel time increase. The range of the discrepancy from the base case is so substantial, that no further consideration is given to these candidates in the further stages of evaluation.

The Waneta/Boundary route, using the Hwy 22A, Northport-Boundary Road, SR25 and US 395 corridors, does offer the potential for beneficial performance indices and will form the subject of advanced stages of engineering analysis and comparison. With a travel time benefit potential in the range of 12 minutes averaged over all vehicle classes, and a significant reduction in elevation gain and length (-35%), improvement options in this corridor are the only ones that offer the promise of working toward achieving the objectives.

Given the nature of the corridor topography and designation along its length, in addition to the potential for staging of improvements, options will be considered and compared within the context of two sub-areas. The Northern Sub-Area linking the Trail region to

Page 2-7 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Northport, and the Southern Sub-Area linking Northport to US 395 (Colville) are illustrated in Figure 44.

Figure 44: Study Sub-Areas

Trail-Northport Study Area

Northport-US395 Study Area

Page 2-8 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

2.2.1 Northern Sub-Area – Trail, BC to Northport, WA The northern study sub-area is defined as the segment of the corridor linking Trail, BC to Northport, WA, and is illustrated in Figure 45 complete with topographical information.

Figure 45: Northern Sub-Area

Combined Route

New Route

Existing Route

Three corridor improvement options have been developed within this sub-area, in addition to the base case, aimed at achieving the study objectives. Given the existing and forecast traffic volumes, an all-weather two lane rural highway corridor is envisioned. Due to the mountainous topography of the region potential routes were limited to existing river valleys and mountain passes, any other potential routes are most likely not technically feasible. The options are outlined in the ensuing sub-sections.

Page 2-9 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

2.2.1.1 Existing Route(s) – Hwy 22A & Boundary/Northport Road

This improvement option considers performance, operational and safety related enhancements to the existing corridor comprised of Hwy 22A between Highway 3B and the US Border, and the Stevens County Northport/Boundary Road. Highway 22A is in reasonable condition to support an upgrade to all weather truck route status, and improvements would include shoulder widening and paving, and a new two lane bridge across the Pend Oreille River north of the international boundary. The Northport- Boundary Road, however, would require substantial investment to accommodate a similar upgrade, as the alignment traverses topographically challenging terrain on the east bank of the Columbia River and, while detailed structural condition information was not available, it appears likely that the pavement structure would require upgrading along its entire length. As such, a substantial component of the improvements required would include near complete reconstruction of this segment of the corridor, including a new and substantial bridge crossing of Deep Creek. Examples of Highway 22A and the Northport/Boundary Road are illustrated in Figures 46 and 47 respectively.

Figure 46: Hwy 22A

Page 2-10 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Figure 47: Northport/Boundary Road

2.2.1.2 New Route – West Side of Columbia River

This improvement option considers a new all weather corridor along the west bank of the Columbia River, linking Downtown Trail to Northport directly. While the notion of achieving this connection without any new bridge structure was considered, the impacts to Downtown Trail were deemed to be insurmountable (in discussion with the City of Trail) and a new bridge crossing east of the City Centre is considered in this option. The option makes use of the existing SR25 bridge crossing of the Columbia River north of Northport. The alignment traverses rolling and largely undeveloped terrain along the west bank of the Columbia, and could be perceived to open up access to these lands, although significant environmental and archeological impacts would be anticipated. An example of the terrain is illustrated in Figures 48 and 49.

Page 2-11 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Figure 48: West Bank of the Columbia River

Figure 49: West Bank of the Columbia River

Page 2-12 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

2.2.1.3 Combined Route – Hwy 22A & West Side of Columbia River

This improvement option considers making use of the existing Hwy 22A facility, a new crossing of the Columbia River north of the international boundary (and replacing the existing crossing of the Pend Oreille on Hwy 22A) and a new facility on the west side of the Columbia River linking across to SR25 north of Northport. It essentially captures the best features of the previous two options.

Given the topography, anticipated level of usage, anticipated cost of construction and environmental impacts, no entirely new corridor options (i.e. new passes through the mountains) have been considered beyond those identified.

2.2.2 Southern Sub-Area

The southern study sub-area is defined as the segment of the corridor linking Northport, WA to US 395 at Colville, WA, and is illustrated in Figure 50 complete with topographical information.

Figure 50: Southern Sub-Area

Page 2-13 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

2.2.2.1 Existing Route(s) – State Route 25 & US 395

This improvement options considers upgrades to the existing SR25 corridor between Kettle Falls, WA and Northport, WA. The upgrades consist primarily of widening to accommodate paved shoulders and a vehicle recovery area (clear zone) and minor curve and intersection enhancements. While significant truck and commercial traffic currently makes use of the existing SR 25, these improvements were considered in order to facilitate enhanced travel time and reduced vehicle operating costs in keeping with the goals of this study. The existing corridor traverses largely rolling terrain along the east bank of the Columbia River and passes directly through the small communities of Kettle Falls and Northport, WA. Examples of State Route 25 and US 395 are illustrated in Figures 51 and 52 respectively.

Figure 51: State Route 25

Page 2-14 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Figure 52: US 395

2.2.2.2 Existing Route(s) - State Route 25 & Williams Lake Road

Similar to the previous option, this considers the use of the Stevens County Williams Lake Road connection between SR 25 and US 395 to Colville, WA. This corridor offers substantial travel time savings over the Kettle Falls route on SR 25. Improvements required are largely in the form of widening to accommodate paved shoulders and vehicle recovery area (clear zone) as well as pavement structure upgrading along its length. Local resident opposition to the use of the Williams Lake Road corridor are noted. Examples of Williams Lake Road are illustrated in Figures 53 and 54 respectively.

Page 2-15 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Figure 53 – Williams Lake Road

Figure 54 – Williams Lake Road

Page 2-16 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

2.2.2.3 New Route – Aladdin Road

This improvement option considers upgrades to Stevens County Aladdin Road, linking Boundary to Colville east of the Columbia River Valley. Aladdin Road would require substantial investment to accommodate this upgrade, as the alignment traverses environmentally sensitive terrain and, while detailed structural condition information was not available, it appears likely that the pavement structure would require upgrading along its entire length. As such, a substantial component of the improvements required would include complete reconstruction of this corridor. Examples of Aladdin Road are illustrated in Figures 55 and 56 respectively.

Figure 55 – Aladdin Road

Page 2-17 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Figure 56 – Aladdin Road

Page 2-18 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

3.0 CANDIDATE EVALUATION

In order to evaluate and compare the various options, a multiple account evaluation (MAE) was developed and undertaken. In accordance with standard practices for transportation studies in both the province of British Columbia and the State of Washington four separate accounts were considered:

1. Financial Account 2. Customer Service Account 3. Socio-Community Account 4. Environmental Account

3.1 Financial Account

This includes the estimated present value capital cost estimates for each improvement option. In addition, the annual operating and maintenance costs have been included over a 20 year life cycle, which is discounted at 6% to a net present value.

3.1.1 Cost Estimate

In order to estimate the costs required for each improvement option a set of benchmark unit costs (CAD $ / m and USD $ / foot) were established based on the type of terrain encountered and the status of any existing roadway. Two types of terrain were identified:

1. Rolling Terrain – grades less than 4% and standard side slopes 2. Mountainous Terrain – grades higher than 4%, steep side slopes or rock cuts, and narrow curving alignment

In addition, for each type of terrain identified two levels of improvement were identified:

1. Reconstructed Highway – partial rehabilitation of an existing highway which may include: a. Resurfacing b. Widening and paving of shoulders to applicable design standards

This generally applies to any improvements considered for an existing provincial highway (i.e. Hwy 22A) or an existing state highway (i.e. SR 25).

Page 3-1 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

2. New Highway – either a new highway across virgin land or the complete reconstruction of an existing roadway. This would typically include: a. Complete reconstruction of the highway’s base and surface structure b. Widening and paving of existing (if any) shoulders c. Improve to standard side slopes, ditches/drainage, and rock cuts

This category of improvement was typically applied to county roads (i.e. Northport-Boundary Road or Aladdin Road) which would have to be significantly improved to meet state highway design standards.

Each option was divided into segments based on the condition of the existing highway and the type of terrain, as determined during detailed site visits to each corridor. The length of each segment was then multiplied by the corresponding improvement category’s unit rate to determine its estimated construction cost. In the case of new highways, where no existing roadway existed, the type of terrain was estimated based on nearby topography or from aerial photography.

3.1.1.1 Key Design Parameters

Based on the applicable highway design standards for both the Province of British Columbia and the State of Washington, a typical two-lane highway cross section was determined. This standard case was used to estimate the costs required to either improve an existing highway or to construct a new highway to these standards. The typical cross-sections used in each jurisdiction are as illustrated in Figure 57.

Page 3-2 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Figure 57: Rural Arterial Undivided (RAU) – with a 90 km/h Design Speed (British Columbia)

ROLLING TERRAIN

MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN

Based of the 1999 Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) Geometric Design Guide

Page 3-3 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Figure 58: All Weather Rural Highway – Principal Arterial (P-3) (State of Washington)

ROLLING TERRAIN

MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN

Based on the 2002 Washington State Department of Transportation Design Manual

Page 3-4 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

3.1.1.2 Benchmark Unit Costs

Using the noted design parameters for each jurisdiction, benchmark unit costs were derived for each highway improvement category. Unit costs were based on typical line items of highway construction as provided by the British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and the Washington State Department of Transportation. A detailed derivation of the unit costs used can be found in Appendix A.

Table 8: Benchmark Unit Costs (per centerline meter or foot) Improvement British Columbia (CAD$ / m) Washington State (USD$ / ft) Type Rolling Mountainous Rolling Mountainous Reconstruction $423 $1,089 $111 $274 New Highway $563 $1,328 $166 $328

Many of the proposed improvement options include the construction of a new bridge structure over the Columbia River, Pend Oreille River, or Deep Creek. In order to establish a preliminary estimate of these costs a benchmark unit rate was used. Based on the recent construction of the Yoho Bridge near Golden, BC a unit rate of $2,500 per m2 CAD ($190.45 per ft2 USD) was determined. For a rural two lane bridge an 11.5 m (38 ft) bridge width was assumed. Using this and the estimated length of the crossing a preliminary cost estimate was calculated.

For the purposes of comparison the financial accounts were also summarized for the entire corridor in both Canadian and US dollars. Currency exchange rates at the time of the study (January 2005) were used.

• $ 1 CAD = $ 0.82 USD • $ 1 USD = $ 1.22 CAD

3.2 Customer Service Account

This account considers the estimated benefits of each improvement option to its users, over a 20 year life cycle, discounted at 6%. Potential benefits are based on standard benchmark values established for both British Columbia and for the state of Washington.

Customer service accounts are calculated for the entire corridor option in both BCMoT benchmark rates and in WSDOT benchmark rates. Unit rates for the various customer accounts were taken from the latest available data provided by both agencies.

Page 3-5 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

3.2.1 Benefit Estimate

3.2.1.1 Travel Time

The potential benefit of reduced travel time to individual users is estimated using standard province-wide or state wide rates estimating the value of each individual’s time. These rates are based on a proportion of the average provincial or state wage rates, as described in both BCMoT’s and WSDOT’s documentation of benefit cost methodology. The estimated travel time savings can be monetized for each user and then converted to an annual benefit. These benefits are then accrued for all users over the 20 year life span of the project. Standard BCMoT and WSDOT rates for the value of user’s travel time are shown in Table 9 for both autos and trucks.

Table 9: Value of User’s Travel Time and Vehicle Operating Costs 2003 BCMoT (CAD $ per Hr) 2000 WSDOT (USD $ per Hr) Autos Trucks Autos Trucks Travel Time Value $11.17 $23.41 $6.12 $20.22 Veh. Op. Costs $12.47 $53.30 $3.75 $32.85 Total User Costs $23.64 $76.71 $9.87 $53.07

3.2.1.2 Vehicle Operation

Improved highway conditions and reduced travel time may also provide a benefit to users by reducing the cost to operate a vehicle. Operating costs typically include fuel, oil, tire wear, general maintenance, and depreciation. These values are summarized for an average vehicle type and an estimated hourly rate is calculated. As with travel time benefits, the estimated vehicle operating cost savings can be monetized for each user and then converted to an annual benefit. These benefits are then accrued for all users over the 20 year life span of the project. Standard vehicle operating costs used by BCMoT and WSDOT are summarized in Table 9 for both autos and trucks.

3.2.1.3 Collision Reduction

Improved highway conditions generally decrease the likelihood of traffic collisions and thereby reduce the cost of these collisions to society. This benefit is estimated by determining the collision rates on the existing highway based on provincial or state records. The cost to society of various severities of collision has also been estimated for

Page 3-6 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

each jurisdiction and is used to determine the monetary cost of accidents on the existing highway.

Each jurisdiction quantifies the cost of various collision severities to society differently, as shown in Table 10. In addition, while BCMoT calculates the cost of all types of injury incidents together, WSDOT breaks these down into several sub-groups such as; disabling injury, evident injury, and possible injury. For the purposes of maintaining consistency and comparison these categories were aggregated using a weighted average of the total number of each injury type in Northeast Washington.

Table 10: Costs of Highway Accidents Accident Type 2003 BCMoT (CAD $) 2000 WSDOT (USD $) Fatality $5,693,594 $1,100,000 Injury $99,999 $119,325 PDO (Property Damage Only) $7,342 $6,500

Highway improvements such as widening the travel lanes, widening or paving shoulders, and reducing side slopes typically reduce the likelihood of highway accidents by a standard percentage, as determined by studies of historic data. For example WSDOT methodology for estimating safety benefits of proposed highway projects use standard reduction factors shown in Table 11. For the purposes of this study these reduction factors were used for both British Columbia and Washington State calculations.

Table 11: Estimated Accident Reductions by Highway Improvement Type Highway Improvement Type Fatality & Injury PDO Widen Traveled Way – Two Lane Rural 30% 40% Widen Shoulder – Two Lane Rural 5% 0% Flatten Slopes – Two Lane Rural 20% 20%

3.3 Socio-Community Account

This account is more qualitative and takes into consideration the estimated impact of each option to the local communities. This may include concerns such as:

• Community Displacement – the relative measurement of projected property takings to residents or businesses

Page 3-7 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

• Quality of Life – community concerns such as noise and vibration due to increased truck traffic will be considered here, as well as the impact of increased traffic to local residents • Archaeological – the potential impact of each option on known historic or First Nation/Native American tribal sites will be considered based on available information.

Potential socio-community impacts will be rated as low, medium, or high impact. Where:

• Low – Few significant negative impacts and mitigation of impacts is feasible • Medium – Some significant negative impacts and mitigation measures are possible • High – Significant negative impacts and mitigation opportunities are limited

3.4 Environmental Account

The estimated affect of each option, both during construction and during its service life, on the environment will be considered based on available information. Environmental impacts which may be assessed include:

• Air Pollution – traffic exhaust • Water Pollution – increased run-off and silt deposits • Wildlife Impacts - impacts to both terrestrial and aquatic habitats • Significant Changes to existing land use

Potential environmental impacts will be rated as low, medium, or high impact. Where:

• Low – Few significant negative impacts and mitigation of impacts is feasible • Medium – Some significant negative impacts and mitigation measures are possible • High – Significant negative impacts and mitigation opportunities are limited

3.5 Multiple Account Evaluation – Northern Sub-Area

Each proposed improvement option for the northern section (from Trail, BC to Northport, WA) was evaluated and compared based upon the noted four accounts.

Page 3-8 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

3.5.1 Existing Route(s) – Highway 22A and Northport-Boundary Road

This option considers the upgrading of the existing route from Trail, BC to Northport, WA via the Waneta/Boundary border crossings. On the Canadian side Highway 22A is in reasonably good condition, but would require some rehabilitation and widening in order to accommodate increased truck traffic. In addition, the existing one-way bridge over the Pend Oreille River (Waneta Bridge) would need to be replaced, as it is currently the oldest bridge in British Columbia and is nearing the end of its service life. Also as a one- way bridge it would not be suitable for significant commercial traffic in its current configuration and therefore any improvement to this corridor must consider the replacement of this bridge, as illustrated in Figure 59. On the US side the Northport- Boundary Road is a sub-standard County Road which would require substantial upgrades to accommodate increased truck traffic. Since the existing grades and switchbacks approaching the existing Deep Creek crossing would not be suitable for significant commercial traffic, a new and substantial crossing was included, as shown in Figure 60.

Figure 59: Proposed Waneta Crossings

Proposed location of New Columbia River Crossing (400m)

Replace Waneta Bridge (over Pend Oreille River) (140m)

Page 3-9 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Figure 60: Proposed Deep Creek Crossing

Proposed location of new Deep Creek Bridge (500m)

3.5.1.1 Financial Account

Table 12: Estimated Improvement Costs Trail, BC to US Border Improve Highway 22A $ 7,089,427 CAD New Waneta Bridge (Pend Oreille River) – 140m $ 4,025,000 CAD Salvage Value (20% of Construction Costs) $ 2,222,885 CAD Additional Maintenance Costs (over 20 years) n/a Subtotal $8,891,542 CAD Canadian Border to Northport, WA Improve Northport-Boundary Road $ 16,925,703 USD New Deep Creek Bridge – 500m $ 11,787,500 USD Salvage Value (20% of Construction Costs) $ 5,742,640 USD Additional Maintenance Costs (over 20 years) $ 943,748 USD Subtotal $23,914,311 USD Total Financial Account $ 38,067,000 CAD $ 31,205,374 USD

Page 3-10 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

3.5.1.2 Customer Service Account

By improving and upgrading the existing highway, this option would provide an estimated 6 minute travel time savings from the existing 36 minutes on the base route (via Patterson/Frontier). This travel time savings can then be equated to a mobility benefit to both user costs and vehicle operating costs. In addition, since this option considers the upgrading of an existing route not only will vehicles re-routed from the base Patterson/Frontier route benefit, but also vehicles which are already using the existing route. These mobility benefits to existing traffic have been accounted for separately. All mobility benefits were accrued for all vehicles over 20 years and discounted by 6% to determine the present value of the estimated benefit.

Table 13: Estimated Mobility Benefits BC MoT Rates WSDOT Rates Mobility Benefit (20 years) $ CAD $ USD Re-routed from Patterson / Frontier $ 5,271,883 $ 4,368,807 Existing Traffic $ 9,654,249 $ 5,272,289

Potential safety benefits have also been estimated using existing accident data on each corridor as the base case. Accident reduction factors were applied corresponding to the types of improvements being considered. Safety benefits could not be estimated for the Northport-Boundary Road since existing accident data on this county roadway was not available. All potential safety benefits were accrued over the 20 year life cycle of the project and converted to its present value using a 6% discount rate.

Table 14: Estimated Safety Benefits BC MoT Rates WSDOT Rates Safety Benefit (20 years) $ CAD $ USD Improved Existing Roadway $ 1,677,009 $ 495,397

3.5.1.3 Socio-Community Account

While introducing a new commercial corridor across the Waneta/Boundary crossing would re-route additional truck and passenger car traffic through Trail and along Highway 22A, this option was deemed to have medium socio-community impacts. Given that this proposed option involves the upgrading of existing routes, re-routed truck traffic would use existing truck routes along Highway 3B and Highway 22A. It is likely that given the increased traffic some mitigation measures would be required through Trail, BC and possibly Northport, WA.

Page 3-11 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

While increased truck traffic, noise, and vibration would cause negative socio-community impacts to residents along this corridor, the communities of Rossland and Warfield would see positive impacts with the removal of a significant proportion of truck traffic (as with all three options). On the other hand, the community of Northport, WA would not bear significant adverse impacts as cross border traffic is routed through their community regardless of which border crossing is used.

It is unlikely that any historical or First Nations/Tribal concerns would be encountered since this option follows existing highways and does not introduce any new corridors.

3.5.1.4 Environmental Account

Environmental impacts for this option were rated as low since only existing routes would be upgraded. While it is difficult to determine the intensity of environmental impacts at this level of planning, considering the relatively minor scope of the improvements being considered it is unlikely that significant environmental impact legislation on either side of the border would be triggered.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) specifically excludes roadway modifications within existing right-of-way. Under Provincial legislation, the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Act (BCEAA) is not normally a consideration for all but the largest highway projects. A non-legislated, self-directed Highway Environmental Assessment Process is most often applied and is designed to be flexible in scope and level of assessment based on the needs of each particular project. It is unlikely that this proposed option would trigger provisions in either the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Improvements to existing roadways are typically categorically exempt from NEPA and SEPA provisions.

It should be noted that with advanced stages of design, including potential alignment changes, the level of improvement could change sufficiently that increased environmental considerations would need to be accounted for. In addition, as this option does propose the replacement of both the Waneta and Deep Creek bridges, special consideration would be required to assess and mitigate any environmental impacts during the construction and service of these structures. This may include CEAA/BCEAA, or NEPA/SEPA provisions. Any requirement for additional environmental reviews could potentially impact project schedule and budget.

Page 3-12 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

3.5.2 New Route – West Side of the Columbia River

This option considers the construction of a completely new highway on the west side of the Columbia River from Trail, BC to Northport, WA. While there are some existing roads along portions of this route (Riverside Avenue east of Trail and Mitchell Road northeast of Northport) it is assumed that a completely new highway would be required due to the sub-standard condition of these facilities. In addition, in order to avoid insurmountable impacts to downtown Trail, a new bridge structure is included across the Columbia River just east of Trail, as illustrated in Figure 61. The costs associated with the creation of a new border crossing facility in this or any other option were not considered for the purposes of this analysis.

Figure 61: Proposed Columbia River Crossing

Proposed bridge location from “City of Trail Major Street Network Plan” 1990

RIVER COLUMBIA

3.5.2.1 Financial Account

Page 3-13 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Table 15: Estimated Improvement Costs Trail, BC to US Border New Highway – West of Columbia River $ 8,674,054 CAD New Bridge (Columbia River) – 300m $ 8,625,000 CAD Salvage Value (20% of Construction Costs) $ 3,459,810 CAD Additional Maintenance Costs (over 20 years) $ 1,088,300 CAD Subtotal $14,927,544 CAD Canadian Border to Northport, WA New Highway – West of Columbia River $ 24,037,805 USD Salvage Value (20% of Construction Costs) $ 4,807,561 USD Additional Maintenance Costs (over 20 years) $ 928,171 USD Subtotal $20,158,415 USD Total Financial Account $ 39,520,806 CAD $ 32,398,998 USD

3.5.2.2 Customer Service Account

This new highway would reduce travel times to 34 minutes from 36 minutes on the existing route via Patterson/Frontier. Since this option considers the construction of a completely new route not only will vehicles re-routed from the base Patterson/Frontier route benefit, but also cross-border trips which would be re-routed from the existing Waneta/Boundary crossing. As this is a new roadway, no potential benefits to existing traffic were considered. All mobility benefits were accrued for all vehicles over 20 years and discounted by 6% to determine the present value of the estimated benefit.

Table 16: Estimated Mobility Benefits BC MoT Rates WSDOT Rates Mobility Benefit (20 years) $ CAD $ USD Re-routed from Patterson / Frontier $ 1,757,294 $ 1,456,269 Existing Traffic $ 3,043,565 $ 1,303,571

Note that safety benefits were not considered since this is a new roadway.

3.5.2.3 Socio-Community Account

Socio-community impacts were considered to be high for this option. The construction of a new highway on the west side of the Columbia River would cause significant impacts to local residents of downtown Trail. Previous studies have assumed that a new route on the west side of the Columbia River would connect to Highway 3B through

Page 3-14 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

downtown Trail (along Bay Street). However, through discussions with the City of Trail it was determined that this impact would likely be so great that this option was completely removed from consideration. In this case, a new crossing of the Columbia River was assumed east of the Victoria Street Bridge. Depending upon the location of this new crossing, it is possible that socio-community impacts due to property takings and reduced quality of life could remain high.

In Washington State, socio-community impacts would likely be less severe, considering the relatively sparse population along the west side of Columbia River. It is also possible that there would be local opposition to this option from residents along Mitchell Road, due to increased truck traffic and reduced quality of life.

According to available information, no historical, First Nations, or Tribal sites have been identified along the proposed route on either the Canadian or US side of the border. In addition, the lands along the proposed alignment do not fall into any claimed lands of local tribes. However, as this option does not follow an existing highway alignment the likelihood of potential archaeological concerns is increased. Dialogue with all relevant tribes would be required before moving forward on any new highway corridor.

3.5.2.4 Environmental Account

Due to the fact that this option involves the construction of a new highway, on virgin land in many cases, environmental impacts were determined to be high. It is likely that environmental provisions through CEAA/BCEAA and NEPA/SEPA would not be exempt in this case. While no known significant public lands or wetlands are located within the corridor, the environmental impacts would remain high. In addition, a new highway would likely bisect deer wintering areas and cut off access to water sources significantly impacting wildlife populations.

Depending on the final location and scope of a Columbia River crossing just east of Trail, further environmental assessments and provisions may be required.

3.5.3 Combined Route – Highway 22A & West Side of Columbia River

This option combines features of the first two options by improving the existing Highway 22A to the international boundary and then constructing a new highway on the west side of the Columbia River from the border to Northport, WA. In this case, a new crossing of the Columbia River would be required in place of the existing bridge over the Pend Oreille River at Waneta.

Page 3-15 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

3.5.3.1 Financial Account

Table 17: Estimated Improvement Costs Trail, BC to US Border Improve Highway 22A $ 7,089,427 CAD New Columbia River Bridge (at Waneta) – 400m $ 11,500,000 CAD Salvage Value (20% of Construction Costs) $ 3,717,885 CAD Additional Maintenance Costs (over 20 years) - Subtotal $14,871,542 CAD Canadian Border to Northport, WA New Highway – West of Columbia River $ 24,037,805 USD Salvage Value (20% of Construction Costs) $ 4,807,561 USD Additional Maintenance Costs (over 20 years) $ 928,171 USD Subtotal $20,158,415 USD Total Financial Account $ 39,464,808 CAD $ 32,353,079 USD

3.5.3.2 Customer Service Account

This option would provide an estimated 7 minute travel time savings over the existing 36 minute trip (via Patterson/Frontier). This travel time savings can be converted to a mobility benefit to both user costs and vehicle operating costs. As with the first option not only will vehicles re-routed from the base Patterson/Frontier route benefit, but also vehicles which are already using the existing Highway 22A. In addition, with the new Columbia River crossing and the new highway on the west side of the Columbia River all traffic crossing the existing Waneta/Frontier boundary will benefit due to the reduction in travel time from the border to Northport. These mobility benefits were accrued for all vehicles over 20 years and discounted by 6% to determine the present value of the estimated benefit.

Table 18: Estimated Mobility Benefits BC MoT Rates WSDOT Rates Mobility Benefit (20 years) $ CAD $ USD Re-routed from Patterson / Frontier $ 1,757,294 $ 1,456,269 Existing Traffic $ 10,528,244 $ 5,656,900

Potential safety benefits have also been estimated using existing collision data on each corridor as the base case. Accident reduction factors were applied corresponding to the types of improvements being considered. Potential safety benefits were accrued over

Page 3-16 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

the 20 year life cycle of the project and converted to its present value using a 6% discount rate.

Table 19: Estimated Safety Benefits Safety Benefit (20 years) BC MoT Rates WSDOT Rates $ CAD $ USD Improved Existing Roadway $ 1,677,009 $ 495,397

3.5.3.3 Socio-Community Account

Socio-community impacts were rated as medium for this option, since it combines the upgrading of an existing route north of the border and a new highway south of the border. Impacts to local communities along Highway 3B and 22A in British Columbia would need to be mitigated where possible. As this is an existing route it is unlikely that historic or First Nations archaeological concerns would be encountered north of the border.

While impacts on the south side of the border would likely be minimal, local opposition is possible from residents in the Mitchell Road area due to increased traffic and reduced quality of life. Native American or tribal concerns are not known based on available data, however as this part of the option would cross virgin territory the likelihood of encountering sensitive sites on usual or accustomed tribal lands is increased.

3.5.3.4 Environmental Account

Medium level environmental impacts were also estimated for this option. By making use of the existing Highway 22A, impacts would be reduced on the north side of the border and would likely be exempt from CEAA/BCEAA provisions. On the other hand, since a new highway corridor would be constructed south of the border it is likely that this portion of the option would not be exempt from NEPA or SEPA provisions.

In addition, due to the requirement for a new Columbia River crossing near Waneta increased consideration of environmental impacts would be required based on more detailed information being available at a later date.

3.6 Multiple Account Evaluation – Southern Sub-Area

Each proposed improvement option for the southern section (from Northport, WA to Colville, WA) was evaluated and compared based on the same four accounts. Since

Page 3-17 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

each option is located completely within Washington State only WSDOT benchmarks and unit costs were used.

3.6.1 Existing Route(s) – SR 25 & US 395

This option would improve the existing highway along SR 25 and US 395 which is currently the primary commercial route from Northport to Colville. In this case, only improvements to SR 25 were considered.

3.6.1.1 Financial Account

Table 20: Estimated Improvement Costs Northport, WA to Colville, WA Improve SR 25 $ 42,538,905 USD Salvage Value (20% of Construction Costs) $ 8,507,781 USD Additional Maintenance Costs (over 20 years) - Total Financial Account $ 34,031,124 USD

3.6.1.2 Customer Service Account

This option would reduce the estimated travel time along this corridor from approximately 56 minutes to 54 minutes. Since all existing cross border traffic using either the Patterson/Frontier route or the Waneta/Boundary route already use this corridor, no benefits to re-routed vehicles was considered. Mobility benefits were only estimated to existing traffic along SR 25, these were accrued over 20 years for all vehicles and finally converted to present value using a 6% discount rate.

Table 21: Estimated Mobility Benefits Mobility Benefit (20 years) $ USD All SR 25 Traffic $ 28,936,644

Potential safety benefits have also been estimated using existing collision data on each corridor as the base case. Collision reduction factors were applied corresponding to the types of improvements being considered. Potential safety benefits were accrued over the 20 year life cycle of the project and converted to its present value using a 6% discount rate.

Page 3-18 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Table 22: Estimated Safety Benefits Safety Benefit (20 years) $ USD Improved Existing Roadway $ 105,695

3.6.1.3 Socio-Community Account

This option involves the improvement and upgrading of the existing SR 25 from Northport to Kettle Falls. In this case the socio-community impacts were rated as medium. While this route is currently used by truck traffic, increased traffic may adversely affect residents of Kettle Falls in particular. It may be necessary to mitigate potential impacts to Kettle Falls in this option.

It appears to be that this route does not cross any known tribal lands and as it is an existing corridor archaeological impacts would likely be minimal.

3.6.1.4 Environmental Account

NEPA and SEPA provisions would likely be categorically exempt for this option, considering that only existing corridors would be upgraded. While it appears that US 395 may run through a known wetland, since no improvements have been proposed for US 395 mitigation measures are likely not required. Additionally, no new bridge or water crossings that would trigger additional environmental review are proposed for this corridor and no known public lands are located in the area. For these reasons environmental impacts for this option are rated as low.

3.6.2 Existing Route(s) – SR 25 & Williams Lake Road

As with the previous option this proposed improvement would upgrade the existing SR 25, however the existing Williams Lake Road is used as an alternate route. Williams Lake Road is under Stevens County jurisdiction; however it is in reasonably good condition and offers significant time savings on the Northport to Colville trip. Some improvements would also likely be required along the Williams Lake Road. Additional maintenance costs were included for this option, since it is assumed that this route would likely be added to the inventory of roads to be maintained by the state.

Page 3-19 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

3.6.2.1 Financial Account

Table 23: Estimated Improvement Costs Northport, WA to Colville, WA Improve SR 25 & Williams Lake Road $ 38,148,822 USD Salvage Value (20% of Construction Costs) $ 7,629,764 USD Additional Maintenance Costs (over 20 years) $ 1,832,520 USD Total Financial Account $ 32,351,577 USD

3.6.2.2 Customer Service Account

Due to the improved SR 25 and the use of Williams Lake Road the estimated travel time can be reduced from 56 minutes to 42 minutes. In this case, it was assumed that all cross border traffic would re-route from SR 25 via Kettle Falls to Williams Lake Road. Additionally, mobility benefits to existing users of both SR 25 and Williams Lake Road was considered. All potential benefits were accrued over 20 years and converted to present value using a discount rate of 6%.

Table 24: Estimated Mobility Benefits WSDOT Rates Mobility Benefit (20 years) $ USD Re-routed from SR 25 to Williams Lake Rd $ 10,600,843 Existing Traffic $ 14,759,935

Note that safety benefits were not considered due to a lack of base collision rates/data.

3.6.2.3 Socio-Community Account

Socio-community impacts were rated as medium for this option. As this proposed improvement option would re-route a portion of truck traffic from SR 25 to Williams Lake Road adverse impacts due to increased traffic and reduced quality of life would be expected. While Williams Lake Road is currently in good condition and a significant amount of truck traffic already make use of the corridor it should be noted that local opposition to this route would likely be high. On the other hand, the community of Kettle Falls may see a positive impact due to reduced truck traffic. It should be noted that due to several trucking destinations in Kettle Falls, a portion of the truck traffic will be required to remain on this route in any case.

Page 3-20 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

No known tribal lands are located along this corridor, therefore archaeological concerns are not expected to be encountered at this time.

3.6.2.4 Environmental Account

As this option involves the upgrading of existing highways, it is likely that NEPA and SEPA provisions would be exempt. No known wetlands or public lands are located with the corridor, therefore environmental impacts were estimated to be low for this option.

3.6.3 New Route – Aladdin Road

This option would make use of the existing Aladdin Road as an alternate route from Northport to Colville. As this road is currently Stevens County Road it is assumed that a complete re-construction would be required to meet State standards. Additional maintenance costs were also considered for this option as an improved Aladdin Road would likely be added to the inventory of routes maintained by the state.

3.6.3.1 Financial Account

Table 25: Estimated Improvement Costs Northport, WA to Colville, WA Improve Aladdin Road $ 55,961,930 USD Salvage Value (20% of Construction Costs) $ 11,192,386 USD Additional Maintenance Costs (over 20 years) $ 3,433,226 USD Total Financial Account $ 48,202,770 USD

3.6.3.2 Customer Service Account

An improved Aladdin Road would likely offer a reduced travel time of 46 minutes as compared to 56 minutes using the existing route along SR 25 and US 395. Mobility benefits would be applied to all cross-border traffic in addition to the existing traffic using Aladdin Road. Benefits are accrued over 20 years and a discount value of 6% is applied to determine its present value, as illustrated in Table 26.

Page 3-21 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Table 26: Estimated Mobility Benefits WSDOT Rates Mobility Benefit (20 years) $ USD Re-routed from SR 25 to Aladdin Rd $ 7,572,030 Existing Traffic $ 29,295,680

Note that safety benefits were not considered due to a lack of base collision rates/data.

3.6.3.3 Socio-Community Account

As this option would introduce new truck traffic to the Aladdin corridor, medium level socio-community impacts are expected. While this is currently an existing route, it is not used by significant truck traffic at this time. While local residents and communities along Aladdin Road would likely bear negative impacts due to increased traffic and reduced quality of life, other communities such as Kettle Falls may see some positive impacts. In addition, due to the location of Aladdin Road as it enters Colville some mitigation measures would likely be required in order to connect the route through downtown Colville to the US 395 corridor.

As with the other options, no known tribal lands are found along this corridor.

3.6.3.4 Environmental Account

While no known major wetlands or public lands are located along this corridor, this option was estimated to have high environmental impacts due to the topography and existing land uses. As Aladdin Road is currently a very minor and local county road, improvements proposed in this case would likely be more substantial than previous options and would not be exempt from NEPA or SEPA provisions.

Page 3-22 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

3.7 Multiple Account Evaluation Summary

This section summarizes the multiple account evaluation results to allow for option comparison and evaluation. Process results for the northern section are summarized in Table 27, and results for the southern section are summarized in Table 28.

Table 27: Multiple Account Evaluation Summary Northern Section Existing Route New Route Combined Route Hwy 22A & SR25 West Side of Hwy 22A & West Side Columbia River of Columbia River CAD USD CAD USD CAD USD Benefit Estimate $16.6 M $10.1 M $4.8 M $2.8 M $14.0 M $7.6 M Cost Estimate $38.1 M $31.2 M $39.5 M $32.4 M $39.5 M $32.4 M B/C Ratio 0.44 0.32 0.12 0.09 0.35 0.24 NPV ($21.5 M) ($21.1 M) ($34.7 M) ($29.6 M) ($25.5 M) ($24.7 M)

Environmental Impacts Low High Medium

Socio-Community Impacts Medium High Medium

The option of improving the existing route(s) is the most favourable of the three northern options. Potential benefits to user mobility and safety are highest in this option, mostly due to the fact that a significant volume of existing traffic on Highway 22A (including truck traffic from the Waneta Reload Centre) would benefit from proposed improvements to the existing corridor. In addition, since this option would involve the upgrading of existing routes, as opposed to the constructing of new routes, it is likely that this option would be the most favourable in terms of costs, socio- community impacts, and environmental impacts. While achieving a benefit-cost ratio greater than 1.0 is generally preferred, this result does not suggest that significant positive benefits to the community would not be achieved. In keeping with the goals of this study, this option would result in reduced travel times, reduced operating costs, and improved safety as compared to the existing conditions.

Page 3-23 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Table 28: Multiple Account Evaluation Summary (in USD) Southern Section Existing Route New Route Combined Route SR25 & US395 SR25 & Williams Aladdin Road Lake Road Benefit Estimate $29.0 M $25.4 M $36.9 M Cost Estimate $34.0 M $32.4 M $48.2 M B/C Ratio 0.85 0.78 0.76 NPV ($5.0 M) ($7.0 M) ($11.3 M)

Environmental Impacts Low Low High

Socio-Community Impacts Medium Medium Medium

Similarly, the most favourable option in the southern section is improvements to the existing SR 25 and US 395 routes. This option results in the greatest benefit cost ratio, as well as significant mobility and safety benefits. As with the northern sub-area, since this option would involve the upgrading of existing routes, as opposed to the constructing of new routes, it is likely that this option would be the most favourable in terms of costs, socio-community impacts, and environmental impacts. While improving the existing SR 25 and US 395 routes results in a benefit cost ratio slightly less than 1.0, this option would still result in reduced travel times, reduced vehicle operating costs, and improved safety consistent with the goals of this study.

According to the multiple account evaluation (MAE) the two most favourable improvement options are:

• Improve the Existing Route(s) – Highway 22A & Northport-Boundary Road • Improve the Existing Route(s) – SR 25 and US 395

For the purposes of comparison and evaluation, all options in the northern sub-area were analyzed as a single corridor (irrespective of the international boundary). Given that the preferred option crosses the international border, it is likely that each agency would need to consider both the costs and benefits which would be attributed to their respective jurisdictions. The following table summarizes the benefits, costs, and corresponding economic indicators for improvements on both the British Columbia and the Washington State side of the boundary.

Page 3-24 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Table 29: Economic Indicators by Jurisdiction Northern Section British Columbia (CAD) Washington State (USD) Benefit Estimate $18.3 M ($1.8 M) Cost Estimate $8.9 M $24.0 M B/C Ratio 2.06 -0.07 NPV $9.4 M ($25.7 M)

As most of the cost of the preferred option is geographically located in Washington State, the economic performance indices are challenging on the US side of the border.

Page 3-25 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

4.0 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

While the preferred option was found to result in the most positive economic indicator within its competing class, it should be noted that none resulted in a strong case for project implementation in the near future. With benefit-cost ratios less than 1.0 and negative net present values, to society it is likely that each of these proposed improvement options would face difficult project justification circumstances in typical government investment processes. Keeping in mind the difficulty in predicting key variables in the benefit-cost equation, such as costs or traffic growth, it is possible that different assumptions could alter the end result. In order to ensure that the conclusions reached are sound and resilient, it is common practice for both BCMoT and WSDOT benefit cost methodologies to conduct sensitivity tests of selected variables.

Four key variables in the benefit cost equation were tested as follows: • Vehicle Operating Costs • Traffic Growth Rate • Discount Rate • Cost Estimate

4.1 Northern Sub-Area

4.1.1 Vehicle Operating Costs

During the course of this study stakeholders indicated that vehicle operating costs are likely much higher than provincial or state-wide averages due to the topography and weather conditions. To respond to this likelihood, the benefit cost calculations were repeated using double and triple the base values specified by BCMoT and WSDOT, while keeping all other variables constant. The results are demonstrated in Table 30.

Table 30: Vehicle Operating Cost Sensitivity Tests 1 x Veh. Costs 2 x Veh. Costs 3 x Veh. Costs Account $ CAD $ USD $ CAD $ USD $ CAD $ USD Total Benefits 16.6 M 10.1 M 25.5 M 15.9 M 34.4 M 21.6 M Total Costs 38.1 M 31.2 M 38.1 M 31.2 M 38.1 M 31.2 M B/C ratio 0.44 0.32 0.67 0.51 0.91 0.69 NPV (21.5 M) (21.1 M) (12.5 M) (15.3 M) (3.6 M) (9.6 M) NPV/Cost ratio -0.56 -0.68 -0.33 -0.49 -0.09 -0.31

Page 4-1 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Neither doubling nor tripling vehicle operating cost rates results in a benefit cost ratio greater than 1.0. It can be concluded that even if local vehicle operating costs are significantly higher than provincial or state-wide averages, the difficult project justification circumstances would remain.

4.1.2 Traffic Growth Rate

Since the customer service account benefits (mobility and safety) are directly influenced by the amount of existing and forecasted traffic considered, the analysis results are often quite sensitive to the background traffic growth rate utilized in the analysis. In this test, the analysis was repeated using increased traffic growth rates until a benefit cost ratio greater than 1.0 was achieved for both BCMoT and WSDOT unit rates. The results of this analysis are summarized below in Table 31.

Table 31: Traffic Growth Rate Sensitivity Tests 2% 9% 11.5% Account $ CAD $ USD $ CAD $ USD $ CAD $ USD Total Benefits 16.6 M 10.1 M 38.5 M 23.6 M 53.2 M 32.7 M Total Costs 38.1 M 31.2 M 38.1 M 31.2 M 38.1 M 31.2 M B/C ratio 0.44 0.32 1.01 0.76 1.40 1.05 NPV (21.5 M) (21.1 M) 0.4 M (7.6 M) 15.1 M 1.5 M NPV/Cost ratio -0.56 -0.68 0.01 -0.24 -0.45 -0.59

Traffic growth rates of 9% and 11.5% per year over 20 years would be required in order to achieve benefit cost ratios greater than 1.0. As these traffic growth rates would be unrealistically high under any circumstances, the conclusion can be drawn that even the most optimistic forecasts of background traffic growth for the region would not improve the overall viability of the project in the short term.

4.1.3 Discount Rate

Both the benefit cost methodologies used by BCMoT and WSDOT uses a “constant dollar” approach to estimate the value of future benefits and costs by applying a discount rate to costs over the life span of the project (20 years). This approach allows the value of benefits and other annual costs, such as maintenance, over the 20 year lifespan of the project to be compared in today’s dollars to the initial capital costs of the project. A 6% discount rate was used as prescribed by the BCMoT. However, since WSDOT uses a default discount rate of 4% in its methodology the analysis was repeated

Page 4-2 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

using both a 4% and 5% discount rate for the purposes of comparison. The results of this test are shown in the following table.

Table 32: Discount Rate Sensitivity Tests 6% 5% 4% Account $ CAD $ USD $ CAD $ USD $ CAD $ USD Total Benefits 16.6 M 10.1 M 18.5 M 11.3 M 20.8 M 12.7 M Total Costs 38.1 M 31.2 M 38.1 M 31.2 M 38.1 M 31.2 M B/C ratio 0.44 0.32 0.49 0.36 0.55 0.41 NPV (21.5 M) (21.1 M) (19.5 M) (19.9 M) (17.3 M) (18.5 M) NPV/Cost ratio -0.56 -0.68 -0.51 -0.64 -0.45 -0.59

It can be concluded that using lower discount rates do not significantly alter the conclusions of this analysis.

4.1.4 Cost Estimate

At this level of project planning it is difficult to accurately estimate the final costs, given the high number of unknown factors and the limitations of the base mapping and the stage of design. While a contingency factor of 40% was added to the estimates to account for any unforeseen costs, it is likely that a more detailed cost estimate would produce a different result and therefore different economic indicators. For this reason it is often useful to repeat the benefit cost analysis using both higher and lower costs estimates. For this test, cost estimates of 50% and 150% of the original value were used. A summary of the results is shown below in Table 33.

Table 33: Cost Estimate Sensitivity Tests 100% 50% 150% Account $ CAD $ USD $ CAD $ USD $ CAD $ USD Total Benefits 16.6 M 10.1 M 16.6 M 10.1 M 16.6 M 10.1 M Total Costs 38.1 M 31.2 M 19.6 M 16.1 M 56.5 M 46.3 M B/C ratio 0.44 0.32 0.85 0.63 0.29 0.22 NPV (21.5 M) (21.1 M) (3.0 M) (5.9 M) (39.9 M) (36.2 M) NPV/Cost ratio -0.56 -0.68 -0.15 -0.37 -0.71 -0.78

Page 4-3 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Even assuming a 50% reduction in the estimated project cost does not yield a benefit cost ratio greater that 1.0. On the other hand a 50% increase in the initial cost estimate only further reduces the economic indicators of the project, as would be expected.

4.2 Sensitivity Analysis – Southern Sub-Area

In comparison to the northern sub-area, the analysis of the favoured option in the southern area resulted in relatively stronger economic indicators. While still somewhat less than the preferred b/c ratio of 1.0 or greater, the initial analysis resulted in a B/C ratio of 0.85. As in the northern sub-area a sensitivity analysis of the noted assumptions was undertaken in order to evaluate their effects on the end result.

4.2.1 Vehicle Operating Costs

Benefit Cost analysis was repeated using vehicle operating costs double and triple the default state-wide averages. As is shown in Table 34, increased vehicle operating cost improve the economic indicators for this improvement option.

Table 34: Vehicle Operating Costs Sensitivity Tests 1 x Veh. Costs 2 x Veh. Costs 3 x Veh. Costs Account $ USD $ USD $ USD Total Benefits 29.0 M 47.7 M 66.4 M Total Costs 34.0 M 34.0 M 34.0 M B/C ratio 0.85 1.40 1.95 NPV (5.0 M) 13.7 M 32.3 M NPV/Cost ratio -0.15 0.40 0.95

4.2.2 Traffic Growth Rate

Increased traffic growth rates were also tested, as in northern sub-area. First as shown in Table 35, a growth rate of 3.5% per year was found to be required to achieve a B/C ratio greater than 1.0 (over the 20 year life of the project). While a 10% background traffic growth rate (approximately what was required in the northern sub-area), resulted in a very solid B/C ratio of 2.27.

Page 4-4 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Table 35: Traffic Growth Rate Sensitivity Tests 2% 3.5 % 10% Account $ USD $ USD $ USD Total Benefits 29.0 M 34.5 M 77.3 M Total Costs 34.0 M 34.0 M 34.0 M B/C ratio 0.85 1.01 2.27 NPV (5.0 M) 0.5 M 43.3 M NPV/Cost ratio -0.15 0.01 1.27

4.2.3 Discount Rate

As described earlier the default discount rate for WSDOT is 4%, while 6% was used for the initial analysis. As in the northern sub-area, discount rates of 5% and 4% were tested in order to compare their effect on the final results. As summarized in Table 36, using lower discount rates results in improved economic indicators and using a discount rate of 4% results in a B/C ratio greater than 1.0.

Table 36: Discount Rate Sensitivity Tests 6% 5 % 4% Account $ USD $ USD $ USD Total Benefits 29.0 M 32.0 M 36.5 M Total Costs 34.0 M 34.0 M 34.0 M B/C ratio 0.85 0.95 1.07 NPV (5.0 M) (1.6 M) 2.4 M NPV/Cost ratio -0.15 -0.05 0.07

4.2.4 Cost Estimate

At this high level of highway planning, it can be quite difficult to accurately estimate proposed construction costs. Therefore it is often useful to consider both higher and lower cost estimates, in order to evaluate the sensitivity of the analysis to this variable. In this case, cost estimates of 50% and 150% of the original value were considered. A summary of the results is shown in Table 37. As expected, a reduced cost estimate improves the economic indicators for this option and in fact results in a B/C ratio of 1.71. On the other hand, an increased cost estimate lowers the resulting economic indicators.

Page 4-5 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

Table 37: Cost Estimate Sensitivity Tests 100% 50% 150% Account $ USD $ USD $ USD Total Benefits 29.0 M 29.0 M 29.0 M Total Costs 34.0 M 17.0 M 51.0 M B/C ratio 0.85 1.71 0.57 NPV (5.0 M) 12.0 M (22.0 M) NPV/Cost ratio -0.15 0.71 -0.43

Page 4-6 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

5.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The primary purpose of this exercise is to identify a preferred highway corridor for enhanced cross-border access between the West and Central Kootenay Region of British Columbia and the Tri-County Region of Northeast Washington State. The results of this technical evaluation generally support the conclusion that the existing Hwy 22A route from Trail, BC to the US Border, the Northport-Boundary Road from the Canadian Border to Northport, WA, and State Route 25 from Northport, WA to US 395 offers the most logical route choice. While this conclusion is derived from a number of key technical considerations, it is fundamentally based on attempting to balance the public benefits associated with this investment with the public costs associated with its implementation. The selected corridor(s) offers reduced travel times, vehicle operating costs and enhanced safety performance, and most closely approximates the benefits with the costs. This approach to route selection and justification is standard practice for both the BC Ministry of Transportation and the Washington State Department of Transportation.

The results are, however, also indicative of challenging project justification circumstances (again from a technical perspective), as the measured public benefits do not approach the anticipated cost of implementation. These conclusions are consistent with expectation, given the divergent situation in this area related to the difficult (and thus costly) topographical conditions being traversed and the relatively low traffic volumes under consideration. Proposed improvements are expected to generate a benefit to cost ratio in the range of 0.4 CAN (0.3 US) with an associated net present value in the range of -$21.5 M CAN (-$21.1 M US). Analysis results of this nature do not typically support project advancement.

Sensitivity analysis considering higher base vehicle operating costs to account for unique local conditions (particularly the Warfield Hill west of Trail), higher than the conservative forecast traffic growth rates (to account for unexpected Regional growth or economic development initiatives), a lower discount rate of public funds (to account for changes to the Regional economy over the planning horizon) and variations on the cost estimate (to account for uncertainties in the high level strategic planning estimates derived herein) all confirm this same conclusion. Alternate funding and delivery mechanisms could be considered to enhance the attractiveness of such an investment if implementation is to be considered in the shorter term.

Page 5-1 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

5.1 Opportunities and Constraints

A number of noteworthy opportunities and constraints related to a potential project of this nature have emerged throughout the study process and are noted here for consideration and future tracking.

• Waneta Bridge – The Waneta Bridge, immediately north of the US-Canada Border on Hwy 22A, was built in 1893 and consists of a single lane, wooden deck 3-span through truss bridge. The BC Ministry of Transportation indicates that this facility is currently nearing the end of its service life, and plans to replace this structure (presumably to a two lane standard) within the next decade are being developed. This short term investment represents a key milestone in the decision-making process as it relates to this potential project, as an investment of this nature is likely to confirm the future approach. An ‘on-line’ investment in the structure in the general vicinity of the current facility on Hwy 22A will further contribute to the elimination of any further consideration of alignment options on the west side of the Columbia River. Note that the ‘on-line’ investment is consistent with the results of this exercise.

• Patterson/Frontier Border Crossing Facility Improvements – The US Department of Homeland Security routinely upgrades border crossing facilities to ensure consistency with current standards for security, processing and screening. A significant upgrade (~$10 M USD) is scheduled for the Frontier/Patterson crossing facility on Hwy 22 and SR 25 within the next few years, as this is the primary commercial crossing port in the area at this time. Such an investment could contribute to confirming the future approach to advancing with such a project in this area, as it is unlikely that a redundant investment could be justified at the Waneta/Boundary border crossing location in the short term afterwards. Decisions relating to the future direction for such corridor improvements should be considered and advanced to avoid such circumstances.

• Construction Phasing – While the costs and magnitude of the investment required to entertain such a project may appear to be overwhelming in the overall context, it is important to note that its delivery could be phased incrementally to minimize the impacts to agency cash flows. In this regard, the key short term component of the project, otherwise described as the ‘missing link’, is the improvement to the Boundary-Northport Road (including a new bridge at Deep Creek), border crossing improvements at the Waneta/Boundary

Page 5-2 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

facility (no estimate of cost provided), and the Waneta Bridge. In isolation, this series of improvements could achieve a significant component of the project goals and objectives in the short term. A breakdown of the estimated value of this investment is provided in Table 38 for consideration.

Table 38 – Short Term Phasing Option Summary Item Cost Estimate Waneta Bridge $ 4.0 M CAN Boundary- $ 16.9 M USD Northport Road Deep Creek $ 11.8 M USD Bridge Waneta/Boundary $ 10 M USD Border Facility (assumed based upon planned Frontier/Patterson upgrade) $ 4.0 M CAD (MoT) Total $ 38.7 M USD (WSDOT)

• US Department of Homeland Security – The creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the US has generated several adjustments to border processing procedures and the roles of border personnel. In December 2003, the DHS announced rules for mandatory electronic pre-notification of all manifest data for cargo shipments entering the US. For trucks, the transmittal timelines are as follows: 30 minutes for FAST (see below for a description of FAST) shipments and 60 minutes prior to arrival at US border for non-FAST shipments. For rail, the transmittal timeframe is 2 hours prior to arrival in the US. It is anticipated that the costs associated with purchasing systems to enable electronic data interchange will be offset by faster border clearance. Once a port is ready to implement the rules, and official notice given, carriers will have a 90 day period to comply. It is not known at this time when the Patterson/Frontier or Boundary/Waneta site will be given official notice; however, it will have an impact upon the processing performance for southbound commercial trucks depending upon the extent to which the new rules are accommodated. This remains an uncertainty at this point.

The Free and Secure Trade (FAST) program is designed to harmonize commercial clearance processes at the Canada/U.S. Border. The intent is to ensure border security while providing quick processing for FAST participants. The program is being touted to importers, carriers and drivers as a method to reduce processing costs, to reduce delays, and in general as an easier way to move commercial shipments across the

Page 5-3 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

border. In order to qualify for FAST, the importer and carrier must both be approved by Canada’s Partner’s in Protection (PIP) program through Canada Customs Revenue Agency (CCRA) and/or the U.S. Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) program through United States Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The commercial driver must also be approved and carry a FAST-Commercial Driver Card. The FAST program is currently implemented at twelve major border crossings. The intent of the Canadian Federal Government is to have all major commercial crossings enrolled in the FAST program by the end of 2004, however it is not known whether any such improvements are being planned for either the Waneta/Boundary facility or the Patterson/Frontier facility, as neither are considered major commercial crossing locations.

Page 5-4 1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

APPENDIX A

Cost Estimate Details

1961.0176.01 / March 2005

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION West Kootenay – Northeast Washington WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Joint Highway Corridor Study

APPENDIX B

Benefit Estimate Details

1961.0176.01 / March 2005