Park location, funding tied to new Hood River-White Salmon Interstate Bridge

Our story begins in the early 1970s, when the Port of Hood River received several grants from the federal Land & Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), destined for Marina Park improvements. As is standard practice with LWCF funding, the resulting public park could be used for no other purpose. Should another use arise, the “sponsor” would need to replace the loss by creating a new park. It’s called “mitigation.”

“Another use,” in this case, is the replacement span for the Hood River Bridge. The new interstate bridge will land at Marina Park, just west of the current bridge. The landing area won’t replace the entire park: The footprint will require less than three acres, including temporary storage of construction materials, which will return to public parking and recreation once the bridge is complete. Yet those uses, even short-term, trigger mitigation.

It’s called “Section 6(f)” of the LWCF enabling legislation, and it’s a common issue involving LWCF grants. The requirement won’t delay bridge construction, since sponsors need only demonstrate progress toward a solution — but they do need to get to work soon. The current schedule calls for start of construction in October 2027.

In this scenario, “sponsors” mean the Hood River–White Salmon Bridge Authority, which is the bi-state entity created to replace the existing bridge and operate the new one, and Port of Hood River, which received the LWCF grants and owns Marina Park. The bridge authority will buy the land from the port, but the latter will bear primary responsibility for mitigation since it was the grant recipient.

So, where will the bridge authority and Port of Hood River create another public park? Section 6(f) requires this to be of equivalent use, of the same or higher fair market value. As Stuart Myers, a consultant with the natural resources firm of Mason, Bruce and Gerard, Inc., noted during the bridge authority board’s meeting Aug. 11, several candidate sites are possible. These are in Parkdale; Hood River, east and west of Mitchell Point; and close to where the new bridge will land on the Washington State side. All are in private ownership, and two are in the National Scenic Area.

It’s important that none of the parcels are already being used for recreation, lest it trigger other Section 6(f) restrictions: The idea is to replace recreational lands “like for like,” so there’s no net loss of public park lands.

The Port of Hood River has identified another candidate site within Port Marina Park itself, in an area intentionally excluded from recreational use, according to information presented at a port commission meeting this past March. This includes the former chamber of commerce office.

Oregon Parks & Recreation Department administers Section 6(f) mitigation since the grants went to the Port of Hood River, but ultimate decision-making resides with the National Park Service.

Could the new park be located on the Washington side? The bridge design calls for a dedicated pedestrian and bicyclist lane connecting with Highway 14, but there are no plans for a public park at that location. If there were, the park would need to be owned and managed by some entity other than the bridge authority, whose sole mission is bridge construction and operation.

Myers told bridge authority board members his understanding is that Washington State isn’t an option, but he was uncertain whether this is a requirement of the Oregon Parks & Recreation Department, National Park Service, or both.

“I want a real answer on why you can’t do that,” said Jacob Anderson, a Klickitat County appointee to the bridge authority.

Finally, one more question: Since the bridge authority is investing part of its $1.2 billion construction budget on a dedicated pedestrian and bike lane, can’t that public recreational use serve as mitigation? “That’s got to be worth something,” said Bridge Authority Co-chair Mike Fox. Section 6 (f)’s definitions of comparable use, adopted in 1965, may make that a difficult proposition, but it’s a question the bridge authority may continue to explore.

More research lies ahead. Potential sites must be evaluated and appraised. If other agencies plan to acquire any of those sites for park development, the bridge authority must first secure “preservation of eligibility” to avoid the restriction on net loss of public lands. And, not least, questions over the Washington State park location and use of the bike/pedestrian land for mitigation must be resolved.