‘No one is coming.’ Locals ask WA to speed up replacing bridge to Mount Rainier
Residents poured into a hearing Tuesday afternoon to demand state leaders restore access to the Carbon Canyon.
The Senate Committee on Transportation held a public hearing to discuss Senate Bill 5987, which aims to fast-track the replacement of the state Route 165 Carbon River Fairfax Bridge, which closed permanently on April 22.
The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) also gave a presentation before the hearing to give an update on where a potential bridge replacement stands.
“We are in what I would call the pre-NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] planning process – this is where we try to figure out what the process is,” Steve Roark, region administrator for WSDOT, said at the hearing.
Roark said WSDOT is in the first phase of a three-phase process, which currently would take four and a half to seven years in its entirety. He also answered questions that senators had about the process.
Senate Bill 5987, as well as its sister bill in the House, HB 2645, both aim to speed the process along by declaring the closure a state of emergency. Republican senator Phil Fortunato is the lead sponsor on the senate bill, along with Democrat T’wina Nobles. Republican representatives Andrew Barkis, Josh Penner and Cyndy Jacobsen sponsored the house bill.
Barkis told The News Tribune on Tuesday that declaring the closure a state of emergency could play a key role in getting a new bridge sooner.
“In Washington state, it takes a long time to build projects. It takes a long time to go through all the normal processes,” Barkis said. “What the bill is hoping to do is anywhere they can find to expedite — whether it’s in the planning, the permitting, the environmental — that is what the bill is directing them to find.”
The 104-year-old, single-lane bridge was the only access point via state Route 165 to key areas of Mount Rainier National Park, including Mowich Lake, Tolmie Peak and Spray Park. Wilkeson, a gateway town, has historically relied on the summer traffic from people going to this part of the park – and now, businesses are fighting to survive. Residents who live on the other side of the bridge have also had to grapple with isolation. A limited access route is in place for those homeowners, but not the public.
Where does the project stand now?
Roark said WSDOT is in the first phase of a three-stage process:
- Phase 1, 12-18 months: Geotechnical investigations and surveying; early-NEPA environmental review, determining a bridge type, size and location
- Phase 2, 18-24 months: NEPA environmental assessment, design/engineering and permitting
- Phase 3, 24+ months: Construction of a new bridge and demolition of the existing bridge
The first phase, Roark said, is essentially about deciding the best vision for a potential new bridge.
Shortly after the closure, WSDOT wrapped up a $1.5 million planning study where they considered seven options for the future. In August, they narrowed the options down to two:
- Building a bridge replacement north of the bridge’s existing location.
- Tearing down the existing bridge and not building a new one.
Roark echoed much of what WSDOT said in an announcement earlier this month. In a Jan. 8, 2026, blog post on their website, WSDOT said they are working to collect geotechnical information about the area in order to see if it’s feasible to build a bridge north of the existing bridge.
WSDOT estimates it will take six to 12 months to get this information, but that is complicated by endangered species in the area, which requires them to secure environmental permits. They also need to obtain right-of-way permits from landowners.
If WSDOT does decide that building a new bridge is possible, Roark said they would move onto the second phase – which will require sitting with the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) and conducting an environmental assessment. Before they can enter the second phase, they need key information.
“To do that successfully, to do that crisply, we have to define the project,” Roark said. “We have to … start preparing to understand the footprint of this project and what the impacts of this project will be.”
“Phase 2 is where we go into NEPA – that’s the National Environmental Protection Act – where we do the analysis of the project,” Roark said. “That involves sitting with the Federal Highway Administration [and conducting] an environmental assessment, which typically comes with a 12-plus month time frame.”
During the second phase, WSDOT would have to meet with several agencies, including:
- Federal Highway Administration
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife
- National Marine Fisheries Service
- Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
- Local tribes
Each of these organizations will have a window to review and comment on the work, “ranging from 30 to 135 days or more,” WSDOT’s Jan. 8, 2025 post said.
The third phase, Roark said, would involve construction of a new bridge. He listed the timeframe of this phase as “24+ months.”
“It could go faster, it could take longer, depending on what the type, size, and location of the bridge ends up being,” Roark said.
What did senators say about the timeline?
After Roark’s initial presentation, many senators had questions about how to speed up the timeline to restore access in the area as soon as possible.
“When we’ve had other failures, incidents, we move heaven and earth. We waive a lot of things, things happen a lot faster than the timeline you put up there,” said Sen. Drew MacEwen, a Republican who represents District 35. “I acknowledge that this bridge is much more complicated than things like the Skagit River Bridge collapse, but this is the frustration I have with the system. I recognize that you’re placed with policy that you’ve got to deal with, but if you care to comment, how could we speed this up? I mean, there’s got to be a way.”
Roark said the difference between the Fairfax Bridge and incidents like the 2013 Skagit River bridge collapse and the 2025 White River Bridge closure is that, in this case, there is no one particular incident to point to, such as a car crash or weather event. Because of that, it is not eligible for emergency relief from the federal government.
He also pointed out that much of the environmental review does still happen on projects that are sped up, such as for the Skagit River and White River bridges – just after the fact.
“Most of those [environmental review] events, we’re replacing in kind through an emergency. You don’t see it upfront, but we’re doing that environmental work after the work is done. The work is still occurring,” Roark said. “... In this case, it’s going to be a new bridge on a new alignment, which is going to require the normal in terms of the rules that WSDOT has to live with. It’s going to require the normal environmental review and permitting.”
Sen. Deborah Krishnadasan, a Democrat who represents the 26th district, asked if it would be faster to tear down the existing bridge and build a new bridge at the current location.
“We actually considered that, it’s not off the table,” Roark said. “We believe it’s faster to build a new bridge on a new alignment then try to replace the existing bridge where it’s at.”
Roark then said that WSDOT will pick “what takes the least amount of time.”
Sen. Marko Liias, a Democrat representing District 21, asked what will happen to the existing bridge if a new bridge gets built. Roark said WSDOT is planning to remove it, but that it will require them to go through a federal process since the existing bridge is on the National Register of Historic Places.
Liias asked Roark later in the hearing if WSDOT has the resources it needs to continue this work.
“We have used $7 million out of our current existing biennial preservation money,” Roark answered. “So, going forward, if we move into future phases, additional funding will be needed.”
What did residents and leaders have to say at the hearing?
Jayme Peloli, mayor of Wilkeson, started the hearing by giving a speech on the impacts the bridge closure has had on the town.
“This has meant business owners waking up day after day unsure whether to keep their doors open or walk away from everything they have ever built,” Peloli said. “Families are questioning whether they can hold onto generational land, whose viabilities depend on access.”
Peloli previously asked the Washington State Auditor’s Office to look into WSDOT’s lack of repairs to the bridge, which had not been painted since 1988. WSDOT previously told The News Tribune this was due to a lack of funding from the legislature to address the hundreds of bridges across the state that needed repairs.
She brought up these records in her speech, saying that Wilkeson does not deserve to carry the burden of state-funded infrastructure failing.
“I have had to look my constituents in the eye and say something no local leader should ever have to say, which is: ‘No one is coming,’” Peloli said. “We will have to fight this out ourselves, and we have – but we should not have to.”
Fortunato, the sponsor of the bill, gave a speech before public comment. He said the state needs to do whatever it takes to speed up the process of restoring access, before Wilkeson loses its businesses.
“Businesses are being devastated, I have no idea how anyone’s going to stay alive,” Fortunato said. “Wilkeson had the best pizza in Washington for a couple years, and how is that pizzeria going to stay in business?”
Six residents spoke up during public comment, urging legislators to pass the bill. The first to speak was Avery Cesarano, who said the bridge played a key role in supporting a unique area with some of Mount Rainier’s most iconic trails and some of Washington’s most interesting historical sites, such as the Melmont Ghost Town.
“I have hiked these trails, I have climbed these peaks, I walked through the ghost towns and stood among the ruins. I’ve met tourists from across the country that come to Washington for no other reason than to come to this very area,” Cesarano said. “Access to moments like that should not depend on private landownership. It should remain public to everyone as it has been for decades.”
Resident Jeff Pack said he owns a horse farm in Wilkeson and has been recreating in the area for “over 50 years.”
“I’ve climbed Mount Rainier, I’ve dove into Mowich Lake. I’ve hunted, hiked, horseback and off-climbed this area since I was in my early teens,” Pack said. “The closure of the Fairfax Bridge was devastating. Many of the things and areas I dearly love to recreate in have been taken away from me.”
Denise Carnahan echoed Pack, saying she has spent decades crossing the Fairfax Bridge, and urged legislators to pass the bill.
“Do it for the outdoor enthusiasts, do it for the local businesses, do it for the people who live on the other side of the road, and there are people in the area that are fifth-generation Washingtonians,” Carnahan said. “The experience you get from going up there is unique and not like anything else you can find anywhere else.”
Carnahan then urged legislators to restore access by any means possible.
“If you need to put a toll on that bridge, I’d gladly pay to go over the bridge,” Carnahan said.
Where do these bills stand and what happens now?
This hearing discussed the senate bill, but action first started in the state’s House of Representatives. In December, Barkis introduced House Bill 2149.
Barkis’ original bill said the state of emergency would allow WSDOT to use funds from the state’s climate investment account to build a new bridge. The climate investment account stems from the state’s quarterly carbon auctions, where the biggest polluters in the state buy allowances for their emissions. Funds from these auctions go into the account, which supports projects related to climate resilience.
Barkis has since introduced a new house bill that does not list the climate funds as a method of building the new bridge. The bill is otherwise identical to its original counterpart, and had a public hearing in the House Committee on Transportation the day after the senate bill, on Jan. 28.
The News Tribune asked Barkis why he struck out the language around using climate funding. He said it was because the legislature is thinking of other ways to use climate funds across the state, and because he didn’t want to narrow the funding to one source.
“We didn’t want to have a specific apportion in this bill because I don’t want to narrow the ability to utilize other resources,” Barkis told The News Tribune on Tuesday. “So if we’re able to use federal dollars or other resources in the budget, I didn’t want to narrow it down to one source of appropriations from the Climate Commitment Act. So that’s why I agreed to pull that and drop a new bill.”
The News Tribune asked Barkis what other methods of funding legislators are thinking of using if the bills are passed. He said it’s a mix of reallocating state dollars, and asking for federal help because the bridge connects to a national park.
“Sometimes, if we move money around between different accounts, it’s called supplanting. So, you could take money out of a different account and backfill it with, say, Climate Commitment Act money,” Barkis said. “We’re going to be talking with our federal delegation because this is an access point to Mount Rainier. It’s a very iconic, important access point to a national park.”
The senate bill at the center of this hearing was identical to Barkis’ original bill – and does include language around using climate impact funds. The News Tribune asked Barkis why the legislature had hearings for both a senate and house bill this week – especially since one of the bills includes the clause about climate funds and one does not.
“The bill that Senator Fortunato has introduced is basically my bill with the pretense of that appropriation and typically, you wouldn’t run two different kinds of bills, you would have a companion,” Barkis said. “So, I was a little surprised the senate had decided to hear it.”
Now that both the senate and house bills have had a public hearing, the next steps are for the respective committees to decide whether to pass it.
As of Wednesday evening, neither bill has moved out of committee.
Other ways the state might help with the bridge closure
During his speech at the Tuesday hearing, Fortunato said he has also sponsored a different bill which would eliminate property taxes for businesses and properties impacted by the bridge closure.
Senate Bill 6150 says residents located within the “impact area” of the bridge closure would not have to pay property taxes starting in 2026.
“‘Impact area’ means any area within three miles, east or west, of state route number 165 and south of the junction of state route number 162 and state route number 165,” the bill’s text says.
The bill would go into effect on July 1.
“This section applies both retroactively to taxes due and payable in calendar year 2026 and prospectively,” the bill says. “A property owner paying property taxes in calendar year 2026 may seek a refund.”
These changes would apply until access is restored in the Carbon Canyon. Residents would not have to pay property taxes again until Jan. 1 of the year following restored access.
The bill had its first reading on Jan. 15 and was referred to the Ways & Means Committee. It has not advanced since then.
At Tuesday’s hearing, Peloli said she has asked the state for any help possible to keep Wilkeson afloat during the closure – especially local businesses.
“I’ve asked for an influx of funding for them, a stipend, to try and get them through whatever this process looks like – simultaneously, asking for an emergency declaration, that could potentially speed this up,” Peloli said. “This is not due to anything that our town created or Carbonado or Fairfax. We do not believe that we should have to suffer the consequences of that.”
Peloli said “any sort of influx or stipend” would make a difference, since business owners and property owners are struggling to pay salaries, property taxes, mortgages, rentals and more.
“We have received zero dollars to date and [we] are just trying to stay alive at this point,” Peloli said.
News Tribune archives contributed to this report.
This story was originally published January 29, 2026 at 11:52 AM.
