FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND FINAL SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION

Sellwood Bridge
SE Tacoma Street and Oregon 43
Multnomah County, Oregon
Federal Highway Administration | Oregon Department of Transportation | Multnomah County
August 2010

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, alternative formats of this document will be made available upon request.

Printed on recycled and recyclable paper

Fact Sheet
Project Title
Sellwood Bridge Project Two public briefings, an open house, and a public hearing were held in November and December 2008. After public and agency comments were fully considered and evaluated, Alternative D was identified as the preferred alternative. Alternative D, which has been refined to address public and agency comments and minimize impacts, is evaluated as Alternative D Refined in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Therefore, the FEIS evaluates a No Build Alternative, the five Build alternatives evaluated in the DEIS, and the preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined). Under the No Build Alternative, the existing infrastructure would remain the same and the bridge would continue to operate as it does today. The bridge, west-side interchange configuration, and east-side bridge approach would not change. Multnomah County has identified maintenance activities under the No Build Alternative that would be necessary to keep the bridge operational and in as good a condition as possible for the next 20 years. The following list identifies the Build alternatives evaluated in the FEIS. • Alternative A would rehabilitate the existing bridge for motorized vehicles and would add a separate bicycle/pedestrian bridge 300 feet north of the existing bridge. The river crossing would be closed during construction. Alternative B would rehabilitate the existing bridge and widen it on the north side. It would include the option for a temporary detour bridge to keep the river crossing open during construction. Alternative C would consist of a doubledeck bridge replacement on the existing

Project Description
The Sellwood Bridge project would rehabilitate or replace the Sellwood Bridge located in Portland, Multnomah County, Oregon. The bridge crosses the Willamette River on SE Tacoma Street on the east end and intersects with Oregon 43 (OR 43, also known as SW Macadam Avenue) on the west end. The following four main issues identify the need for this project: • Inadequate structural integrity to safely accommodate various vehicle types (including transit vehicles, trucks, and emergency vehicles) and to withstand moderate seismic events Substandard and unsafe roadway design Substandard pedestrian and bicycle facilities across the river Existing and future travel demands between origins and destinations served by the Sellwood Bridge exceed available capacity

• • •

A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), which was distributed in November 2008, evaluated a No Build Alternative and five Build alternatives, lettered A through E. The Build alternatives were assembled from compatible combinations of alignments, bridge crosssections, bridge design types, west-end interchange types, and east-end intersection types. These features were evaluated within the context of individual Build alternatives. However, some features could be substituted into other alternatives.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3

Fact Sheet

alignment. The river crossing would be closed during construction. • Alternative D would consist of a replacement bridge on the existing alignment, widened to the south. The river crossing would remain open during construction. Alternative E would replace the existing bridge on a new alignment to the north. The river crossing would remain open during construction. Alternative D Refined (the preferred alternative) includes design refinements to Alternative D to address public and agency comments received on the DEIS, and to minimize environmental impacts, which included the refinement of: − − OR 43 footprint to reduce park impacts Pedestrian and bicyclist facilities to improve access, improve safety, and reduce park and natural resource impacts A driveway access to improve safety and reduce park impacts The width of the bridge deck on the west-end An access roadway footprint to accommodate a future streetcar line

can be obtained free of charge by contacting Multnomah County at: Mike Pullen Multnomah County Public Affairs Office (503) 988-6804 Printed copies of the FEIS are available at select Multnomah County and Clackamas County libraries, and other locations (see the Distribution List in Appendix E of the FEIS).

Anticipated Permits and Approvals
Anticipated permits and approvals that would be required for the project include the following:

Federal
• Federal Highway Administration − Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 National Park Service − Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act (Alternative A only) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Oregon Department of State Lands − Clean Water Act, Section 404 − Oregon's Removal-Fill Law − Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act U.S. Coast Guard − Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/National Marine Fisheries Service − Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act Consultation; Biological Opinion − Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act − Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act − Migratory Bird Treaty Act

− − −

• •

For a complete description of the alternatives, see Chapter 2 of the FEIS.

Lead Agencies
Multnomah County Federal Highway Administration Oregon Department of Transportation

Document Availability
The FEIS can be accessed at www.sellwoodbridge.org. Readers can follow a link from that page to a page to submit comments online. The FEIS is also available on CD-ROM and

State
• • Oregon Department of Agriculture − Oregon Endangered Species Act (Plants) Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

4

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Fact Sheet

• •

Clean Water Act Section 401: Water Quality Certification − Clean Water Act Section 402: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program − Clean Water Act Section 402: NPDES Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Program − Conformance with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife − Oregon Endangered Species Act (Wildlife) − Fish Passage Plan Approval (Oregon Administrative Rule [OAR] 635-012) Oregon Department of Transportation − Access spacing deviation (OAR 734-051) Oregon State Marine Board − Recreational Waters Coordination Requirements State Historic Preservation Office − Section 106 Consultation, National Historic Preservation Act

Harbor Master Permit

FEIS Appendix F, Summary of Permits and Clearances Needed, summarizes required permits and clearances for this project. The Federal Highway Administration, in cooperation with the Oregon Department of Transportation and Multnomah County, intends to issue a “statute of limitations” (SOL) notice in the Federal Register, pursuant to 23 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 139(l), indicating that one or more federal agencies have taken final action on permits, licenses, or approvals for this transportation project. This SOL notice establishes that claims seeking judicial review of those federal agency actions will be barred unless such claims are filed within 180 days after the date of publication of the notice in the Federal Register. Multnomah County will also make the SOL notice available on the project website at http://www.sellwoodbridge.org.

Authors and Principal Contributors
The names of authors and principal contributors are listed in FEIS Appendix C, List of Preparers.

Local
• City of Portland − Floodplain Development Permit − Type II Greenway Permit − Type II Environmental Permit − Type II Historic Design Review − Conditional Use Permit − Non Park Use Permit − Noise Ordinance Variance

Record of Decision
Following issuance of the FEIS, the Federal Highway Administration will issue a Record of Decision. This approval, and a Financial Plan demonstrating how the project will be funded, would allow Multnomah County to move ahead with the project.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, alternative formats of this document will be made available upon request.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

5

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table of Contents
Summary .................................................................................................... S-1 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need ................................................................... 1-1
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Why are we considering the Sellwood Bridge project? ........................................................................ 1-1 Where is the project located? ..................................................................................................................... 1-1 What is the project setting? ......................................................................................................................... 1-2 What is the history of the project? ............................................................................................................ 1-2 1.4.1 Built in 1925 ...................................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.4.2 Oregon’s First-Ever Four-Span, Continuous-truss Bridge ..................................................... 1-4 1.4.3 Topographic Challenges ................................................................................................................. 1-4 1.4.4 Recent Safety Measures.................................................................................................................. 1-4 1.4.5 Planning Framework........................................................................................................................ 1-4 What is the purpose of the project? .......................................................................................................... 1-5 Why is the project needed? ......................................................................................................................... 1-5 1.6.1 Inadequate Structural Integrity ..................................................................................................... 1-6 1.6.2 Substandard and Unsafe Roadway Design ................................................................................. 1-7 1.6.3 Substandard Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities across the River ............................................ 1-7 1.6.4 Travel Demands Exceed Available Capacity ............................................................................. 1-8 What are the goals of the project?............................................................................................................. 1-8 What are minimum requirements for meeting project purpose and need?..................................... 1-9

1.5 1.6

1.7 1.8

Chapter 2. Concept Development, Project Alternatives, and the Preferred Alternative .................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Overview of the Process Used to Identify and Narrow Concepts .................................................... 2-2 2.1.1 Decision Point 1: Establish Decision Process and Structure ................................................. 2-3 2.1.2 Decision Point 2: Define Purpose and Need ............................................................................ 2-3 2.1.3 Decision Point 3: Establish Evaluation Framework .................................................................. 2-3 2.1.4 Decision Point 4: Develop Alternatives ..................................................................................... 2-4 2.1.5 Decision Point 5: Screen Alternatives ...................................................................................... 2-10 2.1.6 Decision Point 6: Identify Preferred Alternative .................................................................... 2-12 Alternatives Carried Forward to and Evaluated in the DEIS ............................................................. 2-12 2.2.1 No Build Alternative ..................................................................................................................... 2-12 2.2.2 Build Alternatives ........................................................................................................................... 2-13 2.2.3 Construction Activities ................................................................................................................ 2-38 Preferred Alternative ................................................................................................................................... 2-42 2.3.1 Identification and Refinement of the Preferred Alternative ................................................ 2-42 2.3.2 Description of the Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) .................................... 2-43 2.3.3 Preferred Alternative Construction Activities ....................................................................... 2-55

2.2

2.3

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

i

Table of Contents (Continued)

Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation............................................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Transportation ................................................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1.1 Affected Environment ..................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences ............................................................... 3-8 3.1.3 Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences .................................................................. 3-10 3.1.4 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Transportation Impact ................................. 3-30 Bicyclists and Pedestrians............................................................................................................................ 3-34 3.2.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................... 3-34 3.2.2 Bicyclist and Pedestrian Demand ............................................................................................... 3-36 3.2.3 No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences ............................................................. 3-38 3.2.4 Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences .................................................................. 3-39 3.2.5 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impact ............... 3-53 Right-of-Way and Relocation..................................................................................................................... 3-56 3.3.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................... 3-56 3.3.2 No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences ............................................................. 3-58 3.3.3 Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences .................................................................. 3-58 3.3.4 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Right-of-Way Impact .................................... 3-70 Utilities ............................................................................................................................................................ 3-71 3.4.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................... 3-71 3.4.2 No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences ............................................................. 3-72 3.4.3 Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences .................................................................. 3-72 3.4.4 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Utilities Impact ............................................... 3-73 Land Use ......................................................................................................................................................... 3-74 3.5.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................... 3-74 3.5.2 No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences ............................................................. 3-77 3.5.3 Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences .................................................................. 3-77 3.5.4 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Land-use Impact ............................................. 3-80 Economic ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-82 3.6.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................... 3-82 3.6.2 No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences ............................................................. 3-84 3.6.3 Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences .................................................................. 3-85 3.6.4 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Economic Impact ........................................... 3-91 3.6.5 Impacts of Project Financing ....................................................................................................... 3-92 Social Elements .............................................................................................................................................. 3-94 3.7.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................... 3-94 3.7.2 No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences ........................................................... 3-101 3.7.3 Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-101 3.7.4 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Social Impact ................................................. 3-107 Environmental Justice................................................................................................................................. 3-109 3.8.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................. 3-109 3.8.2 No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences ........................................................... 3-113 3.8.3 Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-114 3.8.4 Benefits ........................................................................................................................................... 3-117 3.8.5 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Environmental Justice Impact ................... 3-118

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

ii

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table of Contents (Continued)

3.9

3.10

3.11

3.12

3.13

3.14

3.15

3.16

3.17

Parks and Recreation ................................................................................................................................. 3-119 3.9.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................. 3-119 3.9.2 No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences ........................................................... 3-122 3.9.3 Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-122 3.9.4 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Park and Recreation Impact ...................... 3-128 3.9.5 Section 6(f) .................................................................................................................................... 3-132 Archaeological and Historic Resources ................................................................................................ 3-133 3.10.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................. 3-133 3.10.2 No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences ........................................................... 3-139 3.10.3 Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-139 3.10.4 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Archaeological and Historic Resources Impact ........................................................................................................................ 3-147 Visual Resources ......................................................................................................................................... 3-149 3.11.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................. 3-149 3.11.2 No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences ........................................................... 3-150 3.11.3 Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-150 3.11.4 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Visual Resources Impact ............................ 3-158 Geology ......................................................................................................................................................... 3-160 3.12.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................. 3-160 3.12.2 No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences ........................................................... 3-160 3.12.3 Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-162 3.12.4 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Geology Impact ............................................ 3-166 Water Quality ............................................................................................................................................. 3-168 3.13.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................. 3-168 3.13.2 No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences ........................................................... 3-168 3.13.3 Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-168 3.13.4 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Water Quality Impact ................................ 3-171 Hydraulics ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-172 3.14.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................. 3-172 3.14.2 No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences ........................................................... 3-172 3.14.3 Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-173 3.14.4 Floodplain Finding ........................................................................................................................ 3-174 3.14.5 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Hydraulics Impact ........................................ 3-175 Aquatic Resources ...................................................................................................................................... 3-176 3.15.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................. 3-176 3.15.2 No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences ........................................................... 3-182 3.15.3 Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-182 Vegetation..................................................................................................................................................... 3-188 3.16.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................. 3-188 3.16.2 No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences ........................................................... 3-189 3.16.3 Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-189 3.16.4 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Vegetation Impact ....................................... 3-192 Wetlands ....................................................................................................................................................... 3-193 3.17.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................. 3-193 3.17.2 No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences ........................................................... 3-195 3.17.3 Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-195

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

iii

Table of Contents (Continued)

3.18

3.19

3.20

3.21

3.22

3.23

3.24

3.25

3.17.4 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Wetlands Impact ......................................... 3-196 Wildlife .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-197 3.18.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................. 3-197 3.18.2 No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences ........................................................... 3-199 3.18.3 Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-200 3.18.4 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Wildlife Impact ............................................. 3-203 Noise ............................................................................................................................................................. 3-204 3.19.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................. 3-204 3.19.2 No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences ........................................................... 3-205 3.19.3 Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-206 3.19.4 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Traffic Noise Impact ................................... 3-211 Energy ............................................................................................................................................................ 3-212 3.20.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................. 3-212 3.20.2 No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences ........................................................... 3-212 3.20.3 Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-212 3.20.4 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Energy Impact ............................................... 3-213 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................................... 3-214 3.21.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................. 3-214 3.21.2 No Build Alternative and Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences ................. 3-216 3.21.3 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Air Quality Impact ....................................... 3-220 Hazardous Materials................................................................................................................................... 3-221 3.22.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................. 3-221 3.22.2 No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences ........................................................... 3-221 3.22.3 Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-221 3.22.4 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Hazardous Materials Impact ..................... 3-225 Relationship of Short-term Uses of the Environment and Long-term Productivity ................... 3-226 3.23.1 No Build Alternative ................................................................................................................... 3-226 3.23.2 Build Alternatives ......................................................................................................................... 3-226 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ............................................................... 3-228 3.24.1 No Build Alternative ................................................................................................................... 3-228 3.24.2 Build Alternatives ......................................................................................................................... 3-228 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................................... 3-230 3.25.1 Past and Present Actions ........................................................................................................... 3-230 3.25.2 Foreseeable Actions .................................................................................................................... 3-233 3.25.3 Future Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................................... 3-233 3.25.4 Future Cumulative Impacts by Discipline............................................................................... 3-235 Key Differentiators between the No Build Alternative and the Build Alternatives ....................... 4-1 4.1.1 Structural Integrity and Motorized Vehicle Safety ................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 OR 43 Traffic Flow .......................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.1.3 Transit and Freight Use .................................................................................................................. 4-2 4.1.4 Bicyclist and Pedestrian Use.......................................................................................................... 4-2 4.1.5 Visual Impacts ................................................................................................................................... 4-4 Key Differentiators among Build Alternatives ......................................................................................... 4-4 4.2.1 Bridge Closure.................................................................................................................................. 4-4

Chapter 4. Comparison of Alternatives ................................................... 4-1
4.1

4.2

iv

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table of Contents (Continued)

4.3

4.4 5.1

4.2.2 Construction Cost .......................................................................................................................... 4-5 4.2.3 Ability to Phase Construction ...................................................................................................... 4-6 4.2.4 Bicyclists and Pedestrians............................................................................................................... 4-9 4.2.5 Transit ................................................................................................................................................ 4-9 4.2.6 Residential Displacements ........................................................................................................... 4-11 4.2.7 Business Displacements................................................................................................................ 4-11 4.2.8 Maintenance of Access to Businesses and Residences ......................................................... 4-17 4.2.9 Park and Recreational Facility Impacts ..................................................................................... 4-17 4.2.10 Section 4(f) ...................................................................................................................................... 4-17 4.2.11 Regulated Floodway ...................................................................................................................... 4-19 Key Differentiators among Build Alternative Elements ....................................................................... 4-20 4.3.1 Alignment ......................................................................................................................................... 4-20 4.3.2 West-side Interchange Type ....................................................................................................... 4-21 4.3.3 Basic Bridge Cross-section .......................................................................................................... 4-24 4.3.4 SE 6th Avenue Intersection—Neighborhood Cut-through Traffic versus Traffic Operations ...................................................................................................................................... 4-26 4.3.5 Rehabilitation versus Replacement ............................................................................................ 4-29 Section 4(f) Preliminary Least Harm Analysis ........................................................................................ 4-31 Decision Structure and Public Involvement Process .............................................................................. 5-1 5.1.1 Project Groups ................................................................................................................................. 5-2 5.1.2 Decision Process and Structure ................................................................................................... 5-4 Key Issues and Themes ................................................................................................................................. 5-6 Agency Review and Coordination ............................................................................................................ 5-11 5.3.1 Collaborative Environmental and Transportation Agreement for Streamlining Process ............................................................................................................................................. 5-11 5.3.2 Lead, Cooperating, and Participating Agencies....................................................................... 5-12 Comments on the DEIS .............................................................................................................................. 5-14 5.4.1 Public Briefings, Hearing, and Open House............................................................................. 5-14 5.4.2 DEIS Comment Summary ............................................................................................................ 5-14 Activities Completed after Distribution of the DEIS ........................................................................... 5-15 5.5.1 Identification of a Preferred Alternative .................................................................................. 5-15 5.5.2 Local Jurisdiction Adoption of a Preferred Alternative ........................................................ 5-17 5.5.3 Agency Coordination .................................................................................................................... 5-17 5.5.4 Refinement of the Preferred Alternative ................................................................................. 5-20 5.5.5 Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required for the Proposed Action ................. 5-20 5.5.6 Record of Decision ....................................................................................................................... 5-21

Chapter 5. Public Involvement and Agency Coordination .................... 5-1

5.2 5.3

5.4

5.5

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

v

Table of Contents (Continued)

Final Section 4(f) Evaluation
Section 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 4(f)-1 Section 2. Proposed Actions ................................................................................................................................... 4(f)-9 Section 3. Avoidance Alternatives ....................................................................................................................... 4(f)-59 Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm .............................................. 4(f)-65 Section 5. Coordination ....................................................................................................................................... 4(f)-101 Section 6. References ........................................................................................................................................... 4(f)-103 Index ............................................................................................................................................................... 4(f)-105 Attachments: 1. Section 4(f) Temporary Use Documentation: Springwater Corridor Trail 2. Section 4(f) Temporary Use Documentation: Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank) 3. De minimis Findings Documentation: Powers Marine Park 4. Section 4(f) Temporary Use Documentation: Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) 5. De minimis Findings Documentation: Willamette Moorage Park 6. Section 106 Determination of Eligibility (DOE) Forms 7. Section 106 Findings of Effect (FOE) Forms 8. Historic Resources Memorandum of Agreement: Riverview Cemetery and Sellwood Bridge

Appendixes
Appendix A. Appendix B. Appendix C. Appendix D. Appendix E. Appendix F. Appendix G. Appendix H. Appendix I. Appendix J. Appendix K. Acronyms and Abbreviations References List of Preparers List of Supporting Technical Documentation Distribution and Notice of Availability Lists Summary of Permits and Clearances Needed Summary of Mitigation and Environmental Commitments SHPO Findings of Effect (FOE) Concurrence Letter Responses to DEIS Comments Original Comments on the DEIS Index

vi

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table of Contents (Continued)

Figures
1.2-1 1.2-2 2.1-1 2.1-2 2.2-1 2.2-2 2.2-3 2.2-4 2.2-5 2.2-6 2.2-7 2.2-8 2.2-9 2.2-10 2.2-11 2.2-12 2.2-13 2.2-14 2.2-15 2.2-16 2.2-17 2.3-1 2.3-2 2.3-3 2.3-4 2.3-5 2.3-6 2.3-7 2.3-8 Project Vicinity ............................................................................................................................................... 1-3 Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................................................... 1-3 Decision Points in the Evaluation Process .............................................................................................. 2-1 Bridge Alignment Concepts Evaluated .................................................................................................... 2-7 Alternative A: Rehabilitation Bridge with Separate Bike/Ped Bridge............................................... 2-19 Alternative A Bridge Configuration ....................................................................................................... 2-20 Rehabilitated Bridge Cross-section ........................................................................................................ 2-21 Alternative B: Rehabilitation Bridge with Temporary Detour Bridge ............................................ 2-23 Alternative B Bridge Configuration ........................................................................................................ 2-24 Temporary Detour Bridge Cross-section ............................................................................................ 2-25 Alternative C: Replacement Bridge on Existing Alignment .............................................................. 2-27 Alternative C Bridge Configuration ....................................................................................................... 2-28 Through-arch Bridge .................................................................................................................................. 2-29 Alternative D: Replacement Bridge, Widened to the South ............................................................ 2-30 Alternative D Bridge Configuration ....................................................................................................... 2-32 Delta-frame Bridge ..................................................................................................................................... 2-33 Deck-arch Bridge ........................................................................................................................................ 2-33 Alternative E: Replacement Bridge, Relocated to the North with Transit Lanes ....................... 2-35 Alternative E Bridge Configuration ........................................................................................................ 2-36 Box-girder Bridge ....................................................................................................................................... 2-37 Through-arch Bridge .................................................................................................................................. 2-37 Preferred Alternative – Alternative D Refined .................................................................................... 2-44 Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Bridge Configuration ............................................. 2-48 West End Bridge Configuration – Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) and Alternative D ........................................................................................................................................ 2-49 West-side Interchange – Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) and Alternative D .... 2-50 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities – Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) and Alternative D ........................................................................................................................................ 2-52 East-side Connection – Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) ......................................... 2-53 Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club Driveway Access – Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) ........................................................................................................ 2-54 Willamette Moorage Park/Stephens Creek Mitigation Area and Powers Marine Park Mitigation Area – Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) .......................................... 2-56 Study Area Roadways .................................................................................................................................. 3-2 Existing OR 43/Sellwood Bridge Interchange ........................................................................................ 3-4 Alternative A West-side Interchange .................................................................................................... 3-17 Alternative B West-side Interchange ..................................................................................................... 3-19 Alternative C West-side Interchange .................................................................................................... 3-22 Alternative D West-side Interchange .................................................................................................... 3-24 Alternative E West-side Interchange ..................................................................................................... 3-26 Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) West-side Interchange ......................................... 3-29 Alternative A Bridge Cross-sections ..................................................................................................... 3-39

3.1-1 3.1-2 3.1-3 3.1-4 3.1-5 3.1-6 3.1-7 3.1-8 3.2-1

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

vii

Table of Contents (Continued)

3.2-2 3.2-3 3.2-4 3.2-5 3.2-6 3.2-7 3.2-8 3.2-9 3.2-10 3.2-11 3.3-1 3.3-2 3.3-3 3.3-4 3.3-5 3.3-6 3.3-7 3.3-8 3.4-1 3.5-1 3.5-2 3.6-1 3.6-2 3.7-1 3.7-2 3.8-1 3.8-2 3.9-1 3.9-2 3.10-1 3.10-2 3.11-1 3.11-2 3.11-3 3.11-4 3.11-5 3.11-6 3.11-7 3.11-8 3.11-9 3.12-1

Alternative A West-side and East-side Bicyclist and Pedestrian Facilities ..................................... 3-40 Alternative B Bridge Cross-section ....................................................................................................... 3-42 Alternative B West-side and East-side Bicyclist and Pedestrian Facilities ...................................... 3-43 Alternative C Bridge Cross-section ....................................................................................................... 3-44 Alternative C West-side and East-side Bicyclist and Pedestrian Facilities ..................................... 3-45 Alternative D Bridge Cross-section ....................................................................................................... 3-47 Alternative D West-side and East-side Bicyclist and Pedestrian Facilities .................................... 3-47 Alternative E Bridge Cross-section ......................................................................................................... 3-48 Alternative E West-side and East-side Bicyclist and Pedestrian Facilities ..................................... 3-49 Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) West-side and East-side Bicyclist and Pedestrian Facilities ......................................................................................................................................................... 3-52 Residential and Commercial Properties ............................................................................................... 3-56 Impacted Tax Lots ...................................................................................................................................... 3-60 Alternative A Right-of-Way Impacts ...................................................................................................... 3-62 Alternative B Right-of-Way Impacts ...................................................................................................... 3-63 Alternative C Right-of-Way Impacts ..................................................................................................... 3-64 Alternative D Right-of-Way Impacts ..................................................................................................... 3-66 Alternative E Right-of-Way Impacts ...................................................................................................... 3-68 Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Right-of-Way Impacts .......................................... 3-69 Existing Utilities ........................................................................................................................................... 3-71 Generalized Land Uses .............................................................................................................................. 3-75 Greenway and Environmental Overlay Zones .................................................................................... 3-76 West-side Economic Analysis Study Area ............................................................................................ 3-82 East-side Economic Analysis Study Area .............................................................................................. 3-83 Selected Social Elements ........................................................................................................................... 3-95 Transit and Emergency Vehicle Routes ............................................................................................... 3-100 Environmental Justice Direct Impact Study Area ............................................................................. 3-110 Environmental Justice Indirect Impact Study Area ........................................................................... 3-111 Park and Recreation Facilities ................................................................................................................ 3-119 Willamette Moorage Park/Stephens Creek Mitigation Area and Powers Marine Park Mitigation Area – Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) ........................................ 3-125 Area of Potential Resources Effect and Historic Resources ........................................................... 3-133 Existing Condition and Alternative D Refined .................................................................................... 3-145 Protected Scenic Viewpoints and Key Viewpoints for Visual Analysis ........................................ 3-150 Alternative A Cable-stayed Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge from Sellwood Riverfront Park .......... 3-152 Alternative A Roundabout Interchange and Bicycle/Pedestrian Path............................................ 3-152 Alternative C Through-arch Bridge from SE Tacoma Street .......................................................... 3-154 Alternative C Trumpet Interchange ..................................................................................................... 3-154 Alternative D and Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Deck-arch Bridge from SE Tacoma Street ............................................................................................................................................ 3-156 Alternative D and Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Deck-arch Bridge from Sellwood Riverfront Park......................................................................................................................... 3-156 Alternative E Through-arch Bridge from Sellwood Riverfront Park ............................................. 3-157 Alternative E Signalized Interchange and South Ramps from above West Bank in Mid-Air (Demolished Existing Bridge) .................................................................................................. 3-157 Sellwood Slide ........................................................................................................................................... 3-161

viii

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table of Contents (Continued)

3.12-2 3.12-3 3.13-1 3.17-1 3.19-1 3.22-1 4.2-1 4.2-2 4.2-3 4.2-4 4.2-5 4.2-6 4.2-7 4.3-1 4.3-2 5.1-1 5.1-2

Geologic Cross-Section ........................................................................................................................... 3-161 Geologic Mitigation Techniques ............................................................................................................ 3-163 Potential Water Quality Swale Locations along SE Tacoma Street .............................................. 3-170 Location of Stephens Creek Wetland ................................................................................................... 3-194 2035 Noise Levels for the No Build Alternative and the Build Alternatives ............................. 3-207 Features of Environmental Concern .................................................................................................... 3-223 Total Construction Cost in 2012 Millions of Dollars by Alternative and Bridge Type ................ 4-7 Bridge Construction Cost in 2012 Millions of Dollars by Alternative and Bridge Type .............. 4-7 West-side Interchange Construction Cost in 2012 Millions of Dollars by Alternative ............... 4-8 East-side Connection Construction Cost in 2012 Millions of Dollars by Alternative .................. 4-8 Build Alternative Alignments ..................................................................................................................... 4-9 Residences Displaced by Build Alternatives ......................................................................................... 4-13 Businesses Displaced by Build Alternatives .......................................................................................... 4-14 West-side Interchange Types .................................................................................................................. 4-22 East-side Connection ................................................................................................................................. 4-28 Sellwood Bridge Project Decision Structure ......................................................................................... 5-2 Project Schedule and Decision Points ...................................................................................................... 5-4

Tables
S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 2.1-1 2.1-2 2.2-1 2.3-1 3.1-1 3.1-2 3.1-3 3.1-4 3.1-5 3.1-6 3.1-7 3.1-8 3.1-9 3.1-10 3.1-11 Cooperating and Participating Agencies ...................................................................................................S-5 Build Alternative Characteristics ................................................................................................................ S-9 Summary of Anticipated Impacts of the No Build Alternative and the Build Alternatives ......... S-12 Areas of Controversy and Resolution ................................................................................................... S-32 Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required .............................................................................. S-36 Reason(s) for Eliminating Six Alignments in Decision Point 4 ........................................................... 2-8 Primary Reason(s) for Eliminating Four Alignments in Decision Point 5 ...................................... 2-10 Build Alternative Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 2-14 Build Alternative Characteristics including Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) ...... 2-45

Travel Markets of Existing Sellwood Bridge Users .............................................................................. 3-4 Travel Markets of Existing and Future Sellwood Bridge Users ......................................................... 3-8 Existing and 2035 Weekday Traffic Demands ....................................................................................... 3-9 No Build Alternative: Summary of Potential Impacts ........................................................................ 3-11 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Common to All Build Alternatives ........................................... 3-15 Alternative A: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................................................... 3-18 Alternative B: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures .......................................................... 3-20 Alternative C: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................................................... 3-23 Alternative D: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................................................... 3-25 Alternative E: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures .......................................................... 3-28 Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined): Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................................ 3-30 3.1-12 Summary of Alternatives by Potential Differentiating Roadway Impacts ....................................... 3-32

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

ix

Table of Contents (Continued)

3.1-13 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Construction-related Traffic Impacts ..................... 3-33 3.2-1 Sellwood Bridge Existing Daily Bicyclist and Pedestrian Use ........................................................... 3-36 3.2-2 Sellwood Bridge No Build Alternative Year 2035 Daily Bicyclist and Pedestrian Use Projections..................................................................................................................................................... 3-37 3.2-3 Sellwood Bridge Build Alternatives Year 2035 Daily Bicyclist and Pedestrian Use Projections..................................................................................................................................................... 3-38 3.2-4 Alternative A Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts and Potential Mitigation ...................................... 3-41 3.2-5 Alternative B Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts and Potential Mitigation ...................................... 3-44 3.2-6 Alternative C Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts and Potential Mitigation ...................................... 3-46 3.2-7 Alternative D Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts and Potential Mitigation ...................................... 3-48 3.2-8 Alternative E Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts and Potential Mitigation ....................................... 3-50 3.2-9 Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts and Potential Mitigation ...................................................................................................................................................... 3-51 3.2-10 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impact ............................... 3-53 3.3-1 Tax Lot Impacts (in acres) by Build Alternative .................................................................................. 3-61 3.3-2 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Right-of-Way Impact ................................................. 3-70 3.4-1 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Utilities Impact ............................................................ 3-73 3.5-1 Zoning Districts (Base Zones and Overlay Zones) in the Study Area .......................................... 3-77 3.5-2 Applicable Land-Use Regulations, Plans, and Guidance Documents .............................................. 3-79 3.5-3 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Land-use Impact .......................................................... 3-81 3.6-1 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Economic Impact ........................................................ 3-91 3.6-2 Preliminary Financial Plan to Fund Sellwood Bridge Project ............................................................. 3-93 3.7-1 Selected Social Elements ........................................................................................................................... 3-98 3.7-2 Social Impacts under the No Build Alternative ................................................................................. 3-102 3.7-3 Direct Social Impacts Common to the Build Alternatives ............................................................. 3-102 3.7-4 Direct Social Impacts under Alternative A ......................................................................................... 3-103 3.7-5 Direct Social Impacts under Alternative B ......................................................................................... 3-104 3.7-6 Direct Social Impacts under Alternative C ........................................................................................ 3-105 3.7-7 Direct Social Impacts under Alternative D ........................................................................................ 3-106 3.7-8 Direct Social Impacts under Alternative E ......................................................................................... 3-106 3.7-9 Direct Social Impacts under Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) .............................. 3-107 3.7-10 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Social Impact ............................................................. 3-108 3.8-1 Non-white or Hispanic by Census Tract within the Study Area .................................................. 3-112 3.8-2 Low-income and Very Low-income Population by Census Tract within the Study Area........ 3-113 3.8-3 Potential Residential Displacements Associated with Sellwood Bridge Alternatives ................ 3-115 3.8-4 Potential Business Displacements Associated with Sellwood Bridge Alternatives .................... 3-117 3.9-1 Summary of Build Alternative Land Incorporation at Powers Marine Park ............................... 3-123 3.9-2 Summary of Build Alternative Land Incorporation at Willamette Moorage Park ...................... 3-123 3.9-3 Summary of Impacts to Park and Recreational Facilities .................................................................. 3-129 3.10-1 Properties Listed or Determined Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places ........... 3-135 3.10-2 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Archaeological and Historic Resources Impact ........................................................................................................................................................... 3-148 3.11-1 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Visual Resources Impact ......................................... 3-159 3.12-1 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Geology Impact ........................................................ 3-167 3.13-1 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Water Quality Impact ............................................. 3-171

x

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table of Contents (Continued)

3.14-1 Summary of Hydraulic Conditions by Alternative, Bridge Type, and Bridge Foundation Method ................................................................................................................................... 3-175 3.15-1 Seasonal Average Water Quality Index Results for the Lower Willamette Basin (Water Year 1986–1995) ....................................................................................................................... 3-177 3.15-2 Willamette River Mouth to Willamette Falls—Resident Salmonid Species Life History and Timing ................................................................................................................................................... 3-179 3.15-3 Willamette River Mouth to Willamette Falls—Anadromous Species Life History and Timing .................................................................................................................................................. 3-180 3.15-4 Potential Riverine Impacts ...................................................................................................................... 3-183 3.15-5 Sellwood Bridge Build Alternatives Overall Aquatic Resources Sensitivity Score..................... 3-185 3.16-1 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Vegetation Impact .................................................... 3-192 3.17-1 Stephens Creek Wetland ....................................................................................................................... 3-194 3.17-2 Potential Impacts to Wetland Area and Functions .......................................................................... 3-195 3.17-3 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Wetlands Impact ....................................................... 3-196 3.18-1 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Wildlife Impact .......................................................... 3-203 3.19-1 Comparative Sound Levels ..................................................................................................................... 3-205 3.19-2 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Traffic Noise Impact ................................................ 3-211 3.20-1 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Energy Impact ............................................................. 3-213 3.21-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) ........................................................................ 3-214 3.21-2 Maximum Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (in ppm) at the SW Taylors Ferry Road/OR 43 Intersection ....................................................................................................................... 3-217 3.22-1 Features of Potential Environmental Concern .................................................................................. 3-222 3.22-2 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Hazardous Materials Impact .................................. 3-225 4.1-1 4.1-2 4.1-3 4.1-4 4.2-1 4.2-2 4.2-3 4.2-4 4.2-5 4.2-6 4.2-7 4.2-8 4.2-9 4.3-1 4.3-2 4.3-3 4.3-4 4.3-5 Structural Integrity and Safety by No Build Alternative and Build Alternatives ............................ 4-3 OR 43 Traffic Flow by No Build Alternative and Build Alternatives ............................................... 4-3 Transit and Freight Use Questions by No Build Alternative and Build Alternatives .................... 4-3 Bicyclist and Pedestrian Use by No Build Alternative and Build Alternatives ............................... 4-3 Bridge Closure, Duration, Business Loss, and Commuter Cost ...................................................... 4-5 Can Construction Be Phased? ................................................................................................................... 4-9 Bicyclist and Pedestrian Elements by Build Alternative ..................................................................... 4-10 Transit Elements by Build Alternative ................................................................................................... 4-12 Residential Displacements by Build Alternative .................................................................................. 4-12 Business Displacements by Build Alternative ...................................................................................... 4-12 Status of River View Cemetery Access from OR 43 ......................................................................... 4-17 Alternative-specific Adverse Impacts to Park and Recreational Facilities .................................... 4-18 Change in Base Flood Elevation by Build Alternative and Bridge Type ......................................... 4-20 Traffic Operations by Interchange Type at the Sellwood Bridge/OR 43 Interchange ................ 4-23 Potential Bicyclist and Pedestrian Conflict Points with Vehicles and Transit Access by West-side Interchange Type ................................................................................................ 4-24 Basic Bridge Cross-section Elements by Alternative ......................................................................... 4-27 Potential for Neighborhood Cut-through Traffic Increases by Build Alternative ........................ 4-30 Vehicular Bridge Design Types and Cost Ranges (2012 Dollars) of Rehabilitation and Replacement Alternatives .......................................................................................................................... 4-30 Sellwood Bridge Project Policy Advisory Group Members and Agencies/Jurisdictions ............... 5-3

5.1-1

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

xi

Table of Contents (Continued)

5.2-1 5.3-1 5.5-1 5.5-2

Key Issues, Themes, and Associated Responses ................................................................................... 5-7 Cooperating and Participating Agencies ............................................................................................... 5-13 Agency Coordination Meetings ................................................................................................................. 5-19 Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required ............................................................................... 5-22

xii

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Summary

Summary
This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is prepared to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), a federal law that governs all projects receiving federal funding or receiving permits from federal agencies. Three agencies are leading the NEPA process for this project—the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), and Multnomah County, Oregon. This FEIS, which was prepared following FHWA’s environmental process and guidelines for preparing an FEIS, complies with FHWA NEPA regulations. FHWA has approved this document. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), distributed in November 2008 (FHWA et al., 2008), evaluated a No Build Alternative and five Build alternatives, lettered A through E. Two public briefings, an open house, and a public hearing were held in November and December 2008. After fully considering and evaluating public and agency comments, the project’s Policy Advisory Group (PAG) recommended Alternative D as the preferred alternative. (The PAG is described later in this summary.) The Multnomah County Board of Commissioners, Clackamas County Board of Commissioners, Metro Council, Portland City Council, and ODOT adopted Alternative D as the preferred alternative in February and March of 2009. Alternative D, which has been refined to address public and agency comments and minimize impacts, is evaluated as Alternative D Refined in this FEIS. Therefore, this FEIS evaluates the economic, social, and natural resource effects of the No Build Alternative, the five Build alternatives evaluated in the DEIS, and the preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined). Following distribution of this FEIS, if any comments received on this FEIS can be satisfied within the context of the preferred alternative, FHWA will issue a Record of Decision. FHWA approval of any of the Build alternatives, including the preferred alternative, would allow Multnomah County to move ahead with selection of a bridge type and project design.

Description of the Proposed Action
The Sellwood Bridge project would rehabilitate or replace the Sellwood Bridge located in Portland, Multnomah County, Oregon. After more than 80 years, the Sellwood Bridge has reached the end of its useful service life. The bridge was constructed in 1925 to replace the Spokane Street Ferry, which shuttled passengers across the Willamette River between Sellwood and southwest Portland. The bridge, approximately 1,900 feet in length, is extremely narrow—two lanes, no shoulders or median, and one narrow sidewalk that must accommodate light poles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. The bridge crosses the Willamette River on SE Tacoma Street on the east end and intersects with Oregon 43 (OR 43, also known as SW Macadam Avenue within the city limits of Portland) on the west end. The following four main issues identify the need for this project:

The Sellwood Bridge was constructed in 1925 to replace the Spokane Street Ferry.
Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement S-1

Summary of All Reasonable Actions Considered Summary

Inadequate structural integrity to safely accommodate various vehicle types (including transit vehicles, trucks, and emergency vehicles) and to withstand moderate seismic events Substandard and unsafe roadway design Substandard pedestrian and bicycle facilities across the river Existing and future travel demands between origins and destinations served by the Sellwood Bridge exceed available capacity

This process helped to direct community input related to key project milestones, referred to as major “decision points.” Primary groups involved in the decision-making process included the following:  Project Management Team (PMT). Guided the day-to-day execution of the project. The PMT included staff from Multnomah County, Metro, City of Portland, ODOT, FHWA, and the consulting team. Community Task Force (CTF). Made recommendations to the PAG at each decision point. The CTF was comprised of representatives from neighborhoods on both sides of the bridge; local and regional business groups; advocates for different bridge user groups (such as commuters, freight and transit users, river users, pedestrians, and bicyclists); and representatives of natural resource, historic resource, and aesthetic interests. Policy Advisory Group (PAG). Made decisions at each decision point. The PAG was comprised of elected and appointed

  

Summary of All Reasonable Actions Considered
Decision-Making Process
A key element of the project was creating a decision-making process. Because the Sellwood Bridge project is complex, with many stakeholders and interest groups wanting to participate, the project team established a structured decision-making process at the outset.

A key element of this project was a structured decision-making process.

S-2

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Summary of All Reasonable Actions Considered Summary

officials of local agencies and jurisdictions with regulatory responsibility for the project or those who had a strong interest in the outcome. These officials included individuals from Multnomah County, Clackamas County, City of Portland, City of Milwaukie, Metro, ODOT, TriMet, FHWA, and the Oregon Legislature.  Senior Agency Staff (SAS). Advised the PMT and the PAG. The SAS was comprised of senior level staff from each of the PAG member organizations. Working Groups. Provided input to the CTF and PMT on particular issues. Each working group was comprised of consultants, agency staff, and experts who volunteered their services.

and about the roles, responsibilities, and membership of the various project groups (PAG, CTF, PMT, and SAS and working groups). 2. Define Purpose and Need. The second major decision point, conducted in the summer and fall of 2006, established the need for the project and defined the problems the project was expected to address. 3. Establish Evaluation Framework. The third major decision point, conducted in late 2006 and early 2007, established threshold and evaluation criteria that were used in subsequent decision points for screening and identifying alternatives for further study. The evaluation framework set criteria and quantitative performance measures to gauge the effectiveness of alternatives—how well they solved the identified problems and how well they performed against the broad range of stakeholder values. Through this process, the stakeholders adopted threshold and evaluation criteria (project goals). 4. Develop Alternatives. The fourth major decision point, conducted in the spring of 2007, developed a broad range of alternatives to address the purpose and need of the project (Decision Point 2). The aim of this step was to ensure that the stakeholders were consulted and their ideas were considered. After a broad range of concepts were identified, concepts were screened against the threshold criteria, alternatives were developed, and a range of alternatives

Chapter 5 of this FEIS describes the composition, roles, and responsibilities of these five groups in more detail. While these groups provided input and were involved in identifying a preferred alternative, FHWA will select an alternative when it issues the Record of Decision. The CTF, PAG, and PMT guided this process, charting a logical path through the six major decision points. The public involvement program was established around each of the decision points: 1. Establish Decision Process and Structure. The first major decision point ensured understanding and agreement about the project’s decision process and structure,

The project included six major decision points through an alternatives development and evaluation process.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

S-3

Summary of All Reasonable Actions Considered Summary

were adopted for more detailed evaluation. Alternatives consisted of the following three elements and, if applicable, other concepts:  Bridge Alignments. Refers to the location of the river crossing. The project team developed seven bridge alignments and a tunnel alignment, and the public suggested four additional bridge alignments. All alignments started on SE Tacoma Street on the east side of the Willamette River, but the location of the connection to OR 43 on the west bank varied by alignment. Interchange Types. Refers to the connection of the Sellwood Bridge with OR 43 on the west side of the river. The project team developed ten interchange/ intersection-type concepts to connect the west end of the bridge with OR 43. These concepts included a mix of atgrade, two-level, and three-level configurations, as well as a mix of signalized and unsignalized interchange forms. Basic Bridge Cross-sections. Refers to the various configurations of the bridge deck, including travel/transit lanes, bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and shared-use paths. Initially, over 40 possible basic bridge cross-section concepts were developed. Other Concepts. Refers to other concepts that were advanced, including:  Using a temporary detour bridge for traffic access across the river during construction. Using the existing bridge for bicyclist and pedestrian facilities with a replacement bridge for motorized vehicles on a separate alignment.

produced over 100 unique alternatives for evaluation. 5. Screen Alternatives. The fifth major decision point, conducted in the summer of 2007, identified alternatives for analysis in the DEIS. A team of technical experts rated the performance of the over 100 unique alternatives against each of 37 evaluation criteria. Performance ratings were either qualitative or quantitative. Input from the public and CTF was used to eliminate alignments and cross-section types and identify alternatives for further evaluation in the DEIS. Next, the CTF and PAG screened alternatives using the evaluation criteria and selected five alternatives (that the PAG adopted) to be carried forward for additional analysis in the DEIS. The project team then prepared the DEIS to analyze the selected alternatives. FHWA approved the DEIS before it was released in November 2008. The project team provided the results of the DEIS to the stakeholders, the public, and elected officials for use in identifying a preferred alternative. 6. Identify Preferred Alternative. The project completed the sixth and final major decision point, identification of the preferred alternative, in early 2009. A formal public comment period and a formal public hearing were held following distribution of the DEIS. The PAG considered the analysis documented in the DEIS, CTF input, and public comments when identifying a preferred alternative. The Multnomah County Board of Commissioners, Clackamas County Board of Commissioners, Metro Council, Portland City Council, and ODOT adopted the preferred alternative. FHWA will ultimately select the preferred alternative when it issues the Record of Decision. All major decision points featured public involvement activities that included the following elements: briefings, newsletters, open houses, an

The feasible concepts were combined to form project alternatives. The various combinations of alignments, cross-sections, interchange types, and other concepts

S-4

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Lead, Cooperating, and Participating Agencies Summary

TABLE S-1

Cooperating and Participating Agencies Federal Agencies Federal Emergency Management Agency (p) National Marine Fisheries Service (c) U.S. Coast Guard (c) State Agencies Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (p) Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (p) Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (p) Tribes and Local Agencies Confederated Tribes of Siletz (p) City of Milwaukie (p) City of Portland (p) c = cooperating agency p = participating agency Clackamas County (p) Metro (p) TriMet (p) Oregon Division of State Lands (p) Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (p) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (c) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (c) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (c)

interactive project Web site, online surveys, and a speakers’ bureau.

Lead, Cooperating, and Participating Agencies
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) authorizes federal surface transportation programs through fiscal year 2009. (The United States Congress has extended SAFETEA-LU into fiscal year 2010.) Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU created consolidated and enhanced environmental streamlining regulations. It requires transportation agencies to work together with the public, resource agencies, and other interested parties to establish timeframes for the environmental review of transportation projects. The efficient and effective coordination of multiple environmental reviews, analysis, and permitting actions is essential for meeting the environmental streamlining mandates under SAFETEA-LU. The lead agencies for this project are Multnomah County, FHWA, and ODOT. In accordance with

Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU, various agencies were invited to participate in the project as cooperating or participating agencies. The cooperating and participating agencies involved in the project are listed in Table S-1. Each of these agencies was afforded the opportunity to comment at each of the six decision points in the project. Chapter 5 of this FEIS describes the agency coordination process in more detail.

Alternatives Evaluated in the DEIS
The DEIS, distributed in November 2008, evaluated a No Build Alternative and five Build alternatives, lettered A through E. The Build alternatives were assembled from compatible combinations of alignments, bridge crosssections, bridge design types, west-end interchange types, and east-end intersection types. These features were evaluated within the context of individual Build alternatives. However, some features could be substituted into other Build alternatives.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

S-5

Summary of the Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Summary

Under the No Build Alternative, the existing infrastructure would remain the same and the bridge would continue to operate as it does today. The bridge, west-side interchange configuration, and east-side bridge approach would not change. Multnomah County has identified maintenance activities under the No Build Alternative that would be necessary to keep the bridge operational and in as good a condition as possible for the next 20 years. The following Build alternatives were evaluated in the DEIS.  Alternative A would rehabilitate the existing bridge for motorized vehicles and would add a separate bicycle/pedestrian bridge 300 feet north of the existing bridge. The river crossing would be closed during construction. Alternative B would rehabilitate the existing bridge and widen it on the north side. It would include the option for a temporary detour bridge to keep the river crossing open during construction. Alternative C would consist of a doubledeck bridge replacement on the existing alignment. The river crossing would be closed during construction. Alternative D would consist of a replacement bridge on the existing alignment, widened to the south. The river crossing would remain open during construction. Alternative E would replace the existing bridge on a new alignment to the north. The river crossing would remain open during construction.

of 2008. After public and agency comments were fully considered and evaluated, local elected officials recommended, and the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners, Clackamas County Board of Commissioners, Metro Council, Portland City Council, and ODOT adopted, Alternative D as the preferred alternative. (Alternative D as evaluated in the DEIS with a bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal at the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection.) Alternative D, which has been refined to address public and agency comments and minimize environmental impacts, is evaluated as Alternative D Refined in this FEIS. Therefore, this FEIS evaluates a No Build Alternative, the five Build alternatives evaluated in the DEIS, and the preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined). The following refinements to Alternative D address public and agency comments received on the DEIS and minimize environmental impacts:  Revised the bicycle/pedestrian ramps on the west end of the bridge from a spiral design on both sides of the bridge to a single, long switchback on both sides of the bridge connecting to the existing north-south trail network to reduce impacts to Powers Marine Park and natural resource areas. This refinement shifted the interchange footprint slightly to the west. Refined the OR 43 roadway footprint to reduce impacts to Willamette Moorage Park and Powers Marine Park. Reduced the width of the bridge on the west end from five lanes to four lanes to narrow the bridge. Realigned the roadway from the west side of the signalized intersection providing access to the Superintendent’s House at River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property to accommodate a future streetcar line, as preferred by the City of Portland. The realigned access would cross on the west side, behind the Superintendent’s House, instead of on the east side, in front of

Summary of the Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined)
Two public briefings, an open house, and a public hearing were held in November and December

S-6

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Summary of Major Environmental Impacts Summary

it. The River View Cemetery owners supported the realignment of this roadway.  Removed the bicycle/pedestrian trail south of the bridge to reduce park and natural resource impacts within Powers Marine Park. Extended the bicycle/pedestrian path north to SW Miles Street to provide continuity. Moved the driveway access to Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club further north to improve safety and reduce park impacts. Refined the cross-section of SE Tacoma Street between the east end of the Sellwood Bridge and SE 6th Avenue to provide the same bicycle and pedestrian facilities as the Sellwood Bridge (12-foot-wide sidewalks and 6.5-foot-wide shoulders/bicycle lanes). Between the east end of the Sellwood Bridge and SE 6th Avenue, water quality swales for stormwater treatment could also be incorporated.

alternatives by social or natural environment discipline and element. Appendix G of this FEIS provides a summary of proposed and committed mitigation and environmental measures.

Areas of Controversy
Thousands of public comments were received throughout the public involvement process. The comments included issues and themes that have influenced project decision-making, directly shaping the range of alternatives and, ultimately, the elements of the alternatives analyzed in this document. This FEIS addresses many of the issues raised. The other comments are outside the scope of the project and, therefore, are not discussed in this FEIS. However, the project team has attempted to respond to the most frequently voiced issues through community meetings and in public outreach information, such as the project Web site and newsletters. Table S-4 lists the most frequently voiced issues from public involvement activities, along with the associated responses. Appendix I provides the responses to formal comments submitted by individuals and agencies on the DEIS, and Appendix J provides copies of the original comments received via the Open House and mailed in.

Alternative D with these design refinements constitutes the preferred alternative. Similar to Alternative D, the preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) would consist of a replacement bridge on the existing alignment, widened to the south. The river crossing would be constructed in stages to maintain traffic across the river during construction. However, traffic access across the bridge would be affected periodically by interim closures to replace the existing bridge and construct the new bridge. Table S-2 summarizes the characteristics of Alternative D Refined and the Build alternatives evaluated in the DEIS (Alternatives A through E). Section 2.3 in Chapter 2 of this FEIS describes the differences between Alternative D and Alternative D Refined in more detail.

Major Unresolved Issues with Other Agencies
The major unresolved issues are:  Funding sources for the No Build Alternative or any of the Build alternatives. Multnomah County has identified a preliminary financial plan to fund construction of the Sellwood Bridge project from various funding sources. For Multnomah County to move ahead with construction of the project, FHWA would have to approve a Financial Plan that demonstrated how the project would be funded. Because accesses near the Sellwood Bridge/OR 43 interchange would be in

Summary of Major Environmental Impacts
Table S-3 summarizes major environmental impacts among the No Build Alternative and Build 

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

S-7

Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required for the Proposed Action Summary

violation of state access management spacing standards, ODOT would need to grant a deviation from access management spacing standards for Build alternatives A, B, D, and D Refined. Multnomah County, ODOT, and the City of Portland collaboratively developed the OR 43: Sellwood Bridge IAMP (ODOT, 2010) for the proposed OR 43/ Sellwood Bridge reconstructed interchange to address access to Willamette Moorage Park, Macadam Bay Club, River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property.  ODOT agreed to grant a deviation from the access spacing standard for the relocated Macadam Bay Club driveway subject to conditions stipulated in the IAMP that changes could be made if safety problems were to arise in the future. The IAMP provides for a future alley, easement, or tract connecting to SW Miles Street that would provide the Macadam Bay Club and the other businesses in the area an alternative access. This would be constructed upon redevelopment. ODOT agreed to grant a deviation for the new roadway providing access to River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property from the new interchange. The volume of traffic that would use this road is expected to be very low and would not adversely affect traffic operations or safety in the interchange.

access concepts during the project’s final design phase.  Inter-governmental agreements between Multnomah County and Metro for the Willamette Shoreline Trolley, the streetcar undergoing planning, and the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank). The cost included in this project is for the replacement of existing right-of-way; the track replacement; any fill or structure required; and the construction of any necessary retaining walls. Approvals from various federal, state, and local actions (listed in the next subsection).

Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required for the Proposed Action
A number of actions are required before final project approval would occur, as shown in Table S-5. FHWA, in cooperation with ODOT and Multnomah County, intends to issue a “statute of limitations” (SOL) notice in the Federal Register, pursuant to 23 United States Code (USC) Section 139(l). This notice would indicate that one or more federal agencies have taken final action on permits, licenses, or approvals for this transportation project. This SOL notice would establish that claims seeking judicial review of those federal-agency actions would be barred unless such claims were filed within 180 days after the date of publication of the notice in the Federal Register. Multnomah County will also make the SOL notice available on the project website at http://www.sellwoodbridge.org.

Because details of project designs will continue to evolve until construction, ODOT will evaluate the appropriateness of the

S-8

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required for the Proposed Action Summary

TABLE S-2 Build Alternative Characteristics Alternative
Rehabilitation or Replacement Alignment Bridge Crosssection

A
 Rehabilitation  Existing  39 feet wide  Two 12-foot-wide travel lanes  Two 6-foot-wide shoulders  Two 1.5-foot-wide railings

B
 Rehabilitation  Existing  57 feet wide  Two 11-foot-wide travel lanes  Two 5-foot-wide shoulders/ bike lanes  Two 1.5-foot-wide railings  Two 10-foot-wide sidewalks  Two 1-foot-wide outer railings  Seismic retrofit a equivalent to Phase II  Meets seismic standards

C
 Replacement  Existing  45 feet wide  Three 12-foot-wide travel lanes  Two 3-foot-wide shoulders  Two 1.5-foot-wide railings

D
 Replacement  Existing  64 feet wide  Two 12-foot-wide travel lanes  Two 6.5-foot-wide shoulders/ bike lanes  Two 12-foot-wide shared-use sidewalks  Two 1.5-foot-wide railings

E
 Replacement  North of existing bridge  75 feet wide  Two 12-foot-wide travel lanes for traffic  Two 12-foot-wide travel lanes for transit  16-foot- and 8-footwide shared-use sidewalks  Two 1.5-foot-wide railings  Meets seismic standards

D Refined
 Replacement  Existing  64 feet wide  Two 12-foot-wide travel lanes  Two 6.5-foot-wide shoulders/bike lanes  Two 12-foot-wide shareduse sidewalks  Two 1.5-foot wide railings

Other Features

 Separate 20-foot-wide bike/ pedestrian bridge with two 1.5-foot-wide railings (total width of 23 feet)  Seismic retrofit equivalent a to Phase II  Meets seismic standards  Roundabout on upper level  Free-flow OR 43 on lower level of two-level interchange  Relocates approximately 900 linear feet of railway right-of-way  Same as existing (eastbound left turn permitted at SE 6th Avenue)

 Double-deck bridge  20-foot-wide shareduse path on lower deck with two 1.5foot-wide railings (total width of 23 feet)  Meets seismic standards  Trumpet (free-flow) interchange  Free-flow OR 43 on lower level of twolevel interchange  Relocates approximately 1,700 linear feet of railway right-of-way  Eastbound left turn to SE 6th Avenue restricted  Right turn to loop under bridge

 Meets seismic standards

 Meets seismic standards

West-side Interchange

 Roundabout on upper level  Free-flow OR 43 on lower level of two-level interchange  Relocates approximately 900 linear feet of railway right-of-way  Same as existing (eastbound left turn permitted at SE 6th Avenue)

 Signalized intersection on upper level  Free-flow OR 43 on lower level of two-level interchange  Relocates approximately 1,000 linear feet of railway right-of-way  Signal at SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection  Bicyclist/pedestrianactivated signal at SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection

 Signalized intersection on upper level  Free-flow OR 43 on lower level of two-level interchange  Relocates approximately 800 linear feet of railway right-of-way  Signal at SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection

 Signalized intersection on upper level  Free-flow OR 43 on lower level of two-level interchange  Relocates approximately 1,000 linear feet of railway right-of-way  Bicyclist/pedestrianactivated signal at SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection

East-side Intersection

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

S-9

Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required for the Proposed Action Summary

TABLE S-2 Build Alternative Characteristics Alternative
Potential Bridge b Type

A
 Retain existing bridge (i.e., continuous-truss span)  Stress-ribbon or cablestayed for bike/pedestrian bridge  New roadway to provide access to River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property  Relocated access to Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club

B
 Retain existing bridge (i.e., continuous-truss span)

C
 Through-arch

D
 Delta-frame or deckarch

E
 Box-girder or througharch

D Refined
 Delta-frame or deck-arch

Property Access

 New roadway to provide access to River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property  Relocated access to Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club

 No motor vehicle access from OR 43 to River View Cemetery or Powers Marine Park  Relocated access to Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club  Powers Marine Park accessed by footpath from Willamette Moorage Park  No traffic access during construction  Traffic diverted to other existing bridges  $280 million  Right-of-way cost of f $20.9 million

 New roadway to provide access to River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property  Relocated access to Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club

 New roadway to provide access to River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property  Relocated access to Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club

 Revised new roadway to provide access to River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property  Revised new access to Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club

Traffic Access during Construction

 No traffic access during construction  Traffic diverted to other existing bridges  $331 million (stressribbon bike/pedestrian bridge)  $337 million (cable-stayed bike/pedestrian bridge)  Right-of-way cost of f $15.8 million

 Temporary detour bridge option to maintain traffic access

 Bridge construction staged to maintain traffic access during c construction  $293 million (deltaframe bridge)  $311 million (deck-arch bridge)  Right-of-way cost of f $25.8 million

 Traffic access maintained on existing bridge during construction of the new bridge  $281 million (box-girder bridge)  $361 million (througharch bridge)  Right-of-way cost of f $35.7 million

 Bridge construction staged to maintain traffic access c during construction

Construction Cost (in 2012 d,e dollars)

 $326 million  $356 million (including temporary detour bridge)  Right-of-way cost of f $15.8 million ; $17.1 million including f temporary detour bridge

 $299 million (deck-arch bridge)  $290 million (delta-frame bridge)  Right-of-way cost of f $27.0 million

S - 10

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required for the Proposed Action Summary

TABLE S-2 Build Alternative Characteristics Alternative
Construction Cost Breakdown (in 2012 d,e dollars)

A
 Rehabilitated vehicle bridge: $185 million  Bike/pedestrian bridge: $52 million (stressribbon); $58 million (cable-stayed)  West-side interchange: $93 million  East-side intersection: $1.6 million

B
 Rehabilitated vehicle bridge: $222 million  Temporary detour bridge: $30 million  West-side interchange: $102 million  East-side intersection: $1.6 million

C
 Replacement bridge: $185 million  West-side interchange: $90 million  East-side intersection: $5.4 million

D
 Replacement bridge: $202 million (deltaframe); $220 million (deck-arch)  West-side interchange: $89 million  East-side intersection: $1.9 million

E
 Replacement bridge: $189 million (boxgirder); $269 million (through-arch)  West-side interchange: $88 million  East-side intersection: $3.9 million

D Refined
 Replacement bridge: $171 million (delta-frame); $180 million (deck-arch)  West-side interchange: $113 million  East-side intersection: $2.1 million  Cost includes approximately e,f $4 million for mitigation

a

b c d e f

Initially it was planned to include an option for rehabilitation of the existing bridge with Phase I seismic retrofit only, and a separate option for rehabilitation of the existing bridge with both Phase I and Phase II seismic retrofits. During development of the rehabilitation alternative design for the DEIS, it was determined the most cost-effective rehabilitation approach incorporated the equivalent of both Phase I and Phase II seismic retrofits. There is no way to separate the various elements that provide earthquake resistance from the elements required to strengthen the structure. Bridge design types are specified in this FEIS for analysis purposes only to identify impacts and estimate costs and construction activities. Traffic access across the bridge would be periodically affected by interim closures to replace the existing bridge and construct the new bridge. These estimates are based on conceptual-design-level data to provide a basis for cost comparisons between alternatives. More detailed cost data will be available following the preliminary design of the preferred alternative. The Alternatives A through E construction cost includes a 40-percent contingency to include cultural resource and park/recreational facility mitigation. The preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) includes a 35-percent contingency because mitigation costs have been estimated. The DEIS reported 2009 right-of-way costs for Alternatives A through E. The right-of-way costs have been updated.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 11

Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required for the Proposed Action Summary

TABLE S-3

Summary of Anticipated Impacts of the No Build Alternative and the Build Alternatives Alternative B and Alternative B with Temporary Detour Bridge (if different from Alt. B) Traffic would be detoured for up to 24 months during construction. A temporary detour bridge would provide a river crossing

Discipline 3.1 Transportation

Element Bridge closure during construction

No Build Alternative Traffic would be detoured for up to 8 months for maintenance activities.

Alternative A Traffic would be detoured for 24 months during construction.

West-side interchange impacts

Same interchange as existing conditions.

East-side connection – SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection

Same as existing conditions.

Would operate at LOS B under most conditions. However, because of capacity constraints on SE Tacoma Street, congested eastbound traffic across the Sellwood Bridge could back up into the roundabout during the afternoon/evening peak period, blocking all movements through the interchange. For this reason, ramp meters would be added to the ramps to avoid the condition where all movements were blocked. Same as existing conditions.

Would operate at LOS B under most conditions. However, because of capacity constraints on SE Tacoma Street, congested eastbound traffic across the Sellwood Bridge could back up into the roundabout during the afternoon/evening peak period, blocking all movements through the interchange. For this reason, ramp meters would be added to the ramps to avoid the condition where all movements were blocked.

Same as existing conditions.

S - 12

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required for the Proposed Action Summary

Alternative C Traffic would be detoured for 42 months during construction.

Alternative D Staged construction would allow traffic to continue to cross the river during construction, except for interim closures to replace the existing bridge and construct the new bridge. Would operate at LOS D or better. Signalized intersection on upper level would provide better mobility and queuing than the roundabout interchange type under peak-hour conditions. Would provide free flow on OR 43, but would operate within the constraints on OR 43.

Alternative E Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge during construction of the new bridge.

Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Staged construction would allow traffic to continue to cross the river during construction, except for interim closures to replace the existing bridge and construct the new bridge. Would operate at LOS D or better. Signalized intersection on upper level would provide better mobility and queuing than the roundabout interchange type under peak-hour conditions. Would provide free flow on OR 43, but would operate within the constraints on OR 43.

Would operate at LOS B or better. Trumpet interchange would provide better mobility and queuing than the roundabout interchange type. This interchange type is a free-flow design, but would operate within the constraints on SE Tacoma Street and OR 43.

Would operate at LOS D or better. Signalized intersection on upper level would provide better mobility and queuing than the roundabout interchange type under peak-hour conditions. Would provide free flow on OR 43, but would operate within the constraints on OR 43.

The SE Grand Avenue extension would improve accessibility between Sellwood Bridge and areas north of SE Tacoma Street and west of SE 13th Avenue. Minimal to moderate levels of increased neighborhood cut-through traffic could result.

Signalization would result in LOS F conditions with traffic demands exceeding the intersection’s capacity by about 40 percent. This would cause unacceptable vehicle delays and queues, and moderate to substantial increases in neighborhood cut-through traffic.

Signalization would result in LOS F conditions with traffic demands exceeding the intersection’s capacity by about 40 percent. This would cause unacceptable vehicle delays and queues, and moderate to substantial increases in neighborhood cut-through traffic.

Same as existing conditions, except when the bicyclist/pedestrian signal is activated. When activated, traffic on SE Tacoma Street would be impeded. The City of Portland would monitor the effects on traffic operations and make adjustments as necessary to ensure safe and efficient conditions.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 13

Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required for the Proposed Action Summary

TABLE S-3, Cont.

Summary of Anticipated Impacts of the No Build Alternative and the Build Alternatives Alternative B and Alternative B with Temporary Detour Bridge (if different from Alt. B) Railing provides separation from motorized traffic. Challenging crossing environment for visually impaired at roundabout crossings.

Discipline 3.2 Bicyclists and Pedestrians

Element Facilities

No Build Alternative Limited facilities on bridge structure. Single sidewalk on north side, varies in width from 4 feet 3 inches to 3 feet at light poles. Dangerous passing maneuvers because of sharing the narrow bridge sidewalk. Unsafe connections through west-side interchange area. Unsafe connections to TriMet bus stop at OR 43/River View Cemetery.

Alternative A Accommodates bidirectional traffic on separate 20-foot-wide bicycle/pedestrian bridge.

Safety

Bicyclists and pedestrians on separate structure eliminates conflicts with vehicles on bridge and in the west-side interchange Security concerns because of complete separation from other bridge users. Difficult crossings of SE Tacoma Street because of heavy traffic volumes and lack of crossing treatments.

Difficult crossings of SE Tacoma Street because of heavy traffic volumes and lack of crossing treatments.

Connections

Difficult connections between bridge sidewalk and surrounding facilities, through west-side interchange area, to the OR 43/ River View Cemetery bus stop, and crossing of SE Tacoma Street because of heavy traffic and minimal crossing treatments.

Two 10-foot-wide sidewalks/shared-use paths would accommodate bidirectional pedestrian traffic and one-way bicycle traffic. 5-foot-wide shoulders on the bridge structure could be used as bicycle lanes, but with minimal “shy distance.”

S - 14

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required for the Proposed Action Summary

Alternative C Bicyclists and pedestrians on lower bridge deck eliminates conflicts with vehicles on bridge and in the west-side interchange. Security concerns because of complete separation from other bridge users. None.

Alternative D Potential conflicts with motorists making turning movements in west-side interchange area, but better and safer bicyclist and pedestrian crossings than the No Build Alternative. None.

Alternative E Potential conflicts with motorists making turning movements in west-side interchange area, but better and safer bicyclist and pedestrian crossings than the No Build Alternative. Lack of south spiral ramp on west-side creates circuitous routing for some users.

Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Potential conflicts with motorists making turning movements in west-side interchange area, but better and safer bicyclist and pedestrian crossings than the No Build Alternative. None.

Accommodates bidirectional traffic on a 20-foot-wide shared-use path on lower bridge deck.

Two 12-foot-wide sidewalks/shared use paths would accommodate bidirectional pedestrians and bicyclists 6.5-foot-wide on-street bicycle lanes in each direction.

8-foot-wide south shareduse path would accommodate one-way eastbound bicycle traffic and two-way pedestrian traffic. 16-foot-wide north shared used path would accommodate bidirectional traffic

Two 12-foot-wide sidewalks/shared use paths would accommodate bidirectional pedestrians and bicyclists 6.5-foot-wide on-street bicycle lanes in each direction.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 15

Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required for the Proposed Action Summary

TABLE S-3, Cont.

Summary of Anticipated Impacts of the No Build Alternative and the Build Alternatives Alternative B and Alternative B with Temporary Detour Bridge (if different from Alt. B) 10.5 acres 10.8 acres 0 units 1 unit 1 unit

Discipline 3.3 Right-of-Way and Relocation

Element Total land area acquired for right-of-way Number of displaced residential condominiums units Number of displaced businesses

No Build Alternative 0 acres

Alternative A 10.5 acres

0 businesses

9 businesses (The viability of these businesses is not dependent on their specific locations)

9 businesses (The viability of these businesses is not dependent on their specific locations) 10 businesses (The viability of these businesses is not dependent on their specific locations) $15.8 million $17.1 million

Right-of-way cost (included in total construction cost) 3.4 Utilities 3.5 Land Use Utility relocation cost Consistent with all applicable regulations, plans, and guidance documents?

$0

$15.8 million

$0.14 million Yes

$2.87 million Yes

$3.20 million $4.60 million Yes

S - 16

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required for the Proposed Action Summary

Alternative C 10.8 acres

Alternative D 10.7 acres

Alternative E 11.6 acres

Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) 8.9 acres

1 unit

5 units

6 units

5 units

10 businesses (The viability of these businesses is not dependent on their specific locations)

9 businesses (The viability of these businesses is not dependent on their specific locations)

48 businesses (The viability of these businesses is not dependent on their specific locations)

9 businesses (The viability of these businesses is not dependent on their specific locations)

$20.9 million

$25.8 million

$35.7 million

$27.0 million

$3.19 million No (More than two through lanes on bridge; inconsistent with South Willamette River Crossing Study). Two through lanes merge to one lane eastbound before the SE 6th Avenue intersection.

$3.28 million Yes

$3.61 million No (Bridge crosses a designated view corridor on SE Spokane Street in the City of Portland Comprehensive Plan [City of Portland, 2006])

$3.28 million Yes

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 17

Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required for the Proposed Action Summary

TABLE S-3, Cont.

Summary of Anticipated Impacts of the No Build Alternative and the Build Alternatives Alternative B and Alternative B with Temporary Detour Bridge (if different from Alt. B) 30 employees 62 employees $54 million (for maintenance activities) $331 million (stressribbon bike/ped bridge) $337 million (cablestayed bike/ped bridge) 36 months 24 months $326 million $356 million

Discipline 3.6 Economic

Element Employees displaced Construction costs (2012 million dollars)

No Build Alternative 0 employees

Alternative A 30 employees

Construction duration Bridge closure during construction Travel time and vehicle operating cost of bridge closure Owner and labor income losses because of bridge closure

12 months 6 to 8 months (for maintenance activities) $19.1 million

36 months 39 months 24 months No closure

$63.3 million

$63.3 million No closure

$1.9 to $4.9 million

$3.8 to $9.8 million

$3.8 to 9.8 million No closure

S - 18

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required for the Proposed Action Summary

Alternative C 46 employees $280 million

Alternative D 30 employees $293 million (delta-frame bridge) $311 million (deck-arch bridge)

Alternative E 216 employees $281 million (box-girder bridge) $361 million (througharch bridge)

Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) 30 employees $290 million (delta-frame bridge) $299 million (deck-arch bridge)

42 months 42 months

51 months (deck-arch) 45 months (delta-frame) No long-term closure; interim closures to replace the existing bridge and construct the new bridge No long-term closure; interim closures to replace the existing bridge and construct the new bridge No long-term closure; interim closures to replace the existing bridge and construct the new bridge

36 months (box-girder) 42 months (through-arch) No closure

51 months No long-term closure; interim closures to replace the existing bridge and construct the new bridge No long-term closure; interim closures to replace the existing bridge and construct the new bridge No long-term closure; interim closures to replace the existing bridge and construct the new bridge

$110.8 million

No closure

$6.7 to 17.0 million

No closure

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 19

Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required for the Proposed Action Summary

TABLE S-3, Cont.

Summary of Anticipated Impacts of the No Build Alternative and the Build Alternatives Alternative B and Alternative B with Temporary Detour Bridge (if different from Alt. B) None to Minimal (Same intersection configuration as existing at SE 6th Avenue/SE Tacoma Street intersection)

Discipline 3.7 Social Elements

Element Potential increase in neighborhood cut-through traffic (to avoid SE Tacoma Street) Emergency services – provides river crossing during construction? Community facility impact – access to businesses Access to River View Cemetery and funeral home

No Build Alternative None to Minimal (Same intersection configuration as existing at SE 6th Avenue/SE Tacoma Street intersection) No (6 to 8-month closure)

Alternative A None to Minimal (Same intersection configuration as existing at SE 6th Avenue/SE Tacoma Street intersection) No (24-month closure)

No (24-month closure) Temporary detour bridge would maintain river crossing

Access limitation for west-side customers (during 6-8 month closure) No change; access provided through a signalized intersection with OR 43.

Access limitation for west-side customers (during 24-month closure) Modified access from OR 43, provided through the new west-side interchange; access maintained during construction

Access limitation for westside customers (during 24-month closure); No impact with temporary detour bridge Modified access from OR 43 through the interchange; access maintained during construction

3.8 Environmental Justice

Impact to environmental justice populations Total parkland acres converted

No change

No disproportionately high and adverse effects on environmental justice populations 4.3 acres

No disproportionately high and adverse effects on environmental justice populations 3.9 acres

3.9 Parks and Recreation

0 acres

S - 20

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required for the Proposed Action Summary

Alternative C Minimal to Moderate (Eastbound left-turn restricted; right-turn loop under bridge from SE Tacoma Street to SE 6th Avenue could encourage cut-through traffic) No (42-month closure)

Alternative D Moderate to Substantial (Signalized intersection at SE 6th Avenue/SE Tacoma Street allows for dedicated turning movements) Yes (except for interim closures to replace the existing bridge and construct the new bridge) None (except interim access limitation for westside customers to replace the existing bridge and construct the new bridge) Modified access from OR 43 through the new interchange; access maintained during construction

Alternative E Moderate to Substantial (Signalized intersection at SE 6th Avenue/SE Tacoma Street allows for dedicated turning movements) Yes

Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) None to Minimal (Same intersection configuration as existing at SE 6th Avenue/SE Tacoma Street intersection, except with a bicyclist/pedestrianactivated signal Yes (except for interim closures to replace the existing bridge and construct the new bridge) None (except interim access limitation for westside customers to replace the existing bridge and construct the new bridge) Modified access from OR 43 through the new interchange; access maintained during construction

Access limitation for westside customers (during 42month closure)

None

Removal of access from OR 43 Access from SW Taylors Ferry Road and circuitous route through cemetery. Customers would have difficulty finding the funeral home. No disproportionately high and adverse effects on environmental justice populations 4.3 acres

Modified access from OR 43 through the new interchange; access maintained during construction

No disproportionately high and adverse effects on environmental justice populations 3.9 acres

No disproportionately high and adverse effects on environmental justice populations 3.8 acres

No disproportionately high and adverse effects on environmental justice populations 1.4 acres

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 21

Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required for the Proposed Action Summary

TABLE S-3, Cont.

Summary of Anticipated Impacts of the No Build Alternative and the Build Alternatives Alternative B and Alternative B with Temporary Detour Bridge (if different from Alt. B) 6 facilities (Powers Marine Park, Willamette Moorage Park, Springwater Corridor Trail, Willamette Greenway Trail [East Bank], Willamette Greenway Trail [West Bank], Sellwood Bridge Recreational Trail) 6 facilities (Oaks Pioneer Park and all the above except Sellwood Bridge Recreational Trail) Yes, adversely alters the setting of a historic resource Yes, adversely alters the setting of a historic resource Yes Bridge significantly altered, no longer eligible for the National Register of Historic Places 580 lineal feet

Discipline

Element Number of park/ recreational facilities impacted

No Build Alternative 1 facility (Sellwood Bridge Recreational Trail)

Alternative A 8 facilities (Sellwood Riverfront Park, Oaks Pioneer Park, Powers Marine Park, Willamette Moorage Park, Springwater Corridor Trail, Willamette Greenway Trail [East Bank], Willamette Greenway Trail [West Bank], Sellwood Bridge Recreational Trail) Yes, adversely alters the setting of a historic resource Yes, adversely alters the setting of a historic resource Yes, Bridge significantly altered, no longer eligible for the National Register of Historic Places 930 lineal feet

3.10 Archaeological and Historic Resources

Adverse impacts to River View Cemetery? Adverse impacts to cemetery’s Superintendent’s House? Adverse impacts to Sellwood Bridge?

No

No

Yes, Bridge deteriorates

3.11 Visual Resources

Presence of retaining walls 10 feet or higher in lineal feet (OR 43 southbound exit ramp) Presence of retaining walls 10 feet or higher in lineal feet (OR 43 southbound entrance ramp)

0 lineal feet

0 lineal feet

600 lineal feet

600 lineal feet

S - 22

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required for the Proposed Action Summary

Alternative C 7 facilities (Powers Marine Park, Willamette Moorage Park, Springwater Corridor Trail, Willamette Greenway Trail [East Bank], Willamette Greenway Trail [West Bank], Sellwood Bridge Recreational Trail, Willamette Greenway Trail [SE Spokane Street Section]) Yes, adversely alters the setting of a historic resource Yes, adversely alters the setting of a historic resource Yes Bridge replaced

Alternative D 6 facilities (Powers Marine Park, Willamette Moorage Park, Springwater Corridor Trail, Willamette Greenway Trail [East Bank], Willamette Greenway Trail [West Bank], Willamette Greenway Trail [SE Spokane Street Section])

Alternative E 7 facilities (Oaks Pioneer Park, Powers Marine Park, Willamette Moorage Park, Springwater Corridor Trail, Willamette Greenway Trail [East Bank], Willamette Greenway Trail [West Bank], Willamette Greenway Trail [SE Spokane Street Section])

Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) 5 facilities (Powers Marine Park, Willamette Moorage Park, Springwater Corridor Trail, Willamette Greenway Trail [East Bank], Willamette Greenway Trail [West Bank])

Yes, adversely alters the setting of a historic resource Yes, adversely alters the setting of a historic resource Yes, Bridge replaced

Yes, adversely alters the setting of a historic resource Yes, adversely alters the setting of a historic resource Yes, Bridge replaced

Yes, adversely alters the setting of a historic resource Yes, adversely alters the setting of a historic resource Yes, Bridge replaced

400 lineal feet

660 lineal feet

800 lineal feet

750 lineal feet

450 lineal feet

650 lineal feet

950 lineal feet

1,200 lineal feet

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 23

Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required for the Proposed Action Summary

TABLE S-3, Cont.

Summary of Anticipated Impacts of the No Build Alternative and the Build Alternatives Alternative B and Alternative B with Temporary Detour Bridge (if different from Alt. B) No

Discipline

Element Significant eastside visual change? Significant westside visual change? No

No Build Alternative

Alternative A Yes (new bicyclist/pedestrian bridge) Yes

No

Yes

3.12 Geology

Maximum fill height Maximum cut height Fill height in Sellwood landslide Cut height in Sellwood landslide

0 feet 0 feet 0 feet

36 feet 49 feet 0 feet

21 feet 38 feet 0 feet

0 feet

18 feet

18 feet

3.13 Water Resources and Water Quality

Impervious surface area

7.0 acres (None treated)

13.7 acres (96% increase from existing condition; all stormwater treated) Yes

13.8 acres (97% increase from existing condition; all stormwater treated) Yes

Improves water quality compared to existing conditions?

No

S - 24

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required for the Proposed Action Summary

Alternative C No No

Alternative D

Alternative E Yes (bridge on new alignment)

Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

38 feet 65 feet 12 feet

28 feet 41 feet 28 feet

30 feet 57 feet 10 feet

20 feet 73 feet 6 feet

0 feet

18 feet

8 feet

43 feet

12.6 acres (80% increase from existing condition; all stormwater treated) Yes

13.9 acres (98% increase from existing condition; all stormwater treated) Yes

13.6 acres (94% increase from existing condition; all stormwater treated) Yes

13.9 acres (98% increase from existing condition; all stormwater treated) Yes

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 25

Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required for the Proposed Action Summary

TABLE S-3, Cont.

Summary of Anticipated Impacts of the No Build Alternative and the Build Alternatives Alternative B and Alternative B with Temporary Detour Bridge (if different from Alt. B) 0.03 foot higher than No Build Alternative Would require design change or regulated floodway modification. 2.81 feet higher than No Build Alternative during construction.

Discipline 3.14 Hydraulics

Element 100-year base flood elevation

No Build Alternative 33.91 feet

Alternative A 0.06 foot higher than No Build Alternative (cable-stayed bike/ped bridge) 0.07 foot higher than No Build Alternative (stress-ribbon bike/ped bridge) Would require design change or regulated floodway modification.

Maximum average water velocity at bridge

7.33 feet per second

3.5% faster than No Build Alternative (cable-stayed and stress-ribbon bike/ped bridge) 2.0 (stress-ribbon bike/ped bridge) 2.4 (cable-stayed bike/ped bridge)

3.7% faster than No Build Alternative 13.6% faster than No Build Alternative during construction 2.6

3.15 Aquatic Resources

Overall Aquatic Resources Sensitivity Score (the higher the score, the lower the overall impacts) Area of Lowland ConiferHardwood Forest removed Area of Westside Riparian habitat removed Area of noxious weeds removed

Not applicable

3.16 Vegetation

0 acres

9.6 acres

9.4 acres

0 acres

0.5 acre

0.6 acre 0.7 acre

0 acres

0.1 acre

0.1 acre

S - 26

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required for the Proposed Action Summary

Alternative C 0.02 foot higher than No Build Alternative Would require design change or regulated floodway modification.

Alternative D Same as No Build Alternative (deck-arch bridge) 0.02 foot lower than No Build Alternative (deltaframe bridge)

Alternative E 0.02 foot higher than No Build Alternative (boxgirder and through-arch bridge) Would require design change or regulated floodway modification.

Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Up to 0.08 foot higher than No Build Alternative (deck-arch and deltaframe bridges)

2.3% faster than No Build Alternative

Same as No Build Alternative (deck-arch bridge) 2.6% slower than No Build Alternative (delta-frame bridge)

3.1% faster than No Build Alternative (box-girder bridge) 2.3% faster than No Build Alternative (through-arch bridge) 2.5 (through-arch bridge) 4.7 (box-girder bridge)

Up to 0.56 feet per second slower than No Build Alternative

3.5

1.5 (deck-arch bridge) 2.6 (delta-frame bridge)

3.6

8.8 acres

9.4 acres

9.8 acres

12.2 acres

0.5 acre

0.6 acre

0.5 acre

0.5 acre

0.3 acre

0.2 acre

0.1 acre

0.2 acre

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 27

Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required for the Proposed Action Summary

TABLE S-3, Cont.

Summary of Anticipated Impacts of the No Build Alternative and the Build Alternatives Alternative B and Alternative B with Temporary Detour Bridge (if different from Alt. B) 0.1 acre 10.9 acres 11.2 acres 24 residences 18 residences 20 residences 16 residences

Discipline 3.17 Wetlands 3.18 Wildlife Habitat 3.19 Noise

Element Disturbed acres of wetland Disturbed acres of wildlife habitat Number of residences impacted (noise level of 65 decibels or higher) Impacts to interior of Oaks Pioneer Church? (That is, noise level 50 decibels or higher when doors and windows are open) Number of businesses impacted (noise level of 70 decibels or higher) Noise level increase from existing conditions

No Build Alternative 0 acres 0 acres

Alternative A 0.1 acre 11.2 acres

Yes 50 decibels

Yes 50 decibels

No 49 decibels Yes 54 decibels, during construction

1 business

1 business

1 business

Up to 2 decibels

Up to 1 decibel

Up to 1 decibel Up to 5 decibels

S - 28

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required for the Proposed Action Summary

Alternative C 0.1 acre 10.0 acres

Alternative D 0.1 acre 11.2 acres

Alternative E 0.1 acre 10.9 acres

Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) None 11.7 acres

18 residences

18 residences

16 residences

18 residences

Yes 50 decibels

Yes 50 decibels

Yes 51 decibels

Yes 50 decibels

1 business

1 business

1 business

1 business

Up to 1 decibel

Up to 3 decibels

Up to 2 decibels

Up to 3 decibels

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 29

Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required for the Proposed Action Summary

TABLE S-3, Cont.

Summary of Anticipated Impacts of the No Build Alternative and the Build Alternatives Alternative B and Alternative B with Temporary Detour Bridge (if different from Alt. B) 808,100 million Btu 888,000 million Btu

Discipline 3.20 Energy

Element Energy used during construction

No Build Alternative 182,000 million British thermal units (Btu)

Alternative A 834,800 million Btu (cable-stayed bike/ped bridge) 817,000 million Btu (stress-ribbon bike/ped bridge)

Energy used during operation (annual) 3.21 Air Quality Carbon monoxide emissions in parts per million over an 8-hour period Number of potentially hazardous sites directly impacted

1,666 million Btu

2,177 million Btu

2,177 million Btu

3.9 parts per million (meets applicable standard)

3.9 parts per million (meets applicable standard)

3.9 parts per million (meets applicable standard)

3.22 Hazardous Materials

0 sites

7 sites

6 sites 7 sites

S - 30

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required for the Proposed Action Summary

Alternative C 688,200 million Btu

Alternative D 759,300 million Btu (deck-arch bridge) 706,000 million Btu (delta-frame bridge)

Alternative E 634,900 million Btu (box-girder bridge) 852,500 million Btu (through-arch bridge)

Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) 714,800 million Btu (deck-arch bridge) 692,600 million Btu (delta-frame bridge)

2,177 million Btu

2,177 million Btu

2,177 million Btu

2,177 million Btu

3.9 parts per million (meets applicable standard)

3.9 parts per million (meets applicable standard)

3.9 parts per million (meets applicable standard)

3.9 parts per million (meets applicable standard)

10 sites

6 sites

7 sites

6 sites

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 31

Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required for the Proposed Action Summary

TABLE S-4

Areas of Controversy and Resolution Issue/Theme Build a new bridge in another corridor Resolution Metro’s 1999 South Willamette River Crossing Study concluded that improvements were needed to the existing Sellwood Bridge or the existing bridge would need to be rebuilt in the existing east-west corridor. Additional project studies confirmed that the assumptions of this study are still valid. The community linked livability to maintaining two travel lanes on the bridge, making bridge improvements compatible with the Tacoma Main Street Plan (City of Portland, 2001), and reducing commuter and neighborhood cut-through traffic impacts. In this FEIS, Alternatives A, B, D, and D Refined are two-lane options for a new or rehabilitated bridge. Alternative A also features a narrow cross-section width (39 feet) to reduce right-of-way impacts. Alternative C is a threelane bridge. Alternative E includes four lanes, but two are limited to transit vehicles. The No Build Alternative would maintain existing conditions on SE Tacoma Street east of the bridge. The Build alternatives include four different options for the intersection of SE Tacoma Street and SE 6th Avenue— existing conditions, a right-turn loop under the bridge, a signal, and a bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal—that would have different effects on neighborhood cutthrough traffic analyzed in this FEIS. The adopted Tacoma Main Street Plan (City of Portland, 2001) and other approved planning documents call for two travel lanes on the Sellwood Bridge and two travel lanes on SE Tacoma Street. Alternatives A, B, D, E, and D Refined would include two travel lanes on the Sellwood Bridge. Alternative E would include two additional lanes limited to transit use. Alternative C would include three travel lanes (one lane westbound and two eastbound). The No Build Alternative and the Build alternatives would maintain two travel lanes on SE Tacoma Street. Property impact evaluation criteria were included in the evaluation framework to screen the range of alternatives. Multnomah County communicated and coordinated with private property owners in the area to minimize private property impacts throughout this phase of the project. Residential and business impact evaluation criteria were included in the evaluation framework to screen the range of alternatives.

Neighborhood livability in Sellwood

Neighborhood cut-through traffic

Consistency with the policies, goals, and objectives in the Tacoma Main Street Plan (City of Portland, 2001)

Private property impacts

Residential and business impacts

S - 32

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required for the Proposed Action Summary

TABLE S-4

Areas of Controversy and Resolution Issue/Theme Route a new bridge to the north to reduce residential impacts Resolution The project team developed and analyzed three alignments to the north of the existing alignment to address public comments. Alternative E, a northern alignment that would minimize impacts to the residential units immediately north and south of the existing bridge, is analyzed in the DEIS and this FEIS. The Build alternatives include wider facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians and improve connections to the trail facilities on the east and west sides of the river. The No Build Alternative would maintain existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The 2035 traffic demands in the study area are estimated to be similar under the No Build Alternative and each of the Build alternatives because none of the Build alternatives would increase vehicle-traffic-carrying capacity along OR 43 beyond the immediate area of the bridge or along SE Tacoma Street east of the bridge. However, the Build alternatives would provide substantially increased person-throughput in the project corridor because the Build alternatives could serve mass transit and dramatically increase bicyclist and pedestrian trips. Alternatives with two travel lanes (Alternatives A, B, D, and D Refined) and three travel lanes (Alternative C) are analyzed in this FEIS to evaluate the tradeoffs (benefits and impacts) of the number of travel lanes on the bridge. Alternative E includes four lanes, but two are dedicated transit lanes. Because only transit vehicles would be allowed to use these lanes, Alternative E is categorized as a two-lane bridge. No alternatives consider four travel lanes for automobiles and trucks. Each of the Build alternatives would restore TriMet bus service across the Sellwood Bridge and would include building the bridge strong enough to accommodate streetcar transit in the future, if this mode is pursued. The existing 10-ton weight restriction would continue under the No Build Alternative, precluding buses and streetcars from crossing the bridge. The Build alternatives would meet applicable geometric roadway design standards to safely accommodate various vehicle types (including transit vehicles, trucks, and emergency vehicles) in the Sellwood Bridge/OR 43 interchange on the west side and on the bridge. The No Build Alternative would not improve geometric roadway deficiencies or remove the 10-ton weight restriction that precludes large vehicles from crossing the bridge.

Bicycle and pedestrian access and connections to area trails

Build for the long-term future and ensure adequate bridge capacity for all users

Bus transit on the bridge and/or future streetcar

Accommodate large vehicles, including transit, trucks, and emergency vehicles

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 33

Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required for the Proposed Action Summary

TABLE S-4

Areas of Controversy and Resolution Issue/Theme Structural integrity for large vehicles and seismic events Resolution Providing structural integrity to accommodate safely various vehicle types (including transit vehicles, trucks, and emergency vehicles) and to withstand moderate seismic events was included as a threshold criterion and as an evaluation criterion in the evaluation framework. All Build alternatives would meet current seismic design standards and have a design life of 75 years. The No Build Alternative, which is designed for a 20-year design life, would not meet these design standards. A geometrically functional and safe roadway design was included as a threshold criterion in the evaluation framework. The Build alternatives would improve the bridge approaches to meet current engineering design standards. The No Build Alternative would not improve the geometric deficiencies of the Sellwood Bridge/ OR 43 interchange on the west side. The No Build Alternative would rebuild the west-side bridge approach with drilled shafts, which could help to stabilize the existing landslide in the area. The Build alternatives would include mitigation measures to improve stability of the existing landslide. Traffic across the river during construction would be maintained under Alternatives D, E, and D Refined, except for interim closures to replace the existing bridge and construct the new bridge under Alternatives D and D Refined. Alternative B includes the option of a temporary detour bridge during construction. Traffic across the river would not be maintained during maintenance activities under the No Build Alternative and during construction activities under Build Alternatives A, B (without the temporary detour bridge), and C. Multnomah County has identified a preliminary financial plan to fund construction of the Sellwood Bridge project from various funding sources. Multnomah County would not be able to move ahead with construction until future project phases are included in the financially constrained Regional Transportation Plan (anticipated to be adopted by Metro in June 2010), and a Financial Plan demonstrating how the project would be funded is developed and approved by FHWA. Recreational facility impacts were included in the evaluation framework to screen the range of alternatives. Recreational facility impacts were also extensively analyzed in the Final Section 4(f) Evaluation (appended to this FEIS).

Bridge approach and interchange safety

West-side landslide

Bridge closure during construction

Funding to construct bridge improvements

Recreational facility impacts

S - 34

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required for the Proposed Action Summary

TABLE S-4

Areas of Controversy and Resolution Issue/Theme Historic resource impacts Resolution Historic resource impact evaluation criteria were included in the evaluation framework to screen the range of alternatives. On the west side, the Build alternatives were designed to minimize impacts to River View Cemetery and the Superintendent’s House. The Build alternatives would avoid direct impacts to Oaks Pioneer Church. All Build alternatives, including the rehabilitation alternatives, would adversely affect the historic status of the Sellwood Bridge. The No Build Alternative would not impact historic resources. Natural environment evaluation criteria were included in the evaluation framework to screen the range of alternatives. Water quality, hydraulics, aquatic resources, vegetation, wetlands, and wildlife are addressed in this FEIS. The No Build Alternative and the Build alternatives would maintain or improve the existing vertical clearance between the Willamette River and the bottom of the bridge. Aesthetic evaluation criteria were included in the evaluation framework to screen the range of alternatives. The public commented on proposed bridge types through an online survey in November 2007. This project is aimed at developing a solution to the structurally deficient Sellwood Bridge (owned and maintained by Multnomah County) and its interconnection with OR 43 (owned by ODOT). Because SE Tacoma Street (owned and maintained by the City of Portland) is not part of the bridge structure, it is out of scope for this project. Improvements on SE Tacoma Street for any of the Build alternatives would include the necessary transition and approach work to match with the new or rehabilitated Sellwood Bridge.

Natural environment impacts, including riparian vegetation, fish, water quality, and wetlands

River users and navigation

Bridge aesthetics and visual impacts

Include all of SE Tacoma Street in the project

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 35

Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required for the Proposed Action Summary

TABLE S-5

Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required Agency Federal Highway Administration National Park Service U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Oregon Department of State Lands U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Oregon Department of State Lands U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Oregon Department of State Lands U.S. Coast Guard National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/National Marine Fisheries Service Oregon Department of Agriculture Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Oregon Department of Transportation Oregon State Marine Board State Historic Preservation Office City of Portland City of Portland Regulation or Approval Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act (Alternative A only) Clean Water Act, Section 404 Oregon’s Removal-Fill Law Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act Consultation; Biological Opinion Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Migratory Bird Treaty Act Oregon Endangered Species Act (Plants) Clean Water Act Section 401: Water Quality Certification Clean Water Act Section 402: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program Clean Water Act Section 402: NPDES Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Program Conformance with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards Oregon Endangered Species Act (Wildlife) Fish Passage Plan Approval (Oregon Administrative Rule [OAR] 635-012) Access spacing deviation (OAR 734-051) Recreational Waters Coordination Requirements Section 106 Consultation, National Historic Preservation Act Floodplain Development Permit Type II Greenway Permit

S - 36

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Major Actions Proposed by Other Governmental Agencies Summary

TABLE S-5

Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required Agency City of Portland City of Portland City of Portland City of Portland City of Portland City of Portland Regulation or Approval Type II Environmental Permit Type II Historic Design Review Conditional Use Permit Non Park Use Permit Noise Ordinance Variance Harbor Master Permit

Major Actions Proposed by Other Governmental Agencies
Currently, the Willamette Shoreline Trolley operates on tracks that are immediately east of the existing west-side interchange and parallel to OR 43. All Build alternatives would require moving the railroad right-of-way eastward into Powers Marine Park and toward the Staff Jennings property (a former commercial boat dealership

north of the existing bridge that closed in March 2010). The existing rail facility is a single track. However, current planning is for a streetcar with a second track in this area and space for the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) along the tracks. The ground level slopes steeply down to the river east of OR 43. Therefore, moving the rail tracks to the east would require placing them on fill or structure and building a retaining wall to support the fill and minimize encroachment into the park. The replacement right-of-way provided and presented in this FEIS would replace the

Thousands of public comments were received throughout the public involvement process.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 37

Major Actions Proposed by Other Governmental Agencies Summary

existing right-of-way. The cost included in this project is for the replacement of existing right-ofway; the track replacement; any fill or structure required; and the construction of any necessary retaining walls. Major actions proposed by other governmental agencies have been taken into account and are consistent with the Build alternatives. These actions include:  Provision of light rail transit service on Oregon 99E (Portland—Milwaukie Light Rail Project) Multi-modal improvements to Oregon 99E between the Ross Island Bridge and Milwaukie Multi-modal improvements to SE Tacoma Street between the Sellwood Bridge and Oregon 99E Improvements to the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) between the Sellwood Bridge and Portland city limits

Provision of Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) enhancements on OR 43 between Sellwood Bridge and SW Hood Street/ SW Bancroft Street Construction of bicyclist and pedestrian improvements on SW Taylors Ferry Road between SW 35th Street and OR 43 Provision of ITS enhancements to four traffic signals on SE Tacoma Street between the Sellwood Bridge and SE 45th Street Construction of a shared-use path segment to complete the Springwater Corridor Trail between SE Umatilla Street and SE 19th Avenue at SE Ochoco Street Improvements to the SE Spokane Street and SE Umatilla Street bicycle boulevards

The City of Portland identifies the OR 43 (SW Macadam Avenue) corridor and the Sellwood Bridge as streetcar transit corridors in the Portland Streetcar System Concept Plan (City of Portland Bureau of Transportation, 2009). Although a streetcar project on the Sellwood

The existing Sellwood Bridge.
S - 38 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendixes in this FEIS Summary

Bridge is not a formal project at this time, Alternative D Refined has been designed to accommodate a future streetcar project in this location.

Appendix E – Distribution and Notice of Availability Lists Appendix F – Summary of Permits and Clearances Needed Appendix G – Summary of Mitigation and Environmental Commitments Appendix H – SHPO FOE Concurrence Letter Appendix I – Responses to DEIS Comments Appendix J – Original Comments on the DEIS Appendix K – Index

Appendixes in this FEIS
The following appendixes provide supporting information to this FEIS: Appendix A – Acronyms and Abbreviations Appendix B – References Appendix C – List of Preparers Appendix D – List of Supporting Technical Documentation

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

S - 39

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need
1.1

Why are we considering the Sellwood Bridge project?

Project Purpose and Need

After 80 years, the Sellwood Bridge has reached the end of its useful service life. The purpose of the Sellwood Bridge project is to rehabilitate or replace the bridge to make it structurally safe. Additionally, the project would improve connections, operations, Existing Sellwood Bridge. and safety for vehicles, bicycles, and Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), pedestrians. The bridge carries more than the City of Portland, and Metro (the Portland 30,000 vehicles per day, making it Oregon’s area metropolitan planning organization) to find a busiest two-lane bridge. Congested conditions solution. and slow travel speeds occur because the travel demand served by the Sellwood Bridge exceeds the available capacity for several hours each day, 1.2 Where is the project primarily during the morning and evening peak located? hours. Multnomah County, which owns and The bridge crosses the Willamette River in maintains the bridge, has been working with the Portland, Oregon. It connects Oregon 43 (OR 43) on the west side of the river with Project Purpose Oregon 99E (OR 99E) by way of SE Tacoma To rehabilitate or replace the Sellwood Street on the east side of the river. OR 43 runs Bridge within its existing east-west corridor to provide a structurally safe north-south between the cities of Portland and bridge and connections that Oregon City, traveling through Lake Oswego and accommodate multi-modal mobility West Linn. OR 43 is referred to as SW Macadam needs Avenue within the city limits of Portland. On the Project Need east side of the river, the bridge transitions into The need for the proposed action is as SE Tacoma Street. At its east end, SE Tacoma follows: Street connects with OR 99E (SE McLoughlin  Inadequate structural integrity Boulevard).  Substandard and unsafe roadway
design  Substandard pedestrian and bicycle facilities across the river  Existing and future travel demands exceed available capacity

The next closest crossings over the Willamette River are about 2.5 miles north at the Ross Island Bridge and about 8 miles south at the Interstate 205 (I-205) Abernathy Bridge. The

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

1-1

What is t he p roject setting ? Chapte r 1 . Pu rpose an d Need

Sellwood Bridge links the Sellwood, Westmoreland, and Milwaukie areas with OR 43 and southwest Portland, downtown Portland, and Lake Oswego. Figure 1.2-1, Project Vicinity, shows the location of the project. Figure 1.2-2, Existing Conditions, shows existing land uses near the bridge.

1.3

What is the project setting?

The bridge is located in an urban setting with mixed residential, commercial, recreational, and historical uses. Strips of land adjacent to the Willamette River near the bridge, particularly on the west side, are natural and undeveloped, though with significant recreational use. On the east bank, the Sellwood Bridge is a gateway to the Sellwood-Moreland neighborhood. Many of the properties on the east bank along the river are condominiums, apartments, or commercial buildings. The Springwater Corridor Trail passes below the bridge, as does the Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank). Sellwood Riverfront Park, Oaks Pioneer Park, Oaks Amusement Park, and the Springwater Corridor Trail are accessed from the intersection of SE Tacoma Street and SE 6th Avenue on the east bridge approach. On the west bank, the bridge approach crosses over Powers Marine Park, a linear river park, and ends in an interchange with OR 43. The interchange is adjacent to the east entrance to River View Cemetery, a large pioneer and working cemetery that is on the hillside above the highway. The historic Superintendent’s House, which is associated with the cemetery and currently functions as a funeral home, is accessed from OR 43, just south of the OR 43 intersection

with the bridge. Staff Jennings, a former commercial boating business (closed in March 2010), is located along the west side of the river between the interchange and the river, north of the bridge and Powers Marine Park. To the north of the Staff Jennings property is Willamette Moorage Park. The Willamette Shoreline Trolley track, a publicly owned right-of-way, also runs the length of the project north and south between OR 43 and both Powers Marine Park and Willamette Moorage Park, as does the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank).

1.4

What is the history of the project?
Built in 1925

1.4.1

The bridge was constructed in 1925 to replace the Spokane Street Ferry, which shuttled passengers across the Willamette River between Sellwood and southwest Portland. The bridge designer was Gustav Lindenthal, a noted bridge engineer of the time. Like the Ross Island and Burnside bridges in Portland, the Sellwood Bridge was built with funds from a $4.5 million local bond measure. In response to public outcry at budget overruns on the Burnside Bridge, the Sellwood Bridge design was scaled back to minimize cost. With a construction cost of just $541,000, the scaled-down design resulted in a number of limitations. The bridge is extremely narrow—two lanes, no shoulders or median, and one narrow sidewalk that must accommodate light poles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Because it was not designed for the additional weight of streetcars, the bridge cannot withstand as much weight as the other Willamette River crossings in Portland, such as the Hawthorne and Steel bridges.

The Sellwood Bridge was constructed in 1925 to replace the Spokane Street Ferry.
1-2 Sell wood B rid ge P roject Final Enviro nmenta l I mp act Stateme nt

What is t he history o f the p roject? Chapte r 1 . Purpose and Need

FIGURE 1.2-1

Project Vicinity
FIGURE 1.2-2

Existing Conditions

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

1-3

What is t he history o f the p roject? Chapte r 1 . Pu rpose an d Need

1.4.2

Oregon’s First-Ever FourSpan, Continuous-truss Bridge

The Sellwood Bridge is the only four-span, continuous-truss highway bridge in Oregon, and possibly in the nation. (A continuous-truss requires fewer parts and costs less than other bridge types to construct. At the time of the Sellwood Bridge’s construction, the computational technique for this design was newly developed.) As one of Portland’s first “fixed-span” bridges across the Willamette River, the bridge was high enough to avoid the need to “open” for river traffic. It was also Portland’s first Willamette River bridge without trolley tracks.
1.4.3

for the bridge; cracks in the girders and columns were injected with epoxy in 2008. The County is inspecting the bridge every 3 months to monitor the cracks and the slope on the west side of the bridge to ensure continued safe use of the bridge.
1.4.5

Planning Framework

1999 Metro Study
In May 1999, Metro made recommendations for the South Willamette River Crossing Study, which included the Sellwood Bridge. The study, initiated by Metro’s Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation, identified needed improvements for cars, transit, bikes, and pedestrian traffic crossing the Willamette River between southeast Portland and Oregon City. One of the study’s recommendations was to preserve the existing Sellwood Bridge, or replace it as a two-lane bridge with better service for bicyclists and pedestrians.

Topographic Challenges

In addition to these design limitations, the bridge also has topographical challenges. The west end of the bridge was constructed on fill material and it is located in a geologically unstable area. The hillside above the bridge is slowly sliding toward the Willamette River, exerting pressure on the west end of the bridge. In the late 1950s, the hillside slid several feet toward the bridge. As a result, a 3-foot segment of the bridge deck had to be removed and foundations were reinforced. The west-side interchange with OR 43 was completely rebuilt in 1980. Since then, ground movement has caused the west-side approach girders to crack.
1.4.4

Regional Transportation Plan
Metro’s 2004 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is a 20-year blueprint for the Portland metropolitan region’s transportation system and an adopted “Functional Plan” integrated into the Regional Framework Plan. The plan addresses the movement of people and goods in and through the region. The plan identifies the region’s transportation needs, including the need to limit the amount of congestion experienced and to maintain access for national and international freight to reach its destination with limited delays. The Sellwood Bridge project is listed as Project 1012 on the 2004 RTP financially constrained project list for the RTP program years 2004 to 2009. The RTP is currently being updated, and its adoption is anticipated in June of 2010. Future project phases, including the purchase of right-ofway, is expected to be included in the list of financially constrained projects in the updated RTP. Right-of-way purchase must be included in the financially constrained RTP before the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) can issue a

Recent Safety Measures

Multnomah County continues to take steps to prolong the safe use of the bridge until a longterm solution is identified. In June 2003, cracks in both the east and west concrete approaches were discovered and restrained with external steel clamps. In June 2004, the weight limit for vehicles traveling across the bridge was reduced from 32 tons to 10 tons. This weight limit caused the diversion of 94 daily TriMet bus trips (a loaded bus weighs about 19 tons). The weight limit is still in effect. In 2005, an engineering study recommended short-term safety improvements

1-4

Sell wood B rid ge P roject Final Enviro nmenta l I mp act Stateme nt

What is t he p urpose of t he project? Chapte r 1 . Purpose and Need

Completed in 2001, the City of Portland’s Tacoma Main Street Plan was developed to implement the vision of a multi-modal, neighborhood-oriented street in the SellwoodMoreland neighborhood. A basic assumption carried into the planning process (according to recommendations from the South Willamette River Crossing Study [Metro, 1999]) was that providing adequate regional traffic capacity in the Sellwood Bridge/SE Tacoma Street travelshed is not the responsibility of SE Tacoma Street. The plan supports “regional efforts to carry out the recommendations of the South Willamette River Crossing Study that reduce travel demand on the Sellwood Bridge.” Action items to meet this recommendation include mitigating traffic growth on SE Tacoma Street, increasing transit services, increasing motor vehicle capacity on appropriate regional facilities “in order to direct traffic away from areas of conflict with land use goals,” and supporting “improvements to the west end of the Sellwood Bridge that mitigate congestion impacts.”

Project Purpose, Need, and Goals

Record of Decision on the Sellwood Bridge project. Tacoma Main Street Plan

Project Purpose (Section 1.5)  Defines the transportation problem to be solved, but does not identify a solution, and allows for consideration of multiple modes and alternatives. Project Need (Section 1.6)  Establishes evidence that the transportation problem exists. Project Goals (Section 1.7)  Defines broad vision statements intended to influence the character of the project solution.

1.6

Why is the project needed?

The following four major issues define the need for the Sellwood Bridge project:  Inadequate structural integrity to safely accommodate various vehicle types (including transit vehicles, trucks, and emergency vehicles) and to withstand moderate seismic events Substandard and unsafe roadway design Substandard pedestrian and bicycle facilities across the river Existing and future travel demands between origins and destinations served by the Sellwood Bridge exceed available capacity

  

1.5

What is the purpose of the project?

The purpose of the project, as approved by the The following subsections provide further project’s Policy Advisory Group, is to descriptions of these issues. “rehabilitate or replace the Sellwood Bridge within its The yellow line indicates a sag in the southern bridge railing. existing east-west corridor to provide a structurally safe bridge and connections that accommodate multi-modal mobility needs.”

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

1-5

Why is t he p roject needed ? Chapte r 1 . Pu rpose an d Need

1.6.1

Inadequate Structural Integrity

The bridge has inadequate structural integrity to safely accommodate various types of heavy vehicles (including transit vehicles, trucks, and emergency vehicles) and to withstand moderate seismic events. The bridge continues to deteriorate and cannot adequately accommodate today’s traffic needs because of its structural condition. Load restrictions have eliminated bus service, restricted freight loads, and prohibited large emergency vehicles from using the bridge. The bridge does not meet current seismic standards. The bridge is no longer adequate to sufficiently accommodate traffic because of its structural and geometric deficiencies. Its sufficiency rating (a measure based on bridge inspection reports that indicates a bridge’s ability to provide service) is only 2 on a scale of 0 to 100. The sufficiency rating measures both the physical condition of a bridge and the ability of the bridge to perform operationally.

The bridge’s lightweight deck system is inadequate to handle current vehicular demands. Concrete is falling off the bridge because the reinforcing steel is corroded and expansion joints are weakening. The existing lead-based paint coating has largely failed and widespread corrosion is attacking the steel truss. The bridge was opened to traffic in 1925. However, the steel girders of the bridge approaches are actually more than 100 years old because steel girders from the Burnside Bridge (circa 1894) were reused on this bridge. Earth movements caused the development of cracks in the west approach concrete girders. Vehicle loads were restricted to a maximum of 32 tons in 1985 after calculations showed that higher weights would overstress critical bridge elements. Further weight restrictions were imposed in 2004, when large cracks were discovered in the concrete girders. Vehicle weight was limited to 10 tons and buses and large emergency vehicles and trucks were prohibited from using the bridge. Portland’s Freight Master Plan (2006) designates the bridge as a Truck Access Street in recognition of its service as an access and circulation route for the delivery of goods and services to neighborhood-serving commercial and employment land uses. This includes truck trips between Sellwood, Westmoreland, and Milwaukie on the east side of the Willamette River and the southwest Portland area on the west side, via OR 43. However, because of current load restrictions and the physical geometry of the west-side interchange, large trucks must avoid the bridge, thereby substantially impeding freight movement between these areas. This out-of-direction travel for businesses located in the commercial districts on both sides of the river has resulted in increased freight costs and delays. Freight mobility and reliability, currently affected by load limits on the bridge, will be further impacted as travel demands continue to rise.

Side of the bridge, which shows that concrete has fallen off the bridge.

1-6

Sell wood B rid ge P roject Final Enviro nmenta l I mp act Stateme nt

Why is t he p roject needed ? Chapte r 1 . Purpose and Need

The existing lead-based paint coating has largely failed and widespread corrosion is attacking the steel truss.

The interchange of the bridge and OR 43 has many substandard features, including horizontal and vertical alignments that limit motorist sight distance and prohibit the ability of longer trucks to turn safely. Ramp connections also do not provide sufficient vertical clearances (16.25 feet on the southbound loop ramp from the Sellwood Bridge to OR 43 southbound when the ODOT minimum is 17 feet), sight distances, or shoulders.
1.6.3

Substandard Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities across the River

Transit service has been discontinued across the bridge because of the structural deficiencies. Before the weight restriction was imposed in 2004, bus usage across the bridge was substantial. (SE Tacoma Street is a Major Transit Street in the City of Portland’s Transportation System Plan [updated in 2007].) Bus routes that previously crossed the bridge served many travel markets, including those between the Sellwood, Westmoreland, and Milwaukie areas and southwest Portland and the city center. Since the weight restriction, the bus routes have been rerouted, making use of public transportation unattractive between key markets. Transit use in the bridge corridor (which is expected to rise substantially by 2035) and increased traffic levels could affect the reliability and mobility of public transportation service. Finally, the bridge is located in a seismically active zone, does not meet current seismic standards, and is vulnerable to failure in the event of an earthquake.
1.6.2

The bridge’s only sidewalk, on the structure’s north side, is just 4 feet 3 inches wide. This leaves only a 3-foot-wide passage for two-way traffic next to each of its 22 light poles. The sidewalk width is not safe for bicyclists and pedestrians, and the sidewalk cannot accommodate some disabled users. The existing sidewalk and connections at either end of the bridge do not meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. There is no sidewalk on the south side of the bridge. The bridge does not provide designated bicycle facilities. Some bicyclists try to use the sidewalk; others intermingle with traffic. The bridge could provide bicyclists and pedestrians with a critical link between the west and east sides of the
The bridge’s sidewalk width is not safe for bicyclists and pedestrians.

Substandard and Unsafe Roadway Design

The bridge has two 12-foot-wide lanes with no shoulders to provide access for emergency vehicles, accommodate vehicular breakdowns, or facilitate maintenance. In addition, the bridge’s vertical curve limits motorist sight distance.

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

1-7

What a re the goals of t he p roject? Chapte r 1 . Pu rpose an d Need

Willamette River and with established shared-use paths. However, the bridge’s connections with shared-use paths are deficient, unsafe, and often avoided. There are no sidewalks, crosswalks, or bicycle lanes on OR 43 in the bridge interchange. Pedestrian and bicyclist connections between the highway and the bridge are circuitous, unpaved, and, in some areas, force users to mix with vehicle traffic. Most of these facilities do not comply with ADA guidelines. In addition, the bridge’s connection to the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) is narrow; has deficient horizontal curves and limited sight distances; and does not meet ADA standards.
1.6.4

Daily traffic demand will increase substantially in the future, leading to increased durations of congestion along approach roadways, including both directions of OR 43, SW Taylors Ferry Road, and SE Tacoma Street. Increased congestion levels will affect emergency service accessibility, transit service, freight movements, and general vehicular traffic. The two key facilities affecting Sellwood Bridge operations are the OR 43 interchange and SE Tacoma Street. Both create bottlenecks that increased capacity or operational improvements on the bridge itself cannot relieve. For example, on the east side, SE Tacoma Street is controlled by a single through lane in each direction and the capacity-constraining traffic signals at SE 13th and SE 17th avenues. It is the intention of the City of Portland’s land use and transportation plans, as expressed in the adopted Tacoma Main Street Plan (2001), that the Sellwood area maintain SE Tacoma Street as a two-lane facility, with a turning lane, but improve the operations of the signalized intersections on SE Tacoma Street to improve the operating capacity of the corridor. On OR 43, the slow speed on-ramps to the bridge from OR 43 both merge into a single lane on the bridge, leading to congestion on OR 43. This interchange is not addressed in a plan except as part of the bridge project.

Travel Demands Exceed Available Capacity

Capacity is defined as the number of vehicles over a given time period that can be served by a section of roadway. Capacity is a function of the facility’s lane capacity, travel speeds, and operations of intersections, as well as those of upstream and downstream facilities. The existing and future travel demands served by the Sellwood Bridge exceed the bridge’s available capacity as well as the capacity of its interchange with OR 43. The bridge provides a direct connection across the Willamette River for several key travel origins and destinations. Travel demands are expected to increase in the future, leading to decreased accessibility for motorized vehicles. The bridge’s closest alternative crossings over the Willamette River are about 2.5 miles north at the Ross Island Bridge and about 8 miles south at the I-205 Abernathy Bridge. Travel demands at the bridge and west-side interchange exceed the available capacity for several hours each day, resulting in congested conditions, slow travel speeds, and travel delays. During peak conditions, particularly during the afternoon, vehicles waiting to get on the bridge and go eastbound often extend onto OR 43 beyond the SW Taylors Ferry Road intersection.

1.7

What are the goals of the project?

Through a public involvement process, a diverse group of concerned stakeholders defined the goals for the project that addressed the assessed needs and defined the criteria for a successful solution. A Community Task Force (comprised of residents and business owners in adjacent neighborhoods; bicycle and pedestrian users; freight and transit advocates; commuters; citywide business and community interests; river users; and historic resource, aesthetic, and natural resource protection supporters)

1-8

Sell wood B rid ge P roject Final Enviro nmenta l I mp act Stateme nt

What a re m ini m um req ui rements for meeti ng project p ur pose and need? Chapte r 1 . Purpose and Need

articulated the perspectives of their constituencies during this process. Improving the safety of the bridge is the primary goal. An important secondary goal is to balance environmental and transportation values over the long-term while meeting the purpose and need for the proposed action. The project goals are further defined as follows:  Aesthetics. Ensure an aesthetically pleasing solution that enhances visual quality of the bridge, on the bridge, and from the communities on both sides of the river. Bike and Pedestrian. Improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, mobility, and safety to and across the Sellwood Bridge. Community Quality of Life. Protect and preserve the existing quality of life of the neighborhoods in the Sellwood Bridge influence area on both sides of the Willamette River. Automobiles, Freight, and Emergency Vehicles. Improve freight and commuter mobility and safety. Minimize bottlenecks for freight, automobiles, and emergency services. Construction. Minimize construction impacts and construction risks.

Mass Transit. Improve mass transit circulation, capacity, connectivity, and local access to and across the bridge. Seismic. Provide a solution that can resist moderate earthquakes.

The project goals are addressed in the analysis of impacts, the mitigation for impacts, and the project design.

1.8

What are minimum requirements for meeting project purpose and need?

Once the goals for the project were established, decision-makers defined a set of threshold criteria to serve as minimum requirements for reasonable project alternatives. Chapter 2 summarizes the threshold criteria. These threshold criteria (design standards and performance measures) have been used throughout the alternative development and screening process to ensure that the project needs as expressed in the project goals are met. (See Appendix D for a list of supporting technical documentation.)

   

Natural Environment. Preserve or improve the natural environment. Material Resources. Use material resources as efficiently as possible.

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

Project Stakeholders

Cost and Economic Impacts. Design, build, and maintain a cost-effective project.

A diverse group of concerned stakeholders developed the goals for the project. These stakeholders include the project team, project decision-making bodies (described in Chapter 5), various interest groups, and the public who raised issues throughout the public involvement process.

1-9

Chapter 2. Concept Development, Project Alternatives, and the Preferred Alternative

Chapter 2. Concept Development, Project Alternatives, and the Preferred Alternative
This chapter summarizes the development, screening, and selection of project alternatives for evaluation in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), along with associated construction activities. This FEIS was prepared following the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) environmental process and guidelines for preparing an FEIS. FHWA will be the final approver of this document. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was distributed in November 2008 (FHWA et al., 2008) that evaluated a No Build Alternative and five Build Alternatives, lettered A through E. The Build alternatives were assembled from compatible combinations of alignments, bridge cross-sections, bridge design types, west-end interchange types, and east-end intersection types. These features were evaluated within the context of individual Build alternatives. However, some features were interchangeable among some of the alternatives (for example interchange type, deck width, bridge type, and treatment of the SE 6th Avenue intersection.) After public and agency comments were fully considered and evaluated, Alternative D was identified as the preferred alternative (Section 5.5 of this FEIS outlines the process used to identify the preferred alternative). Features of Alternative D were
FIGURE 2.1-1

subsequently refined, based on comments submitted on the DEIS and a public hearing. Therefore, this FEIS evaluates a No Build Alternative, the five Build alternatives evaluated in the DEIS, and the preferred alternative— Alternative D Refined. This chapter is divided into the following sections: • Section 2.1 (Overview of the Process Used to Identify and Narrow Concepts). Summarizes the process used to identify and narrow concepts (alignments,

Decision Points in the Evaluation Process
Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-1

Overview of the Process Used to Identify and Narrow Concepts Chapter 2. Concept Development, Project Alternatives, and the Preferred Alternative

cross-sections, and interchange types) to address the project purpose and need, as identified in Chapter 1, and summarizes the preliminary concepts developed but not carried forward for further analysis in the DEIS  Section 2.2 (Alternatives Carried Forward to and Evaluated in the DEIS). Describes the alternatives evaluated in the DEIS  Section 2.3 (Preferred Alternative). Describes the preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined)

Decision Point 3 – Establish Evaluation Framework  Adopted threshold and evaluation criteria (project goals).

Decision Point 4 – Develop Alternatives     Identified a broad range of concepts. Screened concepts against the threshold criteria. Developed alternatives. Adopted a range of alternatives for more detailed evaluation.

Decision Point 5 – Screen Alternatives   Screened alternatives using the evaluation criteria. Selected alternatives for evaluation in the DEIS.

2.1

Overview of the Process Used to Identify and Narrow Concepts

This section summarizes the decision points used by the project’s local elected/appointed officials to identify and narrow concepts to the five Build alternatives evaluated in the DEIS (Figure 2.1-1). Each decision point of this evaluation process included technical analyses, public input, and stakeholder reviews. Chapter 5 summarizes information about the project groups and public and agency involvement. The evaluation process included the following six decision points:  Decision Point 1 – Establish Decision Process and Structure  Ensured understanding and agreement about the process, and about the roles, responsibilities, and membership of the various project groups (Policy Advisory Group [PAG], Community Task Force [CTF], Project Management Team [PMT], and Senior Agency Staff [SAS]).

Decision Point 6 – Identify Preferred Alternative    Prepared a DEIS to analyze the selected alternatives. Had FHWA approve the DEIS before it was published. Published and distributed the DEIS for project stakeholders, the public, and elected officials. Had a formal public comment period and held a formal public hearing following distribution of the DEIS. Had the PAG consider the analysis documented in the DEIS, CTF input, and public and agency comments to identify a preferred alternative. Had the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners, Clackamas County Board of Commissioners, Metro Council, and Portland City Council adopt the preferred alternative. Have FHWA select a preferred alternative.

Decision Point 2 – Define Purpose and Need  Established the need for the project and defined the problems the project was expected to address. 

2-2

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Overview of the Process Used to Identify and Narrow Concepts Chapter 2. Concept Development, Project Alternatives, and the Preferred Alternative

2.1.1

Decision Point 1: Establish Decision Process and Structure

staff, and experts who volunteered their services. Chapter 5 describes the composition, roles, and responsibilities of these five groups in more detail. While these groups provided input and were involved in identifying the preferred alternative, FHWA will select an alternative when it publishes the Record of Decision (ROD).
2.1.2

The first decision point ensured understanding and agreement about the project’s decision process and structure, and about the roles, responsibilities, and membership of the various project groups. The project team also established a project schedule during this decision point. Primary groups involved in the decision process included the following:  Policy Advisory Group (PAG). Made decisions at each decision point. The PAG was comprised of elected and appointed officials of local agencies and jurisdictions with regulatory responsibility for the project or those who had a strong interest in the outcome. Community Task Force (CTF). Made recommendations to the PAG at each decision point. The CTF was comprised of representatives from neighborhoods, local and regional business groups, advocates for different bridge user groups (such as commuters, freight and transit users, river users, pedestrians, and bicyclists), and representatives of natural resource, historic resource, and aesthetic interests. Project Management Team (PMT). Guided the day-to-day execution of the project. The PMT included staff from Multnomah County, Metro, City of Portland, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), FHWA, and the consulting team. Senior Agency Staff (SAS). Advised the PMT and the PAG. The SAS was comprised of senior level staff from each of the PAG member organizations. Working Groups. Provided input to the CTF and PMT on particular issues. Each group was comprised of consultants, agency

Decision Point 2: Define Purpose and Need

The second decision point, conducted in the summer and fall of 2006, established the need for the project and defined the problems the project was expected to address. Chapter 1 defines the project purpose and need.
2.1.3

Decision Point 3: Establish Evaluation Framework

The third decision point, conducted in late 2006 and early 2007, established threshold and evaluation criteria that were used in subsequent decision points for screening and selecting alternatives for further review. This section summarizes the Sellwood Bridge Project Evaluation Framework Technical Memorandum (CH2M HILL, 2007a), which describes the adopted evaluation framework and documents the threshold and evaluation criteria and their performance measures. The threshold criteria represent a set of requirements that all bridge concepts must meet to be reasonable. Design standards and performance measures established for each threshold criterion defined these feasibility requirements in detail. Threshold criteria categories included providing for the following:  Structural Integrity. To safely accommodate various vehicle types (including transit vehicles, trucks, and emergency vehicles) and to withstand moderate seismic events

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

2-3

Overview of the Process Used to Identify and Narrow Concepts Chapter 2. Concept Development, Project Alternatives, and the Preferred Alternative

 

Design and Safety Standards. To design a geometrically functional and safe roadway Travel Demand. To accommodate existing and future travel demands between origins and destinations served by the Sellwood Bridge Transit Service. To enable connectivity, reliability, and operations of existing and future public transit Freight. To improve freight mobility to and across the bridge Pedestrians and Bicyclists. To enable pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, mobility, and safety to and across the river in the existing bridge corridor

Basic Bridge Cross-sections. Refers to the various configurations of the bridge deck, including travel/transit lanes, bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and shared-use paths

 

Identifying a broad range of concepts assured that numerous ideas were considered early in the project that met the project’s purpose and need. The concepts that did not meet the minimum requirements of the threshold criteria in the third decision point were eliminated from consideration. Concepts that met the minimum requirements were then compared against each other to eliminate clearly inferior concepts from further consideration. The following subsections summarize the Sellwood Bridge Project Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum (CH2M HILL, 2007b). They describe the bridge alignment, interchange type, basic bridge cross-section, and other concepts considered and the reasons for eliminating various concepts.

The evaluation framework also included determining evaluation criteria categories that would set performance measures for gauging the effectiveness of the reasonable alternatives. These categories of evaluation criteria differentiate and identify tradeoffs (benefits and impacts) among the reasonable alternatives. The criteria categories were developed following discussion with a wide variety of stakeholders, who identified the project features they considered most important and valuable. Among these ten evaluation criteria categories, 37 evaluation criteria were developed.
2.1.4

Alignment Concepts
From January to May 2007, the Sellwood Bridge team developed preliminary alignment concepts and added additional alignment concepts suggested by the public through an online survey, public open house, and meetings with the PAG and CTF. Chapter 5 summarizes the public involvement process. The project team confirmed that alignment concepts met the minimum requirements for the project (the threshold criteria described previously). The project team recommended eliminating alignment concepts that did not meet these minimum requirements or were not consistent with the purpose and need (Chapter 1). The remaining alignment concepts still represented a broad range of alternatives for further evaluation.

Decision Point 4: Develop Alternatives

At the outset of this decision point, a broad range of concepts was developed to address the purpose and need of the project (Decision Point 2). Concepts included:  Bridge Alignments. Refers to the location of the river crossing, including the existing alignment Interchange Types. Refers to the connection of the Sellwood Bridge with OR 43 on the west side of the river

2-4

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Over view of t he Process Used to Ide ntify an d Na rro w Co ncepts Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

The 10 evaluation criteria categories, listed in alphabetical order, include 37 evaluation criteria.  Aesthetics. Ensure an aesthetically pleasing solution that enhances visual quality of the bridge, on the bridge, and from the communities on both sides of the Willamette River.    Maximize flexibility in bridge design types Preserve, enhance, or create views from the bridge Provide aesthetically pleasing interchange/intersection designs that instill a sense of community pride

 Automobiles, Freight, and Emergency Vehicles. Improve freight and commuter mobility and safety and minimize bottlenecks for freight, automobiles, and emergency services.       Minimize congestion delay in the bridge area Improve accessibility to residences and businesses Minimize impact of incidents and allow the passing of emergency vehicles Accommodate trucks Retain flexibility to respond to future transportation needs along the corridor Remain open to traffic during periods of required maintenance

 Bicyclist and Pedestrian. Improve bicyclist and pedestrian connectivity, mobility, and safety to and across the Sellwood Bridge.
Evaluation Criteria

 

Maximize bicyclist and pedestrian safety Maximize convenient and direct connections for bicyclists and pedestrians

 Community Quality of Life. Protect and preserve the existing quality of life of the neighborhoods in the Sellwood Bridge influence area on both sides of the Willamette River.             Minimize noise impacts caused by traffic on residents, businesses, bridge users, and visitors Minimize through-traffic intrusion in Sellwood and other south Portland neighborhoods Minimize impacts to recreational facilities Preserve historic and archaeological resources along the project corridor Minimize residential relocations Minimize residential impacts Minimize business relocations Improve or avoid negative impacts to the viability of existing businesses within the bridge impact area Achieve consistency with adopted community plans Minimize closure time Minimize construction time Minimize travel impacts during construction

 Construction. Minimize construction impacts and risks.

 Cost and Economic Impacts. Design, build, and maintain a cost-effective project.  Minimize life cycle cost  Material Resources. Use material resources as efficiently as possible.  Maximize use of materials from existing bridge

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

2-5

Overview of the Process Used to Identify and Narrow Concepts Chapter 2. Concept Development, Project Alternatives, and the Preferred Alternative

 Natural Environment. Preserve or improve the natural environment.    Evaluation Criteria     Minimize impacts to the floodplain and meet Oregon Transportation Investment Act (OTIA) III floodplain/ fluvial standards to the greatest extent practical Maximize benefits to threatened and endangered fish species and to other fish habitat and minimize impacts Maximize benefits to threatened and endangered terrestrial species and minimize impacts Maximize benefits to wildlife habitats and minimize wildlife impacts Maximize benefits to riparian areas and minimize tree loss Maximize benefits to air quality and minimize air quality impacts Preserve recreational fishing and maintain in-stream structure and cover

 Mass Transit. Improve mass transit circulation, capacity, connectivity, and local access to and across the bridge.      Increase mass transit reliability Accommodate future streetcar or express transit alternatives Ensure efficient cohabitation of mass transit and auto/truck traffic Ensure effective transit connectivity Minimize loss of life, loss of property, and damages from an earthquake

 Seismic. Make bridge resistant to moderate earthquakes.

The alignment concepts, which were designated by color, are illustrated on Figure 2.1-2. Eleven general alignments were considered, including three variations of the existing bridge alignment (called the Yellow alignment):    Yellow-North. Existing bridge alignment and area immediately adjacent to the north side Yellow-Center. Existing bridge alignment Yellow-South. Existing bridge alignment and area immediately adjacent to the south side

this analysis and public input on the alignments, the PAG removed six alignments from consideration for the reasons described in Table 2.1-1. The PAG selected the Purple, Yellow-South, Yellow-Center, Blue, Pink, and Teal alignments to be carried forward for further analysis.

Interchange-type Concepts
The project team developed 10 interchange/ intersection-type concepts to connect the west end of the bridge with OR 43. These concepts included a mix of at-grade, two-level, and threelevel configurations, as well as a mix of signalized and unsignalized interchange forms. All interchange/intersection-type concepts were designed to minimize park impacts and to avoid relocation and direct and indirect impacts to the Superintendent’s House (a historic resource) and burial sites at River View Cemetery. The following items were the primary considerations regarding the choices between these interchange concepts:

Based on public input, the project team developed seven bridge alignments (the Blue, Green, Orange, Purple, Yellow-North, YellowCenter, and Yellow-South alignments) and a tunnel alignment, and the public suggested four additional alignments (the Burgundy, Gold, Pink, and Teal alignments). All alignments started on SE Tacoma Street on the east side of the Willamette River, but the location of the bridge connection to OR 43 on the west bank varied by alignment. The project team qualitatively analyzed the alignments. After the CTF and PAG considered

2-6

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Over view of t he Process Used to Ide ntify an d Na rro w Co ncepts Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

Future-year traffic performance. The future year for traffic analysis was 2035, consistent with FHWA requirements. Interchange design. Ability to meet adopted design and safety standards. Bicycle and pedestrian safety. Interchange footprint. To minimize impacts to recreation (Powers Marine Park, Willamette Greenway Trail [West Bank], and Willamette Moorage Park), historic properties (River View Cemetery and its Superintendent’s House), and private property (the Staff Jennings property). Flexibility for transit stop locations and connections.

 

Cost. Two interchange-type concepts were advanced for further consideration: Two-level, single-point signalized intersection. Offered the best opportunity for access to River View Cemetery, worked well from a traffic perspective, provided signalized crossings for bicyclists and pedestrians, took into account driver expectations with regard to signal timing, and provided for transit stop locations. Two-level roundabout. Provided opportunities for free-flow traffic movement (no signal) through the intersection.

  

FIGURE 2.1-2

Bridge Alignment Concepts Evaluated

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

2-7

Over view of t he Process Used to Ide ntify an d Na rro w Co ncepts Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

TABLE 2.1-1

Reason(s) for Eliminating Six Alignments in Decision Point 4 Alignment Gold Reason(s) for Elimination A longer alignment than all other alignments, the Gold alignment would have led to substantially higher cost and had a greater impact on Sellwood Riverfront Park than any other alignment. The bridge structure, which would have been approximately 1,250 feet longer than the other alignments, would have cost approximately $125 million more than the bridge structure for the other alignments. Approximately 1,200 feet of the bridge would have crossed or been directly adjacent to Sellwood Riverfront Park, and would have crossed the natural (undeveloped) area of the park. The Gold alignment also would have provided a direct connection between SW Taylors Ferry Road and SE Tacoma Street, which would have encouraged increased traffic in the corridor. The Green alignment is similar to the Teal alignment (which was not eliminated in Decision Point 4), but would have had higher residential and commercial impacts. The Green and Teal alignments would have had the same number of residential displacements. However, the Green alignment would have been located on SE Spokane Street, directly adjacent to single-family residences and the River Park condominium complex, and would not have supported the “Local Service Traffic Street” designation of SE Spokane Street in the City of Portland Comprehensive Plan (City of Portland, 2006) and the recommendations of the Tacoma Main Street Plan (City of Portland, 2001). The Green alignment would have displaced up to 37 businesses in the River Park Center. The Teal alignment would avoid this building. Commercial acquisition was estimated to be approximately $8.5 million for the Green alignment, compared to less than $1 million for the Teal alignment. The Orange alignment is similar to the Pink alignment (which was not eliminated in Decision Point 4), but would have had higher residential impacts than the Pink alignment. While the Orange and Pink alignments would have had the same number of residential displacements, the Orange alignment would have been located on SE Spokane Street, directly adjacent to single-family residences and the River Park condominium complex, and would not have supported the “Local Service Traffic Street” designation of SE Spokane Street in the City of Portland Comprehensive Plan (City of Portland, 2006) and the recommendations of the Tacoma Main Street Plan (City of Portland, 2001). The Yellow-North alignment is similar to the Pink alignment (which was not eliminated in Decision Point 4), but the Yellow-North alignment would have displaced 48 residential units, compared to the displacement of 6 units for the Pink alignment. The Burgundy alignment would have increased right-of-way impacts and would have had higher cost because of its longer length (approximately 750 feet longer than all alignments other than the Gold alignment). The total cost for the bridge structure would have been approximately $75 million more than any of the other alignments except for the Gold alignment. The Burgundy alignment also would have required out-of-direction travel. The tunnel alignment is a long alignment (approximately 7,000 feet) that would have been costly and would not have accommodated bicyclists and pedestrians. The lineal-foot cost would have been a minimum of five times the lineal-foot cost for a bridge structure. Therefore, the total cost for the tunnel would have exceeded $1 billion. This alignment would not have accommodated existing and future travel demands between the same origins and destinations served by the Sellwood Bridge. The tunnel alignment would have required out-of-direction travel because it could not have been accessed between the tunnel portals. Therefore, it would have served primarily through traffic and not local Sellwood traffic.

Green

Orange

YellowNorth Burgundy

Tunnel

2-8

Sell wood B rid ge P roject Final Enviro nmenta l I mp act Stateme nt

Over view of t he Process Used to Ide ntify an d Na rro w Co ncepts Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

The minimum design criteria for the bridge cross-section are based on adopted standards. The desirable design criteria are based on input from project-specific working groups (defined in Section 2.1.1 and Chapter 5). Design Criteria
Bridge Cross-section Minimum Design Criteria

Design Feature Travel-lane Width Bicycle-lane Width

Minimum 11 feet Source: City of Portland 5 feet Source: Bicycle Master Plan (City of Portland, 1998a) 8 feet clear of obstructions (6 feet through pedestrian zone plus 2 feet for furnishings zone/curb zone) Source: Portland Pedestrian Design Guide (City of Portland, 1998b)

Desirable 12 feet Source: Roadway Working Group 6.5 feet Source: Roadway Working Group 12 feet clear of obstructions (6 feet through pedestrian zone plus 2.5 feet for furnishings zone/curb zone plus 1.5 feet for frontage zone adjacent to bridge rail) Source: Roadway Working Group 20 feet clear of obstructions for a two-way path (16 feet plus 2 feet of shy on both sides) Source: Roadway Working Group

Sidewalk Width

Shared-use Path (if bicycle and pedestrian facilities are combined)

Shoulder Width (without a bicycle lane)

16 feet clear of obstructions for a two-way path (12 feet plus 2 feet of shy on both sides) Source: Bicycle Master Plan (City of Portland, 1998a) 3 feet on bridges longer than 100 feet Source: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

Basic Bridge Cross-section Concepts
Initially, the public and CTF developed over 40 possible basic bridge cross-section concepts. These consisted of travel/transit lanes, bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and shared-use paths. Next, the PAG and CTF selected 12 cross-section configurations to consider in more detail. These configurations represented various width categories ranging between 31 feet and 92 feet. Most cross-sections applied to any of the alignments, although a few were proposed primarily for the rehabilitation of the existing bridge (e.g., Yellow-Center alignment). Nine of the 12 concepts advanced for further consideration were single-level, and the other 3 employed a two-level design with bicycle and pedestrian facilities on the lower deck.

Other Concepts
Other concepts that were advanced included:   Using a temporary detour bridge for access across the river during construction Using the existing bridge for bicyclist and pedestrian facilities with a replacement bridge for motorized vehicles on a separate alignment

Project Alternatives
The feasible concepts (bridge alignment, interchange type, bridge cross-section, and other) were combined to form project alternatives. Combined, the varying options for the alignments, cross-sections, and interchange types produced over 100 unique alternatives for evaluation in Decision Point 5.

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

2-9

Over view of t he Process Used to Ide ntify an d Na rro w Co ncepts Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

TABLE 2.1-2

Primary Reason(s) for Eliminating Four Alignments in Decision Point 5 Alignment Purple Primary Reason(s) for Elimination Would have displaced 12 residences, which was more residential displacements than with other, similar alignments (Yellow-Center and Yellow-South) that displaced fewer than 12 residences. Because of its impact to the River Park residential development north of the existing bridge, would have displaced 51 residences, the highest of any alignment. Was combined with the Pink alignment to form the Pink-Teal Hybrid alignment. Was combined with the Teal alignment to form the Pink-Teal Hybrid alignment.

alternatives for further analysis in the DEIS. Section 2.2 summarizes the alternatives carried forward to the DEIS.

Alignment Concepts
Primary considerations for choices among alignments included consistency with the project purpose and need (Chapter 1); relative bridge costs; number of residential units requiring relocation; cost of residential acquisition; impacts to businesses; cost of commercial acquisition; maintenance of traffic during construction; and potential impacts to protected historic resources, recreation facilities, and the natural environment. Considering the performance of the alignments against these considerations, the PAG eliminated four alignments from consideration, as summarized in Table 2.1-2. The Yellow-South and Yellow-Center alignments were advanced for further consideration. Input from the public and PAG refined the Pink alternative on the west side to develop a 12th alignment (Pink-Teal Hybrid). The Pink-Teal Hybrid alignment avoided Sellwood Riverfront Park and minimized impacts to Powers Marine Park. This alignment was called the Pink-Teal Hybrid because the east end of the bridge was similar to the Pink alignment and the west end of the bridge was similar to the Teal alignment. In summary, three alignments were advanced for further evaluation in the DEIS:    Yellow-Center alignment Yellow-South alignment Pink-Teal Hybrid alignment

Blue

Teal

Pink

2.1.5

Decision Point 5: Screen Alternatives

A team of technical experts rated the performance of the over 100 unique alternatives against each of the 37 evaluation criteria. Performance ratings were either qualitative or quantitative. The combination of over 100 unique alternatives and 37 evaluation criteria resulted in more than 4,000 performance scores. Input from the public and CTF was used to eliminate alignments and cross-section types and identify alternatives for further evaluation in the DEIS. The following subsections summarize the Final Alternatives Evaluation Findings Technical Memorandum (CH2M HILL, 2007c), which provides the results of this analysis, and the Alternatives Adopted by the Policy Advisory Group for Analysis in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Technical Memorandum (CH2M HILL, 2007d), which describes the rationale for selection of

Interchange-type Concepts
Two interchange-type concepts were initially evaluated (that is, two-level, single-point signalized intersection and two-level roundabout). After further consideration in Decision Point 5, the PAG also advanced the trumpet interchange concept because it provided opportunities for free-flow traffic movement through the corridor. Therefore, three interchange types were advanced for further evaluation in the DEIS:

2-10

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Over view of t he Process Used to Ide ntify an d Na rro w C o ncepts Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

Seismic Strengthening

Generally, at the time of any structure rehabilitation, an evaluation is made to determine whether a seismic retrofit is necessary. One or both of the following approaches can be taken to retrofit a bridge to resist an earthquake:  Tie together bridge members to prevent them from coming apart during an earthquake (Phase I seismic upgrade)  Strengthen bridge members to allow them to resist the forces and movements occurring during an earthquake (Phase II seismic upgrade) Most seismic retrofits in the state of Oregon consist only of connecting the members (Phase I), because this approach greatly reduces loss of life from an earthquake at a fraction of the cost of strengthening. However, the rehabilitation concepts that have been advanced in this FEIS require expansion of foundations, footings, columns, superstructure, and deck, all of which must be built to Phase II standards.

  

Two-level, single-point signalized intersection Two-level roundabout Trumpet

alternatives that would be studied in the DEIS. These other concepts included the following:    To build a separate bicycle and pedestrian bridge To rehabilitate the existing bridge and use a temporary detour bridge during construction To rehabilitate the existing bridge with a Phase II seismic retrofit

Basic Bridge Cross-section Concepts
The 12 basic bridge cross-section concepts evaluated were refined based on input from the public and CTF. The five basic bridge crosssection concepts the CTF and PAG recommended for advancement to the DEIS incorporated various configurations of travel/transit lanes, bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and shared-use paths.

Bridge Design Types
For analysis purposes, bridge design types were identified for the replacement alternatives. For each of the replacement alternatives, the PAG and CTF advanced a moderately-priced bridge design type and, where feasible, a higher-priced (“signature”) bridge design type for evaluation in the DEIS. Some alternatives precluded certain bridge types. The final bridge type, size, and location will be determined and approved after completing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) process. Bridge design types are specified in this FEIS for analysis purposes only to identify impacts, estimate costs, and describe kinds of construction activities.

The CTF and PAG did not advance retaining the existing bridge for bicyclist and pedestrian use with a replacement bridge for motorized vehicles on a separate alignment as an alternative to be studied in the DEIS for the following reasons:  The total cost of rehabilitating and maintaining the existing bridge structure and constructing and maintaining a new bridge structure was higher than:    Including bicyclist and pedestrian facilities in a new or rehabilitated bridge Rehabilitating the existing bridge Constructing a new bridge with a new, smaller, separate bicycle/pedestrian bridge

Other Concepts
After further consideration, the PAG and CTF decided to include other concepts in the

If available funding were less than the full project cost, construction could not be phased (that is, building first the new bridge, then the interchange, using the existing interchange in the interim) because the new

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

2-11

Alter nati ves Ca rrie d For wa rd to a nd Ev al uated in the DE I S Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

bridge would simultaneously need to be on a new location and have a new interchange.  The total impacts to the natural resources and park and recreational facilities of the existing bridge plus a new vehicular bridge would be higher than the impacts of other alternatives with a new or rehabilitated bridge structure. Transfer points between vehicular traffic on the new bridge and bicyclist and pedestrian facilities on the existing bridge would be more difficult.

Under the No Build Alternative, the existing infrastructure would remain the same and the bridge would continue to operate as it does today. The bridge, west-side interchange configuration, and east-side bridge approach would not change. The existing bridge crosssection (31 feet wide with two 12-foot-wide travel lanes and a single narrow sidewalk with light pole constrictions) would remain.

Maintenance Activities
Multnomah County has identified the following maintenance activities under the No Build Alternative that would be necessary to keep the bridge operational and in as good a condition as possible for the next 20 years:       Remove and replace west approach spans Remove existing failed lead-based paint Paint all steel Replace expansion joints Remove and replace asphalt deck overlay Repair concrete cracks

2.1.6

Decision Point 6: Identify Preferred Alternative

The final decision point in this process involved preparing a DEIS to analyze the selected alternatives and to identify a preferred alternative. FHWA approved the DEIS before it was published in November 2008. Chapter 5 provides additional information about this step .

2.2

Alternatives Carried Forward to and Evaluated in the DEIS

Six alternatives were forwarded to and evaluated in the DEIS—a No Build Alternative and five Build alternatives.
2.2.1

No Build Alternative

State and federal regulations require the evaluation of the No Build Alternative in an environmental impact statement. The No Build Alternative provides a baseline against which to measure and compare the effects of all of the project’s Build alternatives. This baseline helps local elected/appointed officials and decisionmakers assess what would happen to the environment in the future if nothing were done to address the problem that the project is designed to solve.

No Build Alternative maintenance activities would take approximately 12 months. Traffic would not be allowed across the bridge during construction of the west approach spans (approximately 6 to 8 months), but traffic would be maintained on OR 43. The east approach and the main bridge spans would receive a new structural deck overlay. Deck joints would be replaced with new joint materials. Temporary closure of the bridge would be required during preparation and construction of the deck overlay. Painting of the existing trusses and deck-support system would be completed concurrent with replacement of the west approach and the deck overlay. The estimated cost to perform this maintenance work is $54 million (in 2012 dollars). The No Build Alternative would provide for continuation of the bridge life for approximately 20 years. However, the following restrictions related to the No Build Alternative would apply:

2-12

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Alter nati ves Ca rrie d For wa rd to a nd Ev al uated in the DE I S Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

Would not eliminate the existing 10-ton weight limit (that is, trucks, buses, and emergency vehicles would continue to be restricted). Would not improve the geometric deficiencies of the interchange with OR 43 on the west side. Would not improve the existing limited facilities on the bridge for pedestrians and bicyclists. Would not retrofit the bridge to existing seismic standards. Would not provide the 75-year design life of the Build alternatives. Additional investments would be required to continue use of the bridge beyond the 20-year period.

temporary detour bridge. This FEIS evaluates the impacts of the temporary detour bridge separately (Alternative B impacts and Alternative B with temporary detour bridge option). The impacts of the temporary detour bridge for Alternatives A and C would be the same as the temporary bridge impacts presented for the Alternative B with temporary detour bridge option. The following sections describe elements common to all Build alternatives.

 

Willamette Shoreline Trolley, Future Streetcar, and Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank)
Currently, the Willamette Shoreline Trolley operates on tracks that are immediately east of the existing west-side interchange and parallel to OR 43. In 1988, local governments formed the Willamette Shoreline Consortium, which purchased from Southern Pacific Railroad the railroad right-of-way on which the trolley operates. The consortium (comprised of ODOT, Metro, the cities of Portland and Lake Oswego, Clackamas and Multnomah counties, and TriMet) manages the 7-mile right-of-way between River Place in downtown Portland and Lake Oswego. The Oregon Electric Railroad Historical Society operates an excursion trolley service on the rail line. The Willamette Shoreline Consortium maintains and manages the right-of-way. TriMet holds the title to the right-of-way on behalf of the consortium and the City of Lake Oswego maintains the operations of the 7-mile right-ofway between River Place and Lake Oswego. The right-of-way was purchased to prevent the abandonment of the line and to preserve it for future passenger rail service.

2.2.2

Build Alternatives

Table 2.2-1 summarizes the five Build alternatives studied in the DEIS. The Build alternatives are lettered A through E. The Build alternatives were assembled from compatible combinations of alignments, basic bridge cross-sections, bridge types, and interchange types to form the most effective combination for each set of features. These features have been evaluated within the context of individual Build alternatives. However, some features might be substituted into other Build alternatives. These features include west-end interchange type, bridge crosssections, treatments at the SE 6th Avenue and SE Tacoma Street intersection, and use of a temporary detour bridge during construction.

Temporary Detour Bridge Option
Although the option of a temporary detour bridge is presented with Alternative B, a temporary detour bridge could also be used with Alternatives A and C. (Neither of these two Build alternatives would maintain access across the river during construction.) Alternatives D and E would maintain access across the river during construction, so they would not need a

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

2-13

Alter nati ves Ca rrie d For wa rd to a nd Ev al uated in the DE I S Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

TABLE 2.2-1

Build Alternative Characteristics
Alternative Rehabilitation or Replacement Alignment Bridge Crosssection A  Rehabilitation  Existing  39 feet wide  Two 12-foot-wide travel lanes  Two 6-foot-wide shoulders  Two 1.5-foot-wide railings B  Rehabilitation  Existing  57 feet wide  Two 11-foot-wide travel lanes  Two 5-foot-wide shoulders/ bike lanes  Two 1.5-foot-wide inner railings  Two 10-foot-wide sidewalks  Two 1-foot-wide outer railings  Seismic retrofit equivalent to Phase IIa  Meets seismic standards C  Replacement  Existing  45 feet wide  Three 12-foot-wide travel lanes  Two 3-foot-wide shoulders  Two 1.5-foot-wide railings D  Replacement  Existing  64 feet wide  Two 12-foot-wide travel lanes  Two 6.5-foot-wide shoulders/ bike lanes  Two 12-foot-wide shareduse sidewalks  Two 1.5-foot-wide railings E  Replacement  North of existing bridge  75 feet wide  Two 12-foot-wide travel lanes for traffic  Two 12-foot-wide travel lanes for transit  16-foot- and 8-foot-wide shared-use sidewalks  Two 1.5-foot-wide railings

Other Features

West-side Interchange

East-side Intersection

 Separate 20-foot-wide bike/ pedestrian bridge with two 1.5-foot-wide railings (total width of 23 feet)  Seismic retrofit equivalent to Phase IIa  Meets seismic standards  Roundabout on upper level  Free-flow OR 43 on lower level of two-level interchange  Relocates approximately 900 linear feet of railway right-of-way  Same as existing (eastbound left turn permitted at SE 6th Avenue)

 Double-deck bridge  20-foot-wide shared-use path on lower deck with two 1.5-foot-wide railings (total width of 23 feet)  Meets seismic standards  Trumpet (free-flow) interchange  Free-flow OR 43 on lower level of two-level interchange  Relocates approximately 1,700 linear feet of railway right-of-way  Eastbound left turn to SE 6th Avenue restricted  Right turn to loop under bridge

 Meets seismic standards

 Meets seismic standards

 Roundabout on upper level  Free-flow OR 43 on lower level of two-level interchange  Relocates approximately 900 linear feet of railway right-of-way  Same as existing (eastbound left turn permitted at SE 6th Avenue)

 Signalized intersection on upper level  Free-flow OR 43 on lower level of two-level interchange  Relocates approximately 1,000 linear feet of railway right-of-way  Signal at SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection

 Signalized intersection on upper level  Free-flow OR 43 on lower level of two-level interchange  Relocates approximately 800 linear feet of railway right-of-way  Signal at SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection

2-14

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Alter nati ves Ca rrie d For wa rd to a nd Ev al uated in the DE I S Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

TABLE 2.2-1

Build Alternative Characteristics
Alternative Potential Bridge Typeb A  Retain existing bridge (i.e., continuous-truss span)  Stress-ribbon or cablestayed for bike/pedestrian bridge  New roadway to provide access to River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property  Relocated access to Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club B  Retain existing bridge (i.e., continuous-truss span) C  Through-arch D  Delta-frame or deck-arch E  Box-girder or througharch

Property Access

 New roadway to provide access to River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property  Relocated access to Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club

Traffic Access during Construction Construction Cost (in 2012 dollars)d,e

Construction Cost Breakdown (in 2012 dollars)d,e

 No traffic access during construction  Traffic diverted to other existing bridges  $331 million (stressribbon bike/pedestrian bridge)  $337 million (cable-stayed bike/pedestrian bridge)  Right-of-way cost of $15.8 millionf  Rehabilitated vehicle bridge: $185 million  Bike/pedestrian bridge: $52 million (stressribbon); $58 million (cable-stayed)  West-side interchange: $93 million  East-side intersection: $1.6 million

 Temporary detour bridge option to maintain traffic access  $326 million  $356 million (including temporary detour bridge)  Right-of-way cost of $15.8 millione; $17.1 million including temporary detour bridgef  Rehabilitated vehicle bridge: $222 million  Temporary detour bridge: $30 million  West-side interchange: $102 million  East-side intersection: $1.6 million

 No motor vehicle access from OR 43 to River View Cemetery or Powers Marine Park  Relocated access to Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club  Powers Marine Park accessed by footpath from Willamette Moorage Park  No traffic access during construction  Traffic diverted to other existing bridges  $280 million  Right-of-way cost of $20.9 millionf

 New roadway to provide access to River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property  Relocated access to Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club

 New roadway to provide access to River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property  Relocated access to Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club

 Bridge construction staged to maintain traffic access during constructionc  $293 million (delta-frame bridge)  $311 million (deck-arch bridge)  Right-of-way cost of $25.8 millionf  Replacement bridge: $202 million (delta-frame); $220 million (deck-arch)  West-side interchange: $89 million  East-side intersection: $1.9 million

 Traffic access maintained on existing bridge during construction of the new bridge  $281 million (box-girder bridge)  $361 million (througharch bridge)  Right-of-way cost of $35.7 millionf  Replacement bridge: $189 million (box-girder); $269 million (througharch)  West-side interchange: $88 million  East-side intersection: $3.9 million

 Replacement bridge: $185 million  West-side interchange: $90 million  East-side intersection: $5.4 million

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

2-15

Alter nati ves Ca rrie d For wa rd to a nd Ev al uated in the DE I S Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

TABLE 2.2-1

Build Alternative Characteristics NOTES
a

b c d

Initially it was planned to include an option for rehabilitation of the existing bridge with Phase I seismic retrofit only, and a separate option for rehabilitation of the existing bridge with both Phase I and Phase II seismic retrofits. During development of the rehabilitation alternative design for the DEIS, it was determined the most cost-effective rehabilitation approach incorporated the equivalent of both Phase I and Phase II seismic retrofits. There is no way to separate the various elements that provide earthquake resistance from the elements required to strengthen the structure. Bridge design types are specified in this FEIS for analysis purposes only to identify impacts and estimate costs and construction activities.
Traffic access across the bridge would be affected periodically by interim closures to replace the existing bridge and construct the new bridge.

e

f

These estimates are based on conceptual design-level data to provide a basis for cost comparisons between alternatives. More detailed cost data will be available following the preliminary design of the preferred alternative. The Alternatives A through E construction cost includes a 40-percent contingency. The DEIS reported 2009 right-of-way costs for Alternatives A through E. The right-of-way costs have been updated to 2012 costs. The right-of-way costs are included in the total construction costs.

2-16

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Alter nati ves Ca rrie d For wa rd to a nd Ev al uated in the DE I S Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

Since 1990, the Oregon Electric Railroad Historical Society has operated an excursion trolley service on the rail line during the spring, summer, and fall months on a limited schedule. Continuing the trolley operation is a viable means of preserving the corridor. The Willamette Shoreline Trolley consists of a single railroad track on the west bank of the Willamette River beneath the Sellwood Bridge, just east of OR 43. In this area, the right-of-way ranges from approximately 30 to 40 feet (or more) in width. All Build alternatives would require moving the railway right-of-way eastward into Powers Marine Park and toward the Staff Jennings property (a former commercial boat dealership north of the existing bridge that closed in March 2010). The existing rail facility is a single track; however, current planning is for a streetcar with a second track in this area and space for the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) along the tracks. The ground level slopes steeply down to the river east of OR 43. Therefore, moving the rail tracks to the east would require placing them on fill or structure and building a retaining wall to support the fill and minimize encroachment into the park. The replacement right-of-way provided and presented in this FEIS would replace the existing right-of-way. The cost included in this project is for the replacement of existing right-of-way; the track replacement; any fill or structure required; and the construction of any necessary retaining walls. These improvements would extend from the north end of the Staff Jennings property (approximately 500 feet north of the existing bridge) to the south end of project

improvements (approximately 1,000 feet south of the existing bridge).

Access to Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club
The existing access to Willamette Moorage Park and the Macadam Bay Club would be moved to the north (approximately 250 feet for Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E, and farther north for Alternative D Refined) to increase spacing between this access point and the northbound ramp from the west-side interchange. An access spacing exception from ODOT would be required because the distance between this access point and the end of the ramp from the west-side interchange would not meet standards.

Cross-sections of the Build Alternatives
All Build alternatives are presented with a basic bridge cross-section. However, to accommodate traffic operations at the west-side interchange, auxiliary lanes would be required to separate leftfrom right-turning traffic, and to accommodate through traffic to the west-side access to River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property. Accommodating the west-end auxiliary lanes means that all Build alternatives would have a wider deck on the west end than in the middle of the span, where the additional lanes would either merge or diverge. On the east end of the bridge, some Build alternatives would have auxiliary lanes to accommodate left or right turns at the intersection of SE 6th Avenue with SE Tacoma Street. All cross-sections would result in only

Basic cross-section of the proposed streetcar and Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) (Metro, 2008)

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

2-17

Alter nati ves Ca rrie d For wa rd to a nd Ev al uated in the DE I S Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

two through lanes as they joined SE Tacoma Street east of the SE 6th Avenue intersection.

Alternative A: Rehabilitation of Bridge with Separate Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge
Alternative A would rehabilitate the existing bridge for motorized vehicles and would add a separate bicycle/pedestrian bridge 300 feet north of the existing bridge (Figure 2.2-1). Alternative A as analyzed does not include a temporary detour bridge during construction. However, a temporary detour bridge could be added to Alternative A, but with additional cost and impacts similar to those described for the Alternative B with temporary detour bridge option. Rehabilitation would include replacing the deck and deck-support system with a new and wider deck and deck-support system; repairing and painting the trusses; adding new trusses outside the existing trusses (shadow trusses) to support the added width of the deck; and widening the existing pier columns and footings to support the added trusses. The widened pier columns and footings would be designed to the current seismic code and would support both the existing and new trusses by adding width at each end. Drilled shafts would be added to support the additional width of the piers. The existing concrete approach spans on each side of the truss spans over the river would be replaced. Basic Bridge Cross-section Figure 2.2-2 shows the motorized vehicle bridge configuration and cross-sections for Alternative A. The basic motorized vehicle bridge cross-section, which would be 39 feet wide, would include two 12-foot-wide travel lanes, two 6-foot-wide shoulders to allow emergency vehicles to pass, and 1.5-foot-wide railings on both sides of the bridge. However, on each end of the bridge, the number of travel lanes would differ from this basic cross-section:

West end. The bridge would include two 12-foot-wide travel lanes eastbound to facilitate movements from the west-side roundabout, which would merge into one travel lane eastbound. Likewise, one travel lane westbound on the bridge would widen to two 12-foot-wide travel lanes approaching the west-side roundabout to separate northbound and southbound movements and to provide for queuing. East end. There would be one travel lane in both directions. An eastbound left-turn lane would be provided at the intersection of SE 6th Avenue with SE Tacoma Street. East of SE 6th Avenue, SE Tacoma Street would be one travel lane in both directions with a center-turn lane (the same as the existing conditions).

Bridge Rehabilitation When the Build alternatives were approved for the DEIS, the project team planned to look at two separate seismic retrofit options for Alternative A—a Phase I retrofit and a combined Phase I and Phase II retrofit. As the project team explored the approach to rehabilitate the bridge in more detail, it was determined that the equivalent of a combined Phase I and Phase II retrofit would need to be incorporated into the design to allow for bridge widening and structural integrity to accommodate trucks, transit, and emergency vehicles. Therefore, the equivalent of a Phase II seismic retrofit would be incorporated into the design for Alternative A. The rehabilitated bridge under Alternative A would be structurally equivalent to a new bridge.

2-18

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Alter nati ves Ca rrie d For wa rd to a nd Ev al uated in the DE I S Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

2-19

Alter nati ves Ca rrie d For wa rd to a nd Ev al uated in the DE I S Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

FIGURE 2.2-2

Alternative A Bridge Configuration

2-20

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Alter nati ves Ca rrie d For wa rd to a nd Ev al uated in the DE I S Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

Because Alternative A would rehabilitate the existing bridge, the bridge type would continue to be a continuous-truss span. Although Alternative A is called a bridge rehabilitation, most of the elements of the existing bridge would require replacement. The only elements of the bridge that would be retained would be the steel truss and piers. A new truss would parallel the existing truss on each side of the bridge to create a “shadow truss” (Figure 2.2-3). The five existing bridge piers would be within the ordinary high water elevation and would be extended to provide structural support to accommodate heavier vehicles.

West-side Interchange with OR 43 The west-side interchange configuration would consist of a roundabout on the upper level of the interchange to control traffic FIGURE 2.2-3 entering and exiting the vehicular Rehabilitated Bridge Cross-section bridge and River View Cemetery (Figure 2.2-1). OR 43 would pass under the roundabout on the lower level. Ramps from the roundabout would provide access to and from OR 43. A roadway would diverge from the new River View Cemetery access and would pass under OR 43 south of the roundabout to provide access to Powers Marine Park and the Staff Jennings property. The loop for this access would be similar to that of Alternatives B or D. East-side Connection with SE Tacoma Street The connection on the east side of the bridge would be the same as the existing connection (i.e., eastbound left turn permitted at SE 6th Avenue). Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge Bicyclists and pedestrians would be accommodated on a separate bridge structure under Alternative

A (Figure 2.2-1). The bicycle/pedestrian bridge would be 23 feet wide, with 20 feet for bicycle/pedestrian use and 1.5-foot-wide railings (Figure 2.2-2). The alignment would extend from SE Grand Avenue at Oaks Pioneer Park on the east side, above Oaks Pioneer Park and the Sellwood Riverfront Park parking lot, across the river to north of the Staff Jennings property, and across OR 43 to connect to a River View Cemetery access road on the west end of the roundabout. A spiral ramp from the bicycle/pedestrian bridge would also connect to the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank). On the east side, the bridge would connect with the Springwater Corridor Trail via SE Spokane Street. Bicyclists and pedestrians would access the bridge via SE Spokane Street or SE 6th Avenue to

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

2-21

Alter nati ves Ca rrie d For wa rd to a nd Ev al uated in the DE I S Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

SE Grand Avenue. The bridge types being evaluated for the bicycle/pedestrian bridge are the stress-ribbon and the cable-stayed. Both of these bridge types would have four bridge piers and one smaller pier for the bicycle/pedestrian spiral ramp on the west side within the ordinary high water elevation. Construction Impacts and Phasing During bridge construction, the bridge would be closed to all modes of traffic; no temporary detour bridge is proposed in Alternative A. Traffic would be diverted to other existing bridges. The three main elements of Alternative A (i.e., vehicular bridge, west-side interchange, and bicycle/pedestrian bridge) could be phased so they could be constructed at different times during a 20-year timeframe. Section 2.2.3 documents construction activities for Alternative A. Construction Cost The estimated cost to construct Alternative A would be $331 million (in 2012 dollars) if the stress-ribbon bridge were selected for the bicycle/pedestrian bridge, or $337 million (in 2012 dollars) if the cable-stayed bridge were selected for the bicycle/pedestrian bridge. The construction cost includes $15.8 million for right-of-way.

support both the existing and new trusses by adding width at each end. Drilled shafts would be added to support the additional width of the piers. The existing concrete approach spans on each side of the truss spans over the river would be replaced. Bridge Cross-sections Figure 2.2-5 shows the bridge configuration and cross-sections for Alternative B. The basic bridge cross-section, which would be 57 feet wide, would consist of two 11-foot-wide travel lanes, two 5-foot-wide shoulders/bicycle lanes, two 10-foot-wide sidewalks, 1.5-foot-wide inner railings on each side, and 1-foot-wide outer railings on each side. However, on each end of the bridge, the number of travel lanes would differ from this basic cross-section:  West end. The bridge would include two travel lanes eastbound to facilitate movements from the west-side roundabout, which would merge into one travel lane eastbound. Likewise, one travel lane westbound on the bridge would widen to two travel lanes approaching the west-side roundabout to separate northbound and southbound movements and to provide for queuing. East end. There would be one travel lane in both directions. An eastbound left-turn lane would be provided at the intersection of SE 6th Avenue with SE Tacoma Street. East of SE 6th Avenue, SE Tacoma Street would be one travel lane in both directions with a center-turn lane (the same as the existing conditions).

Alternative B: Rehabilitation of Bridge with Temporary Detour Bridge
Alternative B would rehabilitate the existing bridge and widen it on the north side (Figure 2.2-4). Rehabilitation would include replacing the deck and deck-support system with a new and wider deck and deck-support system; repairing and painting the trusses; adding new trusses outside the existing trusses (shadow trusses) to support the added width of the deck; and widening the existing pier columns and footings to support the added trusses. The widened pier columns and footings would be designed to the current seismic code and would

2-22

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Alter nati ves Ca rrie d For wa rd to a nd Ev al uated in the DE I S Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

2-23

Alter nati ves Ca rrie d For wa rd to a nd Ev al uated in the DE I S Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

FIGURE 2.2-5

Alternative B Bridge Configuration

2-24

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Alter nati ves Ca rrie d For wa rd to a nd Ev al uated in the DE I S Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

Bridge Rehabilitation When the Build alternatives were approved for the DEIS, the project team planned to look at two separate seismic retrofit options for Alternative B—a Phase I retrofit and a combined Phase I and Phase II retrofit. As the project team explored the approach to rehabilitate the bridge in more detail, it was determined that the equivalent of a combined Phase I and Phase II retrofit would need to be incorporated into the design to allow for bridge widening and structural integrity to accommodate trucks, transit, and emergency vehicles. Therefore, the equivalent of a Phase II seismic retrofit would be incorporated into the design for Alternative B. The rehabilitated bridge under Alternative B would be structurally equivalent to a new bridge. Because Alternative B would rehabilitate the existing bridge, the bridge type would continue to be a continuous-truss span. Although Alternative B is called a bridge rehabilitation, most of the elements of the existing bridge would require replacement. The only elements of the bridge that would be retained would be the steel truss and piers. A new truss would parallel the existing truss on each side of the bridge to create a “shadow truss” (Figure 2.2-3). The five existing bridge piers would be within the ordinary high water elevation and would be extended to provide structural support to accommodate heavier vehicles. Five smaller piers for the bicycle/pedestrian spiral ramps on the west side would also be within the ordinary high water elevation. West-side Interchange with OR 43 The west-side interchange configuration would consist of a roundabout on the upper level of the interchange to control traffic entering and exiting the vehicular bridge and River View Cemetery (Figure 2.2-4). The roundabout would provide marked bicyclist and pedestrian crossings on the north, south, and west legs, and would include pedestrian-activated signals at the OR 43 northbound entrance and exit ramps, and at the OR 43 southbound exit ramp. OR 43 would pass

under the roundabout on the lower level. Ramps from the roundabout would provide access to and from OR 43. A roadway would diverge from the new River View Cemetery access and pass under OR 43 south of the roundabout to provide access to Powers Marine Park and the Staff Jennings property. The loop for this access would be similar to that of Alternatives A or D. East-side Connection with SE Tacoma Street The connection on the east side of the bridge would be the same as the existing connection (i.e., eastbound left turn permitted at SE 6th Avenue). Temporary Detour Bridge Alternative B would include the option for a temporary detour bridge (Figure 2.2-4). This temporary detour bridge would be 36 feet wide with two 12-foot-wide travel lanes; two 2-footwide barriers on the outside of the travel lanes; a 5-foot-wide sidewalk (for bicyclists and pedestrians) with a 1-foot-wide railing on one side of the bridge; and a 2-foot-wide buffer on the side of the bridge without a sidewalk (Figure 2.2-6). The temporary detour bridge would intersect OR 43 at an at-grade signalized intersection. On the east side, the temporary detour bridge would be elevated above SE Spokane Street between the river and SE Grand Avenue. Existing accesses on SE Spokane Street would be maintained. The temporary detour bridge would be on fill as it crossed the block bounded by SE Tacoma Street to the south,
FIGURE 2.2-6

Temporary Detour Bridge Cross-section

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

2-25

Alter nati ves Ca rrie d For wa rd to a nd Ev al uated in the DE I S Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

SE Grand Avenue to the west, SE Spokane Street to the north, and SE 6th Avenue to the east. The temporary detour bridge would have seven bridge piers and two smaller piers within the ordinary high water elevation. Construction Impacts and Phasing A temporary detour bridge would maintain traffic over the river during construction and then be removed. The permanent bridge and interchange with OR 43 could be phased so they could be constructed at different times over a 20-year timeframe. Section 2.2.3 documents construction activities for Alternative B. Construction Cost The estimated cost to construct Alternative B would be $326 million (in 2012 dollars), or $356 million (in 2012 dollars) if the temporary detour bridge were included. The construction cost includes $15.8 million for right-of-way ($17.1 million if the temporary detour bridge were included).

[AASHTO] guidance) and a 1.5-foot-wide railing on each side. However, on each end of the bridge, the number of travel lanes would differ from this basic cross-section:  West end. The bridge would include two travel lanes eastbound. One travel lane westbound on the bridge would widen to two travel lanes approaching the west-side interchange to separate northbound and southbound movements and to provide for queuing. East end. There would be one travel lane in both directions. The two travel lanes eastbound would merge into one travel lane with a 12-foot wide median. East of SE 6th Avenue, SE Tacoma Street would be one travel lane in both directions with a centerturn lane (the same as the existing conditions).

Alternative C: Replacement Bridge on Existing Alignment
Alternative C would consist of a double-deck bridge replacement on the existing alignment (Figure 2.2-7). Basic Bridge Cross-section Figure 2.2-8 shows the bridge configuration and cross-sections for Alternative C, which would have two bridge decks. Motorized vehicles would be on the upper bridge deck. A 23-foot-wide lower deck would provide a 20-foot-wide shareduse path for bicyclists and pedestrians with a 1.5-foot-wide railing on each side. The basic bridge cross-section for the upper bridge deck, which would be 45 feet wide, would consist of three 12-foot-wide travel lanes (two travel lanes eastbound and one travel lane westbound) with 3-foot-wide shoulders (the minimum width allowed in American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

Replacement Bridge The bridge type being evaluated for Alternative C is the through-arch, which would have four bridge piers and one smaller pier within the ordinary high water elevation. Figure 2.2-9 shows the through-arch bridge type; this illustration is conceptual and not based on design. West-side Interchange with OR 43 The interchange design on the west side, called a trumpet interchange, would provide free flow of traffic in all directions from the lower level (Figure 2.2-7). The existing access to River View Cemetery from OR 43 would be removed. Visitors would need to use the existing cemetery access from SW Taylors Ferry Road. A left-turn refuge would be added to SW Taylors Ferry Road to facilitate the increase in traffic using this access to the cemetery resulting from closure of the OR 43 entrance. A ramp from the shared-use path on the lower deck of the bridge would provide access to the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank), and an underpass on the south side of the interchange below OR 43 would provide access between River View Cemetery and the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) for

2-26

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Alter nati ves Ca rrie d For wa rd to a nd Ev al uated in the DE I S Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

2-27

Alter nati ves Ca rrie d For wa rd to a nd Ev al uated in the DE I S Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

FIGURE 2.2-8

Alternative C Bridge Configuration

2-28

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Alter nati ves Ca rrie d For wa rd to a nd Ev al uated in the DE I S Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

FIGURE 2.2-9

Through-arch Bridge

pedestrians and bicyclists. The relocated access point to Willamette Moorage Park and the Macadam Bay Club would also provide access to Powers Marine Park. East-side Connection with SE Tacoma Street On the east side of the bridge, eastbound leftturn movements from SE Tacoma Street to SE 6th Avenue would be rerouted to a right-turn loop (Figure 2.2-7). Vehicles would turn right at SE 6th Avenue, turn right at SE Tenino Street, pass under the bridge via SE Grand Avenue (lowered and extended to SE Tenino Street), and intersect with SE Spokane Street. A spiral ramp on the east end of the bridge would provide access from the shared-use path on the lower deck of the bridge to the Springwater Corridor Trail and local streets. Construction Impacts and Phasing Alternative C as analyzed does not include a temporary detour bridge during construction. However, a temporary detour bridge could be

added to Alternative C, but with additional cost and impacts similar to those described for the Alternative B with temporary detour bridge option. Traffic would need to use other existing bridges. The bridge and interchange with OR 43 could be phased so they could be constructed at different times over a 20-year timeframe. Section 2.2.3 documents construction activities for Alternative C. Construction Cost The estimated cost to construct Alternative C would be $280 million (in 2012 dollars). The construction cost includes $20.9 million for rightof-way.

Alternative D: Replacement Bridge, Widened to the South
Alternative D would consist of a replacement bridge on the existing alignment, widened to the south (Figure 2.2-10).

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

2-29

Alter nati ves Ca rrie d For wa rd to a nd Ev al uated in the DE I S Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

2-30

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Alter nati ves Ca rrie d For wa rd to a nd Ev al uated in the DE I S Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

Basic Bridge Cross-section Figure 2.2-11 shows the bridge configuration and cross-sections for Alternative D. The basic bridge cross-section, which would be 64 feet wide, would consist of two 12-foot-wide travel lanes, two 6.5-foot-wide shoulders/bicycle lanes, two 12-foot-wide shared-use sidewalks, and 1.5-foot-wide railings on each side. However, on each end of the bridge, the number of travel lanes would differ from this basic cross-section:  West end. The bridge would include two travel lanes eastbound to facilitate movements from the west-side interchange, which would merge into one travel lane eastbound. Likewise, one travel lane westbound on the bridge would widen to three travel lanes approaching the west-side interchange to separate northbound and southbound movements and to provide for queuing. East end. There would be one travel lane in each direction. An eastbound left-turn lane would be provided at the intersection of SE 6th Avenue with SE Tacoma Street. East of SE 6th Avenue, SE Tacoma Street would be one travel lane in each direction with a center-turn lane (the same as the existing conditions).

West-side Interchange with OR 43 The west-side interchange configuration would consist of a signalized intersection on the upper level of the interchange to control traffic entering and exiting the Sellwood Bridge and River View Cemetery (Figure 2.2-10). OR 43 would pass under this intersection on the lower level. Ramps from the signalized intersection would provide access to and from OR 43. Signalized crosswalks at the intersection would accommodate bicyclist and pedestrian access to west-side destinations. Spiral ramps on the north and south sides of the bridge would provide access to the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank). A roadway that would diverge from the new River View Cemetery access and pass under OR 43 south of the roundabout would provide access to Powers Marine Park and the Staff Jennings property. The loop for this access would be similar to that of Alternatives A or B. East-side Connection with SE Tacoma Street On the east side of the bridge, the intersection of SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue would include a signal. Construction Impacts and Phasing Alternative D would be constructed in stages to maintain traffic across the river during construction. However, traffic access across the bridge would be affected periodically by interim closures to replace the existing bridge and construct the new bridge. Half of the bridge would be constructed alongside the existing bridge. Traffic would be switched to the new halfbridge, and the existing bridge would be demolished. Then the second half of the bridge would be constructed, and traffic would be centered on the new structure. Sidewalks and bike lanes would also be added.

Replacement Bridge The bridge types being evaluated with Alternative D are the delta-frame and the deckarch. Figures 2.2-12 and 2.2-13 show the bridge types; these illustrations are conceptual and not based on design. A delta-frame bridge would have eight bridge piers within the ordinary high water elevation; a deck-arch bridge would have seven bridge piers within the ordinary high water elevation. Both bridge types would have five smaller piers within the ordinary high water elevation for the bicycle/pedestrian spiral ramps on the west side.

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

2-31

Alternatives Carried Forward to and Evaluated in the DEIS Chapter 2. Concept Development, Project Alternatives, and the Preferred Alternative

FIGURE 2.2-11

Alternative D Bridge Configuration

2-32

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alter nati ves Ca rrie d For wa rd to a nd Ev al uated in the DE I S Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

FIGURE 2.2-12

Delta-frame Bridge

FIGURE 2.2-13

Deck-arch Bridge

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

2-33

Alter nati ves Ca rrie d For wa rd to a nd Ev al uated in the DE I S Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

The bridge and interchange with OR 43 could be phased so that they could be constructed at different times over a 20-year timeframe. Section 2.2.3 documents construction activities for Alternative D. Construction Cost The estimated cost to construct Alternative D would be $293 million (in 2012 dollars) if the delta-frame bridge were selected, or $311 million (in 2012 dollars) if the deck-arch bridge were selected. The construction cost includes $25.8 million for right-of-way.

provided at the intersection of SE 6th Avenue with SE Tacoma Street. East of SE 6th Avenue, SE Tacoma Street would be one travel lane in both directions with a centerturn lane (the same as the existing conditions). Replacement Bridge The bridge types being evaluated with Alternative E are the box-girder and the througharch. Figures 2.2-16 and 2.2-17 show the bridge types; these illustrations are conceptual and not based on design. The box-girder bridge would have two bridge piers and the through-arch bridge would have four bridge piers within the ordinary high water elevation. After the new bridge was constructed, the existing bridge would be demolished. West-side Interchange with OR 43 The west-side interchange configuration would consist of a signalized intersection on the upper level of the interchange to control traffic entering and exiting the Sellwood Bridge and River View Cemetery (Figure 2.2-14). OR 43 would pass under this intersection on the lower level. Ramps from the signalized intersection would provide access to and from OR 43. Signalized crosswalks at the intersection would accommodate bicyclist and pedestrian access to west-side destinations. A spiral ramp on the north side of the bridge would provide access to the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank). A roadway that would diverge from the new River View Cemetery access and pass under OR 43 south of the roundabout would provide access to Powers Marine Park and the Staff Jennings property. The loop for this access would be similar to that of Alternatives A, B, or D, but more elongated.

Alternative E: Replacement Bridge Relocated to the North with Transit Lanes
Alternative E would replace the existing bridge on a new alignment to the north (Figure 2.2-14). Basic Bridge Cross-section Figure 2.2-15 shows the bridge configuration and cross-sections for Alternative E. The basic bridge cross-section, which would be 75 feet wide, would consist of two 12-foot-wide travel lanes for cars and trucks; two 12-foot-wide lanes dedicated to transit vehicles; an 8-foot-wide shared-use sidewalk for bicyclists and pedestrians on the south side of the bridge; a 16-foot-wide shared-use sidewalk on the north side of the bridge; and 1.5-foot-wide railings on each side. However, on each end of the bridge, the number of travel lanes would differ from this basic cross-section:  West end. The bridge would include two travel lanes eastbound. Two travel lanes westbound on the bridge would widen to three travel lanes approaching the west-side interchange to separate northbound and southbound movements and to provide for queuing. East end. There would be one travel lane eastbound and two travel lanes westbound. An eastbound left-turn lane would be

2-34

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Alter nati ves Ca rrie d For wa rd to a nd Ev al uated in the DE I S Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

2-35

Alter nati ves Ca rrie d For wa rd to a nd Ev al uated in the DE I S Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

FIGURE 2.2-15

Alternative E Bridge Configuration

2-36

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Alter nati ves Ca rrie d For wa rd to a nd Ev al uated in the DE I S Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

FIGURE 2.2-16

Box-girder Bridge

FIGURE 2.2-17

Through-arch Bridge

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

2-37

Alter nati ves Ca rrie d For wa rd to a nd Ev al uated in the DE I S Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

East-side Connection with SE Tacoma Street On the east side, the bridge would curve to the southeast to tie in with SE Tacoma Street. A signalized intersection of SE Tacoma Street/ SE 6th Avenue would be considered with Alternative E. Construction Impacts and Phasing Traffic could be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. Because the new bridge would be aligned north of the existing west-side interchange, phasing the construction of the bridge and west-side interchange would not be feasible under Alternative E. The bridge and the interchange would need to be built together. Section 2.2.3 documents construction activities for Alternative E. Construction Cost The estimated cost to construct Alternative E would be $281 million (in 2012 dollars) if the box-girder bridge type were selected, or $361 million (in 2012 dollars) if the through-arch bridge type were selected. The construction cost includes $35.7 million for right-of-way. The through-arch bridge type for Alternative E would cost more than the through-arch bridge type for Alternative C primarily because of higher rightof-way acquisition costs ($24.6 million compared to $20.9 million) and the wider (75 feet compared to 45 feet at the middle) and longer bridge.
2.2.3

minimize instability on the existing landslide at the west end of the existing bridge.  Access to River View Cemetery and the Staff Jennings property would remain open during construction, with possible shifts in access point locations. Rock cut slopes on the west-bank hillside would be shaped using blasting techniques. Proper inspection, monitoring, and shoring of the existing bridge would occur before and after blasting to ensure stability. Traffic control would be required on OR 43 during blasting activities. Nights and weekends would be the most likely times to perform the work, coupled with temporary detours to manage the traffic. The construction contractor would need laydown areas for construction of the project. These laydown areas, located on private properties, would be negotiated between the contractor and the property owners at the time of the contractor’s bid preparation. No specific laydown areas have been located or specified for use. However, these private properties are expected to be outside the right-of-way required by the project. Approximately a 0.5- to 1.0-acre site near the proposed bridge construction would be needed for the contractor’s field office, storage of construction materials, and equipment. The exact size of the laydown areas and the duration of occupation by the contractor would depend on the contractor’s approach to staging the bridge construction and the type of bridge construction techniques required for the project. The contractor would need river access near the bridge site. SE Spokane Street near the east roadway approach of the existing bridge,

Rock Excavation

Construction Storage and Fabrication Areas

Construction Activities

Land-Based Construction
West-side Interchange Reconstruction  Reconstruction of the interchange at the west approach of the bridge would include multiple bridge structures for the ramps at the west-side interchange. As detailed design progresses, the use of bridge structures, light-weight fill, or standard fill on the interchange ramps would be evaluated to determine the most cost-effective way to

2-38

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Alter nati ves Ca rrie d For wa rd to a nd Ev al uated in the DE I S Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

one block north of SE Tacoma Street, has been identified as a possible location where the contractor could establish access to the river. On the west side, access would be at or near the existing boat ramp south of the Staff Jennings property.  Approximately a 5.0- to 8.0-acre site outside the project area would be needed for storage of bridge components and additional pieces of equipment, and for assembly of bridge members. Materials and equipment are expected to be assembled, stored, transported, and shipped by barge to the project area from this staging area. The contractor would need a temporary loading dock facility for assembly or loading of bridge members onto a barge.

Bridge Foundation

Drilled shaft foundations have been assumed for the piers for each Build alternative. Concrete footings for each bridge pier in the river would be supported on drilled shafts. The in-water construction activities for the river piers would include the following:  Cofferdams would be constructed around the perimeter of the proposed concrete footings. Cofferdams would be constructed and removed during the in-water work period window. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in-water work period window is July 1 to October 31. Drilling equipment would be used to advance 6-foot- or 8-foot-diameter steel pipe casings into the river bottom. The steel casings would extend above the river surface for access.

In-Water Construction
Piers in the River

The existing river crossing has five piers within the ordinary high water elevation. For Alternatives A and B, all five of the existing bridge piers would be widened and strengthened. Both bicycle/pedestrian bridge types for Alternative A would have four piers and one smaller pier within the ordinary high water elevation. Alternative B would have five smaller piers for the bicycle/pedestrian spiral ramps on the west side would also be within the ordinary high water elevation. The temporary detour bridge for Alternative B would have seven piers and two smaller piers. Alternative C would have four piers and one smaller pier within the ordinary high water elevation. Alternative D would have seven or eight piers within the ordinary high water elevation, depending on bridge type and both bridge types would have five smaller piers within the ordinary high water elevation for the bicycle/pedestrian spiral ramps on the west side. Alternative E would have two or four piers within the ordinary high water elevation, depending on bridge type. The maximum spans for each alternative would be large enough to provide the required 200 feet of horizontal navigation clearance.

Dredging

Dredging would not occur for any of the Build alternatives.

Construction Staging and Duration
The construction staging and duration for each alternative and bridge type are based on a conceptual level of development for the bridge layout. The footprint, piers, and abutments for each bridge would be built in stages to minimize disruption to traffic. The following are general guidelines for the development of the construction staging for each Build alternative:  At least one lane of traffic in each direction would remain open on OR 43 during construction. Short-term closures might be necessary during blasting operations. Temporary roadway and retaining walls would be required during construction of the new west-side interchange. Operation of the Willamette Shoreline Trolley on the west bank of the river would be suspended for up to 6 months while its tracks were being realigned and constructed.

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

2-39

Alter nati ves Ca rrie d For wa rd to a nd Ev al uated in the DE I S Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

If the Portland to Lake Oswego Streetcar Project were in service before construction of the Sellwood Bridge project began, Multnomah County would plan construction activities to minimize streetcar service disruption.  Operation of the Oregon Pacific Railroad would be temporarily halted for the construction of overpass structures and other construction activities. Construction work in the river would be restricted to the in-water work period window. The NMFS in-water work period window is July 1 to October 31.

simultaneously with the erection of the steel trusses. Temporary closures would be required during removal of the concrete deck and girder span over OR 43. Temporary widening of OR 43 would be required to maintain one lane in each direction. Construction of Alternative A would take approximately 36 months to complete (24 months of closure). Modification of the substructure and new steel fabrication is anticipated to occur simultaneously in the first 12 months of construction. This would allow traffic closure of the existing bridge to be limited to the final 24 months while the main span superstructure and the approach spans were reconstructed. Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge Construction of the bicycle/pedestrian bridge could be accomplished in parallel with the rehabilitation work on the existing bridge. The bicycle/pedestrian bridge construction for both bridge types would take approximately 24 months, with approximately 12 months to construct the bridge foundation. The deck for either type of bicycle/pedestrian bridge would be constructed without in-water false-work.

Alternative A Construction Activities
For Alternative A, modification of the existing piers would be required to accommodate the widening and strengthening of the existing footings. This work would be performed inside a temporary cofferdam. The existing river piers would be reused, widened, and strengthened to support the addition of one truss panel on each side of the existing trusses. The widened sections of the piers would be supported on drilled shaft foundations. Construction of the pier extensions would take approximately 12 months to complete and could be performed with the bridge open to traffic. After 12 months of construction, the bridge would be closed to traffic. Following the closure of the bridge to traffic, the concrete deck of the existing truss spans would be removed without damage to the existing trusses. This would take approximately 9 months to complete. The new steel-truss shadow panels would be transported by barge to the site. The erection of the new steel trusses could be completed without the use of in-water false-work. Construction of the new trusses and the new deck would take approximately 12 months. The approach spans on each side of the river would be replaced. Construction of the approach concrete spans on each side of the river and the cleaning and painting of the existing trusses would proceed

Alternative B Construction Activities
Alternative B would close the existing bridge during construction. However, Alternative B would include the option of a temporary detour bridge to maintain traffic across the river during construction. With the temporary detour bridge, access to properties adjacent to SE Spokane Street, SE Oaks Park Way, and Sellwood Riverfront Park would be maintained during construction with short-term closures during construction of the temporary detour bridge. A signalized “T-intersection” would be installed at the west approach to the bridge to accommodate vehicular movements to and from the temporary detour bridge while the new west-side interchange was constructed. This would require

2-40

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Alter nati ves Ca rrie d For wa rd to a nd Ev al uated in the DE I S Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

temporary widening of OR 43 to the west to maintain one southbound through lane, one southbound-to-eastbound left-turn lane, and one northbound lane during construction. Construction methods would be the same as those for Alternative A, except Alternative B would have a wider bridge cross-section. Construction of Alternative B would take 36 months (12 months to widen the existing piers and new structural steel fabrication and 24 months for superstructure modifications and replacement of the approach spans). The bridge would be closed for the final 24 months of the 36 months of construction. With the temporary detour bridge option, construction of Alternative B would take approximately 39 months (12 months to construct the temporary detour bridge, which would be concurrent with the widening of the existing piers and new structural steel fabrication; 24 months for superstructure modifications and replacement of the approach spans; and 3 months to remove the temporary detour bridge). The temporary detour bridge would enable a river crossing during all of the 39 months of construction.

Alternative D Construction Activities
Alternative D would be constructed in stages to maintain traffic across the river during construction. However, traffic access across the bridge would be affected periodically by interim closures to replace the existing bridge and construct the new bridge. The first stage would construct the new bridge wide enough to accommodate temporary traffic after its completion. Two 12-foot-wide traffic lanes and a 4-foot-wide sidewalk would be maintained on the existing bridge. The second stage would be built while traffic was shifted to the first stage. Once traffic was shifted to the new half of the bridge, the existing bridge would be demolished. The main spans would be removed first, followed by the approach concrete girder spans. Once the two halves of the new bridge were built, a closure strip would tie the two stages together. A signalized “T-intersection” would be installed at the west approach to the bridge to accommodate vehicular movements to and from the bridge while the new west-side interchange was constructed. This would require temporary widening of OR 43 to the west to maintain one southbound through lane, one southbound-toeastbound left-turn lane, and one northbound lane during construction. The delta-frame and deck-arch bridge types are evaluated with Alternative D. Construction activities by bridge type are summarized in the following subsections. A box-girder bridge could also be constructed with Alternative D. Delta-frame Bridge A delta-frame bridge would be constructed using temporary false-work in the river. This option could also be built on false-work by sequencing the order of construction of the spans. This could be accomplished in three steps: (1) building the side spans flanking the east and west banks, (2) removing the false-work for those spans, and (3) building the center span. This method would require false-work across the entire river, but not all at the same time. Staged construction of a

Alternative C Construction Activities
The through-arch bridge type is evaluated with Alternative C. A cable-stayed bridge could also be constructed with Alternative C. Construction of Alternative C would take approximately 42 months (3 months to remove the existing bridge, 15 months to construct the foundations, and 24 months to construct the arch superstructure). There would be no river crossing during the 42 months of construction. Temporary false-work in the river would be required for construction of the pier supporting the steel arch. The steel arch rib and deck sections might be fabricated offsite and floated into place using barges. Temporary widening of OR 43 would be required to maintain one lane in each direction.

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

2-41

Prefer red Alte rn ative Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

delta-frame bridge would be approximately 45 months (21 months for the first stage, 3 months for removal of the existing bridge, and 21 months for the third stage). The bridge would be open during all 45 months of construction. Deck-arch Bridge A deck-arch bridge would be constructed using temporary false-work in the river. The concrete arch ribs would be constructed on temporary false-work provided in each span. Once one arch rib and box-girder deck were completed, traffic would be diverted from the existing bridge to the newly constructed section. The existing bridge would then be demolished to accommodate the second arch rib and box-girder deck. Staged construction of a concrete deck-arch bridge would take approximately 51 months (24 months for the first stage, 3 months for removal of the existing bridge, and 24 months for the second stage). The bridge would be open during all 51 months of construction.

take approximately 36 months (15 months for foundation work, 18 months for superstructure work, and 3 months for removal of the existing bridge). The bridge would be open during all 36 months of construction. Through-arch Bridge The steel arch for a through-arch bridge would be fabricated and assembled off-site and pieces of the arch rib would be transported on barges. Construction of a through-arch bridge would take approximately 42 months (15 months for foundation work, 24 months for superstructure work, and 3 months for removal of the existing bridge). The bridge would be open during all 42 months of construction.

2.3
2.3.1

Preferred Alternative
Identification and Refinement of the Preferred Alternative

Alternative E Construction Activities
The existing Sellwood Bridge would be maintained for traffic during construction of Alternative E. A signalized “T-intersection” would be installed at the west approach to the bridge to accommodate vehicular movements to and from the existing Sellwood Bridge while the new westside interchange was constructed. This would require temporary widening of OR 43 to the west to maintain one southbound through lane, one southbound-to-eastbound left-turn lane, and one northbound lane during construction. The box-girder and through-arch bridge types are evaluated with Alternative E. Construction activities by bridge type are summarized in the following subsections. A cable-stayed, deck-arch, delta-frame, or through-arch bridge could also be constructed with Alternative E. Box-girder Bridge False-work in the river would not be required to construct a box-girder (concrete segmental) bridge. Construction of this bridge type would

In early 2009, after fully considering and evaluating public and agency comments on the DEIS and from the public hearing, the project’s CTF identified, and the PAG recommended, the following elements as the preferred alternative:   Alignment “D” (existing bridge alignment and widen to the south) A bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal at the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection as the east-side connection A grade-separated and signalized interchange on the west side at the intersection with OR 43 (SW Macadam Avenue) A bridge cross-section of 64 feet or less at its narrowest point

This preferred alternative is Alternative D as evaluated in the DEIS, except for the east-side connection. The PAG recommended a bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal at the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection as a refinement to Alternative D. (In the DEIS,

2-42

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Prefer red Alte rn ative Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

Alternative D included a full signal at the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection.) The primary concern for the CTF in identifying, and the PAG in recommending, Alternative D as the preferred alternative was to maintain traffic across the river during construction. The temporary detour bridge was not preferred because of its social and natural environmental impacts during construction. While Alternative E would have also maintained traffic across the river during construction, it would have been located on a new alignment. Therefore, construction could not have been phased (for example, constructing the bridge and the interchange in separate phases) if full funding for the project were not available. The CTF and PAG processes to identify a preferred alternative are outlined in the Identification and Refinement of the Preferred Alternative Technical Memorandum (CH2M HILL, 2009b). Section 5.5 of this FEIS also outlines the process to identify the preferred alternative.
2.3.2

Refined the OR 43 roadway footprint to reduce impacts to Willamette Moorage Park and Powers Marine Park. Reduced the width of the bridge on the west end from five lanes to four lanes to narrow the bridge. Realigned the roadway from the west side of the signalized intersection providing access to the Superintendent’s House at River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property to accommodate a future streetcar line, as preferred by the City of Portland. The realigned access would cross on the west side, behind the Superintendent’s House, instead of on the east side, in front of it. Removed the bicycle/pedestrian trail south of the bridge within Powers Marine Park to reduce park and natural resource impacts within Powers Marine Park. Extended the bicycle/pedestrian path north to SW Miles Street to provide continuity. Moved the driveway access to Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club further north to improve safety and reduce park impacts. Refined the cross-section of SE Tacoma Street between the east end of the Sellwood Bridge and SE 6th Avenue to provide the same bicycle and pedestrian facilities as the Sellwood Bridge (12-foot-wide sidewalks and 6.5-foot-wide shoulders/bicycle lanes). Between the east end of the Sellwood Bridge and SE 6th Avenue, water quality swales for stormwater treatment could also be incorporated.

Description of the Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined)

After the PAG recommended a preferred alternative (Alternative D evaluated in the DEIS with a bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal at the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection), the project team made various design refinements to Alternative D. The following refinements address public and agency comments received on the DEIS and minimize environmental impacts:  Revised the bicycle/pedestrian ramps on the west end of the bridge from a spiral design on both sides of the bridge to a single, long switchback on both sides of the bridge connecting to the existing north-south trail network to reduce impacts to Powers Marine Park and natural resource areas. This refinement shifted the interchange footprint slightly to the west.

Alternative D with these design refinements constitutes the preferred alternative. Figure 2.3-1 shows Alternative D Refined. Table 2.3-1 summarizes the characteristics of Alternative D Refined and the Build alternatives evaluated in the DEIS (Alternatives A through E). The following sections describe Alternative D Refined in more detail.

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

2-43

Prefer red Alte rn ative Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

2-44

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Prefer red Alte rn ative Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

TABLE 2.3-1

Build Alternative Characteristics including Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Alternative
Rehabilitation or Replacement Alignment Bridge Crosssection

A
 Rehabilitation  Existing  39 feet wide  Two 12-foot-wide travel lanes  Two 6-foot-wide shoulders  Two 1.5-foot-wide railings

B
 Rehabilitation  Existing  57 feet wide  Two 11-foot-wide travel lanes  Two 5-foot-wide shoulders/ bike lanes  Two 1.5-foot-wide inner railings  Two 10-foot-wide sidewalks  Two 1-foot-wide outer railings  Seismic retrofit a equivalent to Phase II  Meets seismic standards

C
 Replacement  Existing  45 feet wide  Three 12-foot-wide travel lanes  Two 3-foot-wide shoulders  Two 1.5-foot-wide railings

D
 Replacement  Existing  64 feet wide  Two 12-foot-wide travel lanes  Two 6.5-foot-wide shoulders/ bike lanes  Two 12-foot-wide shared-use sidewalks  Two 1.5-foot-wide railings

E
 Replacement  North of existing bridge  75 feet wide  Two 12-foot-wide travel lanes for traffic  Two 12-foot-wide travel lanes for transit  16-foot- and 8-footwide shared-use sidewalks  Two 1.5-foot-wide railings  Meets seismic standards

D Refined
 Replacement  Existing  64 feet wide  Two 12-foot-wide travel lanes  Two 6.5-foot-wide shoulders/ bike lanes  Two 12-foot-wide shareduse sidewalks  Two 1.5-foot wide railings

Other Features

 Separate 20-foot-wide bike/ pedestrian bridge with two 1.5-foot-wide railings (total width of 23 feet)  Seismic retrofit equivalent a to Phase II  Meets seismic standards  Roundabout on upper level  Free-flow OR 43 on lower level of two-level interchange  Relocates approximately 900 linear feet of railway right-of-way  Same as existing (eastbound left turn permitted at SE 6th Avenue)

 Double-deck bridge  20-foot-wide shareduse path on lower deck with two 1.5-foot-wide railings (total width of 23 feet)  Meets seismic standards  Trumpet (free-flow) interchange  Free-flow OR 43 on lower level of twolevel interchange  Relocates approximately 1,700 linear feet of railway right-of-way  Eastbound left turn to SE 6th Avenue restricted  Right turn to loop under bridge

 Meets seismic standards

 Meets seismic standards

West-side Interchange

 Roundabout on upper level  Free-flow OR 43 on lower level of two-level interchange  Relocates approximately 900 linear feet of railway right-of-way  Same as existing (eastbound left turn permitted at SE 6th Avenue)

 Signalized intersection on upper level  Free-flow OR 43 on lower level of two-level interchange  Relocates approximately 1,000 linear feet of railway right-of-way  Signal at SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection  Bicyclist/pedestrianactivated signal at SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection

 Signalized intersection on upper level  Free-flow OR 43 on lower level of two-level interchange  Relocates approximately 800 linear feet of railway right-of-way  Signal at SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection

 Signalized intersection on upper level  Free-flow OR 43 on lower level of two-level interchange  Relocates approximately 1,000 linear feet of railway right-of-way  Bicyclist/pedestrianactivated signal at SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection

East-side Intersection

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

2-45

Prefer red Alte rn ative Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

TABLE 2.3-1

Build Alternative Characteristics including Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Alternative
Potential Bridge b Type

A
 Retain existing bridge (i.e., continuous-truss span)  Stress-ribbon or cablestayed for bike/pedestrian bridge  New roadway to provide access to River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property  Relocated access to Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club

B
 Retain existing bridge (i.e., continuous-truss span)

C
 Through-arch

D
 Delta-frame or deckarch

E
 Box-girder or througharch

D Refined
 Delta-frame or deck-arch

Property Access

 New roadway to provide access to River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property  Relocated access to Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club

 No motor vehicle access from OR 43 to River View Cemetery or Powers Marine Park  Relocated access to Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club  Powers Marine Park accessed by footpath from Willamette Moorage Park  No traffic access during construction  Traffic diverted to other existing bridges  $280 million  Right-of-way cost of f $20.9 million

 New roadway to provide access to River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property  Relocated access to Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club

 New roadway to provide access to River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property  Relocated access to Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club

 Revised new roadway to provide access to River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property  Revised new access to Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club

Traffic Access during Construction

 No traffic access during construction  Traffic diverted to other existing bridges  $331 million (stressribbon bike/pedestrian bridge)  $337 million (cable-stayed bike/pedestrian bridge)  Right-of-way cost of f $15.8 million

 Temporary detour bridge option to maintain traffic access

 Bridge construction staged to maintain traffic access during c construction  $293 million (deltaframe bridge)  $311 million (deck-arch bridge)  Right-of-way cost of f $25.8 million

 Traffic access maintained on existing bridge during construction of the new bridge  $281 million (box-girder bridge)  $361 million (througharch bridge)  Right-of-way cost of f $35.7 million

 Bridge construction staged to maintain traffic access c during construction

Construction Cost (in 2012 d,e dollars)

 $326 million  $356 million (including temporary detour bridge)  Right-of-way cost of f $15.8 million ; $17.1 million including temporary detour e bridge

 $299 million (deck-arch bridge)  $290 million (delta-frame bridge)  Right-of-way cost of f $27.0 million

2-46

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Prefer red Alte rn ative Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

TABLE 2.3-1

Build Alternative Characteristics including Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Alternative
Construction Cost Breakdown (in 2012 d,e dollars)

A
 Rehabilitated vehicle bridge: $185 million  Bike/pedestrian bridge: $52 million (stressribbon); $58 million (cable-stayed)  West-side interchange: $93 million  East-side intersection: $1.6 million

B
 Rehabilitated vehicle bridge: $222 million  Temporary detour bridge: $30 million  West-side interchange: $102 million  East-side intersection: $1.6 million

C
 Replacement bridge: $185 million  West-side interchange: $90 million  East-side intersection: $5.4 million

D
 Replacement bridge: $202 million (deltaframe); $220 million (deck-arch)  West-side interchange: $89 million  East-side intersection: $1.9 million

E
 Replacement bridge: $189 million (boxgirder; $269 million (through-arch)  West-side interchange: $88 million  East-side intersection: $3.9 million

D Refined
 Replacement bridge: $171 million (delta-frame); $180 million (deck-arch)  West-side interchange: $113 million  East-side intersection: $2.1 million  Cost includes approximately $4 million for mitigation and e enhancements

a

b c d e f

Initially it was planned to include an option for rehabilitation of the existing bridge with Phase I seismic retrofit only, and a separate option for rehabilitation of the existing bridge with both Phase I and Phase II seismic retrofits. During development of the rehabilitation alternative design for the DEIS, it was determined the most cost-effective rehabilitation approach incorporated the equivalent of both Phase I and Phase II seismic retrofits. There is no way to separate the various elements that provide earthquake resistance from the elements required to strengthen the structure. Bridge design types are specified in this FEIS for analysis purposes only to identify impacts and estimate costs and construction activities. Traffic access across the bridge would be affected periodically by interim closures to replace the existing bridge and construct the new bridge. These estimates are based on conceptual design-level data to provide a basis for cost comparisons between alternatives. More detailed cost data will be available following the preliminary design of the preferred alternative. The Alternatives A through E construction cost includes a 40-percent contingency to include cultural resource and park/recreational facility mitigation. The preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) includes a 35-percent contingency because mitigation costs have been estimated. The DEIS reported 2009 right-of-way costs for Alternatives A through E. The right-of-way costs have been updated to 2012 costs. The right-of-way costs are included in the total construction costs.

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

2-47

Preferred Alternative Chapter 2. Concept Development, Project Alternatives, and the Preferred Alternative

FIGURE 2.3-2

Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Bridge Configuration

2-48

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Preferred Alternative Chapter 2. Concept Development, Project Alternatives, and the Preferred Alternative

Basic Bridge Cross-section
Figure 2.3-2 shows the bridge configuration and cross-sections for Alternative D Refined. The basic bridge cross-section would be the same as for Alternative D. The cross-section would be 64 feet wide, and would consist of two 12-footwide travel lanes, two 6.5-foot-wide shoulders/ bicycle lanes, two 12-foot-wide shared-use sidewalks, and 1.5-foot-wide railings on each side. The west and east ends of the bridge would have different configurations than the basic bridge cross-section shown on Figure 2.3-2. These configurations would be as follows: • West end. The bridge would include two travel lanes eastbound to facilitate movements from the west-side interchange, which would merge into one travel lane eastbound. Likewise, one travel lane westbound on the bridge would widen to two travel lanes approaching the west-side
FIGURE 2.3-3

interchange to separate northbound from through and southbound movements and to provide for queuing. The reduction by one lane in the number of travel lanes westbound at the west-side interchange is the only difference between Alternative D Refined and Alternative D (Figure 2.3-3). • East end. The east end would have one travel lane in each direction. An eastbound left-turn lane would be provided at the intersection of SE 6th Avenue with SE Tacoma Street. East of SE 6th Avenue, SE Tacoma Street would be one travel lane in each direction with a center-turn lane (the same as the existing conditions). A bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal would be located at the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection. This bicyclist/ pedestrian-activated signal is the only difference on the east side between Alternative D Refined and Alternative D (which included a full signal).

West End Bridge Configuration – Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) and Alternative D

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

2-49

Preferred Alternative Chapter 2. Concept Development, Project Alternatives, and the Preferred Alternative

Replacement Bridge
The bridge types being evaluated with Alternative D Refined are the delta-frame and deck-arch (the same bridge types as those for Alternative D). Figures 2.2-12 and 2.2-13 show these bridge types (these illustrations are conceptual and not based on design).

West-side Interchange with OR 43
The west-side interchange configuration would consist of a signalized intersection on the upper level of the interchange to control traffic entering and exiting the Sellwood Bridge and River View Cemetery (Figure 2.3-4). OR 43 would pass under this intersection on the lower level. Ramps from the signalized intersection would provide access to and from OR 43. A new roadway originating on the west side of the signalized intersection would provide access to River View Cemetery and the Superintendent’s House at the cemetery. The
FIGURE 2.3-4

new roadway would pass under OR 43 south of the signalized intersection to provide access to Powers Marine Park and the Staff Jennings property. This roadway, as shown on Figure 2.34, has been refined to pass behind (west of) the Superintendent’s House. The City of Portland preferred this location so this roadway could accommodate possible future streetcar tracks. This roadway and the west-side signalized intersection have been designed to accommodate future streetcar tracks. (The City of Portland identifies the OR 43/SW Macadam Avenue corridor and the Sellwood Bridge as streetcar transit corridors in the Portland Streetcar System Concept Plan [City of Portland Bureau of Transportation, 2009]. Portland City Council adopted a resolution to accept the plan in September 2009.) The River View Cemetery owners also preferred this realignment because they felt that this route would reduce adverse visual impacts to the Superintendent’s House.

West-side Interchange – Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) and Alternative D

2-50

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prefer red Alte rn ative Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

As shown on Figure 2.3-5, the spiral ramps under Alternative D that provided access from the bridge to the north-south trail network and future streetcar station have been eliminated under Alternative D Refined to minimize environmental impacts (riparian area and in-water pier impacts). Figure 2.3-5 shows how bicyclists and pedestrians would travel through the westside intersection and access the trail system and future streetcar station. Two switchback ramps originating north of the bridge would provide access to the north and south sides of the bridge deck. These switchback ramps would be similar to the switchback ramps on the Eastbank Esplanade at the Rose Quarter, and would be American with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant. In the intersection area, pedestrian-activated signalized crosswalks at the signalized intersection would accommodate bicyclist and pedestrian access to River View Cemetery and across the Sellwood Bridge. Because OR 43 would be reconstructed within an urban area, a sidewalk along the east side of OR 43 would be constructed between the switchback ramp on the south end of the bridge and the south end of project improvements to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians.

Management Plan (IAMP) be prepared for any new or substantially reconstructed interchange. The purpose of an IAMP is to:  Ensure safe and efficient operations between connecting roadways to protect the function of the interchange. Protect the function of the interchange over time. Because modified interchanges are very costly, ODOT, local governments and citizens have an interest in ensuring that they function as intended for the long-term.

East-side Connection with SE Tacoma Street
On the east side of the bridge, the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection would have a bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal (Figure 2.3-6). The signal would allow bicyclists and pedestrians to safely cross SE Tacoma Street to access the Springwater Corridor Trail (via SE Spokane Street) and the City of Portland-designated bicycle boulevards on SE Spokane and SE Umatilla streets. The signal would allow vehicles on SE 6th Avenue to cross or turn onto SE Tacoma Street when a bicyclist or pedestrian activates it.

An IAMP is required because the Sellwood Bridge Project would reconstruct the interchange on OR 43 at the Sellwood Bridge. Multnomah County, ODOT, and the City of Portland collaboratively developed an IAMP for this proposed reconstructed interchange to address access to Willamette Moorage Park, Macadam Bay Club, River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property. The following sections describe the provisions of the OR 43/Sellwood Bridge IAMP (ODOT, 2009). ODOT and the City of Portland adopted the IAMP in spring 2010. Because details of project designs will continue to evolve between the adoption of the IAMP and project construction, ODOT will evaluate the appropriateness of the following access concepts during the project final design phase. Access to Willamette Moorage Park and the Macadam Bay Club The IAMP process identified several options for the access to Willamette Moorage Park and the Macadam Bay Club. Multnomah County, ODOT, and the City of Portland have agreed on the location of the driveway access to Willamette Moorage Park and the Macadam Bay Club. The existing access to Willamette Moorage Park and the Macadam Bay Club would be closed to all but emergency vehicles. The new driveway access would be relocated approximately 300 feet north of the existing driveway access to increase the spacing from the northbound OR 43 on-ramp at the west-side interchange. The northernmost

Access to Properties Adjacent to OR 43
Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 734-0510155(6) requires that an Interchange Area

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

2-51

Prefer red Alte rn ative Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

FIGURE 2.3-5

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities – Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) and Alternative D

2-52

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Prefer red Alte rn ative Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

FIGURE 2.3-6

East-side Connection – Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined)

driveway into the commercial area on the east side of OR 43 south of the OR 43/SW Taylors Ferry Road intersection would be closed. Although this configuration (shown on Figure 2.3-7) would improve safety, the distance between the new driveway access location to the Macadam Bay Club and both the OR 43 northbound on-ramp and a number of accesses to the north, would be less than the ODOT spacing standard. ODOT agreed to grant a deviation from the access spacing standard for this driveway access subject to conditions stipulated in the IAMP that changes could be made if safety problems were to arise in the future. The IAMP also provides for a future alley, easement, or tract connecting to SW Miles Street that would provide the Macadam Bay Club and the other businesses in the area an alternative access that would be constructed upon redevelopment. Multnomah County has contacted Portland General Electric (PGE) about the driveway access under the electrical tower. Either the driveway access would be under the tower or a pole would replace the tower. This

detail would be determined during the project’s engineering phase. Access to River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings Property The IAMP also addressed access to River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property. Despite the proximity of the River View Cemetery driveway to the new interchange, ODOT agreed to grant a deviation from its access spacing standard to permit access to these three properties via the new roadway shown on Figure 2.3-4 (as specified in the IAMP). The volume of traffic that would use this road is expected to be very low and would not adversely affect traffic operations or safety in the interchange.

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

2-53

Preferred Alternative Chapter 2. Concept Development, Project Alternatives, and the Preferred Alternative

FIGURE 2.3-7

Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club Driveway Access – Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined)

2-54

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prefer red Alte rn ative Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

Construction Cost
The estimated cost to construct the preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) would be $299 million (in 2012 dollars) if a deck-arch bridge type were selected, or $290 million (in 2012 dollars) if a delta-frame bridge type were selected. The construction cost includes $27.0 million for right-of-way.

Design and implement stream restoration along two streams to provide an off-river habitat for juvenile salmonids and floodplain functions. Figure 2.3-8 shows the general location of these streams within the park.

Mitigation and Enhancements
Alternative D Refined would have fewer environmental impacts than the Alternative D evaluated in the DEIS. The project team worked with Portland Parks & Recreation (PP&R) and the Portland Bureau of Environmental Services to identify mitigation and enhancements for park impacts. Multnomah County and the City of Portland have agreed to the following mitigation and enhancement activities:  Willamette Moorage Park  Construct a 14-foot-wide paved multiuse trail between the Sellwood Bridge and SW Miles Street. Replace the existing Stephens Creek culvert (which is beneath the Willamette Shoreline Trolley, the new multi-use trail described above, and the Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club driveway access) with a fish-and-wildlifefriendly passage. Figure 2.3-8 shows the general location of this passage.  Construct sloped, stepped, vegetated walls along the new multi-use trail (described above), where feasible, to minimize visual and aesthetic impacts to the park, and to provide for wildlife use and passage.

Design and implement a parking and pedestrian access plan for Powers Marine Park that would include provision of a minimum of seven vehicle parking spaces.  Provide seven parking spaces for Powers Marine Park along the roadway to the Staff Jennings property Compensate PP&R at fair market value for parkland incorporated into a transportation use.

Because these mitigation and enhancement activities have been defined, they are considered part of Alternative D Refined and are taken into account in the impact evaluation of this alternative.
2.3.3

Preferred Alternative Construction Activities

The bridge and interchange with OR 43 could be phased so that they could be constructed at different times over a 20-year timeframe. The preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) would be constructed in stages to maintain traffic across the river during construction, but traffic access across the bridge would be affected periodically by interim closures to replace the existing bridge and construct the new bridge. Half of the bridge would be constructed alongside the existing bridge. The existing bridge would be maintained for traffic while the new bridge was being constructed. Two 12-foot-wide traffic lanes and a 4-foot-wide sidewalk would be maintained on the existing bridge. Traffic would be switched to the new half-bridge, the existing bridge would be demolished, and the second half of the bridge would be constructed. Once traffic had been shifted to the new half of the bridge, the existing bridge would be demolished.

Multnomah County would work with Freeman Motors to come to an agreement on the shared use of the PP&R parking lot adjacent to Willamette Moorage Park, and would work with PP&R on renegotiating the lease. Powers Marine Park

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

2-55

Prefer red Alte rn ative Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

FIGURE 2.3-8

Willamette Moorage Park/Stephens Creek and Powers Marine Park Mitigation and Enhancement Areas – Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined)

2-56

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Prefer red Alte rn ative Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

Once the two halves of the new bridge were built, a closure strip would tie the two stages together. A signalized “T-intersection” would be installed at the west approach of the bridge to accommodate vehicular movements to and from the bridge while the new west-side interchange was constructed. This would require temporary widening of OR 43 to the west to maintain one southbound through lane, one southbound-toeastbound left-turn lane, and one northbound lane during construction.

construction of a delta-frame bridge would take approximately 51 months (24 months for the first stage, 3 months for removal of the existing bridge, and 24 months for the second stage). The bridge would be open during all 51 months of construction.

Land-Based Construction
West-side Interchange Reconstruction  Reconstruction of the interchange at the west approach of the bridge would include multiple bridge structures for the ramps at the west-side interchange. As detailed design progressed, the use of bridge structures, light-weight fill, or standard fill on the interchange ramps would be evaluated to determine the most cost-effective way to minimize instability on the existing landslide at the west end of the existing bridge.  Access to the River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property would remain open during construction, with possible shifts in access point locations.

Bridge Types
The bridge types being evaluated with the preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) are the deck-arch and the delta-frame. Both would have three bridge piers within the ordinary high water elevation and would meet United States Coast Guard navigational horizontal and vertical clearance requirements.  Deck-arch bridge. A deck-arch bridge would be constructed using temporary falsework in the river. The concrete arch ribs would be constructed on temporary falsework provided in each span. Once one arch rib and box-girder deck were completed, traffic would be diverted from the existing bridge to the newly constructed section. The existing bridge would then be demolished to accommodate the second arch rib and box-girder deck. Staged construction of a concrete deck-arch bridge would take approximately 51 months (24 months for the first stage, 3 months for removal of the existing bridge, and 24 months for the second stage). The bridge would be open during all 51 months of construction. Delta-frame bridge. A delta-frame bridge would be constructed using temporary falsework in the river near each pier location. Temporary work platforms would be constructed first along the south side of the bridge and then along the north side. The temporary work platforms would be constructed out from each bank, but would have a 250-foot opening in the middle of the river for a navigation channel. Staged

Rock Excavation  Rock cut slopes on the west-bank hillside would be shaped using blasting techniques. A blasting specialist would design the blasting activities so that small shots, adjusted in a delay pattern, were used. This technique would reduce air blast, vibration, and, to some extent, noise. Blasting mats would be used to control fly rock. Proper inspection, monitoring, and shoring of the existing bridge would occur before and after blasting to ensure stability.  Traffic control would be required on OR 43 during blasting activities. Nights and weekends would be the most likely times to perform the work, coupled with temporary detours to manage the traffic. Ten to 20 sessions would likely be required to excavate the rock.

Construction Storage and Fabrication Areas  The construction contractor would need laydown areas for construction of the project. These laydown areas, located on

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

2-57

Prefer red Alte rn ative Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

private properties, would be negotiated between the contractor and the property owners at the time of the contractor’s bid preparation. No specific laydown areas have been located or specified for use. However, these private properties are expected to be outside the right-of-way required by the project. The contractor would need approximately a 0.5- to 1.0-acre site near the proposed bridge construction for a field office, storage of construction materials, and equipment.  The exact size of the laydown areas and the duration the contractor would occupy them would depend on the contractor’s approach to staging the bridge construction and the type of bridge construction techniques required for the project. The contractor would need river access near the bridge site. SE Spokane Street near the east roadway approach of the existing bridge, one block north of SE Tacoma Street, has been identified as a possible location where the contractor could establish access to the river. On the west side, access would be at or near the existing boat ramp south of the Staff Jennings property. An approximately 5.0- to 8.0-acre site outside the project area would be needed to store bridge components and additional pieces of equipment, and for assembly of bridge members. Materials and equipment are expected to be assembled, stored, transported, and shipped by barge to the project area from this staging area. The contractor would need a temporary loading dock facility for assembly or loading of bridge members onto a barge. No mandatory construction storage, fabrication, or staging areas have been identified. The contractor would be responsible for all environmental investigation, permitting, and mitigation.

In-Water Construction
Piers in the River The existing river crossing has five piers within the ordinary high water elevation. Both bridge types (deck-arch and delta-frame) would have three piers within the ordinary high water elevation. The maximum spans for each bridge type would be large enough to provide the required 200 feet of horizontal navigation clearance. Bridge Foundation Concrete footings for each bridge pier in the river would be supported on drilled shafts. Two construction methods for the piers are being considered—the cofferdam method and the perched method. Both would require temporary work platforms. Temporary work platforms and associated temporary pilings placed below the ordinary high water elevation would remove habitat, but only minimally and until the piling is removed. In some instances, the temporary pilings below the ordinary high water elevation could be left in place for up to 51 weeks. Although the piling may only remove a minimal amount of habitat, potential effects from placement of the piling below the ordinary high water elevation can remove additional habitat by erosion and sedimentation in downstream areas. In addition, depending on where the piling is located and changes to flow, velocities could reduce the use of an area. Implementation of conservation measures and specification of the spacing and general location of pilings would minimize these potential adverse effects. Suspended sediment from in-water construction activities could potentially be transported downstream to the confluence of the Willamette and Columbia rivers where any suspended sediment would then approach background concentrations and would not be detectable physically or chemically. All larger suspended sediment would be expected to settle out of the

2-58

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Prefer red Alte rn ative Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve

water column within 1,000 feet in the downstream area. The in-water construction activities for the river piers would include the following:
Cofferdam Method

cofferdam would float just below the river surface. Concrete would then be placed inside the shafts and the floating cofferdam. Dredging Alternative D Refined would not require dredging.

Temporary work platforms would be constructed in the river for construction equipment to access the pier locations. Piles driven into the river bottom would support these platforms. Cofferdams (that is, enclosures within a water environment for allowing air to displace water to create a dry work environment) would be constructed around the perimeters of the proposed concrete footings. Cofferdams would be installed and removed during the in-water work period window. Work on the shafts and piers would then be contained within the cofferdams, isolated from the river, which would allow the work to continue outside of the in-water work period window. Temporary work platforms would be constructed in the river for construction equipment to access the pier locations. Piles driven into the river bottom would support these platforms. Drilling equipment, working from the platforms or barges, would be used to advance 6-foot- or 8-foot-diameter steel pipe casings into the river bottom. The steel casings would extend above the river surface for access. The contents of the shaft casings would be excavated up to the river surface and removed by barge or by trucks on the work platforms. A precast concrete cofferdam would be floated over the shafts. The floating

Construction Staging and Duration
Construction staging and duration are based on a conceptual level of development for the bridge layout. The footprint, piers, and abutments for each bridge would be built in stages to minimize disruption to traffic. The following are general guidelines for developing the construction staging:  At least one lane of traffic in each direction would remain open on OR 43 during construction. Short-term closures might be necessary during blasting operations. Temporary roadway and retaining walls would be required during construction of the new west-side interchange. The Willamette Shoreline Trolley on the west bank would be suspended for up to 6 months while its tracks were being realigned and constructed. If the Portland to Lake Oswego streetcar project were in service before construction of the Sellwood Bridge project began, Multnomah County would plan construction activities to minimize streetcar service disruption. Operation of the Oregon Pacific Railroad would be temporarily halted for the construction of overpass structures and other construction activities. Construction work in the river would be restricted to the in-water work period window. The NMFS in-water work period window is July 1 to October 31.

Perched Method

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

2-59

Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

Chapter 3. Existing Environment,

Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation
This chapter describes the affected environment in the proposed project area and the anticipated environmental consequences for the No Build Alternative and Build alternatives—Alternatives A, B, C, D, E, and D Refined (the preferred alternative). This section also includes ways to mitigate for potential impacts to the social and natural environments. (Appendix G provides a summary of proposed and committed mitigation and environmental measures.) The impacts are analyzed for the following social and natural environmental resource topics:                  Transportation (Section 3.1) Bicyclists and Pedestrians (Section 3.2) Right-of-way and Relocation (Section 3.3) Utilities (Section 3.4) Land Use (Section 3.5) Economic (Section 3.6) Social Elements (Section 3.7) Environmental Justice (Section 3.8) Parks and Recreation (Section 3.9) Archaeological and Historic Resources (Section 3.10) Visual Resources (Section 3.11) Geology (Section 3.12) Water Quality (Section 3.13) Hydraulics (Section 3.14) Aquatic Resources (Section 3.15) Vegetation (Section 3.16) Wetlands (Section 3.17)      Wildlife (Section 3.18) Noise (Section 3.19) Energy (Section 3.20) Air Quality (Section 3.21) Hazardous Materials (Section 3.22)

For more information about each of these resources and the impacts to them, please see the technical reports, which are listed in Appendix D of this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). These technical reports are available upon request. This chapter summarizes these technical reports, which are incorporated by reference into this chapter. In addition, this chapter includes information about the relationship of short-term uses of the environment and long-term productivity (Section 3.23), the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources (Section 3.24), and cumulative impacts (Section 3.25).

3.1

Transportation

The transportation analysis considers roadways, transit, navigation of the Willamette River, and railroad/trolley tracks in the project area. Because of the large commitment to bicyclists and pedestrians made within the design of the project, bicyclist and pedestrian facilities are covered extensively in Section 3.2, Bicyclists and Pedestrians. They are mentioned briefly within this section only with respect to operations of interchange designs.
3.1.1

Affected Environment

The transportation study area (Figure 3.1-1) includes the Sellwood Bridge; SE Tacoma Street between the Sellwood Bridge and Oregon 99E (OR 99E; SE McLoughlin Boulevard); OR 99E between SE Nehalem Street and SE Umatilla

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-1

Transportation Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

Street; and Oregon 43 (OR 43) between SW Nevada Street and SW Riverdale Road (south of the Sellwood Bridge). A portion of SW Taylors Ferry Road is also in the study area (approximately a 0.3-mile section of the roadway just south of the intersection with OR 43 to approximately the access point to River View Cemetery). It also encompasses key intersecting roadways, including: • • • • • • OR 43 at SW Nevada Street OR 43 at SW Taylors Ferry Road–SW Miles Street OR 43 at River View Cemetery access road SE Tacoma Street at SE 6th Avenue SE Tacoma Street at SE 13th Avenue SE Tacoma Street at SE 17th Avenue

Study Area Roadways
Sellwood Bridge The current configuration of the Sellwood Bridge is a cross-section of 31 feet in width, including two 12-foot-wide travel lanes and one 4-foot3-inch-wide sidewalk on the north side for bicyclist and pedestrian travel. The remaining cross-section is devoted to bridge railings. The Sellwood Bridge and SE Tacoma Street are designated as “Major Transit Streets” in the City of Portland’s Transportation System Plan (2004, updated in 2007). However, transit service has been discontinued across the bridge because of structural deficiencies. Before the weight restriction was imposed in June 2004, bus usage across the bridge was substantial. Currently, no vehicles weighing more than 10 tons, including trucks, are permitted to use the Sellwood Bridge. Portland’s Freight Master Plan (2006) designates the bridge as a Truck Access Street in recognition of its service as an access and circulation route for the delivery of goods and services to neighborhood-serving commercial and employment land uses. This includes truck trips between Sellwood, Westmoreland, and

Each of these intersections with these roadways, except SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue, is currently signalized.

FIGURE 3.1-1

Study Area Roadways

3-2

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Tra nspo rtatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

geometry of the west-side interchange, large trucks must avoid the bridge, thereby substantially impeding freight movement between these areas. The bridge has no shoulders to provide access for emergency vehicles, accommodate vehicular breakdowns, or facilitate maintenance. In addition, the bridge’s vertical curves limit motorist sight distance. The interchange of the bridge and OR 43 (west-side interchange) also has many substandard features, including horizontal and vertical curves that limit motorist sight distance and reduce the ability of trucks to safely turn. Several ramp connections also provide insufficient vertical clearances, narrow or nonexistent shoulders, and excessive grades. OR 43 OR 43 (also referred to as SW Macadam Avenue in the city of Portland) runs north-south between Portland and Oregon City, traveling through Lake Oswego and West Linn. The facility has two vehicle travel lanes in each direction. Figure 3.1-2 shows the existing interchange of OR 43 with the Sellwood Bridge. Vehicles traveling northbound on OR 43 toward downtown Portland must use a one-lane bypass ramp. The southbound-loop ramp from the Sellwood Bridge to OR 43 is a single-lane one-way ramp that enables westbound

Vehicles weighing more than 10 tons, including trucks and buses, are prohibited from using the Sellwood Bridge.

Milwaukie on the east side of the Willamette River and the southwest Portland area on the west side (via OR 43). However, because of current load restrictions and the physical

Vertical Curve The vertical curve is the curvature of a road with respect to the vertical plane (flat vs. mountainous). Shorter-crest curves can create sight problems if drivers cannot see a sufficient distance ahead of their vehicles

Horizontal Curve The horizontal curve is the curvature of a road with respect to the horizontal plane (straight vs. curved). Substandard horizontal curves affect safe vehicle operating speeds, sight distance, and capacity.

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-3

Tra nspo rtatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

bridge vehicles to enter southbound OR 43. The ramp splits off to the right from OR 43, loops under the Sellwood Bridge structure immediately adjacent to the northbound bypass ramp, and reconnects to OR 43’s mainline. A traffic signal at this intersection facilitates vehicle movements. This ramp also provides access to northbound OR 43 along the mainline segment, which merges with the northbound bypass. SE Tacoma Street SE Tacoma Street is one of Sellwood’s Community Main Streets. It serves motor vehicle traffic, public transportation, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Between the Sellwood Bridge and SE 17th Avenue, SE Tacoma Street generally provides one through lane in each direction and a center left-turn lane/two-way left-turn lane. On-street parking is allowed along portions of the south side of SE Tacoma Street in this segment. Between SE 17th Avenue and OR 99E, SE Tacoma Street has one travel lane, a bike lane, and an on-street parking lane in each direction.
FIGURE 3.1-2

Two traffic signals are located on SE Tacoma Street—at SE 13th Avenue and SE 17th Avenue. Other Study Area Roadways Other study area roadways considered in the transportation analysis include SE Spokane Street, SE Tenino Street, and SE Umatilla Street (which run parallel to SE Tacoma Street) and SE 13th Avenue and SE 17th Avenue/SE Milwaukie Avenue (which cross SE Tacoma Street). In addition, OR 43’s intersection with SW Taylors Ferry Road is included.

Roadway Performance
Traffic Levels Currently, about 30,000 vehicles cross the Sellwood Bridge each weekday. The majority (52 percent) of these trips are between Clackamas County and Portland (Table 3.1-1).
TABLE 3.1-1

Travel Markets of Existing Sellwood Bridge Users Between East side of Portland and west side of Portland Portland and Washington County Clackamas County and Washington County Clackamas County and Portland East side of Clackamas County and west side of Clackamas County Vehicle Trips (percent) 17 11 13 52 7

Existing OR 43/Sellwood Bridge Interchange

Source: Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT).

OR 43 serves over 34,000 vehicles each weekday north of the Sellwood Bridge and 26,000 vehicles south of the bridge. SE Tacoma Street serves about 28,000 vehicles between the bridge and SE 13th Avenue, 20,000 vehicles between SE 13th Avenue and SE 17th Avenue, and 14,000 vehicles between SE 17th Avenue and OR 99E. During the weekday-morning peak hour, the westbound travel lane on the Sellwood Bridge serves about 1,700 vehicles per hour, while the

3-4

Sell wood B rid ge P roject Final Enviro nmenta l I mp act Stateme nt

Tra nspo rtatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

eastbound lane serves almost 900 vehicles per hour. However, the hourly westbound travel demand is actually higher than 1,700 vehicles per hour; it is limited to this amount because of the capacity constraint associated with the interchange at OR 43 and the interaction with northbound OR 43 traffic. This condition results in westbound vehicle queuing across the Sellwood Bridge.
The peak hour refers to the highest hour of traffic during a certain time period, such as the morning and afternoon. The typical morning and afternoon commuter hours on weekdays are considered the peak hour of traffic and are the time periods typically evaluated for transportation operations. The afternoon peak generally has more vehicle activity than the morning peak.

are passenger cars; other types of two-axle, fourtire, single-unit vehicles; and motorcycles. Transit Service The vehicle weight limit now prohibits bus service across the bridge because a loaded bus weighs about 19 tons. Prior to the restrictions in 2004, two bus routes traveled across the bridge. While no buses currently travel along the Sellwood Bridge, four bus routes traverse the study area. Two routes travel along OR 43, but neither route has a stop in the vicinity of the Sellwood Bridge. The 35–Macadam route connects Oregon City with Portland City Center and the 36–South Shore serves Tualatin and Portland City Center. A high-capacity transit study is under way for the OR 43 corridor to determine whether bus rapid transit (BRT) or streetcar service would provide the best service for this corridor. Level of Service and Congestion Currently, all the signalized study intersections operate at level of service (LOS) D or better during the weekday-morning peak hour. The SE Tacoma Street/SE 13th Avenue intersection, however, functions at near-capacity conditions. Northbound and southbound stop-signcontrolled movements on the SE 6th Avenue approaches to SE Tacoma Street operate at LOS F (severely congested).
Level of service (LOS) is a term used to qualitatively describe the operating conditions of a roadway or intersection. The LOS concept requires the consideration of several factors, including travel speed, delay, and frequency of interruptions in traffic flow. The LOS of a facility is designated with letters A through F, with A representing the best operating conditions and F the worst.

Peak Hour

In the afternoon, the eastbound travel lane on the Sellwood Bridge serves about 1,500 vehicles per hour and the westbound lane serves 1,100 vehicles per hour. The eastbound travel demand is higher than 1,500 vehicles per hour, but the actual travel demand is constrained by traffic operations along SE Tacoma Street, particularly the traffic signals at SE 13th Avenue and SE 17th Avenue. These conditions result in eastbound vehicle queuing across the Sellwood Bridge. During weekdays, northbound traffic volumes (toward downtown Portland) on OR 43 are heaviest in the morning, while the highway’s southbound traffic volumes (from downtown Portland) are heaviest in the afternoon. During the morning peak hour, north of the Sellwood Bridge, over 2,600 vehicles per hour travel along northbound OR 43 and 1,000 vehicles travel southbound. In the afternoon peak hour, 1,900 vehicles per hour travel southerly on OR 43 and 1,200 vehicles travel northerly. In June 2004, vehicle weights across the Sellwood Bridge were limited to 10 tons. Currently, over 95 percent of all vehicles traversing the bridge

During the afternoon peak hour, each of the signalized intersections in the study area, except the SE Tacoma Street/SE 17th Avenue intersection, operates at LOS C (moderate

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

Level of Service

3-5

Tra nspo rtatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

congestion) or better. The SE Tacoma Street/ SE 17th Avenue intersection functions at LOS F (severely congested), with extensive delays and backups along SE Tacoma Street and SE 17th Avenue. The SE Tacoma Street/SE 13th Avenue intersection is approaching its capacity. Stop-signcontrolled movements from SE 6th Avenue onto or across SE Tacoma Street operate at LOS E (congested). During the morning peak hour, vehicles traveling westbound along SE Tacoma Street and the Sellwood Bridge average 9 miles per hour (mph), while those traveling along northbound OR 43 average 18 mph. During the afternoon peak hour, vehicles on southbound OR 43 average 8 mph, while those traveling along eastbound on the Sellwood Bridge and SE Tacoma Street average 7 mph. These speeds reflect the current nearly over-capacity conditions along SE Tacoma Street and at the Sellwood Bridge-OR 43 interchange. Cut-through Traffic Cut-through traffic (also known as traffic diversion) is a common byproduct of congestion. Motorists, faced with delays at congestion points, seek out alternative routes on the local street network to avoid delays. Existing cut-through traffic problems on the east side include those caused by motorists trying to avoid congestion on SE Tacoma Street by using SE 6th Avenue or other north-south local streets to reach and use SE Spokane Street, or other streets that parallel SE Tacoma Street. Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) has worked with the neighborhood over the years to address some of these problems (for example, by implementing speed bumps). Access Management Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) requires the preparation of an Interchange Area Management Plan (IAMP) with an Access Management Plan when interchanges are upgraded. The IAMP must demonstrate that the interchange and accesses meet access spacing standards set out in OAR 734-051-0155 or plan

for improvement in the access spacing and seek a deviation from the standard. The project interchange falls into the category of a non-freeway interchange with two-lane or multilane crossroads in a fully developed urban area. Along District Highways such as OR 43, the minimum access spacing dimension between the end-of-the-ramp acceleration lane and the nearest at-grade intersection required by ODOT is 1 mile. The existing Willamette Moorage Park/Macadam Bay Club access is only 1,130 feet from the existing end of the acceleration lane, and the next intersection at SW Taylors Ferry Road is less than 1 mile away. Because all Build alternatives have shorter distances between these two points, all alternatives would require a deviation from the standards for approval. ODOT also specifies a 1,320-foot spacing standard for the distance between interchange terminals and the nearest at-grade intersection.

Traffic Safety
Over the 5-year period between January 2001 and December 2005, 68 crashes were reported on the Sellwood Bridge and OR 43 within a halfmile of the bridge. No fatalities were reported. Sixty-nine percent, or 48 crashes, were rearending-type collisions. The highest amount of rear-end crashes was along OR 43, where 18 rear-end crashes were reported over the 5-year period. Eleven rear-end crashes were reported on the Sellwood Bridge. Vehicle crash rates experienced for the Sellwood Bridge and OR 43 are higher than the average crash rates of comparable roadway facilities in Oregon. Most of the reported crashes occurred in locations where substandard geometric conditions exist and during congested traffic periods. ODOT has identified OR 43 within the project’s limits as a state highway with potential safety problems. According to ODOT’s Safety Priority Index System (SPIS), OR 43 at the Sellwood Bridge interchange and north of and south of the

3-6

Sell wood B rid ge P roject Final Enviro nmenta l I mp act Stateme nt

Tra nspo rtatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

Sellwood Bridge is in the top 10 percent of statewide SPIS sites based on a combination of crash frequency, severity, and rate. For more information about crash history in the study area, please refer to the Sellwood Bridge Project Transportation Technical Report (CH2M HILL et al., 2008; updated 2010).

passengers, and total revenue of $53,756. The revenue is used for maintenance and operation, and profits benefit the Oregon Electric Railway Museum. The trolley line is the subject of a current study to convert the track to full daily streetcar service between Lake Oswego and the South Waterfront District in Portland, where an existing streetcar line now ends. Metro, along with the Portland to Lake Oswego Transit and Trail project partners, concluded an alternatives analysis to identify the feasibility of a transit and trail project in this corridor. Metro is currently preparing an environmental impact statement to evaluate streetcar and enhanced bus transit options in this corridor. During the project development process, Metro will obtain input from the community on the project and the alternatives to be considered. The proposed cross-section for the streetcar through the project area is two tracks co-located with an improved and paved Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank). (For more information on this trail, see Section 3.8, Parks and Recreation.) A streetcar station is proposed for the interchange area at the west end of the Sellwood Bridge. The City of Portland identifies the OR 43 (SW Macadam Avenue) corridor and the Sellwood Bridge as streetcar transit corridors in the Draft Portland Streetcar System Concept Plan (2009). The Sellwood Bridge project assumes the streetcar will be adopted, and the streetcar has been accommodated in the project design. For more information about how the Sellwood Bridge project would accommodate potential future streetcar plans, see “Willamette Shoreline Trolley, Future Streetcar, and Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank)” in Section 2.2.2.

Railroad, Trolley Services, and Future Streetcar
The East Portland Branch of the Oregon Pacific Railroad runs beneath the Sellwood Bridge along the east shoreline of the Willamette River, alongside the Springwater Corridor Trail. The owner of the East Portland Traction Company now operates the East Portland Branch of the Oregon Pacific Railroad and transports engines, cars, and equipment from the Oregon Pacific Railroad offices south of the Sellwood Bridge in Milwaukie to the East Portland Yard north of the Ross Island Bridge. There are typically two trips (one round trip) per day. The Willamette Shoreline Trolley runs along a single set of railroad tracks on the west bank of the Willamette River, just east of OR 43. The trolley, which is in operation from May through October, travels between the Lake Oswego station at State Street and Avenue A and the Portland station at SW Bancroft Avenue and SW Moody Street. In May, the trolley makes two round trips each Saturday and Sunday; in June through September, it makes four to five round trips on Thursdays through Sundays; and in October, it makes two round trips on Saturdays. Passengers can take a one-way trip or a round trip. The trolley does not have a station in the vicinity of the Sellwood Bridge. A consortium of local government agencies owns the Willamette Shoreline Trolley. TriMet holds the title to the right-of-way on behalf of the consortium, and the City of Lake Oswego maintains the operations of the 7-mile right-ofway between River Place in downtown Portland and Lake Oswego. For 2007, the General Manager reported 378 total trips, 5,780 total

River Navigation
On navigable waters such as the Willamette River, the U.S. Coast Guard sets requirements for vertical and horizontal clearances over a navigation channel within the river to ensure the safe operation of boats. The current vertical

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-7

Tra nspo rtatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

clearance of the Sellwood Bridge over the navigation channel is 75 feet Columbia River Datum (CRD), and horizontal clearance of the channel is 270 feet. This clearance serves navigational needs along the river, including vessels serving Ross Island Sand & Gravel and Zidell Marine Corporation. These uses, however, are downstream of the bridge, and these vessels rarely need to travel upstream under the Sellwood Bridge. The current vertical clearance of 75 feet is adequate. According to the Columbia River Towboat Association, businesses and clients depend on their ability to respond to whatever unique river transport is required, recognizing existing limitations. Towboats with tows operate as far south as West Linn. The cruise, excursion, and chartered boat market on the Willamette River has experienced strong growth in recent years. At least seven passengerand excursion-vessel companies operate on the Willamette River, using about a dozen vessels. The heaviest times for excursion trips are during the Rose Festival in late May and early June, and in December when Christmas boats are sailing. City of Portland Fire and Rescue operates three fireboats and two rescue boats that respond to situations involving fires, vessels in distress, water rescues, navigational hazards, and environmental concerns. The City’s Harbormaster reports fireboats make four to five weekly trips through the subject reach. The largest of the fireboats makes four to five weekly trips through the
TABLE 3.1-2

subject reach. The largest of the fireboats has a vertical waterline-to-top-of-vessel measurement of 20 feet. Recreational users include sailboat owners, yachting associations and clubs, marinas, floating home moorages, and public and private launch and transient boat facilities.
3.1.2

No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences

By 2035, travel demand across the Sellwood Bridge is expected to increase to 39,000 vehicles per day, an increase of 33 percent over current traffic volumes, or about 1 percent per year. As shown in Table 3.1-2, compared to existing travel patterns, a slightly higher percentage of bridge traffic is expected to originate from or be destined to Clackamas County. Table 3.1-3 shows the 2035 traffic demand percent increase compared to existing conditions. More detailed daily and peak-hour traffic forecasts are provided in the Sellwood Bridge Project Transportation Technical Report (CH2M HILL et al., 2008; updated 2010). Under the No Build Alternative, it is assumed that the current vehicle weight-limit restrictions would remain in place through at least 2035. No buses or heavy trucks would be allowed to use the bridge.

Travel Markets of Existing and Future Sellwood Bridge Users Existing Vehicle Trips (percent) 17 11 13 52 7 2035 Vehicle Trips (percent) 16 8 12 55 9

Between East side of Portland and west side of Portland Portland and Washington County Clackamas County and Washington County Clackamas County and Portland East side of Clackamas County and west side of Clackamas County Source: PBOT.

3-8

Sell wood B rid ge P roject Final Enviro nmenta l I mp act Stateme nt

Tra nspo rtatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

TABLE 3.1-3

Existing and 2035 Weekday Traffic Demands a.m. Peak Hour Location OR 43 south of Sellwood Bridge OR 43 north of Sellwood Bridge Sellwood Bridge Year
Exist. 2035 % Diff. Exist. 2035 % Diff. Exist. 2035 % Diff.

p.m. Peak Hour NB/ EB
925 1,200 30% 1,225 1,550 27% 1,475 1,675 14% 1,275 1,450 14% 1,025 1,150 12% 650 750 15%

24-Hour NB/ EB
12,750 17,100 34% 17,825 21,875 18% 14,625 20,475 40% 13,525 19,275 43% 11,125 13,950 25% 6,900 8,400 22%

NB/ EB
1,800 2,475 38% 2,650 3,175 20% 875 1,450 66% 775 1,350 74% 650 900 38% 375 500 33%

SB/ WB
950 1,125 18% 975 1,275 31% 1,700 2,000 18% 1,375 1,625 18% 800 1,000 25% 700 875 25%

Total
2,750 3,600 31% 3,625 4,450 23% 2,575 3,450 34% 2,150 2,975 38% 1,450 1,900 31% 1,075 1,375 28%

SB/ WB
1,275 1,750 37% 1,900 2,250 18% 1,100 1,475 34% 950 1,325 39% 725 950 31% 550 675 23%

Total
2,200 2,950 34% 3,125 3,800 22% 2,575 3,150 22% 2,225 2,775 25% 1,750 2,100 20% 1,200 1,425 19%

SB/ WB
13,400 16,975 27% 16,600 20,575 24% 15,000 18,875 26% 14,100 18,075 28% 8,975 11,475 28% 7,050 8,700 23%

Total
26,150 34,075 30% 34,425 42,450 23% 29,625 39,350 33% 27,625 37,350 35% 20,100 25,425 26% 13,950 17,100 26%

SE Tacoma Street west of SE 11th Avenue SE Tacoma Street east of SE 15th Avenue SE Tacoma Street west of SE 23rd Avenue

Exist. 2035 % Diff. Exist. 2035 % Diff. Exist. 2035 % Diff.

% Diff. = Percent difference between existing and 2035 weekday traffic demands EB = eastbound Exist. = Existing NB = northbound SB = southbound WB = westbound Source: PBOT.

Transit Service
The existing bus routes (35–Macadam, 36–South Shore, 41–Tacoma, and 70–12th Avenue) are expected to continue serving the area under the No Build Alternative. The existing Willamette Shoreline Trolley would continue to operate along the single-track railway line on the west bank of the Willamette River.

Level of Service and Congestion
With increased traffic demands in 2035, the roadways and intersections in the study area are expected to become more congested.

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-9

Tra nspo rtatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

By 2035, both the SE Tacoma Street/SE 13th Avenue and SE Tacoma Street/SE 17th Avenue intersections are predicted to be severely congested (LOS F) for over an hour during the weekday-morning peak period. Backups are predicted to extend along the length of westbound SE Tacoma Street, as well as to the side-street approaches to SE Tacoma Street. In addition, by 2035, the OR 43/SW Taylors Ferry Road intersection is expected to be severely congested (LOS F). During the 2035 weekday-afternoon peak hour, severely congested (LOS F) conditions are expected to worsen at SE Tacoma Street/SE 17th Avenue, with average delays increasing to almost 3 minutes. SE Tacoma Street/SE 13th Avenue is forecasted to degrade to LOS F. These conditions would lead to long eastbound vehicle queues along SE Tacoma Street, as well as at most side-street approaches to SE Tacoma Street. By 2035, the signalized intersection on OR 43 (which serves the Sellwood Bridge’s southbound connection to OR 43 and provides access to the River View Cemetery) is also expected to be severely congested (LOS F). The OR 43/SW Taylors Ferry Road intersection would also approach capacity conditions.

would increase crash frequency along the bridge and at the OR 43 interchange. Table 3.1-4 summarizes potential impacts for the No Build Alternative. No mitigation measures are planned for these impacts.
3.1.3

Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences

Impacts and Mitigation Common to All Build Alternatives
Direct Impacts. Direct impacts common to all Build alternatives include: impacts to vehicletraffic-carrying capacity; intersection LOS; access to properties from OR 43; connections of the Sellwood Bridge to SE Tacoma Street on the east and to OR 43 on the west; availability of transit services; mix of the types of vehicles using the bridge; traffic safety; railroad, trolley services, and future streetcar use; and bicyclist and pedestrian facilities. Bridge closure during construction and impacts to river navigation are also discussed. Vehicle-Traffic-Carrying Capacity. None of the Build alternatives would improve congested conditions on SE Tacoma Street compared to the No Build Alternative. SE Tacoma Street is presently capacity-constrained. It serves one through traffic lane in each direction and its signalized intersections at SE 13th Avenue and SE 17th Avenue are performing at near-capacity or at over-capacity conditions during peak periods. By 2035, the SE Tacoma Street corridor will continue to function at congested conditions for several hours each day, thereby limiting the traffic that can travel in either direction across the Sellwood Bridge. Adopted City of Portland and Metro transportation policies indicate no changes will be made to the number of through travel lanes on SE Tacoma Street, so none of the Build alternatives for this project would be able to increase vehicle-traffic-carrying capacity along SE Tacoma Street.

Traffic Safety
Under No Build Alternative conditions, all the substandard roadway conditions that currently exist would remain. These include the lack of shoulders on the Sellwood Bridge and at the OR 43 interchange, horizontal curve deficiencies at the interchange, and horizontal and vertical sight distance limitations along the bridge and at several points within the interchange. These attributes are related to the frequency of crashes, particularly during periods of congested traffic. Under future No Build Alternative conditions, the duration of congestion is expected to increase over current conditions. The presence of the substandard roadway conditions in conjunction with the increased traffic levels and congestion

3-10

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Tra nspo rtatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

TABLE 3.1-4

No Build Alternative: Summary of Potential Impacts Direct Impacts Roadway and Safety Impacts      Continues to prohibit buses and heavy trucks from using Sellwood Bridge Results in unacceptable mobility (LOS) at the OR 43 interchange with Sellwood Bridge Decreases travel speeds along OR 43, Sellwood Bridge, and SE Tacoma Street Increases vehicle hours of delay throughout the study area The continued presence of nonstandard geometric and safety features results in high crash potential along the Sellwood Bridge and at its interchange with OR 43

Railroad and Trolley Impacts  Does not impact existing or planned improvements to railroad and trolley services

River Navigation Impacts  Does not impact existing river navigation

Indirect Impacts  The continued weight restriction impedes transit solutions

Cumulative Impacts  Impedes a sustainable solution for traffic, transit, pedestrian, and bicyclist circulation and connectivity; bridge would eventually need to be closed

In addition, vehicle-traffic-carrying capacity and performance on the Sellwood Bridge would not be substantially improved by any of the Build alternatives. However, the provision of shoulders or bicycle lanes would provide relief when a vehicle needed to pull over for servicing or when an emergency vehicle needed to pass by. For this reason, vehicle travel speeds across the bridge under all the Build alternatives would increase by only 1 to 2 mph during peak periods. Even Alternative C, the only Build alternative that would provide an additional lane for mixed vehicles across the entire length of the bridge, would operate nearly the same as the other Build alternatives. Alternative C would provide a second eastbound lane extending from the interchange with OR 43 to just west of SE 6th Avenue. However, the two eastbound lanes on

the bridge would merge to one to provide a transition into the existing cross-section of SE Tacoma Street, limiting eastbound throughput. Similarly, capacity would be constrained for all Build alternatives on OR 43 in the corridor between Lake Oswego and Portland. This corridor is limited by the two-lane cross-section south of the bridge and the configuration of the SW Taylors Ferry Road intersection north of the bridge. However, under any Build alternative, the Sellwood Bridge project would improve traffic operations for vehicle trips along OR 43 just north of and south of the Sellwood Bridge. The additional vehicular-turning lanes on the west end of the Sellwood Bridge would facilitate movements to and from the various interchange options. This would improve vehicular operations by relieving traffic congestion along OR 43’s

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-11

Tra nspo rtatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

off-ramps to the Sellwood Bridge and along OR 43’s mainline itself, as well as for traffic traveling west on the Sellwood Bridge bound for northbound or southbound OR 43. In addition, providing standard-length ramps; adding ramps entering and exiting from the right side of OR 43 (instead of from the left, as they currently do); and removing the traffic signal on OR 43 would increase OR 43 travel speeds near the Sellwood Bridge compared to the No Build Alternative. These speeds would increase by 3 to 6 mph during the morning peak period and by 7 to 8 mph during the afternoon peak period. Higher speeds would mean less delay. Coupled with the modest time savings afforded motorists traveling through the west-side interchange, the total vehicle hours of delay during peak periods would be reduced by about 5 percent for the Build alternatives compared to the No Build Alternative. The 2035 traffic demands in the study area are estimated to be similar under the No Build Alternative and each of the Build alternatives because none of the Build alternatives would increase vehicle-traffic-carrying capacity along OR 43 beyond the immediate area of the bridge or along SE Tacoma Street east of the bridge. Therefore, the peak-hour vehicle miles traveled on study area roadways under each of the Build alternatives would be similar to those of the No Build Alternative. However, the Build alternatives would provide substantially increased personthroughput in the project corridor because the Build alternatives could serve mass transit and dramatically increase pedestrian and bicycle trips (as discussed in Section 3.2, Bicyclists and Pedestrians). Intersection Level of Service. For all Build alternatives, the intersections of SE Tacoma Street and SE 13th Avenue, SE Tacoma Street and SE 17th Avenue, and OR 43 and SW Taylors Ferry Road would be expected to operate at LOS F during the 2035 weekday peak hours.

Access to Properties from OR 43. For Alternatives A through E, the driveway serving the Macadam Bay Club and Willamette Moorage Park would be relocated approximately 300 feet north of its existing location. The existing driveway is located about 1,130 feet north of the existing northbound on-ramp junction. At its existing location, the driveway would be between 400 and 930 feet north of the new ramp junction (775 feet for the roundabout interchange options in Alternatives A and B; 820 feet for the trumpet interchange option in Alternative C; 930 feet for the single-point signalized option in Alternative D; and 400 feet for the single-point signalized option in Alternative E). Because the distance would affect northbound traffic weaving on OR 43, the driveway would be relocated as far north as possible. Along District Highways such as OR 43, ODOT’s minimum access spacing dimension between the end-of-the-ramp acceleration lane and the nearest at-grade intersection is 1 mile. Neither the current 1,130-foot spacing nor the shorter spacing (400 feet to 930 feet) for Alternatives A through E would satisfy this standard. A deviation from ODOT’s access standards would be required to build the access at the proposed location. This access point was reevaluated as part of the IAMP process that took place after the release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and the public hearing for the project. Reconsideration after further analysis of the proposed access point resulted in a modification to make the access an additional 50 feet farther north than the access proposed in the DEIS. Multnomah County, ODOT, and the City of Portland have agreed on the location of the driveway access to Willamette Moorage Park and the Macadam Bay Club for the preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined). The existing access to Willamette Moorage Park and the Macadam Bay Club would be closed to all but emergency vehicles. The new driveway access would be relocated approximately 300 feet north of the existing driveway access to increase the

3-12

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Tra nspo rtatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

spacing from the northbound OR 43 on-ramp at the west-side interchange. However, the spacing of this driveway would still be less than the ODOT access spacing standard. A deviation from ODOT’s access spacing standards would be required to build the access at the proposed location. See Section 2.3.2 of this FEIS for more information. Under all Build alternatives except Alternative C, a new roadway from the west side of the interchange would provide access to the River View Cemetery, the Superintendent’s House in the cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property. ODOT spacing standards require a minimum of 1,320 feet from an interchange terminal to the nearest at-grade access point. All accesses along this roadway would require deviations from ODOT’s access management standards. East-side Intersection. The intersection of SE Tacoma Street and SE 6th Avenue would be impacted under all the Build alternatives and is discussed with respect to each alternative. Four options were evaluated:     No treatment on Alternatives A and B Extension of Grand Avenue to create a loop under the bridge on Alternative C A signal at the SE Tacoma Street at 6th Avenue intersection on Alternatives D and E A bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal at the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection on Alternative D Refined

roundabout on Alternatives A and B; trumpet on Alternative C; and single-point signalized on Alternatives D, E, and D Refined. Any of the options could be integrated with Alternatives A, B, C, D, and D Refined. The trumpet could not be combined with Alternative E. Transit Services. For the proposed Build alternatives, it is assumed that all the existing bus routes serving the study area (35–Macadam, 36– South Shore, 41–Tacoma, and 70–12th Avenue) would continue to operate and that the two bus routes that were discontinued when weight limit restrictions were placed on the bridge (40– Tacoma and 65X–Marquam Hill-Milwaukie Transit Center) would be reinstated. Resumption of the 40–Tacoma and 65X–Marquam HillMilwaukie Transit Center bus routes would add up to five bus trips in each direction along the bridge, SE Tacoma Street, and OR 43 north of the bridge. Vehicle Mix. The reintroduction of bus routes 40–Tacoma and 65X–Marquam Hill-Milwaukie Transit Center under the Build alternatives would result in a lower percentage of automobile trips along these routes. This change in traffic mix is based on the assumption that greater accessibility to transit routes would trigger a slight mode shift from automobiles to transit, particularly considering the future congestion levels expected along connecting roadways, as discussed previously. In addition to allowing buses to use the bridge, removal of the 10-ton weight restriction would also increase the number of trucks using the bridge. On a daily basis, about 1,600 heavy trucks (three-axle, single-unit trucks and larger) would be expected to use the bridge. Together, trucks and buses would be expected to compose about 4 percent of all vehicles using the bridge each day. Traffic Safety. Almost all geometric features under the Build alternatives would be designed to meet current standards. These features would

Each option could be integrated into any of the Build alternatives (except the Grand Avenue extension, which could not be integrated into Alternative E). West-side Interchange. The interchange connecting the Sellwood Bridge with OR 43 would be impacted under all Build alternatives and is discussed with respect to each alternative. Three interchange options were evaluated:

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-13

Tra nspo rtatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

include provision of shoulders on the Sellwood Bridge and at the OR 43 interchange, standard horizontal curves, and adequate horizontal and vertical sight distances. The assumed design speeds would be 40 mph for OR 43, 35 mph for the Sellwood Bridge, and 25 mph for all ramps between OR 43 and the bridge. Compared to the No Build Alternative, the provision of standard features should reduce the crash potential along the Sellwood Bridge and at the interchange with OR 43. Access spacing between the interchange and the Macadam Bay Club would continue to violate ODOT spacing standards. In addition, spacing between the western access road of the roundabout interchange and private driveways would also violate ODOT spacing standards. Railroad, Trolley Services, and Future Streetcar. No direct, permanent impacts are anticipated to the Oregon Pacific Railroad as a result of any of the Build alternatives. Current uses would be accommodated in the future with no impacts to current operations. Construction over the tracks would likely require new easements and agreements for operation and maintenance. All Build alternatives would require realignment of the Willamette Shoreline Trolley tracks. Track realignment would cause a temporary disruption during construction for as long as 6 months, but would not result in a permanent impact to trolley operations. The realignment would take into consideration the degree of curvature tolerances for rail stock and the proposed future use of the tracks for streetcar operations. The cross-section of the replacement is for two tracks and a paved Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank). The project team anticipates purchase of replacement right-of-way plus sufficient additional right-of-way to complete the streetcar project. Sellwood Bridge project costs include rail replacement right-of-way, construction of one replacement rail line and the fill to support it, and construction of

the retaining wall needed to support the fill or structure at the appropriate railway elevation. Use of the tracks could be disrupted for as long as 6 months during construction of the replacement tracks. The bicycle/pedestrian paths associated with the bridge and interchange construction are integrated with the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) planned along the railway, enabling full integration of travel modes. All Build alternatives, except Alternative C, would also offer integration with bus service near the same west-side location. Bicyclist and Pedestrian Facilities. Bicyclist and pedestrian facilities would be improved under all Build alternatives. Because of the large commitment to bicyclists and pedestrians made within the design of the project, bicyclist and pedestrian facilities are covered extensively in Section 3.2, Bicyclists and Pedestrians. Bridge Closures during Construction. During construction of Alternatives A, B, and C, lengthy closures of the bridge crossing would be needed if no temporary detour bridge were provided. During closures, traffic would divert south to the Interstate 205 (I-205) Abernathy Bridge and north to several bridge crossings of the Willamette River, including the Ross Island, Marquam, Hawthorne, Morrison, Burnside, Steel, Broadway, and Fremont bridges. Of these bridges, the Ross Island, Hawthorne, and Burnside bridges would see the greatest increases in traffic. Increases on these bridges for the morning and evening peak hours would be as follows: Ross Island—15.4 percent in morning and 12.5 percent in evening traffic; Hawthorne— 9.2 percent in morning and 6.3 percent in evening traffic; and Burnside—6.0 percent in morning and 14.9 percent in evening traffic. Increases on the I-205 Abernathy Bridge would be 5.5 percent in morning and 5.9 percent in evening traffic. All other bridges would experience less than a 5 percent increase in either the morning or evening traffic. This same traffic dispersion would

3-14

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Tra nspo rtatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

apply to the No Build Alternative, when replacement of the approach was undertaken, and to intermittent temporary closures that could be required during construction of any Build alternative. No designated detour is planned for the closure because no one route would apply to the majority of travelers and a robust alternative network exists. However, most alternatives would require longer travel in both distance and time, out-of-direction travel, or travel on more congested routes. Cost impacts of the detour are assessed in Section 3.6, Economic. River Navigation. The Build alternatives, including the bicycle/pedestrian bridge proposed under Alternative A, would have a vertical clearance of 75 feet CRD and a horizontal clearance of 270 feet. These vertical and horizontal clearances characterize the existing Sellwood Bridge. The temporary detour bridge on Alternative B would have a horizontal clearance of 200 feet. None of the Build alternatives would create a new, permanent constraint to river navigation; all would meet the minimum clearance requirements. Because the
TABLE 3.1-5

Willamette River is navigable, U.S. Coast Guard approval would be required for all Build alternatives.
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act requires authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for the construction of any structure in or over any navigable water in the United States, the excavation/dredging or deposition of material in these waters, or any obstruction or alteration in a “navigable water.” The Willamette River at the existing Sellwood Bridge is a navigable water. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act do overlap in some activities involving wetlands. Consultation with the USACE, once project details have been established, will determine the necessary permit requirements.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures Common to All Build Alternatives Impact Roadway and Safety Impacts Would restore bus service to the Sellwood Bridge and SE Tacoma Street (i.e., 40–Tacoma and 65X– Marquam HillMilwaukie Transit Center). Compared to No Build Alternative conditions, motorists using the SE Tacoma Street/SE 13th Avenue intersection would experience a 6- to 8-second increase in delay during 2035 peak periods (LOS F conditions under both No Build Alternative and Build alternatives conditions). Compared to No Build Alternative conditions, average peakperiod travel speeds on the Sellwood Bridge and SE Tacoma Street would increase by 1 to 2 mph. Average travel speeds on OR 43 would increase by 3 to 8 mph. Positive impact; no mitigation needed. Mitigation Measure

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act

Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures Common to All Build Alternatives Table 3.1-5 summarizes potential impacts and mitigation measures common to the Build alternatives.

PBOT to monitor performance of SE Tacoma Street/SE 13th Avenue intersection. Consider part-time or full-time removal of on-street parking on west side of northern (southbound) leg of intersection. Positive impact; no mitigation needed.

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-15

Tra nspo rtatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

TABLE 3.1-5

Impacts and Mitigation Measures Common to All Build Alternatives Impact Compared to No Build Alternative conditions, study area peak-period vehicle hours of delay would decrease by about 5 percent. The provision of standard geometric and safety features would reduce crash potential along the Sellwood Bridge and at its interchange with OR 43. The spacing on OR 43 between the Sellwood Bridge northbound on-ramp junction and the Macadam Bay Club driveway would be substandard for the ODOT access management spacing standard of 1 mile (ODOT, 1999), which potentially would result in unsafe northbound merging, weaving, and/or diverging conditions. Railroad and Trolley Impacts The Build alternatives would require realignment of the Willamette Shoreline Trolley tracks. Track realignment would cause a temporary disruption during construction (up to 6 months), but no permanent impact to the trolley operations. The trolley alignment is currently under study for conversion to a daily streetcar service with two tracks, a station near the interchange, and an enhanced Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank). The plan calls for integration of bicyclists and pedestrians, providing intermodal connections. Disruption to trolley operations during construction would likely be unavoidable. However, establishing a safe work zone and flagging the trolley through the construction area might be safely accommodated during some points of construction. Replacement is planned for existing right-of-way plus sufficient additional right-of-way for the enhanced plan. The project has assumed the cost for replacing one track; fill or structure associated with one track; and retaining walls for the future plan. Coordination with the Oregon Pacific Railroad would ensure efficient maintenance of operations through the project area. New easement and operations and maintenance agreements would likely be required. Mitigation Measure Positive impact; no mitigation needed.

Positive impact; no mitigation needed.

ODOT has agreed to grant a deviation from the access spacing standard for the driveway access subject to conditions stipulated in the IAMP that changes could be made if safety problems arise in the future.

No direct, permanent impacts are anticipated to the Oregon Pacific Railroad. However, during construction, uses would be temporarily halted for the construction of overpass structures and other construction activities. River Navigation Impacts None of the Build alternatives would create a new, permanent constraint to river navigation. Indirect Impacts Bus use would increase on routes serving Sellwood Bridge and SE Tacoma Street. Design provides for bus stops and integrated pathways to bicyclist and pedestrian facilities, as well as a future streetcar station.

No mitigation needed.

Positive impact; no mitigation needed.

3-16

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Tra nspo rtatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

Alternative-specific Impacts and Mitigation
Alternative A West-side Interchange. In Alternative A, the interchange of OR 43 and the Sellwood Bridge would be in a grade-separated and roundabout configuration (Figure 3.1-3). Ramps from the outside lanes of OR 43 would converge at a multi-lane roundabout intersection. This roundabout would be located above OR 43 between the northbound off-ramp and on-ramp and between the southbound off-ramp and onramp. OR 43 would have two travel lanes—one in each direction.

to serve Powers Marine Park and the Staff Jennings property. Under all Build alternatives, eastbound traffic during the afternoon and evening peak periods would be expected to continue to back up across the Sellwood Bridge. However, under Alternative A, such backups, when reaching the west-side interchange, would impede traffic flow within the roundabout’s circulatory roadway. This would cause intersection gridlock that might not occur in other types of controlled intersections. This gridlock could exacerbate traffic backups extending from each approach to the roundabout. Introduction of metering lights to control traffic flow into the roundabout from OR 43 off-ramps and installation of vehicle queue detectors on the Sellwood Bridge, tied to the traffic signals at SE Tacoma Street/SE 13th Avenue and SE Tacoma Street/SE 17th Avenue, would be expected to mitigate these impacts. It should be noted that metering lights are not traditionally elements included in roundabouts, and inclusion of metering lights would extend traffic queues along OR 43’s off-ramps and potentially onto OR 43.

To facilitate movements from the west-side roundabout, there would be two travel lanes eastbound, which would merge into one travel lane on the bridge. Likewise, one travel lane westbound on the bridge would widen to two travel lanes approaching the west-side roundabout to separate northbound and southbound movements and to provide for queuing. The roundabout would provide a truck apron on the inside of the inside lane to accommodate off-tracking during truck movement through the interchange. The northbound offFIGURE 3.1-3 ramp, northbound on-ramp, and Alternative A West-side Interchange southbound off-ramp would each widen out to provide two lanes approaching/departing the roundabout. The southbound onramp would have one lane. The westbound-to-northbound movement would be provided in separate channelized lanes that would not require motorists making this maneuver to enter the roundabout’s circular roadway. The western approach to the roundabout would serve River View Cemetery and a roadway that would go under the new southern ramps and OR 43

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-17

Tra nspo rtatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

East-side Intersection. Under Alternative A, the Sellwood Bridge would have two traffic lanes on its east end. These two lanes would transition to three lanes easterly along SE Tacoma Street. Eastbound and westbound left-turn lanes would serve SE 6th Avenue, similar to current conditions. The SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection would continue to be unsignalized, with stop signs controlling SE 6th Avenue traffic. Maintaining existing conditions would either not affect or minimally increase cut-through traffic. It would continue to make north-south operations
TABLE 3.1-6

on SE 6th Avenue very difficult during peak hours. Essentially, only right turns could be made with ease. Traffic levels and operations at the intersection of SE Tacoma Street and SE 6th Avenue would be similar to those expected under No Build Alternative conditions. Stop-signcontrolled traffic on SE 6th Avenue would experience LOS F conditions during the weekday-morning peak hour and LOS E conditions during the afternoon peak hour. Table 3.1-6 summarizes potential impacts and mitigation measures for Alternative A.

Alternative A: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Roadway and Safety Impacts Capacity constraints on SE Tacoma Street would extend eastbound traffic across the Sellwood Bridge into the roundabout during the afternoon/evening peak period. This would impede traffic flow and cause additional traffic delays and queues. Metering lights to control traffic flow into the roundabout from OR 43’s off-ramps and vehicle queue detectors on the Sellwood Bridge, tied to the traffic signals at SE Tacoma Street/SE 13th Avenue and SE Tacoma Street/SE 17th Avenue, would be expected to mitigate these impacts. It should be noted that metering lights are not traditionally elements included in roundabouts, and inclusion of metering lights would extend traffic queues along OR 43’s off-ramps and potentially onto OR 43. As part of an IAMP for this alternative, safe driveway access provisions could be developed. Note that driveways are currently accessed directly from OR 43. These driveways have light traffic, so conflicts are not expected. A deviation from the standard would be required. PBOT to monitor performance of SE Tacoma Street/ SE 13th Avenue intersection. Consider part-time or fulltime removal of on-street parking on west side of northern (southbound) leg of intersection. Mitigation Measure

The spacing on the western access roadway between the roundabout and the driveways serving River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property would violate ODOT’s access management spacing standard. Compared to No Build Alternative conditions, motorists using the SE Tacoma Street/SE 13th Avenue intersection would experience a 6- to 8-second increase in delay during 2035 peak periods (LOS F conditions under both No Build Alternative and Build alternatives conditions). Because of capacity constraints on SE Tacoma Street, eastbound traffic across the Sellwood Bridge would extend into the roundabout during the afternoon/evening peak period. This would impede traffic flow and cause additional traffic delays and queues.

Metering lights to control traffic flow into the roundabout from OR 43’s off-ramps would be considered. In addition, vehicle queue detectors on the Sellwood Bridge, tied to the traffic signals at SE Tacoma Street/SE 13th Avenue and SE Tacoma Street/SE 17th Avenue, would be considered.

3-18

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Tra nspo rtatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

TABLE 3.1-6

Alternative A: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Construction Impacts No traffic would be allowed over the existing bridge during construction. Traffic would be detoured for 24 months during construction. Traffic would be diverted north to the Ross Island Bridge or other bridges to the north, and south to the I-205 Abernathy Bridge and the Oregon City Bridge. Mitigation Measure

Alternative B West-side Interchange. With Alternative B, the interchange of OR 43 and the Sellwood Bridge would be in a grade-separated and roundabout configuration (Figure 3.1-4). Ramps coming from the outside lanes of OR 43 would converge at a multi-lane roundabout intersection. This roundabout would be located above OR 43 between the northbound off-ramp and on-ramp and between the southbound off-ramp and onramp, OR 43 would have two travel lanes—one in each direction. To facilitate movements from the west-side roundabout, there would be two travel lanes eastbound, which would merge into one travel lane on the bridge. Likewise, one travel lane westbound on the bridge would widen to two travel lanes approaching the westside roundabout to separate northbound and southbound movements and to provide for queuing. The roundabout would provide a truck apron on the inside of the inside lane to accommodate off-tracking during truck movement through the interchange. The northbound off-ramp, northbound on-ramp, and southbound off-ramp would
FIGURE 3.1-4

each widen out to provide two lanes approaching/departing the roundabout. The southbound on-ramp would have one lane. The westbound-to-northbound movement would be provided in separate channelized lanes that would not require motorists making this maneuver to enter the roundabout’s circular roadway. The western approach to the roundabout would serve River View Cemetery and a roadway that would go under the new southern ramps and OR 43 to serve Powers Marine Park and the Staff Jennings property.

Alternative B West-side Interchange

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-19

Tra nspo rtatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

Under all Build alternatives, eastbound traffic during the afternoon peak period would be expected to continue to back up across the Sellwood Bridge. However, under Alternative B, such backups, when reaching the west-side interchange, would impede traffic flow within the roundabout’s circulatory roadway. This would cause intersection gridlock that might not occur in other types of controlled intersections. This gridlock could exacerbate traffic backups extending from each approach to the roundabout. Introduction of metering lights to control traffic flow into the roundabout from OR 43 off-ramps and installation of vehicle queue detectors on the Sellwood Bridge, tied to the traffic signals at SE Tacoma Street/SE 13th Avenue and SE Tacoma Street/SE 17th Avenue, would be expected to mitigate these impacts. It should be noted that metering lights are not traditionally elements included in roundabouts, and inclusion of metering lights would extend traffic queues along OR 43’s off-ramps and potentially onto OR 43. Alternative B would require bicyclist/pedestrianactivated signals for access to points across the interchange. These signals would impede traffic flow in the interchange, which is designed for a more free-flow condition. Potential safety
TABLE 3.1-7

challenges to bicyclists and pedestrians are discussed in Section 3.2, Bicyclists and Pedestrians. East-side Intersection. Under Alternative B, the Sellwood Bridge would have two traffic lanes on its east end. These two lanes would transition to three lanes easterly along SE Tacoma Street. Eastbound and westbound left-turn lanes would serve SE 6th Avenue, similar to current conditions. The SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection would continue to be unsignalized, with stop signs controlling SE 6th Avenue traffic. Maintaining existing conditions would either not affect or minimally increase cut-through traffic. It would continue to make north-south operations on SE 6th Avenue very difficult during peak hours. Essentially, only right turns could be made with ease. Traffic levels and operations at the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection would be similar to those expected under No Build Alternative conditions. Stop-sign-controlled traffic on SE 6th Avenue would experience LOS F conditions during the weekday-morning peak hour and LOS E conditions during the afternoon peak hour. Table 3.1-7 summarizes potential impacts and mitigation measures for Alternative B.

Alternative B: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Roadway and Safety Impacts Because of capacity constraints on SE Tacoma Street, eastbound traffic across the Sellwood Bridge would extend into the roundabout during the afternoon/evening peak period. This would impede traffic flow and cause additional traffic delays and queues. Metering lights to control traffic flow into the roundabout from OR 43 off-ramps and vehicle queue detectors on the Sellwood Bridge, tied to the traffic signals at SE Tacoma Street/SE 13th Avenue and SE Tacoma Street/SE 17th Avenue, would be expected to mitigate these impacts. It should be noted that metering lights are not traditionally elements included in roundabouts, and inclusion of metering lights would extend traffic queues along OR 43’s off-ramps and potentially onto OR 43. None anticipated; signals required for bicyclist and pedestrian safety. Mitigation Measures

Bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signals for access to points across the interchange would impede traffic flow in the interchange.

3-20

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Tra nspo rtatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

TABLE 3.1-7

Alternative B: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact The spacing on the western access roadway between the roundabout and the driveways serving River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property would violate ODOT’s access management spacing standard (ODOT, 1999). Construction Impacts No traffic would be allowed over the existing bridge during construction if no temporary detour bridge were provided. Traffic would be detoured for 24 months during construction. Traffic would be diverted north to the Ross Island Bridge or other bridges to the north, and south to the I-205 Abernathy Bridge and the Oregon City Bridge. Mitigation Measures As part of an IAMP for this alternative, safe driveway access provisions would be developed. Note that driveways are currently accessed directly from OR 43. These driveways have light traffic, so conflicts are not expected. A deviation from the standard would be required.

Temporary Detour Bridge Option An optional temporary detour bridge would maintain a river crossing during construction. Unlike other bridge spans under the Build alternatives, the temporary detour bridge would have a horizontal clearance of 200 feet, less than the current Sellwood Bridge horizontal clearance of 270 feet. The 200-foot clearance would meet current U.S. Coast Guard requirements, and a river-user survey conducted for this project did not indicate that any users would be specifically impacted from reducing the horizontal clearance through the Sellwood Bridge to 200 feet. Alternative C

Based on year 2035 traffic projections, traffic would flow unimpeded, except when afternoon/evening peak-period traffic would back up across the Sellwood Bridge. However, under the trumpet interchange configuration, compared to the roundabout design, this condition would not affect westbound bridge movements. Under Alternative C, the Sellwood Bridge would have three midspan traffic lanes—one westbound lane and two eastbound lanes. One travel lane westbound on the bridge would widen to two travel lanes entering the west-side interchange with OR 43 to facilitate movements. The two eastbound lanes would merge into one eastbound lane west of the bridge’s overcrossing of SE Grand Avenue. This alternative would also relocate the existing trolley line farthest to the east, limiting and complicating options for future trolley line expansion and improvements to the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank). It would reduce operating speed of the streetcar and make future location of a station more difficult.

West-side Interchange. In Alternative C, the
interchange of OR 43 and the Sellwood Bridge would be in a trumpet configuration (Figure 3.1-5). All movements through the gradeseparated interchange would have free-flowing movements and would not be controlled through a central intersection or traffic signal. The outside traffic lanes on OR 43 approaching the Sellwood Bridge would diverge from the highway as they ascended to the bridge. The bridge’s ramps to OR 43 would transition to OR 43’s outside lanes. Between the northbound off-ramp and on-ramp and between the southbound off-ramp and onramp, OR 43 would have two travel lanes—one in each direction.

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-21

Tra nspo rtatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

East-side Intersection The existing eastbound
left-turn lane at SE 6th Avenue would be removed. Eastbound traffic on the bridge destined for the north side of SE Tacoma Street, just east of the bridge, would be directed to turn right onto SE 6th Avenue, and then loop in a clockwise direction around SE 6th Avenue, SE Tenino Street, a new SE Grand Avenue extension under the Sellwood Bridge, to SE Spokane Street. Westbound left turns from SE Tacoma Street onto SE 6th Avenue would still be allowed via an uncontrolled left-turn lane. SE 6th Avenue’s approaches to SE Tacoma Street would remain controlled with stop signs. The extension of SE Grand Avenue would improve accessibility between the Sellwood Bridge and the areas north of SE Tacoma Street and west of SE 13th Avenue, but could moderately increase cut-through traffic. North-south traffic could also use the SE Grand Avenue undercrossing of the bridge to freely move north and south of SE Tacoma Street without engaging a signal or SE Tacoma Street itself.
FIGURE 3.1-5

Because the SE Grand Avenue extension would enable more convenient access for eastbound traffic to streets north of SE Tacoma Street, it follows that some traffic levels would increase on neighborhood streets north of SE Tacoma Street in the vicinity of SE 6th Avenue to SE 11th Avenue. For example, based on projected 2035 evening peak-hour traffic volumes, traffic on SE Spokane Street near SE 6th Avenue could increase by about 75 vehicles during the peak period. The SE Grand Avenue extension, coupled with the elimination of the eastbound left-turn lane at SE 6th Avenue, as well as perhaps at SE 7th Avenue, would enable the provision of in-street pedestrian refuge islands on SE Tacoma Street’s western legs at SE 6th Avenue and SE 7th Avenue. These pedestrian refuge islands could be similar to the existing island on SE Tacoma Street’s eastern leg at SE 7th Avenue. Inclusion of the pedestrian refuge islands would substantially enhance pedestrian movements across SE Tacoma Street at SE 6th Avenue and SE 7th Avenue. Pedestrians crossing at these locations would be able to cross one lane of traffic at a time instead of three lanes with traffic approaching in both directions. Pedestrians would benefit because the number of available gaps between approaching vehicles would increase substantially with the provision of in-street pedestrian refuge islands. Table 3.1-8 summarizes potential impacts and mitigation measures for Alternative C. Alternative D West-side Interchange. In Alternative D, the interchange of OR 43 and the Sellwood Bridge would be in a grade-separated and signalized configuration (Figure 3.1-6). Ramps coming

Alternative C West-side Interchange

3-22

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Tra nspo rtatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

TABLE 3.1-8

Alternative C: Summary of l Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Roadway and Safety Impacts Direct access between River View Cemetery and OR 43 would be removed. Provide, via pavement marking, a left-turn lane on SW Taylors Ferry Road at River View Cemetery’s access roadway. Provide signage on OR 43 guiding motorists to SW Taylors Ferry Road to access River View Cemetery. PBOT to monitor traffic volumes along neighborhood roadways, including SE Spokane Street, SE Nehalem Street, and SE 7th Avenue. City to consider implementation of additional traffic calming measures, if appropriate. SE Grand Avenue extension would enable provision of pedestrian refuge islands on SE Tacoma Street’s western legs at SE 6th Avenue and SE 7th Avenue, substantially improving pedestrian mobility and safety in crossing SE Tacoma Street. Construction Impacts No traffic would be allowed over the existing bridge during construction. Traffic would be detoured for 42 months during construction. Railroad and Trolley Impacts Would relocate the existing trolley line farthest to the east, limiting and complicating options for future trolley line expansion and trail improvements. None proposed. Traffic would be diverted north to the Ross Island Bridge or other bridges to the north, and south to the I-205 Abernathy Bridge and the Oregon City Bridge. Mitigation Measure

The SE Grand Avenue extension would provide improved accessibility between Sellwood Bridge and areas north of SE Tacoma Street and west of SE 13th Avenue. Moderate levels of increased traffic volumes could result.

from the outside lanes of OR 43 would converge at a signalized intersection, located above OR 43 between the northbound off-ramp and on-ramp and between the southbound off-ramp and on-ramp. OR 43 would have two travel lanes; one in each direction. The ramps would widen out to provide turning lanes at the intersection. The western approach to the intersection would serve River View Cemetery and a roadway that would go under the new southern ramps and OR 43 to serve Powers Marine Park and the Staff Jennings property. The signalized intersection would operate acceptably, providing LOS C operations during

the 2035 morning peak hour and LOS D operations during the afternoon peak hour. During afternoon/evening peak-period traffic conditions, when eastbound traffic backed up on the Sellwood Bridge, westbound bridge movements would not be affected under the single-point signalized interchange option compared to the roundabout option. To facilitate movements from the west-side interchange with OR 43, two travel lanes eastbound would merge into one travel lane on the bridge. Likewise, one travel lane westbound on the bridge would widen to two travel lanes to facilitate movements and queuing at the west-side interchange.

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-23

Tra nspo rtatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

FIGURE 3.1-6

Alternative D West-side Interchange

East-side Intersection. Under Alternative D, eastbound and westbound left-turn lanes would serve SE 6th Avenue, similar to the No Build Alternative. A traffic signal would be installed to control all movements at the intersection of SE Tacoma Street and SE 6th Avenue. Traffic analysis indicated that a signal at this location would operate at LOS F, the lowest level. The intersection would be 40 percent over capacity, meaning that vehicles on the bridge would require more than one signal cycle to clear the intersection. The effect of the signal on operations on SE Tacoma would be to back up traffic into the OR 43 interchange. This condition would result in substantial vehicle delays and queuing along SE Tacoma Street and unacceptable intersection performance. To alleviate this condition and still provide a traffic signal, additional traffic lanes on SE Tacoma Street would be needed. The existing curb-tocurb width on SE Tacoma Street could allow up to four traffic lanes if parking on the south side of

the street were prohibited and if the existing instreet pedestrian refuge islands at SE 7th Avenue and SE 8th Avenue were removed. Retaining the left-turn lanes would allow three through-traffic lanes—one lane in one direction and two lanes in the other direction. Under this condition, the intersection capacity would still be exceeded during peak periods (by up to 20 percent). This condition would continue to cause substantial vehicle delays and queuing along SE Tacoma Street and unacceptable intersection performance. Acceptable intersection performance with a signal at SE Tacoma Street and SE 6th Avenue could likely be accomplished by providing two through lanes in each direction on SE Tacoma Street. This configuration would require either (1) removing the left-turn lanes (in addition to removing on-street parking and the pedestrian refuge islands), resulting in modified traffic circulation patterns and increased traffic on several of the local streets near the east end of the bridge, or

3-24

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Tra nspo rtatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

(2) widening the street, which would require the acquisition of private property on one or both sides of SE Tacoma Street between SE Grand Avenue and SE 8th Avenue. Another consequence of installing a signal at SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue is the extra traffic that would be attracted to entering or exiting SE Tacoma Street at the signalized location instead of at the various uncontrolled and more delayed locations between SE 6th Avenue and SE 13th Avenue. Provision of a traffic signal would increase traffic levels along the local streets parallel to SE Tacoma Street between SE 6th Avenue and SE 13th Avenue: SE Spokane Street, SE Nehalem Street, SE Tenino Street, and SE Umatilla Street.

If a traffic signal were installed at SE 7th Avenue or SE 8th Avenue instead of at SE 6th Avenue, effects similar to those described previously would be expected. In addition, it is likely that along SE Tacoma Street more on-street parking or right-of-way acquisition to the east, or both, would be required. Because of the negative performance of the signalized intersection option, Alternative D was also evaluated with no signal in the Sellwood Bridge Project Transportation Technical Report (CH2M HILL et al., 2008; updated 2010). Level of service and congestion estimates for Alternative D reported throughout this section relate to the east-side intersection with no signal. Table 3.1-9 summarizes potential impacts and mitigation measures for Alternative D.

TABLE 3.1-9

Alternative D: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Roadway and Safety Impacts The spacing on the western access roadway between the signalized ramp terminal and the driveways serving River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property would violate ODOT’s access management spacing standard. Signalization of the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue (or SE Tacoma Street/SE 7th Avenue) intersection would result in LOS F conditions with traffic demands exceeding the intersection’s capacity by about 40 percent. This would cause unacceptable vehicle delays and queues, as well as substantial increases in neighborhood cut-through traffic.
Note: Because of poor performance of this east-side intersection option, Alternative D was also evaluated with no signal (the east-side intersection option in Alternatives A and B). Level of service and congestion estimates reported in this section for Alternative D relate to the east-side intersection with no signal.

Mitigation Measure

As part of an IAMP for this alternative, safe driveway access provisions would be developed. Note that driveways are currently accessed directly from OR 43. A deviation from the standard would be required. To obtain acceptable LOS conditions with a traffic signal, SE Tacoma Street would require either (1) removal of left-turn lanes, on-street parking, and pedestrian refuge islands, or (2) widening SE Tacoma Street to one or both sides. Both options would increase traffic levels along local streets parallel to SE Tacoma Street west of SE 13th Avenue.

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-25

Tra nspo rtatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

TABLE 3.1-9

Alternative D: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Construction Impacts Staged construction would allow traffic to continue to cross the river during construction. Half of the new bridge would be built alongside the old bridge, traffic would be maintained on the old bridge, switched to the new half bridge, and the old bridge would be removed. Then the second half of the new bridge would be constructed. Not a negative impact, no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measure

Alternative E West-side Interchange. In Alternative E, the interchange of OR 43 and the Sellwood Bridge would be in a grade-separated and signalized configuration (Figure 3.1-7). Ramps coming from the outside lanes of OR 43 would converge at a signalized intersection, located above OR 43. (Between the northbound off-ramp and on-ramp
FIGURE 3.1-7

and between the southbound off-ramp and onramp, OR 43 would have two travel lanes; one in each direction.) The ramps would widen out to provide turning lanes at the intersection. The western approach to the intersection would serve River View Cemetery and a roadway that would go under the new southern ramps and OR 43 to serve

Alternative E West-side Interchange

3-26

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Tra nspo rtatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

Powers Marine Park and the Staff Jennings property. The signalized intersection would operate acceptably, providing LOS C operations during the 2035 morning peak hour and LOS D operations during the afternoon peak hour. During afternoon/evening peak-period traffic conditions, when eastbound traffic backed up on the Sellwood Bridge, westbound bridge movements would not be affected under the single-point signalized interchange option compared to the roundabout option. To facilitate movements and queuing at the westside travel lane, a right-turn lane would be provided approaching the west-side interchange. East-side Intersection. Under Alternative E, eastbound and westbound left-turn lanes would serve SE 6th Avenue, similar to the No Build Alternative. A traffic signal would be installed to control all movements at the intersection of SE Tacoma Street and SE 6th Avenue. Traffic analysis indicated that a signal at this location would operate at LOS F, the lowest level. The intersection would be 40 percent over capacity, meaning that vehicles on the bridge would require more than one signal cycle to clear the intersection. The effect of the signal on operations on SE Tacoma Street would be to back up traffic into the OR 43 interchange. This condition would result in substantial vehicle delays and queuing along SE Tacoma Street and unacceptable intersection performance. To alleviate this condition and still provide a traffic signal, additional traffic lanes on SE Tacoma Street would be needed. The existing curb-tocurb width on SE Tacoma Street could allow up to four traffic lanes if parking on the south side of the street were prohibited and if the existing instreet pedestrian refuge islands at SE 7th Avenue and SE 8th Avenue were removed. Retaining the left-turn lanes would allow three through traffic lanes—one lane in one direction and two lanes in the other direction. Under this condition, the

intersection’s capacity would still be exceeded during peak periods (by up to 20 percent). This condition would continue to cause substantial vehicle delays and queuing along SE Tacoma Street and unacceptable intersection performance. Acceptable intersection performance with a signal at SE Tacoma Street and SE 6th Avenue could likely be accomplished by providing two through lanes in each direction of SE Tacoma Street. This configuration would require either (1) removing the left-turn lanes (in addition to removing onstreet parking and the pedestrian refuge islands), resulting in modified traffic circulation patterns and increased traffic on several of the local streets near the east end of the bridge, or (2) widening the street, which would require the acquisition of private property on one or both sides of SE Tacoma Street between SE Grand Avenue and SE 8th Avenue. Another consequence of installing a signal at SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue is the extra traffic that would be attracted to entering or exiting SE Tacoma Street at the signalized location instead of at the various uncontrolled and more delayed locations between SE 6th Avenue and SE 13th Avenue. Provision of a traffic signal would increase traffic levels along the local streets parallel to SE Tacoma Street between SE 6th Avenue and SE 13th Avenue: SE Spokane Street, SE Nehalem Street, SE Tenino Street, and SE Umatilla Street. If a traffic signal were installed at SE 7th Avenue or SE 8th Avenue instead of at SE 6th Avenue, effects similar to those described previously would be expected. In addition, it is likely that along SE Tacoma Street more on-street parking or right-of-way acquisition to the east, or both, would be required. Because of the negative performance of the signalized intersection option, Alternative E was also evaluated with no signal in the Sellwood Bridge Project Transportation Technical Report

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-27

Tra nspo rtatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

(CH2M HILL et al., 2008; updated 2010). Level of service and congestion estimates for Alternative E reported throughout this section relate to the east-side intersection with no signal. Table 3.1-10 summarizes potential impacts and mitigation measures for Alternative E. Alternative D Refined (Preferred Alternative) West-side Interchange. In Alternative D Refined, the interchange of OR 43 and the Sellwood Bridge would be in a grade-separated and signalized configuration (Figure 3.1-8). Ramps coming from the outside lanes of OR 43 would converge at a signalized intersection, located above OR 43 between the northbound off-ramp and on-ramp and between the southbound offramp and on-ramp. OR 43 would have two travel lanes (one in each direction), with space to widen to four lanes (two in each direction), if required in the future.
TABLE 3.1-10

The ramps would widen out to provide turning lanes at the intersection. The western approach to the intersection would serve River View Cemetery and a roadway that would go under the new southern ramps and OR 43 to serve Powers Marine Park and the Staff Jennings property. The signalized intersection would operate acceptably, providing LOS C operations during the 2035 morning peak hour and LOS D operations during the afternoon peak hour. During afternoon/ evening peak-period traffic conditions, when eastbound traffic backed up on the Sellwood Bridge, westbound bridge movements would not be affected under the single-point signalized interchange option (compared to the roundabout option). To facilitate movements from the west-side interchange with OR 43, two travel lanes eastbound would merge into one travel lane on the bridge. Likewise, one travel lane westbound

Alternative E: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Roadway and Safety Impacts The spacing on the western access roadway between the signalized ramp terminal and the driveways serving River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property would be less than 1,320 feet, violating ODOT’s access management spacing standard. Signalization of the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue (or SE Tacoma Street/SE 7th Avenue) intersection would result in LOS F conditions, with traffic demands exceeding the intersection’s capacity by about 40 percent. This would cause unacceptable vehicle delays and queues, as well as substantial increases in neighborhood cut-through traffic levels. Construction Impacts Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge during construction of the new bridge. Positive impact; no mitigation needed. As part of an IAMP for this alternative, safe driveway access provisions would be developed. Note that driveways are currently accessed directly from OR 43. This access would be the longest of the alternatives proposed. A deviation from the standard would be required. To obtain acceptable LOS conditions with a traffic signal, SE Tacoma Street would require either (1) removing left-turn lanes in addition to on-street parking and pedestrian refuge islands, or (2) widening SE Tacoma Street to one or both sides. Both options would result in increased traffic levels along local streets parallel to SE Tacoma Street west of SE 13th Avenue. Mitigation Measures

3-28

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Tra nspo rtatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

on the bridge would widen to two travel lanes to facilitate movements and queuing at the west-side interchange. East-side Intersection. Under Alternative D Refined, eastbound and westbound left-turn lanes would serve SE 6th Avenue, similar to the No Build Alternative. The SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection would have a bicyclist/ pedestrian-activated signal. The signal would allow bicyclists and pedestrians to safely cross SE Tacoma Street to access the Springwater Corridor Trail (via SE Spokane Street) and the City of Portland-designated bicycle boulevards on SE Spokane and SE Umatilla streets. The signal would allow vehicles on SE 6th Avenue to cross or turn onto SE Tacoma Street when a bicyclist or pedestrian activated it. A bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal would either not affect, or minimally increase, cutthrough traffic. It would continue to make northFIGURE 3.1-8

south operations on SE 6th Avenue very difficult during peak hours. Essentially, only right turns could be made with ease. Traffic levels and operations at the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection would operate worse than those expected under No Build Alternative conditions because traffic on SE Tacoma Street would need to stop when the signal was activated. PBOT would monitor the effects on traffic operations. It would make adjustments, as necessary, to ensure safe and efficient conditions for motorists traveling along SE 6th Avenue and the Sellwood Bridge, as well as for bicyclists, pedestrians, and vehicular traffic on SE 6th Avenue. Table 3.1-11 summarizes potential impacts and mitigation measures for the preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined).

Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) West-side Interchange

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-29

Tra nspo rtatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

TABLE 3.1-11

Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined): Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Roadway and Safety Impacts The spacing on the western access roadway between the signalized ramp terminal and the driveways serving River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property would violate ODOT’s access management spacing standard. An IAMP has been developed that addresses access to River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property. Despite the proximity of the River View Cemetery driveway to the new interchange, ODOT has agreed to grant a deviation from its access spacing standard to permit access to these three properties via the new roadway (as specified in the IAMP). The volume of traffic on the roadway is expected to be very low and would not adversely affect traffic operations or safety in the interchange. For more information on the IAMP, see “Access to Properties Adjacent to OR 43” in Section 2.3 of this FEIS. PBOT would monitor the effects on traffic operations. It would make adjustments, as necessary, to ensure safe and efficient conditions for motorists traveling along SE 6th Avenue and the Sellwood Bridge, as well as for bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicular traffic on SE 6th Avenue. Mitigation Measure

According to PBOT, a bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal at the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection could result in a slight decrease in performance of SE Tacoma Street when the signal was activated during congested times. It is not expected that this decrease in performance would reach unacceptable levels. Construction Impacts Staged construction would allow traffic to continue to cross the river during construction. Half of the new bridge would be built alongside the old bridge, traffic would be maintained on the old bridge, switched to the new half bridge, and the old bridge would be removed. Then the second half of the new bridge would be constructed.

Not a negative impact, no mitigation is required.

3.1.4

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Transportation Impact

Impacts are discussed below in relation to the west-side interchange type and the east-side intersection. Tables 3.1-12 and 3.1-13 summarize other differentiating impacts by Build alternative.

West-side Interchange Type
Three different grade-separated interchange configurations have been proposed for the west end of the Sellwood Bridge at OR 43—a

roundabout (Alternatives A and B), a trumpet (Alternative C), and a single-point signalized (Alternatives D, E, and D Refined) interchange. It is expected that under all three interchange types, eastbound traffic during the afternoon/evening peak period would continue to back up across the Sellwood Bridge. The impacts of such backups, when reaching the west-side interchange, would differ based on the interchange type.  Roundabout. Could impede westbound traffic flow within the roundabout during the afternoon/evening peak period because

3-30

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Tra nspo rtatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

eastbound traffic would back up along SE Tacoma Street and the Sellwood Bridge, which would shut down traffic circulation within the roundabout. This would cause intersection gridlock that might not occur in the single-point signalized or trumpet interchange types. These impacts could be mitigated by installation of metering lights to control traffic flow into the roundabout from OR 43 off-ramps and vehicle queue detectors on the Sellwood Bridge, tied to the traffic signals at SE Tacoma Street/SE 13th Avenue and SE Tacoma Street/SE 17th Avenue. Metering lights are not traditionally elements included in roundabouts, and inclusion of metering lights would extend traffic queues along OR 43’s off-ramps and potentially onto OR 43.  Trumpet. Would not create traffic gridlock in the interchange during the peak period. This would be a free-flow design in a system with inherent bottlenecks. Single-point Signalized. Would not create traffic gridlock in the intersection during the peak period.

SE Tacoma Street to SE 6th Avenue would be rerouted to a right-turn loop. The extension of SE Grand Avenue would improve accessibility between the Sellwood Bridge and the areas north of SE Tacoma Street and west of SE 13th Avenue, but could moderately increase cut-through traffic. North-south traffic could also use the SE Grand Avenue undercrossing of the bridge to freely move north and south of SE Tacoma Street without engaging a signal or SE Tacoma Street itself. This option was evaluated under Alternative C, but could be incorporated in any of the Build alternatives except Alternative E.  Install a signal. The intersection of SE Tacoma Street and SE 6th Avenue would include a signal. Installing a signal at the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection would substantially increase neighborhood cut-through traffic without providing improved access to existing land uses. The signal would back up traffic along SE Tacoma Street and the bridge into the OR 43 interchange. This option was evaluated under Alternatives D and E, but would not provide acceptable operations under any of the Build alternatives. Install a bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal. The intersection of SE Tacoma Street and SE 6th Avenue would have a bicyclist/ pedestrian-activated signal that would allow bicyclists and pedestrians to safely cross SE Tacoma Street. An eastbound left-turn would be permitted at SE 6th Avenue. This option would either not affect, or minimally increase, cut-through traffic. It would continue to make north-south operations on SE 6th Avenue very difficult during peak hours. Essentially, only right turns could be made with ease. This option was evaluated under Alternative D Refined, but could accompany any of the Build alternatives.

East-side Intersection
At the intersection of SE Tacoma Street and SE 6th Avenue, four options have been evaluated:  Maintain existing conditions. An eastbound left-turn would be permitted at SE 6th Avenue. Maintaining existing conditions would either not affect or minimally increase cut-through traffic. It would continue to make north-south operations on SE 6th Avenue very difficult during peak hours. Essentially, only right turns could be made with ease. This option was evaluated under Alternatives A and B, but could accompany any of the Build alternatives. Create a SE Grand Avenue Loop. Eastbound left-turn movements from 

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-31

Transportation Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

Table 3.1-12 summarizes potential differentiating roadway impacts by Build alternative.
TABLE 3.1-12

Table 3.1-13 summarizes potential differentiating construction-related traffic impacts of each Build alternative.

Summary of Alternatives by Potential Differentiating Roadway Impacts Alternative A Roadway Impacts Capacity constraints on SE Tacoma Street would result in eastbound traffic queuing across the Sellwood Bridge into the roundabout during the afternoon/evening peak period. This would impede traffic flow and cause additional traffic delays and queues. Metering lights to control traffic flow into the roundabout from OR 43’s off-ramps and vehicle queue detectors on the Sellwood Bridge (tied to the traffic signals at SE Tacoma Street/SE 13th Avenue and SE Tacoma Street/SE 17th Avenue) would be expected to mitigate these impacts. It should be noted that metering lights are not traditionally elements included in roundabouts, and inclusion of metering lights would extend traffic queues along OR 43’s off-ramps and potentially onto OR 43. The spacing on the western access roadway between the roundabout and the driveways serving River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property would violate ODOT’s access management spacing standard. Compared to No Build Alternative conditions, motorists using the SE Tacoma Street/ SE 13th Avenue intersection would experience a 6- to 8-second increase in delay during 2035 peak periods (LOS F conditions under both No Build Alternative and Build alternatives conditions). B and B with Temporary Detour Bridge Capacity constraints on SE Tacoma Street would result in eastbound traffic queuing across the Sellwood Bridge into the roundabout during the afternoon/evening peak period. This would impede traffic flow and cause additional traffic delays and queues. Metering lights to control traffic flow into the roundabout from OR 43 off-ramps and vehicle queue detectors on the Sellwood Bridge (tied to the traffic signals at SE Tacoma Street/SE 13th Avenue and SE Tacoma Street/SE 17th Avenue) would be expected to mitigate these impacts. It should be noted that metering lights are not traditionally elements included in roundabouts, and inclusion of metering lights would extend traffic queues along OR 43’s off-ramps and potentially onto OR 43. The spacing on the western access roadway between the roundabout and the driveways serving River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property would violate ODOT’s access management spacing standard. C Direct access between River View Cemetery and OR 43 would be removed. The SE Grand Avenue extension would provide improved accessibility between Sellwood Bridge and areas north of SE Tacoma Street and west of SE 13th Avenue. Moderate levels of increased traffic volumes could result. D The spacing on the western access roadway between the signalized ramp terminal and the driveways serving River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property would violate ODOT’s access management spacing standard. Signalization of the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue (or SE Tacoma Street/SE 7th Avenue) intersection would result in LOS F conditions, with traffic demands exceeding the intersection’s capacity by about 40 percent. This would cause unacceptable vehicle delays and queues, as well as substantial increases in neighborhood cut-through traffic levels.

3-32

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Transportation Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

TABLE 3.1-12

Summary of Alternatives by Potential Differentiating Roadway Impacts Alternative E Roadway Impacts The spacing on the western access roadway between the signalized ramp terminal and the driveways serving River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property would violate ODOT’s access management spacing standard. Signalization of the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue (or SE Tacoma Street/SE 7th Avenue) intersection would result in LOS F conditions, with traffic demands exceeding the intersection’s capacity by about 40 percent. This would cause unacceptable vehicle delays and queues, as well as substantial increases in neighborhood cut-through traffic levels. D Refined (Preferred Alternative) The spacing on the western access roadway between the signalized ramp terminal and the driveways serving River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property would violate ODOT’s access management spacing standard. An IAMP has been developed that addresses access to River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property. ODOT has agreed to grant a deviation from its access spacing standard to permit access to these three properties.

TABLE 3.1-13

Summary of Alternatives by Potential Differentiating Construction-related Traffic Impacts Alternative A B and B with Temporary Detour Bridge C D Construction-related Traffic Impacts on Sellwood Bridge Traffic would be detoured for 24 months during construction. No temporary detour bridge would be provided. Traffic would be detoured for 24 months during construction, unless the temporary detour bridge option was included. Traffic would be detoured for 42 months during construction. No temporary detour bridge would be provided. Staged construction would allow traffic to continue to cross the river during construction. Half of the new bridge would be built alongside the old bridge, and traffic would be maintained on the old bridge. Then traffic would be switched to the new half bridge, and the old bridge would be removed. The second half of the new bridge would be constructed in the location of the old bridge. Following completion of construction, the two halves of the new bridge would be connected. Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge during construction of the new bridge. Staged construction would allow traffic to continue to cross the river during construction. Half of the new bridge would be built alongside the old bridge, and traffic would be maintained on the old bridge. Then traffic would be switched to the new half bridge, and the old bridge would be removed. The second half of the new bridge would be constructed in the location of the old bridge. Following completion of construction, the two halves of the new bridge would be connected.

E D Refined

Note: For each Build alternative, traffic on OR 43 would be maintained north and south.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-33

Bicyclists a nd Pedestri a ns Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

3.2

Bicyclists and Pedestrians
Affected Environment

Bicyclists and Pedestrians Summary While the bicyclist and pedestrian facility features would differ among the Build alternatives, all Build alternatives would substantially improve bicyclist and pedestrian conditions compared to the No Build Alternative. All Build alternatives would include wider facilities, new bridge connections, and fewer motorist conflict points with bicyclists and pedestrians. Compared to the No Build Alternative, the Build alternatives are projected to accommodate a substantial increase in pedestrians and bicyclists. Alternatives A, B (without temporary detour bridge), and C would provide no bicyclist or pedestrian access across the river during construction.

3.2.1

Sellwood Bridge Bicyclist and Pedestrian Facilities
The Sellwood Bridge provides a critical link between the west and east sides of the Willamette River in Portland, but the bicyclist and pedestrian facilities on the bridge and its connections with the Springwater Corridor Trail and Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank and East Bank) are deficient. The current bicyclist and pedestrian facility on the Sellwood Bridge is one sidewalk on the north side of the bridge that is 4 feet 3 inches wide. There is no sidewalk on the south side of the bridge. Where light poles are located on the bridge, the sidewalk is only 3 feet wide and cannot accommodate some disabled users. Bicyclists must either use the travel lanes or walk their bikes on the narrow sidewalk.

West-side Bicyclist and Pedestrian Facilities
While OR 43 lacks sidewalks within the interchange area, a 6-foot-wide sidewalk exists on the highway’s east side immediately north of the interchange. A shared-use path connects the
Sidewalk on the north side of the Sellwood Bridge.

Sellwood Bridge with the Oregon 43 (OR 43) sidewalk, which starts at the bridge’s west end before passing beneath the southbound loop ramp and northbound bypass ramp. The path’s width of 5 to 8 feet does not meet the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) shareduse-path-width standard of 12 feet, and the path’s grade does not meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements (5 percent grade for continuous grade). Within the study area, OR 43 lacks dedicated bicyclist facilities (such as wide shoulders or striped bicycle lanes). Bicyclists currently share travel lanes with motorists, and bicyclists and pedestrians share the sidewalk immediately north of the interchange (mentioned previously). The sidewalk serves as part of the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank), described subsequently. OR 43, the northbound bypass ramp, the southbound loop ramp, and the River View Cemetery access road intersect at a signalized intersection just south of the Sellwood Bridge. Pedestrian signals and a crosswalk are located on the intersection’s west side to facilitate northsouth pedestrian crossings. The intersection lacks crosswalks and

3-34

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Bicyclists a nd Pedestri a ns Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

The interchange’s northbound bypass ramp lacks sidewalks and bicycle lanes, and has a 2-foot-wide right-side shoulder. The interchange’s southbound loop ramp lacks sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and a right-side shoulder. Between downtown Portland and the Sellwood Bridge, the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) follows the Willamette River shoreline. North of the Sellwood Bridge, the trail is a narrow sidewalk on the east side of OR 43 immediately north of the Sellwood The shared-use path begins at the bridge’s west end and passes Bridge (described earlier). A beneath the southbound loop ramp and northbound bypass ramp. narrow unpaved segment exists within Powers Marine Park, south pedestrian-activated signals for east-west of the Sellwood Bridge. The trail’s vertical crossings, forcing bicyclists and pedestrians to clearance beneath interchange ramps does not make judgments about when it is safe to cross meet ODOT standards. Outside the study area, OR 43. There is a TriMet bus stop at the River the trail has shared-use segments that pass View Cemetery access road intersection on through Willamette Park and on-street segments OR 43. Pedestrians and bicyclists use a grass path that pass through Portland’s South Waterfront west and south of the bridge as an informal path District. to access this signalized intersection.

East-side Bicyclist and Pedestrian Facilities

Bicyclists on the shared-use path at the bridge’s west end.

Sidewalks are continuous on SE Tacoma Street and crosswalks are provided at SE 13th Avenue and SE 17th Avenue. Immediately east of the bridge, the intersection of SE Tacoma Street and SE 6th Avenue lacks marked crosswalks and curb ramps. SE Tacoma Street does not have designated bicyclist facilities. Instead, the City of Portland identifies SE Spokane Street and SE Umatilla Street as “bicycle boulevards,” which are low-traffic through streets that bicyclists can use to avoid SE Tacoma Street. Bicyclists connect with SE Tacoma Street and the Sellwood Bridge using a low-volume cross street, such as SE 6th Avenue. Heavy traffic volumes can pose problems for bicyclists and pedestrians crossing SE Tacoma Street.

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-35

Bicyclists a nd Pedestri a ns Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

Shared-use paths on the east side include the Springwater Corridor Trail and Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank). In addition to these trails, there are internal paths in nearby parks, including the Sellwood Riverfront Park and Sellwood Park (northeast of Sellwood Riverfront Park). Within the study area, the Springwater Corridor Trail is 12 feet wide with soft shoulders on each side. Users access the trail from SE Spokane and SE Umatilla streets. The trail passes beneath the Sellwood Bridge west of SE 6th Avenue. South of the bridge, the trail ends at SE Umatilla Street, where a gap exists between SE Umatilla Street and SE 19th Avenue. Pedestrians from the Sellwood Bridge can access the Springwater Corridor Trail via a stairway. Some segments of the stairway have handrails on one side only, and the stairway lacks level landings. The Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank) follows the Willamette River shoreline between Sellwood Riverfront Park and SE Linn Street. An uncompleted segment exists between SE Umatilla Street and SE Sherrett Street.
The Springwater Corridor Trail connects downtown Portland with southeast Portland, Milwaukie, Gresham, Sandy, and Boring. The 21-mile corridor connects several parks and open spaces, including Tideman Johnson Nature Park, Beggars-Tick Wildlife Refuge, the I-205 Path, Leach Botanical Garden, Powell Butte Nature Park, and Gresham’s Main City Park. The segment of the Springwater Corridor Trail at the Sellwood Bridge opened in 2003.

team extrapolated the Sellwood Bridge counts to estimate daily usage and to adjust for seasonal variations. Table 3.2-1 presents existing daily bicyclist and pedestrian use across the Sellwood Bridge.
TABLE 3.2-1

Sellwood Bridge Existing Daily Bicyclist and Pedestrian Use Bicyclists Weekday Weekend Day 440 600 Pedestrians 90 210 Total 530 810

The west-side interchange also serves nonmotorized users passing through the interchange but not using the bridge (e.g., bicyclists traveling between River View Cemetery and the Willamette Greenway Trail [West Bank]). Approximately 80 additional bicyclists and pedestrians use the interchange (but not the bridge) on weekdays and weekend days.

Future No Build Alternative Demand
To develop an appropriate growth rate for the Sellwood Bridge under No Build Alternative conditions, the project team considered similarities and dissimilarities between the Sellwood Bridge and other downtown Portland bridges. Ultimately, the team assumed a linear 5 percent growth rate to reflect the continued presence of substandard bicyclist and pedestrian facilities, as well as completion of several planned bicyclist and pedestrian projects near the study area. The No Build Alternative year 2035 estimated daily bicyclist and pedestrian use is shown in Table 3.2-2.

Springwater Corridor Trail
3.2.2
3-36

Bicyclist and Pedestrian Demand

Current Bicyclist and Pedestrian Usage
Using bicyclist and pedestrian count data from the Sellwood Bridge in 2008 (weekday and weekend counts) and count data from other Willamette River bridges in Portland, the project

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Bicyclists a nd Pedestri a ns Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

TABLE 3.2-2

Sellwood Bridge No Build Alternative Year 2035 Daily Bicyclist and Pedestrian Use Projections Bicyclists Weekday Weekend Day 1,640 2,270 Pedestrians 330 760 Total 1,970 3,030

Under the No Build Alternative, the west-side interchange area would serve additional bicyclist and pedestrian traffic that does not cross the bridge, but that travels between the River View Cemetery and points north. An additional 299 nonmotorized trips are estimated on both weekdays and weekend days.

immediate 205 percent bicyclist/pedestrian trip increase. Beyond this latent demand, each scenario was assigned an annual growth rate based on the annual growth rates experienced on the Broadway, Burnside, Hawthorne, and Steel bridges over the past 16 years (as documented by the Portland Bureau of Transportation). Each scenario assumed higher nonmotorized growth rates during years immediately following Build alternative completion (because of bridge novelty, promotional efforts, and increased recreational activity), followed by a leveling-off of growth through 2035. The scenarios differed in terms of when the “leveling off” period would take place. Bicyclist/Pedestrian Demand as a Proportion of Vehicle Demand In addition to the three growth scenario projections completed under the comparative analysis approach, the project team prepared a projection based on estimated bicyclist/pedestrian demand as a proportion of anticipated motor vehicle demand. This approach incorporated mode share data from the American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006), the City of Portland Auditor’s Report (City of Portland, 2007a), and Metro Regional Trails strategy, as well as historical bicyclist/pedestrian mode-share growth trends citywide and in the Sellwood Bridge’s immediate vicinity. This projection assumed a 0.5 percent growth rate for both bicyclist and pedestrian mode shares every 5 years. This translates into bicyclist and pedestrian commute mode shares in 2035 of about 9 percent and 6 percent, respectively. This is a low growth rate compared with Portland’s bicyclist commute mode-share increase in this part of Portland—from less than 2 percent in 2000 to over 4 percent in 2006 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006) or 6 percent (City of Portland, 2007a). To estimate recreational demand under this scenario, the project team used a 2007 bicycle count on the Springwater Corridor Trail near the Sellwood Bridge. Because pedestrian volume data

Future Build Alternatives Demand
The project team developed projections using several of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)-recommended approaches for estimating bicyclist and pedestrian demand (FHWA, 1999) to arrive at 2035 projections for bicyclist and pedestrian use under the Build alternatives.
Bicyclist and Pedestrian Latent Demand
Latent demand means that some bicyclists and pedestrians would use the Sellwood Bridge but do not use it because the walking and bicycling environment is unsafe and uncomfortable. In other words, some people who would normally walk or bicycle across the Sellwood Bridge are either using other travel modes or crossing the Willamette River on other bridges.

Comparative Analysis Approach To project 2035 bicyclist and pedestrian use under the comparative analysis approach, the project team developed three scenarios. Each scenario included an estimated latent demand calculated by applying the growth rate experienced on the Steel Bridge (the bridge most resembling the Sellwood Bridge) immediately following the Riverwalk opening in 2001—an

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-37

Bicyclists a nd Pedestri a ns Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

were not available, the project team assumed pedestrian volumes equaled roughly 50 percent of bicyclist volumes. Given the popularity of recreational “loops” involving the Springwater Corridor Trail, Sellwood Bridge, and the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank), the project team estimated that roughly 50 percent of Springwater Corridor Trail users include the Sellwood Bridge on their trips. It was further estimated that recreational trips would increase roughly 10 percent every 5 years, reflecting numerous planned recreational trail projects in the study area’s vicinity. Total 2035 Bicyclist and Pedestrian Demand The project team used the average of the four projections to arrive at the projected 2035 demand under the Build alternatives (Table 3.2-3).
TABLE 3.2-3

challenges would include substandard, narrow bicyclist and pedestrian facilities; difficult transitions between the bridge and the surrounding bicyclist and pedestrian network; and potential safety conflicts among vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. The following bicyclist and pedestrian impacts would continue under the No Build Alternative:  Limited facilities on the bridge structure (narrow sidewalk on the north side of the bridge), which create dangerous and unsafe passing maneuvers for bicyclists and pedestrians sharing this narrow bridge sidewalk Difficult connections between the bridge sidewalk and the surrounding bicyclist and pedestrian facilities (unclear routing and substandard facilities) Difficult and unsafe connections through the west-side interchange area, including limited bicyclist and pedestrian facilities, limited sight distances, circuitous routing, and vehicle conflicts with bicyclists and pedestrians Difficult and unsafe connections to the TriMet bus stop at the OR 43/River View Cemetery access road intersection due to limited bicyclist and pedestrian facilities and neither crosswalks nor a bicyclist/pedestrianactivated signal at the intersection Difficult crossings of SE Tacoma Street during heavy traffic and minimal bicyclist and pedestrian crossing treatments on SE Tacoma Street

Sellwood Bridge Build Alternatives Year 2035 Daily Bicyclist and Pedestrian Use Projections Bicyclists Weekday Weekend Day 7,760 10,620 Pedestrians 1,590 3,730 Total 9,350


14,350

Under the Build alternatives, the west-side interchange area would also serve additional bicyclist and pedestrian traffic that does not cross the bridge. An additional 1,420 nonmotorized trips are estimated on an average weekday, and an additional 1,330 nonmotorized trips are estimated on an average weekend day.
3.2.3

No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences

In addition, bridge closure for 6 to 8 months during maintenance activities would eliminate the bicyclist and pedestrian river crossing for that time period.

Existing deficiencies in the bicyclist and pedestrian facilities would continue under the No Build Alternative. The bridge would continue to challenge bicyclist and pedestrian circulation, affecting the overall system. These continued

3-38

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Bicyclists a nd Pedestri a ns Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

3.2.4

Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences

on the Willamette Greenway and Springwater Corridor trails and in area parks  Increased bicycle and pedestrian use across the bridge is expected to increase both “walk by” traffic in the Sellwood commercial district and commercial activity

Impacts and Mitigation Common to All Build Alternatives
Direct Impacts. The Build alternatives would substantially improve bicyclist and pedestrian conditions over the No Build Alternative because the Build alternatives would include wider facilities, new connections, and fewer conflict points with vehicles. Construction equipment staging and construction activities in the west-side interchange area could necessitate temporary access closures between River View Cemetery and the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank). Bicyclists and pedestrians would be redirected to detour routes, such as SW Taylors Ferry Road. These routes might be circuitous, and on roadways with high traffic volumes, high vehicle speeds, and limited or no bicyclist and pedestrian facilities. Construction equipment staging and construction activities could necessitate temporary Springwater Corridor Trail closures near the existing Sellwood Bridge. Bicyclists and pedestrians would be redirected to detour routes, which would depend on the location of the trail closure, the topography, and the street system connectivity. Signage on detour routes would be added to alert drivers to the presence of bicyclists and pedestrians. During final design, Multnomah County would coordinate bicyclist and pedestrian facilities with the Portland Bureau of Transportation and the Portland to Lake Oswego Transit and Trail project (see “Railroad, Trolley Services, and Future Streetcar” in Section 3.1.1 for a description of this project). Indirect Impacts. Indirect impacts for all Build alternatives include the following:  Improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities are expected to attract additional recreation use

Alternative-specific Impacts and Mitigation
Alternative A Alternative A would provide a separate bicycle/pedestrian bridge north of the existing bridge (Figure 3.2-1). The bicycle/pedestrian bridge would have 20 feet of usable space and accommodate bi-directional bicyclist and pedestrian traffic. The width would be wide enough to provide separation between bicyclists and pedestrians through striping and pavement markings or informal user patterns. Separation of bicyclists and pedestrians from vehicles crossing the river would reduce potential conflicts and enhance user comfort. However, a separate bicycle/pedestrian bridge would remove “eyes on the street,” which could potentially leave bicyclists and pedestrians vulnerable to crime or unable to receive immediate help during an emergency.
FIGURE 3.2-1

Alternative A Bridge Cross-sections

A spiral ramp would provide access to the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) from the west end of the bicycle/pedestrian bridge (Figure 3.2-2). On the east side, access to east-side trails and parks would be via SE Grand Avenue and

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-39

Bicyclists and Pedestrians Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

SE Spokane Street. Directional signs and pavement markings would aid user access. A bicycle/pedestrian overpass from the separate bridge across OR 43 would allow for direct access to the River View Cemetery access road. The separate bicycle/pedestrian bridge north of the west-side interchange would eliminate most conflicts between vehicles and bicyclists and pedestrians at the west-side interchange. The roundabout’s west approach is the only potential conflict point (Figure 3.2-2). Nonmotorized users would cross this approach leg to reach the
FIGURE 3.2-2

Superintendent’s House at River View Cemetery, and to access the roadway leading to Powers Marine Park and the the Staff Jennings property. Traffic volumes would be lower in that location than in the other three approaches of the roundabout. Table 3.2-4 summarizes bicyclist and pedestrian impacts and potential mitigation. Alternative B Alternative B would provide a 10-foot-wide shared sidewalk on both sides of the bridge to

Alternative A West-side and East-side Bicyclist and Pedestrian Facilities

3-40

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Bicyclists and Pedestrians Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

TABLE 3.2-4

Alternative A Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts and Potential Mitigation Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts Separate bicyclist and pedestrian facility would reduce conflicts with vehicles on bridge Separate bicyclist and pedestrian facility would eliminate direct conflicts with vehicles in west-side interchange Would have bi-directional bicyclist and pedestrian traffic (no separated facilities) Complete separation from other bridge users would cause safety and security concerns Would have a challenging crossing environment for visually impaired pedestrians on the roundabout’s west leg Would have difficult crossings of SE Tacoma Street during heavy traffic and minimal crossing treatments Would have potentially unclear routing between bridge and eastside bicyclist and pedestrian facilities Bridge closure during construction would eliminate bicyclist and pedestrian river crossing Would have grade changes between Sellwood Bridge/Se Tacoma Street corridor and the separate bicycle/pedestrian bridge Potential Mitigation Positive impact; no mitigation needed Positive impact; no mitigation needed Stripe bicycle/pedestrian bridge and provide pavement markings Install lighting, emergency call boxes, and security cameras and conduct routine police patrols Install a bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal (including audible signal) or flashing warning lights, marked crosswalk, warning signage, ADA-compliant curb ramps, and/or detectable warning strips Install marked crosswalks, warning signage, pedestrian refuge islands, and/or pedestrian signals at the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection Install signage and pavement markings Construct bicycle/pedestrian bridge before closing the existing bridge Provide way-finding signage and pavement markings; install traffic calming devices on streets connecting with bicycle/pedestrian bridge with surface streets to increase safety

accommodate bicyclist and pedestrian traffic (Figure 3.2-3). This cross-section would balance the space dedicated to motor vehicles and nonmotorized users, enhancing bicyclist and pedestrian comfort. Alternative B would retain the “eyes on the street” by having all modes on one bridge deck and structure, which would make bicyclists and pedestrians less vulnerable to crime and more visible to passing vehicles in the event of an emergency. The 10-foot-wide sidewalks/shared-use paths could potentially accommodate bi-directional bicyclist and pedestrian traffic, though 10-footwide shared-use facilities on other Portland bridges (such as the Hawthorne Bridge) are marked and signed for one-way bicycle traffic to

minimize conflicts. Bicyclists would connect with the SE Spokane Street and SE Umatilla Street Bicycle Boulevards via SE 6th Avenue (Figure 3.2-4). This route would also be used to access the Springwater Corridor Trail. However, bicyclists might encounter difficult crossings of SE Tacoma Street during heavy traffic and because there are minimal crossing treatments (such as crosswalks or signals). Using a more circuitous route on other nearby streets, nonmotorized users could avoid the at-grade crossing of SE Tacoma Street.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-41

Bicyclists a nd Pedestri a ns Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

FIGURE 3.2-3

Alternative B Bridge Cross-section

On the west side, bicyclists and pedestrians passing through the roundabout would encounter at least one conflict point with vehicles (Figure 3.2-4). Traveling around the roundabout would create a more circuitous path for bicyclists and pedestrians than with other interchange types. The roundabout would provide marked bicyclist and pedestrian crossings on the north, south, and west legs, and would include pedestrian-activated signals at the OR 43 northbound entrance and exit ramps, and at the OR 43 southbound exit ramp. The signalized

crossings would enhance bicyclist and pedestrian safety and comfort at these conflict points. The unsignalized crossings could adversely impact visually impaired pedestrians. A roundabout does not provide audible cues for traffic breaks, and sidewalks do not lead directly to perpendicular crosswalks (which could make movements potentially unsafe and difficult for visually impaired pedestrians). If nonmotorized crossings of the roundabout’s northern legs were prohibited, bicyclists and pedestrians could encounter circuitous routing while attempting to pass through the interchange area (e.g., traveling between the Sellwood Bridge and the southbound bus stop). The west-side interchange spiral ramps on the Sellwood Bridge’s north and south sides would offer convenient connections for bicyclists and pedestrians to the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank). The spiral ramps would facilitate slow but continuous movement for bicyclists by minimizing out-of-direction travel. Table 3.2-5 summarizes bicyclist and pedestrian impacts and potential mitigation.

3-42

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Bicyclists a nd Pedestri a ns Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

FIGURE 3.2-4

Alternative B West-side and East-side Bicyclist and Pedestrian Facilities

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-43

Bicyclists a nd Pedestri a ns Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

TABLE 3.2-5

Alternative B Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts and Potential Mitigation Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts Shared-use path and bike lanes would separate differing user types and reduce conflicts “Eyes on the street” would provide user safety and security Would have bi-directional pedestrian traffic and oneway bicycle traffic Would have a challenging crossing environment for visually impaired pedestrians at the unsignalized roundabout crossings Would have circuitous routing between the bridge’s north side and River View Cemetery/southbound bus stop Bridge closure during construction would eliminate bicyclist and pedestrian river crossing (without temporary detour bridge) Potential Mitigation Positive impact; no mitigation needed Positive impact; no mitigation needed Install signage and markings for one-way bicycle travel to minimize user conflicts Install bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal (including audible signal) or flashing warning lights, marked crosswalk, warning signage, ADA-compliant curb ramps, and/or detectable warning strips Provide bicyclist and pedestrian crossings on roundabout’s north leg Construct temporary detour bridge

Alternative C Alternative C would provide a separate bicycle/pedestrian deck below the vehicular bridge deck (Figure 3.2-5). The bicycle/pedestrian deck would have 20 feet of usable space, accommodate bi-directional bicyclist and pedestrian traffic, and be wide enough to provide separation between bicyclists and pedestrians through striping and pavement markings or informal user patterns. Separation of bicyclists and pedestrians from vehicles crossing the river would reduce potential conflicts and enhance user comfort. However, a separate bridge deck for bicyclists and pedestrians would remove “eyes on the street,” which could potentially leave bicyclists and pedestrians vulnerable to crime or unable to receive immediate help during an emergency. Noise from vehicles on the upper deck would make it difficult for motorists to hear sounds from the lower deck, increasing the isolation of bicyclists and pedestrians. The City of Portland’s experience with similar covered facilities indicates that these spaces, which provide weather protection, invite camping, illegal

activities, and dumping. In addition, pigeons find such facilities attractive for their nests, which causes problems with pigeon droppings.

FIGURE 3.2-5

Alternative C Bridge Cross-section

3-44

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Bicyclists a nd Pedestri a ns Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

FIGURE 3.2-6

Alternative C West-side and East-side Bicyclist and Pedestrian Facilities

The separate bicycle/pedestrian deck would eliminate direct conflicts with vehicles in the west-side interchange (Figure 3.2-6). Bicyclists and pedestrians would use a series of gradeseparated linear and switchback ramps below OR 43 and the west-side interchange to access River View Cemetery. Switchback ramps might create the perception of circuitous travel and greater time to overcome relatively short distances. Switchback ramps could be difficult to maneuver on a bicycle or in a wheelchair. A ramp would provide access from the bridge to the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank).

Bicyclists and pedestrians traveling between River View Cemetery and the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) would encounter an at-grade streetcar crossing. The availability and extent of crossing treatments could impact bicyclist and pedestrian safety. At the east end, a spiral ramp would provide a direct and convenient connection between the bridge and the Springwater Corridor Trail for bicyclists and pedestrians. Bicyclists and pedestrians would also use a spiral ramp on the north side of the bridge to connect with SE Spokane Street and SE Umatilla Street. Bicyclists and pedestrians

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-45

Bicyclists a nd Pedestri a ns Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

TABLE 3.2-6

Alternative C Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts and Potential Mitigation Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts Separate bicyclist and pedestrian facility would reduce conflicts with vehicles on bridge Separate bicyclist and pedestrian facility would eliminate direct conflicts with vehicles in west-side interchange Would have bi-directional bicyclist and pedestrian traffic (no separated facilities) Complete separation from other bridge users would cause safety and security concerns Would have difficult turning maneuvers and a perception of circuitous routing on switchback ramps Would have grade changes between the Sellwood Bridge/ SE Tacoma Street corridor and the separate bicycle/pedestrian bridge deck Bridge closure during construction would eliminate bicyclist and pedestrian river crossing Potential Mitigation Positive impact; no mitigation needed Positive impact; no mitigation needed Stripe lower bridge deck and provide pavement markings Install lighting, emergency call boxes, and security cameras, and conduct routine police patrols Provide wide switchback ramps to accommodate wide turning movements Provide way-finding signage and pavement markings; install traffic calming devices on streets connecting the bicycle/pedestrian bridge deck with surface streets to increase safety Construct temporary detour bridge

traveling between the east end of the bridge and SE Tacoma Street would encounter a circuitous route, which would involve using the Springwater Corridor Trail, SE Spokane or SE Tenino streets, and SE 6th Avenue. Users might also encounter circuitous routing if pedestrian crossings of SE Tacoma Street at SE 6th Avenue were prohibited in conjunction with proposed left-turn movement restrictions for vehicles. Eastbound bicyclists might find an easier connection across SE Tacoma Street to SE Spokane Street by using the SE Grand Avenue extension. Table 3.2-6 summarizes bicyclist and pedestrian impacts and potential mitigation. Alternative D The 12-foot-wide shared sidewalk/path on both sides of the bridge would accommodate bidirectional bicyclist and pedestrian traffic, enabling bicyclists and pedestrians to use the most convenient side of the bridge (Figure 3.2-7). The sidewalks/shared-use paths would enhance user safety and comfort by providing additional distance from motor vehicle traffic. Alternative D would also provide 6.5-foot-wide bicycle lanes.

The presence of bicycle lanes and sidewalks/shared-use paths would provide choices for bicyclists of varying skills and confidence levels. Alternative D would retain the “eyes on the street” by having all modes on one bridge deck and structure, which would make bicyclists and pedestrians less vulnerable to crime and more visible to passing vehicles in the event of an emergency. Assuming pedestrians would remain on the bridge’s north or south side while passing through the west-side interchange area, they would encounter three to four vehicle conflict points (Figure 3.2-8). Several ramp approaches would include multiple, high-volume vehicle travel lanes. Although pedestrians would use marked crosswalks with pedestrian-activated signals to cross, heavy vehicle right-turn movements (for example, westbound-to-northbound) could create uncomfortable crossing conditions and potential conflicts. The signalized interchange would provide direct routing through the westside interchange area between the bridge and River View Cemetery.

3-46

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Bicyclists a nd Pedestri a ns Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

The west-side interchange spiral ramps on the Sellwood Bridge’s north and south sides would offer convenient connections for bicyclists and pedestrians to the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank). The spiral ramps would facilitate slow but continuous movement for bicyclists by minimizing out-of-direction travel. On the east side, bicyclists would connect with the SE Spokane Street and SE Umatilla Street bicycle boulevards via SE 6th Avenue. This route would also be used to access the Springwater Corridor Trail. The signalized intersection at SE Tacoma Street and SE 6th Avenue would improve bicyclist and pedestrian crossing of SE Tacoma Street.

Table 3.2-7 summarizes bicyclist and pedestrian impacts and potential mitigation.

FIGURE 3.2-7

Alternative D Bridge Cross-section

FIGURE 3.2-8

Alternative D West-side and East-side Bicyclist and Pedestrian Facilities

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-47

Bicyclists a nd Pedestri a ns Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

TABLE 3.2-7

Alternative D Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts and Potential Mitigation Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts Wide paths on both sides of the bridge would accommodate bi-directional bicyclist and pedestrian traffic with no conflicts Path width would provide separation from vehicles; would enhance user safety and comfort Bicycle lane width would provide sufficient room to maneuver around obstructions “Eyes on the street” would provide user safety and security Would have no long-term bridge closure during construction Signalized intersection would improve bicyclist and pedestrian crossing of SE Tacoma Street Bicyclists and pedestrians would have conflicts with motorists making turning movements in west-side interchange area Potential Mitigation Positive impact; no mitigation needed

Positive impact; no mitigation needed Positive impact; no mitigation needed Positive impact; no mitigation needed Positive impact; no mitigation needed Positive impact; no mitigation needed Install high-visibility crosswalks, audible pedestrian signals, pedestrian countdown signals, and/or leading pedestrian interval at west-side interchange signal

Alternative E The 16-foot-wide sidewalk/shared-use path on the bridge’s north side would accommodate bidirectional nonmotorized traffic (Figure 3.2-9). The 8-foot-wide south sidewalk/shared-use path could serve one-way eastbound bicycle traffic and two-way pedestrian traffic. This one-way bicycle/two-way pedestrian configuration reflects similar configurations on other Portland-area bridges (such as the Hawthorne Bridge) to minimize user conflicts. However, the 8-footwide facility would be narrow for a shared bicyclist and pedestrian facility and could create a visual perception of narrowness and minimal distance between the sidewalk/shared-use path and vehicles. A curb between the vehicular lanes and the sidewalks/shared-use paths would provide separation from motorized traffic. Alternative D would retain the “eyes on the street” by having all modes on one bridge deck and structure, which would make bicyclists and pedestrians less vulnerable to crime and more

FIGURE 3.2-9

Alternative E Bridge Cross-section

visible to passing vehicles in the event of an emergency. Assuming pedestrians would remain on the bridge’s north or south side while passing through the west-side interchange area, pedestrians would encounter three to four vehicle conflict points (Figure 3.2-10). Several ramp approaches would include multiple, highvolume vehicle travel lanes. Although pedestrians would use marked crosswalks with pedestrianactivated signals to cross, heavy vehicle right-turn movements (for example, westbound-to-

3-48

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Bicyclists a nd Pedestri a ns Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

northbound) could create uncomfortable crossing conditions and potential conflicts. The signalized interchange would provide direct routing through the west-side interchange area between the bridge and River View Cemetery. On the east side, the signalized intersection at SE Tacoma Street and SE 6th Avenue would improve bicyclist and pedestrian crossings of SE Tacoma Street. The west-side interchange spiral ramp on the Sellwood Bridge’s north side would offer nonmotorized users connections to the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank). The spiral ramp would facilitate slow but continuous movement for bicyclists by minimizing out-ofFIGURE 3.2-10

direction travel. Alternative E would not provide a direct connection to the Willamette Greenway (West Bank) from the bridge’s southern sidewalk/shared-use path. Therefore, bicyclists and pedestrians on the south sidewalk would need to maneuver through the interchange to access the spiral ramp on the north side of the bridge. This would be a circuitous path and would increase the number of bicyclist and pedestrian conflict points with vehicles. Table 3.2-8 summarizes bicyclist and pedestrian impacts and potential mitigation.

Alternative E West-side and East-side Bicyclist and Pedestrian Facilities

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-49

Bicyclists a nd Pedestri a ns Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

TABLE 3.2-8

Alternative E Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts and Potential Mitigation Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts North path width would accommodate bi-directional bicyclist and pedestrian traffic with no conflicts North path width would provide separation from vehicles; would enhance user safety and comfort “Eyes on the street” would provide user safety and security Would have no bridge closure during construction Signalized intersection would improve bicyclist and pedestrian crossing of SE Tacoma Street South path would accommodate one-way bicycle traffic and two-way pedestrian traffic Bicyclists and pedestrians would have conflicts with motorists making turning movements in west-side interchange area Lack of south spiral ramp in west-side interchange would create circuitous routing for some users Potential Mitigation Positive impact; no mitigation needed Positive impact; no mitigation needed Positive impact; no mitigation needed Positive impact; no mitigation needed Positive impact; no mitigation needed Install signage and markings for one-way bicycle travel to minimize user conflicts Install high-visibility crosswalks, audible pedestrian signals, pedestrian countdown signals, and/or leading pedestrian interval at west-side interchange signal Install signage at bridge’s east and west ends to direct bicyclists and pedestrians to use the bridge’s north side to access the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank)

Alternative D Refined (Preferred Alternative) Alternative D Refined would have the same bicyclist and pedestrian facilities as Alternative D on the bridge (see Figure 3.2-7). The 12-footwide sidewalks/shared-use paths on both sides of the bridge would accommodate bi-directional bicyclist and pedestrian traffic, enabling bicyclists and pedestrians to use the most convenient side of the bridge. The sidewalks/ shared-use paths would enhance user safety and comfort by providing additional distance from motor vehicle traffic. Alternative D Refined would also provide 6.5-foot-wide on-street bicycle lanes. The presence of bicycle lanes and sidewalks/shared-use paths would provide choices for bicyclists of varying skills and confidence levels. Alternative D Refined would retain the “eyes on the street” by having all modes on one bridge deck and structure, which would make bicyclists and pedestrians less vulnerable to crime and more visible to passing vehicles in the event of an emergency.

Pedestrians passing through the west-side interchange area would encounter three to four vehicle conflict points (Figure 3.2-11). Several ramp approaches would include multiple, highvolume vehicle travel lanes. Although pedestrians would use marked crosswalks with pedestrian-activated signals to cross, heavy vehicle right-turn movements (for example, westbound-to-northbound) could create uncomfortable crossing conditions and potential conflicts. The signalized interchange would provide direct routing through the westside interchange area between the bridge and River View Cemetery. Alternative D Refined would have switchback ramps along the side of OR 43 that would connect to the existing north-south trail network rather than the spiral ramps that were included in Alternative D (Figure 3.2-11). These switchback ramps would offer convenient connections for bicyclists and pedestrians to the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank). They would facilitate slow but continuous movement for

3-50

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Bicyclists a nd Pedestri a ns Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

bicyclists and pedestrians by minimizing out-ofdirection travel. The switchback ramps would comply with the ADA and would be similar to the switchback ramps on the Eastbank Esplanade at the Rose Quarter. On the east side, bicyclists would connect with SE Spokane Street and SE Umatilla Street bicycle boulevards via SE 6th Avenue, which would also
TABLE 3.2-9

be used to access the Springwater Corridor Trail. The bicyclist/pedestrian-activated crossing signal at the intersection of SE Tacoma Street and SE 6th Avenue would improve bicyclist and pedestrian crossing of SE Tacoma Street. Table 3.2-9 summarizes bicyclist and pedestrian impacts and potential mitigation.

Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts and Potential Mitigation Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts Wide paths on both sides of the bridge would accommodate bi-directional bicyclist and pedestrian traffic with no conflicts Path width would provide separation from vehicles; would enhance user safety and comfort Bicycle lane width would provide sufficient room to maneuver around obstructions “Eyes on the street” would provide user safety and security Would have no long-term bridge closure during construction Bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signalized intersection at SE 6th Avenue would improve bicyclist and pedestrian crossing of SE Tacoma Street Bicyclists and pedestrians would have conflicts with motorists making turning movements in west-side interchange area Potential Mitigation Positive impact; no mitigation needed

Positive impact; no mitigation needed Positive impact; no mitigation needed Positive impact; no mitigation needed Positive impact; no mitigation needed Positive impact; no mitigation needed

Install high-visibility crosswalks, audible pedestrian signals, pedestrian countdown signals, and/or leading pedestrian interval at west-side interchange signal

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-51

Bicyclists a nd Pedestri a ns Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

FIGURE 3.2-11

Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) West-side and East-side Bicyclist and Pedestrian Facilities

3-52

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Bicyclists a nd Pedestri a ns Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

3.2.5

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impact

TABLE 3.2-10

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impact Alternative No Build Impacts

   

Would have limited facilities on bridge structure (narrow sidewalk on the north side) Would involve dangerous passing maneuvers for bicyclists and pedestrians sharing the narrow bridge sidewalk Would have difficult connections between bridge sidewalk and surrounding bicyclist and pedestrian facilities (unclear routing and substandard facilities) Would have difficult and unsafe connections through west-side interchange area (limited bicyclist and pedestrian facilities, limited sight distances, circuitous routing, and bicyclist and pedestrian conflicts with vehicles) Would have difficult and unsafe connections to TriMet bus stop at OR 43/River View Cemetery access road intersection (limited bicyclist and pedestrian facilities and neither crosswalks nor a bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal at intersection) Would have difficult crossings of SE Tacoma Street during heavy traffic and minimal bicyclist and pedestrian crossing treatments Bridge closure for maintenance activities would eliminate bicyclist and pedestrian river crossing for that time period Separate bicyclist and pedestrian facility would reduce conflicts with vehicles on bridge Separate bicyclist and pedestrian facility would eliminate direct conflicts with vehicles in west-side interchange Would have bi-directional bicyclist and pedestrian traffic (no separated facilities) Complete separation from other bridge users would cause safety and security concerns Would have a challenging crossing environment for visually impaired pedestrians on the roundabout’s west leg Would have difficult crossings of SE Tacoma Street during heavy traffic and minimal crossing treatments Would have potentially unclear routing between bridge and eastside bicyclist and pedestrian facilities Would have grade changes between the Sellwood Bridge/SE Tacoma Street corridor and the separate bicycle/pedestrian bridge Bridge closure during construction would eliminate bicyclist and pedestrian river crossing

 
A

        

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-53

Bicyclists a nd Pedestri a ns Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

TABLE 3.2-10

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impact Alternative B Impacts

     

Shared-use path and bike lanes would separate differing user types and reduce conflicts “Eyes on the street” would provide user safety and security Would have bi-directional pedestrian traffic and one-way bicycle traffic Would have a challenging crossing environment for visually impaired pedestrians at the unsignalized roundabout crossings Would have circuitous routing between the bridge’s north side and River View Cemetery/southbound bus stop Bridge closure during construction would eliminate bicyclist and pedestrian river crossing (without temporary detour bridge) Separate bicyclist and pedestrian facility would reduce conflicts with vehicles on bridge Separate bicyclist and pedestrian facility would eliminate direct conflicts with vehicles in west-side interchange Would have bi-directional bicyclist and pedestrian traffic (no separated facilities) Complete separation from other bridge users would cause safety and security concerns Would have difficult turning maneuvers and a perception of circuitous routing on switchback ramps Would have grade changes between the Sellwood Bridge/SE Tacoma Street corridor and the separate bicycle/pedestrian bridge deck Bridge closure during construction would eliminate bicyclist and pedestrian river crossing Wide paths on both sides of the bridge would accommodate bi-directional bicyclist and pedestrian traffic with no conflicts Path width would provide separation from vehicles; would enhance user safety and comfort Bicycle lane width would provide sufficient room to maneuver around obstructions “Eyes on the street” would provide user safety and security Would have no long-term bridge closure during construction Signalized intersection would improve bicyclist and pedestrian crossing of SE Tacoma Street Bicyclists and pedestrians would have conflicts with motorists making turning movements in west-side interchange area

C

      

D

      

3-54

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Bicyclists a nd Pedestri a ns Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

TABLE 3.2-10

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impact Alternative E Impacts

       

North path width would accommodate bi-directional bicyclist and pedestrian traffic with no conflicts North path width would provide separation from vehicles; would enhance user safety and comfort “Eyes on the street” would provide user safety and security Would have no bridge closure during construction Signalized intersection would improve bicyclist and pedestrian crossing of SE Tacoma Street South path would accommodate one-way bicycle traffic and two-way pedestrian traffic Bicyclists and pedestrians would have conflicts with motorists making turning movements in west-side interchange area Lack of south spiral ramp in west-side interchange would create circuitous routing for some users Wide paths on both sides of the bridge would accommodate bi-directional bicyclist and pedestrian traffic with no conflicts Path width would provide separation from vehicles; would enhance user safety and comfort Bicycle lane width would provide sufficient room to maneuver around obstructions “Eyes on the street” would provide user safety and security Would have no long-term bridge closure during construction Bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signalized intersection at SE 6th Avenue would improve bicyclist and pedestrian crossing of SE Tacoma Street Bicyclists and pedestrians would have conflicts with motorists making turning movements in west-side interchange area

Preferred (D Refined)

      

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-55

Right -of- Way a nd Relocat ion Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

Right-of-Way and Relocation Summary

3.3

Right-of-Way and Relocation
Affected Environment

3.3.1

Residential Properties
The following residential properties are referred to in this section and shown on Figure 3.3-1.  Sellwood Harbor. A 39-unit, gated residential condominium development located south of the Sellwood Bridge between the Willamette River and the Springwater Corridor Trail. River Park. A 49-unit residential condominium development located north of SE Tacoma Street and south of SE Spokane Street between the Springwater Corridor Trail and the Willamette River. This development includes two-level condominium
FIGURE 3.3-1

The Build alternatives would permanently acquire between approximately 8.9 and 11.6 acres, displace a minimum of one and a maximum of six residences, and displace a minimum of 9 and a maximum of 48 businesses. Provisions as required under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, would be implemented for all business and residential displacements and for real property acquisitions.

units along the riverbank and, to the east, a multilevel condominium building.  Grand Place. A mixed-used building located north of SE Tacoma Street, bounded by the Springwater Corridor Trail on the west, SE Spokane Street to the north, and SE Grand Avenue to the east. The building was completed in 2007 and has six condominium units.

Residential and Commercial Properties

3-56

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Right -of- Way a nd Relocat ion Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

Macadam Bay Club. A moorage of floating homes on the Willamette River east of OR 43 and adjacent to Willamette Moorage Park.

(northwest quadrant of the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection).

Commercial Properties
The following commercial properties are referred to in this section and shown on Figure 3.3-1.  River Park Center. A commercial building with 37 businesses located between the Willamette River and SE Oaks Park Way at 205 SE Spokane Street. Sellwood Building. A professional office building with attached garage and storage shed. The building is located below the east approach of the existing bridge at 380 SE Spokane Street and is partitioned into nine office spaces. Grand Place. A mixed-used building located north of SE Tacoma Street, bounded by the Springwater Corridor Trail on the west, SE Spokane Street to the north, and SE Grand Avenue to the east. The building was completed in 2007 and has space for two businesses, but both spaces are currently vacant. Staff Jennings Property. A former commercial boat dealership with a fuel dock, boathouse, boat storage, and paint shop. The business closed in March 2010. The property is located north of the existing bridge at 8240 SW Macadam Avenue (OR 43) on the west side of the Willamette River (located between Powers Marine Park and Willamette Moorage Park). Brinsfield Boat Basin. A commercial used-boat dealership located immediately north and south of SE Tacoma Street between SE Grand Avenue and SE 6th Avenue at the east end of the existing bridge. Riverside Corral. An adult entertainment lounge located at 525 SE Tacoma Street 

River View Cemetery. River View Cemetery, a not-for-profit organization, owns the right-of-way west of OR 43 in the project area. The cemetery currently owns approximately 310 acres. The Superintendent’s House, which is operated as a funeral home, is part of the cemetery. Willamette Shoreline Trolley and Future Streetcar. A commercial trolley service runs along the west bank of the Willamette River, just east of OR 43. The Willamette Shoreline Consortium purchased the Willamette Shoreline right-of-way from the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1988. The Consortium (comprised of ODOT; Metro; the cities of Portland and Lake Oswego; Clackamas and Multnomah counties; and TriMet) manages the 7-mile right-of-way between River Place in downtown Portland and Lake Oswego.
Government actions designed to benefit the public as a whole sometimes result in the displacement of people from their homes and businesses. The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (as amended in 1987; Uniform Act) provides important protections and assistance for people affected by federally funded projects. The Uniform Act was enacted by the United States Congress to ensure that people whose real property is acquired, or who have to move as a result of federally funded projects, are treated fairly and equitably and receive assistance in moving from the property they occupy.

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

Relocation Assistance

East Portland Branch of the Oregon Pacific Railroad. This railroad line runs beneath the Sellwood Bridge on the east bank of the Willamette River, alongside the Springwater Corridor Trail. The East Portland Traction Company infrequently

3-57

Right -of- Way a nd Relocat ion Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

transports engines, cars, and equipment using the railroad line.

3.3.3

Park and Recreational Facilities
The following park and recreational facilities are located in the area and are referred to as parkland and recreational facility impacts in this section.          Sellwood Riverfront Park Oaks Pioneer Park Powers Marine Park Willamette Moorage Park Springwater Corridor Trail Sellwood Bridge Recreational Trail Willamette Greenway Trail (SE Spokane Street Section) Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank) Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank)  

Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences

Impacts and Mitigation Common to All Build Alternatives
Direct Impacts. The following direct impacts would be common to the Build alternatives:  Residential. Access to Macadam Bay Club would be modified. The existing access point, which is also the access point for Willamette Moorage Park, would be relocated north of the existing access point. The access modification would not affect on-site functions of the Macadam Bay Club. Commercial. The Sellwood Building office building and its nine businesses (30 employees total) would be displaced. The viability of the nine businesses is not dependent on their specific locations. Willamette Shoreline Trolley and Future Streetcar. All Build alternatives would require moving the trolley right-of-way eastward into Powers Marine Park and the Staff Jennings property. The replacement right-of-way and design of the Build alternatives would be sufficient for two tracks for the proposed streetcar and a paved Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank). The ground level slopes steeply down to the river east of OR 43. Therefore, moving the rail tracks to the east would require placing them on fill or structure and building a retaining wall to support the fill and minimize encroachment into the park. The cost included in this project is for the replacement of existing right-of-way and additional rightof-way required for a realigned double track; the track replacement; any fill or structure required; and the construction of any necessary retaining walls. Condominium Units. All Build alternatives other than Alternative E would require the

Impacts to parkland and recreational facilities are included in the right-of-way cost and impact calculations in this section, but impacts are not described in the text. Section 3.9, Parks and Recreation, discusses impacts to park and recreational facilities.
3.3.2

No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences

There would be no foreseeable adverse impacts in relation to right-of-way or relocation under the No Build Alternative.

3-58

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Right -of- Way a nd Relocat ion Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

demolition of at least one condominium unit. A qualified engineer obtained from the City of Portland Bureau of Development Services construction plans for the River Park and Sellwood Harbor condominium developments. This engineer studied the plans and also surveyed these residential developments on-site to assure that partial structure demolition and reconstruction of the remaining adjacent condominium units and common areas would be structurally feasible. Indirect Impacts. No indirect impacts would be common to the Build alternatives. Mitigation. The designs of the Build alternatives have attempted to minimize displacements and impacts to private property. Federal and state statutes regulate most aspects of mitigation for property acquisition. The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (as amended in 1987; Uniform Act) regulates procedures for providing replacement housing and business relocation assistance. Provisions as required under the Uniform Act would be implemented for all business and residential displacements, and for real property acquisitions. All property owners would be compensated at fair market value, and relocation assistance would be provided in accordance with the Uniform Act. Residential relocation benefits are based on the characteristics of individual properties and usually include replacement housing for owners and renters, moving costs, and assistance in locating replacement housing. Relocation benefits for businesses can include moving costs, site search expenses, and business reestablishment expenses. Relocation efforts for displaced residents, businesses, and public services for this project would generally be focused on relocation within the same neighborhood, when possible, to minimize impacts associated with relocation.

Sales listings for residential properties are an indication of the potential for finding viable relocation sites for displaced residents. Analysis of sales listings recognizes the unique character of potential residential displacements. More sales listings indicate a greater potential for relocating a displaced resident to a comparable location. A snapshot survey of current condominium listings was conducted in November 2009. (Condominiums were researched because the Build alternatives would impact at least one condominium, but no single-family detached units would be displaced.) At that time, there were 26 condominium units listed in the 97202 zip code and 53 units listed in the 97214 zip code (inner southeast Portland zip codes), ranging in price from $100,000 to $835,000. Riverfront condominiums were also available outside southeast Portland, including in Lake Oswego and in the Johns Landing and South Waterfront areas of southwest Portland. Based upon this analysis, a reasonable inventory of replacement residential properties is available. According to Multiple Listing Service data, the monthly supply of housing (total inventory/ monthly sales) was 7.6 months in September 2009. The Sellwood Building is typical of available lease inventory in the metropolitan area. Therefore, a reasonable inventory of replacement business units is also available, and alternative lease space is available within the parameters of the affected rental unit. Where existing access points to properties would be closed, new access points (and driveway extensions, when necessary), would be provided.

Alternative-specific Impacts
The following information identifies direct and indirect impacts unique to each Build alternative. Impacts to publicly owned land, such as parks and recreational trails, are included in the total amount of right-of-way acquired, but are not described in detail in this section. See Section 3.9

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-59

Right -of- Way a nd Relocat ion Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

(Parks and Recreation) and the Final Section 4(f) Evaluation for a complete discussion of impacts to park and recreational resources. Figure 3.3-2 illustrates tax lots impacted by any of the Build alternatives. Table 3.3-1 summarizes tax lot impacts (in acres) by Build alternative. This table illustrates the acreage of land acquisition only. For building displacements, see Figures 3.3-3 through 3.3-7. Alternative A Direct Impacts. Alternative A would permanently acquire approximately 10.5 acres of land area. Displacements that would occur under Alternative A, including those common to all Build alternatives, are shown on Figure 3.3-3. Acquired residences:  One condominium unit in River Park. One residential condominium unit in this
FIGURE 3.3-2

49-unit condominium complex would be demolished and displaced. Other direct impacts:  River Park. The acquisition of one residential condominium unit in this 49-unit condominium complex would necessitate the reconstruction of the remaining adjacent condominium unit and common areas. Fourteen parking spaces under the existing bridge would be displaced during construction. There is adequate parking in the area to accommodate the displacement of these parking spaces during construction. After construction, these parking spaces would be restored either at or near their existing location.

Impacted Tax Lots

3-60

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Right -of- Way a nd Relocat ion Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

TABLE 3.3-1

Tax Lot Impacts (in acres) by Build Alternative
Reference Number (Figure 3.3-2) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Owner (Public Property) or Use (Private Property) TriMet City of Portland City of Portland City of Portland City of Portland TriMet City of Portland TriMet ODOT Staff Jennings Property Staff Jennings Property ODOT City of Portland City of Portland City of Portland TriMet City of Portland River View Cemetery River View Cemetery River View Cemetery River View Cemetery City of Portland River Park Center River Park Condominiums Sellwood Harbor Condominiums Metro City of Portland Sellwood Building Metro Grand Place Brinsfield Boat Basin Riverside Corral Brinsfield Boat Basin Brinsfield Boat Basin Total Alternative (in acres) B with Temporary Detour Bridge 0.04 0.09 0.21 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.46 2.23 0.07 0.19 0.11 0.03 0.03 2.01 0.13 0.21 0.02 0.96 2.44 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.15 0.00 0.00 10.8 D Refined (Pref. Alt.) 0.03 0.13 0.00 0.14 0.04 0.04 0.00 1.51 0.07 0.19 0.09 0.03 0.06 0.96 0.13 0.21 0.01 1.55 2.28 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.20 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.04 8.9

A 0.04 0.00 0.21 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.93 2.23 0.07 0.19 0.11 0.03 0.02 1.40 0.13 0.21 0.02 0.96 2.44 0.00 0.19 0.38 0.01 0.18 0.24 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.5

B 0.04 0.09 0.21 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.46 2.23 0.07 0.19 0.11 0.03 0.02 1.98 0.13 0.21 0.02 0.96 2.44 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.5

C 0.03 0.08 0.19 0.01 0.00 0.09 1.44 2.34 0.07 0.19 1.31 0.03 0.08 1.31 0.07 0.11 0.01 0.59 1.36 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 10.8

D 0.04 0.09 0.21 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.46 2.23 0.07 0.19 0.11 0.03 0.02 1.94 0.13 0.21 0.02 0.97 2.44 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.03 10.7

E 0.06 0.10 0.27 0.13 0.07 0.11 1.16 2.22 0.07 0.19 0.82 0.03 0.02 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.79 1.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.02 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.52 0.10 0.13 0.19 0.08 0.00 0.00 11.6

Notes: Bold italicized numbers indicate full acquisition of the tax lot. Impacts are based on current design and subject to change.

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-61

Right -of- Way a nd Relocat ion Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

Staff Jennings Property. Access from OR 43 would be modified. A roadway would diverge from the new River View Cemetery access and would pass under OR 43 south of the roundabout to provide access to the Staff Jennings property and Powers Marine Park. The upper parking lot and sign would be displaced. One boathouse (a boat garage) and related docks located beneath the proposed bike/pedestrian bridge could potentially require relocation. Parks and Recreational Facilities. Approximately 4.3 acres would be acquired (see Section 3.9, Parks and Recreation, for more information). The piers for the bicycle/pedestrian bridge would permanently displace approximately 10 parking spaces in the Sellwood Riverfront Park parking lot.

River View Cemetery Approximately 3.6 acres would be acquired. Access from OR 43 would be modified, with possible proximity issues related to the Superintendent’s House. Parking and circulation to the Superintendent’s House would also be modified; 8 out of 12 parking spaces would be displaced. After construction, these parking spaces would be restored on-site in the immediate vicinity of the Superintendent’s House.

Alternative B Direct Impacts. Alternative B would permanently acquire approximately 10.5 acres of land area. Displacements that would occur under Alternative B, including those common to all Build alternatives, are shown on Figure 3.3-4.

FIGURE 3.3-3

Alternative A Right-Of-Way Impacts

3-62

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Right -of- Way a nd Relocat ion Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

Acquired residences:  One condominium in River Park. One residential condominium unit in this 49-unit condominium complex would be demolished and displaced. Other direct impacts:  River Park. The acquisition of one residential condominium unit in this 49-unit condominium complex would necessitate the reconstruction of the remaining adjacent condominium unit and common areas. In addition, 14 parking spaces under the existing bridge would be displaced during construction. There is adequate parking in the area to accommodate the displacement of these parking spaces during construction. After construction, these parking spaces would be restored either at or near their existing location.
FIGURE 3.3-4

Sellwood Harbor. There would be the loss of some common-element landscaping, fencing, and site improvements, potentially impacting the remaining residential units and/or common area. Staff Jennings Property. Access from OR 43 would be modified. A roadway would diverge from the new River View Cemetery access and would pass under OR 43 south of the roundabout to provide access to the Staff Jennings property and Powers Marine Park. The upper parking lot and sign would be displaced. Parks and Recreational Facilities. Approximately 3.9 acres would be acquired (see Section 3.9, Parks and Recreation, for more information). River View Cemetery. Approximately 3.6 acres would be acquired. Access from OR 43 would be modified, with possible proximity issues related to the Superintendent’s House. Parking and

Alternative B Right-of-Way Impacts

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-63

Right -of- Way a nd Relocat ion Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

circulation to the Superintendent’s House would also be modified; 8 out of 12 parking spaces would be displaced. After construction, these parking spaces would be restored on-site in the immediate vicinity of the Superintendent’s House. Temporary Detour Bridge Option An additional 0.3 acre would be temporarily acquired for approximately 3 years for the temporary detour bridge. The temporary acquisition would necessitate the removal of the Riverside Corral (32 employees) and the portion of Brinsfield Boat Basin north of SE Tacoma Street. Because Brinsfield Boat Basin is located north and south of SE Tacoma Street, it is anticipated that Brinsfield Boat Basin could continue to operate on a reduced level. Upon project completion, the land acquired for the temporary detour bridge would be available for redevelopment.
FIGURE 3.3-5

Alternative C Direct Impacts. Alternative C would permanently acquire approximately 10.8 acres of land area. Displacements that would occur under Alternative C, including those common to all Build alternatives, are shown on Figure 3.3-5. Acquired businesses:  Staff Jennings Property. The entire Staff Jennings property would be displaced. The existing boat launch adjacent to the Staff Jennings property would be closed; however, alternative facilities are available at the nearby Willamette Park. Acquired residences:  One condominium in River Park. One residential condominium unit in this 49-unit condominium complex would be demolished and displaced.

Alternative C Right-of-Way Impacts

3-64

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Right -of- Way a nd Relocat ion Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

Other direct impacts:  Brinsfield Boat Basin. One metal-clad storage building and surface parking area would be displaced for the portion of the business on the south side of SE Tacoma Street because of the loop from SE Tacoma Street under the bridge via SE Grand Avenue. This would reduce the size of this block and, therefore, the amount of land that could be developed in the future. The existing access from SE 6th Avenue would be maintained. Because Brinsfield Boat Basin is located north and south of SE Tacoma Street, it is anticipated that Brinsfield Boat Basin could continue to operate on a reduced level.  River Park. The acquisition of one residential condominium unit in this 49-unit condominium complex would necessitate the reconstruction of the remaining adjacent condominium unit and common areas. Fourteen parking spaces under the existing bridge would be displaced during construction. There is adequate parking in the area to accommodate the displacement of these parking spaces during construction. After construction, these parking spaces would be restored either at or near their existing location. Sellwood Harbor. There would be the loss of some common element landscaping, fencing, and site improvements, potentially impacting the remaining residential units and/or common area. Parks and Recreational Facilities. Approximately 4.3 acres would be acquired (see Section 3.9, Parks and Recreation, for more information). Willamette Shoreline Trolley and Future Streetcar. The curvature of the tracks of the Alternative C realignment would reduce the operating speed and

could make locating a future streetcar station in the area difficult.  River View Cemetery. Approximately 2.1 acres would be acquired. Access from OR 43 would be eliminated. Access from SW Taylors Ferry Road would be maintained, but the route to the Superintendent’s House would be circuitous.

Indirect impacts:  One boathouse would be displaced. No moorage facilities could currently accommodate this floating structure on the Willamette River, and it likely would require relocation to the Columbia River or Multnomah Channel.  The existing boat launch adjacent to the Staff Jennings property would be closed; however, alternative facilities are available at the nearby Willamette Park. The owners of River View Cemetery indicate that they would move the funeral home business located in the Superintendent’s House to another location if access from OR 43 was no longer available.

Alternative D Direct Impacts. Alternative D would permanently acquire approximately 10.7 acres of land area. Displacements that would occur under Alternative D, including those common to all alternatives, are depicted on Figure 3.3-6. Acquired residences:  Sellwood Harbor. Four condominium units in this 39-unit condominium complex would be demolished and displaced.  River Park. One residential condominium unit in this 49-unit condominium complex would be demolished and displaced.

Other direct impacts:  River Park. The acquisition of one residential condominium unit in this 49-unit condominium complex would necessitate

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-65

Right -of- Way a nd Relocat ion Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

FIGURE 3.3-6

Alternative D Right-of-Way Impacts

the reconstruction of the remaining adjacent condominium unit and common areas. Fourteen parking spaces under the existing bridge would be displaced during construction. There is adequate parking in the area to accommodate the displacement of these parking spaces during construction. After construction, these parking spaces would be restored either at or near their existing location.

site improvements, potentially impacting the remaining residential units and/or common area.  Staff Jennings Property. Access from OR 43 would be modified. A roadway would diverge from the new River View Cemetery access and would pass under OR 43 south of the west-side interchange to provide access to the Staff Jennings property and Powers Marine Park. The upper parking lot and sign would be displaced. Parks and Recreational Facilities. Approximately 3.7 acres would be acquired (see Section 3.9, Parks and Recreation, for more information). River View Cemetery. Approximately 3.6 acres would be acquired. Access from

Sellwood Harbor. The acquisition of four condominium units in this 39-unit condominium complex would necessitate the reconstruction of the remaining adjacent condominium units and common areas. There would be the loss of some common-element landscaping, fencing, and

3-66

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Right -of- Way a nd Relocat ion Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

OR 43 would be modified, with possible proximity issues related to the Superintendent’s House. Parking and circulation to the Superintendent’s House would also be modified; 8 out of 12 parking spaces would be displaced. After construction, these parking spaces would be restored on-site in the immediate vicinity of the Superintendent’s House. Alternative E Direct Impacts. Alternative E would permanently acquire approximately 11.6 acres of land area. Displacements that would occur under Alternative E, including those common to all Build alternatives, are shown on Figure 3.3-7. Acquired businesses:  Thirty-seven businesses in the River Park Center. The three-story professional office building of nearly 50,000 square feet of rentable area would be demolished and displaced. The viability of all 37 businesses (186 employees total) is not dependent on their specific locations.  Two vacant office spaces in Grand Place. The vacant complex that includes the potential for two or more office spaces would be demolished and displaced. 

bridge structure. Access from OR 43 would be modified. A roadway would diverge from the new River View Cemetery access point and would pass under OR 43, south of the west-side interchange, to provide access to the Staff Jennings property and Powers Marine Park. Land area available on the Staff Jennings property would be reduced. The upper parking lot and sign would be displaced. Brinsfield Boat Basin. The portion of Brinsfield Boat Basin north of SE Tacoma Street would be displaced. Because Brinsfield Boat Basin is located north and south of SE Tacoma Street, it is anticipated that Brinsfield Boat Basin could continue to operate on a reduced level. Parks and Recreational Facilities. Approximately 3.8 acres would be acquired (see Section 3.9, Parks and Recreation, for more information). River View Cemetery. Approximately 3.4 acres would be acquired. Access from OR 43 would be modified, with possible proximity issues related to the Superintendent’s House. Parking and circulation to the Superintendent’s House would also be modified; 8 out of 12 parking spaces would be displaced. After construction, these parking spaces would be restored in the immediate vicinity of the Superintendent’s House.

Acquired residences:  Six residential units in Grand Place. This mixed-use office/condominium complex would be demolished and displaced. The complex includes six residential units. Other direct impacts:  Staff Jennings Property. The new bridge would cross over the Staff Jennings property and would include the north paved parking and boat storage area. The primary buildings would remain intact, as would the floating structures. It is assumed that easement reservations would allow continued surface use beneath the new

Mitigation. The River Park Center is typical of available office lease inventory in the metropolitan area. Therefore, a reasonable inventory of replacement business units is also available, and alternative lease space is available within the parameters of the affected rental unit.

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-67

Right -of- Way a nd Relocat ion Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

Alternative D Refined (Preferred Alternative) Direct Impacts. Alternative D Refined would permanently acquire approximately 8.9 acres of land area. Displacements that would occur under Alternative D Refined, including those common to all Build alternatives, are depicted on Figure 3.3-8. Acquired residences:  Sellwood Harbor. Four condominium units in this 39-unit condominium complex would be demolished and displaced.  River Park. One residential condominium unit in this 49-unit condominium complex would be demolished and displaced.

Other direct impacts:  Sellwood Harbor. The acquisition of four condominium units in this 39-unit condominium complex would necessitate the reconstruction of the remaining adjacent condominium units and common areas. Some common-element landscaping, fencing, and site improvements would be lost, potentially impacting the remaining residential units and/or common areas.  River Park. The acquisition of one residential condominium unit in this 49-unit condominium complex would necessitate the reconstruction of the remaining adjacent condominium unit and common areas. Fourteen parking spaces under the existing bridge would be displaced during construction. There is adequate parking in the area to accommodate the displacement

FIGURE 3.3-7

Alternative E Right-of-Way Impacts

3-68

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Right -of- Way a nd Relocat ion Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

of these parking spaces during construction. After construction, these parking spaces would be restored either at or near their existing location.  Staff Jennings Property. Access from OR 43 would be modified. A roadway would diverge from the west-side signalized intersection. It would pass under OR 43 south of the west-side interchange, providing access to the Staff Jennings property and Powers Marine Park. The upper parking lot and sign would be displaced. Parks and Recreational Facilities. Approximately 1.4 acres would be acquired and converted to transportation right-ofway (see Section 3.9, Parks and Recreation, for more information).

River View Cemetery. Approximately 4.0 acres would be acquired. Access from OR 43 would be modified. Parking and circulation to the Superintendent’s House would also be modified; 8 out of 12 parking spaces would be displaced. After construction, these parking spaces would be restored on-site in the immediate vicinity of the Superintendent’s House.

FIGURE 3.3-8

Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Right-of-Way Impacts

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-69

Right -of- Way a nd Relocat ion Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

3.3.4

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Right-ofWay Impact

TABLE 3.3-2

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Right-of-Way Impact Impact Type Total Right-of-Way Acquired (acres) Park and Recreational Facilities (acres) River View Cemetery (acres) Residential Properties Displaced Business Units Displaced No Build 0 0 0 0 0 A 10.5 4.3 3.6 1 9 B 10.5 3.9 3.6 1 9 B/TD B 10.8 3.9 3.6 1 10 C 10.8 4.3 2.1 1 10 D 10.7 3.7 3.6 5 9 E 11.6 3.8 3.4 6 48 D Refined 8.9 1.4 4.0 5 9

B/TDB = Alternative B with temporary detour bridge

3-70

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Utilities Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

3.4
3.4.1

Utilities
Affected Environment

Utilities Summary Temporary utility impacts would occur during construction from the relocation and rerouting of utilities. All impacted utilities would be replaced, reconstructed, or realigned. Utility relocation costs of the Build alternatives would range between $2.87 and $4.60 million.

Relocation of utilities in urban areas can be a major project expense. Several utilities exist within the study area. The following companies or agencies have utilities in the study area:      NW Natural City of Portland Bureau of Water Works Portland Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) Portland General Electric (PGE) City of Portland Signals and Street Lighting Division   

Comcast Cable Communication Management, LLC Qwest Local Network Electric Lightwave

FIGURE 3.4-1

Existing Utilities

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-71

Utilities Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ron ment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

Existing utilities of note within the study area, which are illustrated on Figure 3.4-1, include:  There are several gas mains along the street network on the east bank, including smaller (1- to 2-inch) service lines serving properties off the gas mains. Limited gas service exists on the west bank. Large sections of water mains on the east and west banks of the Willamette River, and one 30-inch main on the bottom of the river, north of the existing Sellwood Bridge alignment. West of the river, two large water lines (16 to 24 inches and 36 inches) are parallel to OR 43 north and south of the existing Sellwood Bridge interchange. East of the river, there is a 36-inch water main under SE Spokane Street. Smaller service lines measuring less than 10 inches complete the distribution network, supplying water to area homes and businesses. A sanitary sewer network along SE Spokane Street, SE Tacoma Street, SE Tenino Street, and SE Grand Avenue. A large network of transmission and distribution lines, such as power poles, street lights, and large transmission towers and poles. A fiber-optic communications line running north-south on OR 43 on the west bank of the Willamette River. Aerial fiber-optic lines running north-south on OR 43 as far south as the Sellwood Bridge, which then go underground to the east through the existing interchange and attach to the Sellwood Bridge to cross the Willamette River. On the east bank, the lines become aerial again and follow SE Spokane Street.

replaced. Utility relocation is estimated at $140,000.
3.4.3

Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences

Impacts and Mitigation Common to All Build Alternatives
Direct Impacts. Most of the utilities on the west bank of the Willamette River would be impacted by all Build alternatives. On the east side, the intersection of SE Tacoma Street and SE 6th Avenue would be the area most commonly impacted. All utilities attached to the existing Sellwood Bridge would be removed during construction. Temporary utility impacts would occur during construction from the relocation and rerouting of utilities. Indirect Impacts. No indirect impacts have been identified. Mitigation. Multnomah County would replace, reconstruct, or realign impacted utilities. The extent of the impacts would be determined when more detailed design becomes available.

Alternative-specific Impacts
Alternative A Most of the existing west-bank utilities are centered on the existing alignment of OR 43. Therefore, long stretches of these pipes and lines are included in the cost estimates as relocations. On the east side, impacts would primarily be limited to SE Tacoma Street. Utility relocation is estimated at $2.87 million. Alternative B Most of the existing west-bank utilities are centered on the existing alignment of OR 43. Therefore, long stretches of these pipes and lines are included in the cost estimates as relocations. On the east side, impacts would primarily be limited to SE Tacoma Street. Utility relocation is estimated at $3.20 million.

3.4.2

No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences

The No Build Alternative would impact utilities on the west bridge approach that would be

3-72

Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt

Utilities Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

Temporary Detour Bridge Option

Including the temporary detour bridge in Alternative B would impact most of the utilities along SE Spokane Street. These utilities include a large gas main and the 30-inch water main under SE Spokane Street. Additionally, the temporary detour bridge alignment would coincide with a 30-inch water main as it crosses the river. This main would be costly to replace because of its location and the environmental implications related to relocating a pipe buried in the river bottom. Utility relocation is estimated at $1.40 million just for the temporary detour bridge. Alternative C Most of the existing west-bank utilities are centered on the existing alignment of OR 43. Therefore, long stretches of these pipes and lines are included in the cost estimates as relocations. On the east side, impacts would primarily be limited to SE Tacoma Street. Variations in utility impacts for Alternative C compared to those with Alternatives A, B (without the temporary detour bridge), D, and D Refined can be attributed to the design loop access to SE Grand Avenue and SE Oaks Park Way from the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection. A series of sanitary sewer pipes would need to be relocated because the loop access would dive to underpass the Sellwood Bridge structure. Other Build alternatives would not have as large an impact on east-bank sanitary sewer pipes. Utility relocation is estimated at $3.19 million.

Alternative D Most of the existing west-bank utilities are centered on the existing alignment of OR 43. Therefore, long stretches of these pipes and lines are included in the cost estimates as relocations. On the east side, impacts would primarily be limited to SE Tacoma Street. Utility relocation is estimated at $3.28 million. Alternative E Alternative E would cross multiple utility lines on SE Spokane Street. The impact would be less severe than Alternative B with the temporary detour bridge because Alternative E would cross these lines at a steep angle, as opposed to running directly parallel with them. Though the bridge alignment for Alternative E would not match the existing alignment, utilities along SE Tacoma Street would still be impacted because the existing bridge would be removed. Utility relocation is estimated at $3.61 million. Alternative D Refined (Preferred Alternative) Most of the existing west-bank utilities are centered on the existing alignment of OR 43. Therefore, long stretches of these pipes and lines are included in the cost estimates as relocations for Alternative D Refined. On the east side, impacts would primarily be limited to SE Tacoma Street. Utility relocation is estimated at $3.28 million.
3.4.4

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Utilities Impact

TABLE 3.4-1

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Utilities Impact Impact Type Utility Relocation Cost (millions) No Build $0.14 A $2.87 B $3.20 B/TDB $4.60 C $3.19 D $3.28 E $3.61 D Refined $3.28

B/TDB = Alternative B with temporary detour bridge

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-73

Land Use Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

3.5
3.5.1

Land Use
Affected Environment

Land Use Summary All Build alternatives would require a Greenway and Environmental overlay zone permits; otherwise, Build alternatives are generally in compliance with applicable land use plans. Exceptions are the three-lane bridge cross-section in Alternative C (not consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan) and the alignment of Alternative E (not consistent with the view corridor preservation in the Willamette Greenway Plan). None of the Build alternatives is anticipated to have an adverse effect on the amount of land-use supply for any zoning or comprehensive plan land-use category.

Land use on the east side of the Willamette River in the study area is a mix of single- and multifamily residences along with small neighborhood commercial stores, smaller-scale office uses, condominium developments along the riverfront, and recreational parks and open spaces. Land use on the west side of the Willamette River in the study area is mostly parks and protected open space; this protected open space includes the approximately 265-acre River View Cemetery, which forms the western boundary of the study area. A notable exception is the Staff Jennings property, which is located just north of the bridgehead. The existing conditions figure in Chapter 1 (Figure 1.2-2) illustrates existing land uses. Generalized land uses are shown on Figure 3.5-1.

plan for the City of Portland. This plan guides the future growth and development of the city. An element of the Comprehensive Plan is the Comprehensive Plan Map (City of Portland, 2007b), which identifies desired land uses for the City of Portland. Title 33 of Portland’s Code and Charter governs planning and zoning. Title 33 (the zoning code) is the major implementation tool of the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The zoning code must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Map designations. Portland’s zoning code includes both base zoning districts and overlay zoning districts. All land in the city has a base zone, which means it has been designated for commercial, residential, open space, or industrial land uses. Overlay zones, which are present in areas of special value to the city, include

Land-use Plans, Policies, and Regulations
Adopted land-use plans, policies, and zoning regulations serve as management strategies that enable communities to function effectively and grow efficiently and prosperously. An integral part of these management strategies is the transportation system and how it functions to serve desired land uses. The City of Portland Comprehensive Plan (City of Portland, 2006) is the current adopted land-use

Comprehensive Plans
3-74

A comprehensive plan is a generalized, coordinated land-use map and policy statement that shows how the land should be developed for residential, commercial, industrial, and public uses. It interrelates all functional and natural systems and activities relating to the use of lands, including, but not limited to, sewer and water systems, transportation systems, educational facilities, recreational facilities, and management programs for natural resources, air quality, and water quality. The City of Portland Comprehensive Plan (City of Portland, 2006) includes a set of goals, policies, and objectives that apply to the entire city. Similar goals, policies, and objectives in neighborhood and community plans that apply to only parts of the city are also part of the Comprehensive Plan. The plan includes a list of significant public works projects and a set of mapped features. These features include land-use designations, street classifications, the city limits, and the urban service boundary.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Land Use Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

additional land-use regulations. Figure 3.5-2 illustrates the location of Greenway and Environmental overlay zones. Table 3.5-1 provides the zoning districts (base and overlay) in the study area. The official zoning maps in the study area were compared to the Comprehensive Plan Map (City of Portland, 2007b). There are no deviations in general land use in the study area between the zoning map and the Comprehensive Plan Map. The Sellwood Bridge project’s roadway and bridge improvements are allowable uses in all base zones present in the study area. However, there are regulations for construction or development activity in the Greenway and Environmental overlay zones. Table 3.5-2 lists the other land-use regulations, plans, and guidance documents that establish the
FIGURE 3.5-1

framework for local land use and are applicable to this project. Any improvements to the Sellwood Bridge under the No Build Alternative or Build alternatives would need to be consistent with these regulations, plans, and guidance documents. Three of these plans have particular relevance for the Sellwood Bridge project: South Willamette River Crossing Study (Metro, 1999), Regional Transportation Plan (RTP; Metro, 2004), and Tacoma Main Street Plan (City of Portland, 2001). In May 1999, Metro made recommendations for the South Willamette River Crossing Study, which included the Sellwood Bridge. The study, initiated by Metro’s Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation, identified needed improvements for cars, transit, bikes, and pedestrian traffic crossing the Willamette River between southeast

Generalized Land Uses

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-75

Land Use Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

Portland and Oregon City. One study recommendation was to preserve the existing Sellwood Bridge or replace it as a two-lane bridge with better service for bicyclists and pedestrians. Metro’s 2004 RTP is a 20-year blueprint for the Portland metropolitan region’s transportation system and an adopted “Functional Plan” integrated into the Regional Framework Plan (Metro, 2005). The 2004 RTP includes the South Willamette River Crossing Study (Metro, 1999) recommendation for the Sellwood Bridge. The project is listed as Project 1012 on the 2004 RTP list of financially constrained projects for the RTP program years 2004 to 2009. The RTP is currently being updated, and its adoption is anticipated in June 2010. Completed in 2001, the City of Portland’s Tacoma Main Street Plan was developed to implement the vision of a multi-modal, neighborhood-oriented street in the SellwoodFIGURE 3.5-2

Moreland neighborhood. A basic assumption carried into the planning process (according to recommendations from the South Willamette River Crossing Study [Metro, 1999]) was that providing adequate regional traffic capacity in the Sellwood Bridge/SE Tacoma Street travelshed is not the responsibility of SE Tacoma Street. The plan supports “regional efforts to carry out the recommendations of the South Willamette River Crossing Study that reduce travel demand on the Sellwood Bridge.” Action items to meet this recommendation include mitigating traffic growth on SE Tacoma Street, increasing transit services, increasing motor vehicle capacity on appropriate regional facilities “in order to direct traffic away from areas of conflict with land use goals,” and supporting “improvements to the west end of the Sellwood Bridge that mitigate congestion impacts.”

Greenway and Environmental Overlay Zones

3-76

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Land Use Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

3.5.2

No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences

TABLE 3.5-1

Zoning Districts (Base Zones and Overlay Zones) in the Study Area Symbol Base Zones Commercial (COM on Figure 3.5-1) CG CM CS EG2 EX2 OS R1 R2 RH R2.5 R5 R10 RF General Commercial Mixed Commercial/Residential Storefront Commercial General Employment 2 Central Employment Open Space Residential 1,000 Residential 2,000 High-Density Residential Residential 2,500 Residential 5,000 Residential 10,000 Residential Farm/Forest Zoning District Name

Under the No Build Alternative, existing travel patterns in the project area would be maintained and no land would be acquired. The Sellwood neighborhood would likely retain its appeal for residential land uses. The No Build Alternative would not be consistent with either the City of Portland Transportation System Plan (2004, updated in 2007) or the Metro Regional Transportation Plan (2004), both of which recommend rehabilitating or replacing the existing Sellwood Bridge.
3.5.3

General Employment (GE on Figure 3.5-1)

Open Space (OS on Figure 3.5-1) Multi-Dwelling Residential (MDR on Figure 3.5-1)

Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences

Impacts and Mitigation Common to All Build Alternatives
Direct Impacts. The Build alternatives would: • • Convert existing and future land uses to transportation right-of-way. Affect commercial, residential, and open space lands, which lie within the Willamette Greenway, Environmental, Design, and Scenic overlay zones. Have no adverse impact on the land use in existing base zones, the existing land-use supply, or the future land-use supply of any respective zoning or Comprehensive Plan (City of Portland, 2006) land-use category. Require Type II Greenway and Environmental Permits from the City of Portland because the Build alternative improvements are located within the Greenway and Environmental overlay zones. Current alternative designs are not detailed enough to determine the outcome of these permitting processes.

Single-Family Residential (SFR on Figure 3.5-1)

Overlay Zones Greenway Overlay Zones (Figure 3.5-2) g q r c p d a s River General River Water Quality River Recreational Environmental Conservation Environmental Preservation Design Alternative Design Density Scenic

Environmental Overlay Zones (Figure 3.5-2)

Other Overlay Zones

Source: City of Portland Code, Title 33.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-77

Land Use Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

Depending on the zoning at the site and the uses or developments that are proposed, a project may or may not require a land-use review. Land-use reviews are required when the zoning code "triggers" a review for a specific use or development project. Regulations directing a proposal to a land-use review can be found in the base zones, overlay zones, plan districts, and other sections of the zoning code, as well as within conditions of approval from past landuse approvals at the site. Most review "triggers" are located in the zoning code chapter that addresses a particular topic. There are five types of land-use reviews: Types I, II, IIx, III, and IV. The assignment of a particular procedure type (I through IV) is usually done in the City of Portland Zoning Code chapter that establishes the review. Type I, II, and IIx reviews are made administratively by Bureau of Development Services staff. Type III and IV reviews involve a public hearing before the decision is made.

Indirect Impacts. The Build alternatives would have similar indirect impacts, including the following: • Any transportation improvement has the potential to increase the market appeal of the local area, thereby increasing demand for new commercial spaces or residences. In turn, this increased demand could influence land-use (zoning) decision-making to allow more intense uses. In the Sellwood area, a substantial amount of development can occur under current zoning that would be consistent with adopted plans and policies. This intensification of existing land uses would most likely occur along the SE Tacoma Street and SE 13th Avenue corridors. More people may choose to live in the area as a result of improved transit, bicyclist, and pedestrian conditions, thereby prompting the construction of new living units. Transit-oriented land-use development in the Sellwood and OR 43 corridor areas could increase as a result of the resumption of bus service across the bridge. A positive effect on existing neighborhood commercial land uses in Sellwood could result from increased “walk-by” traffic. The increase in pedestrian activity would be expected to result from a population increase associated with denser land-use development and an increase in people walking to and from bus stops along SE Tacoma Street associated with the resumption of transit service.

City of Portland Land-Use Reviews

Require an Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development Goal 15 (Willamette River Greenway) Exception. Require a Map Amendment to the City of Portland Comprehensive Plan (City of Portland, 2006) because the project would require fill within the greenway setback. Require a Type II Historic Design Review from the City of Portland. Current alternative designs are not detailed enough to determine the outcome of this review. Require an access deviation from ODOT; Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) Chapter 734, Division 51, access management spacing standards, would not be met on OR 43 north and south of the Sellwood Bridge.

3-78

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Land Use Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

TABLE 3.5-2

Applicable Land-Use Regulations, Plans, and Guidance Documents City of Portland Bicycle Master Plan City of Portland Comprehensive Plan Corbett-Terwilliger-Lair Hill Policy Plan Freight Master Plan Parks 2020 Vision Pedestrian Master Plan Scenic Resources Protection Plan Sellwood-Moreland Neighborhood Plan Metro 2040 Growth Plan Regional Framework Plan Multnomah County Bicycle Master Plan ODOT Oregon Transportation Plan State of Oregon Statewide Planning Goals Oregon Highway Plan Regional Transportation Plan South Willamette River Crossing Study Southwest Community Plan Tacoma Main Street Plan Transportation System Plan Willamette Greenway Plan and River Plan Willamette River Bridges Accessibility Project Willamette River Concept Plan Zoning Code

Improved truck access would allow more efficient servicing of existing residential and commercial land uses. Although the increased number of delivery trucks across the bridge could also have a negative effect on residential and commercial land uses by degrading the pedestrian environment, this route is not expected to become an attractive through route for very large cargo trucks. The increased truck usage on the bridge is expected to support delivery of goods and services to the local area.

actions to offset impacts to public parks and trails in the study area in coordination with Portland Parks & Recreation, Portland Bureau of Environmental Services, and Metro. (See Section 3.9, Parks and Recreation, and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation for details.)

Alternative-specific Impacts and Mitigation
Alternative A Table 3.5-3 summarizes land-use impacts for Alternative A. It is anticipated that Alternative A would be in compliance with applicable policies, goals, and objectives of the relevant land-use regulations, plans, and guidance documents listed in Table 3.5-2. Alternative B Table 3.5-3 summarizes land-use impacts for Alternative B. It is anticipated that Alternative B (with and without the temporary detour bridge) would be in compliance with applicable policies, goals, and objectives of the relevant land-use

Mitigation. The Build alternatives would require real property purchase for construction and access management. Existing private property would be converted to transportation use, which would necessitate compensation and relocation assistance to affected property owners, as described in Section 3.3, Right-of-Way and Relocation. Access to all private properties would be provided during and following construction. Multnomah County would implement mitigation

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-79

Land Use Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

regulations, plans, and guidance documents listed in Table 3.5-2. Alternative C Table 3.5-3 summarizes land-use impacts for Alternative C. Alternative C would be inconsistent with the South Willamette River Crossing Study (Metro, 1999) and the RTP because the bridge would have three vehicular travel lanes, rather than the two lanes specified in these documents. It is anticipated that Alternative C would be in compliance with other applicable policies, goals, and objectives of the relevant land-use regulations, plans, and guidance documents listed in Table 3.5-2. Alternative D Table 3.5-3 summarizes land-use impacts for Alternative D. It is anticipated that Alternative D would be in compliance with applicable policies, goals, and objectives of the relevant land-use regulations, plans, and guidance documents listed in Table 3.5-2. Alternative E Table 3.5-3 summarizes land-use impacts for Alternative E. The Willamette Greenway Plan (City

of Portland, 1987) identifies a “View Corridor” westward on SE Spokane Street, toward the Willamette River. The plan states this view must be preserved. Alternative E would be inconsistent with the plan because the bridge structure would cross SE Spokane Street, impacting this view corridor. It is anticipated that Alternative E would be in compliance with other applicable policies, goals, and objectives of the relevant land-use regulations, plans, and guidance documents listed in Table 3.5-2. Alternative D Refined (Preferred Alternative) Table 3.5-3 summarizes land-use impacts for Alternative D Refined. It is anticipated that Alternative D Refined would be in compliance with applicable policies, goals, and objectives of the relevant land-use regulations, plans, and guidance documents listed in Table 3.5-2.
3.5.4

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Land-use Impact

3-80

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Land Use Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

TABLE 3.5-3

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Land-use Impact Impacts on Land-use Zoning Types No Build Zone Open Space (OS) Commercial (CG, CM, CS) Multi-Dwelling Residential (RH) Environmental Overlay (c, p) Greenway Overlay (g, q, r) Impact 0 0 0 0 0 Compliant D Refined A B and B/TDB C D E (Preferred Alt.) Impact % of Impact % of Impact % of Impact % of Impact % of Impact % of (acres) Supply a (acres) Supply a (acres) Supply a (acres) Supply a (acres) Supply a (acres) Supply a 7.9 2.5 0.3 4.3 7.0 2.3 3.0 <1 NA NA 8.3 2.1b 0.4 4.3 6.9 2.4 2.6 b <1 NA NA 6.5 3.9 0.4 3.9 8.6 1.9 4.7 <1 NA NA 8.2 1.8 0.6 4.4 7.0 2.4 2.2 <1 NA NA 7.1 3.9 0 4.9 7.4 2.1 4.8 <1 NA NA 6.9 1.4 0.6 2.8 4.9 2.0 1.7 <1 NA NA

Compliance with Applicable Land-use Documents Compliant pending Greenway and Environmental review/ permitting Compliant pending Greenway and Environmental review/ permitting Not compliant with South Willamette River Crossing Study and Regional Transportation Plan; compliant pending Greenway and Environmental review/permitting Compliant pending Greenway and Environmental review/ permitting Not compliant with Willamette Greenway Plan; compliant pending Greenway and Environmental review/ permitting Compliant pending Greenway and Environmental review/permitting

a

b

In the Sellwood Bridge project area of potential effect. 2.1 acres would be impacted under Alternative B with the temporary detour bridge, which would be 2.6 percent of commercial land supply in the Sellwood Bridge project area of potential effect. B/TDB = Alternative B with Temporary Detour Bridge NA = not applicable (percent of zone type relates to the finite amount of land available for particular types of development; overlay zones provide protection for development within the zone)

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-81

Economic Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

3.6
3.6.1

Economic
Affected Environment

Economic Summary During construction, adverse economic impacts of the Build alternatives would include residential and business displacements resulting from right-of-way acquisition and construction-related delays, detours, dust, and noise. If no river crossing were provided during construction, those who would normally use the bridge would incur extensive travel time and vehicle operation costs, and economic activity at Sellwood businesses would be reduced. After construction, the area would expect economic benefits because the structural integrity of the bridge would ensure its longterm operation and improved accessibility for trucks, buses, pedestrians, and bicyclists.

The economic analysis focuses on a study area that encompasses the few businesses on the west side of the bridge and the core of the Sellwood commercial district on the east side. During fiscal year 2004-2005, approximately 93 businesses with 859 employees were located in the economic analysis study area. On the west side of the study area, shown on Figure 3.6-1, there are two businesses: a funeral home in the Superintendent’s House at River View Cemetery and the Staff Jennings property. Access for the entrance and parking for River View Cemetery, including the funeral home, is through an intersection with OR 43, south of the existing bridge. The Staff Jennings property, located just north of the bridge and on the
FIGURE 3.6-1

Willamette River, provided boat sales, servicing, and fueling, but closed in March 2010. There is limited commercial development along OR 43 until the intersection with SW Taylors Ferry Road to the north and Lake Oswego to the south, features that are outside the study area. The eastern portion of the study area is illustrated on Figure 3.6-2. SE Tacoma Street is the primary east-west local and regional through-fare in this area. This roadway is primarily lined with commercial properties, most of which are located at and near the major intersections (at SE 13th Avenue and SE 17th Avenue). Heavy rush-hour traffic passes through the commercial district on SE Tacoma Street in the morning traveling westbound (toward the bridge) and in the afternoon traveling eastbound (from the bridge). Currently, about 30,000 vehicles cross the Sellwood Bridge each weekday. The majority (52 percent) of these trips are between Clackamas County and Portland; Sellwood is neither the origin nor the destination for those trips.

West-side Economic Analysis Study Area

3-82

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Economic Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

The primary north-south through-fares are SE Milwaukie Avenue, SE 13th Avenue, and SE 17th Avenue. Coffee shops, restaurants, and taverns line these commercial streets and serve as neighborhood gathering places, as well as dining destinations for visitors from outside the neighborhood. An established regional antique district is concentrated on SE 13th Avenue. Home furnishing stores, boutiques, and a sportswear factory outlet also serve local residents and visitors. The only grocery store in the study area is located on SE Tacoma Street near SE 13th Avenue. These businesses serve needs of nearby residents on the east and west sides of the Willamette River; customers from outside the area on both sides of the river who have targeted particular businesses for shopping or dining; and pass-by customers who use the Sellwood Bridge en route to destinations outside Sellwood. In transportation studies, businesses are typically designated in two categories—those whose customers primarily take advantage of their
FIGURE 3.6-2

services because they are passing by on trips to other locations (“pass-by” businesses) and those whose customers specifically plan trips to their locations (“destination” businesses). Because SE Tacoma Street is a regional commuting route for so many people, and these commuting people pass by businesses along SE Tacoma Street with great frequency, distinguishing among these business types is difficult. It is likely that many patrons of businesses in the Sellwood area originally visited the businesses because they were passing by, but later began to plan stops at them. Regardless of the category of shoppers they attract, both types of businesses in this area rely on accessibility from SE Tacoma Street for nearly all customers from the west side of the river and for all customers who are using the businesses as a convenience on their trips through the area. Visibility and accessibility are important factors in maintenance of customer bases.

East-side Economic Analysis Study Area

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-83

Economic Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

3.6.2

No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences

The bridge would be closed to bicycle, pedestrian, and motorized vehicular traffic for 6 to 8 months for maintenance activities. This closure would create out-of-direction travel for all users of the bridge, increasing travel time. To quantify a portion of these costs, increases in travel time and vehicle operating costs were calculated for motorized vehicle users. Costs were considered for the 2-hour morning and 2-hour evening peak periods during the closure period. Operating costs were considered to include fuel, oil, routine maintenance, vehicle depreciation, insurance, taxes, and licenses. These costs not only would accrue to Sellwood Bridge users, but also to other travelers on routes with increased congestion caused by absorption of the Sellwood Bridge detour traffic. Total increased travel time and operating costs for motorized vehicle users in weekday morning and evening peak hours during bridge closure under the No Build Alternative are estimated at $19.1 million in 2008 dollars. (For more information, see Sellwood Bridge Project Economic Technical Report [ECONorthwest, 2008; updated 2010].) Closure of the bridge for maintenance activities would also impact businesses in the Sellwood area because customers traveling to and from travel markets served by the Sellwood Bridge in Portland and in Clackamas and Washington counties would be rerouted to other river crossings. Businesses would lose the visibility to pass-by customers, as well as accessibility to other customers on the west side of the river, which could significantly affect those businesses. The high percentage of traffic that travels through the area creates a high level of exposure to passby traffic for these businesses. Loss of business revenue was calculated based on the location of businesses in three tiers—those visible from SE Tacoma Street between SE Grand Avenue and SE 17th Avenue; businesses not

visible from SE Tacoma Street but within one block north or south and seven blocks north on SE 13th Avenue; and businesses located between one and two blocks north or south of SE Tacoma Street. Businesses visible and immediately accessible from SE Tacoma Street were expected to suffer the greatest losses. Within each tier, ranges of the income loss to owners and employees were projected. Combined owner and employee income losses associated with bridge closure for the No Build Alternative are estimated to range from $1.9 million to $4.9 million (in 2005 dollars) over the 6- to 8-month period in the economic analysis study area (Figures 3.6-1 and 3.6-2). However, owner and employee income losses associated with bridge closure would also extend beyond this area along OR 43 north of the Sellwood Bridge on the west side (in the Johns Landing area), and in the Sellwood/Moreland neighborhood beyond the east-side economic analysis study area. (For a more detailed explanation of the impact analysis methodology, see the Sellwood Bridge Project Economic Technical Report [ECONorthwest, 2008; updated 2010].) Although outside the Sellwood commercial center, business operations at Oaks Amusement Park, a regional recreation destination, would also be adversely affected by bridge closure during construction, especially during summer months. The 10-ton weight limit on the Sellwood Bridge would remain in place under the No Build Alternative, which would preclude buses and trucks weighing more than 10 tons from crossing the bridge. The weight limit would continue to cause minor freight delivery costs from out-ofdirection travel and a minor loss of customers who would have used transit to access and shop in the Sellwood area. Significant economic impacts from continued weight restrictions would not be expected. If the bridge were permanently closed for safety reasons after the 20-year life of the No Build

3-84

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Economic Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

Alternative, property values in the Sellwood neighborhood could decrease because of the lack of nearby river crossings and the likely decline of the vibrant neighborhood commercial district that depends partially on the pass-by commuter traffic. The reduced accessibility of the Sellwood neighborhood would likely reduce the attractiveness of operating or locating a business there. These negative impacts to local businesses would be expected to occur in the long term.
3.6.3

decrease during construction because of construction activity noise, debris, and traffic. This condition would be expected to reverse itself following project completion. • Operations on the Oregon Pacific Railroad would be suspended for short periods during construction of the east approaches to the bridge. Loss of revenue could result. The Willamette Shoreline Trolley tracks on the west side of the Willamette River would be expected to be closed during construction. Loss of revenue would result if the bridge closure occurred during the summer months when the trolley was in service.

Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences

Impacts and Mitigation Common to All Build Alternatives
Direct Impacts. Right-of-way acquisition impacts are discussed in Section 3.3, Right-ofWay and Relocation, including business relocations and physical impacts to properties (such as changes to access and parking). Those impacts do not account for economic impacts associated with short- and long-term reduction in business income associated with these physical changes. Direct economic impacts beyond rightof-way acquisition common to the Build alternatives would include: • Displacement of the nine businesses (30 employees total) in the Sellwood Building would cause loss of business income associated with reestablishing the businesses in new locations. These businesses are not location-dependent; therefore, impacts are not expected to be long term. The businesses would be expected to continue to be viable in new locations. The 30 jobs in this building are professional-type jobs. The loss of 30 jobs from this specific location could impact service-oriented businesses in Sellwood if the displaced businesses did not relocate in the Sellwood area. Property values of the residential units located just north and south of the east end of the existing bridge would potentially

Indirect Impacts. During construction, detours and delays could temporarily decrease residential property values and reduce customer activity at local businesses in the Sellwood neighborhood. After construction, indirect impacts would include the following: • Increased freight accessibility on a rehabilitated or new bridge would make deliveries more efficient for local businesses and could reduce delivery shipping costs. Although the increased number of delivery trucks across the bridge and on SE Tacoma Street could also have a negative effect on local businesses by degrading the pedestrian environment, this route is not expected to become an attractive through route for very large cargo trucks. The increased truck usage on the bridge is expected to support delivery of goods and services to the local area. Improved safety and mobility for pedestrian and bicyclist traffic on the new bicyclist and pedestrian facilities are expected to greatly increase bicyclist and pedestrian usage in the area. More bicyclist and pedestrian use would likely increase the customer base for local businesses. Reintroduction of bus service across the bridge would increase pedestrian traffic on

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-85

Economic Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

SE Tacoma Street. More pedestrians would potentially benefit business activity in the Sellwood commercial center.

Alternative-specific Impacts
Alternative A Direct Impacts. In addition to impacts described in Section 3.3, Right-of-Way and Relocation, the following direct impacts would occur under Alternative A: • Displacement of the nine businesses (30 employees total) in the Sellwood Building would cause loss of business income associated with reestablishing the businesses in new locations. These businesses are not location-dependent; therefore, impacts are not expected to be long term. The businesses would be expected to continue to be viable in new locations. The 30 jobs in this building are professional-type jobs. The loss of 30 jobs from this specific location could impact service-oriented businesses in Sellwood if the displaced businesses did not relocate in the Sellwood area. The bridge would be closed to bicycle, pedestrian, and motorized vehicular traffic for 24 months during construction. This closure would create out-of-direction travel for all users of the bridge, causing travel time increases. The travel delays and associated operating costs not only would accrue to Sellwood Bridge users, but also to other travelers on routes with increased congestion caused by absorption of the Sellwood Bridge detour traffic. The total increased travel time and operating costs for motorized vehicle users in weekday morning and evening peak hours during bridge closure under Alternative A are estimated at $63.3 million in 2008 dollars. (For more information, see Sellwood Bridge Project Economic Technical Report [ECONorthwest, 2008; updated 2010].)

Closure of the bridge during construction would impact businesses in the Sellwood commercial center because customers traveling to and from travel markets served by the Sellwood Bridge in Portland and in Clackamas and Washington counties would be rerouted to other river crossings. Businesses would lose their visibility to pass-by customers, as well as accessibility to customers on the west side of the river, which could significantly affect those businesses. Combined owner and employee income losses associated with bridge closure for Alternative A are estimated to range from $3.8 million to $9.8 million (in 2005 dollars) over the 24-month period in the economic analysis study area (Figures 3.6-1 and 3.6-2). However, owner and employee income losses associated with bridge closure would also extend beyond this area along OR 43 north of the Sellwood Bridge on the west side (in the Johns Landing area), and in the Sellwood/Moreland neighborhood beyond the east-side economic analysis study area. (For more information, see the Sellwood Bridge Project Economic Technical Report [ECONorthwest, 2008; updated 2010].) Although outside the Sellwood commercial center, business operations at Oaks Amusement Park would be adversely affected by bridge closure during construction, especially during summer months. Reconstruction of the displaced River Park Condominiums unit and the common area adjacent to the displaced River Park unit could decrease property values of other River Park units during construction. Displacement of common-area landscaping and site improvements in the River Park and Sellwood Harbor condominiums that would be incorporated into the right-of-way could decrease the property values of the condominiums.

3-86

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Economic Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

Alternative B Direct Impacts. In addition to impacts described in Section 3.3, Right-of-Way and Relocation, the following direct impacts would occur under Alternative B: • Displacement of the nine businesses (30 employees total) in the Sellwood Building would cause loss of business income associated with reestablishing the businesses in new locations. These businesses are not location-dependent; therefore, impacts are not expected to be long term. The businesses would be expected to continue to be viable in new locations. The 30 jobs in this building are professional-type jobs. The loss of 30 jobs from this specific location could impact service-oriented businesses in Sellwood if the displaced businesses did not relocate in the Sellwood area. Without construction of the temporary detour bridge, the bridge would be closed to bicycle, pedestrian, and motorized vehicular traffic for 24 months during construction. This closure would create out-of-direction travel for all users of the bridge, causing travel time increases. These costs not only would accrue to Sellwood Bridge users, but also to other travelers on routes with increased congestion caused by absorption of the Sellwood Bridge detour traffic. The total increased travel time and operating costs for motorized vehicle users in weekday morning and evening peak hours during bridge closure under Alternative B are estimated at $63.3 million in 2008 dollars. (For more information, see Sellwood Bridge Project Economic Technical Report [ECONorthwest, 2008; updated 2010].) Although outside the Sellwood commercial center, business operations at Oaks Amusement Park would be adversely affected by bridge closure during construction, especially during summer months, if no temporary detour bridge were provided.

Without the temporary detour bridge option, closure of the bridge during construction would impact businesses in the Sellwood area because customers traveling to and from travel markets served by the Sellwood Bridge in Portland and in Clackamas and Washington counties would be rerouted to other river crossings. Businesses would lose visibility to pass-by customers, as well as access to customers on the west side of the river, which could significantly affect those businesses. Combined owner and employee income losses associated with bridge closure for Alternative B are estimated to range from $3.8 million to $9.8 million (in 2005 dollars) over the 24-month period in the economic analysis study area (Figures 3.6-1 and 3.6-2). However, owner and employee income losses associated with bridge closure would also extend beyond this area along OR 43 north of the Sellwood Bridge on the west side (in the Johns Landing area), and in the Sellwood/Moreland neighborhood beyond the east-side economic analysis study area. (For more information, see the Sellwood Bridge Project Economic Technical Report [ECONorthwest, 2008; updated 2010].) Displacement of the River Park condominium unit could increase homeowner association fees for remaining River Park owners because the homeowner association costs would be divided among fewer units. Reconstruction of the displaced River Park condominium unit and the common area adjacent to the displaced River Park unit could decrease property values of other River Park units during construction. Displacement of common-area landscaping and site improvements in the River Park and Sellwood Harbor condominiums that would be incorporated into the right-of-way could decrease the property values of the condominiums.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-87

Economic Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

Temporary Detour Bridge Option The temporary detour bridge would maintain access to businesses during construction, eliminating impacts associated with increased travel and vehicle operating costs and adverse economic impacts to businesses from loss of customer access and visibility. In addition to the impacts associated with Alternative B described previously, and the temporary detour bridge impacts described in Section 3.3, Right-of-Way and Relocation, the following direct impacts would occur: • Displacement of the Riverside Corral business (nine employees) would cause loss of business income associated with reestablishing the business in a new location. This business is not location-dependent; therefore, impacts are not expected to be long term. The business would be expected to continue to be viable in new locations. The nine jobs at Riverside Corral are serviceoriented jobs. The loss of nine jobs from this specific location could impact other serviceoriented businesses in Sellwood if the displaced business did not relocate in the Sellwood area. The portion of the Brinsfield Boat Basin north of SE Tacoma Street displaced during construction would temporarily reduce business operations, but the portion of the business on the south side of SE Tacoma Street could continue operation. The land on the north side would be available for redevelopment following the completion of construction.

associated with reestablishing the businesses in new locations. These businesses are not location-dependent; therefore, impacts are not expected to be long term. The businesses would be expected to continue to be viable in new locations. The 30 jobs in this building are professional-type jobs. The loss of 30 jobs from this specific location could impact service-oriented businesses in Sellwood if the displaced businesses did not relocate in the Sellwood area. • The bridge would be closed to bicycle, pedestrian, and motorized vehicular traffic for 42 months during construction. This closure would create out-of-direction travel for all users of the bridge, causing travel time increases. The travel delays and associated operating costs not only would accrue to Sellwood Bridge users, but also to other travelers on routes with increased congestion caused by absorption of the Sellwood Bridge detour traffic. The total increased travel time and operating costs for motorized vehicle users in weekday morning and evening peak hours during bridge closure under Alternative C are estimated at $110.8 million in 2008 dollars. (For more information, see Sellwood Bridge Project Economic Technical Report [ECONorthwest, 2008; updated 2010].) Closure of the bridge during construction would impact businesses in the Sellwood commercial center because customers traveling to and from travel markets served by the Sellwood Bridge in Portland and in Clackamas and Washington counties would be rerouted to other river crossings. Businesses would lose their visibility to pass-by customers, as well as accessibility to customers on the west side of the river, which could significantly affect those businesses. Combined owner and employee income losses associated with bridge closure for Alternative C are estimated to range from $6.7 million to $17.0 million (in 2005

Alternative C Direct Impacts. In addition to impacts described in Section 3.3, Right-of-Way and Relocation, the following direct impacts would occur under Alternative C: • Displacement of the nine businesses (30 employees total) in the Sellwood Building would cause loss of business income

3-88

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Economic Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

dollars) over the 42-month period in the economic analysis study area (Figures 3.6-1 and 3.6-2). However, owner and employee income losses associated with bridge closure would also extend beyond this area along OR 43 north of the Sellwood Bridge on the west side (in the Johns Landing area), and in the Sellwood/Moreland neighborhood beyond the east-side economic analysis study area. (For more information, see the Sellwood Bridge Project Economic Technical Report [ECONorthwest, 2008; updated 2010].) • Although outside the Sellwood commercial center, business operations at Oaks Amusement Park would be adversely affected by bridge closure during construction, especially during summer months. Access to the River View Cemetery Superintendent’s House (funeral home) would be eliminated from OR 43. All clients and employees would access the cemetery from SW Taylors Ferry Road and drive a circuitous route through the cemetery to the funeral home. This access modification could impact the operational feasibility of the business. The River View Cemetery owners have indicated they would relocate the funeral home if access from OR 43 were closed. Displacement of one residential unit in River Park could increase homeowner association fees for remaining River Park owners because the homeowner association costs would be divided among fewer units. Reconstruction of the displaced River Park condominium unit and the common area adjacent to the displaced River Park unit could decrease property values of other River Park units during construction. Displacement of common-area landscaping and site improvements in the River Park and Sellwood Harbor condominiums that would be incorporated into the right-of-way could

decrease the property values of the condominiums. • The curved alignment of the relocated Willamette Shoreline Trolley tracks under Alternative C would reduce operating speed and make planned station location difficult.

Alternative D Direct Impacts. In addition to impacts described in Section 3.3, Right-of-Way and Relocation, the following direct impacts would occur under Alternative D: • Displacement of the nine businesses (30 employees total) in the Sellwood Building would cause loss of business income associated with reestablishing the businesses in new locations. These businesses are not location-dependent; therefore, impacts are not expected to be long term. The businesses would be expected to continue to be viable in new locations. The 30 jobs in this building are professional-type jobs. The loss of 30 jobs from this specific location could impact service-oriented businesses in Sellwood if the displaced businesses did not relocate in the Sellwood area. The staged construction of the new bridge would allow for river crossing during construction, but traffic access across the bridge would be periodically affected by interim closures to replace the existing bridge and construct the new bridge. Displacement of one residential unit in River Park could increase homeowner association fees for remaining River Park owners because the homeowner association costs would be divided among fewer units. Reconstruction of the displaced River Park and Sellwood Harbor condominium units and the common area adjacent to the displaced River Park and Sellwood Harbor condominium units could decrease property

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-89

Economic Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

values of other units in those condominium communities during construction. • Displacement of common-area landscaping and site improvements in the River Park and Sellwood Harbor condominiums that would be incorporated into the right-of-way could decrease the property values of the condominiums.

• •

Two vacant office spaces in Grand Place would be displaced. The staged construction of the new bridge would allow for river crossing during construction. Despite permanent displacement of the portion of Brinsfield Boat Basin north of SE Tacoma Street, it is anticipated that Brinsfield Boat Basin could continue to operate on a reduced level. Operations would be consolidated on the portion of the business property south of SE Tacoma Street.

Alternative E Direct Impacts. In addition to impacts described in Section 3.3, Right-of-Way and Relocation, the following direct impacts would occur under Alternative E: • Displacement of the nine businesses (30 employees total) in the Sellwood Building would cause loss of business income associated with reestablishing the businesses in new locations. These businesses are not location-dependent; therefore, impacts are not expected to be long term. The businesses would be expected to continue to be viable in new locations. The 30 jobs in this building are professional-type jobs. The loss of 30 jobs from this specific location could impact service-oriented businesses in Sellwood if the displaced businesses did not relocate in the Sellwood area. Displacement of the 37 businesses (total of 186 employees) in the River Park Center office building would cause loss of business income associated with reestablishing the businesses in new locations. These businesses are not location-dependent; therefore, impacts are not expected to be long term. The businesses would be expected to continue to be viable in new locations. The 186 jobs in this building are professional-type jobs. The loss of 186 jobs from this specific location could impact service-oriented businesses in Sellwood if the displaced businesses did not relocate in the Sellwood area.

Alternative D Refined (Preferred Alternative) Direct Impacts. In addition to impacts described in Section 3.3, Right-of-Way and Relocation, the following direct impacts would occur under Alternative D Refined: • Displacement of the nine businesses (30 employees total) in the Sellwood Building would cause loss of business income associated with reestablishing the businesses in new locations. These businesses are not location-dependent; therefore, impacts are not expected to be long term. The businesses would be expected to continue to be viable in new locations. The 30 jobs in this building are professional-type jobs. The loss of 30 jobs from this specific location could impact service-oriented businesses in Sellwood if the displaced businesses did not relocate in the Sellwood area. The staged construction of the new bridge would allow for river crossing during construction, but traffic access across the bridge would be periodically affected by interim closures to replace the existing bridge and construct the new bridge. Displacement of one residential unit in River Park could increase homeowner association fees for remaining River Park owners because

3-90

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Economic Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

the homeowner association costs would be divided among fewer units. • Reconstruction of the displaced River Park and Sellwood Harbor condominium units and the common area adjacent to the displaced River Park and Sellwood Harbor condominium units could decrease property values of other units in those condominium communities during construction. Displacement of common-area landscaping and site improvements in the River Park and Sellwood Harbor condominiums that would be incorporated into the right-of-way could decrease the property values of the condominiums.

Mitigation. Mitigation activities associated with displacements and other property acquisition impacts are described in Section 3.3, Right-ofWay and Relocation. Economic impacts would be minimized for Alternatives A, B (without temporary detour bridge), and C by maintaining traffic across the river during construction. If a river crossing were not provided during construction, access to local businesses along detour routes would be maintained and signage would be provided to direct traffic to businesses with modified access. In Alternative D, improvements to SW Taylors Ferry Road would improve the left-turn movement into the River View Cemetery. At the completion of construction, no substantial changes to the character of the commercial area are expected for any of the Build alternatives, so no mitigation would be needed.
3.6.4

Summary of Alternative-specific Impacts Indirect Impacts. Alternatives A, B (without the temporary detour bridge), and C, would eliminate pass-by traffic and access to the westside customer base for lengthy periods of bridge closures during construction. Although most businesses would likely sustain expected losses in income, others might be forced to cease operation. Business closures would be most likely under Alternative C, which has the longest construction period.

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Economic Impact

TABLE 3.6-1

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Economic Impact B with Temporary Detour Bridge
62 $356

No Build Employees Displaced Construction Costs (2012 million dollars) Construction Duration Bridge Closure Duration
0 $54

A
30 $331– $337 36 months 24 months

B
30 $326

C
46 $280

D
30 $293– $311 45–51 a months No longterm closure b

E
216 $361

D Refined (Preferred Alternative)
30 $290–$299

12 months 6–8 months

36 months 24 months

39 months No closure

42 months 42 months

36–42 a months No closure

51 months No long-term closure b

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-91

Economic Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

TABLE 3.6-1

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Economic Impact B with Temporary Detour Bridge
$0

No Build Travel Time and Vehicle Operating Cost of Bridge Closure (2008 c millions) Owner and Labor Income Losses Due to Bridge Closure (2005 millions)d
a

A
$63.3

B
$63.3

C
$110.8

D
$0

E
$0

D Refined (Preferred Alternative)
$0

$19.1

$1.9– $4.9

$3.8– $9.8

$3.8– $9.8

$0

$6.7– $17.0

$0

$0

$0

b

c

d

Construction duration varies by bridge type. In Alternative D, the construction period required for the deck-arch bridge would be longer than for the delta-frame bridge. In Alternative E, the construction period required for the through-arch bridge would be longer than for the box-girder bridge. Traffic access across the bridge would be periodically affected by interim closures to replace the existing bridge and construct the new bridge. Total increased travel time and operating costs for motorized vehicle users in weekday morning and evening peak hours during bridge closure. Details of cost calculations are provided in the Sellwood Bridge Project Economic Technical Report (ECONorthwest, 2008; updated 2010). Details of cost calculations are provided in the Sellwood Bridge Project Economic Technical Report (ECONorthwest, 2008; updated 2010).

3.6.5

Impacts of Project Financing

The long-range needs for transportation projects in the Portland metropolitan area exceed the level of federal and state funding that might reasonably be assumed to be available in the region. Local funding sources would be needed to pay for costs associated with the Sellwood Bridge project. Multnomah County has identified a preliminary financial plan to fund construction of the Sellwood Bridge project (Table 3.6-2). The following items highlight the funding sources. • Multnomah County will have approximately $11 million left over from the current project phase.

The 2009 Oregon Jobs and Transportation Act allocated $30 million to the OR 43/ Sellwood Bridge interchange. The City of Portland has shown willingness to fund $100 million of the project’s cost out of a percentage of funds allocated to the City of Portland by the 2009 Oregon Jobs and Transportation Act. Multnomah County will request $40 million as part of the reauthorization of the federal transportation legislation that governs United States federal highway and transit transportation spending. The 2009 Oregon Jobs and Transportation Act included a provision for counties to enact a vehicle registration fee for Willamette River bridge replacement, which includes the

3-92

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Economic Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

Sellwood Bridge. On October 22, 2009, Multnomah County Commissioners approved a $19 annual vehicle registration fee for the approximately 577,250 registered vehicles in Multnomah County to help replace the Sellwood Bridge. (Trucks over 26,000 pounds are excluded by state law because they pay a weight-per-mile fee.) Bond proceeds over a 20-year period would be approximately $127 million. The anticipated implementation date is fall of 2010. The fee will be in place for 20 years. • Clackamas County elected officials plan to consider enacting a smaller vehicle registration fee dedicated to replacing the Sellwood Bridge. This fee is anticipated to

fund approximately $22 million of the project’s cost. These funding sources are estimated to fund $330 million for the Sellwood Bridge. Of this funding, $168 million is secured. Another $122 million is expected to be secured in 2010. The remaining $40 million federal request is dependent on the reauthorization of the federal transportation bill. This preliminary financial plan could change as the project progresses. Before construction, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) must approve a Financial Plan for the project.

TABLE 3.6-2

Preliminary Financial Plan to Fund Sellwood Bridge Project Source Carry Over From Current Project Phase 2009 Oregon Jobs and Transportation Act for OR 43/Sellwood Bridge Interchange City of Portland Agreement Federal Reauthorization Request Multnomah County Vehicle Registration Fee Clackamas County Total Amount $11 million (secured) $30 million (secured) $100 million $40 million $127 million (secured) $22 million $330 million

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-93

Social Elements Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

3.7
3.7.1

Social Elements
Affected Environment

 

Social Elements Summary The racial, ethnic, and income composition of the study area would not change as a result of the No Build Alternative or any of the Build alternatives. Schools would not be affected by the No Build Alternative or any of the Build Alternatives. Bridge closures under the No Build Alternative and Alternatives A, B (with no temporary detour bridge), and C would adversely affect emergency service access and west-side access to the only grocery store in Sellwood. Noise and visual impacts would adversely affect the attractiveness of the Oaks Pioneer Church as a location for events under Alternatives A and E. Noise would negatively affect use of the church while the Alternative B temporary detour bridge was in place. Community cohesion would be affected by the choice of an east-side connection. Substantial neighborhood cut-through traffic would occur under a signalized intersection at SE 6th Avenue and SE Tacoma Street. Impacts would be less with the Grand Avenue Extension and least with no change from the existing intersection or with a bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal only. North-south accessibility would be improved with the Grand Avenue Extension.

The purpose of the social analysis is to evaluate direct and indirect community impacts associated with the No Build Alternative and the Build alternatives. Social effects of transportation projects can be substantial, and often play an important role in the quality of people’s lives. They include changes in neighborhood or community cohesion; changes in travel patterns and accessibility; and impacts to community facilities and services, such as religious institutions and emergency services. Impacts to special populations are addressed in both the social elements and environmental justice analyses. To avoid duplication, impacts to elderly and disabled persons are discussed in this section and impacts to minority and low-income persons are described in Section 3.8, Environmental Justice. Transportation projects can have effects, both positive and negative, beyond the immediate project site. The project team identified a study area that includes neighborhoods, arterials, and census tracts that could reasonably be expected to experience social impacts resulting from the Sellwood Bridge project. The study area, shown on Figure 3.7-1, is generally defined as the area
A disabled individual, as defined by the American Disabilities Act, is a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; has a record of such impairment; or is regarded as having such impairment. The U.S. Census 2000 long form asked respondents about the existence of a physical, mental, or emotional condition in household members 5 years of age and older. Respondents were asked to identify conditions lasting 6 months or more, or that made it difficult to perform certain activities, including working and leaving the home.

Disabled Individuals

between SE 17th Avenue on the east, SE Bybee Boulevard on the north, SW Taylors Ferry Road on the west, and the Portland city limits on the south.

Demographics
The study area was selected to conform to the boundaries of geographical units for which data are available. The 2000 U.S. Census provided the source for all demographic data. The most useful geographic units were Census tracts and block groups (which comprise Census tracts). The

3-94

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Social Elements Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

following items summarizes relevant 2000 Census data for the study area:   Approximately 2,300 households were occupied by 4,791 residents. Approximately 89 percent of the population in the study area were Caucasian, compared to 78 percent for the city of Portland. Approximately 9 percent of the population in the study area were elderly (65 years or older), compared to 12 percent for the city of Portland. Approximately 8 percent of households reported zero vehicles. (These households could be used as a proxy for transitdependent households.)

Approximately 25 percent of the study area population listed some form of disability, a percentage lower than those reported for the state of Oregon, Multnomah County, and the city of Portland.

Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion
Community cohesion is the quantity and quality of interaction between people in a community. Typically, residents feel connected to a community if they feel socially connected to their neighbors, neighborhood businesses, and neighborhood amenities (such as parks and schools). The feeling of social connection is encouraged by close geographic location.

FIGURE 3.7-1

Selected Social Elements

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-95

Social Elements Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

The study area is located within two cityrecognized neighborhoods: Sellwood-Moreland and South Portland (formerly CorbettTerwilliger-Lair Hill). All of the study area on the east side of the Willamette River is located within the Sellwood-Moreland neighborhood. All of the study area on the west side of the river is located within the South Portland neighborhood. Community Cohesion

Community cohesion refers to the quantity and quality of interaction between people in a community.

Sellwood-Moreland Neighborhood The Sellwood Bridge is a gateway to the Sellwood-Moreland neighborhood. Sellwood Moreland Improvement League (SMILE) is the city-recognized neighborhood association for this area. The boundaries of the Sellwood-Moreland neighborhood are OR 99E (SE McLoughlin Boulevard) on the north and east, Portland city limits on the south, and the Willamette River on the west. The parks and undeveloped land along the east bank of the Willamette River give character to the area and are important neighborhood features. North of the Sellwood Bridge, a large portion of the Willamette River’s edge is devoted to Sellwood Riverfront Park. Other occupants along the river are moorages, Oaks Amusement Park, Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge, and residential and commercial properties. The Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge, which is approximately 160 acres, is predominately a floodplain wetland system consisting of several vegetation communities. South of the Sellwood Bridge, condominium buildings and moorages primarily occupy the Willamette River’s edge. The open spaces along the Willamette River contribute to the neighborhood’s identity and character and are integral locations for social interaction. The grid street network of the SellwoodMoreland neighborhood allows for maximum connectivity and accessibility between

neighborhood areas, which increases social connection and interaction among neighborhood residents. SE Tacoma Street is the primary eastwest local and regional through-fare. It is primarily lined with commercial properties, most of which are located at or near the major intersections (at SE 13th Avenue and SE 17th Avenue) within the study area. The only grocery store in the study area, New Seasons Market Sellwood, is located on SE Tacoma Street near 13th Avenue and serves the needs of local customers on the east and west sides of the Willamette River, as well as pass-by customers who use the Sellwood Bridge en route to destinations outside Sellwood. The improvements implemented as part of the recommendations of the Tacoma Main Street Plan (City of Portland, 2001) have enhanced pedestrian mobility and accessibility on SE Tacoma Street. Bicycle boulevards are located on SE Spokane Street and SE Umatilla Street, east-west aligned streets north and south of SE Tacoma Street. These and other east-west aligned streets are local streets that provide access to residential areas. The primary north-south through-fares (SE Milwaukie Avenue, SE 13th Avenue, and SE 17th Avenue) are important for social interaction and contribute to neighborhood identity, character, and livability. Coffee shops, restaurants, taverns, and antique emporiums line these commercial streets and serve as neighborhood gathering places, as well as shopping and dining destinations for visitors from outside the neighborhood. An established regional antique district is concentrated on SE 13th Avenue, but recent additions to the district have been introduced near the intersection of SE Bybee Boulevard and SE Milwaukie Avenue. The other north-south aligned streets are local streets that provide access to residential areas. The east side of the study area is dominated by properties with single-family detached homes. Most of these homes were built prior to 1930. Home styles vary from Victorian to ranch, but

3-96

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Social Elements Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

infill development within the neighborhood is replacing some of the smaller, less-valued housing units. Through restoration and renovation, the neighborhood retains its historic housing; infill housing is generally compatible with the older housing stock. Sellwood-Moreland retains its status as a popular Portland neighborhood for the quality of its housing and well-established residential neighborhood streets. The River Park and Sellwood Harbor condominium developments are located along the Willamette River immediately north and south of the Sellwood Bridge. Moorages are also located along the Willamette River, including the Oregon Yacht Club, which is located in the extreme northern portion of the study area on the Willamette River next to Oaks Amusement Park, with access provided at the terminus of SE Oaks Park Way. The Sellwood-Moreland Neighborhood Plan (City of Portland, 1998) provides policy guidance for the neighborhood. The plan’s policy topics include neighborhood character and identity, form and urban design, river edge, SE Tacoma Street, pedestrian-oriented commercial areas, residential areas, environment and green spaces, and transportation. South Portland Neighborhood The South Portland Neighborhood is the cityrecognized neighborhood association for the area south of downtown along the Willamette River. The South Portland neighborhood boundaries are approximately from I-405 and the Marquam Bridge on the north to SW Canby Street and Butterfly Park in the south. The Willamette River is the eastern boundary, and SW Barbur

Boulevard forms most of the western boundary. Only a small segment of the South Portland neighborhood is inside the study area. The neighborhood, formerly known as CorbettTerwilliger-Lair Hill, changed its name in September 2006 to be more concise and inclusive. South Portland was the name of a 19th century community that overlapped the presentday neighborhood. The South Portland neighborhood includes many smaller neighborhoods within its boundaries, including Lair Hill, South Waterfront, Corbett, Johns Landing, Terwilliger, and Fulton. The portion of the study area within the South Portland neighborhood is limited to a few industrial uses immediately east of OR 43 and single-family residential uses near the Willamette River further east of OR 43. Willamette Park, Butterfly Park, Willamette Moorage Park, and a portion of River View Cemetery are located in the southern and eastern portions of the South Portland neighborhood.

Community Features and Events
Figure 3.7-1 illustrates selected community features within the study area. Table 3.7-1 describes these neighborhood features. Parks and other recreational resources are discussed in Section 3.9, Parks and Recreation. Emergency and Medical Services The City of Portland provides police and fire protection to all areas within the study area. Figure 3.7-2 illustrates street sections inside the study area classified as Emergency Response Streets in the City of Portland Transportation System Plan (2004, updated in 2007).

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-97

Social Elements Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

TABLE 3.7-1

Selected Social Elements Element School Facilities Sellwood Middle School 8300 SE 15th Avenue Saint Agatha Catholic School 7960 SE 15th Avenue Sellwood Middle School is a Portland public school. The school was built in 1914 and serves students in the 6th through 8th grades. The Archdiocese of Portland’s Department of Catholic Schools administers Saint Agatha Catholic School. The school opened in 1912, but the original school building was replaced by a new building in 2003. The school serves students in kindergarten through 8th grade. Description

Religious Institutions Oaks Pioneer Church 455 SE Spokane Street Immanuel Lutheran Church 7810 SE 15th Avenue Calvary Open Bible Church 901 SE Spokane Street Saint Agatha Catholic Church 7960 SE 15th Avenue Sellwood Baptist Church 1104 SE Spokane Street Sellwood United Methodist Church 1422 SE Tacoma Street Public Library Sellwood-Moreland Neighborhood Library 7860 SE 13th Avenue Part of the Multnomah County Library system, Sellwood-Moreland Neighborhood Library users have access to Multnomah County Library's system-wide catalog of 2 million books and other library materials. The library has a meeting room with a 20-person capacity for community meetings and events. This nondenominational church is owned and operated by the SellwoodMoreland Improvement League. For more information on this church, see Section 3.10, Archaeological and Historic Resources. Denomination is Lutheran. Nondenominational. Denomination is Catholic. Denomination is Baptist. Denomination is Methodist.

Post Office Sellwood-Moreland Branch 6723 SE 16th Avenue Community Facilities Sellwood Community Center 1436 SE Spokane Street The Sellwood Community Center includes an indoor basketball court, a community center, a gymnasium, a meeting room, a party room, a playground, and a wedding site. Originally constructed as a residential hotel for the men who worked in the old Sellwood Log Mill, it became the first branch of the YMCA in 1910. The City of Portland purchased the facility in 1920 as its second community center. Most of the original architecture has been preserved. The Sellwood-Moreland branch of the U.S. Post Office is located within the study area.

3-98

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Social Elements Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

TABLE 3.7-1

Selected Social Elements Element SMILE Station 8210 SE 13th Avenue Description The headquarters of the Sellwood-Moreland Improvement League; monthly neighborhood association meetings are held in this building. The converted 1926 firehouse is available for meetings, workshops, wedding receptions, and other events. Operated by the Boys & Girls Clubs of Portland Metropolitan Area, the Meyer Memorial Club offers summer and after-school activities and programs for children and teens. The club has an art room, a gym, a game room, a learning center, and a teen center.

Meyer Memorial Boys & Girls Club 7119 SE Milwaukie Avenue

Grocery Stores Sellwood New Seasons Market 1214 SE Tacoma Street New Seasons Market provides its customers with local and organic food, as well as more commonly available food products. Grocery store access is important to a community’s sense of place, because the grocery store is often a busy community hub. It is also important to food security, especially in the event of a catastrophic emergency. The store relies partially on pass-by trips on SE Tacoma Street for patrons and serves a significant number of residents directly west of Sellwood Bridge in South Portland.

Cemeteries River View Cemetery River View Cemetery encompasses most of the study area on the west side of the Willamette River. Established in 1882, River View Cemetery is the oldest not-for-profit cemetery in the Portland area. It is owned and operated by the River View Cemetery Association and is governed by a volunteer Board of Trustees. Because of its age and the origins of its establishment in the early 1880s, the cemetery contains the remains of persons who are considered important in the history, politics, and social landscape of Portland in the late 19th century. For more information on River View Cemetery and its historic significance, see Section 3.10, Archaeological and Historic Resources.

Community River-based Major Events Sellwood Bridge Vicinity No major river-based events occur on the Willamette River within the vicinity of the Sellwood Bridge. Fireworks displays for the 4th of July and New Year’s Eve on the river attract a few viewers in boats within the Sellwood Bridge vicinity, but the majority of viewers stay farther north of the bridge vicinity. Major events occurring within the study area parks are listed in Section 3.9, Parks and Recreation.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-99

Social Elements Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

FIGURE 3.7-2

Transit and Emergency Vehicle Routes

The study area falls within two precincts of the Portland Police Bureau—the Central Precinct and the Southeast Precinct. The study area west of the Willamette River is entirely located in District 890 of the Central Precinct. The study area east of the Willamette River is entirely located in District 762 of the Southeast Precinct. No police facilities are located in the study area. Police departments at 4735 E Burnside Street and 1111 SW 2nd Avenue are the two facilities closest to the study area. The Portland Fire, Rescue, and Emergency Services Bureau provides fire suppression and prevention services within the study area. The department also offers regional hazardous material emergency response, special rescue, and community outreach. The study area is split between two fire and rescue districts (battalions).

Fire Station 10 (Battalion 1), the Burlingame Station at 451 SW Taylors Ferry Road, is located within the study area, and responds to the portion of the study area west of the Willamette River. Fire Station 20 (Battalion 2), the Sellwood/Moreland Station at 2235 SE Bybee Boulevard, is located outside the study area, but responds to the portion of the study area east of the Willamette River. The use of the Sellwood Bridge by fire apparatus is greatly limited. While ambulances can use the bridge, fire engines may use the bridge for emergency response only, with speeds restricted to 15 miles per hour. Other fire apparatus, including fire trucks, are unable to use the bridge due to weight restrictions. This significantly increases response times for multiple-unit responses, including residential fires, commercial

3-100

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Social Elements Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

fires, major gas incidents, hazardous materials incidents, or specialty rescues. City of Portland Fire and Rescue operates three fireboats and two rescue boats that respond to fires, vessels in distress, water rescues, navigational hazards, and environmental concerns. The City of Portland Harbormaster reports that fireboats make four to five weekly trips through the Willamette River within the vicinity of the Sellwood Bridge. The largest of the fireboats measures 20 feet from the vertical waterline to the top of the vessel.

Medical Facilities
No major medical facilities are located within the study area. The nearest hospitals are Providence Milwaukie and Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU). Providence Milwaukie is south of the study area, at 10150 SE 32nd Avenue in Milwaukie. OHSU is located at 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, north of the study area. The Sellwood Bridge via OR 99E (SE McLoughlin Boulevard) and SE Tacoma Street is a primary route for emergency vehicles en route to OHSU. OHSU relies heavily on OR 43 as an emergency route to its services. OR 43 is the main roadway access from Milwaukie, West Linn, Gladstone, and other points south of OHSU. The OR 43 route provides emergency response vehicles with two lanes in each direction north of the Dunthorpe area, which allows traffic to pull over and yield to ambulances. OHSU employees also depend on the Sellwood Bridge and OR 43 for work access. Because of topography constraints, parking is severely limited at OHSU—only 2,000 parking spaces serve visitors, services, and the 12,800 employees. Lack of transit and safe, comfortable bicycle and pedestrian crossing conditions at the Sellwood Bridge are currently negative factors for OHSU employees. OR 43 allows access to SW Moody Avenue, where OHSU has its newest facilities and has plans for expansion.

Providence Milwaukie hospital provides emergency, ambulatory surgery, geriatric, maternity, transfusion, rehabilitation, and sleep study services, among others. Providence Milwaukie hospital relies on OR 43 and the Sellwood Bridge for delivery of supplies. The hospital provided patient data aggregated at the zip code level for 2007. These data provide a snapshot of patients who were treated at Providence Milwaukie in 2007, but do not necessarily predict future utilization of the hospital. Approximately 0.6 percent of total Providence Milwaukie patients treated in 2007 resided in zip codes west of the Sellwood Bridge.
3.7.2

No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences

Impacts that would occur under the No Build Alternative are shown in Table 3.7-2. To avoid redundancy, these impacts are limited to those not described in other sections (that is, 3.1 Transportation, 3.3 Right-of-Way and Relocation, 3.5 Land Use, 3.6 Economic, 3.9 Parks and Recreation, 3.11 Visual Resources, and 3.19 Noise).
3.7.3

Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences

Impacts and Mitigation Common to All Build Alternatives
Direct Impacts. The direct social impacts common to the Build alternatives are illustrated in Table 3.7-3. To avoid redundancy, these impacts are limited to those not described in other sections (that is, 3.1 Transportation, 3.3 Right-of-Way and Relocation, 3.5 Land Use, 3.6 Economic, 3.9 Parks and Recreation, 3.11 Visual Resources, and 3.19 Noise).

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-101

Social Elements Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

TABLE 3.7-2

Social Impacts under the No Build Alternative Factor Neighborhood demographics Community cohesion Emergency services Impact Racial, ethnic, and income composition of the study area would not be expected to change. Community cohesion would not be affected. Bridge closure for maintenance activities (6 to 8 months) would negatively impact emergency service routes, especially in the event of a catastrophic event, because no river crossing would be provided during maintenance activities. Potential temporary closure of OR 43 for maintenance activities would negatively impact transport time to OHSU, which relies on OR 43 as a major emergency route. Fire and police protection are serviced locally, so they would not be affected. Any bridge closure to all traffic in the future because of structural deficiencies would have a negative impact during a major catastrophe. Community facilities would not be affected. Schools would not be affected. Cemeteries would not be affected.

Community facilities Schools Cemeteries

TABLE 3.7-3

Direct Social Impacts Common to the Build Alternatives Element Neighborhood demographics Community cohesion Schools Impact Racial, ethnic, and income composition of the study area would not be expected to change as a result of the project. Residential and business displacements would not be expected to affect community cohesion. Schools would not be affected by the project.

Community concerns relevant to social impacts expressed during Community Task Force (CTF) meetings and at public open houses focused on a desire to develop alternatives consistent with the Tacoma Main Street Plan (City of Portland, 2001). The plan calls for SE Tacoma Street to remain a two-travel-lane facility. This concern was incorporated into the development of alternatives; consequently, none of the Build alternatives would increase the number of travel lanes on SE Tacoma Street. Other primary community concerns were to maintain the Sellwood Bridge as a lifeline route and to

minimize private property impacts as much as possible. These concerns were also integrated into the development of Build alternatives. Traffic diversion through the Sellwood neighborhood, identified as a key neighborhood concern, is discussed subsequently in relation to each alternative. Indirect Impacts. Indirect social impacts common to the Build alternatives are discussed in Section 3.5, Land Use. Key indirect impacts that would affect the social setting of the community include the potential for moderate intensification of existing land uses, increased transit-oriented

3-102

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Social Elements Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

development, and increased “walk-by” traffic for commercial enterprises in Sellwood. These impacts would stem from the reintroduction of transit and the improvement of bicycle and pedestrian facilities on the bridge. Mitigation. All Build alternatives would permanently change access locations to River View Cemetery and other park, residential, and business locations, including the potential for limitation of turning movements in and out of driveways. Mitigation measures related to rightof-way and access modifications are discussed in Section 3.3, Right-of-Way and Relocation. Potential closures of or disruption to river navigation would be communicated to emergency services personnel, including Portland Police and Fire, Multnomah County River Patrol, OHSU, Providence Milwaukie hospital, and ambulance dispatching services (such as American Medical Response and Metro West).
TABLE 3.7-4

Alternative-specific Impacts and Mitigation
Environmental consequences and mitigation for each Build alternative are summarized in the following subsections. To avoid redundancy, these impacts are limited to those not described in other sections (that is, 3.1 Transportation, 3.3 Right-of-Way and Relocation, 3.5 Land Use, 3.6 Economic, 3.9 Parks and Recreation, 3.11 Visual Resources, and 3.19 Noise). Alternative A Direct Impacts. The direct social impacts specific to Alternative A are listed in Table 3.7-4. Indirect Impacts. No alternative-specific impacts to community cohesion, emergency services, or River View Cemetery are expected. The presence of the bicycle/pedestrian bridge could diminish the appeal of Oaks Pioneer Park and Oaks Pioneer Church as a site for events.

Direct Social Impacts under Alternative A Element Community cohesion Impact The potential for cut-through traffic in the neighborhood is the same as under the No Build Alternative. Alternative A would not alleviate the existing difficulty of movement across SE Tacoma Street during peak hours. Motorized vehicles could only turn right with ease. Bicycle and pedestrian crossings of SE Tacoma Street would be difficult at all non-signalized locations. SE Tacoma Street is not expected to become an attractive through route for very large cargo trucks. Increased truck usage on the bridge is expected to support delivery of goods and services to the local area and not create a barrier affecting community cohesion. Bridge closure during construction (24 months) would negatively impact emergency service routes, especially in the case of a catastrophic event, because no river crossing would be provided during construction. Temporary closure of OR 43 during construction would negatively impact transport time to OHSU, which relies on OR 43 as a major emergency route. Fire and police protection are serviced locally, so they would not be affected. The visual presence of the bicycle/pedestrian bridge would potentially reduce the appeal of Oaks Pioneer Church as a venue for events. Closure of Sellwood Bridge during construction would negatively impact grocery store access for communities on the west side of the river. Access to River View Cemetery would be provided on a new road from the west-side interchange; access during construction would be maintained.

Emergency services

Community facilities Cemeteries

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-103

Social Elements Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

These effects could lead to an indirect negative impact to SMILE, a community-based organization that relies on revenues from functions held at Oaks Pioneer Church to carry out its programs and events, which benefit the community. Any resulting loss in revenue to SMILE could affect their ability to carry out programs and events, which would negatively affect the community. Mitigation. Construction of a temporary detour bridge would eliminate adverse impacts to emergency services and community facilities under Alternative A. Visual impacts of the bicycle/pedestrian bridge could be mitigated by planting vegetation to screen views of the bridge from the church. Alternative B Direct Impacts. The direct social impacts specific to Alternative B are listed in Table 3.7-5. Indirect Impacts. No alternative-specific indirect impacts to community cohesion, emergency services, or River View Cemetery are
TABLE 3.7-5

expected under Alternative B. Noise from the temporary detour bridge could lead to an indirect negative impact to SMILE, a communitybased organization that relies on revenues from functions held at Oaks Pioneer Church to carry out its programs and events, which benefit the community. Any resulting loss in revenue to SMILE could affect its ability to carry out programs and events, which would negatively affect the community. Mitigation. Construction of a temporary detour bridge would eliminate adverse impacts to emergency services and community facilities under Alternative B. Temporary Detour Bridge Option The direct and indirect impacts with the optional temporary detour bridge would be the same as those without the temporary detour bridge, except that access across the river for emergency services would be provided during construction.

Direct Social Impacts under Alternative B Element Community cohesion Impact The potential for cut-through traffic in the neighborhood is the same as under the No Build Alternative. Alternative B would not alleviate the existing difficulty of movement across SE Tacoma Street during peak hours. Motorized vehicles could only turn right with ease. Bicycle and pedestrian crossings of SE Tacoma Street would be difficult at all non-signalized locations. SE Tacoma Street is not expected to become an attractive through route for very large cargo trucks. Increased truck usage on the bridge is expected to support delivery of goods and services to the local area and not create a barrier affecting community cohesion. If no temporary detour bridge were provided, bridge closure during construction (24 months) would negatively impact emergency service routes, especially in the event of a catastrophic event, because no river crossing would be provided during construction. Temporary closure of OR 43 during construction would negatively impact transport time to OHSU, which relies on OR 43 as a major emergency route. Fire and police protection are served locally, so they would not be affected. The temporary detour bridge would generate adverse noise impacts to Oaks Pioneer Church that would diminish its attractiveness for events in the short term. If no temporary detour bridge were provided, bridge closure during construction would negatively impact grocery store access for communities on the west side of the river. Access to River View Cemetery would be provided on a new road from the west-side interchange; access during construction would be maintained.

Emergency services

Community facilities

Cemeteries

3-104

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Social Elements Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

Alternative C Direct Impacts. The direct social impacts specific to Alternative C are listed in Table 3.7-6. Indirect Impacts. No alternative-specific indirect impacts to community cohesion, emergency services, or community facilities are expected under Alternative C. Owners of River View Cemetery indicate they would move the funeral home (currently located in the Superintendent's House) to a new location if access from OR 43 were eliminated. Mitigation. Construction of a temporary detour bridge would eliminate adverse impacts to emergency services and community facilities under Alternative C. Access to River View Cemetery from SW Taylors Ferry Road would be improved. Alternative D Direct Impacts. The direct social impacts specific to Alternative D are listed in Table 3.7-7. Indirect Impacts. No alternative-specific indirect impacts to community cohesion,
TABLE 3.7-6

emergency services, community facilities, or cemeteries are expected under Alternative D. Mitigation. No alternative-specific mitigation is anticipated. Alternative E Direct Impacts. The direct social impacts specific to Alternative E are listed in Table 3.7-8. Indirect Impacts. Alternative E could diminish the appeal of Oaks Pioneer Park and Oaks Pioneer Church as a site for events such as memorials and wedding ceremonies because of the visual and noise impacts of a new bridge alignment (see Section 3.11, Visual Resources, and Section 3.19, Noise). These effects could lead to an indirect negative impact to SMILE, a community-based organization that relies on revenues from events held at Oaks Pioneer Church to carry out its programs and events, which benefit the community. Any resulting loss in revenue to SMILE could affect its ability to carry out other programs and events, which would negatively affect the community.

Direct Social Impacts under Alternative C Element Community cohesion Impact The SE Grand Avenue extension would moderately increase neighborhood cut-through traffic, but would improve motorized vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian access to areas north of SE Tacoma Street and west of SE 13th Avenue. For more information, see Section 3.1, Transportation. Bridge closure during construction (42 months) would negatively impact emergency service routes, especially in the event of a catastrophic event, because no river crossing would be provided during construction. Temporary closure of OR 43 during construction would negatively impact transport time to OHSU, which relies on OR 43 as a major emergency route. Fire and police protection are serviced locally, so they would not be affected. Closure of Sellwood Bridge during construction would negatively impact grocery store access for communities on the west side of the river. River View Cemetery access on OR 43 would be removed, requiring clients and employees to use a circuitous entry route to the funeral home from SW Taylors Ferry Road.

Emergency services

Community facilities Cemeteries

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-105

Social Elements Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

TABLE 3.7-7

Direct Social Impacts under Alternative D Element Community cohesion Impact Signalization of the SE Tacoma Street and SE 6th Avenue intersection would substantially increase neighborhood cut-through traffic, would not improve access to existing land uses, and would cause traffic to back up to the OR 43 interchange. The traffic signal would provide an additional protected crossing of SE Tacoma Street that would benefit bicyclists and pedestrians, especially elderly and handicapped travelers. Temporary closure of OR 43 during construction would negatively impact transport time to OHSU, which relies on OR 43 as a major emergency route. Access across the river for emergency services would be provided during construction, but traffic access across the bridge would be periodically affected by interim closures to replace the existing bridge and construct the new bridge. Access would be maintained to community facilities during construction. Access to River View Cemetery would be provided on a new road from the west-side interchange; access during construction would be maintained.

Emergency services

Community facilities Cemeteries

TABLE 3.7-8

Direct Social Impacts under Alternative E Element Community cohesion Impact Signalization of the SE Tacoma Street and SE 6th Avenue intersection would substantially increase neighborhood cut-through traffic, would not improve access to the existing land uses, and would cause traffic to back up to the OR 43 interchange. The traffic signal would provide an additional protected crossing of SE Tacoma Street that would benefit bicyclists and pedestrians, especially elderly and handicapped travelers. Temporary closure of OR 43 during construction would negatively impact transport time to OHSU, which relies on OR 43 as a major emergency route. Access across the river for emergency services would be provided during construction. Access would be maintained to community facilities during construction. Having the bridge structure adjacent to Oaks Pioneer Park would potentially impact the appeal of Oaks Pioneer Church as a venue for events. Access to River View Cemetery would be provided on a new road from the west-side interchange; access during construction would be maintained.

Emergency services

Community facilities

Cemeteries

3-106

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Social Elements Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

TABLE 3.7-9

Direct Social Impacts under Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Element Community cohesion Impact The potential for cut-through traffic in the neighborhood is the same as under the No Build Alternative. Alternative D Refined would not alleviate the existing difficulty of vehicle movement across SE Tacoma Street during peak hours. Motorized vehicles could only turn right with ease. A bicyclist/ pedestrian-activated signal at the SE Tacoma Street and SE 6th Avenue intersection would provide an additional protected crossing of SE Tacoma Street that would benefit bicyclists and pedestrians, especially elderly and handicapped travelers. SE Tacoma Street is not expected to become an attractive through route for very large cargo trucks. Increased truck usage on the bridge is expected to support delivery of goods and services to the local area and not create a barrier affecting community cohesion. Temporary closure of OR 43 during construction would negatively impact transport time to OHSU, which relies on OR 43 as a major emergency route. Access across the river for emergency services would be provided during construction, but traffic access across the bridge would be periodically affected by interim closures to replace the existing bridge and construct the new bridge. Access would be maintained to community facilities during construction. Access to River View Cemetery would be provided on a new road from the west-side interchange; access during construction would be maintained.

Emergency services

Community facilities Cemeteries

Mitigation. No mitigation measures to reduce impacts of the Alternative E bridge alignment on Oaks Pioneer Park and Oaks Pioneer Church have been identified. Alternative D Refined (Preferred Alternative) Direct Impacts. The direct social impacts specific to Alternative D Refined are listed in Table 3.7-9. Indirect Impacts. No alternative-specific indirect impacts to community cohesion,

emergency services, community facilities, or cemeteries are expected under Alternative D Refined. Mitigation. No alternative-specific mitigation is anticipated.
3.7.4

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Social Impact

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-107

Social Elements Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

TABLE 3.7-10

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Social Impact Impact
Community cohesion: increase in neighborhood cut-through traffic Community cohesion: improvement of north-south crossing of Tacoma

No Build
None to minimal

A
None to minimal

B
None to minimal

C
Minimal to moderate

D
Moderate to substantial

E
Moderate to substantial

D Refined (Preferred Alt.)
None to minimal

None

None

None

Improve motorized vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian access to areas north of SE Tacoma Street and west of SE 13th Avenue 42-month closure

Protected crossing; benefit to bicyclists and pedestrians (especially elderly and handicapped) Access periodically affected by interim closures None

Protected crossing; benefit to bicyclists and pedestrians (especially elderly and handicapped) No closure

Protected crossing; benefit to bicyclists and pedestrians (especially elderly and handicapped)

Emergency services: river crossing during construction Community facilities: Oaks Pioneer Church

6- to 8-month closure

24-month closure

24-month closure without temporary detour bridge

Access periodically affected by interim closures None

None

Visual impacts on Oaks Pioneer Church (during construction and operation) Access limitation for west-side customers (during 24-month closure)

Noise impacts of temporary detour bridge

None

Noise and visual impacts to Oaks Pioneer Church (during construction and operation) None

Community facilities: access to businesses

Access limitation for west-side customers (during 6- to 8-month closure)

Access limitation for west-side customers (during 24-month closure); No impact with temporary detour bridge Modified access to

Access limitation for west-side customers (during 42-month closure)

None

None

Access to River View Cemetery funeral home

No change; access maintained

Modified access to

River View
Cemetery

River View
Cemetery

Removal of access to River View Cemetery from OR 43

Modified access to

River View
Cemetery

Modified access to River View Cemetery

Modified access to River View Cemetery

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-108

Env iro nme ntal Justice Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

3.8
3.8.1

Environmental Justice
Affected Environment

Environmental Justice Summary The environmental justice study concluded that the Sellwood Bridge project would not result in disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and/or low income populations. Residential and business displacements would not be borne disproportionately by minority or low income populations. Restoration of transit service on the bridge and improvement of bicyclist and pedestrian facilities could benefit the low-income populations to a greater extent than the population as a whole.

Environmental justice studies analyze the planning and development of transportation projects in relation to three objectives:  Avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations Ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the transportation decision-making process Prevent the denial, reduction, or delay of project benefits to minority and low-income populations
The environmental justice analysis was conducted pursuant to the following federal and state laws and regulations: • Presidential Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations • Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents, Technical Advisory T6640.8a • FHWA, Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations • Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 • Oregon State Legislature, Senate Bill 420 Related to Environmental Justice

low-income populations through the following research:     Analysis of demographic data from the 2000 United States Census (Census) Interviews with service providers Findings from affected property-owner and tenant surveys Review of feedback received from the public

Environmental Justice Regulatory Context

Population data for the study area were derived from the 2000 Census. The project team supplemented this demographic data with information gathered through interviews with several community service providers and through public outreach activities conducted during the project (described in Chapter 5). This supplemental information increased project team understanding of demographic changes since the 2000 Census, and of minority and/or low-income population use of the Sellwood Bridge. Two study areas were identified for this analysis, a direct impact study area (Figure 3.8-1) and a larger indirect impact study area (Figure 3.8-2). Both areas were selected to conform to the boundaries of geographical units for which data are available. For analyzing direct impacts, the most relevant geographic units were Census tracts and Census block groups immediately adjacent to the Sellwood Bridge. Data within these Census tracts were analyzed at the smallest

Environmental justice analysis for this project determined whether the project would result in disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-109

Env iro nme ntal Justice Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

FIGURE 3.8-1

Environmental Justice Direct Impact Study Area

geographic unit available. Results were compared to regional demographic data for the PortlandVancouver Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA). The direct impact study area consists of three Census tracts:  Census Tract 1 is on the east side of the bridge and is bounded by SE Powell Boulevard to the north, OR 99E (SE McLoughlin Boulevard) to the east, the Clackamas County line to the south, and the Willamette River to the west. Census Tract 59 is on the west side of the bridge and extends north to US 26 (Sunset Highway). It is bounded by the Willamette River to the east, the Sellwood Bridge to the

south, and OR 99W (SW Barbur Boulevard) to the west.  Census Tract 63 is also on the west side of the bridge and is bounded by SW Taylors Ferry Road to the north, the Willamette River to the east, the Clackamas County line to the south, and Tryon Creek to the west.
For the Environmental Justice analysis, minority populations are defined as African American, Asian American, American Indian/Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander racial groups, and people of Hispanic origin, regardless of race.

3-110

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Minority Populations

Env iro nme ntal Justice Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

FIGURE 3.8-2

Environmental Justice Indirect Impact Study Area

The indirect impact study area represents the approximate commute shed for the current Sellwood Bridge as determined by assessing the model data on the current-year travel demand for the origins and destinations of Sellwood Bridge users. These study area boundaries include the Burnside Bridge to the north, I-205 to the east and south, and the Washington County border to the west.

Table 3.8-1 illustrates the minority levels by geographic area. For the Portland-Vancouver PMSA, the average minority population is 15.3 percent. The minority population for each of the three U.S. Census tracts within the direct impact study area is smaller than the Portland-Vancouver PMSA average except for Census Tract 1.00, Block Group 1, which has 17.8 percent minority households. Overall, the minority population of the indirect study area is below the PortlandVancouver PMSA threshold for minority populations. (The Sellwood Bridge Project Environmental Justice Technical Report [CH2M HILL, 2008g, updated in 2010] includes a

Minority Populations
Minority populations are defined as African American, Asian American, American Indian/Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander racial groups, and people of Hispanic origin, regardless of race.

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-111

Env iro nme ntal Justice Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

more detailed description of minority populations in the direct and indirect study areas.)

Low-income Populations
Income considerations are broken into two groups, very low-income households (those below the poverty threshold) and low-income households (those below twice the poverty threshold). The U.S. Census Bureau defines the poverty threshold as the amount of household earnings with consideration of the number of people in the household below a certain level. This definition is based on the U.S. Department
TABLE 3.8-1

of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines. For example, the poverty threshold in 1999 for a three-person household (including one child) was $13,410 earned per year, while the threshold for a two-person household with no children was $11,156. The project team compared the percentage of households below the poverty threshold (as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau) against the Portland-Vancouver PMSA average. Those areas with percentages higher than the Portland-Vancouver PMSA average were identified as very low-income populations. The team also identified low-income populations

Non-white or Hispanic by Census Tract within the Study Area Geographic Area Portland-Vancouver PMSA Average Direct Impact Study Area Average Census Tract 1.00 Census Tract 1, Block Group 1 Census Tract 1, Block Group 5 Census Tract 1, Block Group 6 Census Tract 1, Block Group 7 Census Tract 59.00 Census Tract 59, Block Group 1 Census Tract 63.00 Census Tract 63, Block Group 1 Indirect Impact Study Area Average City of Portland Average Multnomah County Average State of Oregon Average Note: Numbers in bold are higher than the Portland-Vancouver PMSA average. In the 2000 Census, people of Hispanic origin were asked to classify themselves as white or another race, including African American, Asian American, Native American/Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, two or more races, or other. Table P7 of the 2000 Census, SF3 (U.S. Census Bureau) was used to determine the percentage of minority to avoid double counting those selecting both the Hispanic ethnicity and a minority race category. PMSA = Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, SF3, Table P6, Race, and Table P7, Hispanic or Latino by Race.
3-112 Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Minority (percent) 15.3 8.2 11.8 17.8 10.7 1.0 7.7 14.3 6.4 11.2 9.0 9.6 20.3 19.3 13.5

Env iro nme ntal Justice Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

(defined as below two times the poverty threshold). Table 3.8-2 describes the very low-income and low-income levels by geographic area in the direct and indirect study areas. The percentage of low-income households for the direct impact area is slightly lower than that for the Portland-Vancouver PMSA average, and only one of the Census tracts—Census Tract 59.00—has a higher concentration of low- and very low-income households than the PortlandVancouver PMSA average. (The Sellwood Bridge Project Environmental Justice Technical Report [CH2M HILL, 2008g, updated in 2010] includes a
TABLE 3.8-2

more detailed description of low-income populations in the direct and indirect study areas.)
3.8.2

No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences

Bus service, sidewalks, and bicycle infrastructure are low-income considerations, because lowincome populations may be transit-dependent and unable to afford a private vehicle (Pisarski, 2006). The No Build Alternative would maintain the existing weight restriction across the Sellwood Bridge, which would preclude TriMet bus service from using the bridge. The No Build

Low-Income and Very Low-Income Population by Census Tract within the Study Area Very Low Income (Below Poverty Level) (percent) 9.5 9.1 8.3 3.0 8.5 5.0 14.6 11.9 8.9 7.0 6.1 10.9 13.1 12.7 11.6 Low Income (Below Twice Poverty Level) (percent) 24.2 21.1 21.4 26.8 27.8 15.9 21.1 26.4 19.4 15.7 14.4 25.3 17.3 16.9 18.0

Geographic Area Portland-Vancouver PMSA Average Direct Impact Study Area Average Census Tract 1.00 Census Tract 1, Block Group 1 Census Tract 1, Block Group 5 Census Tract 1, Block Group 6 Census Tract 1, Block Group 7 Census Tract 59.00 Census Tract 59, Block Group 1 Census Tract 63.00 Census Tract 63, Block Group 1 Indirect Impact Study Area Average City of Portland Average Multnomah County Average State of Oregon Average PMSA = Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area

Note: Numbers in bold are higher than the Portland-Vancouver PMSA average. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, SF3, Table P88, Ratio to Income in 1999 to Poverty Level.

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-113

Env iro nme ntal Justice Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

Alternative would continue to restrict bus transit service across the Sellwood Bridge and would continue to be a barrier for transit-dependent persons. The No Build Alternative would maintain the current deficient bicyclist and pedestrian connections across the bridge. The narrow existing sidewalk and poor bicyclist and pedestrian connections to regional trails could adversely affect individuals who do not drive due to financial considerations.
3.8.3

between one and eight. The total number of employees potentially displaced in this building would be 30. Three employees identified themselves as minority status, and one selfidentified as low income (earning under $10,000 per year). This particular business reported that two of the three employees worked on a parttime basis. Indirect Impacts. The Build alternatives could have a positive effect on the development of transit-oriented land-use development in the Sellwood neighborhood and OR 43 corridor as a result of the resumption of bus service across the bridge. Such high-density commercial development in transit corridors could improve access to shopping for low-income individuals without access to automobiles who are passing through the area.

Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences

Impacts and Mitigation Common to All Build Alternatives
Direct Impacts. The Build alternatives would improve crossing of the Willamette River in the study area in the long term (after construction) for transit riders, bicyclists, and pedestrians because bus service would be reinstated (Section 3.1, Transportation) and improved bicyclist and pedestrian facilities would be provided (Section 3.2, Bicyclists and Pedestrians). These improvements would benefit all users of the bridge. However, because low-income populations are more likely to travel via transit, on bicycles, or on foot, improvements could benefit low-income populations to a slightly greater extent than the population as a whole. Based on available racial and income data for the direct study area; property values of impacted residences; results of employer and residential surveys; and a review of feedback from the public, it is not anticipated that residential displacements from any of the Build alternatives would result in disproportionate adverse impacts on minority and/or low-income populations. The nine businesses in the Sellwood Building would be displaced under all of the Build alternatives. Businesses in the Sellwood Building are small, with the number of employees ranging

Alternative-specific Impacts
Alternative A Alternative A would close the bridge for 24 months during construction without a temporary detour bridge. During construction, users would need to reroute trips to other Willamette River crossings, such as the Ross Island Bridge or the I-205 Abernethy Bridge. Although this routing change would impact all users of the bridge, its impact would be greater on bicyclists and pedestrians because it is more difficult to detour with non-automated than with automated transportation modes. Some lowincome individuals who cannot afford to drive would be included in this group. Alternative B Alternative B would have the same impacts as Alternative A, unless the temporary detour bridge option were selected. While the temporary detour bridge would benefit all bridge users, the reduction of out-of-direction travel distances would have greater benefits for low-income individuals who travel on foot or by bicycle.

3-114

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Env iro nme ntal Justice Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

TABLE 3.8-3

Potential Residential Displacements Associated with Sellwood Bridge Alternatives Alternative No Build A B C D E D Refined
a

Residential Structures Lost 0 1 1 1 5 0a 5

Households Displaced 0 1 1 1 5 6 5

Description No displacements are included in the No Build Alternative One condominium in River Park development One condominium in River Park development One condominium in River Park development One condominium in River Park development Four condominiums in Sellwood Harbor development Six residential units in Grand Place mixed-use development One condominium in River Park development Four condominiums in Sellwood Harbor development

Alternative E has one mixed-use displacement containing six household units.

Alternative C Alternative C would have the same impacts as Alternative A, except that the bridge would be closed for 42 months during construction. Alternative D No specific environmental justice consequences are expected with Alternative D because the river crossing for all modes would be maintained during construction, except for interim closures to replace the existing bridge and construct the new bridge. Alternative E No specific environmental justice consequences are expected with Alternative E because the river crossing for all modes would be maintained during construction. Alternative D Refined (Preferred Alternative) No specific environmental justice consequences are expected with Alternative D Refined because the river crossing for all modes would be maintained during construction, except for interim closures to replace the existing bridge and construct the new bridge.

Residential Displacements
The project team reviewed 2000 U.S. Census data, information from community and stakeholder interviews, and available survey data of affected property owners to identify any minority or low-income populations that would be impacted by residential or business displacements caused by the Build alternatives. This information was used to assist in making the final determination related to whether the project would result in disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and/or lowincome populations in the study area. Table 3.8-3 summarizes potential residential displacements associated with each of the alternatives. The project’s right-of-way impacts analyst mailed a survey to potentially affected residents and property owners in the direct impact area. This survey asked, among other things, for participants to self-report race, ethnicity, and income status. Insufficient responses were received to use these survey findings. Assessed values of the affected condominiums range between $420,000 and $650,000 (Sellwood Bridge Project Right-of-Way Technical Report [Real Property Consultants,

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-115

Env iro nme ntal Justice Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

2008; updated 2010]). These values are substantially higher than the $242,000 median housing price in the Portland metropolitan region (Standard and Poor, 2009). Because the minority and low-income information on the potential residential displacements was incomplete, the environmental justice analysts also reviewed 2000 U.S. Census data for the area of the potential residential displacements. The area for residential displacements is relatively small; therefore, Census block data were reviewed for racial information. The relevant Census blocks for the area are in Census Tract 1, Block Group 7, Block 7020; Block Group 7, Block 7019; and Block Group 6, Block 6004. The total population of the three Census blocks containing the potential residential displacements was 64. Of this total, the racial information reported indicated that 60 were non-Hispanic Caucasian, 2 were Hispanic Caucasian, and 2 were Asian American. The total minority population was 6 percent. The minority threshold established for the Portland-Vancouver PMSA is 22.2 percent. Therefore, the minority percentage in the affected Census blocks is well below that for the Portland-Vancouver PMSA threshold. The U.S. Census Bureau does not report income data on a Census block level; therefore, the smallest Census geography for income information (block groups) was used. The block groups containing the potential residential displacements are Census Tract 1, Block Groups 6 and 7. Taken together, these block groups contain 19 percent low-income households and 11 percent very low-income households, below the Portland-Vancouver PMSA average of 24.2 percent low-income households, but above the Portland-Vancouver PMSA average of 9.5 percent very low-income households. Census data can also be used to obtain median income. The median household income for Block Group 01.06 is $44,737 and for Block Group 01.07 is $50,588, compared to the median

household income of $40,146 for the city of Portland. This difference indicates that the overall incomes of the block group are higher than those for the city as a whole. Based on available racial and income data for the study area, property values of the impacted residences, and information from the public outreach team, it is not anticipated that displacements from the Sellwood Bridge project would result in adverse impacts on any populations, including no disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and/or lowincome populations.

Business Displacements
Business displacements would range from 9 to 48, depending on the Build alternative selected. Of the up to 48 businesses that could potentially be displaced, 46 do not have specialized location needs that would significantly limit their ability to find replacement locations. The one business that reported they would not continue if relocated was River Park Center (the property management firm for the River Park Center building). None of the businesses that would be displaced is uniquely important to minority or low-income populations; these businesses do not include businesses such as an ethnic grocery store or food bank. Table 3.8-4 summarizes potential business displacements associated with each of the alternatives. The project’s right-of-way impacts analyst conducted a survey of businesses that would be displaced by the project. This survey contained information about race and income status. The following list summarizes relevant information about each of the structures that would be lost under the various Build alternatives:  Sellwood Building. The nine businesses in the Sellwood Building would be displaced under all of the Build alternatives. All businesses in the Sellwood Building are small, with the number of employees ranging between one and eight. The total number of

3-116

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Env iro nme ntal Justice Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

employees potentially displaced in this building is 30. From the survey, three employees identified themselves as minority status and one self-identified as low income (earning under $10,000 per year). This particular business reported that two of the three employees worked on a part-time basis.  Riverside Corral. The Riverside Corral would be displaced by Alternative B (with temporary detour bridge only). The owner self-reported as being non-minority. The business did not report minority or income status of any of the 32 employees. Staff Jennings Property. The Staff Jennings property would be acquired by Alternative C. Staff Jennings, a commercial boat business that formerly occupied this property, closed in March 2010. River Park Center. River Park Center would be displaced by Alternative E. The 37 businesses in the building employ 186 employees. Six employees were reported as minority; no employees were reported as

low income. The property management firm (River Park Center) was the only business at this location that reported it would not continue operation at a different location if displaced by the Sellwood Bridge project.  Grand Place. Grand Place is a mixed-use building that is currently vacant. Two office spaces would potentially be displaced under Alternative E.

3.8.4

Benefits

There are no disproportionately high and adverse effects on environmental justice populations among the Build alternatives. Benefits to minority and/or low-income populations are expected to be consistent with benefits to the population as a whole. However, the benefits of restored transit service on the bridge and improvements to bicyclist and pedestrian facilities could affect low-income populations more than the larger population.

Restoration of Transit Service
TriMet bus service has been discontinued over the Sellwood Bridge and is not included in the No

TABLE 3.8-4

Potential Business Displacements Associated with Sellwood Bridge Alternatives Commercial Structures Lost 0 1 1 3 3 1 3
a

Alternative No Build A B B/TDB C D E

Businesses Displaced 0 9 9 10 10 9 48

Description No displacements are included in the No Build Alternative Nine businesses in Sellwood Building Nine businesses in Sellwood Building Nine businesses in Sellwood Building and Riverside Corral Nine businesses in Sellwood Building and the vacant Staff Jennings commercial boat business (closed March 2010) Nine businesses in Sellwood Building Nine businesses in Sellwood Building, approximately 37 businesses in River Park Center, and two office spaces in Grand Place Nine businesses in Sellwood Building

D Refined
a

1

9

Alternative E also has one mixed-use displacement containing two vacant office spaces

B/TDB = Alternative B with temporary detour bridge
Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement 3-117

Env iro nme ntal Justice Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

Build Alternative. Those relying on transit have been required to cross the bridge in cars, on bicycles, or on foot, or to select a bus route (or a combination of several routes) that includes out-of-direction travel over another bridge or through downtown Portland. Although the reduction of travel time associated with renewed transit service across the Sellwood Bridge would benefit the traveling public as a whole, transportation surveys have consistently demonstrated that low-income individuals tend to use public transit more frequently than do higher-income individuals (Pisarski, 2006). It is not expected that any Build alternative would have a greater benefit than another Build alternative related to the restoration of transit service.

the traveling public as a whole, they are likely to disproportionately benefit low-income individuals who are less likely to be able to afford the costs of automobile ownership and operation, and who may choose to walk or bike as an alternative mode of transportation. It is not expected that any Build alternative would have a substantially greater benefit than another Build alternative in improving bicyclist and pedestrian facilities.
3.8.5

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Environmental Justice Impact

There are no disproportionately high and adverse effects on environmental justice populations among the Build alternatives. Low-income populations could benefit more than the larger population from the Build alternatives that do not close the bridge during construction (Alternative B with the temporary detour bridge, Alternative D, Alternative E, and Alternative D Refined [see Section 3.6, Economic]), the restored transit service on the bridge (all Build alternatives [see Section 3.1, Transportation]), and improvements to bicyclist and pedestrian facilities (all Build alternatives [see Section 3.2, Bicyclists and Pedestrians]).

Improved Bicyclist and Pedestrian Facilities
Individuals relying on the Sellwood Bridge for travel who do not have access to an automobile and choose to walk or bike to their destinations are required to use the inadequate sidewalk on the bridge’s north side. Any of the Build alternatives would improve conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians using the bridge. The conditions would not improve under the No Build Alternative. Although benefits of improved bicyclist and pedestrian facilities would accrue to

3-118

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Parks and Recreation Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

3.9

Parks and Recreation

Parks and Recreation Summary The Build alternatives would permanently acquire between 1.4 and 4.3 acres of parkland and impact a minimum of five and a maximum of eight park and recreational trail facilities. Mitigation and enhancement actions for these impacts have been identified by coordinating with Portland Parks & Recreation. The Federal Highway Administration approved the mitigation to park impacts in the Section 4(f) Evaluation.

This section discusses existing park and recreational facilities in the study area and impacts to these facilities. Bicyclist and pedestrian impacts are addressed in Section 3.2, Bicyclists and Pedestrians. The Final Section 4(f) Evaluation, appended to this document, discusses park and recreational facility impacts in more detail.
3.9.1

Affected Environment

The four parks and five recreational trail facilities located inside the study area are:          Sellwood Riverfront Park Oaks Pioneer Park Powers Marine Park Willamette Moorage Park Springwater Corridor Trail Willamette Greenway Trail (SE Spokane Street Section) Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank) Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) Sellwood Bridge Recreational Trail
FIGURE 3.9-1

the Willamette River, a disabled-access restroom, a dog off-leash area, paved walking paths (including the Willamette Greenway Trail [East

Park and Recreation Facilities

These facilities are shown on Figure 3.9-1.

Sellwood Riverfront Park
Sellwood Riverfront Park is an 8.75-acre park located at SE Spokane Street and SE Oaks Park Way, just north of the Sellwood Bridge on the east bank of the Willamette River. The City of Portland owns and manages the park. Existing park facilities include a boat dock to

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-119

Parks and Recreation Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

Bank]), unpaved trails, picnic tables, a parking lot, and an outdoor stage used for summer concerts and movies. Sellwood Riverfront Park is a “hybrid park” with both an open lawn and manicured section and a similarly sized natural area with a wooded section, pond, and trails. A hybrid park is managed for both its recreational and natural resource values. The park also offers important visual opportunities, with expansive views to the river, West Hills, and downtown Portland.

is an active effort by the South Portland Riverbank Project (a partnership of City of Portland and community organizations) to restore riverbank conditions and enhance the banks of the Willamette River. Park visitors use a motorized boat ramp, which is located immediately north of the park between the bridge and the Staff Jennings property but is not part of the park.

Willamette Moorage Park
Willamette Moorage Park is a 9.51-acre park that is bordered by the Willamette River to the east, OR 43 to the west, Butterfly Park to the north, and the Staff Jennings property to the south. The City of Portland owns and manages the park. The park shares an access point from OR 43 with Macadam Bay Club. Willamette Moorage Park functions primarily as an open natural area intended to improve the health of the Willamette River ecosystem. The park is the location of the Stephens Creek Confluence Habitat Enhancement Project—a partnership effort between the City of Portland and community groups to restore habitat for fish listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, enhance riparian areas, remove invasive species, and plant native species. This linear park provides some passive recreational opportunities, along with river access and some beach recreation. Existing park facilities include a boat dock (shared with Macadam Bay Club), a parking lot, and a shareduse trail. (The Willamette Greenway Trail [West Bank] passes through the park.)

Oaks Pioneer Park
Oaks Pioneer Park is a 3.85-acre park located at 455 SE Spokane Street. The City of Portland owns and manages the park. The park is the setting for the Oaks Pioneer Church, which serves as an important location for many weddings and other ceremonies. There is a large lawn area with mature trees and shrubs around the church and a rental property to the north. The quiet setting for the church is an important part of its value as a popular wedding location. Weddings occur most often in the summer, but spring, fall, and the winter holidays are also popular. Recreational improvements are limited to paved walking paths. The primary function of the park is to provide a peaceful setting behind the Oaks Pioneer Church located on the property.

Powers Marine Park
Powers Marine Park is a 13.07-acre park located east of SW Macadam Avenue in southwest Portland that bounds the Willamette River for approximately 0.85-mile in a linear north-south manner. The City of Portland owns and manages the park. The access point to the park is immediately north of the existing Sellwood Bridge, between the bridge and the Staff Jennings property. Powers Marine Park provides important natural resources and passive recreational opportunities. The park is highly valued as a natural area. There

Springwater Corridor Trail
The Springwater Corridor Trail is a shared-use trail in southeast Portland. Metro owns the trail and the City of Portland manages the trail within Portland city limits. The paved surface is generally 12 feet wide with soft shoulders. The trail is designed to accommodate walkers, joggers, hikers, bicyclists, and those in wheelchairs. Within the study area, the trail lies adjacent to an

3-120

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Parks and Recreation Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

The following regulations protect park and recreational resources from transportation project actions:

Parks and Recreation Regulatory Protection

• Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act (49 United States Code [U.S.C.] 3030). Commonly referred to as “Section 4(f),” this law is intended to preserve public park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites. Transportation projects may not use such resources unless: (1) there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land and (2) the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the resource. • Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act concerns transportation projects that propose impacts, or the permanent conversion, of outdoor recreation property that was acquired or developed with LWCF Act grant assistance. Section 6(f) requires that replacement lands of equal value, location, and usefulness be provided as conditions to approval of land conversions.

active (but lightly used) rail line, underpasses the Sellwood Bridge, and terminates at SE Umatilla Street, where an existing 0.9-mile gap in the trail exists. The Springwater Corridor Trail is the major southeast segment of the Portland metropolitan area’s 40-Mile Loop trail system. The trail itself extends far beyond the boundaries of the Sellwood Bridge study area, connecting downtown Portland to several parks and open spaces, including Tideman Johnson Natural Area, Beggars-Tick Wildlife Refuge, the Interstate 205 (I-205) Bike Path, Leach Botanical Garden, Powell Butte Nature Park, and Gresham’s Main City Park.

Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank)
In 1988, the City of Portland adopted the Willamette Greenway Plan, where the stated goal was “to protect, conserve, maintain, and enhance the scenic, natural, historical, economic, and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River.” The plan carried out the intentions of Oregon Planning Goal 15 (Willamette River Greenway). A primary objective of the plan was “to create a continuous recreational trail extending the full length on both sides of the Willamette River but not necessarily adjacent to the river for the entire length.” Currently, although the Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank) is not continuous, sections of the trail are in place, including sections located inside the study area. On the east side of the river inside the study area, a designated section of the Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank) extends south from Sellwood Riverfront Park, passes under the Sellwood Bridge, and terminates at SE Umatilla Street. The City of Portland owns and manages this trail. After a two-block gap, the trail continues between SE Tenino Street and SE Linn Street. While the sections of the trail south of SE Spokane Street are on private property, they are still a public recreational resource. The City of Portland has a trail easement to this section of trail and manages this section of trail as part of the overall public trail system.

Willamette Greenway Trail (SE Spokane Street Section)
SE Spokane Street from SE 17th Avenue to the Willamette River is designated as a Primary Greenway Trail on the City of Portland’s Willamette Greenway Plan (1987) and as an Adopted Greenway in the Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan (Metro, 1992). This is an on-street section of the Willamette Greenway Trail with no improvements aside from standard sidewalks and a paved street. The function of this section of the Willamette Greenway Trail is to provide a bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly connection to the main Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank).

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-121

Parks a nd Recreatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

The Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank)’s primary use is as a recreational trail for walking and biking. Aside from the paved trail itself, the only trail-related improvements are the disabledaccess public restrooms located in Sellwood Riverfront Park.

3.9.2

No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences

Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank)
The Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) follows the west bank of the Willamette River. Within the study area, the trail extends southward through Willamette Moorage Park; becomes a narrow paved sidewalk adjacent to OR 43 (separated by a chain-link fence); connects to the northern end of Powers Marine Park through the parking lot adjacent to the Staff Jennings property; driveway, passes under the Sellwood Bridge; and eventually becomes a semi-improved trail (gravel/dirt) as it passes through Powers Marine Park. The City of Portland owns and manages the trail. The primary use of the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) is as an active recreational bikeway and trail, although the trail also provides users access to natural areas along the Willamette River and recreation sites to the north and south.

Under the No Build Alternative, existing travel patterns in the study area would be maintained. The Sellwood Bridge Recreational Trail would be the only park or recreational facility impacted. The No Build Alternative would close the trail over the river for maintenance activities (6 to 8 months).
3.9.3

Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences

Impacts and Mitigation Common to All Build Alternatives
Direct Impacts. All Build alternatives would have the following direct impacts:  Converting existing Powers Marine Park land to transportation use because of right-of-way requirements. Table 3.9-1 summarizes these impacts by Build alternative. Converting existing Willamette Moorage Park land to transportation use because of right-of-way requirements. Table 3.9-2 summarizes these impacts by Build alternative. Temporarily closing the Springwater Corridor and Willamette Greenway (East Bank) trails during dangerous overhead bridge work. Such closures would likely be for no more than 1 to 2 hours. Converting approximately 0.30 mile of existing Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank). Increasing noise levels at Oaks Pioneer Park. Although noise levels would be expected to increase under all Build alternatives, the noise-level increase would be higher under Alternative B with the temporary detour bridge (during construction) and

Sellwood Bridge Recreational Trail
The Sellwood Bridge is designated as a recreational trail and is part of the Portland metropolitan area’s 40-Mile Loop trail system. Recreational facilities are limited to a narrow, paved, raised sidewalk along the westbound travel lane of the bridge and switchback bicycle/pedestrian ramp on the west side of the bridge. This facility serves as both a bikeway and a pedestrian path.

3-122

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Parks a nd Recreatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

TABLE 3.9-1

Summary of Build Alternative Land Incorporation at Powers Marine Park Land Conversion (acres) 1.57 2.15 2.15 Park Conversion (percent) 12.0 16.5 16.5

Alternative A B B with Temporary Detour Bridge C D E D Refined

Area Impacted Natural-area land; vehicular access Natural-area land; vehicular access Natural-area land; vehicular access

1.46 2.11 0.76 1.02

11.2 16.1 5.8 7.8

Natural-area land; vehicular access boat ramp adjacent to park; motorized watercraft access Natural-area land; vehicular access Natural-area land; vehicular access Natural-area land; vehicular access

TABLE 3.9-2

Summary of Build Alternative Land Incorporation at Willamette Moorage Park Land Conversion (acres) 2.22 1.75 Park Conversion (percent) 24.9 19.6

Alternative A B B with Temporary Detour Bridge C D E D Refined

Area Impacted Natural-area land and wetlands; vehicular access Natural-area land and wetlands; vehicular access

1.75

19.6

Natural-area land and wetlands; vehicular access

2.86 1.75 3.05 0.35

32.1 19.6 34.2 3.9

Natural-area land and wetlands; vehicular access Natural-area land and wetlands; vehicular access Natural-area land and wetlands; vehicular access Natural-area land; vehicular access

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-123

Parks and Recreation Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

Powers Marine Park and Willamette Moorage Park are primarily managed for their natural habitat values. All Build alternatives would permanently reduce natural, and particularly riparian, habitat along the Willamette River. Indirect Impacts. There would be no indirect impacts common to all the Build alternatives. Mitigation. Mitigation actions would include the following: • Construct an approximately 0.30-mile-long, 18-foot-wide trail from the Macadam Bay Club north to SW Miles Street. The trail would contain a 14-foot-wide surface with 2-foot-wide gravel shoulders on both sides of the paved trail. The trail would be aligned parallel to the existing Willamette Shoreline Trolley tracks between the Willamette Moorage Park boundary and SW Miles Street on City-owned right-of-way. After the trail was constructed, the City of Portland would assume ownership of the trail and would be responsible for all trail maintenance. Within Willamette Moorage Park, provide sloped, stepped, vegetated walls along the multi-use trail extending from the Sellwood Bridge to the Macadam Bay Club to minimize visual and aesthetic impacts to Willamette Moorage Park and provide structural support and wildlife habitat, where feasible. Reach an agreement on the shared use of the Portland Parks & Recreation (PP&R) parking lot adjacent to Willamette Moorage Park by having Multnomah County work with Freeman Motors, and have Multnomah County work with PP&R to renegotiate the lease. Design and implement a parking and pedestrian access plan for Powers Marine

Mitigation and Enhancement Coordination at Local Parks • • • − − −

Alternative E (during construction and operation). Therefore, these Build alternatives are addressed separately later in this subsection.

Both Powers Marine Park and Willamette Moorage Park have been the sites of restoration efforts performed through collaboration of the City of Portland and local community organizations. Restoration efforts have focused on enhancing offchannel habitat for migrating fish and improving the ecological health of the river and its banks. Efforts have been focused on both the Willamette River and Stephens Creek. Because these parks have been sites of recent restoration efforts, after distribution of the DEIS, the Sellwood Bridge project team consulted and coordinated with Portland Parks and Recreation (PP&R) and the Portland Bureau of Environmental Services to identify other mitigation actions that could be conducted at these two parks. PP&R and Multnomah County have identified and agreed to mitigation and enhancement actions at Willamette Moorage Park and Powers Marine Park. These actions are documented in this section. The Final Section 4(f) Evaluation, appended to this document, discusses park and recreational facility impacts in more detail.

Park that would include provision of a minimum of seven vehicle parking spaces. Provide seven parking spaces for Powers Marine Park along the roadway to the Staff Jennings property. Compensate PP&R at fair market value for the land within Powers Marine Park incorporated into a transportation use. Provide a temporary detour for the Springwater Corridor Trail, including the following elements, as necessary: Surfacing a detour trail Providing signage for a detour trail Marking pavement

3-124

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Parks and Recreation Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

Provide a temporary detour for the Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank), including the following elements, as necessary: − − − Surfacing a detour trail Providing signage for a detour trail Marking pavement

Enhancement. Enhancement actions include the following: • Within Willamette Moorage Park, replace the existing Stephens Creek culvert under the Willamette Shoreline Trolley tracks, the new multi-use trail, and Macadam Bay Club access driveway with a fish-and-wildlife-friendly passage constructed according to Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife standards. Figure 3.9-2 shows the location of this area. Within Powers Marine Park, design and implement stream restoration in the area shown on Figure 3.9-2 (from the railroad tracks to the river) to provide off-river habitat for juvenile salmonids. The planting and stream restoration design would be prepared in coordination with PP&R and in accordance with applicable City of Portland development requirements.

FIGURE 3.9-2 Willamette Moorage Park/Stephens Creek Mitigation Area and Powers Marine Park Mitigation Area—Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined)

Alternative-specific Impacts and Mitigation
Alternative A Impacts to parks and recreational resources specific to Alternative A would include the following: • Impacts to Sellwood Riverfront Park, including: − Displacing approximately 10 parking spaces (roughly 0.38 acre of parkland) at Sellwood Riverfront Park for transportation use because of right-ofway requirements associated with the placement of piers for the bicycle/pedestrian bridge Removing and pruning trees in the park’s parking lot

− •

Impacts to Oaks Pioneer Park, including: − Converting approximately 0.12 acre of parkland to transportation use because of right-of-way requirements associated

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-125

Parks a nd Recreatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

with the placement of an abutment for the bicycle/pedestrian bridge    Removing and pruning trees Realigning maintenance access road Detracting from the appeal of Oaks Pioneer Park as a site for events because of the presence of the bicycle/pedestrian bridge Closing the Sellwood Bridge trail connection over the Willamette River for 24 months during construction Potentially realigning the park’s access road to Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge

access would be moved approximately 250 feet to the north. Alternative B (with Temporary Detour Bridge) Impacts to parks and recreational resources specific to Alternative B with a temporary detour bridge would include the following (in addition to the Alternative B impacts listed previously):  Temporarily detracting from the appeal of Oaks Pioneer Park as a site for events resulting from proximity impacts (noise and visual) associated with the temporary detour bridge.

 

Relocating vehicular access to Powers Marine Park (the current access would be replaced with new access via an underpass connection from OR 43) Relocating the existing vehicular access to Willamette Moorage Park (which is, also, the access to Macadam Bay Club). The existing access would be moved approximately 250 feet to the north.

Alternative C Impacts to parks and recreational resources specific to Alternative C would include the following:  Impacts to Powers Marine Park, including:  Closing vehicular access to the park; motorists would need to park at Willamette Moorage Park (or further north at Willamette Park) and then access the park on foot or bicycle via the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) Closing the boat ramp that abuts Powers Marine Park and the adjacent fuel dock; motorized watercraft owners who would normally use this ramp would be redirected to the boat ramp at Willamette Park (located approximately 1 mile north)

Alternative B Impacts to parks and recreational resources specific to Alternative B would include the following:  Closing the Sellwood Bridge trail connection over the Willamette River for 24 months during construction. However, a bicyclist and pedestrian connection over the river would be provided under the Alternative B with temporary detour bridge option. Relocating vehicular access to Powers Marine Park (current access to be replaced by a new access via an underpass connection from OR 43). Relocating the existing vehicular access to Willamette Moorage Park (which is, also, the access to Macadam Bay Club). The existing

Closing the Sellwood Bridge trail connection over the Willamette River for 42 months during construction. Increasing cut-through traffic and adding vehicles to SE Spokane Street (Willamette Greenway Trail [SE Spokane Street Section]) because of the east-end connection (Grand Avenue extension).

3-126

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Parks a nd Recreatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

Relocating the existing vehicular access to Willamette Moorage Park (which is, also, the access to Macadam Bay Club). The existing access would be moved approximately 250 feet to the north.

because of the east-end connection (signal at SE 6th Avenue).  Relocating vehicular access to Powers Marine Park (current access to be replaced by a new access via an underpass connection from OR 43). Relocating the existing vehicular access to Willamette Moorage Park (which is, also, the access to Macadam Bay Club). The existing access would be moved approximately 250 feet to the north.

Alternative D Impacts to parks and recreational resources specific to Alternative D would include the following:  Relocating vehicular access to Powers Marine Park (current access to be replaced by a new access via an underpass connection from OR 43). Increasing cut-through traffic and adding vehicles to SE Spokane Street (Willamette Greenway Trail [SE Spokane Street Section]) because of the east-end connection (signal at SE 6th Avenue). Relocating the existing vehicular access to Willamette Moorage Park (which is, also, the access to Macadam Bay Club). The existing access would be moved approximately 250 feet to the north.

Alternative D Refined (Preferred Alternative) Impacts to parks and recreational resources specific to Alternative D Refined would include the following:  Relocating vehicular access to Powers Marine Park (the current access would be replaced by new access via an underpass connection from OR 43). Relocating the existing vehicular access to Willamette Moorage Park (which is, also, the access to Macadam Bay Club). The existing access would be moved approximately 300 feet to the north.

Alternative E Impacts to parks and recreational resources specific to Alternative E would include the following:  Detracting from the appeal of Oaks Pioneer Park as a site for events resulting from proximity impacts (noise and visual) associated with the Alternative E bridge structure. Detracting from the appeal of Sellwood Riverfront Park as a recreational destination resulting from proximity impacts (noise and visual) associated with the Alternative E bridge structure. Increasing cut-through traffic and adding vehicles to SE Spokane Street (Willamette Greenway Trail [SE Spokane Street Section])

Mitigation Measures for Specific Alternatives Because of additional park impacts, supplementary mitigation measures would be needed for individual Build alternatives.  Potential mitigation actions at Sellwood Riverfront Park would include the following:  Purchasing right-of-way (Alternative A bicycle/pedestrian bridge); real estate specialists would coordinate with PP&R to determine property needs and just compensation based on the fair market value

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-127

Parks a nd Recreatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

Constructing a non-motorized boat ramp in the vicinity of Sellwood Riverfront Park (Alternative C) Planting trees and vegetation around the bridge structure (Alternative E) Installing noise barriers on the bridge (Alternative E) Replacing parking spaces on land adjacent to the park (Alternative A) Assisting in re-vegetating the riparian zone with cottonwood trees (Alternatives A and E) Planting trees in parking lot (Alternative A bicycle/pedestrian bridge)  

Installing noise barriers on the bridge (Alternatives B [with temporary detour bridge] and E)

   

Potential mitigation actions at Powers Marine Park would include the following:  Installing signage directing motorists to parking areas at Willamette Moorage Park or Willamette Park for access to Powers Marine Park (Alternative C)

Other potential mitigation actions specific to particular alternatives would include the following:  Installing signage at Willamette Moorage Park and Willamette Park directing users to Powers Marine Park via the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) (Alternative C) Providing detour signage for bicyclists indicating the closest Willamette River crossing with bicycle accommodations (Alternatives A, B, and C) Maintaining existing conditions or installing a bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal at the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection as the east-side connection to minimize cut-through traffic on SE Spokane Street

 

Potential mitigation actions at Oaks Pioneer Park would include the following:  Purchasing right-of-way (Alternative A bicycle/pedestrian bridge); real estate specialists would coordinate with PP&R to determine property needs and just compensation based on the fair market value Planting trees and vegetation around the bridge structure and elsewhere in the park (Alternative A bicycle/pedestrian bridge) Relocating Oaks Pioneer Church after securing a new location acceptable to PP&R and consulting with the Sellwood Moreland Improvement League (SMILE) (Alternatives A, B [with temporary detour bridge], and E)
3.9.4

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Park and Recreation Impact

3-128

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Parks a nd Recreatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

TABLE 3.9-3

Summary of Impacts to Park and Recreational Facilities Park or Recreational Facility Sellwood Riverfront Park Alt. B with Temporary Detour Bridge None

Alt. A Converting 0.38 acre of parkland Removing 10 parking spaces Removing approximately two trees Having bicycle/ pedestrian bridge cross over park

Alt. B None

Alt. C None

Alt. D None

Alt. E None (but new bridge immediately next to park)

Alt. D Refined None

Oaks Pioneer Park

Converting 0.12 acre of parkland Dissecting park with bike/ ped bridge structure Realigning park maintenance road Removing approximately two trees

None

Having visual and noise impacts associated with temporary detour bridge structure

None

None

Having visual and noise impacts associated with bridge structure

None

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-129

Parks a nd Recreatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

TABLE 3.9-3

Summary of Impacts to Park and Recreational Facilities Park or Recreational Facility Powers Marine Park Alt. B with Temporary Detour Bridge Converting 2.15 acres of parkland Relocating access

Alt. A Converting 1.57 acres of parkland Relocating access

Alt. B Converting 2.15 acres of parkland Relocating access

Alt. C Converting 1.46 acres of parkland Closing access Closing boat ramp and fuel dock (located adjacent to park)

Alt. D Converting 2.11 acres of parkland Relocating access

Alt. E Converting 0.76 acre of parkland Relocating access

Alt. D Refined Converting 1.02 acres of parkland Relocating access

Willamette Moorage Park

Converting 2.22 acres of natural area Relocating access Impacting wetlands

Converting 1.75 acres of natural area Relocating access Impacting wetlands Having temporary closures; providing detours None

Converting 1.75 acres of natural area Relocating access Impacting wetlands Having temporary closures; providing detours

Converting 2.86 acres of natural area Relocating access Impacting wetlands Having temporary closures; providing detours Adding vehicles to SE Spokane Street because of east-end connection Having temporary closures

Converting 1.75 acres of natural area Relocating access Impacting wetlands Having temporary closures; providing detours Adding vehicles to SE Spokane Street because of east-end connection Having temporary closures

Converting 3.05 acres of natural area Relocating access Impacting wetlands Having temporary closures; providing detours

Converting 0.35 acre of natural areaa Relocating access

Springwater Corridor Trail

Having temporary closures; providing detours None

Having temporary closures; providing detours

Willamette Greenway Trail (SE Spokane Street Section) Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank)

None

Adding vehicles to SE Spokane Street because of eastend connection Having temporary closures

None

Having temporary closures

Having temporary closures

Having temporary closures

Having temporary closures

3-130

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Parks a nd Recreatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

TABLE 3.9-3

Summary of Impacts to Park and Recreational Facilities Park or Recreational Facility Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) Sellwood Bridge Recreational Trail Alt. B with Temporary Detour Bridge Reconstructing 0.30 linear mile of trail None (providing bike/ped accommodations across river) 3.9 acres

Alt. A Reconstructing 0.30 linear mile of trail Closing bike/ ped facility over river during construction 4.3 acres

Alt. B Reconstructing 0.30 linear mile of trail Closing bike/ ped facility over river during construction 3.9 acres

Alt. C Reconstructing 0.30 linear mile of trail Closing bike/ ped facility over river during construction 4.3 acres

Alt. D Reconstructing 0.30 linear mile of trail None (providing bike/ped accommodations across river) 3.9 acres

Alt. E Reconstructing 0.30 linear mile of trail None (providing bike/ped accommodations across river) 3.8 acres

Alt. D Refined Reconstructing 0.30 linear mile of trail None (providing bike/ped accommodations across river) 1.4 acres

Total Parkland and Natural Area to be Converted Total Park and Recreational Facilities to be Impacted
a

8 facilities

6 facilities

6 facilities

7 facilities

6 facilities

7 facilities

5 facilities

An additional 0.74 acre would be converted from one park use to another park use for mitigation (bicycle/pedestrian trail).

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-131

Parks a nd Recreatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

3.9.5

Section 6(f)

Section 6(f) Impact
Alternative A would result in a conversion of parkland to transportation use at Sellwood Riverfront Park. Approximately 10 of the park’s parking stalls would be incorporated by the project to provide adequate space for the placement of bicycle/pedestrian bridge piers. Approximately two trees would also be removed. There is no Section 6(f) impact to Sellwood Riverfront Park from Alternatives B, B (with temporary detour bridge), C, D, E, or D Refined.

The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965 established grants-in-aid funding to assist states in the planning, acquisition, and development of outdoor recreational land and water areas and facilities. Section 6(f) of the LWCF Act prohibits the conversion of property acquired or developed with the assistance of the fund to anything other than public outdoor recreation use without the approval of the Secretary of the Department of the Interior. Sellwood Riverfront Park is the only property protected under Section 6(f) in the Sellwood Bridge Project area of potential effect (APE). According to the National Park Service, Sellwood Riverfront Park was approved for funding from the LWCF on two separate occasions—the park was awarded $79,129 on August 8, 1983, and $80,317 on December 6, 1984. Because Sellwood Riverfront Park has received LWCF grant money, the park is protected under Section 6(f) of the LWCF Act. Section 6(f) requires that lands acquired for right-of-way purposes must be replaced with other property of at least equal fair market value and of reasonably equivalent usefulness and location.

Mitigation
In accordance with the Section 6(f) statute, mitigation for Alternative A impacts would include, but would not be limited to, the following:   Replacing parking spaces in the immediate vicinity of the park Assisting in re-vegetating the riparian zone with cottonwood trees (from the water line to the Willamette Greenway Trail [East Bank])

3-132

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Archaeological and Historic Resources Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

3.10

Archaeological and Historic Resources
Affected Environment

Archaeological and Historic Resources Summary The Build alternatives would have direct impacts (adverse effect) on the River View Cemetery and the Sellwood Bridge. The Build alternatives would have direct and indirect impacts (adverse effect) on the River View Cemetery Superintendent’s House. The Build alternatives would not have direct or indirect impacts (no adverse effect) on the Willamette Shoreline Trolley alignment or Oaks Pioneer Church.

3.10.1

Archaeological Resources
Archaeological sites are places where past peoples left physical evidence of their occupation. Sites may include ruins and foundations of historic-era buildings and structures. Sites also may include surface ruins and underground deposits of prehistoric or Native American occupation debris such as artifacts, food remains (shells and bones), and former dwelling structures. Although the greater Portland Basin has been the subject of a fair amount of archaeological research, no archaeological resources have been recorded in the archaeological area of potential resources effect established for the project
FIGURE 3.10-1

(Figure 3.10-1). However, there is the potential for such sites to exist beneath the veneer of surface streets and modified landscapes. There was considerable 19th- and early 20th-century development along the waterfront, particularly on the east side of the river where Sellwood was established.

Area of Potential Resources Effect and Historic Resources

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-133

Archaeological and Historic Resources Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

Historic maps indicate the northwest quadrant of Spokane Avenue was the site of East Side Mill and Lumber Company Saw Mill, and the southwest quadrant was the site of the Oregon Door Company factory. There is the potential for archaeological deposits associated with both of these early Sellwood companies. The Sellwood Ferry Landing was at the west end of SE Spokane Street. The west-side landing for the ferry was located at the current Staff Jennings property. Archaeological deposits associated with these landings, and their associated docks, could still exist. The heavily developed and modified landscapes at each end of the existing bridge may obscure existing buried archaeological resources, of both prehistoric and historic origins.

conclusions. The SHPO concurrence letter is provided in Appendix H. Figure 3.10-1 illustrates the locations of properties listed in Table 3.10-1. Oaks Pioneer Church Facing southeast at the corner of SE Spokane Street and SE Grand Avenue, the Oaks Pioneer Church, formerly St. John’s Episcopal Church located in Milwaukie, Oregon, was listed on the National Register in 1974. The National Register nomination states that St. John’s Church was the first Episcopal church and is the oldest intact church building in Oregon; it also once served as the cathedral seat of the Episcopal Diocese of Oregon. In 1862, the building was moved within the town of Milwaukie. The most significant alterations were made in 1888, at which time the building was given its present Gothic Revival character. The building was temporarily moved in 1928 within Milwaukie. In 1959, the church was to be razed, but private efforts secured funding to float it by barge down the Willamette River to its present site.

Historic Properties
The National Register of Historic Places (National Register) is a federally maintained list of districts, sites, buildings, structures, objects, and landscapes significant in American history, prehistory, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture.

Cultural resources analysts surveyed historic resources that might be 50 or more years old by the time the project would be built. The analysts identified and evaluated literature about historic resources; collected existing data, including archival records, historic photographs, and maps; and analyzed these data to assess the eligibility of these properties for listing in the National Register. The survey revealed one property listed in and four properties eligible for the National Register (Table 3.10-1). The Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was consulted and, on July 31, Sellwood Bridge Vicinity, 1924. 2008, concurred with these

3-134

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Archaeological and Historic Resources Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

TABLE 3.10-1

Properties Listed or Determined Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
Location Property Name Constructed National Register of Historic Places Determination and Reasons for Eligibility

455 SE Spokane Street

Oaks Pioneer Church, formerly St. John’s Episcopal Church

circa 1851

Listed in 1974: • Important for its association with events relating to the establishment of the Episcopal Church in western Oregon Period of significance is from 1883 (NeoGothic architectural style) to 1928 (new foundation and basement) Only four-span continuous-deck truss in Oregon (a rare bridge type) Demonstrates the application of a common bridge type in an unusual way Work of one of the most significant bridge engineers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries One of the oldest cemeteries in the City of Portland Contains the remains of persons who are considered important in the city in the late 19th century Displays distinctive design elements associated with the rural cemetery movement of the late 19th century Represents a stylistic achievement by the architect. The house is considered the work of a master. High-artistic-value structure and displays distinctive characteristics that evoke the Neo-Georgian style of residential architecture Contributing feature of National Register-eligible River View Cemetery Part of the transportation network that connected Portland and larger communities with smaller Willamette Valley towns The interurban railroad strongly influenced growth and development of the outer suburbs south and west of Portland
3-135

Willamette River

Sellwood Bridge

1925

Eligible: • • •

OR 43 (SW Macadam Avenue)

River View Cemetery

Established 1882

Eligible: • •

8421 SW Macadam Avenue (OR 43)

River View Cemetery Superintendent’s House

1914

Eligible: •

• West bank of river Willamette Shoreline Trolley 1914

Eligible: •

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Archaeological and Historic Resources Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

The church is listed on the National Register for the following reasons: • The church is important for its association with events relating to the establishment of the Episcopal Church in western Oregon. The building is no longer in use as an Episcopal Church, and is no longer owned by the Episcopal Church or any other religious organization. It is operated by the local neighborhood association (Sellwood Moreland Improvement League [SMILE]) and is located at the Oaks Pioneer Church and Park, administered by Portland Parks & Recreation. The church’s period of significance is from 1883 (Neo-Gothic architectural style) to 1928 (new foundation and basement). The church is an excellent example of this style of architecture. The building has suffered some loss of integrity due to changes it has experienced over time, though these changes occurred before the building was listed on the National Register.

The Sellwood Bridge is eligible for listing on the National Register for the following reasons: • The Sellwood Bridge is a rare bridge type, both at the local level and within Oregon. It is the only four-span continuous-deck truss in Oregon, as well as one of just a handful of continuous-deck truss bridges in Oregon.

Sellwood Bridge The Sellwood Bridge, designed by Gustav Lindenthal, was officially dedicated on December 15, 1925, and replaced the Spokane Street Ferry. The bridge is a fixedExisting Sellwood Bridge. span bridge consisting of a four-span continuous truss. Its eastern terminus falls at the intersection of SE 6th Avenue and SE Tacoma Street and its western terminus is roughly OR 43 at River View Cemetery. The bridge was the first built in Portland across the Willamette River without a moveable span. It was also the first bridge in Portland built without trolley tracks. The steel-plate girder spans at the truss ends were reused from the 1894 Burnside Bridge.

Oaks Pioneer Church.

3-136

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Archaeological and Historic Resources Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

The other continuous-truss bridges were built between 1929 and 1950, making the Sellwood Bridge the oldest of this type of construction. The application of a common bridge type is demonstrated in an unusual way, increasing the number of spans from two or three to four, in order to achieve an artistic effect. Gustav Lindenthal (one of the most significant bridge engineers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries) designed this bridge. He prepared design plans for five Portland-area bridges in less than 5 years, but the Sellwood Bridge was his first, and it is the longest and the only four-span truss bridge he designed in Portland.

The cemetery is characterized by a narrow road system that follows the natural ridges and curves of the land, a variety of large and small trees and shrubs that may have been selectively planted, and views across the river toward Sellwood and the neighboring communities. Most of the burials are located on the hillside above OR 43, with the oldest ones located toward the center of the cemetery, near the mausoleum. The cemetery is considered locally significant and it was entered into the City of Portland Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) circa 1982; it is eligible for listing in the National Register. River View Cemetery is eligible for the National Register for the following reasons: • With the origins of its establishment in the early 1880s, River View Cemetery is one of the oldest cemeteries in the City of Portland. It also contains the remains of persons who are considered important in the history, politics, and social landscape of the city in the late 19th century. The cemetery displays distinctive design elements associated with the rural cemetery movement of the late 19th century, as exemplified through its architecture, landscape architecture, and associated monuments. Elements that contribute to the significance of the River View Cemetery include, but are not limited to, the Superintendent’s House (discussed subsequently); the cemetery gate(s); the River View Chapel, Mausoleum, and office; the rock-lined gutters; and the curvilinear road system.

River View Cemetery River View Cemetery, established in 1882, is located on the west side of the Willamette River, approximately 3 miles south of downtown Portland. The cemetery is approximately 300 acres in size and is bounded on the north by SW Taylors Ferry Road and on the east by OR 43. There are two entrances, one located off OR 43, just a few feet from the western end of the Sellwood Bridge, and another on SW Taylors Ferry Road.
River View Cemetery and Superintendent’s House.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-137

Archaeological and Historic Resources Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

Superintendent’s House at the River View Cemetery The River View Cemetery Superintendent’s House was constructed in 1914. The Neo-Georgian-style structure replaced a 19th century building constructed in the Gothic Revival style. The choice of architects and designers indicated the founders’ intent that the cemetery reflect the “architectural splendor of their city.” The Superintendent’s House was designed by Ellis F. Lawrence, a prominent and prolific architect who practiced his craft in Portland in the early decades of the 20th century. The Superintendent’s House is considered locally significant and is eligible for the National Register for the following reasons: • The structure is a stylistic achievement by Lawrence and is considered a prime example of its style and is unique compared to Lawrence’s other surviving designs locally and within the state. The building is considered to have high artistic value. It displays those distinctive
River View Cemetery Superintendent’s House.

characteristics that evoke the Neo-Georgian style of residential architecture. • The Superintendent’s House is a contributing feature of National Register-eligible River View Cemetery.

Willamette Shoreline Trolley The Southern Pacific Railroad Red Electric Eastside Line, known locally as the Willamette Shoreline Trolley, is part of a railroad corridor in the Willamette Valley. It comprises the east side of a loop that ran between downtown Portland, Lake Oswego, Yamhill County, Hillsboro, and Beaverton. In 1887, the Portland & Willamette Valley Railroad opened its steam lines in western Oregon, which created a loop that served many communities south and west of Portland. After 1929, however, Southern Pacific abandoned its interest in streetcars in Portland and used the line for freight service until 1983. Since 1987, the Willamette Shoreline Trolley has provided seasonal excursion service between Portland and Lake Oswego on two historic trolley cars. The Oregon Electric Railway Historical Society has operated the trolleys since 1995.

3-138

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Archaeological and Historic Resources Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

A portion of the line still lies between OR 43 and the Willamette River from southwest Portland to Lake Oswego. Two important contributing features in this segment, the Elk Rock Tunnel and the Riverwood Trestle, remain intact. Both of these features are outside the study area for this project. The Southern Pacific Railroad Red Electric Eastside Line retains integrity of location, design, setting, feeling, and association for its period of significance, 1914 to 1929. It is potentially eligible for the National Register for the following reasons: • It was part of an important transportation network that connected Portland with its hinterland; it was also a vital link in connecting the larger communities with smaller towns in the Willamette Valley. The interurban railroad was a strong influence in the growth and development (and the physical shaping) of the outer suburbs south and west of Portland, like Tigard, Hillsboro, and Beaverton, because the construction of roads and highways to and around those communities would follow the existing railroad alignments.

3.10.3

Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences

Impacts and Mitigation Common to All Build Alternatives
Cultural resources are assessed using the terminology and hierarchy of adverse effect, no adverse effect, and no effect. These terms apply to the characteristics that make them eligible for the National Register. NEPA uses the impact categories of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. These two systems of impact assessment are similar, but not identical. An indication in this section that there is no direct or indirect impact indicates that there is no adverse effect to the characteristics that make the property eligible for the National Register, though there may be an impact to the property itself. In that context, none of the Build alternatives would have direct or indirect impacts (adverse effect) on the Oaks Pioneer Church or Willamette Shoreline Trolley alignment. The Oaks Pioneer Church would be impacted by noise, but this would not affect the status derived from its architectural and historical significance, so from a cultural perspective, there would be no adverse effect. Likewise, the Willamette Shoreline Trolley alignment would be moved to the east. However, moving the alignment would not impact the significant features that make the Willamette Shoreline Trolley eligible for the National Register, so that there would be no adverse effect. Archaeological sites are not currently known to exist in the area of potential effect of any of the Build alternatives. Alternative E, because it would be constructed on a footprint not already deeply disturbed by previous bridge construction, is marginally the most likely to affect currently undetected archaeological deposits. Archaeological explorations detected no archaeological resources that would be impacted by right-of-way expansion in Powers Marine Park,

3.10.2

No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences

The No Build Alternative would have no adverse effect on the Oaks Pioneer Church, the Superintendent’s House, River View Cemetery, or the Willamette Shoreline Trolley alignment. Maintenance activities under the No Build Alternative are not planned to retain the historic quality of the bridge. The No Build Alternative would have an adverse effect on the Sellwood Bridge if the bridge were allowed to deteriorate through neglect.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-139

Archaeological and Historic Resources Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

River View Cemetery, the Sellwood Harbor Condominium grounds, and the grounds of the Sellwood Building. Direct Impacts. The Build alternatives would have adverse effects to the River View Cemetery, the Superintendent’s House, and the Sellwood Bridge. The Build alternatives would require the acquisition of land from River View Cemetery along OR 43 north and south of the Superintendent’s House. Although the actual acquisition of land from the cemetery would be small, the removal of any property associated historically with the cemetery would constitute an adverse effect because of a change in the character of the historic property’s use and to the physical features within the property’s setting that contribute to its historic significance.

effect due to a change in physical features within the property’s setting that contribute to its historic significance. Indirect Impacts. Indirect impacts would occur if construction and operation create changes in current conditions that could result in adverse effects to archaeological or historic resources. The Build alternatives would have indirect impacts to the Superintendent’s House. Specific indirect impacts are described for each alternative. None of the Build alternatives would have indirect impacts to River View Cemetery, the Sellwood Bridge, Oaks Pioneer Church, or the Willamette Shoreline Trolley alignment. Mitigation. The following mitigation would be implemented for archaeological resource impacts:

Properties that are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places are assessed for impact by application of the following categories: No Effect, No Adverse Effect, and Adverse Effect. Adverse effects on historic properties include, but are not limited to: (i) Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property

Examples of Adverse Effects According to Federal Regulations (from 36 CFR Part 800.5[a][2])

(ii) Alteration of a property, including restoration, rehabilitation, repair, maintenance, stabilization, hazardous material remediation and provision of handicapped access, that is not consistent with the Secretary’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 680 and applicable guidelines) (iii) Removal of the property from its historic location (iv) Change in the character of the property’s use or of physical features within the property’s setting that contribute to its historic significance (v) Introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property’s significant historic features (vi) Neglect of a property which causes its deterioration, except where such neglect and deterioration are recognized qualities of a property of religious and cultural significance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization (vii) Transfer, lease, or sale of property out of federal ownership or control without adequate and legally enforceable restrictions or conditions to ensure long-term preservation of the property’s historic significance

The realignment of the access road to the Superintendent’s House and the widening of OR 43 would bring the road closer to the historic property. This would have an adverse

Prepare and implement a data recovery plan to direct retrieval and analysis of information from National Register-eligible sites within the area of ground disturbance. Although

3-140

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Archaeological and Historic Resources Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

discovery protocols would be implemented, active archaeological monitoring of such project-related ground disturbance areas would be undertaken by a qualified archaeologist, as described in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 61. • Include stipulations in the project’s construction contracts. All Multnomah County employees and all Multnomah County contractors and subcontractors would follow these stipulations should any archaeological, historic, or paleontological resources be discovered during construction of the project. These stipulations would likely include the following: − Immediately suspend construction operations in the vicinity of the discovery if a suspected historic, archaeological, or paleontological item, feature, prehistoric dwelling site, or artifact of historic or archaeological significance is encountered. Notify the responsible FHWA and ODOT personnel and SHPO as soon as possible of the nature and exact location of the discovery. Consult with a qualified historian or archaeologist to advise FHWA, ODOT, and SHPO regarding the significance and recommended disposition of the discovery. Protect the discovered objects from damage, theft, or other harm prior to contacting the responsible personnel from FHWA, ODOT, and SHPO. Consult with SHPO in accordance with 36 CFR 800.13(b) toward developing and implementing an appropriate treatment plan prior to resuming construction. Multnomah County would not resume construction until SHPO had agreed to that resumption.

In the unlikely event that human remains were discovered during project construction, implement the proper protocol for such a discovery, as follows: − − Immediately stop work in the area of the discovery and secure the area. Contact the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office and Medical Examiner, the Oregon State Archaeologist, the Multnomah County project manager, and the Multnomah County archaeologist. If the discovery were determined not to be European-American, notify the tribal representatives of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians and the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Indians, along with the Oregon State Museum of Anthropology. If the remains were determined to be Native American, have the Tribes, SHPO, and Multnomah County confer related to an appropriate course of action.

Mitigation measures for impacts to the historic resources would include, but not be limited to, the following: • Abiding by Historic American Building Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER) Level III documentation standards for the River View Cemetery and the Superintendent’s House at River View Cemetery. Salvaging materials from the Sellwood Bridge and preserving dedication plaques for reinstallation at a later time.

Alternative-specific Impacts and Mitigation
Alternative A Direct Impacts. Alternative A would directly impact the Sellwood Bridge, the River View Cemetery, and the Superintendent’s House.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-141

Archaeological and Historic Resources Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

Rehabilitation of the existing Sellwood Bridge would be an adverse effect because it would remove the approach spans, the original deck, the floor beams, and the railing. These features contribute to the significance of the bridge and the loss of these original elements would diminish the integrity of the bridge. In addition, the widening of the bridge through the addition of truss spans to either side of the existing span and the widening of the piers would be considered an adverse effect. Alternative A would include the acquisition of approximately 3.6 acres from River View Cemetery along OR 43 north and south of the Superintendent’s House. The area impacted is occupied by the access road to the cemetery, casual landscaping, and parking for the Superintendent’s House. The access road creates a formal entrance effect for the cemetery. Although the actual acquisition of land from the cemetery is small, the removal of any property associated historically with the cemetery would constitute an adverse effect, as it would change the character of the historic property’s use and its setting, which contribute to its historic significance. Widening of the OR 43 interchange would also necessitate the relocation of two contributing elements of River View Cemetery: the cemetery gates and the southern entrance road at OR 43. This would be an adverse effect because it would change the character of the property’s use and change physical features within the property’s setting that contribute to its historic significance. It is not known at this time if these gates would be moved to a new location or demolished. Alternative A would require a change in the alignment of the access road to the Superintendent’s House. This would have an adverse effect on the building because of a change in physical features within the property’s setting that contributes to its historic significance. Indirect Impacts. The west-side interchange would be closer to the Superintendent’s House

than existing conditions and, therefore, would have the potential to introduce visual elements that would diminish the integrity of the property’s significant features. Mitigation. Any proposed rehabilitation of the bridge would require the application of The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (National Park Service, 1995), and SHPO would have to approve any proposed action. However, it is not likely that the rehabilitation effort would meet the standards to maintain the bridge’s eligibility status. The following mitigation is proposed for impacts to the River View Cemetery and Superintendent’s House: • Before removal and relocation, the cemetery gates would be documented according to HABS/HAER Level III standards. Documentation and relocation should meet all possible planning requirements to minimize harm to the gates. It is assumed that the gates would be moved to a new main entrance. Appropriate-level HABS/HAER recordation for the Superintendent’s House and River View Cemetery would be determined and completed prior to construction, and documentation would be prepared. A National Register nomination would be prepared for the River View Cemetery. A landscaping plan, created in coordination with River View Cemetery staff, qualified cultural resource specialists, and registered landscape architects with experience in historic landscapes, would be prepared to minimize the effect of the loss of land along OR 43, which is anticipated in all Build alternatives. This would include replanting of appropriate trees, shrubs, and other plants found at the cemetery. Enhancements to the landscape would include a planting screen to minimize visual impacts related to the widening of OR 43 near the Superintendent’s


3-142

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Archaeological and Historic Resources Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

House. Additionally, any foliage removed for the realignment of the access road to the Superintendent’s House would be replaced in kind. • New signage would direct the visitors to the Superintendent’s House, and would explain the significance of the historic property.

Alternative B Direct Impacts. This alternative would have the same direct impacts as Alternative A to the Sellwood Bridge, the River View Cemetery, and the Superintendent’s House. The area impacted is occupied by the access road to the cemetery, casual landscaping, and parking for the Superintendent’s House. The access road creates a formal entrance effect for the cemetery. Indirect Impacts. This alternative would have the same indirect impacts as Alternative A to the Superintendent’s House. Mitigation. Mitigation proposed is the same as that proposed for Alternative A. Temporary Detour Bridge Option There would be no additional direct or indirect impacts with the optional temporary detour bridge. Alternative C Direct Impacts. This alternative would require the demolition of the Sellwood Bridge, which would be an adverse effect because it would cause the physical destruction of a historic property. Alternative C would include the acquisition of approximately 2.1 acres from River View Cemetery along OR 43 north and south of the Superintendent’s House. The area impacted is occupied by the access road to the cemetery, casual landscaping, and parking for the Superintendent’s House. The access road creates a formal entrance effect for the cemetery. Although the actual acquisition of land from the cemetery would be small, the removal of any property associated historically with the

cemetery would constitute an adverse effect, as it would change the character of the historic property’s use and its setting, which contribute to its historic significance. Additionally, this alternative would require the relocation of two contributing elements of the River View Cemetery: the cemetery gates and the southern entrance road at OR 43. This would constitute an adverse effect because it would cause a change in the character of the property’s use and to physical features within the property’s setting that contribute to its historic significance. It is not known, at this time, if these gates would be moved to a new location or demolished. This alternative would remove the entrance road at OR 43 leading to the Superintendent’s House in River View Cemetery. Unlike the other Build alternatives, no replacement access would be provided under Alternative C. The River View Cemetery administration has stated that if the access were closed, they would cease using the Superintendent’s House as a funeral home, leaving its use and commitment to its care in question. The access closure would be an adverse effect to the Superintendent’s House because it would change physical features within the property’s setting (such as the location of the entrance columns and the road itself) that contribute to the historic significance of the Superintendent’s House. Furthermore, this would constitute an adverse effect on the River View Cemetery, as closure of this entrance would change the elements of the historic setting, design, and feeling, which are aspects of integrity that convey the historic significance of the cemetery. Indirect Impacts. Visual elements, such as retaining walls for the west-side interchange, are most prominent with Alternative C and would change the historical setting of the Superintendent’s House, which could diminish the integrity of the property’s significant historic features. These retaining walls could block the view of the road and river from the property.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-143

Archaeological and Historic Resources Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

Mitigation. Proposed mitigation measures for Alternative C include the following for impacts to the existing Sellwood Bridge: • Review the existing Willamette River Bridges HAER (OR-55) to determine whether Level I documentation was prepared, specific to Sellwood Bridge. If not, this would be accomplished prior to the demolition of the bridge. Copies of the report would be disseminated to the Central and SellwoodMoreland branches of the Multnomah County Library system, as well as to the City of Portland, ODOT, and SHPO. Assess bridge materials to determine what materials, if any, are salvageable and could be made available to interested parties. A list of potential interested parties would be prepared in advance of any proposed salvage or advertisement thereof. Offer truss spans for reuse at an alternate location(s). Advertisements would be placed in appropriate media outlets such as in newspapers, in trade magazines, and on the Internet. The offer would run for 3 months. Prepare a detailed study of truss bridges in Multnomah County, and a regional survey and evaluation of bridges of this type. Support a new Web site that would provide information about the historic bridges in the area. This Web site would be made available to the City of Portland and the Multnomah County Web sites that link to the ODOT Web site. Clean, treat, and store the existing dedication plaques until completion of the new bridge. Install the existing plaques at a location near the east end of the bridge alongside new interpretive panels (see next bullet). Create interpretive panels to explain the history of river crossings in the immediate area, as well as discuss the history of the

Sellwood neighborhood. These panels would be placed on or near the bridge. The following mitigation is proposed for impacts to the River View Cemetery and the Superintendent’s House: • Permanently remove the cemetery gates from their location at the cemetery entrance on OR 43 and place them at the cemetery entrance on SW Palatine Hill Road, with an interpretive panel explaining the relocation and with images on the panel showing their original setting and location. Design any proposed retaining walls or sound walls associated with the bike/pedestrian underpass and the removal of the entrance road to assimilate with the surrounding landscape, and do not construct the walls to a height that would obscure the viewshed to and from the Superintendent’s House towards the river.

Alternative D Direct Impacts. Alternative D would have adverse effects similar to those of Alternative C for the Sellwood Bridge and similar to those of Alternative B for the River View Cemetery and the Superintendent’s House (approximately 3.6 acres would be acquired from River View Cemetery). The area impacted is occupied by the access road to the cemetery, casual landscaping, and parking for the Superintendent’s House. The access road creates a formal entrance effect for the cemetery. However, Alternative D would provide access to the cemetery from the interchange, whereas Alternative C would not. Indirect Impacts. Due to the wider OR 43 interchange, Alternative D could introduce visual elements that would diminish the integrity of significant features of the Superintendent’s House. Mitigation. Proposed mitigation measures for Alternative D for the Sellwood Bridge are the same as those for Alternative C.

3-144

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Archaeological and Historic Resources Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

For Alternative D, the following mitigation is proposed for impacts to the River View Cemetery and the Superintendent’s House: • Before removal and relocation, document the cemetery gates according to HABS/HAER Level III standards. Documentation and relocation should meet all possible planning requirements to minimize harm to the gates. It is assumed that the gates would be moved to the new entrance on SW Palatine Hill Road. Appropriate-level HABS/HAER recordation for the Superintendent’s House and River View Cemetery would be determined and completed prior to construction, and documentation would be prepared. Prepare a National Register nomination for the River View Cemetery. Prepare a landscaping plan, created in coordination with River View Cemetery staff, qualified cultural resource specialists, and registered landscape architects with experience in historic landscapes, to minimize the effect of the loss of land along OR 43 (which is anticipated in all Build alternatives). This would include replanting of appropriate trees, shrubs, and other plants found at the cemetery. The Portland Plant List would be consulted to avoid planting any non-native vegetation that might self-seed into nearby natural areas. Enhancements to the landscape would include a planting screen to minimize visual impacts related to the widening of OR 43 near the Superintendent’s House. Additionally, any foliage removed for the realignment of the access road to the Superintendent’s House would be replaced in kind. Create and place new signage that would direct the visitors to the Superintendent’s House and explain the significance of the historic property.

Alternative E Direct Impacts. This alternative would have adverse effects similar to those of Alternatives C and D to the Sellwood Bridge, River View Cemetery, and the Superintendent’s House. Approximately 3.4 acres would be acquired from River View Cemetery. The area impacted is occupied by the access road to the cemetery, casual landscaping, and parking for the Superintendent’s House. The access road creates a formal entrance effect for the cemetery. Indirect Impacts. Indirect impacts would be the same as those for Alternative D. Mitigation. Mitigation proposed is the same as that proposed for Alternative D. Alternative D Refined (Preferred Alternative) Direct Impacts. Alternative D Refined would require the demolition of the Sellwood Bridge, which would be an adverse effect because it would cause the physical destruction of a historic property. Alternative D Refined would acquire approximately 4.0 acres from River View Cemetery along OR 43 north and south of the Superintendent’s House. The area impacted is occupied by the existing access road to the cemetery, casual landscaping, and parking for the Superintendent’s House. The access road creates a formal entrance effect for the cemetery. Although the actual acquisition of land from the cemetery would be small, the removal of any property associated historically with the cemetery would constitute an adverse effect, as it would change the character of the historic property’s use and its setting, which contribute to its historic significance. Widening of the OR 43 interchange would also necessitate the relocation of two contributing elements of River View Cemetery—the cemetery gates and the southern entrance road at OR 43. This would be an adverse effect because it would change the character of the property’s use and change

• •

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-145

Archaeological and Historic Resources Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

physical features within the property’s setting that contribute to its historic significance. Realignment of the roadway providing access to River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property would change the visual impact of the project to the historic Superintendent’s House. Rather than crossing in front of the Superintendent’s House, the roadway would pass behind the structure. Construction of the roadway in this location would require an approximately 20-foot-high retaining wall behind (west of) the Superintendent’s House (Figure 3.10-2). The River View Cemetery owners believe the visual impacts of
FIGURE 3.10-2

Indirect Impacts. The west-side interchange would be closer to the Superintendent’s House than existing conditions. Therefore, it would have the potential to introduce visual elements that would diminish the integrity of the property’s significant features. Mitigation. Multnomah County, ODOT, and SHPO have reached agreement on measures to mitigate historic impacts for the preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined). The following mitigation would occur for impacts to the existing Sellwood Bridge: • Prepare a supplemental recordation of the

Existing Condition and Alternative D Refined

Alternative D Refined are preferable to those of Alternative D.

Sellwood Bridge in accordance with the HAER. The supplemental HAER documentation of the Sellwood Bridge would

3-146

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Archaeological and Historic Resources Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

document the changes to the Sellwood Bridge since it was recorded as part of the Willamette River Bridges Project in 1999. • Place interpretive signage at the east and west ends of the new bridge or in Sellwood Riverfront Park. This would provide information regarding the history of river crossings in the immediate area, the Sellwood neighborhood, and River View Cemetery. Clean, treat, and store the existing (original) dedication plaques until completion of the new bridge, then reinstall them at a location near the east end of the bridge. Provide for the creation and upkeep of a Web site during project construction that would provide information regarding the historic Sellwood Bridge and River View Cemetery. Assess existing bridge materials to determine what materials, if any, might be salvageable, and make those available to interested parties. Prepare a list of potential interested parties in advance of any proposed salvage or advertisement. Prepare an advertisement announcing the availability of salvageable materials from the Sellwood Bridge. Identify what materials, if any, could be incorporated into the new bridge and/or into the interpretive panels.

The following mitigation would occur for impacts to the River View Cemetery and the Superintendent’s House: • Research, photograph, and record the history of the River View Cemetery Superintendent’s House in accordance with the standards set forth by the HABS. Prepare a short history of the River View Cemetery that would show the location of roads and trails, structures, and important graves. It would include photographs of important structures and general vistas of the cemetery grounds and the cemetery gates. Move the cemetery gates to a new location within the cemetery property. Place interpretive signage at the Superintendent’s House. This signage would provide information and images discussing the Superintendent’s House, and would present a general history of the River View Cemetery. Design the retaining walls around the Superintendent’s House so that they would assimilate with the surrounding landscape, and use vegetation screening to obscure the new structures.

• •

3.10.4

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Archaeological and Historic Resources Impact

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-147

Archaeological and Historic Resources Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

TABLE 3.10-2

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Archaeological and Historic Resources Impact Impact Type Direct Impact to River View Cemetery No Build None A Replaces and moves access, removes informal landscaping Displaces parking, some parking would be restored, alters setting B Replaces and moves access, removes informal landscaping Displaces parking, some parking would be restored, alters setting B/TDB Replaces and moves access, removes informal landscaping Displaces parking, some parking would be restored, alters setting C Removes access from OR 43, removes informal landscaping Removes access from OR 43, displaces parking, some parking would be restored, alters setting Removes historic bridge D Replaces and moves access, removes informal landscaping Displaces parking, some parking would be restored, alters setting E Replaces and moves access, removes informal landscaping Displaces parking, some parking would be restored, alters setting D Refined Replaces and moves access, removes informal landscaping Displaces parking, some parking would be restored, alters setting

Direct Impact to Superintendent’s House

None

Direct Impact to Sellwood Bridge

Bridge would deteriorate

Alters significantly, no longer eligible for National Register Alters setting

Alters significantly, no longer eligible for National Register Alters setting

Alters significantly, no longer eligible for National Register Alters setting

Removes historic bridge

Removes historic bridge

Removes historic bridge

Indirect Impact to Superintendent’s House

None

Alters setting

Alters setting

Alters setting

Alters setting

B/TDB = Alternative B with temporary detour bridge

3-148

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Visual Reso urces Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

3.11
3.11.1

Visual Resources
Affected Environment

Visual Resources Summary Rehabilitation or replacement of the existing bridge alone would have little visual impact on the existing landscape. Construction of a bridge in a new location would minimally affect views of downtown Portland and the West Hills. The landscape would be most affected by construction of the bridge approaches and the west-side interchange with OR 43. Other than the elevated eastside bridge approach of Alternative E, none of the east-side connections with SE Tacoma Street would vary enough to be a differentiating factor for visual quality change. On the west side, cuts into the hillside above OR 43 and removal of vegetation for all the Build alternatives would have approximately equal and significant adverse impacts to the visual resources of the project area.

The Sellwood Bridge area is popular for recreation and includes river-oriented parks, businesses, and moorages. Generally, natural landscape elements with terrain and elevation changes dominate the west bank of the Willamette River. The east bank has less elevation change and is more developed, with parkland and multifamily housing along and near the river. Houseboats are anchored in two clustered developments on both sides of the river. OR 43, a major arterial, runs less than a quarter-mile inland from the river’s west bank at the foot of the hillside. Views from OR 43 to the east bank are screened by the vegetation on the west bank. The river, hills, and more distant Portland skyline contribute to the moderately high quality of the visual environment.
Statewide Planning Goal 15 (Willamette River Greenway Program; Oregon Administrative Rule [OAR] 660-015-0005) designates the Willamette River Greenway, on both shores within the study area, as an area for resource management and recreation access. The objective of Goal 15 is to protect, conserve, enhance, and maintain the natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic, and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River. The Build alternatives would need to comply with this goal.

People in apartments and condominiums, commercial buildings, houseboats, and singlefamily residences would have views of the project improvements. Those traveling by private vehicle, public transit, bicycle, and foot along OR 43, adjacent trails, and the Sellwood Bridge and its approaches would have views from the project improvements. In the project area, views of the Willamette River and West Hills are most sensitive to visual quality change.

The City of Portland Comprehensive Plan (City of Portland, 2006) outlines requirements for protecting scenic resources through the City of Portland’s Scenic Resources Protection Plan (1991). The Sellwood Bridge is identified as a scenic resource. The Scenic Resources Protection Plan also identifies four scenic viewpoints in the project area where the viewsheds should be protected from development that would degrade the views. These viewpoints are shown on Figure 3.11-1, which also illustrates eight key viewpoints for the visual analysis. Some of these viewpoints are described and illustrated as they relate to specific Build alternatives. Although the bridge is the focus of these four protected scenic viewpoints, the Scenic Resources Protection Plan does not outline specific restrictions to bridge project development, such as height or scenic overlay zones. The Comprehensive Plan uses scenic overlay zoning to protect scenic resources.

Willamette River Greenway Program

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-149

Visual Reso urces Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

No visual impacts are anticipated for the No Build Alternative. Events such as structural failures, severe weather, vehicle collisions, landslides, and vegetation morbidity potentially could alter the visual condition of built and natural elements of the landscape.
3.11.3

viewpoints of and from the road (and bridge) were identified as most representative for visual impact analysis (Figure 3.11-1). Because a bridge already exists, a new or rehabilitated bridge in the same location would be less visually intrusive than a new bridge structure at a different location. The structural elements employed in the bridge design could obstruct the view at some locations and improve the view at other locations. Some bridge design types would dominate and obstruct the landscape more than others. A new or rehabilitated bridge structure could actually improve visual quality.

Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences

Impacts and Mitigation Common to All Build Alternatives
Direct Impacts. Visual impacts are the combined result of changes in visual resources and viewer responses to such changes. Eight key
FIGURE 3.11-1

Protected Scenic Viewpoints and Key Viewpoints for Visual Analysis

3-150

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Visual Impacts

3.11.2

No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences

Visual impacts are the combined result of changes in visual resources and viewer responses to such changes.

Visual Reso urces Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

East Side of the Willamette River. Overall, the impact to visual quality of the built environment on the east side of the river would be minimally negative, and possibly positive along SE Tacoma Street. Views from the east side toward the West Hills across the river would be most strongly impacted by hillside cuts and retaining walls a minimum of 20 feet high. West Side of the Willamette River. The three west-side interchange types (roundabout, trumpet, and signalized intersection) would significantly change the existing landscape west of the river. The hillside above OR 43 would be cut and vegetation (such as trees) would be removed during construction of the interchange. New structures on the west bank would include retaining walls and elevated ramps for the westside interchange, the bicycle/pedestrian path, and a future streetcar line with trail improvements. These items would cause negative visual impacts. Construction. Clearing, grubbing of mature vegetation, grading, and the presence of equipment, materials, signage, and staging areas would cause temporary visual effects during construction. In certain areas, debris piles from the removal of large mature trees would temporarily lessen visual quality. Construction would likely occur at night, requiring additional lighting. The glare from unshielded light sources and increases in ambient nighttime light levels would affect residents near the construction area. Indirect Impacts. Visitors interested in seeing the rehabilitated or new bridge and its views could increase local traffic. More people would likely use the bicyclist and pedestrian facilities because of the bridge’s improvements, views, and connection to urban facilities in Sellwood. Mitigation. As part of landscape mitigation at the time of construction, final design would determine new plant locations, species, and sizes. Mitigation measures recommended for consideration during final design would attempt

to restore the natural environment along OR 43. Using existing vegetation or replanted vegetation to screen the retaining walls could reduce the visual impact after approximately 10 years. Mitigation measures for visual resources would include:    Reducing form, texture, or color contrasts in structures and cut/fill slopes Refining the alignment of the interchange and ramps to lessen the hillside cuts Planting replacement vegetation and/or limiting the removal of vegetation to buffer or screen sensitive viewers from introduced structural elements and slope scarification; replanting large-growing trees Preserving existing stands of mature trees and other attractive natural vegetation to the greatest extent possible; minimizing clearing for construction, and marking trees for preservation During construction, shielding light sources to block direct views of temporary lighting from residential areas, and aiming and shielding light sources to reduce spillover lighting

Alternative-specific Impacts
Alternative A Impacts on visual resources from Alternative A mostly would result from retaining walls and the proposed new bicyclist and pedestrian facilities. East Side of the Willamette River. On the east side, the separate bicycle/pedestrian bridge would cross over Sellwood Riverfront Park, which could be a positive or negative visual impact (Figure 3.11-2). The rehabilitated vehicular bridge would not cause an adverse change to visual quality because it would be located on the same alignment and would be the same bridge type (continuous-truss) as the existing bridge.

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-151

Visual Reso urces Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

FIGURE 3.11-2

Alternative A Cable-stayed Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge from Sellwood Riverfront Park

FIGURE 3.11-3

Alternative A Roundabout Interchange and Bicycle/Pedestrian Path

3-152

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Visual Reso urces Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

West Side of the Willamette River. On the west side, a spiral ramp on the west bank would connect the bicycle/pedestrian bridge to the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank), and a bicycle/pedestrian overpass. A path west of and above the southbound OR 43 off-ramp would lead to the roundabout (Figure 3-11.3). With the southbound OR 43 off-ramp and bicycle/ pedestrian path would be a retaining wall approximately 20 feet high that would run 350 lineal feet between the bicycle/pedestrian overpass and the roundabout. Where the overpass would meet the path, a 48-foot cut into the hillside would be required. The top of the retaining wall for the bicycle/pedestrian path between the overpass and roundabout would be more than 50 feet above OR 43. North of the overpass, a retaining wall or rock-face cut would be 30 feet high nearest the overpass and descend to 5 feet high at a point approximately 500 feet north of the overpass. Alternative B East Side of the Willamette River. Other than the view of the retaining walls and new interchange on the west side, there would be no adverse change in visual quality on the east side because the rehabilitated bridge would be located on the same alignment and be the same bridge type (continuous-truss) as the existing bridge. West Side of the Willamette River. As with all the Build alternatives, the elevated ramps and retaining walls of the west-side interchange would cause adverse changes to visual quality. Near the interchange, however, the impacts of the tall retaining wall would not be as great as with Alternative A because Alternative B would lack the bicycle/pedestrian path connection of Alternative A between the separate bicycle/pedestrian bridge and the roundabout. Temporary Detour Bridge. The temporary detour bridge would cause a temporary adverse

change in visual quality on both sides of the river because there would be two bridges crossing the river during construction. The temporary detour bridge would cause an adverse change in visual quality from Oaks Pioneer Park because it would be aligned adjacent to the park. Alternative C East Side of the Willamette River. Other than the view of the retaining walls and new interchange on the west side, there would be no adverse change in visual quality on the east side because the new bridge would be located on the same alignment as the existing bridge. The bridge type would be through-arch, which would have superstructure (bridge elements above the bridge deck) that would be visible from SE Tacoma Street (Figure 3.11-4). However, this would not cause an adverse change in visual quality and could actually be a positive change in visual quality. West Side of the Willamette River. The visual impacts of the ramp configurations and retaining walls of the west-side interchange differentiate Alternative C from the other Build alternatives. The biggest visual differences would be the removal of the buildings on the Staff Jennings property and the addition of a linear bicycle/pedestrian ramp approximately 500 feet long that would rise to connect the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) to the bridge. Above the southbound exit ramp, an 80-foot-high wall would be prominent to drivers westbound on the replacement bridge. This wall is shown on Figure 3.11-5. Alternative C would have fewer lineal feet of rock face cut/retaining wall for the southbound ramp than the other Build alternatives. However, the location and extreme height of the retaining wall (80 feet) above the interchange directly west of the bridge terminus would have a high negative visual impact.

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-153

Visual Reso urces Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

FIGURE 3.11-4

Alternative C Through-arch Bridge from SE Tacoma Street

FIGURE 3.11-5

Alternative C Trumpet Interchange

3-154

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Visual Reso urces Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

Alternative D East Side of the Willamette River. Other than the view of the retaining walls and new interchange on the west side, there would be no adverse change in visual quality on the east side because the new bridge would be located on the same alignment as the existing bridge. The two bridge type options (delta-frame and deck-arch) would have no superstructure (bridge elements above the bridge deck). Therefore, the view from SE Tacoma Street (Figure 3.11-6) and Sellwood Riverfront Park (Figure 3.11-7) would be similar to existing conditions. West Side of the Willamette River. Under Alternative D, the elevated ramps and retaining walls of the west-side interchange would adversely change the visual quality. These visual changes would be similar among all the Build alternatives. Near the interchange, however, the impacts of the tall retaining wall would not be as great as with Alternatives A or E because Alternative D would lack the bicycle/pedestrian path connection of Alternative A. Alternative E Alternative E would include a new structure in approximately the same location as the separate bicycle/pedestrian bridge with Alternative A, but without a bicycle/pedestrian overpass of OR 43. However, because of the width, depth, and height of the structures, Alternative E (box-girder or through-arch bridge types) would have the potential for larger view obstructions than Alternative A (cable-stayed or stress-ribbon bicycle/pedestrian bridge types). East Side of the Willamette River. The landscape on the east side of the bridge would significantly change because a new bridge approach at SE Tacoma Street would be constructed. The alignment would veer north over SE Spokane Street and be aligned adjacent to Sellwood Riverfront Park (Figure 3.11-8). The view from Oaks Pioneer Park would also be an adverse change in visual quality. Bridge users on

the east-end approach would have a foreground view of an area north of SE Tacoma Street that would be elevated roadway. The present view is of mixed commercial development. The existing bank overlooking SE Oaks Park Way would be topped by the new bridge approach, resulting in the loss of some mature trees. Encroachment in this area would be larger than the bicycle/ pedestrian bridge under Alternative A. However, redevelopment efforts in this commercial area (which is now largely asphalt-covered) or extensive roadside landscaping (given an expanded right-of-way) could improve the visual quality of the area west of SE 6th Avenue. West Side of the Willamette River. For Alternative E, the west-side interchange would be located further to the north than for Alternative A. Consequently, Alternative E would not have the tall retaining walls or hillside cuts south of the underpass connection to Powers Marine Park that would result from Alternative A. This shift would realign portions of OR 43 to meet with the existing roadway farther north. However, almost 700 feet of realigned OR 43 immediately south of the interchange would require a retaining wall 5 to 10 feet high on one or both sides of the roadway (Figure 3.11-9). The cemetery access road would also require hillside cuts and tall retaining walls. North of the new west-side interchange, the southbound ramp would require a 40-foot high rock face cut/retaining wall for 200 lineal feet, then a 25- to 35-foot-high rock face cut/retaining wall for another 400 lineal feet. In addition, north of the interchange, the northbound ramp would be on fill with retaining walls that would range from 25 to 30 feet high for 600 lineal feet. These hillside cuts would be prominent from the condominiums on the east side of the Willamette River and parklands on both sides of the river.

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-155

Visual Reso urces Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

FIGURE 3.11-6

Alternative D and Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Deck-arch Bridge from SE Tacoma Street

FIGURE 3.11-7

Alternative D and Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Deck-arch Bridge from Sellwood Riverfront Park

3-156

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Visual Reso urces Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

FIGURE 3.11-8

Alternative E Through-arch Bridge from Sellwood Riverfront Park

FIGURE 3.11-9

Alternative E Signalized Interchange and South Ramps from above West Bank in Mid-air (Demolished Existing Bridge)

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-157

Visual Reso urces Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

Alternative D Refined (Preferred Alternative) East Side of the Willamette River. There would be no adverse change in visual quality on the east side because the new bridge would be located on the same alignment as the existing bridge. The two bridge type options (deck-arch and delta-frame) would have no superstructure (bridge elements above the bridge deck). Therefore, the view from SE Tacoma Street (Figure 3.11-6) and profile view from Sellwood Riverfront Park (Figure 3.11-7) would be similar in scale to existing conditions. West Side of the Willamette River. Under Alternative D Refined, the elevated ramps, rock cuts, and retaining walls of the west-side interchange would adversely change the visual quality. Because the footprint of the interchange under Alternative D Refined would be moved slightly to the west, the height of the rock cut and retaining wall on the west side of OR 43 would be higher than with all the other alternatives (see Table 3.11-1). However, removal of the bicycle/pedestrian spiral ramps in Alternative D Refined would reduce the visual impact from the east side, closer to the impacts identified for Alternative C. In addition, the retaining walls along the streetcar and multi-use path alignment on the east side of OR 43 through Willamette Moorage Park would be treated in a

stepped, vegetated fashion, which would soften the view from across the river. Realignment of the roadway providing access to River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property would change the visual impact of the project to the historic Superintendent’s House. Rather than crossing in front of the Superintendent’s House, the roadway would pass behind the structure. Construction of the roadway in this location would require an approximately 20-foot-high retaining wall behind (west of) the Superintendent’s House. Historic resources mitigation measures would include retaining wall treatments to complement the surrounding landscape and vegetative screening to obscure the walls. Additional mitigation measures would call for moving the existing stone cemetery gates to the new Superintendent’s House driveway and placing plaques commemorating the historic Superintendent’s House and Sellwood Bridge near the Superintendent’s House. The River View Cemetery owners believe the visual impacts of Alternative D Refined are preferable to those of Alternative D.
3.11.4

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Visual Resources Impact

3-158

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Visual Reso urces Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

TABLE 3.11-1

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Visual Resources Impact No Build Presence of retaining walls 10 feet or higher (in lineal feet; OR 43 southbound exit ramp) Presence of retaining walls 10 feet or higher (in lineal feet; OR 43 southbound entrance ramp) Significant east-side visual change? Significant west-side visual change? lf = lineal feet 0 lf 0 lf A 930 lf 600 lf B 580 lf 600 lf C 400 lf 450 lf D 660 lf 650 lf E 800 lf 950 lf D Refined 1,200 lf 750 lf

No

Yes (new bridge) Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes (bridge on new alignment) Yes

No

Yes

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-159

Geology Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

3.12
3.12.1

Geology
Affected Environment

Geology Summary All the alternatives except for Alternative E are within the landslide area that has caused movement of the existing west-end bridge pier. Drilling shafts into stable rock below the landslide would mitigate pier movement. The Build alternatives do not differ significantly from one another with respect to the combination of cuts, fills, erosion potential, and resource needs. Under all Build alternatives, structures would be designed to reduce risks of geologic hazards (such as landslides, rock cuts, changes in drainage patterns and erosion, and liquefaction). This would improve safety compared to existing conditions.

The geology in the vicinity of the Sellwood Bridge project consists primarily of a series of volcanic (basalt) flows. Flood deposits, placed fill, river alluvium, landslide debris, and other unconsolidated geologic deposits have covered the area over time. Holes (borings) were drilled in the project vicinity to evaluate subsurface conditions, to install instruments for measuring groundwater levels, and to monitor slope movement. Boring locations showed that belowground materials in the project vicinity consist primarily of mixed layers of unconsolidated materials (silt, silty sand, silty gravel, and clay with gravel) and basalt bedrock. The structure of the basalt bedrock in the project vicinity is important for slope stability. Because the unconsolidated materials have soil-like characteristics and lower strength than rock, they are subject to settlement and instability.
Major geologic hazards in the project area include landslides, erosion, and earthquakes. Erosion is the weathering away of soil. Landslides are the downward movements of rock, soil, or artificial fill on a slope. Erosion and landslides are functions of the area’s soil types and topography—the steeper the slope and the finer or more layered the soil, the likelier erosion and landslides are to occur.

weight of fill on the west end transfer weight to the already unstable slide, causing downhill movement. It is likely that parts of the slide are related to construction of the existing bridge, retaining wall, ramp, and abutment. Periodic earthquakes affect the Pacific Northwest, including the project area. Earthquakes can cause permanent ground changes, either by slippage along fault lines and steep slopes or by the movement of soils from ground-shaking. Within the project area, the hazards most likely to occur from earthquakes include damage to structures, liquefaction, ground motion, and landslides induced by seismic activity. Liquefaction occurs when seismic shaking causes certain soils to act like liquids.
3.12.2

Geologic Hazards

An ancient landslide exists at the west end of the current bridge (Figures 3.12-1 and 3.12-2). The existing bridge is in the northern portion of this landslide. Known as the Sellwood Slide, this landslide is approximately 500 feet long and 70 to 85 feet thick. The construction of the Sellwood Bridge in 1925 may have led to instability on the landslide. The placement of fills and bridge piers on top of the landslide may have added enough weight to modify the topography. Damage to the bridge piers on the west side indicates a slow landslide over time. Shallow bridge footings and

No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences

Under the No Build Alternative, the Sellwood Slide would continue its slow movement, which could continue to structurally compromise the west approaches of the existing bridge. Continued slope instability and occasional small rockfalls could occur on the existing rock cuts, which could cause road damage, traffic disruption, and injury to motorists. It is not likely that the

3-160

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Geology Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

FIGURE 3.12-1

Sellwood Slide

FIGURE 3.12-2

Geologic Cross-Section

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-161

Geology Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

drainage patterns and topographic configuration would change over time. Large precipitation events could cause erosion and sediment transport, and other future construction projects or road modifications could lead to increased erosion potential. However, it is not likely that the erosion potential would change over time unless a drastic event occurred in the project vicinity, such as a fire that removed vegetation.
3.12.3

stormwater away from the project site to prevent ponding or flooding. Drainage layers under retaining walls and culverts through embankment fills would move runoff under or through these structures to ensure drainage and prevent saturation. Direct impacts to geologic resources would include the depletion of materials used to construct earthfills, approach embankments, and retaining walls; to manufacture aggregate; and to supply topsoil. In addition, construction of bridges and structures would require use of large quantities of steel and concrete. These resources could not be replaced. It is anticipated that the excavation of cut slopes for the project would provide a surplus of material. Some material could be used as general fill. The excess material would need to be disposed of off-site in an appropriate location. The weight from new fill and structures (such as retaining walls) and the excavation of cut slopes would create instability on the existing Sellwood Slide. Cutting into an unstable area would likely result in an unstable cut that would require stabilization measures, as summarized in the Mitigation section. Construction impacts would include vibrations and damage to structures from rock blasting operations; the dropping of rocks into the travel roadway during construction of rock cuts; soil erosion and increased runoff in devegetated areas; and sedimentation in the Willamette River resulting from lack of proper construction controls. Foundation construction within the Willamette River could affect river navigational uses and could temporarily increase turbidity and suspended sediments in the river. Indirect Impacts. Indirect impacts for all Build alternatives would include the following:  Changes in topography from grading could affect drainage patterns and erosion, which could in turn increase the potential for future landslide movement by causing accumulation

Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences

Impacts and Mitigation Common to All Build Alternatives
Direct Impacts. Erosion, topographic modifications, and drainage pattern alterations are direct impacts expected to occur for all Build alternatives. The cut-and-fill slopes, retaining walls, and other structures would have the potential to create slope instability. The existing landslide (Sellwood Slide) would be a concern for the project construction and could be impacted by all Build alternatives. Modifications to an existing landslide could cause instability or renewed movement if not properly designed and constructed. These direct impacts could cause soil erosion concerns. Rock cut slopes would be constructed along the west bridge approach as part of each Build alternative. The rock cut slopes could also have a thick mantle of soil or weathered rock at their crests. Direct impacts from new rock cuts would include rockfall hazards, global rock slope instability, costly construction, and ongoing maintenance. The Build alternatives would modify the existing drainage patterns and topography from the cutand-fill slopes and retaining walls. However, culverts and drainage ditches would be incorporated at the base of cut-and-fill slopes and along new roads. These ditches would convey

3-162

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Geology Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

and infiltration of stormwater in slide-prone soils.  Permanent, steeper slopes, fills, and structures could decrease the long-term stability of the Sellwood Slide and could create the potential for future movement on the existing landslide. Seismic events could affect the new structures, new fill slopes, new rock cut slopes, and stability of the Sellwood Slide. Large precipitation events could lead to future slope failures and erosion on new cutand-fill slopes constructed as part of the project that would not have existed under the No Build Alternative.

Rockfall Hazards. Basic rockfall mitigation techniques would include installing rockfall nets or catch fences to cover slopes and constructing a rock catchment ditch (Figure 3.12-3) with a barrier between the ditch and OR 43. Bolts and mesh could be used to cover high rockfall hazard areas such as weathered zones of rock. Rock anchors could be used to increase the stability of the slope. If highly weathered rock or soil-like zones were exposed in rock cuts, then stabilization techniques such as mesh or soil nails could be employed to mitigate slope hazards (Figure 3.12-3). Drainage and Erosion. Standard erosion control techniques (including stormwater and erosion best management practices such as the development and implementation of a comprehensive erosion and sediment control plan) would be used in construction zones to

Mitigation. Mitigation measures would be designed to minimize short- and long-term impacts. Many mitigation measures would be common to all FIGURE 3.12-3 Build alternatives, as summarized Geologic Mitigation Techniques in the following subsections. Figure 3.12-3 shows a conceptual drawing of mitigation techniques for rockfalls and rock cut instability. Sellwood Slide. Constructing new piers and abutments in stable ground below the slide and using drilled shafts and driven piling would provide structural mitigation. This technique would involve driving or drilling the piles or shafts through the slide mass and into stable rock below the slide. Removing the existing fill and replacing it with lightweight fill, such as Styrofoam™, would reduce the force on the landslide and reduce the weight of fills.

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-163

Geology Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

minimize erosion. For the long-term, erosion could be controlled by hydroseeding and establishing vegetation as soon as possible. Other measures would include diverting stormwater runoff away from cuts and fills and constructing erosion retention basins. Seismic Hazards. Mitigation for seismic hazards to bridges, structures, and retaining walls would include evaluating the level of loading to be expected during design and performing structural design to withstand the anticipated loads. Foundation design would consider liquefaction and the structure would be founded on rock or more stable ground, such as the Troutdale formation, if encountered at depth. Slope stabilization measures (such as installing drilled shafts or micropiles and increasing soil strength) would also provide mitigation for seismic hazards.
The Troutdale formation, which was formed during the Missoula Floods, consists of cemented boulders, cobbles, gravels, and sand. The Ross Island Bridge, located 2.5 miles to the north of the Sellwood Bridge, is founded on the Troutdale formation.

would be anticipated because there would be fewer potential stability issues and rockfall hazards.  Existing landslide area. Alternative A would include excavation of cut slopes within the limits of the existing Sellwood Slide. OR 43 would be cut into the slide to a depth of 18 feet. No fills would be within the landslide limits for this alternative.

Alternative B Overall, Alternative B would have the lowest rock cut slopes and lowest fills of all the Build alternatives. Consequently, the impacts related to Alternative B could be expected to be less than with the other Build alternatives.   Fill height. Alternative B would have a maximum fill height of 21 feet. Cut height. Alternative B would have two rock cuts with maximum heights of 36 and 38 feet, and maximum rock cut lengths between 500 and 850 feet. Because the rock cut heights would be lower than the rock cuts of the other Build alternatives, lower impacts would be anticipated because there would be fewer potential stability issues and rockfall hazards. Existing landslide area. Alternative B would include excavation of cut slopes within the limits of the existing Sellwood Slide. OR 43 would be cut into the slide to a depth of 18 feet. No fills would be within the landslide limits for this alternative.

Troutdale Formation

Alternative-specific Impacts
Environmental consequences and mitigation for the Build alternatives are summarized in the following subsections. Fill heights, cut heights, and the existing landslide area for each Build alternative are addressed. Alternative A  Fill height. Alternative A would have a maximum fill height of 36 feet (for the retaining walls along the northbound entrance ramp).  Cut height. Alternative A would have two rock cuts with maximum heights of 38 and 49 feet, and maximum rock cut lengths between 500 and 900 feet. The rock cut heights would be lower than with some of the other Build alternatives, so lower impacts 

Alternative C  Fill height. Alternative C would have maximum fill heights of 38 feet along the northbound entrance ramp. This alternative would have the largest cut slope heights and the highest fills of all the Build alternatives and, consequently, the greatest potential impacts from a slope stability perspective.

3-164

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Geology Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

Cut height. Alternative C would have two rock cuts, including a 20-foot-high cut and a large, high, rock cut along the southbound exit because of the trumpet-type intersection where the southbound exit ramp would be farther to the west than with the other Build alternatives. The maximum height of this rock cut would be approximately 65 feet. This alternative would have the second highest rock cut slope of all the Build alternatives. The length of the two rock cuts would range from 450 to 525 feet. The height of the rock cut slope could cause stability concerns, which could lead to greater impacts. A rock cut of this height would have the potential to cause a large impact because of design and construction difficulties, stability concerns, rockfall hazard, and the potential cost of stabilization and maintenance. Existing landslide area. Alternative C would include excavation of cut slopes within the limits of the existing Sellwood Slide. OR 43 and the southbound entrance would be constructed on retaining walls that would be up to 12 feet high. These could cause slide movement. The streetcar/trail bridge could be extended to the south, which would likely avoid impacting the landslide. However, because no cuts or excavations and no underpass would be within the landslide limits, Alternative C would have lower impacts from a cut-slope stability standpoint.

of 18 feet. The streetcar/trail would be constructed on a retaining wall up to 28 feet high on the slide, which could cause slide movement. Alternative D, which would have the highest fills on the existing landslide, appears to have the most potential to impact the slide of all the alternatives. However, if the streetcar/trail were constructed on a bridge structure rather than on a retaining wall, the impacts would be minimized. Alternative E  Fill height. Alternative E would have a maximum fill height of 30 feet along the northbound entrance ramp.  Cut height. Alternative E would have two rock cuts with maximum heights of 40 and 57 feet, the third highest of all the Build alternatives. The length of the two rock cuts would range from 450 to 650 feet. Although the rock cuts would not be as long as those in the other Build alternatives, the height of the two rock cuts for this alternative would cause stability concerns, which could lead to greater impacts. A rock cut of this height would cause larger impact construction difficulties, stability concerns, rockfall hazard, and potential costs for stabilization and maintenance. Existing landslide area. Alternative E would require minimal excavating and filling on the existing landslide mass. There would be a combination of cut and fill into the slide along OR 43. The cut would be 8 feet high and the fill would be 10 feet high within the landslide area. Overall, this alternative would have the least impact to the landslide area compared with the other Build alternatives.

Alternative D  Fill height. Alternative D would have a maximum fill height of 28 feet.  Cut height. Alternative D would have two rock cuts with maximum heights of 38 and 41 feet, and maximum rock cut lengths between 500 and 900 feet. Existing landslide area. Alternative D would include excavation of cut slopes within the limits of the existing Sellwood Slide. OR 43 would be cut into the slide to a depth

Alternative D Refined (Preferred Alternative)  Fill height. Alternative D Refined would have a maximum fill height of 20 feet at the northbound entrance ramp. This would be

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-165

Geology Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

the lowest maximum fill height of all the Build alternatives.  Cut height. Alternative D Refined would have a maximum cut height of 73 feet at the southbound exit ramp. This would be the largest cut height of all the Build alternatives. Existing landslide area. Alternative D Refined would include excavation of cut slopes within the limits of the existing Sellwood Slide. OR 43 would be cut into the slide to a depth of 43 feet along the roadway that would provide access to Powers Marine Park and the Staff Jennings property. This would be the largest cut height within the landslide area of all the Build alternatives. The maximum fill height within the slide area would be 6 feet.

property beneath and east of the OR 43 northbound off-ramp to avoid cuts or fills into the toe of the landslide. If a cut were required in this vicinity, the cut slope would be stabilized using a soil nail wall or a retaining wall.  Construct micropiles in the vicinity of the toe of the landslide to provide structural stabilization for the lower part of the landslide mass. These structural elements would add additional shear capacity at the failure plane of the slide, which would resist the driving force of the landslide and increase safety. Construct the future planned streetcar alignment on the slide approximately at grade, which would eliminate the need for cuts or fills. Stabilize the weathered rock at the southbound OR 43 off-ramp using tiebacks (upper portion of this rock cut). Found bridge piers on materials with suitable strength. Use the latest probabilistic seismic hazard analyses to design the bridge piers to withstand damage from seismic shaking and liquefaction based on fully characterized subsurface conditions and seismic potential. Relocate the existing water-line pipes, as necessary, to avoid destabilization of the soil supporting these pipes (which could damage the pipes, causing them to fail).

Mitigation. Mitigation measures for Alternative D Refined would be similar to the previously listed mitigation measures. Specific mitigation measures for Alternative D Refined would include the following:  Remove existing fill material, which would remove the driving force causing the existing landslide to move. Recent movement of the existing landslide may be the result of adding fill material. Construct a secant-pile wall along the roadway to Powers Marine Park and the Staff Jennings property to stabilize the cuts into the landslide mass. Construct a structure on the roadway to Powers Marine Park and the Staff Jennings

3.12.4

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Geology Impact

3-166

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Geology Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

TABLE 3.12-1

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Geology Impact Impact Maximum Fill Height Maximum Cut Height Fill Height in Sellwood Slide Cut Height in Sellwood Slide No Build 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet A 36 feet 49 feet 0 feet 18 feet B 21 feet 38 feet 0 feet 18 feet C 38 feet 65 feet 12 feet 0 feet D 28 feet 41 feet 28 feet 18 feet E 30 feet 57 feet 10 feet 8 feet D Refined 20 feet 73 feet 6 feet 43 feet

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-167

Water Quality Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

3.13
3.13.1

Water Quality
Affected Environment

Water Quality Summary The Build alternatives would increase impervious surface area compared to the No Build Alternative by 80 to 100 percent. While the increase in impervious surface area would degrade water quality, with proposed mitigation, water quality would improve so that it would be better than with the No Build Alternative. 3.13.3

The Willamette River, which is approximately 187 river miles long, drains the Willamette Valley in western Oregon. The existing Sellwood Bridge is located about 16.6 river miles upstream of the Willamette River’s confluence with the Columbia River. At the bridge, the river has a tributary drainage of approximately 11,200 square miles, and the streambed elevation is below sea level and subject to tidal influences. Climate, topography, soils, drainage, and human activities influence water quality. The drainage in the project area flows directly to the Willamette River; there are no stormwater facilities in the project area. To assess ambient water quality in the Willamette River, monitoring data were retrieved from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). To protect aquatic life and human health, Oregon Administrative Rule 340 defines the acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) concentration criteria not to be exceeded in waters of the state. The lower Willamette River is on DEQ’s federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. Every 2 years, DEQ assesses water quality and reports to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the condition of Oregon’s waters.
3.13.2

Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences

Impacts and Mitigation Common to All Build Alternatives
Direct Impacts. Mitigated and un-mitigated annual loads were calculated as a percentage of the annual pollutant load in the Willamette River. Annual mass loads from the project were determined and compared for both un-mitigated and mitigated scenarios. Each of the Build alternatives would result in an increase in impervious area compared to the No Build Alternative. Increasing impervious surface area would increase the amount of polluted runoff, leading to greater pollutant concentration in the Willamette River. Therefore, un-mitigated mass pollutant loading to the river would increase with the increase in impervious area. Pollutant load increases would vary between 80 percent and 100 percent. Mitigation was analyzed for the treatment of stormwater from all impervious areas within the project. With mitigation, the annual pollutant
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes that states are to list (the 303[d] list) waters for which technology-based limits alone do not ensure attainment of applicable water quality standards (WQS). Every 2 years, DEQ assesses water quality and reports to the EPA on the condition of Oregon’s waters.

No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences

The No Build Alternative would maintain the existing pavement of 7.0 acres of impervious surface; stormwater runoff would not increase. There would continue to be no water quality treatment for the runoff unless the extent of the maintenance work triggered the need for a biological assessment and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and DEQ required treatment and detention of stormwater.

3-168

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Section 303(d) List

Water Quality Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

loads would generally decrease below those of the No Build Alternative. The incorporation of water-quality mitigation with the proposed Build alternatives would reduce pollutant loading to the river, with the exception of metal pollutants that are entirely dissolved. Load reductions for total copper and total zinc would be approximately 1 to 10 percent. However, for dissolved copper and dissolved zinc, annual loads would increase approximately 44 to 60 percent, but would be below DEQ limits. New technologies are currently under development and would likely be available by the time of project construction. These technologies could greatly improve dissolved metals removal, incrementally improving Willamette River water quality. The greatest decreases would be in particulate pollutant loadings, such as total suspended solids (TSS). With mitigation, approximately 70 percent of particulate pollutants would be removed. Dissolved pollutants would show the least removal, approximately 20 percent removal. This level of removal should be considered conservative; actual removal would likely be higher than calculated. The analysis was completed using stormwater treatment technologies that are currently accepted and approved by the regulatory authorities. New technologies are currently under development, such as ecology embankments and compost amended swales, which should greatly improve dissolved metals removal. Although these technologies should be available when and if the project goes to design, they are not currently recognized and, therefore, were not used as a treatment benchmark. An increase in impervious area would increase both the rate and volume of stormwater runoff. The increased rate of runoff could result in adverse impacts to receiving streams. The increased flow and velocity in a receiving stream could cause morphological impacts to the stream channel. These impacts could potentially increase sediment loading, which would result in stream incision and damage to aquatic habitat. Flows

would increase above the existing condition. Flows, as a percentage of river flow in all cases, would be less than a tenth of a percent of average annual flow in the Willamette River. Additionally, the streambed of the Willamette River in the vicinity of the Sellwood Bridge is below sea level. Downstream tidal influences profoundly affect the river’s flow. These tidal influences exert a significant effect on the velocity in the river, and river velocities are relatively insensitive to flow alone. For construction activities, DEQ is responsible for issuing and enforcing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 1200-C permits. These permits identify activities during construction to assure an acceptable standard of water quality. In addition, the Federal 404 Wetland Removal Fill permit requires that construction stormwater management and construction practices be addressed. Major areas of concern during construction are anticipated to be erosion prevention, sediment control, and inwater work. Regulatory agencies would closely review these practices to minimize impacts. Indirect Impacts. No indirect impacts are anticipated. If the project induces redevelopment, then redevelopment would require stormwater mitigation exceeding the existing stormwater mitigation. Mitigation. As indicated under the Direct Impacts section, mitigation for stormwater generated from all impervious surfaces for the Build alternatives would improve water quality over the existing conditions. Engineered stormwater treatment of runoff is anticipated as a mitigation measure to reduce project impacts. Mitigation was considered for treatment of stormwater from all impervious surfaces. Various stormwater treatment methods accepted by the City of Portland were investigated to determine their viability. Potential facilities were sized using guidelines from ODOT, City of Portland, National Oceanic and

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-169

Water Quality Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

Atmospheric Administration, and NMFS. Stormwater runoff from new impervious areas would require permits from the City of Portland. To provide treatment for the west side of the project, engineered bioswales would need to be approximately 400 feet long at a 0.5-percent slope, with a 14-foot bottom width. As a result of topography and natural resource issues, no available locations within the west project area were identified to site the requisite bioswales. The City of Portland has approved the use of manufactured stormwater filters for water quality treatment. These filters could be sited in underground vaults placed in paved areas where traffic flow would allow periodic filter maintenance. The west side of the project could be treated with two 6-foot-by-12-foot manufactured underground filter vaults within the project right-of-way that would discharge to the Willamette River; no additional right-of-way would be needed for stormwater facilities. However, more vaults might be required to partition maintenance responsibilities among the responsible jurisdictions (Multnomah County, ODOT, and the City of Portland). The project area along the east side of the project could be partially treated with water
FIGURE 3.13-1

quality swales. Figure 3.13-1 shows potential water quality swale locations along SE Tacoma Street between the east end of the bridge and
Impervious surface refers to a surface through which water cannot percolate. Because pavement is impervious, stormwater runoff and pollutant loading increase as impervious area increases. As impervious area increases, the potential for infiltration of precipitation into the soil and groundwater decreases. Increased impervious area also provides a greater area on which vehicular pollutants can accumulate. An increase in impervious area increases the volume and rate of stormwater runoff with an increased pollutant load. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in its research and methodology document, Pollutant Loadings and Impacts from Highway Stormwater Runoff, FHWA-RD88-006 (1990), reported a direct relationship between pollutant loading and impervious area.

SE 6th Avenue. However, the east end of the bridge would produce too much runoff to be fully treated using swales. Runoff from the east end of the bridge could be treated partially or fully using one 6-foot-by-12-foot manufactured underground

Potential Water Quality Swale Locations along SE Tacoma Street

3-170

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Impervious Surface Area

Water Quality Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

filter vault within the project right-of-way that would discharge to the Willamette River. Stormwater treatment options and design for the west and east sides would be refined during the project’s engineering design phase. Stormwater treatment would meet all applicable regulatory and permitting requirements.

more impervious surface than the No Build Alternative. Alternative D Alternative D would have 13.9 acres of impervious surface, or approximately 100 percent more impervious surface than the No Build Alternative. Alternative E Alternative E would have 13.6 acres of impervious surface, or approximately 95 percent more impervious surface than the No Build Alternative. Alternative D Refined (Preferred Alternative) Alternative D Refined would have 13.9 acres of impervious surface, or approximately 100 percent more impervious surface than the No Build Alternative.
3.13.4

Alternative-specific Impacts
Alternative A Alternative A would have 13.7 acres of impervious surface, or approximately 97 percent more impervious surface than the No Build Alternative. Alternative B Alternative B would have 13.8 acres of impervious surface, or approximately 99 percent more impervious surface than the No Build Alternative. Alternative C Alternative C would have 12.6 acres of impervious surface, or approximately 80 percent

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Water Quality Impact

TABLE 3.13-1

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Water Quality Impact Impact Type Impervious Surface Area (acres) Improves water quality compared to existing conditions? No Build 7.0 A 13.7 B 13.8 C 12.6 D 13.9 E 13.6 D Refined 13.9

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-171

Hydra ulics Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

3.14
3.14.1

Hydraulics
Affected Environment

Hydraulics Summary All Build alternatives, other than Alternative D and the delta-frame bridge cofferdam approach with Alternative D Refined, would contribute to a small increase in the base flood elevation. Therefore, they would require amendment of the regulated floodway or a change in design to achieve no net rise. Engineering bridge design work would be undertaken to avoid this impact. Additional obstructions in the floodway, including bridge piers, might require conveyance offsets, or the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) might need to be revised to reflect proposed impacts.

The Sellwood Bridge spans the Willamette River at river mile 16.6, as measured from its confluence with the Columbia River. Tributaries contributing flow in the vicinity of the project area are Stephens Creek, Johnson Creek, Kellogg Creek, and the Clackamas River. The study area includes a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA; designated as “Zone AE”). Construction within this flood hazard zone requires a permit from the City of Portland to assure that floodplain building requirements are met. Construction must balance cut and fill at or below the protected 100-year base flood elevation. A FEMA-designated regulated floodway has been delineated in the vicinity of the project area. “A Regulated Floodway” means that part of the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge a 100-year flood event (1 percent annual occurrence; base flood elevation) with no more than a 1-foot rise over the 100-year base flood elevation. Once the boundaries of the regulated floodway are established, nothing may be placed in the regulated floodway that contributes to a net increase in the 100-year base flood elevation. Additional obstructions in the floodway, including bridge piers, might require conveyance offsets. Alternatively, the City of Portland and FEMA could request a Letter of Map Revision and change the base flood elevation to accommodate the piers. City of Portland code indicates that development and structures are prohibited from encroaching into the regulated floodway unless technical analysis from a registered engineer demonstrates that the development would not increase the 100-year flood elevation. Flooding in the study area occurs primarily because of snowmelt in the spring and intense

rains in the winter. Typically, flooding in the lower Willamette River is caused by backwater effects from the Columbia River. Reservoir construction on both the Willamette and Columbia River systems has lessened flood risk for the Willamette River near the Sellwood Bridge, although the last major flood, in 1996, occurred after the system was fully regulated. Flow velocities at the existing bridge vary across the channel cross section and by depth, but average velocities vary from 1 or 2 feet per second under typical conditions and up to 8 feet per second in major flood events. Local velocities around obstructions such as bridge piers may be higher, but obstructions may also provide areas of little or no velocity.
3.14.2

No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences

The No Build Alternative would not increase flooding, as measured by the change in watersurface elevation upstream of the project area. The No Build Alternative would create no change in backwater (flooding).

3-172

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Hydra ulics Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

3.14.3

Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences

Impacts and Mitigation Common to All Build Alternatives
Direct Impacts. As currently designed and evaluated, all Build alternatives except Alternative D and the delta-frame bridge cofferdam approach with Alternative D Refined would increase the base flood elevation, resulting in a rise of between 0.01 and 0.08 foot above base flood elevation. Although small, even this elevation change could require substantial additional work—either to revise the bridge design during final design, or to address permitting requirements associated with documenting and communicating these impacts to affected stakeholders. For those Build alternatives that show an increase in base flood elevation relative to the No Build Alternative, agency consultation would be needed to assess permitting requirements and the need for associated studies. These studies might include re-mapping the floodplain and regulated floodway in the vicinity of the project. In addition, all Build alternatives encroach into the 100-year floodplain. Floodplain encroachment, which is addressed under 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 650A, Section 113, will require selection of the most practicable alternative. Indirect Impacts. Changes to channel morphology would be anticipated during high flow events. It would be anticipated that indirect impacts would eventually stabilize with time. Mitigation. The primary opportunity for mitigation of hydraulic impacts would be to reduce the base-flood-elevation change. This could be accomplished by redesigning in-water piers as bridge design progresses. Many of the following mitigation measures would be developed after hydraulic designs for the bridge had been completed:  

Prohibit construction equipment from entering watercourses, except when a specific task can only occur in the stream (such as the construction of piers). This activity would be limited to the in-water work periods for watercourses with listed fish species. Prohibit equipment washing in the watercourses. Prohibit equipment from crossing the watercourses, except at temporary crossings, unless impractical. A temporary crossing plan would be prepared in coordination with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and ODOT. The plan would identify proposed construction methods and develop appropriate mitigation measures to rehabilitate the watercourse habitats that would be affected by the temporary crossings. Request review and approval from ODFW of fish passage mitigation measures resulting from the proposed bridge. Size bridge openings to pass the 100-year peak flood discharge with little or no increase to the water surface elevation. Obtain federal and state fill permits prior to construction. Perform a “no rise” analysis and obtain a City of Portland Floodplain Development Permit prior to construction. Any substantial impacts to the FEMA SFHA could be mitigated by one or a combination of the following techniques:  Excavate part of the streambank to compensate for the permanent loss in flow area (that is, the loss created by the installation of bridge piers). Investigate pier shaping to minimize energy losses.

 

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-173

Hydra ulics Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

Prepare a detailed erosion control plan during the final design. The plan would meet or exceed requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 1200-C permit.

Alternative E Table 3.14-1 summarizes hydraulic conditions for Alternative E. Alternative D Refined (Preferred Alternative) Table 3.14-1 summarizes hydraulic conditions for the preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined). Additional hydraulic modeling was conducted for Alternative D Refined. Table 3.14-1 shows the conditions by bridge type and bridge foundation construction method. (Section 2.3 summarizes the cofferdam and perched in-water construction methods.) Immediately upstream of the bridge, the water surface elevation would increase more using the perched than the cofferdam construction method. These are preliminary hydraulic analysis findings. As bridge engineering design progresses, a detailed analysis would be conducted to determine hydraulic impacts of the preferred alternative and the potential to mitigate any impacts.
3.14.4

Alternative-specific Impacts and Mitigation
Alternative A Table 3.14-1 summarizes hydraulic conditions for Alternative A. Alternative B Table 3.14-1 summarizes hydraulic conditions for Alternative B. Temporary Detour Bridge Option The temporary detour bridge would create an obstruction in the river’s flow for up to 39 months. If a 100-year flood event were to occur during the 39 months of construction, water surface elevation could reach 36.42 feet (an increase of 2.81 feet above existing conditions), and velocities could increase to nearly 8.33 feet per second (an increase of 1 foot per second over the current velocity). Additional temporary impacts during construction (such as streambank erosion and temporary changes in water surface elevations resulting from other temporary structures) would be minimized by implementing appropriate construction techniques (such as the careful design of temporary structures) and erosion control best management practices. Alternative C Table 3.14-1 summarizes hydraulic conditions for Alternative C. Alternative D Table 3.14-1 summarizes hydraulic conditions for Alternative D. Alternative D would not increase the water surface elevation. Thus, as currently configured, Alternative D would have a measurable cost and schedule advantage relative to those Build alternatives that would increase the water surface elevation.

Floodplain Finding

Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) directs all federal agencies to refrain from conducting, supporting, or allowing actions in floodplains unless it is the only practicable alternative. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requirements for compliance are outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart A. Executive Order 11988 requires the consideration of alternatives that avoid floodplain impacts for all federally funded projects. Implementation of the proposed action would result in the loss of approximately 0.48 acre of floodplain. There are no practicable alternatives to the proposed improvements that would avoid floodplain impacts. In accordance with Executive Order 11988 and 23 CFR 650, Subpart A, avoidance and minimization of floodplain impacts have been considered during project development, and design adjustments have been made, where

3-174

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Hydraulics Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

feasible. The project, as depicted in preliminary design, shows between a 0.02-foot decrease in base flood elevation and a 0.08-foot net rise in base flood elevation (with a 2.81-foot net rise for Alternative B with the temporary detour bridge option during construction only). During and following final design, the project would be brought into conformity with all applicable state floodplain protection standards. All project facilities located within floodplains would be designed to comply with federal, state, and local regulations. During subsequent design efforts for

the preferred alternative, a detailed hydraulic analysis of the bridge would be required. This analysis would model the effects of the project on the elevation of the river during the 100-year base flood event to determine whether the bridge would increase floodwater elevations. Approval might require seeking a Letter of Map Revision from the City of Portland and FEMA.
3.14.5

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Hydraulics Impact

TABLE 3.14-1

Summary of Hydraulic Conditions by Alternative, Bridge Type, and Bridge Foundation Method
Change in WSE from No Build Alternative (feet) Maximum Average Velocity at Bridge (feet per second) Change in Velocity from No Build Alternative (feet per second)

Alternative, Bridge Type, and Bridge Foundation Method

100-Year Flood WSE (feet)

No Build Alternative Alternative A—Cable-stayed Bicycle/ Pedestrian Bridge Alternative A—Stress-ribbon Bicycle/ Pedestrian Bridge Alternative B—Rehabilitation Alternative B with temporary detour bridge (during construction only) Alternative C—Through-arch Alternative D—Deck-arch Alternative D—Delta-frame Alternative E—Box-girder Alternative E—Through-arch Alternative D Refined— Deck-arch Alternative D Refined— Delta-frame Cofferdam Perched Cofferdam Perched

33.91 33.97 33.98 33.94 36.42 33.93 33.91 33.89 33.93 33.93 33.92 33.99 33.90 33.99

NA +0.06 +0.07 +0.03 +2.81 +0.02 0.00 -0.02 +0.02 +0.02 +0.01 +0.08 -0.01 +0.08

7.33 7.59 7.59 7.60 8.33 7.50 7.33 7.14 7.56 7.50 6.78 6.77 6.78 6.77

NA 0.26 0.26 0.27 1.00 0.17 0.00 -0.19 0.23 0.17 -0.55 -0.56 -0.55 -0.56

Note: Cofferdam and perched are construction methods for bridge foundations (see Section 2.3). NA = not applicable WSE = water surface elevation

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-175

Aquatic Resources Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

3.15
3.15.1

Aquatic Resources
Affected Environment

Aquatic Resources Summary Adverse impacts to aquatic resources from the Build alternatives could include direct removal of in-stream habitat and loss of riparian vegetation. Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be implemented to minimize or alleviate temporary impacts. In addition, topographic contours would be restored and disturbed surfaces would be stabilized and revegetated with native species.

The following resources were used to identify the aquatic resources in the project area:     Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps (2004) Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) Willamette River fish study (2005) ODFW Willamette Falls fish counts (2007) Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center and StreamNet database search for rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal species within the Sellwood Bridge vicinity (2007) Published literature of biological resources in the Willamette Valley U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) species list for Multnomah County Willamette Restoration Initiative Draft Willamette Subbasin Plan (2004)

  

placed materials (such as rip-rap, piers, and piles) provides habitat to salmonid predators (non-native fish). However, the Willamette River in the project area has some of the highest concentrations of remaining beach habitat, off-channel habitat, riparian area, mature forest, and cold-water tributary confluence areas because the west-side of the Willamette River is relatively undeveloped and has been maintained as a natural area. The lower Willamette River is low gradient and averages a drop of 2.5 feet per mile (Altman et al., 1997). Flow in the river has been affected by impoundments on its major tributaries, which have reduced winter and spring flood peaks and increased summer base flows compared to the past. Because of these actions, significant amounts of shallow-water, floodplain, and off-channel habitats have been lost, resulting in insufficient amounts of key habitat available for the migration and rearing stages of Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and cutthroat and steelhead trout using the lower river (Altman et al., 1997). Substantial pollution to the lower Willamette River occurred during the 1900s, up to the mid1900s. Raw sewage disposal and industrial activities led to increased fecal coliform levels, nutrient loading, biochemical oxygen demand, and primary production (eutrophication) (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality [DEQ], 2007). Since the 1950s, water quality improvements have been documented as a result of conservation efforts outlined in The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (Oregon

In addition to reviewing this information, a site visit was conducted to observe riparian and channel characteristics of the Willamette River within the project study area. The purpose of the visit was to characterize and verify the potential riparian and in-water habitat features identified during the review of available information.

Habitat in the Project Vicinity
The Willamette River between Willamette Falls and the mouth of the Willamette River at the Columbia River has been highly straightened, channelized, dredged, and filled. In general, it has been narrowed and deepened. The use of rip-rap and other structures along the banks, especially in the vicinity of downtown Portland, has resulted in the loss of important natural channels, minimizing the interaction between the river, the riparian area, and floodplain vegetation. In addition, the presence of

3-176

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Aquatic Resources Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

TABLE 3.15-1

Seasonal Average Water Quality Index Results for the Lower Willamette Basin (Water Year 1986-1995) Scores Storet Numbera 404000 402288 402000 River Mile 0.2 13.2 7.0 Summer Averageb 26 79 74 FWS Averagec 30 74 75 Minimum Seasonal Averaged 26 74 74

Site Johnson Creek at SE 17th Avenue (Portland) Willamette River at Hawthorne Bridge (Portland) Willamette River at SP&S Railroad Bridge (Portland)
a b c d

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Storage and Retrieval database (STORET) Summer: June–September FWS (Fall, Winter, and Spring): October–May Scores—Very Poor: 0-59, Poor: 60-79, Fair: 80-84, Good: 85-89, Excellent: 90-100

SP&S = Spokane, Portland and Seattle Source: DEQ, 2008

Watershed Enhancement Board, 1998). However, water quality in the lower Willamette is still considered poor (Table 3.15-1). In general, the aquatic fish habitat in the lower Willamette River is poor for salmon and most other native fish species (discussed in the next subsection), but it is improving over recent past conditions. Historically, the lower Willamette River was a major rearing area for salmon and trout. According to the City of Portland, the project area
Anadromous fish are those that spend all or part of their adult life in the sea and return to freshwater streams and rivers to breed, such as Pacific salmon species and Pacific lamprey. Anadromous fish are born in freshwater streams and, after 2 to 5 years, they migrate through the estuaries to the Pacific Ocean, where they grow in the nutrient-rich estuary and ocean water. After 1 to 4 years, they return to their native streams to reproduce and die.

historically was the location of some of the largest chum populations in the Lower Columbia River. In the recent past, as a result of human influences on the river, the lower Willamette River has primarily been considered a migration corridor. Recent studies have documented the presence and growth of juvenile salmonids in the lower Willamette River, specifically along nearshore areas (ODFW, 2005). The lower Willamette River has been designated as critical habitat for steelhead and Chinook salmon.

Anadromous Fish Life Cycle

Willamette River Fish Species
The lower Willamette River contains nearly 50 fish species, almost a third of which are non-native to the Willamette River. This section provides general background information on the major categories of fish (including federal and/or state threatened and endangered species; other game species; resident species; and non-native species) and fish population abundance occurring within the project action area.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-177

Aquatic Resources Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

Federal Regulations

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA) are federal laws. As a procedural requirement, federal agency actions such as authorizing a permit or providing funding for a project must conduct National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance reviews. Where ESA-listed species are present, or could potentially be present, the federal action serves as a nexus for ESA Section 7 consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), which have jurisdiction over ESA-listed threatened and endangered species. Species potentially affected by the Sellwood Bridge project include steelhead, Chinook, coho salmon, and green sturgeon (Southern Distinct Population Segment [DPS] of the North American green sturgeon ) in the Willamette River. The CWA provides protection to wetlands and waterways. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) implements the law through a permit program that applies to activities that fill wetlands or other jurisdictional waters. Permits often require mitigation for unavoidable impacts to achieve no net loss of wetland habitat. Please see the Biological Resources Technical Report (CH2M HILL, 2008c, updated in 2010) for more information on relevant state regulations.

Salmonids in the lower Willamette River, including those listed as Threatened or Endangered Pacific salmon, also known as salmonids, occur in the lower Willamette River. Pacific salmon are important fish species as they provide for a substantial recreational and commercial fishery in the Northwest. Specifically, four species of anadromous salmonids occur at certain times during the year in the lower Willamette River. These species are coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), steelhead trout (O. mykiss), and cutthroat trout (O. clarki). Of these, the stocks of coho, Chinook, and steelhead that occur in the lower Willamette River are listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). They were originally listed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in 1999, and were reaffirmed as threatened species in 2005 and 2006. Cutthroat trout in the lower river is currently considered a candidate species for federal listing. Tables 3.15-2 and 3.15-3 show the timing of specific lifestage events (rearing, spawning, etc.) that occur in the lower river for each of the species of salmonids. The lower Willamette River is designated as critical habitat for both the Chinook and steelhead stocks that occur in the river. Critical habitat for coho salmon is currently under development and may eventually include the

lower Willamette River. Critical habitat is a term used in the ESA to describe certain areas that have been designated as critical to the survival of a species. Such a classification may restrict certain land use activities within designated areas. Other Native Anadromous Fish Species In addition to salmonids, the lower Willamette River contains other important anadromous species, including the Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentatus) and eulachon smelt (Thaleichthys pacificus). The Pacific lamprey is listed as a Species of Concern under the ESA and as a Vulnerable species by the State of Oregon. The Pacific lamprey and salmonids have similar habitat requirements. They both require gravel riffles for spawning and low velocity backwaters or eddies for rearing. Pacific lamprey occur in the river year-round as larvae; adults can migrate back for spawning in either the fall or the spring, with spawning occurring in April. Eulachon smelt are proposed for listing as threatened. The smelt provide an important recreational fishery in the lower Columbia and Willamette rivers. Eulachon smelt generally spawn in rivers that are glacier-fed and/or have peak spring freshets. These freshets rapidly move eggs and larvae to estuaries. Smelt enter the lower river for spawning from February to May.

3-178

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Aquatic Resources Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

TABLE 3.15-2

Willamette River Mouth to Willamette Falls—Resident Salmonid Species Life History and Timing
Life Stage/Activity/Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Adult Fluvial or Adfluvial/ Migration Cutthroat trout Adult/Spawning Cutthroat trout Adult/Sub-Adult Rearing Cutthroat trout Egg Incubation through Fry Emergence Cutthroat trout Juvenile/Rearing Cutthroat trout Juvenile/Sub-Adult Migration Cutthroat trout
Represents periods of peak use Represents lesser level of use Represents periods of presence, either with no level of use OR uniformly distributed level of use indicated

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-179

Aquatic Resources Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

TABLE 3.15-3

Willamette River Mouth to Willamette Falls—Anadromous Species Life History and Timing
Life Stage/Activity/Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Adult /Upstream Migration Winter steelhead Summer steelhead Spring Chinook salmon Cutthroat trout —sea-run Fall Chinook salmon Coho salmon Adult/Holding Winter steelhead Summer steelhead Spring Chinook salmon Cutthroat trout—sea-run Fall Chinook salmon Coho salmon Adult/Spawning Winter steelhead Summer steelhead Spring Chinook salmon Cutthroat trout—sea-run Fall Chinook salmon Coho salmon

3-180

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Aquatic Resources Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

TABLE 3.15-3, cont.

Willamette River Mouth to Willamette Falls—Anadromous Species Life History and Timing Life Stage/Activity/Species Egg Incubation through Fry Emergence Winter steelhead Summer steelhead Spring Chinook salmon Cutthroat trout—sea-run Fall Chinook salmon Coho salmon Juvenile/Rearing Winter steelhead Summer steelhead Spring Chinook salmon Cutthroat trout—sea-run Fall Chinook salmon Coho salmon Juvenile/Downstream Migration Winter steelhead Summer steelhead Spring Chinook salmon Cutthroat trout—sea-run Fall Chinook salmon Coho salmon
Represents periods of peak use Represents lesser level of use Represents periods of presence, either with no level of use OR uniformly distributed level of use indicated

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-181

Aquatic Resources Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

The young leave the river shortly after hatching as larvae. Other Protected Fish Species The green sturgeon (Acipenser medriostris) (Southern Distinct Population Segment [DPS] of the North American green sturgeon), which is federally listed as threatened, is found in the tidal waters of the Columbia River system, including the Lower Willamette River below Willamette Falls. The project area is currently proposed, but not currently designated as, critical habitat for the North American green sturgeon. Non-native Fish Species There are more than 20 non-native fish species in the lower Willamette and Columbia rivers, many of which are popular game fish (Farr and Ward, 1993; Sytsma et al., 2004). Walleye (Stizostedion vitreum), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), and American shad (Alosa sapidissima) are examples of popular non-native game fisheries in the lower Willamette River. Despite their recreational and economic benefits, non-native fish species can have detrimental impacts on the native fish due to predation and competition for food and habitat resources.

unless the extent of the work was such that a Biological Assessment and consultation with the USFWS and NMFS required other conservation and mitigation measures. In most cases, maintenance activities would not cause additional adverse impacts. No additional adverse impacts would be expected to occur to any aquatic resources under the No Build Alternative.
3.15.3

Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences

Impacts and Mitigation Common to All Build Alternatives
The Build alternatives have been designed to avoid impacts to aquatic resources to the maximum extent practicable. Potential impacts from the Build alternatives would primarily occur from short-term or temporary effects during construction (in-water excavation and construction activities, including hydroacoustic impacts), and long-term and indirect effects from operation (increase in impermeable surface area).

Direct Impacts
Permanent Direct Impacts. Permanent direct impacts could include direct removal of in-stream habitat, loss of riparian vegetation, an increase in impermeable surface area, and an increase in the quantity of stormwater. Piers in the River. The existing river crossing has five piers below the ordinary high water elevation. Each Build alternative design with a replacement-bridge type would also have pier columns below the ordinary high water elevation. Table 3.15-4 shows the number of in-water piers for each Build alternative. For Alternatives A and B, all five of the existing bridge piers would be widened and strengthened. The maximum spans for each alternative would be large enough to provide the required 200 feet of horizontal navigation clearance.

Other Willamette River Species
The Steller sea lion, which is federally listed as threatened, is found in the tidal waters of the Columbia River system, including the Lower Willamette River below Willamette Falls.
3.15.2

No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences

The No Build Alternative would, among other activities, replace the west-side bridge approach. Maintenance activities could potentially expose aquatic resources to harmful materials entering the Willamette River. Best management practices (BMPs) employed for maintenance activities would be expected to protect aquatic resources

3-182

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Aquatic Resources Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

TABLE 3.15-4

Potential Riverine Impacts In-water Piers (or Pier Rows) below OHWE 5 5 4 9 5 4 9 11 5 7 8 4 2 3

Alt.

Bridge Type Existing Rehabilitated Bridge Stress-Ribbon Bike/Ped Bridge Total Rehabilitated Bridge Cable-Stayed Bike/Ped Bridge Total Rehabilitated Bridge Double-Deck Steel Through-Arch Deck-Arch Delta- Frame Steel ThroughArch Box-Girder

Temporary construction impacts might also include direct mortality to native and non-native aquatic species. Sediment control plans, BMPs and project mitigation would minimize, to the extent practicable, these short-term impacts, so none of them is expected to have a permanent effect on aquatic habitat. The period of construction could result in the loss of individual fish protected under ESA. Because four species listed as threatened use the project area, a Biological Assessment of the preferred alternative is required for compliance with Section 7 of the ESA. In January 2010, the Biological Assessment (BA) was submitted to NMFS for a Biological Opinion. A Take Permit would be required during construction. Indirect Impacts. Potential indirect impacts to aquatic resource habitat from construction of any of the Build alternatives might include the following:  Increased pollutant loading due to increased stormwater volume resulting from increased impervious surface area. (However, increased stormwater treatment effectiveness and efficiency would improve the overall water quality of stormwater.) Water quality facilities would not treat dissolved copper and zinc. The percent increase in downstream concentrations would be on the order of 0.0001 to 0.0005 percent, which is immeasurable and undetectable. In addition, the concentration levels would be well within water quality standards. Hydrological changes due to increased impermeable surface area in the lower Willamette subbasin. (The negligible increase in impermeable surface area would not have a measurable effect on hydrology of the lower Willamette River.)

A

A

B C D

E D Refined
a

Deck-Archa

Bridge type evaluated for the project’s Biological Assessment as developed through coordination with ODOT, FHWA, and NMFS. OHWE = ordinary high water elevation yd3 = cubic yards

Temporary Impacts, including Impacts of the Temporary Detour Bridge. Potential construction period impacts to aquatic resources would be those associated with increases in turbidity; short-term sedimentation; temporary bank instability; discharge of hazardous materials into the Willamette River; dewatering of pier construction areas; and the temporary loss of any riparian vegetation in each of the alternative construction areas, including those for a temporary detour bridge that might be built.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-183

Aquatic Resources Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

Increased sedimentation and turbidity in the lower river. (However, mitigation should eliminate the impact to aquatic resources.) Minor improvement in riparian diversity due to the removal of invasive and non-native vegetation (such as Himalayan blackberry [Rubus armeniacus] and Japanese knotweed [Polygonum cuspidatum]) and replanting with a diverse array of native overstory and understory vegetation within the area that would be cleared for the project, but restored to compatible habitat on completion.

To assist the reader in evaluating the collective potential impact of these issues on aquatic resources, a sensitivity evaluation method was devised that weights the relative importance of each of these factors and shows the minor differences between the Build alternatives. To obtain a sensitivity rating for each Build alternative, first a ranking based on a scale of 1 to 5 was given to each resource factor (with a ranking of 1 having the lowest impact). Then each factor was given a weighting based on its relative importance to the aquatic resource. The loss of shallow-water near-shore habitat is considered the most important attribute and was given a weighting factor of 4, followed by in-stream habitat (weighting factor of 3), riparian vegetation loss (weighting factor of 2), and increase in impervious surface area (weighting factor of 1). The overall Aquatic Resource Sensitivity Score for a particular Build alternative was then computed based on the following equation, which uses both the ranking and weighting factors:
Aquatic Resource Sensitivity Score: a = 4 x Shallow-water habitat ranking b = 3 x Total in-stream habitat ranking c = 2 x Vegetation reduction ranking d = 1 x Impervious surface area ranking 10 Overall Aquatic Resource Sensitivity Score = (a+b+c+d)/10

Mitigation. Avoidance and minimization measures would be incorporated into the project to eliminate effects to aquatic species and their habitats. These measures would address in-water work, erosion control, containment of construction, handling of hazardous materials, and disturbance of vegetation. BMPs would be employed to avoid and minimize construction effects. As part of ESA consultation, ODOT, ODFW, NMFS, and USFWS would negotiate more specific conservation measures for inclusion in final plans and specifications. Appendix G, Summary of Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments, provides a list of proposed and committed avoidance, minimization, and conservation measures.

Alternative-specific Impacts and Mitigation
Most Build alternatives would be similar in their impacts on aquatic resources. The following four factors of habitat impacts combine to form the aquatic impact on resources.     Shallow-water near-shore habitat loss (pier area near-shore) In-stream habitat (pier area off-shore) Riparian vegetation loss Amount of impervious surface (water quality)

Table 3.15-5 shows the overall Aquatic Resource Sensitivity Scores for each Build alternative. Alternative A Alternative A with the stress-ribbon bicycle/pedestrian bridge design would have more adverse aquatic resource impacts than Alternative A with the cable-stayed bicycle/ pedestrian bridge design because of the location of piers in shallow-water and in-stream habitat. Both have relatively low overall Aquatic Resource Sensitivity Scores, which means that they would

3-184

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Aquatic Resources Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

have relatively high overall impacts to attributes that influence aquatic resources. Alternative B Alternative B has a relatively low overall Aquatic Resource Sensitivity Score. Particularly, it would have significant impacts to total in-water habitat and riparian vegetation loss. The temporary detour bridge was not rated because the analysis was directed at permanent impacts. Alternative C The Alternative C through-arch design would have a moderate overall Aquatic Resource
TABLE 3.15-5

Sensitivity Score, though it would impact critical shallow-water habitat more than other designs. Alternative D The Alternative D deck-arch design would have more adverse aquatic resource impacts than the Alternative D delta-frame design because of the location of piers in shallow water. The deck-arch bridge has a low, and the delta-frame bridge has a relatively low, overall Aquatic Resource Sensitivity Score, which means that they would have higher overall impacts to attributes that influence aquatic resources.

Sellwood Bridge Build Alternatives Overall Aquatic Resource Sensitivity Scores Pier Area in Critical Shallowwater Habitat (acres) 1 Total Pier Area of Instream Habitat (acres) 1 Reduction of Vegetation in Right-ofWay 3 Overall Aquatic Resources Sensitivity Scorea 1.6

Alt.

Bridge Type Rehabilitated Bridge StressRibbon Bike/Ped Bridge Rehabilitated Bridge CableStayed Bike/Ped Bridge Temporary Detour Bridge Rehabilitated Bridge Double-Deck Steel Through-Arch Deck-Arch Delta-Frame Steel ThroughArch Box-Girder Deck-Arch
b

Total Proposed Impervious Area 3

A

2

1

3

3

2.0

Temporary detour bridge not included in permanent impacts calculation 4 3 2 2 1 5 3 2 4 1 3 3 5 2 1 4 2 2 4 4 5 2 5 1 1 4 4 1 2.6 3.7 1.6 2.2 2.5 4.7 2.9

B C D E D Refined
a

b

The overall Aquatic Resource Sensitivity Score is on a scale of 1 (lowest sensitivity and highest impacts) to 5 (highest sensitivity and lowest impacts). For example, Alternative E (box-girder design) would have the highest overall Aquatic Resource Sensitivity Score and, therefore, the least overall impacts to attributes that influence in-stream habitat and aquatic resources. Bridge type evaluated for the project’s Biological Assessment as developed through coordination with ODOT, FHWA, and NMFS.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-185

Aquatic Resources Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

Alternative E The Alternative E steel through-arch design scored in the middle, but lower than Alternative E with the box-girder design, primarily because of greater impacts to shallowwater habitat. The Alternative E box-girder design would have the least overall impact to aquatic resources. However, while this Build alternative would have the least overall impact to aquatic resources, the Build alternative with the least overall environmental impacts (when considering wetlands, water resources, rare plants, fisheries, and wildlife) could be one of the other Build alternatives. Alternative D Refined (Preferred Alternative) Alternative D Refined with a deck-arch bridge type would have a moderate overall Aquatic Resource Sensitivity Score. It would score moderately for in-water habitat and pier area, but would have the highest score (least impacts) for riparian area impacts. Multnomah County prepared a BA to fulfill its obligations under Section 7 of the ESA. The BA was submitted to NMFS in January 2010. Consultation with NMFS on the BA is ongoing. The following items summarize the BA finding of effect.  The project “may affect, likely to adversely affect” and is “not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat” for the following: − − − −  − Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon Lower Columbia River steelhead trout Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon Upper Willamette River steelhead trout

has been designated in the Columbia River estuary, but this action does not affect that area and no destruction or adverse modification of that critical habitat is anticipated.  The project “may affect, likely to adversely affect” the following: − Lower Columbia River coho salmon

Critical habitat for Lower Columbia River coho salmon is currently under development. If critical habitat is designated in the lower Willamette River for Lower Columbia River coho salmon, the project would be “not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat.”  Eulachon are proposed as threatened. It is likely that eulachon will be able to avoid any noise or disturbance caused by divers, vessels, or equipment during project activities and that BMPs for hydroacoustic disturbances would minimize potentially harmful sound levels. Therefore, proposed construction and operations and maintenance of the preferred alternative is “not likely to jeopardize the continued existence” of the eulachon population in the Willamette River near the Sellwood Bridge. In the event that eulachon were eventually listed as threatened, the proposed project “may affect, likely to adversely affect” eulachon. Potential undesirable influences on salmon, steelhead trout, and green sturgeon are anticipated to be primarily associated with hydroacoustic disturbances during pile driving and a permanent loss of habitat. This habitat loss is related to piers in the channel of the river. In addition, the implementation of cofferdams (conventional cofferdams for bridge footings and perched footings and cofferdams) during construction could strand salmon or steelhead trout, causing fish salvages to be conducted and distressing those fish.

The project “may affect, likely to adversely affect” the following: Southern Distinct Population Segment of North American green sturgeon. Critical habitat for North American green sturgeon

3-186

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Aquatic Resources Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) entered into formal consultation with NMFS in January 2010. NMFS will issue a Biological Opinion prior to a Record of Decision. The Biological Opinion will state the opinion of NMFS on whether the project would jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Based on discussions and information provided at pre-consultation meetings with NMFS, a jeopardy determination is not anticipated. It is expected that the Biological Opinion will include an incidental take statement, along with reasonable and prudent measures to minimize impacts on listed species. Mitigation. The Biological Opinion will include reasonable and prudent measures to minimize impacts on listed species. Table G-2 in Appendix G provides a list of proposed avoidance, minimization, and conservation measures.

The project team worked with Portland Parks & Recreation (PP&R) and the Portland Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) to identify mitigation for natural resource impacts (including aquatic impacts). Multnomah County and the City of Portland have agreed to:  Within Willamette Moorage Park, replace the existing Stephens Creek culvert (which is beneath the Willamette Shoreline railroad, the new multi-use trail, and the Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club driveway) with a fish-and-wildlife-friendly passage. Figure 3.9-2 shows the general location of this passage. Within Powers Marine Park, design and implement stream restoration along two streams to provide an off-river habitat for juvenile salmonids. Figure 3.9-2 shows the general location of this passage.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-187

Vegetatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

3.16
3.16.1

Vegetation
Affected Environment

Vegetation Summary Each Build alternative would directly impact Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest and Westside Riparian habitat plant communities. Neither rare plants nor rare plant habitats were observed in the study area. The Build alternatives would result in the removal of noxious weeds. Mitigation using best management practices would help to reduce pollutant loading to the Willamette River. Replanting disturbed riparian areas with native vegetation and increased treatment of stormwater would improve water quality.

Field investigations were conducted to identify and map major plant communities occurring within the study area and to determine the presence of rare plants.  Plant communities are identified and described according to Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington (Johnson and O’Neil, 2001). A list of all rare plant species potentially occurring within the project area was compiled from the List of Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Species for Multnomah County (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], 2008) and from Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center (ONHIC) records of species observations within 2 miles of the proposed project area (ONHIC, March 2008).

In conjunction with the plant-community field surveys, complete surveys were conducted to identify plant species listed as noxious weeds by the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) Plant Division: Weed Control Program.

Plant Communities
Two primary plant community types were identified: Westside Riparian and Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Upland Forest (Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest). The dominant vegetation community within the study area is Westside Riparian. The riparian community is dominated by black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) and Pacific Willow (Salix lasiandra) in a narrow strip along the river with some Columbia River Willow (Salix fluviatilis), which have limited distribution within the city of Portland. Upslope of the riparian areas, the plant community shifts to a Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menzeisii)/bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) upland forest, which is dominated by Douglas-fir.

The riparian community represents a remnant of what was historically a broad, more or less continuous corridor of riparian vegetation along the river. Impacts associated with urbanization have resulted in the removal of much of the historic riparian corridor in the lower Willamette River basin. The riparian corridor in the lower Willamette River is fragmented. The southwest Portland riverbank consists of 35 acres of fish and wildlife habitat that extends along 7,000 linear feet of contiguous habitat from Willamette Park through Powers Marine Park. The Sellwood Bridge project would impact the riparian areas in two of four remaining natural areas along the Willamette River within the City of Portland. Urban forests provide food and shelter for various groups of birds, mammals, fish, and other vertebrates. They also provide shade and cool watercourses, and mitigate noise and dust. Air quality is improved by oxygen production, pollution absorption, and carbon sequestration the vegetation provides. Trees help to conserve energy by indirectly mitigating climatic effects because they provide evaporative cooling, windbreak, and shading functions, and they reduce human dependence on power generation. Urban forests contribute to water quality and quantity improvement through stormwater control, attenuation of peak flows, maintenance of base flow, erosion control, and rainfall. The

3-188

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Vegetatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

essential benefits associated with trees in terms of human physical, mental, and social health are not to be overlooked.

Rare Plants
In the field investigations, no rare plants identified as state- or federal-level endangered, threatened, or candidate species were observed at any of the sites. In addition, no habitat was identified within the project area with the potential to support any rare plant species.
3.16.2

Noxious Weeds
Several populations of noxious weeds or other listed weed species were identified in the study area. Of particular concern are several invasive species present in relatively large infestations within the study area. These include Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), English ivy (Hedera helix L.), western clematis (Clematis ligusticifolia Nutt.), and Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius). Other noxious weeds that are present include poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), Canada and bull thistle (Cirsium arvense, C. vulgare), tansy ragwort (Tanacetum jacobaea), and St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum). The City of Portland has removed invasive vegetation from Powers Marine Park and Willamette Moorage Park, and has started revegetation work to enhance vegetation at these parks.

No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences

The No Build Alternative would have no direct impacts to vegetation communities or rare plants. Existing vegetation communities would remain undisturbed. No enhancement of existing communities or removal of invasive species would occur unless the extent of the maintenance activities triggered consultation under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), and enhancement and weed removal were required.
3.16.3

Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences

Riparian communities are plant communities that are alongside rivers or, sometimes, other water bodies like lakes. Riparian communities are important because they:

Impacts and Mitigation Common to All Build Alternatives
Direct Impacts. The Build alternatives would result in permanent impacts to both Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest and Westside Riparian habitats. Removal of mature vegetation could result in reduced stream flows, reduced groundwater recharge, and increased stormwater runoff volumes. These effects might be partially offset by upland and riparian mitigation plantings in the project area. Impacts to Westside Riparian habitat would be 0.5 acre for Alternatives A, C, E, and D Refined; 0.6 acre for Alternatives B and D; and 0.7 acre for Alternative B with the temporary detour bridge. Riparian habitat in the lower Willamette Basin is highly fragmented because of urban development. Remnant Westside Riparian habitat

Riparian Communities

• Provide food, shelter, and migration corridors for terrestrial and aquatic wildlife • Slow overland runoff by trapping sediment, filtering out pollutants, and reducing flood damage • Dissipate stream energy resulting in less soil erosion and a reduction in flood damage • Contribute nutrients from terrestrial vegetation (such as leaf litter and insect drop) to aquatic food webs • Contribute wood debris, which is important for maintaining geomorphology

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-189

Vegetatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

generally consists of narrow strips of vegetation immediately adjacent to rivers and streams. The potentially impacted riparian habitat in the vicinity of the proposed Build alternatives would be part of approximately 3 acres of narrow, somewhat fragmented, riparian habitat, predominantly along the west bank of the river. Other nearby riparian habitat includes Oaks Bottom and the Ross Island, Hardtack, and East Island Complex. Together, these areas, which account for approximately 150 acres of riparian habitat, comprise most of the remaining riparian habitat in the southern portion of the lower Willamette Basin. Impacts to Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest would range from 8.8 acres for Alternative C to 12.0 acres for Alternative D Refined. The potentially impacted Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest is part of an approximately 200-acre patch of forested habitat that extends west from the Willamette River uphill to SW Palatine Road and from River View Cemetery on the north to the campus of Lewis and Clark College on the south. Other significant forested areas in the vicinity include an approximately 700-acre forest just southwest of the 200-acre forest and Forest Park, which begins approximately 4 miles northwest of the existing Sellwood Bridge. Direct benefits to vegetative communities would result from the removal of Himalayan blackberry, Scotch broom, and Japanese knotweed within the riparian areas. Indirect Impacts. Potential indirect impacts to biological resource habitat that would occur as a result of the Build alternatives could include:  An increase in water temperature as a result of tree removal and increase in impervious surface A reduction in natural resources as a result of an increase in mobility and access in the area

A decrease in foraging, refuge, and habitat quality as a result of an increase in human activity (that is, because of new and direct access) in the area An increase in habitat diversity as a result of the removal of invasive and non-native vegetation, and replanting with a diverse array of native overstory and understory vegetation

Mitigation. Mitigation of construction and operational impacts would predominantly be achieved through incorporating best management practices and environmental criteria into preconstruction planning and design, and by good construction and maintenance practices. Construction of all Build alternatives would increase impervious surface area and remove mature trees and understory vegetation. Without mitigation (such as the use of best management practices), the project could result in increased pollutant loading to the Willamette River. Mitigation planting would help restore some of the functionality to the riparian area adjacent to the Willamette River. Replanting disturbed riparian areas with native vegetation and increased treatment of stormwater in accordance with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) guidance and City of Portland requirements would reduce the pollutant loads that would result from construction of the Build alternatives and would minimize increases in the Willamette River stormwater pollutant loading. The planting of small trees cannot truly mitigate trees that are 20 to 40 years old or more. The project team worked with Portland Parks & Recreation (PP&R) and the Portland Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) to identify mitigation within Powers Marine Park and Willamette Moorage Park. Multnomah County and the City of Portland have agreed to the following:

3-190

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Vegetatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

Within Willamette Moorage Park, construct sloped, stepped, vegetated walls along a new multi-use trail, where feasible, to minimize visual and aesthetic impacts to the park, and to provide for wildlife use and passage. Within Powers Marine Park, design and implement stream restoration along two streams to provide an off-river habitat for juvenile salmonids. Figure 3.9-2 shows the general location of this passage.

Westside Riparian habitat, and would remove 0.1 acre of noxious weeds. No impacts would be anticipated to rare plants. Alternative B Alternative B would impact 9.4 acres of Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest and 0.6 acre of Westside Riparian habitat), and would remove 0.1 acre of noxious weeds. No impacts would be anticipated to rare plants. Temporary Detour Bridge Option Alternative B with a temporary detour bridge would impact 9.4 acres of Lowland ConiferHardwood Forest and 0.7 acre of Westside Riparian habitat. (The temporary detour bridge would impact 0.1 acre of Westside Riparian habitat. This alternative would remove 0.1 acre of noxious weeds No impacts would be anticipated to rare plants. Alternative C Alternative C would impact 8.8 acres of Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest and 0.5 acre of Westside Riparian habitat, and would remove 0.3 acre of noxious weeds. No impacts would be anticipated to rare plants. Alternative D Alternative D would impact 9.4 acres of Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest and 0.6 acre of Westside Riparian habitat, and would remove 0.2 acre of noxious weeds. No impacts would be anticipated to rare plants. Alternative E Alternative E would impact 9.8 acres of Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest and 0.5 acre of Westside Riparian habitat, and would remove 0.1 acre of noxious weeds. No impacts would be anticipated to rare plants. Alternative D Refined (Preferred Alternative) Alternative D Refined would impact 12.2 acres of Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest and 0.5 acre of Westside Riparian habitat, and would remove 0.2 acre of noxious weeds. No impacts would be anticipated to rare plants.

Additional mitigation for vegetation impacts outside Powers Marine Park and Willamette Moorage Park would be required to meet City of Portland regulations. After the design of the selected alternative had progressed to a level where more specific impacts could be identified, the parties would identify and agree to this mitigation. This mitigation would be consistent with City of Portland regulations for impacts within the applicable base zones and Greenway and Environmental overlay zones to meet City of Portland regulations. This mitigation might include:  Planting native overstory and understory vegetation and removing invasive, non-native vegetation Placing some of the removed trees in open areas to provide future dead-wood habitat Reducing form, texture, or color contrasts in cut and/or fill slopes Minimizing clearing for construction and preserving existing stands of mature trees and other attractive natural vegetation to the greatest extent possible Implementing avoidance, minimization, and conservation measures (see Appendix G)

  

Alternative-specific Impacts
Alternative A Alternative A would impact 9.6 acres of Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest and 0.5 acre of

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-191

Vegetatio n Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

Immediately south of the Macadam Bay Club/ Willamette Moorage Road access driveway on the east side of OR 43, the City of Portland would conduct tree clearing operations to achieve the minimum clear sight distance of 470 feet. Approximately 0.2 acre of land would be cleared to improve sight distance (safety for vehicles turning into and out of this driveway).
3.16.4

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Vegetation Impact

TABLE 3.16-1

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Vegetation Impact Impact Type Lowland ConiferHardwood Forest (acres) Westside Riparian Habitat (acres) Noxious Weeds Removal (acres) Rare Plants (acres) No Build 0 0 0 0 A 9.6 0.5 0.1 0 B 9.4 0.6 0.1 0 B/TDB 9.4 0.7 0.1 0 C 8.8 0.5 0.3 0 D 9.4 0.6 0.2 0 E 9.8 0.5 0.1 0 D Refined 12.2 0.5 0.2 0

B/TDB = Alternative B with temporary detour bridge

3-192

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Wetlands Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

3.17
3.17.1

Wetlands
Affected Environment

Wetlands Summary Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E would fill 0.1 acre of wetlands. Mitigation would restore historical wetlands or enhance existing wetlands at another location in the general vicinity of the bridge (such as Stephens Creek, Oaks Bottom, or South Waterfront areas). The preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) would not fill any wetlands.

The following resources were used to identify the presence of wetlands in the project area: • U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Map. This map identifies two smaller streams in the study area: Stephens Creek and an unnamed stream. Stephens Creek crosses the northern end of the study area, west of the river. An unnamed intermittent stream was shown on the USGS map approximately 600 feet south of the Sellwood Bridge, west of the river. No evidence of this stream was observed during the field visit. The USGS map shows no water features east of the river within the proposed project area. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Map. The NWI map identifies two riverine features and one wetland within the study area: Willamette River and Stephens Creek. A wetland is shown at the terminus of Stephens Creek on the Willamette River floodplain. Soil Survey Map. The soil survey map indicates eight soil types within the study area. One soil is listed as a hydric soil, which could include wetland area soil. Hydric soil is located in the study area under the eastern end of the Sellwood Bridge and in the

northern portion of the study area between the river and the railroad tracks. Two other soils may contain inclusions of soils listed as hydric. • Stephens Creek Wetlands Delineation Map. Portland Bureau of Environmental Services completed this wetlands delineation map with Oregon Department of State Lands concurrence.

Field visits were conducted to collect data and to verify the presence or absence of the potential wetlands and water features identified during the review of the information listed above. The field team verified the presence of a wetland at the northern end of the study area. No other wetlands were identified. Table 3.17-1 summarizes the characteristics of this wetland (called the Stephens Creek Wetland in this Final Environmental Impact Statement [FEIS]). Figure 3.17-1 shows the location of this wetland.

There are two different approaches used by biologists to assess wetlands: the Cowardin and the Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) approaches.

Wetland Classification Assessment

The Cowardin approach imposes boundaries on natural aquatic ecosystems for the purposes of inventory, evaluation, and management. This approach has a hierarchical structure for five major systems—Marine, Estuarine, Riverine, Lacustrine, and Palustrine. The five major systems are distinguished by a variety of hydrologic, geomorphologic, chemical, and biological characteristics. Subsystems and classes are defined by water regime and substrate. Classes and lower levels introduce vegetation life form and additional detail in vegetation, substrate, water-chemistry, and soil characteristics. The HGM approach is a wetland assessment procedure based on three fundamental factors that influence how wetlands function—position in the landscape (geomorphic setting), water source (hydrology), and the flow and fluctuation of the water once in the wetland (hydrodynamics). The HGM approach (1) classifies wetlands based on their differences in functioning, (2) defines functions that each class of wetland performs, and (3) uses references to establish the range of functioning of the wetland.
Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-193

Wetlands Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

TABLE 3.17-1

Stephens Creek Wetland Type Wetland Classification Cowardin Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Wetland Quality Vegetation Hydrology Other Site has less than 40 percent nuisance or exotic vegetation. Road and path construction has altered the hydrology on the site, but this could easily be reversed. Stream is highly incised. Well developed native overstory, predominantly mature black cottonwood. Understory dominated by reed canarygrass. Channel of Stephens Creek highly incised. Good opportunity for restoration of connectivity between stream and wetland and enhancement of vegetation through control of reed canarygrass. Palustrine Forested Riverine Flow-Through Description

FIGURE 3.17-1

Location of Stephens Creek Wetland

3-194

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Wetlands Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

A small area (approximately 1 acre) of Pacific Willow Shrub Swamp habitat exists within the Westside Riparian Wetland Habitat along the west bank of the Willamette River at the north end of the project area. It is part of the Stephens Creek Wetland. Pacific Willow Shrub Swamp is identified in the 2003 Oregon Natural Heritage Plan (Natural Heritage Advisory Council to the State Land Board, 2003) as a plant community or ecosystem of moderate conservation concern. However, distribution of this habitat within the city of Portland is very limited due to extensive loss of wetlands within the city limits.
3.17.2

Alternative-specific Impacts and Mitigation
Alternative A Direct Impacts. Reconfiguring the access point to Macadam Bay Club and Willamette Moorage Park from OR 43 would permanently fill 0.1 acre of wetland at Stephens Creek (Table 3.17-2). No temporary impacts to wetlands would be anticipated. Indirect Impacts. Potential indirect impacts to wetland habitat from Alternative A might include an increase in habitat diversity from removing invasive and non-native vegetation (such as reed canarygrass [Phalaris arundinacea.]) and replanting with a diverse array of native wetland vegetation. Temporary water quality impacts would be addressed in erosion and pollution control plans. Stormwater impacts resulting in potential water quality and quantity impacts would be addressed in stormwater mitigation plans. Mitigation. Adverse unavoidable impacts are primarily related to construction impacts, mainly the construction of a new access point and driveway to the Macadam Bay Club and Willamette Moorage Park from OR 43. Conservation and mitigation measures for impacts would include the following sequentially performed actions: • Avoid the impact altogether through design modification or by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. Minimize impacts through design modification

No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences

The No Build Alternative would have no negative impacts to wetlands. The existing Stephens Creek wetland would be undisturbed. However, the No Build Alternative would not provide any enhancement of the wetland or adjacent riparian areas.
3.17.3

Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences

Impacts and Mitigation Common to All Build Alternatives
No impacts or mitigation are common to all Build alternatives.


TABLE 3.17-2

Potential Impacts to Wetland Area and Functions with Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E Wetland Function Site Stephens Creek Wetland Wildlife Habitat This function would be impacted. Fish Habitat NA Water Quality Mitigation measures during construction would include erosion control measures to ensure there is no impact to this function. Hydrologic Control This function is already impacted; mitigation would provide water conveyance resulting in no net loss of this function. Area (acres) 0.1

NA = not applicable
Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-195

Wetlands Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

or by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. • To ensure that no accidental or indirect impacts occur to wetlands outside the proposed disturbance areas, clearly mark wetland boundaries and use sediment fencing or other erosion control methods to protect the wetland. Employ sediment-containment methods during construction of the new bridge piers to minimize impacts to the waterway. To reduce potential impacts to fisheries, restrict in-water work to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)-designated and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)recognized summer in-water work window, unless authorized by NMFS. Rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. Compensate for the impact by restoring, creating, or enhancing wetlands.

impacts and mitigation as Alternative A. Alternative C Alternative C would have the same wetlands impacts and mitigation as Alternative A. Alternative D Alternative D would have the same wetlands impacts and mitigation as Alternative A. Alternative E Alternative E would have the same wetlands impacts and mitigation as Alternative A. Alternative D Refined (Preferred Alternative) Alternative D Refined would not fill any wetlands. Water quality impacts would be addressed in erosion and pollution control plans to avoid indirect wetlands impacts. Stormwater impacts resulting in potential water quality and quantity impacts would be addressed in stormwater mitigation plans. This FEIS does not require a wetlands finding to document the project’s compliance with Executive Order 11990 because the preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) would avoid direct wetlands impacts.
3.17.4

• •

Unavoidable impacts to wetlands would be addressed, if possible, through restoration of affected wetland areas. Mitigation for permanent impacts to wetlands would be accomplished through restoration of historical wetlands or enhancement of existing wetlands at another location in the general vicinity of the bridge, such as at Stephens Creek, Oaks Bottom, or South Waterfront areas. The project team would meet with Portland Parks & Recreation (PP&R) and Portland Bureau of Environmental Services to identify appropriate mitigation sites that would be accomplished either at the project site or nearby. Alternative B Alternative B would have the same wetlands

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Wetlands Impact

Alternative D Refined is the only alternative that would have no impacts to wetlands. This result was achieved by revising the alignment of the access to Willamette Moorage Park and the Macadam Bay Club. If any of the other alternatives had been preferred, it is likely that the same revisions would have been made. Therefore, wetlands impacts are not a differentiating impact among alternatives.

TABLE 3.17-3

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Wetlands Impact Impact Wetland area filled (acres)
3-196

No Build 0.0

A 0.1

B 0.1

C 0.1

D 0.1

E 0.1

D Refined 0.0

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Wildli fe Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

3.18
3.18.1

Wildlife
Affected Environment

Wildlife Summary Adverse impacts to wildlife from any of the Build alternatives would include the direct removal of tree cover and vegetation. Compared to existing conditions, construction of a Build alternative would remove permanently or disturb significantly between 10.0 and 11.7 acres of wildlife habitat. This permanent loss of habitat would represent a permanent reduction in populations of species that depend on it. The project would undertake restoration measures within Willamette Moorage Park and Powers Marine Park. The intent would be to benefit wildlife by increasing habitat. Mitigation measures might encourage the return of wildlife species that have been rare in the area.

The following resources were used to identify the presence of wildlife in the project area:   Distribution, Habitat, and Natural History: Atlas of Oregon Wildlife (Csuti et al., 1997) Flood Insurance Study City of Portland, Oregon, Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington Counties (Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA], 2004) Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) unpublished data (2007) Unpublished Bald Eagle Nest Sites (ODFW, 2006). Database search for rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal species within the Sellwood Bridge vicinity (Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center, 2007) Draft Willamette Subbasin Plan (Northwest Power and Conservation Council, 2004) Native Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Plant Communities and Their Biota in the Willamette Valley, Oregon (Titus et al., 1996) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Species List for Multnomah County (2007)  

  

Westside Riparian, which is directly alongside the river Upland1 Habitats, which are above Riparian habitat   Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest2 Urban/Developed habitats

 

After reviewing available data and information, project biologists conducted multiple site visits to observe and document terrestrial habitat and wildlife.

Of the three habitat types in the project area, the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest is the most common. Though scattered throughout the area, the Urban/Developed habitat type is the most widely distributed, but least valuable to wildlife. The following subsections briefly describe the characteristics of these habitats. Westside Riparian Habitat Riparian habitats are those areas adjacent to streams and rivers where the water and land resources interact. This habitat is characterized by wetland soils and occasional overbank riverine flooding (because of excessive rainfall in a short period of time). Riparian habitats along the
1 Upland habitat is the dry habitat along the sides of a river, riparian being the first upland zone. 2 Lowland in this case means habitat near a valley river.

Habitat in the Project Vicinity
Wildlife habitat is strongly related to vegetative communities. For this reason, the habitats described subsequently are closely related to the vegetation communities discussed in Section 3.16, Vegetation. One riparian and two upland wildlifehabitat-types were identified within 2 miles of the existing Sellwood Bridge. The habitat types identified in the project area are:

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-197

Wildli fe Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ron ment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

Willamette River are found just above the water’s edge, along the streambank, and further upslope in the historic floodplain. There are approximately 150 acres of riparian habitat in the vicinity of the project. Within the project vicinity, riparian habitats include the following:  Black cottonwood riparian forests and Pacific and Columbia River willow wetland forests found in scattered patches along the river bank and within the surrounding parks and refuges Emergent and herbaceous vegetation patches along the river and in the surrounding parks and refuges Reed canarygrass (dominant by the existing bridge)

temperatures, and increased background lighting and wind velocities. The reduction in habitat complexity and food availability has diminished some small-mammal, avian, and amphibian use, and has eliminated use for larger mammals (such as elk, deer, and black bear). Generalist and edge-adapted wildlife would use these areas, such as the beaver. In addition, wildlife species sensitive to human disturbances are absent from or uncommon in urban areas. No special-status species are dependent upon urban habitats found in the project area.

Riparian Species
The natural areas remaining along the river provide an important link between surrounding upland forests and riparian habitats, and to other habitats located upstream and downstream along the river. Native aquatic mammals, including beaver (Castor canadensis) and river otter (Lutra canadensis), have been observed within 2 miles of the Sellwood Bridge. The City of Portland has indicated that amphibian surveys are currently underway at Powers Marine Park and Willamette Moorage Park that may show additional species in the area. Several state or federally listed species have been recorded in the area, including, bald eagle (Halieetus leucocephalus) (state threatened) and purple martin (Progne subis) (state critical, federal species of concern).

Upland Habitats Upland habitat refers to habitat alongside the river above riparian habitat, except wetland habitat, which is addressed separately in Section 3.17. Within the project area, two upland habitats occur, Westside Lowland ConiferHardwood Forest and Urban/Developed. Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest Habitats Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forests are found in the project vicinity. These forests are often associated with other habitat types, including Westside Riparian habitats. This forest type is characterized by a mix of coniferous Douglas-fir and western red cedar trees, with deciduous red alder and big-leaf maple trees. The understory is composed of mixed shrubs, primarily English ivy and hazel. There are approximately 200 acres in the immediate area, and an additional approximately 700-acre forest just south and west of the 200 acres. Urban/Developed Habitats Urban/developed areas have reduced wildlife and vegetation diversity because of the lack of vegetation structures and food sources, an increased number of non-native species, elevated

Wildlife that Frequent the Project Area
A number of species that are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act might frequent the project area, including, but not limited to, osprey (Pandion haliaetus), green heron (Butorides virescens), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), and violet-green swallows (Tachycineta thalassina). The habitats located within the surrounding naturalarea parks support abundant wildlife, including

3-198

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Wildli fe Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

raccoon, deer, opossum, river otter, beaver, and small rodents. Over 200 species of birds have been recorded within 2 miles of the project area, most within the parks fringing the river. In addition, several sensitive bird species have been observed breeding within 2 miles of the project area— American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), bald eagle (Halieetus leucocephalus), and purple martin (Progne subis). (Although no active breeding colonies of purple martin exist in the project area, two breeding pairs were observed in Willamette Park in 1998.) In fall 2008, the Audubon Society indicated that there were
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) protects birds that are native to North America and that migrate between the United States and other countries. The most relevant section of the MBTA to this project is Section 703, which states: "… [I]t shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to barter, barter, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, export, import, cause to be shipped, exported, or imported, deliver for transportation, transport or cause to be transported, carry or cause to be carried, or receive for shipment, transportation, carriage, or export, any migratory bird, any part, nest, or egg of any such bird, or any product, whether or not manufactured, which consists, or is composed in whole or part, of any such bird or any part, nest, or egg thereof…" Furthermore, the regulations that implement the MBTA define the term “take” as: "to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect." (50 CFR 10.12) Measures that would be applied to construction would include screening the bridge prior to construction to prevent nesting, with subsequent disturbance of nesting birds.

sightings of a roosting pair of American peregrine falcons that may be nesting on the Sellwood Bridge, but use of the bridge for nesting has not been confirmed. The northern red-legged frog (Rana aurora), a federal species of concern and state vulnerable species, was found as recently as 1996 within 2 miles of the Sellwood Bridge. The red tree vole, a federal species of concern, is present in Tryon Creek State Park, which is about 2 miles distant and connected by vegetated corridors to the Willamette Moorage Park. No other special status wildlife species have been documented within 2 miles of the Sellwood Bridge in recent years. No sensitive bat species have been documented using the Sellwood Bridge. Based on the current bridge design, it is unlikely that any bats use the bridge as a day roost, although it is possible that bats occasionally rest or roost in the project area.
3.18.2

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences

Under the No Build Alternative, the existing bridge and approach spans would require maintenance activities. Deleterious materials from maintenance activities could enter the Willamette River, potentially impacting aquatic resources. However, it is expected that best management practices (BMPs) employed for maintenance activities would protect wildlife resources, unless the extent of the work was such that a Biological Assessment and consultation with the USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) would require other conservation and mitigation measures. In most cases, maintenance activities would not cause additional adverse impacts to wildlife resources. No additional adverse impacts are expected to occur to any wildlife resources under the No Build Alternative.

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-199

Wildli fe Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ron ment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

3.18.3

Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences
Wildlife Disturbances

Impacts and Mitigation Common to All Build Alternatives
Although not necessarily impacting individuals of a species, impacts to wildlife habitat ultimately reduce the population of species that are dependent upon the habitat. Between 10.0 and 11.7 acres of wildlife habitat would be removed permanently or disturbed significantly during construction. This would constitute less than 0.2 percent of riparian habitat and 1 percent of Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest habitat within the project vicinity. The balance would represent Urban/Developed habitat, which is abundant. Each of the Build alternatives was designed to avoid impacts to wildlife habitat. However, all the Build alternatives would have permanent and irreversible impacts to terrestrial and aquatic habitats. Potential impacts from any of the Build alternatives would primarily occur from two different means—short-term or temporary effects from construction (auditory and visual disturbances) and long-term and indirect effects from operation. Habitat disturbances and alterations might potentially affect sensitive species in the project
The Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940 imposes criminal and civil penalties on anyone in the United States who, unless excepted, takes, possesses, sells, purchases, barters, offers to sell or purchase or barter, transports, exports or imports at any time or in any manner a bald or golden eagle, alive or dead; or any part, nest or egg of these eagles; or violates any permit or regulations issued under the Bald Eagle Protection Act. Because no adverse impacts to bald eagles would result from the project, the project would be consistent with the Bald Eagle Protection Act.

Auditory and visual disturbances from construction-related activities would disperse wildlife from the area. Tolerance to disturbances varies among species and times of the year. Many species are more sensitive to disturbances at the beginning of the nesting season, and would be more likely to abandon their nests and young than they would later in the season. Species such as herons, raptors, and bats are especially sensitive to noise and human proximity. Auditory and visual disturbances would temporarily disperse wildlife that reside in neighboring areas during construction activities, but they would likely return once construction ended.

area. However, most of the wildlife occurring within the project area are common species that are generously distributed. It is anticipated that the project would not affect any sensitive amphibian species. Only a very small amount of the disturbed area would be returned to habitat following construction. Because this habitat would be immediately adjacent to a transportation facility, creation of high-quality habitat would not be possible. Wildlife connectivity would still exist north and south along the wooded corridor, and a low-volume road under the west-side interchange would serve as wildlife access across OR 43. In addition, culverts that convey Stephens Creek would be retained, providing access through this corridor. Species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (see side box), as well as state and federally listed sensitive species, occur within 2 miles of the Sellwood Bridge. Bald eagle, Cooper's hawk, red-tail hawk, and osprey could potentially be affected within the project area. However, no adverse impacts to these or other bird species are anticipated as a result of constructing this project.

Bald Eagle Protection Act
3-200

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Wildli fe Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

The Sellwood Bridge is over 1 mile from a bald eagle nest on Ross Island, and over 2 miles from a nest on Elk Rock Island. The closest known nesting of peregrine falcons, on the Ross Island Bridge, is approximately 2.5 miles to the north of the existing Sellwood Bridge. These nests are far enough away that noise impacts from foundation drilling, bridge rehabilitation, and false-work would be at low levels that would not adversely impact bald eagles or peregrines. It is likely bald eagles and other birds would avoid flying over the Sellwood Bridge during construction, and peregrine falcons would avoid habitats near the existing bridge during construction. Direct Impacts. Impacts to wildlife and their habitats would occur under all of the Build alternatives. Disturbances to wildlife and their habitats from construction and maintenance activities (including noise-related impacts) would impact aquatic and terrestrial habitats, tree cover, and emergent vegetation. Indirect Impacts. Overall, the Build alternatives would have positive and negative indirect impacts to vegetation and habitats. Potential indirect impacts to wildlife and their habitats from the proposed project might include the following:  A reduction in natural resources and reduced use by wildlife as a result of increased human activity and access through the area A decrease in foraging, refuge, and habitat quality as a result of increased human activity because of improved access to natural areas A decrease in habitat diversity from the removal of native vegetation (such as black cottonwoods and willow thickets along the river bank) and the spread of non-native plants (such as reed canarygrass, yellow iris [Iris pseudacorus], and purple loosestrife [Lythrum salicaria]) because of ground and vegetation disturbances

A reduction in shade from tree removal and an increase in impervious surface area, such as roadway and paved paths A reduction of vegetative cover in wildlife corridors along the west hillside because natural areas would be converted to transportation facilities The potential to restore and improve riparian habitat along the Willamette River by removing non-native vegetation and planting native species as a result of mitigation measures undertaken in the immediate project area or elsewhere The potential to further enhance the habitat for wildlife by providing nest boxes or gourds for purple martins

Mitigation. Communities of native vegetation would benefit from the mitigation and restoration activities proposed under the Build alternatives. Invasive species, including Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, and purple loosestrife, would be removed with creation of the construction zone. Native species would be planted to help restore riparian functions and improve the health of the existing riparian habitats in constructiondisturbed areas. American peregrine falcons have been sighted in the project area and may have nested on the Sellwood Bridge. Therefore, if the chosen bridge design does not contain elements that could encourage nest building, the designers should consider incorporating a nest box into the bridge design. Avoidance and minimization measures would be incorporated into the project to eliminate effects to wildlife and their habitats. These measures would address in-water work, erosion control, containment of construction, handling of hazardous materials, and disturbance of upland, wetland, and riparian vegetation. For blasting activities, the blasts would be designed by a specialist; a pre-blast survey would be made

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-201

Wildli fe Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ron ment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

before the blasts; and air blast, vibration, and noise would be monitored during blasts. Typical blasting practices would include:    Using smaller shots to reduce (rather than amplify) the impacts of the blasts Applying blasting mats to control fly rock and reduce noise impacts Possibly adjusting the time of year to avoid disturbing nesting birds

Alternative B with no temporary detour bridge would impact 9.5 acres (0.3 acre overhanging water and 9.2 acres terrestrial) of tree cover and 1.4 acres of other vegetation communities (0.6 acre herbaceous, 0.1 acre scrub-shrub, 0.6 acre riparian, and 0.1 acre noxious weeds). Under Alternative B, blasting activities along OR 43 would temporarily disturb wildlife. Alternative C Alternative C activities would result in potential impacts to the following wildlife habitats and vegetation communities: 8.7 acres (0.1 acre overhanging water and 8.6 acres terrestrial) of tree cover and 1.3 acres of other vegetation communities (0.4 acre herbaceous, 0.1 acre scrub-shrub, 0.5 acre riparian, and 0.3 acre noxious weeds). Under Alternative C, blasting activities along OR 43 would temporarily disturb wildlife. Alternative D Alternative D would result in potential impacts to the following wildlife habitats and vegetation communities: 9.6 acres (0.3 acre overhanging water and 9.3 acres terrestrial) of tree cover and 1.6 acres of other vegetation communities (0.6 acre herbaceous, 0.2 acre scrub-shrub, 0.6 acre riparian, and 0.2 acre noxious weeds). Under Alternative D, blasting activities along OR 43 would temporarily disturb wildlife. Alternative E Alternative E would result in potential impacts to the following wildlife habitats and vegetation communities: 9.5 acres (0.1 acre overhanging water and 9.4 acres terrestrial) of tree cover and 1.4 acres of other vegetation communities (0.7 acre herbaceous, 0.1 acre scrub-shrub, 0.5 acre riparian, and 0.1 acre noxious weeds). Under Alternative E, blasting activities along OR 43 would temporarily disturb wildlife.

BMPs would be employed to avoid and minimize construction effects. As part of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation, ODOT, ODFW, NMFS, and USFWS would negotiate more specific conservation measures for inclusion in final plans and specifications. Appendix G, Summary of Mitigation and Environmental Commitments, provides a list of proposed and committed avoidance, minimization, and conservation measures.

Alternative-specific Impacts and Mitigation
Alternative A Alternative A activities would result in potential impacts to the following wildlife habitats: 9.7 acres (0.1 acre overhanging water and 9.6 acres terrestrial) of tree cover and 1.5 acres of other vegetation communities (0.8 acre herbaceous, 0.1 acre scrub-shrub, 0.5 acre riparian, and 0.1 acre noxious weeds) within the right-of-way. Under Alternative A, blasting activities along OR 43 would temporarily disturb wildlife. Alternative B Alternative B activities with a temporary detour bridge would result in potential impacts to the following wildlife habitats and vegetation communities: 9.7 acres (0.3 acre overhanging water and 9.4 acres terrestrial) of tree cover and 1.5 acres of other vegetation communities (0.6 acre herbaceous, 0.1 acre scrub-shrub, 0.7 acre riparian, and 0.1 acre noxious weeds).

3-202

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Wildli fe Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

Alternative D Refined (Preferred Alternative) Alternative D Refined would result in potential impacts to the following wildlife habitats and vegetation communities: 10.5 acres (0.2 acre overhanging water and 10.3 acres terrestrial) of tree cover and 1.2 acre of other vegetation communities (0.6 acre herbaceous, 0.2 acre scrub-shrub, 0.3 acre riparian, and 0.1 acre noxious weeds). Under Alternative D Refined, blasting activities along OR 43 would temporarily disturb wildlife. Mitigation. The project team worked with Portland Parks & Recreation (PP&R) and the Portland Bureau of Environmental Services to identify mitigation for natural resource impacts within Powers Marine Park and Willamette Moorage Park. Multnomah County and the City of Portland have agreed to:  Within Willamette Moorage Park, replace the existing Stephens Creek culvert (which is

beneath the Willamette Shoreline Trolley, the new multi-use trail, and the Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club driveway access) with a fish-and-wildlifefriendly passage. Figure 3.9-2 shows the general location of this passage.  Within Willamette Moorage Park, construct sloped, stepped, vegetated walls along a new multi-use trail, where feasible, to minimize visual and aesthetic impacts to the park, and to provide for wildlife use and passage. Within Powers Marine Park, design and implement stream restoration along two streams to provide an off-river habitat for juvenile salmonids. Figure 3.9-2 shows the general location of this passage.

3.18.4

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Wildlife Impact

TABLE 3.18-1

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Wildlife Impact Impact Tree Cover Other Vegetation Total Disturbed Acres per Alternative No Build 0 0 0 A 9.7 1.5 11.2 B 9.5 1.4 10.9 B/TDB 9.7 1.5 11.2 C 8.7 1.3 10.0 D 9.6 1.6 11.2 E 9.5 1.4 10.9 D Refined 10.5 1.2 11.7

B /TDB = Alternative B with temporary detour bridge

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-203

Noise Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

3.19

Noise

Noise Summary Noise levels for the Build alternatives would vary between 55 and 72 decibels (dBA), which would be a projected increase of up to 3 decibels above existing conditions (up to 5 decibels with the temporary detour bridge). The Build alternatives would impact one business and between 16 and 20 residences. Oaks Pioneer Church with open doors and windows would be impacted under all Build alternatives except Alternative B without the temporary detour bridge. No mitigation was considered both reasonable in cost and feasible for noise impacts, but the final determination of reasonableness and feasibility would be made during final design of the project. Noise abatement measures would be implemented during construction.

All existing, No Build Alternative, and Build alternative noise levels in this section are reported as equivalent sound level (Leq) in decibels on an A-weighted scale (dBA). See the sidebars for descriptions of Leq and dBA.
3.19.1

Affected Environment

Existing peak-hour traffic noise levels within the study area currently range from 57 to 71 decibels. (Table 3.19-1 provides a comparison of different sound levels.) The controlling criterion for noise is 65 decibels for residential and 70 decibels for commercial land uses. For more information, see the “Summary of Regulatory Requirements” sidebar.
There are several different ways to describe noise, depending on the source of the noise, the receiver, and the reason for the noise measurement. For traffic noise analyses, noise levels are stated in terms of dBA (decibels on an “A-weighted” scale). The soundlevel in decibels is measured on a sound-level meter using the A-weighted filter network. The A-weighted filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and it correlates well with the human ear’s subjective reactions to noise. All the sound levels in this section are A-weighted. A 3-dBA change is considered to be a just-perceivable difference in noise levels.

Decibels on an “A-Weighted” Scale

hitting the surface of the bridge is a dominant source of noise under the bridge. Other noise sources include distant aircraft overflights and boats traveling along the river. Currently, traffic across the Sellwood Bridge is restricted to vehicles weighing less than 10 tons. At the request of ODOT, vehicle traffic for
Leq means the equivalent sound level. The equivalent sound level is the steadystate, A-weighted (dBA) sound level that contains the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time-varying, A-weighted sound level over a specified period of time. If the time period is 1 hour, the descriptor is the hourly equivalent sound level, Leq(h), which is widely used by state highway agencies as a descriptor of traffic noise, and is used in this document. The Traffic Noise Model (TNM) developed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) uses the Leq metric in determining potential exceedances of the noise abatement criteria (NAC). The NAC are based upon noise levels associated with interference of speech communication and are a compromise between noise levels that are desirable and those that are achievable.

The predominant sources of noise in the area include traffic on the Sellwood Bridge, OR 43, SE Tacoma Street, and, to a lesser extent, I-5 (which is within 1 mile of the project site). Along the east-side river path, traffic from OR 43 sometimes sounds louder than the traffic from the Sellwood Bridge, even though the bridge is closer. In addition, the sound of vehicle tires

3-204

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Leq

Noise Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

TABLE 3.19-1

Comparative Sound Levels Sound Level (dBA) 130 120 110 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 30 Light traffic (50 feet) Light traffic (100 feet) Refrigerator (3 feet) Library Soft whisper (15 feet) Very quiet Heavy truck (50 feet) Train on a structure (50 feet) City bus (50 feet) Train (50 feet) City bus at stop (50 feet) Freeway traffic (50 feet) Train in station (50 feet) Jack hammer (50 feet) Home shop tools (3 feet) Backhoe (50 feet) Bulldozer (50 feet) Vacuum cleaner (3 feet) Blender (3 feet) Lawn mower (50 feet) Large office Washing machine (3 feet) TV (10 feet) Talking (10 feet) Quiet Intrusive Annoying Jet takeoff (200 feet) Car horn (3 feet) Shout (0.5 foot) Very annoying Loss of hearing with prolonged exposure Maximum vocal effort Transportation Sources Other Sources Description Painfully loud

dBA = decibels on an “A-weighted” scale; see sidebar

existing conditions was modeled assuming a uniform distribution of car, medium-truck, and heavy-truck traffic on all roadways modeled, including the Sellwood Bridge. The current 10-ton weight limitation over the bridge is a temporary solution not meant to solve the longterm problem. Including the weight restriction for modeled existing and No Build Alternative conditions would create lower noise levels than would exist if no weight restriction were in place.

Bus traffic was assumed to travel on OR 43, SE Tacoma Street, and the Sellwood Bridge.
3.19.2

No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences

Under the No Build Alternative, noise levels would vary between 58 and 72 decibels, and would increase by up to 2 decibels above existing noise levels as a result of future increases in

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-205

Noise Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

FHWA and ODOT requirements state that traffic noise impacts occur when predicted traffic noise levels approach or exceed the federal noise abatement criteria (NAC) or when a substantial increase above existing traffic noise levels occurs. The following items discuss these methods of identifying traffic noise impacts.

Summary of Regulatory Requirements

• Approach or Exceed NAC. FHWA has established NAC that correspond to various types of activities. An impact occurs when the predicted traffic noise levels approach or exceed the applicable NAC. In Oregon, “approach” is defined as being within 2 decibels of the NAC. This means that, in Oregon, mitigation is considered when the impact is within 2 decibels of the FHWA NAC. The outside activity areas of residences, schools, parks, churches, and cemeteries (Activity Category B uses) are, therefore, impacted by traffic noise when the noise levels reach 65 decibels (NAC 67). If outside activity areas are not present, interior spaces of structures are impacted when traffic noise levels reach 50 decibels (NAC 52). Businesses are impacted by traffic noise if outside noise levels in the activity area of those businesses reach 70 decibels (NAC 72). • Substantial Noise Increase. The second method of determining whether a noise impact would occur is the substantial increase criterion. Under this criterion, a traffic noise impact occurs if the predicted traffic noise levels substantially exceed the existing noise levels. An increase of 10 decibels or more is considered a substantial increase. When noise levels approach by 2 decibels or exceed the NAC or when there is a substantial noise increase, noise abatement must be considered and analyzed. Noise barriers are the most commonly recommended mitigation measures. ODOT has established that, for a noise barrier to be considered effective or “feasible,” it should reduce noise levels by at least 5 decibels. Typically, the noise reduction goals should be 7 to 8 decibels. For a noise barrier to be considered “reasonable” to construct, it typically must not cost more than $25,000 per benefited residence. A benefited residence is any affected or non-affected residence that gets a noise reduction of 5 decibels or more.

traffic volumes. The 2-decibel increase predicted for the No Build Alternative would not be perceived by most individuals and is not considered a substantial increase. The places that would be impacted (those that approach within 2 decibels or exceed the applicable noise abatement criteria [NAC]) include:   Two residences at Grand Place: second- and third-story balconies facing SE Tacoma Street. Two residences at Sellwood Harbor Condominiums: the upper-story closest to the south side of the bridge. Four residences at River Park Condominiums with the upper-story balconies facing the north side of the bridge.

First-row residences along SE Tacoma Street between SE 6th Avenue and SE 7th Avenue (16 residences). Oaks Pioneer Church with open doors and windows. (The NAC is 52 decibels, and the Oregon criterion is 50 decibels. The noise level for the existing condition is 49 decibels, and would be 50 decibels for the No Build Alternative in 2035.) The restaurant at the corner of SE 7th Avenue and SE Tacoma Street, which has outdoor seating facing SE Tacoma Street

These locations are illustrated on Figure 3.19-1.
3.19.3

Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences

In this section, a noise impact is defined as approaching or exceeding the applicable NAC.

3-206

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Noise Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

Impacts and Mitigation Common to All Build Alternatives
Direct Impacts. The following places would be impacted under the Build alternatives:  Sixteen first-row residences along SE Tacoma Street between SE 6th Avenue and SE 7th Avenue would experience an increase in noise levels. The restaurant at the corner of SE 7th Avenue and SE Tacoma Street (which has outdoor seating that faces SE Tacoma Street) would experience an increase in noise levels.

Construction would cause noise levels that would exceed the current levels. Construction noise impacts would occur throughout the project construction period. Noise impacts would range from low (such as noise from trucks, cranes, and other construction vehicles) to high (such as vibratory compaction equipment during bridge construction). Drilled shafts and other unusually loud activities would be limited to daytime hours. Night work would require acquisition of the appropriate noise permits from the City of Portland. Indirect Impacts. No identified indirect noise impacts would be associated with the Build alternatives. Mitigation. Noise-abatement measures are considered when the specific performance criteria for the measure can be met. The measure must be able to reduce the noise level by

The distance to the 65-decibel contour (the Oregon noise impact level for residential land uses) would occur for receivers within a 10-foot vertical difference from the roadway out to approximately 70 feet along SE Tacoma Street.

FIGURE 3.19-1

2035 Noise Levels for the No Build Alternative and the Build Alternatives

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-207

Noise Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

5 decibels, and cost no more than $25,000 per benefited residence. Noise-abatement measures were considered for the potential impacts associated with the Build alternatives, including noise walls. Only one property, a commercial property, could be effectively mitigated. An 8-foot noise barrier placed in the right-of-way between property boundaries and sidewalks south of SE Tacoma Street at 8105 SE 7th Avenue would provide sufficient noise reduction for outdoor seating at the restaurant for all Build alternatives. However, because this location is a commercial property, the final determination of reasonableness and feasibility would be made during final design of the project. No noise measures that were both reasonable in cost and feasible were possible for receivers that, by 2035, the Build alternatives would impact. Noise mitigation would be required during construction. Potential construction noise-abatement measures include:  Not performing construction within 300 meters of an occupied dwelling unit on Sundays, legal holidays, and between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on other days without approval. Having sound-control devices no less effective than those provided on the original equipment on all equipment used. Not allowing equipment with unmuffled exhaust. Having all equipment comply with pertinent equipment noise standards of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Not performing pile-driving or blasting operations within 900 meters of an occupied dwelling unit on Sundays, legal holidays, and between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on other days unless the Multnomah County Managing Construction Engineer has granted approval for such operations. Mitigating the noise from rock-crushing or screening operations performed within

900 meters of any occupied dwelling by strategic placement of material stockpiles between the operation and the affected dwelling or by other means approved by the Multnomah County Managing Construction Engineer. To mitigate possible noise impacts to River View Cemetery during construction, Multnomah County would notify the Cemetery Association two days before construction activities with highlevel noise generation. The Cemetery Association could then direct that the contractor cease using high-level noise-generating equipment adjacent to the cemetery during burial services in the cemetery. The equipment could be shut down for 2 to 3 hours. Should a specific noise-impact complaint occur during the construction of the project, one or more of the following noise mitigation measures would be required:  Locate stationary construction equipment as far from nearby noise-sensitive properties as possible Shut off idling equipment Reschedule construction operations to avoid periods of noise annoyance identified in the complaint Notify nearby residences whenever extremely noisy work will be occurring Install temporary or portable acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources Operate electric-powered equipment using line voltage power

 

 

Construction activities would be conducted in a manner that complied with all applicable local noise ordinances, including Title 18, the City of Portland’s Noise Control code (Section 18.10.060), unless a variance was granted.

3-208

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Noise Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

A final decision on installation of any mitigation or potential noise abatement measures would be made upon completion of the project design and the public involvement process. All noise mitigation measures will be disclosed in the Record of Decision.

Alternative-specific Impacts and Mitigation
Alternative A Noise levels would vary between 56 and 72 decibels, which is a projected increase of up to 1 decibel above existing conditions. Noise levels for Alternative A would be less than or equal to the noise levels for the No Build Alternative. Most noise levels projected under the No Build Alternative would decrease under Alternative A. In addition to the places impacted under all Build alternatives, the following locations would also be impacted:  Two residences at Grand Place with secondand third-story balconies facing SE Tacoma Street. Oaks Pioneer Church with open doors and windows. (Under Alternative A, the noise level would be 50 decibels in 2035, which would meet the Oregon abatement criterion of 50 decibels [52-decibel NAC].) Alternative A, unlike Alternative B, would have a narrower bridge deck without sidewalks on the bridge to act as a barrier and shield noise. Therefore, the noise level in the church would be 1 decibel higher under Alternative A than under Alternative B. Although 1 decibel is not a perceivable increase in noise, it is high enough (50 decibels) to be considered an impact because interior spaces of structures are impacted when traffic noise levels reach 50 decibels.

Alternative B Noise levels would vary between 56 and 72 decibels, which is a projected increase of up to 1 decibel above existing conditions. Noise levels for Alternative B would increase up to 1 decibel above the No Build Alternative. Most noise levels projected under the No Build Alternative would decrease under Alternative B. In addition to the locations impacted under all Build alternatives, the following locations would also be impacted:  Two residences at Grand Place with secondand third-story balconies facing SE Tacoma Street. Two residences at Sellwood Harbor Condominiums on the upper story closest to the south side of the bridge.

The locations with noise impacts are shown on Figure 3.19-1. No mitigation is considered both reasonable in cost and feasible for these impacts. Temporary Detour Bridge Option Noise levels with the Alternative B temporary detour bridge option would vary between 55 and 72 decibels, which is a projected increase of up to 5 decibels above existing conditions. Noise levels would be up to 4 decibels above those for the No Build Alternative. The close proximity of the detour bridge to the Oaks Pioneer Church would cause noise levels to increase up to 5 decibels (to 64 decibels at exterior locations), which would still be below the abatement criteria. Interior noise levels would increase to 54 decibels, which would be 4 decibels above the Oregon abatement criterion of 50 decibels (2 above the 52-decibel NAC). For Alternative B with the temporary detour bridge, a 10- to 12-foot barrier could sufficiently reduce noise levels inside the Oaks Pioneer Church. The final determination of reasonableness and feasibility for the detour bridge mitigation would be made during final design of the project.

The locations with noise impacts are shown on Figure 3.19-1. No mitigation is considered both reasonable in cost and feasible for these impacts.

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-209

Noise Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

The locations with noise impacts are shown on Figure 3.19-1. Alternative C Noise levels would vary between 58 and 72 decibels, which is a projected increase of up to 1 decibel above existing conditions. Noise levels for Alternative C would be less than or equal to the noise levels for the No Build Alternative. In addition to the locations impacted under all Build alternatives, the following locations would also be impacted:  Two residences at Grand Place with secondand third-story balconies facing SE Tacoma Street. Oaks Pioneer Church with open doors and windows. (Under Alternative C, the noise level would be 50 decibels in 2035, which would meet the Oregon abatement criterion of 50 decibels [52-decibel NAC].)

level would be 50 decibels in 2035, which would meet the Oregon abatement criterion of 50 decibels [52-decibel NAC].) The locations with noise impacts are shown on Figure 3.19-1. No mitigation is considered both reasonable in cost and feasible for these impacts. Alternative E Noise levels would vary between 55 and 72 decibels, which is a projected increase of up to 2 decibels above existing conditions. Noise levels for Alternative E would increase up to 1 decibel above the No Build Alternative. Most noise levels projected under the No Build Alternative would decrease under Alternative E, except for the north end of Sellwood Riverfront Park, the Oaks Pioneer Church, and 608 SE Tacoma Street. (The existing noise level is 49 decibels. Under Alternative E, the noise level would be 51 decibels in 2035, which would exceed the Oregon abatement criterion of 50 decibels by 1 decibel [52-decibel NAC].) In addition to the locations impacted to levels above the Oregon abatement criteria under all Build alternatives, Oaks Pioneer Church with open doors and windows would also be impacted because of the greater proximity of the bridge to the church. However, the overall exterior noise level would still be lower than the Oregon criterion of 65 decibels (67-decibel NAC). The locations with noise impacts are shown on Figure 3.19-1. The mitigation normally considered for interior impacts is installation of double-paned windows and air conditioning. In the case of the church, the interior is not impacted when the existing windows are closed (noise levels for Build alternatives range from 34 to 39 decibels), and the church already has air conditioning. The operation of the church for weddings and other group functions requires that the doors frequently be open, and the windows are often

The locations with noise impacts are shown on Figure 3.19-1. No mitigation is considered both reasonable in cost and feasible for these impacts. Alternative D Noise levels would vary between 56 and 72 decibels, which is a projected increase of up to 3 decibels above existing conditions. Noise levels for Alternative D would be up to 2 decibels above the noise levels for the No Build Alternative. Most noise levels projected under the No Build Alternative would decrease under Alternative D. In addition to the locations impacted under all Build alternatives, the following locations would also be impacted:  Two residences at Grand Place with secondand third-story balconies facing SE Tacoma Street. Oaks Pioneer Church with open doors and windows. (Under Alternative D, the noise

3-210

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Noise Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

open as well. Under these circumstances, no mitigation is considered both reasonable in cost and feasible for noise level increases. Alternative D Refined (Preferred Alternative) Noise levels would vary between 56 and 72 decibels, which is a projected increase of up to 3 decibels above existing conditions. Noise levels for Alternative D Refined would be up to 2 decibels above the noise levels for the No Build Alternative. Most noise levels projected under the No Build Alternative would decrease under Alternative D Refined. In addition to the locations impacted under all Build alternatives, the following locations would also be impacted:

Two residences at Grand Place with secondand third-story balconies facing SE Tacoma Street. Oaks Pioneer Church with open doors and windows. (Under Alternative D Refined, the noise level would be 50 decibels in 2035, which would meet the Oregon abatement criterion of 50 decibels [52-decibel NAC].)

The locations with noise impacts are shown on Figure 3.19-1. No mitigation is considered both reasonable in cost and feasible for these impacts.
3.19.4

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Traffic Noise Impact

TABLE 3.19-2

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Traffic Noise Impact Impact 2035 Noise Level (decibels) Noise Difference from Existing Conditions (decibels) Residences Interior Churcha Businesses Total
a

No Build 58–72

A 56–72

B 56–72

B/TDB 55–72

C 58–72

D 56–72

E 55–72

D Refined 56–72

+2 24 1 1 26

+1 18 1 1 20

+1 20 0 1 21

+5 16 1 1 18

+1 18 1 1 20

+3 18 1 1 20

+2 16 1 1 18

+3 18 1 1 20

The interior noise levels at Oaks Pioneer Church with open doors and windows B/TDB = Alternative B with temporary detour bridge

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-211

Ener gy Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ron ment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

3.20

Energy

Energy Summary The amount of energy consumed during construction would vary as much as 40 percent among the Build alternatives. However, all Build alternatives would use the same amount of energy during operation because traffic volumes would be the same among all the Build alternatives.

This energy analysis followed an ODOT-required methodology for energy analysis, which is based on the energy consumed during construction and operation in the study area. Therefore, this section does not cover energy consumed outside the study area, sustainability, or the emission of greenhouse gases. (Although greenhouse gases do not yet have agreed-upon standards and methods for analysis related to transportation projects, they are discussed in Section 3.21.2.) Construction costs referenced in this section, which were used for the ODOT-required methodology for energy analysis, do not include the costs for design, construction engineering, or right-of-way. Therefore, they are not the full costs for each alternative. (The full costs are documented in Chapter 2.)
3.20.1

project. A British thermal unit (Btu) was used as the measure of energy in the analysis.
3.20.2

No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences

Affected Environment

The study area for energy resources is the same as the study area for transportation, which is illustrated on Figure 3.1-1 in Section 3.1, Transportation. The annual energy consumed during operation was calculated by estimating the annual average daily traffic, vehicle classification (autos and trucks), distance traveled, average speed, and fuel consumption rates in the study area. The energy effects for the Build alternatives during construction were estimated by applying a bridge construction energy consumption factor developed by the California Department of Transportation to the alternative-specific construction cost. This estimation method was employed because the amount of energy used during the construction of a project is generally proportional to the construction cost of the
A Btu, short for British thermal unit, is a basic measure of thermal (heat) energy. One Btu is the amount of energy needed to heat one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit, at a constant pressure of one atmosphere.
British Thermal Unit

As described in Chapter 2, the No Build Alternative would extend the life of the existing bridge to year 2035 and would cost approximately $41 million for maintenance activities. The energy consumed for maintenance activities would be approximately 182,000 million Btu for the 12-month maintenance activity period, or 1.6 million gallons of gasoline. Total annual operational energy consumed by vehicles is estimated at 1,666 million Btu per year, or equivalent to approximately 14,677 gallons of fuel consumed annually.
3.20.3

Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences

Impacts and Mitigation Common to All Build Alternatives
Direct Impacts. The estimated annual vehicle energy consumption for the Build alternatives during operation is 2,177 million Btu, or equivalent to approximately 18,029 gallons of gasoline consumed annually. This annual amount of energy consumed by vehicles under the Build alternatives would be 22.8 percent more than the energy consumed under the No Build Alternative. Trucks and buses would be permitted under the Build alternatives because the existing weight restriction on the bridge would be removed.

3-212

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Ener gy Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

Because trucks tend to consume more energy than autos, an increase in the percentage of trucks would increase the total energy consumed by vehicles within the study area. However, this increase in truck traffic across the bridge would not create a net increase in energy expended, as truck traffic would be diverted from other bridge crossings. Indirect Impacts. No significant indirect energy impacts are expected to result from construction or operation of any of the Build alternatives. Mitigation. Construction and operating activities should attempt to minimize roadway congestion and should adhere to practices that encourage efficient energy use, such as limiting idling equipment, locating construction staging areas near work sites, and encouraging carpooling.
TABLE 3.20-1

Alternative-specific Impacts
As stated previously, the operational energy consumption would be the same for all the proposed Build alternatives (2,177 million Btu). Table 3.20-1 provides a summary of energy consumed (in million Btu) during construction for each alternative and Build alternative option (if applicable). This table also provides the energy consumed as the equivalent gallons of gasoline consumed.
3.20.4

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Energy Impact

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Energy Impact
Construction Materials Cost (millions)a Construction (million Btu) (Equivalent million gallons of gasoline) Operation Annual (million Btu) (Equivalent gallons of gasoline)

Alternative

Option

No Build A Stress-ribbon Pedestrian/Bike Bridge Cable-stayed Pedestrian/Bike Bridge Rehabilitated Bridge Only Rehabilitated Bridge with Temporary Detour Bridge Through-arch Bridge Deck-arch Bridge D Delta-frame Bridge Box-girder Bridge E Through-arch Bridge Deck-arch Bridge D Refined
a

$41 $184 $188 $182 $200 $155 $171 $159 $143 $192 $161 $156

B C

Delta-frame Bridge

182,000 (1.6) 817,000 (7.2) 834,800 (7.4) 808,100 (7.1) 888,000 (7.8) 688,200 (6.1) 759,300 (6.7) 706,000 (6.2) 634,900 (5.6) 852,500 (6.5) 714,800 (6.3) 692,600 (6.1)

1,666 (14,677) 2,177 (18,029) 2,177 (18,029) 2,177 (18,029) 2,177 (18,029) 2,177 (18,029) 2,177 (18,029) 2,177 (18,029) 2,177 (18,029) 2,177 (18,029) 2,177 (18,029) 2,177 (18,029)

Construction materials cost is in 2012 dollars. These costs are construction costs only, and not the total cost for each alternative. The total cost for each alternative is documented in Chapter 2.
Sellwood B ri dge Project D raft E nvi ronment al I mp act St at ement 3-213

Air Q ua lity Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

3.21
3.21.1

Air Quality
Affected Environment

Air Quality Summary Emissions from the No Build Alternative would be the same as those from the Build alternatives and would meet federal and state air quality standards. Mitigation measures consistent with construction best management practices are recommended for construction of the Build alternatives.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the following air pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter (PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter (PM2.5), and lead (Table 3.21-1). These pollutants are
TABLE 3.21-1

commonly referred to as “criteria pollutants.” Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the federal Clean Air Act, but unlike the criteria pollutants, do not

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) National Standardsa Pollutant Ozone Carbon Monoxide Nitrogen Dioxide Sulfur Dioxide Averaging Time 8-Hour 8-Hour 1-Hour Annual Arithmetic Mean Annual Arithmetic Mean 24-Hour 3-Hour Annual Arithmetic Mean 24-Hour Annual Arithmetic Mean 24-Hour Calendar Quarter 9.0 ppm 35 ppm 0.053 ppm 0.02 ppm 0.10 ppm 0.050 ppm Revokedd 150 µg/m3 12 µg/m3 -1.5 µg/m3 Oregon Standards Primaryb 0.08 ppm 9.0 ppm 35 ppm 0.053 ppm 0.03 ppm 0.14 ppm -Revokedd 150 µg/m3 15 µg/m3 65 µg/m3 1.5 µg/m3 Secondaryc 0.08 ppm --0.053 ppm --0.5 ppm Revokedd 150 µg/m3 15 µg/m3 65 µg/m3 1.5 µg/m3

PM10 PM2.5 Lead
a

b

c

National standards, other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic means, are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration in a year, averaged over 3 years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or less than the standard. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.

d

As a result of lack of evidence linking health problems to long-term exposure to coarse particulate pollution, the EPA revoked the annual PM10 standard in 2006, effective December 17, 2006. µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter ppm = parts per million (by volume) Source: 2006 Oregon Air Quality Data Summaries (DEQ, 2007).
3-214 Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Air Q ua lity Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ron ment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

have regulatory standards. The MSATs are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non-road equipment. The EPA, which is the lead federal agency for administering the Clean Air Act, has certain responsibilities regarding the health effects of MSATs. The reduction in emissions from transportation sources has been predicted since emissions controls were placed on automobiles in the 1970s. Concentrations of transportation-related emissions in urban areas, such as ozone and carbon monoxide, have declined over time, even as the number of automobiles and small trucks has increased significantly, along with the number of miles traveled. Together with the implementation of other regulatory programs, both air toxic emissions and criteria pollutant emissions will be reduced over time.
NAAQS Air Pollutants (“Criteria Pollutants”)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Air Pollutants (“Criteria Pollutants”) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) Ozone (O3) Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Lead (Pb)

are more stringent than the NAAQS. Transportation agencies, including ODOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), are responsible for showing that transportation projects meet the requirements of these plans. FHWA requires MSAT analyses for a project with low potential for toxic emissions.
The Clean Air Act of 1970 was enacted to protect and enhance air quality and to assist state and local governments with air pollution prevention programs. Under the Clean Air Amendments of 1990, the federal government cannot fund, authorize, or approve federal actions to support programs or projects that are not first found to conform to Clean Air Act requirements.

In the state of Oregon, transportation projects located in attainment-maintenance areas are subject to the conformity requirements imposed by the federal Clean Air Act and Oregon’s transportation conformity rules. The Clean Air Act requires that transportation projects located in attainment-maintenance areas conform to the SIP. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities would not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. These rules stipulate the following requirements:

State and local regulatory agencies, including the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), are responsible for developing plans to bring nonattainment areas into compliance with the NAAQS so that they attain the status of attainment-maintenance areas. A “non-attainment area” is a geographic area in which the level of a criteria air pollutant is higher than the level allowed by the federal standards. Each state maintains a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for achieving compliance with the NAAQS. The State of Oregon’s SIP, the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan, established ambient air quality standards that matched the NAAQS with the exception of sulfur dioxide and PM2.5, which

Conformity Determination
This project is subject to the project-level conformity requirements for carbon monoxide, as specified under federal regulation (40 Code of

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

Clean Air Act

Inclusion of the project in the conforming Regional Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program A determination whether the project would produce any new violations of the NAAQS or worsen any existing violation A determination whether or not the project would delay implementation of transportation control measures (TCMs)

3-215

Air Q ua lity Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 51 and 93) and state rule (Oregon Administrative Rules [OAR] 340 Division 252). The project is included in the conforming Regional Transportation Plan (RTP 2035) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP 2008-2011). The general scope of work of the Build alternatives is the same as the conforming RTP and TIP. Air quality impacts are assessed in the analyses presented in this section. The project would not produce any new violations of the NAAQS or worsen any existing violations. The project would not delay implementation of TCMs. Therefore, the project has been determined to be in conformance with federal and state conformity requirements for carbon monoxide.

Transportation Conformity requirements, 40 CFR 93 Subpart A and OAR 340-252. The air toxics assessment was based on guidance specific to a project with low potential MSAT effect, as described in FHWA guidance for conducting air toxic analysis (2006). The air toxics criteria are selected based on the average annual daily traffic (AADT) for the project area. The project AADT is approximately 42,454 vehicles. This is less than the FHWA criteria of 140,000 to 150,000 AADT, below which a low potential for air toxics impacts is anticipated.
3.21.2

Local Context
Portland is located at the northern end of the Willamette Valley, which makes it prone to periods of poor air dispersion due to the predominance of storms in late fall and winter and high temperatures and light winds during the summer and early fall. High concentrations of carbon monoxide and particulate matter from automobile and home heating emissions can result during these periods of poor air dispersion and stagnant air. In the early 1990s, the EPA designated the Portland area as a nonattainment area for carbon monoxide and ozone. On September 2, 1997, the EPA approved a redesignation of the Portland area to a maintenance area for carbon monoxide and in attainment, subject to a 10-year maintenance plan. In 2007, the standards for ozone were changed from a 1-hour maintenance standard to an average 8-hour standard, and the EPA formally designated the Portland/Vancouver area as in attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. (Table 3.21-1 provides ambient air quality standards.) Federally funded transportation projects within a maintenance area must include a carbon monoxide “hot-spot analysis” as defined by the

No Build Alternative and Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences

Impacts and Mitigation Common to All Alternatives
Direct Impacts. Air emissions from mobile sources would decline over the life of the project, regardless of the alternative chosen (the No Build Alternative or any of the Build alternatives) because of new technology and phasing out of older, more polluting vehicles. The emissions analysis was conducted for existing year, 2013, and 2035 conditions. The concentrations were modeled based on the traffic analysis to determine what changes would occur and the impacts on carbon monoxide emissions. Results of the hot-spot analysis show that concentrations would be below the carbon monoxide standard in 2013 and 2035. The federal and Oregon standards are 35 parts per million (ppm) for the 1-hour carbon monoxide standard and 9 ppm for the 8-hour carbon monoxide standard. For all alternatives, predicted 1-hour and 8-hour carbon monoxide concentrations would be equal to or less than 4.9 and 3.9 ppm, respectively, in 2035. Therefore, the project would not cause any new violations of the NAAQS.

3-216

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Air Q ua lity Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ron ment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

Table 3.21-2 shows the calculated 8-hour carbon monoxide concentrations in ppm at the OR 43 at SW Taylors Ferry Road intersection. This is the poorest performing intersection in the study area in terms of congestion and capacity. This intersection also has the highest traffic volumes in the study area. For these reasons, it was analyzed for carbon monoxide concentration.
TABLE 3.21-2

cause region-wide MSAT levels to be significantly lower than they are today. Indirect Impacts. The No Build Alternative and the Build alternatives would cause no indirect or secondary air quality impacts during construction. There are no indirect effects identified for air quality resources in the study area. Mitigation. There would be no recommended mitigation for operation of the project. The following mitigation measures, which are consistent with construction best management practices, are suggested for construction of the alternatives:   Use, where possible, water or other suitable materials to control dust. Apply asphalt, oil, water, or other suitable materials on unpaved roads, material stockpiles, and other surfaces that can create airborne dust. Completely enclose material stockpiles. Stockpiles can be partially enclosed where the application of oil, water, or chemicals is not sufficient to prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne. Use wind fencing to reduce soil disturbances. Locate construction equipment and the truck staging area away from sensitive receptors as practical and in consideration of potential effects on other resources. Schedule work tasks to minimize disruption of the existing vehicle traffic on streets. Cover, at all times when in motion, openbodied trucks that are transporting materials likely to become airborne. When possible, restrict road or land closures to non-peak traffic periods to reduce the effect construction delays might have on traffic flow and resultant emissions.

Maximum Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (in ppm) at the SW Taylors Ferry Road/OR 43 Intersection Scenario National and Oregon Standards 2013 (All Alternatives) 2035 (All Alternatives) ppm = parts per million Calculated 8-hour (ppm) 9.0 3.7 3.9

Carbon monoxide emissions at this intersection from the No Build Alternative would be the same as carbon monoxide emissions from the Build alternatives because traffic volumes and intersection conditions (such as lane configurations and signal timing) would be similar for each alternative. As illustrated, carbon monoxide concentrations would be less than the national and Oregon standards for carbon monoxide (43 percent of the standards in 2035). The localized level of MSAT emissions under the Build alternatives could be higher relative to the No Build Alternative because, in some places, the road would be realigned closer to receptors. However, this could be offset due to increases in vehicle speeds and reductions in congestion (which are both associated with lower MSAT emissions). In addition, MSATs would be lower in other locations because traffic would shift away from those locations. However, on a regional basis, the EPA’s vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet turnover, will cause substantial reductions over time that, in almost all cases, will

 

 

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-217

Air Q ua lity Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

Promptly remove from paved streets any earth or other material that might become airborne.

Multnomah County would look for opportunities to employ other environmentally friendly techniques to control emissions from vehicles and machines used in construction. Such practices might include, but would not be limited to, the use of:   Low-sulfur diesel fuel on all diesel equipment Construction equipment with new-generation diesel engines, when available, or equipment with tailpipe diesel-particulate removal, when available Environmentally friendly lubricants, solvents, and chemicals, to the greatest extent practicable

However, it is likely that those vehicles would also produce such gases at a different location if this project were not built. Therefore, the construction vehicles would likely emit greenhouse gases regardless of this project. The materials used to construct the project would be greenhouse-gas contributors specific to this project. The manufacturing processes of two primary materials used in bridge construction— cement and steel—produce significant carbon dioxide, as well as other gases. Although technologies are emerging for both of these processes that would reduce carbon dioxide production, the availability of such products at the time of construction of the proposed bridge and their comparative costs are not known at this time. Because the No Build Alternative would require much less material, it would contribute the least to construction-generated greenhouse gases. At least two bridge designs are still under consideration. However, they have not been developed sufficiently to determine the differences between them as they relate to greenhouse-gas production. It is not expected that aspects of the bridge design selected would differ to the extent that this would be considered a determining factor among them. Greenhouse Gases Emitted during Operation. Greenhouse gases emitted by surface vehicles in regional planning are generally evaluated in terms of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). For the Sellwood Bridge project, all alternatives, including the No Build Alternative, would generate the same amount of traffic. However, the No Build Alternative and the Build alternatives would have a different mix of vehicles. The No Build Alternative would not allow truck traffic and transit vehicles, but all Build alternatives would allow truck traffic, reinstate transit service, and be designed to accommodate a future streetcar line on the bridge. This would create a difference between the No Build Alternative and the Build alternatives regarding VMT. With all Build

Multnomah County would require contractors to comply with Section 290 of Oregon Standard Specifications for Construction (ODOT, 2008), which has requirements for environmental protection, including air-pollution-control measures. These control measures, which are designed to minimize vehicle track-out and fugitive dust, would be documented in the pollution control plan that the contractor would be required to submit prior to the preconstruction conference. Greenhouse Gases. The analyst did not model greenhouse gases for this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) because, at this time, no reliable data, adopted criteria, or accepted approaches and models exist for predicting greenhouse gas emissions for transportation projects. However, some aspects of the project can be evaluated through deductive analysis rather than modeling. Greenhouse Gases Emitted during Construction. Construction-related activities would also be a source of greenhouse gases. Construction vehicles would produce greenhouse gases during the project construction period.

3-218

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Air Q ua lity Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ron ment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

alternatives, some trips are expected to change to transit and some truck traffic is expected, primarily local truck traffic, from trucks that are currently prohibited because of a weight limitation on the bridge. Initially, then, the Build alternatives would be expected to perform identically, and could potentially slightly decrease VMT compared to the No Build Alternative. Regional growth in population will increase traffic and congestion in the Sellwood Bridge corridor, therefore increasing the emission of greenhouse gases. By 2035, a 33 percent increase in travel demand is expected in the corridor for both the No Build Alternative and the Build alternatives. There would be small operating performance differences within the limits of the project termini among the Build alternatives. For example, the west-side interchange associated with Alternative C would operate in a free-flow condition, saving some travel time within the limits of the project. However, this advantage would be lost as traffic moved beyond the project area. It is believed that the free-flow condition would lead to no real reduction in greenhouse gas emissions among the Build alternatives. If no other aspects of travel patterns could be altered, all the alternatives would increase greenhouse gas emissions. Strategies to decrease greenhouse gases resulting from transportation would include the following:  Changing modes of travel to those that would be more efficient per person trip (such as transit), use cleaner sources of energy (for example, electric and natural gas), and accommodate human-powered means (for example, walking and bicycling) Changing trip patterns, so that shorter and fewer trips were required Increasing the mileage per gallon of fuel Changing the vehicle fuel type

pedestrian travel, reinstate transit service across the bridge, accommodate a future streetcar line on the bridge, and provide connections between these modes. All the Build alternatives would create this opportunity equally, therefore offering equal opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, reducing these emissions would require significant efforts and the development of projects outside the scope of this project. The No Build Alternative would offer little toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions because it would not maintain an efficient connection across the river for auto traffic, reinstate transit across the bridge, construct improved bicyclist and pedestrian facilities, or accommodate a future streetcar line. Increasing the mileage per gallon of fuel and changing the vehicle fuel type. A long-term national strategy to reduce greenhouse gases is for vehicles to use less energy per mile and use energy from sources that produce either no or less greenhouse gas emissions. Implementation of this strategy would reduce greenhouse gases for all Build alternatives and the No Build Alternative. Those Build alternatives that would provide for the reinstatement of public transit and accommodation of a future streetcar line would not guarantee a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Even if these modes of travel used electricity, to determine the effect on greenhouse gases, the generation source of the electricity must be evaluated for carbon production. Greenhouse gases have the same effect on climate change regardless of where they are produced. Currently, electricity used in Oregon is generated from the following fuel sources:      43 percent from hydropower 38 percent from burning coal 14 percent from natural gas 3 percent from nuclear 2 percent from wind, solar, and other sources (Oregon Department of Energy, 2007; Pheil, 2009)

  

Changing modes of travel and trip patterns. The Build alternatives would increase bicyclist and

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-219

Air Q ua lity Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

Therefore, the majority of Oregon’s electricity is still generated from carbon-based fuels (coal and natural gas). It is expected that electric utility companies will increase natural gas usage over the next decade. Oregon also has initiatives to increase renewable energy sources, primarily wind and solar. All modes of conveyance available today produce greenhouse gases either directly or indirectly (for example, from the generation of electricity). However, some modes produce lower amounts of greenhouse gases per person trip, or lower amounts of per ton of goods transported. For various conveyance modes, the power methods currently used include the following:     Streetcars by electricity Buses by diesel, natural gas, or biodiesel Trucks primarily by diesel Cars mostly by gasoline, but some by natural gas or electricity

for reducing greenhouse gases, other than what would occur as energy sources for cars change over time. All of the Build alternatives, including Alternative D Refined, would enable conveyance modes that would emit lower amounts of greenhouse gases per trip and encourage a substantial increase in trips made by bicycle and on foot. (Bicyclist and pedestrian use with the Build alternatives is estimated to be approximately 475 percent higher than with the No Build Alternative because of improved bicyclist and pedestrian facilities and connections.) In addition, the Build alternatives would maintain the Willamette River crossing. Because this is the shortest distance and most efficient trip route for those that use the Sellwood Bridge, the Build alternatives would not increase VMT caused by out-of-direction travel. At the same time, because the Build alternatives would not add capacity to the route for motor vehicles, indirectly they all would encourage travelers to make trips by public transit, where it was feasible. The differences among the Build alternatives related to potential greenhouse gas production would not be statistically significant.
3.21.3

Local planning strategies to reduce greenhouse gases encourage the use of conveyances that produce the lowest amount of greenhouse gases per trip. This strategy requires that:    More trips be taken by public transit, bicycle, or foot The distance of travel be the shortest and most efficient The trip be as free from congestion as possible

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Air Quality Impact

Summary. In summary, strategies for reducing greenhouse gases are complex. Much related to the implementation of solutions lies outside the authority of the project. Enabling multiple modes would be the primary strategy of those that could be implemented through the project. The No Build Alternative would not allow public transit (either streetcars or buses) across the bridge. In addition, it is a discouraging route for bicyclists and pedestrians. Therefore, the No Build Alternative would offer little opportunity

There are no differences in air quality impacts among the Build alternatives because the OR 43 at SW Taylors Ferry Road intersection would have similar traffic volumes and intersection conditions with all Build alternatives. Greenhouse gas emissions would be the same among all Build alternatives, and likely less than the No Build Alternative, because the Build alternatives would encourage travel modes that would emit lower levels of greenhouse gases per capita. (The Build alternatives would provide new bicyclist and pedestrian facilities, reinstate transit service across the bridge, and be designed to accommodate a future streetcar line.)

3-220

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Haza rdo us Materi als Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

3.22
3.22.1

Hazardous Materials
Affected Environment

Hazardous Materials Summary The Build alternatives would potentially directly impact between 6 and 10 sites, and indirectly impact 2 sites, that are known or suspected to be contaminated with hazardous materials. The project would define and minimize potential hazards through additional site investigations and comprehensive planning for contingencies involving hazardous substances.

The study area has consisted of mixed residential, commercial, and industrial properties since at least 1925, when the Sellwood Bridge was constructed. Land use changes at specific sites have occurred, but as a whole, the area has remained mixed use. The land directly under the east end of the existing bridge historically was used for a lumber mill with a sash-and-door manufacturing operation. As time progressed, a cabinet shop was added to the mill’s operations. This property is now the site of the Sellwood Harbor Condominiums. Based on historical aerial photographs, the area currently used for the Sellwood Riverfront Park appears to have been low land that was filled. The area may have been a landfill in the 1950s and 1960s. There are 13 features of potential environmental concern in the study area, as identified in Table 3.22-1. Features of environmental concern are areas most likely to contain contaminated soil and/or groundwater. The list in Table 3.22-1 is derived from a report that contains a comprehensive list of potential hazardous sites in the study area. In addition to the features identified in Table 3.22-1, there is a high likelihood that the existing bridge structure has asbestos-containing material and lead-based paint. The feature identification number (ID No.) listed in the first column of Table 3.22-1 corresponds with the site numbers indicated on Figure 3.22-1. The contaminants of environmental concern have been abbreviated in the table, but they are defined in the table notes and in a sidebar.

3.22.2

No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences

The only foreseeable adverse impacts in relation to contaminated media are addressing potential asbestos-containing material and lead-based paint on the existing bridge structure during any maintenance activities.
3.22.3

Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences

Impacts and Mitigation Common to All Build Alternatives
The numbers associated with each feature of environmental concern discussed in this section correlate with the numbers in Table 3.22-1 and on Figure 3.22-1. Direct Impacts. Each Build alternative would encounter the potential of asbestos-containing material and lead-based paint on the existing bridge structure as well as the following six features of environmental concern: 1. Twin Cedars Service Station, a former service station at 7712 SW Macadam Avenue 2. River View Service Station, a former service station at 8126 and 8128 SW Macadam Avenue

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-221

Haza rdo us Materi als Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ron ment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

3. Staff Jennings Property (formerly Staff Jennings, Inc.), located at 8240 SW Macadam Avenue, which had one leaking underground storage tank in 2006 and two other underground storage tanks 4. River View Cemetery, located at 8421 SW Macadam Avenue, which has one underground storage tank 5. Oregon Door Company, a former sawmill that covered the area under the east end of the Sellwood Bridge and the area currently occupied by the Sellwood Harbor Condominiums, with a current address of 220 SE Spokane Street 6. Riverside Service Station, a former service station at 530 and 536 SE Tacoma Street, had one leaking underground storage tank in 2006 In addition to the locations identified above, there would be the possibility of encountering contaminated soils during any upgrade or
TABLE 3.22-1

realignment of underground utilities such as sewer and/or water supply lines. Due to the age of the community and the number of former leaking underground storage tanks in the area, there would be a high likelihood of encountering total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) contamination from an unknown leaking underground storage tank. Indirect Impacts. Indirect impacts could include construction activities that would change the groundwater level of contaminated aquifers. If there is any construction activity to lower the groundwater level on the east end of the bridge, contaminated groundwater could be encountered at the following two sites: 12. Bousley Albert Gas Station, a former gasoline service station located at 838 SE Tacoma Street

Features of Potential Environmental Concern Feature ID No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Contaminant of Environmental Concern TPH, VOC, Pb TPH, VOC, Pb TPH, VOC, Pb TPH TPH, VOC, PAH TPH, VOC, Pb TPH, VOC, PAH, Metals VOC, TPH Metals, VOC TPH, VOC VOC TPH, VOC, Pb TPH

Facility Name Twin Cedars Service Station River View Service Station Staff Jennings Property (formerly Staff Jennings, Inc.) River View Cemetery Oregon Door Company Riverside Service Station Sellwood Riverfront Park Office Furniture Refinishers Anodizing Incorporated Parts Sellwood Transfer Garage Masterscreen Products, Inc. Bousley Albert Gas Station Bondy, J. (residence)

Address 7712 SW Macadam Avenue 8126 and 8128 SW Macadam Avenue 8240 SW Macadam Avenue 8421 SW Macadam Avenue 220 SE Spokane Street 530 and 536 SE Tacoma Street SE Spokane Street and SE Oaks Park Way 530 SE Tenino Street 8222 SE 6th Avenue 531 SE Umatilla Street 8225 SE 7th Avenue 838 SE Tacoma Street 534 SE Nehalem

Notes: TPH = total petroleum hydrocarbon (such as gasoline, diesel, heating oil, motor oil) VOC = volatile organic compound (such as cleaning solvents, degreasers, paint thinners) PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (by-product of incomplete combustion) Pb = lead

3-222

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Haza rdo us Materi als Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

FIGURE 3.22-1

Features of Environmental Concern Site numbers correspond to the Feature ID Numbers listed in Table 3.22-1

13. J. Bondy, a residence located at 534 SE Nehalem Street, has a leaking underground heating-oil tank with a cleanup process that has not been finalized Mitigation. Mitigation measures are designed to minimize impacts over the short and long term. The following proposed mitigation measures are common to the Build alternatives:  Conduct a lead and asbestos survey of the existing bridge prior to construction or demolition. This work should include the analysis of existing paint layers for total and toxicity characteristic leaching procedures for heavy metals, such as cadmium, chromium, zinc, and lead. Investigate and address areas of known contaminated soil before or during construction to limit exacerbation. These measures could include direct removal of contaminated media, capping or covering contaminated soils, and pumping

contaminated groundwater from impacted aquifers.  Implement construction-phase monitoring to identify and manage unknown or unanticipated media. Characterize waste generated during construction (such as excavated soil, wastewater, and construction debris) and assign each waste stream to appropriate waste-disposal facilities. Implement other mitigation measures such as controlling stormwater runoff from the construction site, limiting access to contaminated areas, avoiding crosscontamination or carryover of contaminated material to clean areas, and identifying appropriate waste disposal for all waste streams.

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-223

Haza rdo us Materi als Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ron ment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

Contaminants of Environmental Concern

Total petroleum hydrocarbon, or TPH, is the term used for petroleum-derived compounds such as gasoline, diesel, heating oil, motor oil, and hydraulic fluid. When TPH is released to the environment, it tends to migrate downward in the soil until it reaches either a confining layer such as tight silts and clay or the water table, at which point it spreads out on top. If it reaches the groundwater, most of the TPH contamination would float on top, moving along with the general flow of the water table. A smaller fraction would dissolve into the groundwater, creating a groundwater plume. In low concentrations, TPH will naturally degrade into benign compounds. In higher concentrations, TPH will create a widespread plume. Volatile organic compound, or VOC, is the term for a wide range of chemicals used to make solvents such as degreasers, industrial cleaning solvents, and paint thinners. When VOCs are released to the environment, some break down and volatize very quickly; others break down very slowly and some break down into compounds that are more toxic than the original chemical. Lead (Pb) and heavy metals tend to remain on the surface of the soil. The small particles can be carried in stormwater runoff and blown dust, but for the most part remain in the topsoil. Lead was also used as a gasoline additive up until the late 1970s and early 1980s. This gasoline additive was in a liquid or dissolved phase, which, if released to the environment, could migrate deeper into the soil and potentially contaminate the groundwater. Acids and caustics used in anodizing shops allow greater mobility of dissolved metals in soil and groundwater. Lead and heavy metals do not break down. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, are found naturally in the environment and can also be man-made. PAHs are most commonly created when products like coal, oil, gas, wood, and garbage are burned but the burning process is not complete. Once released into the environment, some PAHs can degrade naturally under very specific conditions. However, it is more common for PAHs to accumulate in soils and sediments. PAHs are generally not soluble, although some PAH compounds can move into the liquid phase under the right conditions. Asbestos is a common name given to a group of naturally occurring mineral fibers. Asbestos was commonly used in pipe wraps, insulation, gaskets, concrete pipe, and adhesive mastics until the 1970s to 1980s. Asbestos is only a hazard when small particles become airborne, are inhaled, and deposited within the lungs. Asbestos fibers do not break down.

Alternative-specific Impacts
The numbers associated with each feature of environmental concern discussed in this section correlate with the numbers in Table 3.22-1 and on Figure 3.22-1. Alternative A Alternative A would encounter the same six features of environmental concern identified previously (Features 1 through 6), as well as one additional feature of environmental concern: 7. Sellwood Riverfront Park, located northwest of SE Spokane Street and SE Oaks Park Way, which had earth-moving activity, and there is a possibility that this site was a former landfill

Alternative B Alternative B would encounter the same six features of environmental concern identified previously (Features 1 through 6), as well as one additional feature of environmental concern (with the temporary detour bridge option only): 7. Sellwood Riverfront Park, located northwest of SE Spokane Street and SE Oaks Park Way, which had earth-moving activity, and there is a possibility that this site was a former landfill Alternative C Alternative C would encounter the same six features of environmental concern identified previously (Features 1 through 6), as well as four additional features of concern:

3-224

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Haza rdo us Materi als Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

8. Office Furniture Refinishers, a former furniture refinishing shop located at 530 SE Tenino Street; this site was also an auto repair shop in the 1960s 9. Anodizing Incorporated Parts, a metal refinishing shop located at 8222 SE 6th Avenue 10. Sellwood Transfer Garage, a repair shop located at 531 SE Umatilla Street 11. Masterscreen Products, Inc., an industrial facility located at 8225 SE 7th Avenue Alternative D No additional features of environmental concern are associated with Alternative D. The only features of environmental concern are the six identified under Common Impacts (Features 1 through 6). Alternative E The main bridge structure for Alternative E would encounter the same six features of

environmental concern identified previously (Features 1 through 6), as well as one additional feature of environmental concern: 7. Sellwood Riverfront Park, located northwest of SE Spokane Street and SE Oaks Park Way, which had earth-moving activity, and there is a possibility that this site was a former landfill Alternative D Refined (Preferred Alternative) No additional features of environmental concern are associated with Alternative D Refined. The only features of environmental concern are the six identified under Common Impacts (Features 1 through 6).
3.22.4

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Hazardous Materials Impact

TABLE 3.22-2

Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Hazardous Materials Impact Impact Type Number of sites potentially directly impacted Number of sites potentially indirectly impacted
a

No Build 0 0

A 7 2

B 6a 2

C 10 2

D 6 2

E 7 2

D Refined 6 2

With the temporary detour bridge option, seven sites potentially would be directly impacted.

Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement

3-225

Relations hip of S hort -ter m Uses of t he E nviro nme nt a nd L ong-te rm Pro ducti vity Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

3.23

Relationship of Shortterm Uses of the Environment and Longterm Productivity

with the maintenance and enhancement of longterm productivity.
3.23.2

Build Alternatives

Short-term Uses of the Environment
All Build alternatives would involve replacing existing infrastructure with new infrastructure. In the short-term, the effects of the Build alternatives would likely be greater than those of the No Build Alternative. The Build alternatives would have local short-term effects on the surrounding environment for three to four years of construction. Even with the best planning and coordination, construction would be disruptive to people who live, work, and travel in the area. Examples of short-term natural environment effects would include vegetation removal, soil erosion, water quality degradation, increased noise levels, and increased levels of particulates in the air. Following construction, these increased impact levels would diminish, except for vegetation removal. New vegetation planted after construction, especially trees, would take a significant amount of time to mature. Examples of short-term social environment effects if no bridge crossing were provided during construction would include traffic diversion, increased commuter cost and time, and no bicycle or pedestrian facilities to cross the river. With or without a bridge crossing during construction, construction activities would decrease the economic activity in the bridge area. Decreased traffic volumes would impact businesses that rely on drive-by traffic. Other short-term social environment impacts would include temporary displacement of parking spaces and land temporarily committed during construction to staging and laydown areas.

This section discusses the trade-offs of local short-term impacts and resource uses, and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity related to the Sellwood Bridge project.
3.23.1

No Build Alternative

Short-term Uses of the Environment
The No Build Alternative would have local shortterm effects on the surrounding environment for approximately 1 year of maintenance activities to keep the bridge operational and in as good a condition as possible for the next 20 years. Examples of short-term environmental effects would include increased noise levels, traffic diversion, increased commuter cost and time, and no bicycle or pedestrian facilities to cross the river. Economic activity in the bridge area would decrease from construction activities. Because traffic would not be allowed across the bridge for approximately 6 to 8 months, decreased traffic volumes would impact businesses that rely on drive-by traffic.

Long-term Productivity
The No Build Alternative would not provide long-term productivity because additional investment would be required to continue to use the bridge beyond a 20-year period, it would not eliminate the existing 10-ton weight limit on the bridge, it would not improve the geometric deficiencies of the interchange with OR 43 on the west side, it would not improve the existing bicyclist and pedestrian facilities, and it would not retrofit the bridge to existing seismic standards. For these reasons, the No Build Alternative would not meet the project’s purpose and need (Sections 1.5 and 1.6). The short-term effects of the No Build Alternative would not be consistent

Long-term Productivity
Over the long term, a rehabilitated or new bridge would improve the short-term local effects on the surrounding environment. Traffic congestion during construction would be replaced by

3-226

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Relations hip of S hort -ter m Uses of t he E nviro nme nt a nd L ong-te rm Pro ducti vity Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

long-term improvements in traffic mobility on OR 43, reinstatement of transit service across the bridge, structural capacity to accommodate various vehicle types (including transit vehicles, trucks, and emergency vehicles), and the structural integrity of a rehabilitated or new bridge. All Build alternatives would implement sustainable transportation—improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities across the bridge, improved connections for bicyclists and pedestrians to existing facilities, and the reinstatement of transit service across the bridge. Improved bicyclist and pedestrian facilities and connections to area parks and recreational resources would make the area more attractive to bicyclists and pedestrians. A rehabilitated or new bridge would also be designed to accommodate streetcar service across the bridge. (The City of Portland’s Portland Streetcar System Concept Plan [2009] designates the Sellwood Bridge as a future streetcar corridor.) Truck service would be reinstated across the bridge, improving the cost efficiency of business deliveries. The Build alternatives would also treat stormwater runoff. Improved water quality might promote slightly increased local productivity in the Willamette River. Mitigation planned for the west-side parks would enhance

the natural environment by removing invasive species, restoring the area with native species, and restoring and enhancing streams for use by fish species. Some of the right-of-way used during construction could be returned to productive uses, such as for redevelopment or for park or recreational use. Transportation improvement projects are based on planning efforts that consider the need for existing and future multi-modal transportation system requirements, and roadway safety, design, and structural integrity of the transportation infrastructure. All modes would benefit from improving the structural capacity of the bridge to safely accommodate various vehicle types (including transit vehicles, trucks, and emergency vehicles); increasing the structural integrity of the bridge to withstand moderate seismic events; implementing a roadway design that would meet applicable standards; improving bicyclist and pedestrian facilities; and improving mobility on OR 43. All Build alternatives would contribute to a long-term network of sustainable integrated transportation. Therefore, the short-term effects of the Build alternatives would be consistent with the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity.

Sellwood B ri dge Project D raft E nvi ronment al I mp act St at ement

3-227

Irre versi ble a nd I rretrie va ble Com mitme nt of Resources Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ron ment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

3.24

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

following irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources would occur under the Build alternatives:  The conversion of vegetation and riparian areas to provide for new transportation right-of-way and infrastructure. The Build alternatives would shift the land used for transportation closer to the Willamette River and remove existing vegetation and riparian area. The loss of the Sellwood Bridge, a historic resource eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The adverse impact to River View Cemetery and the Superintendent’s House in River View Cemetery, which are both eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Physical materials used to build the project (such as aggregate used to make cement and asphalt, steel needed to make rebar and steel structures, oil to make asphalt, and fill material). These materials are finite resources, but they are not currently in short supply. Labor for construction efforts. Use of the labor would not have an adverse effect upon continued availability of labor resources. The regional pool of necessary skills is sufficient to meet the project needs without any disruption in development activities. Local public service efforts expended during project construction, including those by emergency service providers. The energy used during construction and operation. Energy consumed would include the gasoline used by vehicles to drive on the roadway; the electricity needed to keep lights and electrical systems running; and gasoline, diesel fuel, oil, and electricity needed for construction. The amount of energy consumed during construction would be a

This section discusses the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources related to the Sellwood Bridge project.
3.24.1

No Build Alternative

Maintenance activities on the existing Sellwood Bridge under the No Build Alternative would involve the commitment of physical, human, and fiscal resources. The following irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources would occur under the No Build Alternative:   Physical materials used for maintenance activities. Labor for maintenance activities. Use of the labor would not have an adverse effect upon continued availability of labor resources. The regional pool of necessary skills is sufficient to meet the project needs without any disruption in development activities. Local public service efforts expended during maintenance activities, including emergency service providers. The energy used during maintenance activities. Energy consumed would include the gasoline used by vehicles to drive on the roadway; the electricity needed to keep lights and electrical systems running; and gasoline, diesel fuel, oil, and electricity needed for the maintenance activities. Local (and, if applicable, federal and state) funds for maintenance activities

3.24.2

Build Alternatives

Rehabilitating or replacing the existing Sellwood Bridge would involve the commitment of natural, physical, human, and fiscal resources. The

3-228

Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt

Irre versi ble a nd I rretrie va ble Com mitme nt of Resources Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation

small fraction of the energy consumed annually for transportation in Oregon, and would not put substantial additional demand on energy sources or fuel availability in the region.  Land used during operation for transportation facilities. Although these facilities conceivably could be converted to other land uses at some time in the future, there is no reason at present to believe that such a conversion would be necessary or desirable. Federal, state, and local funds for construction and operation. Potential loss of archaeological and historic resources from presently unknown sites, which could occur during construction.

 

The Build alternatives would require the commitment of the resources listed previously. The proposed commitment of natural, physical, human, and fiscal resources is based on the belief that businesses, employees, and residents of the immediate area and the region would benefit from the improved quality of the transportation system under the Build alternatives. The Build alternatives would improve transportation, accessibility, and safety, as well as providing greater availability to an integrated, sustainable transportation system. These benefits would consist of increased structural integrity, improved roadway safety and design, reinstated transit service, and improved bicyclist and pedestrian facilities and connections. These benefits are anticipated to outweigh the commitment of resources.

Sellwood B ri dge Project D raft E nvi ronment al I mp act St at ement

3-229

Cumulative Impacts Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

3.25

Cumulative Impacts

Sections 3.25.2 (general summary) and 3.25.3 (by resource).
3.25.1

Cumulative impacts on the environment result from the incremental impact of the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. A number of actions have been (or are likely to be) undertaken that, when combined with any of the Build alternatives, would have cumulative impacts on the social and natural environment. To evaluate cumulative impacts of all Sellwood Bridge alternatives (the No Build Alternative and the Build alternatives), the project team: • • Defined a geographic study area for each resource. Established a time frame of reference for evaluating how past actions have shaped the social and natural environment of the study area, and suggested how future actions might further change the conditions resulting from these past actions. The “past” runs from the 1840s (settlement of the Sellwood area) to the present (2010). Future impacts are estimated to 2030, by which the reasonably foreseeable actions (listed in Section 3.25.2) are expected to be implemented. Identified the current status, viability, and historical context for each resource. Identified direct and indirect impacts of the project that could contribute to a cumulative impact. (Direct and indirect impacts are documented by discipline in Sections 3.1 through 3.22 of this Final Environmental Impact Statement [FEIS].) Identified other current and reasonably foreseeable actions (listed in Section 3.25.2). Using the information from the process described, identified and assessed cumulative impacts, and assessed the need for mitigation. Documented the results of the cumulative impacts analysis, which are provided in

Past and Present Actions

Native Americans have occupied or traveled through the study area for thousands of years. Those activities had little effect on current environmental conditions in the study area. In the 1800s, European-American settlement began in the Portland and Vancouver area, which increased the local population and began to change the environment in the study area. The following summary of key historic events provides a basis for analysis of past and present actions that have helped shape current conditions. • 1840s. The first European-American settlements were established, primarily residential and related businesses along the banks of the river. Development eventually spread eastward. 1850s. Steamboats began serving river communities on the lower Willamette River, including the Sellwood area. 1866. Reverend John Sellwood purchased more than 300 acres of land on the east side of the Willamette River. 1873. Willamette Falls locks were constructed and industrialization began around the falls. Construction of the locks and channel blasting altered the flow of the river upstream of the Sellwood area and reduced the tendency of the Willamette River to flood. 1882. Fish ladder was installed at Willamette Falls because industrialization of the area had diminished salmon and steelhead runs. Sellwood was officially established. The plat map, drawn for the subdivision of the property, has as its boundaries the Willamette River on the west edge, SE Ochoco Street to the south, SE 19th

• •

• •

3-230

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Cumulative Impacts Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

Street on the east, and SE Miller Street on the north. River View Cemetery was established. The cemetery originally included the existing west-side interchange area and Powers Marine Park. • 1887. Portland & Willamette Valley Railroad (later the Southern Pacific Railroad) line on the west side began operation. The rail line is now used by the Willamette Shoreline Trolley. 1888. A hydroelectric dam was constructed at Willamette Falls, upstream of the Sellwood area, which reduced the tendency of the Willamette River to flood. 1880s and 1890s. The intersections of SE Umatilla Street and SE 17th Avenue and of SE Tacoma Street and SE 17th Avenue became centers of commercial activity. 1892. Sellwood streetcar line was completed. The line provided service down SE Milwaukie Avenue to SE Bybee Street, turned west on SE Bybee Street, and then traveled south on SE 13th Avenue. With improved transportation, Sellwood became slightly more urban. Electrical lines were strung to provide power to the streetcars. This line expansion increased the number of power lines available for other uses. Many new businesses that came to the area during this era were factories and mills, whose owners recognized the economic advantages of sites for their companies near these new sources of electricity and along the riverbank for water transport. 1893. Sellwood was annexed to the City of Portland. Interurban electric railway service was established between Oregon City and Portland. 1905. The John F. Caples ferry began operations, making 56 trips a day, with an •

estimated total of 365,000 crossings. The east-side landing was at the end of SE Spokane Street in Sellwood, and the west-side landing was at 8420 SW Macadam Avenue, now the location of the Staff Jennings property. Oaks Amusement Park was opened. The park attracted people to the area for recreation. • Early 1900s. The first branch of the Portland Library Association was opened in Sellwood; the first public swimming pool in the City of Portland was constructed in Sellwood Park; and the first branch of the Portland YMCA opened in Sellwood. East Side Mill and Lumber Company and the Oregon Door Company factory dominated the large parcels west of SE 6th Avenue. Single-story residences were only sparsely situated on large lots between SE Nehalem Street and SE Umatilla Street from SE 7th Avenue to SE 9th Avenue; east of SE 9th Avenue, many lots were subdivided and developed into single-family residences. • • 1914. Superintendent’s House at River View Cemetery was constructed. 1925. Sellwood Bridge was opened and connected to SE Tacoma Street on the east side and what is now OR 43 on the west side. SE Tacoma Street quickly transitioned from a relatively quiet residential street to a major local arterial. 1926. City of Portland acquired land for Powers Marine Park. Late 1920s and 1930s. Construction of OR 99E (SE McLoughlin Boulevard) completed. With the Sellwood Bridge, this roadway encouraged growth around the SE Tacoma Street corridor and its intersection with SE 13th Street. 1958. City of Portland acquired land for Oaks Pioneer Park.

• •

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-231

Cumulative Impacts Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

• • •

1961. Oaks Pioneer Church was moved from Milwaukie to Oaks Pioneer Park. 1965. City of Portland acquired land for Sellwood Riverfront Park. 1970s. City of Portland established the current boundaries for the combined Sellwood-Westmoreland neighborhood, which are the Willamette River on the west, SE Ochoco Street on the south, and SE McLoughlin Boulevard along the north and east. 1980. City of Portland Comprehensive Plan, which designated long-term land-use planning for the study area, was originally adopted. (Plan was updated in 2006.) Sellwood Harbor Condominiums were constructed south of the Sellwood Bridge east bridgehead.

2002. The City of Portland adopted the Tacoma Main Street Plan (City of Portland, 2001). This multi-modal transportation plan supports regional and local land-use objectives for SE Tacoma Street. 2003. Springwater Corridor Trail was opened in the study area. 2004. Weight restrictions were instituted on the Sellwood Bridge and bus service across the bridge was stopped. 2005. City of Portland Transportation System Plan (originally adopted in 1996) was updated and adopted. The plan designated the functional classifications to OR 43, SE Tacoma Street, and other study area roadways. 2005 to present. Ecological restoration activities were conducted at Willamette Moorage Park and Powers Marine Park by the City of Portland. 2007. Willamette River Water Trail was established; water trail guide was published. 2008. Multnomah County distributed the Sellwood Bridge Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] et al., 2008), which evaluated five Build alternatives and a No Build Alternative to rehabilitate or replace the existing Sellwood Bridge. 2009. City of Portland approved the Portland Streetcar System Concept Plan, which provides guidance on where the City should expand its existing streetcar system. The plan identifies the OR 43 corridor between downtown Portland and Lake Oswego (“Portland to Lake Oswego”) and the Sellwood Bridge and SE Tacoma Street (“Tacoma Street Extension”) as streetcar corridors.

• •

• •

1983. Freight service on the Southern Pacific Railroad (west side of river) ended. 1987. River Park Center office building north of the Sellwood Bridge east bridgehead was constructed. 1988. City of Portland adopted the Willamette Greenway Plan, whose goal was “to protect, conserve, maintain, and enhance the scenic, natural, historical, economic, and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River.” 1999. Metro adopted the South Willamette River Crossing Study. The study established regional policy reinforcing the main street land-use objectives of SE Tacoma Street and directed that improvements to the Sellwood Bridge and SE Tacoma Street support these objectives. 2001. River Park Condominiums north of the Sellwood Bridge east bridgehead was constructed. • • •

3-232

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Cumulative Impacts Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

3.25.2

Foreseeable Actions

• • •

Provision of light rail transit service on Oregon 99E (Portland–Milwaukie Light Rail Project) Multi-modal improvements to Oregon 99E between the Ross Island Bridge and Milwaukie Multi-modal improvements to SE Tacoma Street between the Sellwood Bridge and Oregon 99E Improvements to the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) between the Sellwood Bridge and Portland city limits Provision of Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) enhancements on OR 43 between the Sellwood Bridge and SW Hood Street/ SW Bancroft Street Construction of bicyclist and pedestrian improvements on SW Taylors Ferry Road between SW 35th Avenue and OR 43 Provision of ITS enhancements to four traffic signals on SE Tacoma Street between the Sellwood Bridge and SE 45th Street Construction of a shared-use path segment to complete the Springwater Corridor Trail between SE Umatilla Street and SE 19th Avenue at SE Ochoco Street Improvements to the SE Spokane Street and SE Umatilla Street bicycle boulevards Construction of streetcar/commuter transit line or bus rapid transit along OR 43 (Lake Oswego to Portland Transit Corridor Study) Installation of streetscape and pedestrian improvements on SE Tacoma Street Construction of increased vehicle capacity on regional facilities in the vicinity of Sellwood, such as OR 99E and OR 224

Resumption of bus transit service across the Sellwood Bridge Removal of weight/load restrictions on the Sellwood Bridge Continued restoration activities at Sellwood Riverfront Park, Willamette Moorage Park, and Powers Marine Park Private land development and redevelopment in the study area. Future private development would be expected to be consistent with the City of Portland Comprehensive Plan (City of Portland, 2006). The City of Portland Bureau of Development Services confirmed that no applications for private developments had been submitted within the study area. Land along SE Tacoma Street at the east bridgehead is designated for commercial land uses in the Comprehensive Plan. One individual who owns a two-block area at the east bridgehead has expressed interest in redeveloping the property to contain two four-story buildings with condominiums on the upper stories and businesses on the street level. Plans are on hold pending decisions regarding the Sellwood Bridge, additional land acquisition, and market conditions. On the west end of the Bridge, limited to no potential for private development exists because of the River View Cemetery, the transportation infrastructure, and park and recreational facilities.

• •

3.25.3

Future Cumulative Impacts

• •

This subsection generally describes the Sellwood Bridge area after implementation of any Build alternative and the foreseeable future actions described previously. The next subsection (3.25.4) provides a more detailed description of future cumulative impacts by specific social and natural environmental resource topics. The Build alternatives would substantially improve the opportunity for sustainable

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-233

Cumulative Impacts Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

multi-modal travel. The Sellwood Bridge area would be a multi-modal transportation hub with improved bicyclist and pedestrian facilities and connections; reinstatement of transit service across the bridge; and a station for the west-side streetcar between downtown Portland and Lake Oswego. More person trips would be made across the bridge and through the OR 43 corridor using sustainable transportation modes than under current conditions. Bicyclist and pedestrian facilities across the river would be significantly improved, as would connections from the bridge to the parks and trails on both sides of the river. On the east side, the Springwater Corridor Trail gap south of the Sellwood Bridge would be completed. Connections between the trail and the west side of the river (via the Sellwood Bridge) would be improved. On the west side, the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) between downtown and the Portland city limits would be completed, providing a continuous off-street bicyclist and pedestrian facility to downtown Portland through Johns Landing and the South Waterfront areas. The bicyclist and pedestrian facilities on the bridge deck would provide the connection between southeast and southwest Portland and to the Portland metropolitan area’s 40-Mile Loop trail system. Transit service on SE Tacoma Street and across the bridge would be reinstated. Transit service on SE Tacoma Street would provide a connection between the Sellwood Bridge, recreational trails, and the South Corridor light rail transit line on OR 99E. New transit stops at the west-side interchange would provide a multi-modal connection to the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) and the future streetcar on the Willamette Shoreline Trolley line. The reinstatement of transit service would induce a slight mode shift from automobile to transit and non-motorized modes. Initially, transit would consist of bus transit, because it could be implemented rapidly with a

limited amount of infrastructure. It is likely that streetcar service, if implemented, would be available much later, based on its priority level in the Portland Streetcar System Concept Plan. The bridge project design anticipates the potential future streetcar, so it would be “project ready” when the streetcar was funded, assuming that the bridge and interchange had been funded prior to the streetcar. More trucks would use SE Tacoma Street because truck service would be reinstated across the bridge. The truck traffic would be composed primarily of delivery trucks using the bridge to access Sellwood and other areas in southeast Portland. Large trucks would not be expected because SE Tacoma Street is not a state highway, it is not designated as a major freight route, and the relatively congested nature of the street does not attract through-truck traffic. Future land-use planning activities are focused on enhancing a pedestrian-friendly environment for SE Tacoma Street, so the route would remain unattractive to anything but local truck traffic. Despite more truck traffic, SE Tacoma Street would not become a barrier to the cohesion of the Sellwood community. Existing land uses and land-use trends would continue. The area would likely become more attractive because of the high number of recreational and open-space amenities; accessible transit and bicyclist/pedestrian commuting options; restaurants and cafes within walking distance; and pleasant pedestrian environment. This trend would increase the popularity of Sellwood as a regional destination. The popularity of the area would induce demand for redevelopment and increased density. The historic housing stock would be maintained, but SE Tacoma Street, SE 13th Avenue, and SE 17th Avenue would moderately increase in density. Redevelopment would occur within its existing zones in the adopted City of Portland Comprehensive Plan (City of Portland, 2006). This type of development would be similar to that of

3-234

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Cumulative Impacts Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

other Portland neighborhoods, such as Belmont in southeast Portland and the NW 23rd Avenue area in northwest Portland. These areas have multiple-story commercial, residential, and mixed-use buildings on the main street, but the historic housing stock on the side streets has been maintained. Moderately increased density would be a cumulative benefit to the Portland region as a whole because it would accomplish a regional land-use objective to increase density in areas with transit service and other multi-modal travel options. The City of Portland will continue to conduct biological restoration and enhancement activities that would improve the overall environment on the west side. However, the west side would have less parkland, natural area, and riparian area. In addition, the wildlife habitat would be fragmented between the Willamette River riparian area and upland vegetation. It is likely that Powers Marine Park and Willamette Moorage Park would experience more recreation use because of increased visibility from bicyclists and pedestrians using the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) and from streetcar riders. Improved access to Powers Marine Park and Willamette Moorage Park would be detrimental to these natural-area parks and could increase the number of transients camping in the parks. However, because of the City’s ongoing restoration activities, it is likely that the health of natural areas at Powers Marine Park and Willamette Moorage Park, including the Stephens Creek area, would improve. This improved environment would increase the amenity value of these parks, which would be an asset for both the South Portland and the Sellwood neighborhoods.
3.25.4

However, all of these modes are still active in and around the bridge, but with a different focus and ridership.. . With population growth in Sellwood, southeast Portland, and the southeast area of the Portland metropolitan area and construction of the existing Sellwood Bridge in 1925, SE Tacoma Street changed from a local neighborhood street to a major local arterial. Originally, the west side of OR 43 in the vicinity of the Sellwood Bridge was all River View Cemetery, but is now a transportation corridor that includes OR 43, the OR 43/Sellwood Bridge interchange, the railroad line, and city parks. . The west-side interchange area is being planned as a significant transportation hub. Several transportation modes will come together at this hub, and exchanges between modes will be important. • The Build alternatives would provide improved traffic operations between southwest and southeast Portland through at least the year 2035, but eventually the facility would reach capacity for longer periods during the day if demand continues to increase. The Build alternatives would contribute to modal change for trips between southwest and southeast Portland, and would be able to support many more person trips than the No Build Alternative while maintaining the same level of motor-vehicle trips. The reinstatement of bus service across the bridge would be expected to stimulate a mode change from automobile to transit for some trips. By restoring trucks to the bridge, out-of-direction travel for delivery trucks would no longer be required, which would improve the efficiency of the overall transportation network between southwest and southeast Portland, and incrementally improve the efficiency of the transportation network within the Portland area.

Future Cumulative Impacts by Discipline

Transportation
The transportation infrastructure in Sellwood, southwest Portland, and southeast Portland has changed as transportation technology has evolved from water to rail to motorized vehicles.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-235

Cumulative Impacts Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

Although it is expected that the number of vehicles on the Sellwood Bridge would be similar for all alternatives (including the No Build Alternative), the vehicle mix would be different, with some traffic being heavy vehicle trips (trucks and buses) with the Build alternatives. Because bicyclist and pedestrian facilities and connections would also be improved, more person trips over the bridge would occur, but without an increase in the number of motorized vehicles, as is expected for the No Build Alternative. Compared to current conditions, by the year 2035, all alternatives would be expected to produce a 33 percent increase in motorized traffic using the Sellwood Bridge (to 39,000 vehicles). The bicyclist and pedestrian facilities with the Build alternatives would be expected to produce an approximately 500 percent increase in trips compared to the No Build Alternative, resulting in approximately 9,350 person trips daily by these two modes. The cumulative impact of any of the Build Alternatives would be a substantial shift in modal split across the Sellwood Bridge, with 19 percent of the traffic traveling by nonmotorized modes in the future. Increased non-motorized trips would provide far greater efficiency of the transportation facility than would be achievable with the No Build Alternative. More non-motorized trips beyond the immediate Sellwood Bridge vicinity in southwest and southeast Portland would be expected, as well. An increase in non-motorized trips with any of the Build alternatives would incrementally improve the efficiency of the transportation network within southwest and southeast Portland. The proposed streetcar on the west side would increase mobility between the Sellwood Bridge area and downtown Portland. If all plans were realized, the west-side interchange would become a hub for multiple motorized and non-motorized modes of surface travel, including buses, streetcar,

bicycles, pedestrians, and passenger cars. The streetcar station and bus stops would provide transfers between modes within the interchange. More streetcar trips beyond the immediate Sellwood Bridge vicinity in southwest and southeast Portland would be expected. The streetcar would incrementally increase non-motorized trips within southwest and southeast Portland.

Bicyclists and Pedestrians
Bicyclist and pedestrian facilities have incrementally improved in the vicinity (approximately 0.5 mile) of the Sellwood Bridge over the last 30 years. These improvements have included construction of facilities such as the Springwater Corridor Trail and designated bicycle boulevards on SE Spokane and SE Umatilla streets. The Sellwood Bridge, however, remains a substantial barrier for bicyclists and pedestrians between southwest and southeast Portland. • The Build alternatives would enhance existing bicyclist and pedestrian connections to the Springwater Corridor Trail; the 40-Mile Loop trail system; SE Spokane Street and SE Umatilla Street (which are City-designated bicycle boulevards); and planned connections with OR 43. The Build alternatives would supplement west-side bicyclist and pedestrian improvements, facilities provided by the Oregon Health & Science University Aerial Tram, and improvements and extension of the streetcar line from the South Waterfront area. The cumulative impact of these enhancements would substantially support Portland’s plan for multi-modal transportation and sustainability goals. The Build alternatives would increase bicyclist and pedestrian travel within and between southwest and southeast Portland. More bicyclist and pedestrian trips beyond the immediate Sellwood Bridge vicinity in southwest and southeast Portland would be expected after bicyclist and pedestrian facilities and connections were enhanced.

3-236

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Cumulative Impacts Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

Right-of-Way and Relocation
Within the general vicinity (approximately 0.5 mile) of the existing Sellwood Bridge, on the west side of the Willamette River, previous transportation projects and improvements in the area acquired land from River View Cemetery (in the 1920s) and also created park and recreational facilities between the roadway and the river. On the east side of the Willamette River, the area changed from industrial uses to commercial uses, then to residential and commercial uses. The area available for redevelopment on the east side of the Sellwood Bridge is limited. However, this area could be redeveloped and retain uses similar to today’s uses. Because repair, rehabilitation, or replacement of the bridge would relieve uncertainty about the future of the bridge, development of these properties could occur fairly rapidly after the project was underway or completed. • Because there is limited land available for development, the Build alternatives would not affect the long-term viability of the commercial or residential character of the general vicinity of the Sellwood Bridge; minimal cumulative right-of-way impacts would be expected. Following construction, some of the land purchased for the purposes of deconstructing the existing bridge or because access was eliminated would become available for redevelopment. With Alternative C, the Staff Jennings property would likely be converted to park use. With Alternative E, vacated land on the east side could be redeveloped for park or residential use. •

service from utility providers would not be compromised; no cumulative impacts arising from the transportation project would occur. The project is not expected to preclude any future expansion of utilities, if that should become necessary.

Land Use
It is expected that future land uses on the west side of the Willamette River within the general vicinity (approximately 0.5 mile) of the existing Sellwood Bridge would be similar to current-day land uses because the amount of land that could be developed or redeveloped (most of the land is River View Cemetery or parkland) would continue to be limited. On the east side, the popularity of the Sellwood neighborhood has increased because of its proximity to downtown Portland and other parts of the region; its park and recreational facilities; and its neighborhood livability. Sellwood’s popularity has increased population density within the neighborhood. • The City of Portland Comprehensive Plan (City of Portland, 2006) identifies long-term desired land uses for the Sellwood neighborhood. Because land available for new development within the neighborhood is limited, the cumulative impact of new development would be small. However, the Sellwood neighborhood would become moderately denser from redevelopment of existing land uses. More urban land uses (such as mixed-use retail/residential, condominiums, apartments, and transitoriented development) would be expected to occur in the Sellwood neighborhood, particularly along SE Tacoma Street. The Sellwood neighborhood would likely become more populated, which would benefit the Portland region as a whole by accomplishing the regional land-use objective of increasing density in certain urbanized areas. Local businesses would benefit through

Utilities
As the area has developed, new utilities have been constructed, implemented, and modernized. • All impacted utilities would be replaced, reconstructed, and realigned as the project was constructed. The long-term level of

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-237

Cumulative Impacts Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

an expanded local customer base. The increased neighborhood population could also be considered a negative effect for residents unhappy with increased density. • The neighborhood would experience an increase in truck traffic, especially along SE Tacoma Street. Although, for some residents, the increased truck traffic could detract from the quality of the street environment, it would be unlikely to create a barrier to community cohesion. While improved truck access would allow more efficient servicing of existing residential and commercial land uses, SE Tacoma Street is not expected to become an attractive through route for very large cargo trucks. It is expected that the increased truck usage on the bridge would support delivery of goods and services to the local area. Large trucks would not be expected because SE Tacoma Street is not a state highway, it is not designated as a major freight route, and the travel environment would remain congested and slow. Future land-use planning activities are focused on enhancing a pedestrianfriendly environment for SE Tacoma Street. Despite more truck traffic, SE Tacoma Street would not become a barrier to the cohesion of the Sellwood community. The commuting habits of Sellwood residents would shift toward non-automobile modes as transit and bicyclist-and-pedestrian facilities and connections continued to improve. Changed commuting habits might lead to more transitoriented development and improved transit service. In off-peak hours, the parking supply in Sellwood might be stressed by its attraction as a regional shopping and entertainment destination. This could necessitate demand or supply measures such as more aggressive metering, on-street parking spaces, and construction of parking garages.

Economic
Because of its proximity to the Willamette River, the Sellwood neighborhood has historically shown economic vitality. The area between the river and SE Sixth Avenue developed as an industrial area where lumber mills and wood product factories were located. The river was used to deliver logs to the mill. Later, the railroad served this industrial area. The railway tracks were probably located next to the river because of the gradient that floodplains offer. Now the river attracts recreationists, residents interested in views of the river, and commercial offices (for which the river provides positive ambiance). The popularity of the Sellwood neighborhood just beyond the bridge’s location has cumulatively benefited local businesses near the bridge, and the bridge gives access for residential areas on the west side to Sellwood businesses. • The Sellwood neighborhood would likely become more vibrant because of the high number of recreational open-space amenities, the transit and non-motorized travel accessibility, and the pedestrian-oriented commercial core along SE Tacoma Street. These cumulative impacts could benefit local businesses. The Sellwood neighborhood could become moderately dense in character from improved motorized and non-motorized access, expanding the customer base for local businesses. Business activity would expand moderately, and local employment opportunities would increase slightly.

Social Elements
The period of development between 1892 and 1925 was an era of substantial growth for the Sellwood community. Sellwood had already grown into a working-class suburb of Portland when it was annexed to the City in 1893. One of the new businesses was the East Side Mill and Lumber Company in Sellwood, located at the foot of what is now SE Spokane Street, near the

3-238

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Cumulative Impacts Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

landing for the Sellwood Ferry. One of the existing bridge piers goes through what was once part of the mill. The Sellwood neighborhood has maintained vitality, and many of the homes have been renovated in the last 30 years. The commercial district was one of the first in the Portland metropolitan area to be rejuvenated. The Sellwood neighborhood has strong community involvement, which consistently protects and enhances the neighborhood’s smalltown atmosphere. • The Sellwood neighborhood would experience a moderate increase in the number of service-based businesses available to reflect the moderate increase in population density. Improved emergency and medical response services across the river would be sustained, which would benefit southwest and southeast Portland residents. The bicycle/pedestrian bridge (Alternative A) and the alignment of Alternative E could diminish the appeal of Oaks Pioneer Park and Oaks Pioneer Church as a site for events. These effects could lead to an indirect negative impact to the Sellwood Moreland Improvement League (SMILE), a communitybased organization. SMILE relies on revenues from functions held at Oaks Pioneer Church to carry out its programs and events, which benefit the community. The potential decrease in events is not expected to jeopardize the long-term effectiveness of SMILE in serving as a local community advocacy group.

prices and, therefore, the median income of its residences. • With the Build alternatives, populations dependent on transit, bicycle, and pedestrian transportation would have increased opportunities for using these modes because service and facilities between southwest and southeast Portland would be improved.

Parks and Recreation
Within southwest and southeast Portland, the land designated for park and recreational facilities has increased since 1926. At that time, the land for Powers Marine Park was acquired. Over the years, land for other parks (including the Willamette Moorage Park, Sellwood Riverfront Park, and Oaks Pioneer Park) has also been acquired. Recreational trails have been constructed. The most recent trail is the Springwater Corridor Trail, which opened in the study area in 2003. Paddling and motorized boating on the Willamette River in the Sellwood Bridge area has increased. Future improvements to the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) are planned. It is predicted that the connectivity provided by the proposed bicyclist and pedestrian facilities will significantly increase the use of all recreational facilities in southwest and southeast Portland, particularly use of the bicyclist and pedestrian trails themselves. • Despite the reduction in park acreage with the Build alternatives, more people would use Powers Marine Park and Willamette Moorage Park because the improved Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank), the streetcar service, and improved connection to the east side of the river would provide increased visibility and improved accessibility. With the Build alternatives, these parks would maintain their natural-area values even though more people might use them because of potential streetcar service and improved bicyclist and pedestrian facilities. On the other hand, improved accessibility could be

Environmental Justice
When it was annexed to the City of Portland in 1893, Sellwood was a working-class suburb, with its residents primarily working in industrial businesses. The popularity of the Sellwood neighborhood has increased gradually over time. Much of the housing stock has been renovated in the last 30 years, which has increased the housing •

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-239

Cumulative Impacts Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation

detrimental to these natural-area parks, and could increase the number of transients camping in the parks. With Alternativ